In the debate on reproductive discrimination all stops are being pulled so that the fulfillment of personal desires can be enforced. Yet it remains a (c)heated debate, where double standards and false arguments determine the rules of the game.
Because those who desire to become a parent, originally hope to get a ‘Plan A’-child. The ‘A’ stands for ‘A healthy biological child of my own with caring and loving partner’. But unfortunately that is not always the case and a back-up plan was created: the ‘Plan B’-children. ‘B’ for ‘Better than nothing, with or without a partner’. The offered solution: we add what is missing, carefully selecting types of gametes where one hopes to create a child who will most likely resemble the plan A-version.
Consumerism at its best: we collect and replace so that new life can be placed in the limited frame of adults. Used arguments change depending on which group is raging when children dare to address the hole in their identity and the deprivation from their biological family.
Donor conceived raised by heterosexual couples often get told: but you had a father, it is the man who raised you who is your real father. What does it matter if another man provided the sperm? With lesbian couples it is often stated that a child doesn’t need father in it’s life; two mommies are more than enough to provide in all its needs and desires. Gay couples use a different version of this argument: for them a child doesn’t need its mother. A grandmother will happily take on that role. In the background studies emerge which try to convince us that the improvement of school results of children raised by a same-sex couple clearly must be a sign of wellbeing. Single parents on the other hand claim that a child actually doesn’t need two parents to fully develop. As long as you shower them with love everything will be ok, right?
We delete to complete, we disconnect to connect. Juggling with nouns, gametes and contracts we disown children so others can own them. Deliberately separated from their siblings, (grand)parent(s), aunts, uncles … they end up in dozens of different families.
This debate always leads me back to two key questions: why do adults have an unilateral ‘right’ to restrict us from fundamental aspects of our being? And if it all really doesn’t matter, why make such great efforts limiting something that supposedly wouldn’t change a thing?