Is It A Crisis ?

I used to worry about over-population. Five decades ago, Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb sparked global fears of “mass starvation” on a “dying planet” because of overpopulation.

One doesn’t hear about that very much anymore. I have two son that are early 20s. The older one at 23 is certain he will never have children. The younger one doesn’t talk about it at all. My husband was already 36 when we married, I was 34 and had previously been married and have a daughter by that marriage who was born in 1973. I didn’t foresee having 2 more children at 47 and 50 years of age but I have no regrets that we did this. When I discovered that it would be near impossible for me to conceive naturally at such an advanced age, I lamented that now that my husband was ready, I was too old to honor his desire to be a father. My OB said – “there is a way” – and we took “the way” he suggested and ran with it. We were incredibly lucky throughout the process overall.

So, what kind of crisis is this ? A baby crisis, a population crisis, a fertility crisis, a demographic crisis, an ageing crisis and/or an economic crisis ? There are many possible explanations and each of those kinds of crisis is some part of what some people think is a problematic issue for people globally going into the future. I don’t personally know if this really is “a problem” or not. It simply is the current reality. Thankfully, medical science does have some tools that did not exist in the past for those of us who remarry and those who wake up older one day and fear they missed their only opportunity to become parents.

It is also true that when women are more educated, more liberated, and more able to access contraception, they start having fewer children. An Institute For Health Metrics and Evaluation study noted that low-income places with higher fertility rates – such as sub-Sarahan Africa, which is set to contribute over half the world’s births by 2100 – will need better access to contraceptives and female education. This why, in many less developed countries, the effort is to educate more girls and provide them with birth control access, which also means that they don’t have to marry young and have lots of babies, if that isn’t their interest in reaching maturity.

The truth is that government really can’t do much to change this trajectory (and personally, I don’t know that government needs to). Pro-natal policies, such as free childcare, better parental care leave, financial incentives and employment rights, won’t boost fertility rates up to replacement levels. The 70s dip in having babies was largely thanks to the birth control pill, which also contributed to fewer teen pregnancies. That is generally considered a good thing that leads to fewer babies given up for adoption. Other factors included big social changes around gender equality, with women increasingly educated, working and with access to no-fault divorce. I certainly made use of no-fault divorce back in the mid-70s and was on birth control throughout my child-bearing years. I also started being employed while still in high school.

Jennifer Sciubba, author of 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death and Migration Shape Our World, notes that following the “success sequence” – getting an education, a great job, a home, some savings – means pushing back having children. And once people have more money, they also want to have other things in their lives that kids might detract from – going out for a nice meal, taking a holiday, a full night’s sleep.

Having more than two can seem unimaginably intensive, hard and expensive, she says, but it’s never just the money. What about family and community support ? Religion ? The “little logistics” like needing a new car to fit enough car seats ? blogger’s note – Yeah, this explains a lot about that leaning into Christian Nationalism by conservatives and their Project 2025. Through east Asia, Sciubba says, the idea is spreading that “marriage is no longer required to have a good life. It might actually stifle your life because of gender relations within the household”.

Thanks to this article in The Guardian for many of today’s concepts and details. You can read the full article at this LINK>Birthrates are plummeting worldwide. Can governments turn the tide? by Tory Shepherd

No Man In Sight

At least one mom in my own mom’s group decided to have a child with no man in sight. For same sex female couples who want children but want to be ethical about doing the right thing, what are the options ? One offers her experience.

I’m a queer parent to a donor-conceived child and also have adopted kids through foster care.

The topic has come up before but is always interesting to me and just inherently homophobic—that women who have conceived a child by having sex are encouraged to keep and raise the child – no matter what: mental health issues, extreme poverty, abusive partners—but then, queer people are told there’s no ethical way to have a child. So somehow sex with a man makes it ethical and idealized?? So having sex gives you a right to parent – no matter what, and if you can’t get pregnant by having sex, you have no right to have children and should go mentor kids….there’s just no way to view this stance as anything but homophobia.

The ethics of sperm donation, in my opinion, based on learning from donor conceived people and also my experience as someone abandoned by my father, is that anonymous sperm donation is not ethical. I chose to conceive with a known donor who has no interest in parenting/co-parenting but is a known and present figure in our lives. [blogger’s note – I agree that any reproductive donors ought to be known. Every person should have access to their genetic background.]

Fostering is a different story. When we went into it, we were open to adopting (if things went that way) but really tried to approach it as us supporting a family in crisis by being that safe healthy person who could watch the kid(s) until the parents got back on their feet. We fostered 8 children and have adopted 4, which statistically is in line with our state’s averages that 50% of placements reunify. Our first adoptee has 3 siblings in two different families, neither of which was willing to take her. Our second adoption is a sibling set of three, with few healthy family members, a lot of criminal involvement and in incarceration, and years of trying to find a way for parents or family to be a resource. There were only a couple of healthy family members but they were unwilling to take on 3 young children. Unlike the usual assumptions, we had zero plans to adopt them and would have gladly welcomed family for them. Yet if we didn’t adopt them, they would have been moved again to non-relatives, which would have increased their trauma, so we did the right thing for them. I don’t say this for any accolades—I say it because the reality for these kids is that at this moment in time, we’re their best option.

So yes, in my opinion, there are ways to ethically raise children, even if you can’t have sex with a man.

A Deep Evolutionary, Hormonal Need

A couple of questions were asked of adoptive parents in an all things adoption group I belong to –

Does being an adoptive parent feel the way you thought it would before you adopted ?

