Redefining parenthood
Readers interested in how accomodating lesbian parents will impact the definition of parenthood should take a careful look at this post, by Julie Shapiro and the discussion in the comments. She is referring to the Santa Cruz case, in which a woman who conceived twins with a known sperm donor, left the lesbian relationship and is now living with the sperm donor. They, the biological mother and father, want to raise the children themselves. I talked about this case when it was first reported.
This scenario is one that many lesbian couples doubtless consider when deciding how to obtain sperm. And it strongly suggests that choosing an unknown donor (perhaps with eventual donor identification) is safer.
I wonder about how much the law alone can do to facilitate the use of a known/present sperm provider. A clear statement that the provider is not a parent may not be enough. If it is useful to have a known/present sperm provider, it needs to be a safe choice for both of the women. This case is worth watching to see if the choice is indeed safe.
safe for the women? what about the child? But who is taking account of the impact on the child conceived in these circumstances?
Through the comments, it becomes clear that fathers really are being written off, if not pushed out, for insufficient involvement. A reader/commenter writes in to ask Julie to clarify:
But back to my other point, which is the bias against men, that men’s fatherhood is to be determined by whether or not is is convenient for women. I find this outlook incredibly disturbing, but since I haven’t managed to shake it, maybe it will help if I point out how this outlook really is damaging to women. Julie has mentioned a number of times that biological mothering can not be equated with biological fathering. In fact, though a biological mother is a mother, there is no such thing as a biological father according to Julie’s philosophy….
Isn’t one of the biggest complaint by women, both those who identify as feminists and those who don’t, the “second shift,” the double responsibilities of work and home, and the widespread failure of men to pick up slack in household and childcare duties?But why indeed not? If fatherhood is just a choice, how can a father be blamed for choosing the extent of how much he will or will not participate in parenting activities?
Here is how Julie Shapiro reponds to this question:
I think we should encourage men to become parents. But I think that means more than rewarding them with status for nothing more then delivering sperm. To grant a man legal status as a parent by virtue of his genetic contribution alone where he has not demonstrated some commitment to actually raising/caring for the child can effectively give the man power over the child and the child’s mother. This troubles me. I think perhaps you are asserting that if we give men the status of parents they will rise to the challenge and become more engaged? Maybe I just don’t have enough of that hope left. I think we should be clear about what kind of commitment is required if one is to become a legal parent and then encourage men to undertake it. But I don’t think we should give them the authority up front.
This is what’s coming, as we disconnect sex from procreation and marriage: we are about disconnect biology from parenthood.
H/T to Karen, one of the commenters, here and on Julie Shapiro’s blog.
Loading ...
My biological father is/was an abusive, angry, hateful, miserable human being. My step-father who has no biological connection is kind, loving and supportive. So, biology isn’t entirely what determines parent hood. It’s a complicated issue, and quite honestly can’t be written one way or the other. It really comes down to each individual case. That said, society as a whole needs to support men actually being good parents, without shaming them or seeing them as less manly for it. It would also help if society realized that not all women are meant to be mothers.
Julies comments show in no uncertain terms that this has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and everything to do gender bias. When pushed, it becomes all too clear that those who rant about “marriage equality” simply do not believe that men and women are equal, nor should they be treated equally.
What they want — what they are demanding, is exactly what they say they don’t: a “separate, yet equal” status for their own kind.
Smells like simple bigotry to me.
Although I agree that society should encourage the marriage culture – marriage alone will not protect children’s connection to their bio-genetic family. As a compromise, I believe that ‘birth other’ arrangements should be handled the same way as an open adoption (or with identity release at a later date) incorporating regulations outlined on The International Network of Donor Conception Organizations website: http://inodco.org/
Quote from Shapiro:
“I think we should be clear about what kind of commitment is required if one is to become a legal parent and then encourage men to undertake it.”
