Hi Tabin!
Thanks for taking the time to post. You have me thinking about a few things...
It's funny how human reasoning works -- and ties into another thread going on regarding Logical vs. Emotional thinking. I think most adoptees are very aware that the most likely reason they were given up is because the parents felt they could not care for them, and it seems like a perfectly logical reason.
But then the emotions kick in. I have met some adoptees who have then thought things such as, "Well if they couldn't take care of me, they should have been more careful and not had me in the first place," or, if they have older siblings that were kept instead of them, "They should have just stopped having kids rather than have more that they were just going to throw away."
Something about most human beings, and I think it's probably a combination of spiritual, biological, and social factors, desperately wants to belong to their original family, no matter what the cost or explanation.
Being accepted by one family means you were given up by another, and for reasons I have yet to ascertain for myself, for most that registers as rejection, no matter how logical the reasons are.
We can think of simple social situations -- maybe no one talks to you at the company Christmas party -- and most people in this situation will feel completely rejected, even if it might be because everyone else brought someone they knew and they were shy about approaching you. There could be very logical explanations -- but it still leaves the person feeling rejected nonetheless. Some people will even become bitter and hold grudges over these kinds of events for a very long time, if not forever.
So one can only imagine the scope of knowing that someone's own parents gave them up, as it is rejection on a completely different plane -- even with a logical explanation -- and it sticks, often for a lifetime.
Those DNA tests that are offered now are intriguing, but they also bring up questions about rights and privacy. We all know how Google pretty much knows everything about us with the tap of the button -- imagine large corporations having access to every private citizen's DNA.
While sometimes these testings can reunite families and bring people together in wonderful, tear-filled reunions that everyone loves, I've read about these tests doing just as much damage as they are doing good.
For instance, the father who finds out the child he has raised all of his or her life isn't his. (I believe the father has every right to know, but imagine the shock to everyone involved.) The person who "accidentally" finds out they were adopted (because their DNA doesn't match anyone else in the family) and is rejected or asked to keep playing along because they parents have always passed that child off as their own (and it would be seen as disgraceful if anyone found out.)
I've also read about people who have found their birth parents or DNA relatives only to be rejected all over again, because, for instance, it was an unwanted pregnancy (perhaps due to rape, incest, etc.) that no one wants to remember or acknowledge. This brings about the question as to how much right biological parents have to stay anonymous when they don't want to be discovered.
I don't know what the actual statistics are of those who have been happily reunited vs. those who have found only more grief, but I would highly suspect that any kind of entertainment venue or show will very heavily skew its presentation towards the positive or at the very least, the most commercially appealing. Everyone rallies around the story of parents who gave their baby up "in the hopes that he or she would have a better life." But what about all the cases in which the baby is given up -- because its conception was the result of a father abusing his own daughter? I would venture to guess that there are many more cases of things like this resulting in adoptions than what anyone talks about. I'm all for the positive things these tests can do, but I highly suspect that there is a lot of negative that simply gets swept under the rug due to audience discomfort, which would fail to garner high ratings.
And then there is the issue of rights and privacy.
I only recently learned about an African American woman named Henrietta Lacks whose cancer cells were collected during a biopsy in the 1950's. Something very unusual was discovered about her cells, and they were not only kept, but used to go on to pioneer a myriad of scientific and medical advances. This was all done without Ms. Lacks' knowledge or permission.
On one hand, it's great that so many other people have been helped because of this one incredible woman. But on the other hand, in later years, scientists basically saw her entire family as a big series of petri dishes and started contacting them for samples, because they were trying to figure out what made her cells so different and if there was a genetic factor that had been passed down.
Imagine the family's shock when all of a sudden, out of the blue, the medical community is pretty much demanding blood and tissue samples from all your family members, including your children, and you don't know why.
It's only been in recent years that the Lacks family has been able to start the uphill battle of gaining back their rights, privacy, and possible compensation.
Two other caveats I've read about using DNA sampling to try to find biological relatives are that, unless I'm misunderstanding, in order to find a match, you would have to send samples (as well as pay the outlandish fees) to as many companies as possible, because the only way they can match you is if by some chance, your relatives sent samples to the exact same company you are using.
These companies are not particularly known to have the highest moral standards. While I would guess they probably put everyone's information into a universal database, on paper, they supposedly aren't allowed to share them with others -- but we all know how that goes.
Still, if I'm understanding correctly, you would have to hope that your long-lost relative whom you've never met on the other side of the world just happens to pay for and send in a DNA testing kit to the exact same American company you sent yours to as well. I could be wrong, but I see this as about a one in a billion (or more) chance.
The other thing I've read is that these DNA testings have also been used to link and convict people of crimes, even though this is not supposed to be the intended use of an individual's sample. Now of course, I'm all for violent and dangerous criminals being caught and brought to justice using whatever means is available.
But I think we've also all read about cases in which the DNA wasn't a match or was more circumstantial rather than a direct link to the crime, and its was seen as "close enough."
So my other concern with this technology is, how many innocent people are going to put away because of its use?
I'm certainly not trying to undermine the value that these scientific breakthroughs can have, but I think we all have to lean on the side of caution as we approach them.
