Re adoption and general questions of biological identity, I can relate several personal anecdotes. My (adopted) brother and sister are from Korea. My brother was 6, my sister 3, when they came to live with us. Assimilation into US culture was more difficult for my brother for a number of reasons, including, I think, that the experience itself of coming over was very traumatic for him. He’s been very angry about it and a lot of other things, and moved to Seattle (we grew up in the Midwest) to be in a place where he ‘blended in’ as Asian more.

My sister never had any of those issues, though, and pretty much I think considered the Cosby Show to be her main role model. She was much more affected by the fact that we lived in a wealthy school district but that we were poor to the point of relying on food stamps for several years. She got married to a white midwestern man, has 4 kids, and lives in Wisconsin.

A few years ago, my brother went to Korea and found his birth family. Including some surprises: we were all told that he and my sis were orphans, but in fact their mother is still alive. Also, they have another sister that they never knew about. The experience was huge for my brother for about 4 months, when he seemed genuinely happy and transformed. But there are language and culture barriers, and I think that more and more his experience with his Korean family made him feel how American he is. He hasn’t communicated with them at all in years, and has pretty much reverted to being angry. Talking with him now, he has no interest in that part of his family anymore.

Also, as an aside, his calling them his ‘real’ family was very hurtful to my mom, who after all did raise and love and support him (enough to go with him to Korea, and pay for their trip, and help find his family). I think many adoptive families do live with the worry that at some point they’ll be negated in this way.

As far as my sis was concerned, she had no interest in any of it. Her attitude is “they didn’t want me; I don’t want them.” She has never considered herself Korean or even Korean American—she’s American, and is more closely bonded with my folks than I am, to be honest.

My husband was raised by his biological parents, in the same house which they still live in. And he’s always felt like a freak in his family. They are very active, whereas he’s more intellectual; they aren’t abstract thinkers, whereas he specializes in theoretical work; they are liberal and atheist, and he’s religious and Republican (though not a Bush fan). They have almost no contact and he’s spent most of his life wishing to have nothing to do with them.

And I am disabled, with a heritable disability that my father’s side of the family has had for a long time (though covered it up in odd ways—my mom had no idea that it was a ‘feature’ of my dad’s genetic makeup when she married him). I don’t know that she’d have married him (or had kids with him at least) anyway, but I certainly do not regret the circumstances or fact of my birth and life. I’ll go as far as to venture that my folks don’t, either.

All of this is to say that human endeavors and relationships are complex, and when we begin to decide that because X Y or Z seem hard from the outside (or even from the inside), X Y or Z should be condemned, we’d better know very well what we’re talking about. I don’t think Velleman’s argument even begins to pass this test, and begs a lot of very troubling questions.

(Incidentally, I haven’t argued that “biology doesn’t matter at all, and it’s retrograde, foolish and antiliberal to suggest it does”. My position is that biology does not over-ride all other considerations.)

Other than family resemblance, the ability just doesn’t seem to be there. No unique smell, sound, taste, touch factor seems to be genetically imprinted that is anywhere near uniquely identifiable.

Biology apparently is more about “Love the one you’re with”

If you have separated “giving sperm” from “having children”, as these people clearly have, why is giving sperm a weighty decision? Would it be a weighty decision to give sperm that you know will never be used?

Leederick’s argument is that anonymous donators are shielded from the consequences of their decision(110), but that it is a weighty decision (115). If something has no consequences for you, or for anybody you know, how weighty a decision is it?

Or is that sort of hand-waving only permitted in justifying, not questioning, the practice purportedly being examined?

Now, first of all, among my adopted friends, some genuinely do lead better lives now that they’ve discovered their biological heritage. This is a real gain for them, as for some posters here, and I hope that nothing that follows sounds like I’m denying it. If there were no positive concerns on this side of the balance, it would all be much easier.

Out of every thousand children, some number are adopted and benefit from the connection, in small or large ways. I don’t want to get into assessing the strengths of different people’s happiness. (Some number don’t benefit or suffer much, and some find their lives complicated unpleasantly.) But some number are also abused physically and sexually by their biological relatives.

Does Velleman address this?