Who is the “we” that Shapiro is thinking about? Women? Mothers? Children? The mothers and fathers of women of childbearing age, perhaps? The age-peers of the mothers? The “we”, I think, begins with the men — fathers, grandfathers, uncles, friends — and men need a stake in procreation and parenting. That’s the meaning, really, of fatherhood itself. And fatherhood grows organically out of responsible procreation. The first principle of responsible procreation is that the man and the woman are together responsible for the children they create and bring into this world. Responsible for what? The well-being, education, and moral formation of those children throughout their childhood — and as guides well beyond that. A father needs to learn the influence of fathers on children — before he loses or declines the opportunity to experience fatherhood for himself. Young men can learn this best from fathers. It really is something passed from generation to generation. And that is not a standalone-lesson; a young man can learn about fatherhood by learning more about motherhood, too, and the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood which is each child’s birthright.
The meaning of marriage is clear, but as Dr. J pointed out, the determined effort to gut marriage of its core meaning undermines the very thing that is the ready-made solution for Shapiro’s stated problem.
Namely, the social institution of marriage. At its core: provision for responsible procreation whereby it is normative for fatherhood and motherhood to be united via the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity.
Outside of marriage? Well, that’s far more difficult. The overflow effect of a strong marriage culture can have strong influence on unwed procreation, however, more and more it appears that the “fertility industry” is pushing for unwed procreation to have greater influence on marriage than vice versa. Now our culture is learning to treat all married couples as if they were unwedded individuals, in terms of fatherhood and motherhood.
As Marty suggested in his comment, this must lead to inequality of the sexes and, in my view of history, it also leads to more and more sex segregation across society. That shows up nowadays in terms of high divorce rates, low marriage rates, increases in unwed procreation, and the societal buffering (through enabling laws) of third party procreation (use of ‘donors’). That latter turns the man into a sperm donor and not into a father; the latter turns the woman into a manufactuer and not into a mother. This practice of third party procreation is extramarital procreation even when married people use it. And, in that way, the fertility industry tries hard to teach that we are all unmarried when it comes to fertility treatments.
Cheerio,
Chairm
This practice of third party procreation is extramarital procreation even when married people use it. And, in that way, the fertility industry tries hard to teach that we are all unmarried when it comes to fertility treatments. very well said, Chairm.
nerdy girl, sorry about your bio dad. Glad you had a good stepdad. but i’m worried about something you said: So, biology isn’t entirely what determines parent hood. It’s a complicated issue, and quite honestly can’t be written one way or the other. It really comes down to each individual case. you can’t be serious. you really think the govt should figure out in each individual case, who counts as the parents? that is what we are talkign about here. no one believes or expects that every bio parent will be perfect, or even good. we just think that separating children from their bio parents, throwing all the children up in the air and trying to find perfect parents for them has no chance of working for anyone.
what is the reasonable alternative to having biology as the default mode for determining parenthood? the law already has the capacity to deal with exceptional situations, through adoption for instance, or through removing children from abusive parents through child protective services. both these exceptions keep the basic principle in place: that biology is the basic way we assign parenthood.
I don’t think it’s necessary for the government to be involved in every case. But you are using the extreme example of donated sperm to begin with (and yes, Shaprios comment is pretty out there legal wise, but there are plenty of men procreating out there who need to MAN UP and be fathers), and saying that biology is best. What I was trying to say in my example was that just because someone (in this case, male but it’s really not gender specific) is biologically a parent doesn’t emotionally make them one. To me, and arguably with adoptees and donor conceived children a parent is who raises you, who cares for you, who loves you, as if you were their child, whether there’s a blood connection or not. Procreating isn’t hard, being there as a parent is. The biology can’t be completely ignored, and if possible should be known and made available (health concerns, a child’s right to know, making sure you don’t fall for a relative, etc)@Jennifer Roback Morse
Of course there will be exceptions but biology ought to be the basic way we assign parenthood. Of course that is just the beginning. The Raising of children and the educating of them is 20 years and more in the making. It can be done with love and intelligence and with tradition or it can be done will-nilly. Will-nilly is never as good as doing it with love and purpose and all our full intelligence. Never.