Thanks for taking the time to post. You have me thinking about a few things...
It's funny how human reasoning works -- and ties into another thread going on regarding Logical vs. Emotional thinking. I think most adoptees are very aware that the most likely reason they were given up is because the parents felt they could not care for them, and it seems like a perfectly logical reason.
But then the emotions kick in. I have met some adoptees who have then thought things such as, "Well if they couldn't take care of me, they should have been more careful and not had me in the first place," or, if they have older siblings that were kept instead of them, "They should have just stopped having kids rather than have more that they were just going to throw away."
Something about most human beings, and I think it's probably a combination of spiritual, biological, and social factors, desperately wants to belong to their original family, no matter what the cost or explanation.
Being accepted by one family means you were given up by another, and for reasons I have yet to ascertain for myself, for most that registers as rejection, no matter how logical the reasons are.
We can think of simple social situations -- maybe no one talks to you at the company Christmas party -- and most people in this situation will feel completely rejected, even if it might be because everyone else brought someone they knew and they were shy about approaching you. There could be very logical explanations -- but it still leaves the person feeling rejected nonetheless. Some people will even become bitter and hold grudges over these kinds of events for a very long time, if not forever.
So one can only imagine the scope of knowing that someone's own parents gave them up, as it is rejection on a completely different plane -- even with a logical explanation -- and it sticks, often for a lifetime.
Those DNA tests that are offered now are intriguing, but they also bring up questions about rights and privacy. We all know how Google pretty much knows everything about us with the tap of the button -- imagine large corporations having access to every private citizen's DNA.
While sometimes these testings can reunite families and bring people together in wonderful, tear-filled reunions that everyone loves, I've read about these tests doing just as much damage as they are doing good.
For instance, the father who finds out the child he has raised all of his or her life isn't his. (I believe the father has every right to know, but imagine the shock to everyone involved.) The person who "accidentally" finds out they were adopted (because their DNA doesn't match anyone else in the family) and is rejected or asked to keep playing along because they parents have always passed that child off as their own (and it would be seen as disgraceful if anyone found out.)
I've also read about people who have found their birth parents or DNA relatives only to be rejected all over again, because, for instance, it was an unwanted pregnancy (perhaps due to rape, incest, etc.) that no one wants to remember or acknowledge. This brings about the question as to how much right biological parents have to stay anonymous when they don't want to be discovered.
I don't know what the actual statistics are of those who have been happily reunited vs. those who have found only more grief, but I would highly suspect that any kind of entertainment venue or show will very heavily skew its presentation towards the positive or at the very least, the most commercially appealing. Everyone rallies around the story of parents who gave their baby up "in the hopes that he or she would have a better life." But what about all the cases in which the baby is given up -- because its conception was the result of a father abusing his own daughter? I would venture to guess that there are many more cases of things like this resulting in adoptions than what anyone talks about. I'm all for the positive things these tests can do, but I highly suspect that there is a lot of negative that simply gets swept under the rug due to audience discomfort, which would fail to garner high ratings.
And then there is the issue of rights and privacy.
I only recently learned about an African American woman named Henrietta Lacks whose cancer cells were collected during a biopsy in the 1950's. Something very unusual was discovered about her cells, and they were not only kept, but used to go on to pioneer a myriad of scientific and medical advances. This was all done without Ms. Lacks' knowledge or permission.
On one hand, it's great that so many other people have been helped because of this one incredible woman. But on the other hand, in later years, scientists basically saw her entire family as a big series of petri dishes and started contacting them for samples, because they were trying to figure out what made her cells so different and if there was a genetic factor that had been passed down.
Imagine the family's shock when all of a sudden, out of the blue, the medical community is pretty much demanding blood and tissue samples from all your family members, including your children, and you don't know why.
It's only been in recent years that the Lacks family has been able to start the uphill battle of gaining back their rights, privacy, and possible compensation.
Two other caveats I've read about using DNA sampling to try to find biological relatives are that, unless I'm misunderstanding, in order to find a match, you would have to send samples (as well as pay the outlandish fees) to as many companies as possible, because the only way they can match you is if by some chance, your relatives sent samples to the exact same company you are using.
These companies are not particularly known to have the highest moral standards. While I would guess they probably put everyone's information into a universal database, on paper, they supposedly aren't allowed to share them with others -- but we all know how that goes.
Still, if I'm understanding correctly, you would have to hope that your long-lost relative whom you've never met on the other side of the world just happens to pay for and send in a DNA testing kit to the exact same American company you sent yours to as well. I could be wrong, but I see this as about a one in a billion (or more) chance.
The other thing I've read is that these DNA testings have also been used to link and convict people of crimes, even though this is not supposed to be the intended use of an individual's sample. Now of course, I'm all for violent and dangerous criminals being caught and brought to justice using whatever means is available.
But I think we've also all read about cases in which the DNA wasn't a match or was more circumstantial rather than a direct link to the crime, and its was seen as "close enough."
So my other concern with this technology is, how many innocent people are going to put away because of its use?
I'm certainly not trying to undermine the value that these scientific breakthroughs can have, but I think we all have to lean on the side of caution as we approach them.
-
1
- Show all