Does it fulfill your needs ?

In fairness, the question could be asked of biological/genetic parents as well. So it was that this thoughtful woman attracted my attention with her response –

She says directly that she is not an adoptive parent. She is a grandmother and the mother of 3 adult biological children with some post-divorce estrangement issues. She is the child of narcissistic parents from whom she picked up narcissistic habits that she’s now trying to recognize and eradicate within herself.

She describes herself as “a middle-aged woman coming to terms with my own flaws, strengths, and failures of both commission and omission. The questions shown above are phrased like arrows —bound to pierce anyone who truly is open to them.” She goes on to admit that these are great questions— and horrible questions, too. For sure, necessary— probably for ANY parent, but especially for adoptive parents.

She says honestly, “At each and every stage of motherhood I could have answered Yes and No to the first question. PARENTHOOD overall does not always feel AT ALL the way we think it will, before we experience it. And parenthood itself has plenty of rosy myths associated with it— but obviously NOT the sanctity and saviorism that gilds our culture’s concept of adoption and adoptive parenthood.”

She notes that – “The second question is intended to be an unsettling question— even for biological parents. We’ve got a huge biological imperative to bear children, as a species, so there’s a deep evolutionary, hormonal sense of “need” to procreate for which I don’t think we should be shamed. Many humans get pregnant by accident, or without much thought given to the repercussions of sex.”

Once a living, breathing child exists, that person is NOT AT ALL here to fulfill the parent’s needs. And it doesn’t take very long for that one to be recognized. Even so, we do not always realize that. During the toughest years of parenting, most parents barely have time to breathe, much less analyze the psychological, ethical, and moral framework that their parenting rests upon— and there is always a framework, whether the parent knows it or not.

These penetrating questions are relevant to ALL parents, at any stage of parenting. We all live as the protagonists of our own lives, and thus are prone to centering our stories upon ourselves. Sometimes it’s okay to center yourself in a story. Yet, that is NOT true in terms of your children or perhaps more accurately, they are going to center their own stories on their own lives. This is the great web of interpersonal interconnectivity that binds us all.

So okay, maybe there is no huge profound wisdom in this blog today. Even so, these are really deep questions that are WORTH sitting with, even if they cause some discomfort when thinking about our own answers to them. It is not surprising if they feel hugely uncomfortable when you read them. You may even feel that you have somehow failed as a parent. We are all too self-centered, even when we think we are being self-sacrificing for our children.

Baby God and DNA

DNA testing has helped a lot of adoptees finally know the truth about their origins. Today, a review of a documentary titled Baby God caught my attention.

Cathy Holm was newly married at age 22, settling into a new home in Las Vegas, Nevada, and struggling to start a family. It was the early 1960s, and infertility was a largely taboo topic; devoid of options, she looked up a doctor listed as a “fertility specialist” in the phonebook. Dr Quincy Fortier, a respected obstetrician who opened Las Vega’s first women’s hospital, had a record of helping couples achieve a viable pregnancy, and promised to inseminate Holm with a sample of her husband’s sperm.

Decades later, in March 2018, Holm’s daughter, Wendi Babst, bought an ancestry kit to celebrate her retirement as a detective in the Clackamas county, Oregon, sheriff’s office. Like many Americans, Babst was hoping to glean a comprehensive picture of her genealogy, but she was unnerved by her DNA test results: numerous close matches, despite no known first cousins or half-siblings, and the repetition of a name she hadn’t heard of, Fortier.

The database unmasked, with detached clarity, a dark secret hidden in plain sight for decades: the physician once named Nevada’s doctor of the year, who died in 2006 at age 94, had impregnated numerous patients with his own sperm, unbeknownst to the women or their families. The decades-long fertility fraud scheme, unspooled in the HBO documentary Baby God, left a swath of families – 26 children as of this writing, spanning 40 years of the doctor’s treatments – shocked at long-obscured medical betrayal, unmoored from assumptions of family history and stumbling over the most essential questions of identity. Who are you, when half your DNA is not what you thought?

What was once the work of combing through records – birth certificates, death certificates, hospital archives – DNA testing sometimes becomes an inadvertent Pandora’s box of secrets. It even happened in my own family. A father named on the birth certificate turned out to be a lie as my youngest sister hid the awkward reality of how and by whom she became impregnated. It took ancestry that didn’t add up with the lie and private investigation and DNA testing to prove who the real father was. In my own marital relationship, we used assisted reproduction to have our sons. Thank goodness, DNA testing through 23 and Me has proven that their dad is the dad we thought they have.

Before inexpensive DNA made it possible to uncover one’s relations, there was a phenomenon of fertility fraud performed by at least two dozen American doctors. Though Dr Quincy Fortier never lost his medical license (he died in 2006), he did acknowledge his paternity of four children who were part of a quietly settled lawsuit in his will, and left open the possibility that more biological children would later be revealed.

A cavalier, brash attitudes toward sex and reproduction seems to have been one manifestation of widespread attitudes toward female fertility: a “doctor knows best” attitude, belief that women don’t need to know, the end justifies the means, all coupled with the lack of frozen sperm (which didn’t become common practice until the 1980s). Looking for answers from the legal system for this kind of fertility fraud is kind of misguided because it’s always been illegal. It’s battery, it’s malpractice, bottom line – you can’t put something in someone’s body without their consent.

The documentary Baby God premieres on HBO tonight (December 2nd).