From the AP (via PilotOnline):
“I saw some little black kid who had a T-shirt on that said ‘My dad’s name is Donor,’ and I thought, that’s pathetic,” [Republican Del. Robert G.] Marshall said.
7 thoughts on “Something in the water?”
Comments are closed.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
C’mon, Vivian. Don’t go all PC on me.
This is about fatherless children and the morality of knowing just whose genetic material you’re getting. Just because Marshall used a label, doesn’t make the legislation any less appropriate.
It could have been any kid wearing that shirt…and it would still be pathetic.
The qualifier was unnecessary, that’s all. And I disagree with the legislation.
Medical background information should be released, just so that the children know what inherited risk factors they have. However, I do not see that that requires full identity disclosure.
Based on the article only…
My wife is adopted. I know, not the same, but the “effect” is the same and even compounded.
She only knows she is half white and half Iranian. The reason she knew this is because Virginia, in the early 70’s, placed children in similar genetic scenarios as that which they were born. She didn’t know if her birth mom was Iranian or white or if her birth dad was Iranian or white. She only knew one of them was not like the other. She knew NOTHING of her risk factors or anything else. When she went to a doctor, and the classic family history questions are asked, she couldn’t answer them. And she has always had questions in the back of her mind. “What am I at risk for?”
Looking at Jack’s comment, and taking my personal experience with my wife in to play, I think the bill would be a good thing. At least, lets look at the genetic markers, know the risk factors of all concerned so that proper medical care can be had for the offspring.
I believe only the risk/health factors should be released unless otherwise stated by the donor. Like Jack, full identity disclosure would not be needed and would in fact have a detrimental effect on the process.
My wife has since met her birth mother after many years and us spending tens of thousands of dollars conducting the investigation, she knows her mother’s health traits. She has also learned that her father is a… politico in Iran who was a student at George Washington University. She knows nothing of his health/risk factors.
Just another point of view.
Oh… the qualifier was indeed unnecessary and actually insulting. It wouldn’t matter if the child was black, white or Iranian.
How was the qualifier insulting?
Because it singles a trait out for no purpose.
Is “little” also insulting? Was it necessary to point out the kid’s height? Marshall was trying to describe what he saw, as succinctly as possible. “Little black kid” does that.