DNA, The Truth Will Always Come Out!

[unsinkable]

4 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Nah, it could be a personality clash with one, and others are jumping in. Although, yes, I found it a bit surprising that here  I’m in agreement with posters That I usually not in tune with. So if I’m on the wrong track, I’ll just go with the theory that some  were in a pissy mood( oh No, I said a swear word!) and enjoyed dog piling on the OP. This board has been quite boring lately, pretty mundane topics, guess it was just time. 

Cheers!

 

 

Well, it's not June 27th but maybe people are getting their stones ready early.

Slainte!

/end sarcasm

[Sneezyone]

I’ve never understood the push to close and permanently seal adoptee records. Fortunately, our adoption happened in a state that permits adult adoptees to gain access to their records. Whether a birth parent wishes contact or not, the reality of existence and parentage belongs to the child just as much as the birth parent. So far, our adoptee has no desire to search but we’d support that choice if it were made. I’d encourage a non-DNA method tho. I, too, have issues with the commodification of human genetic material and think we shouldn’t surrender that access to our descendants without their permission.

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I’ve never understood the push to close and permanently seal adoptee records. Fortunately, our adoption happened in a state that permits adult adoptees to gain access to their records. Whether a birth parent wishes contact or not, the reality of existence and parentage belongs to the child just as much as the birth parent. So far, our adoptee has no desire to search but we’d support that choice if it were made. I’d encourage a non-DNA method tho. I, too, have issues with the commodification of human genetic material and think we shouldn’t surrender that access to our descendants without their permission.

To the bolded yes.

Some people would never know their bios if not for DNA.

[kbutton]

1 hour ago, SporkUK said:

It is hard to get screening. My spouse has sadly had his 3rd relative in 5 years diagnosed with similar cancers and he and his sister have been recommended for testing which she's had but my spouse is struggling to get and we're currently having a flurry of letters back and forth. We've all openly talked about how there could be genetic or environmental factors that put my spouse and our kids at risk but also the truth that all were on unrelated medications and other drugs that increases the risks as well. I know once my kids are old enough, I'm going to get them Cardiac Risk in the Young screening. 

 

That looks like an excellent program, and I hope that link ends up being useful to others in this thread! 

[regentrude]

1 hour ago, StartingOver said:

OK, so if we aren't talking adoption. Does that mean any adult doesn't have the right to know where they come from. My goodness, the sky is blue right?

I think a mother who gave her child the gift of life by choosing adoption over abortion has the right to privacy. She has the right not to have her past dragged into the spotlight and possibly her family and relationships destroyed by being hunted down via DNA databases.

In the light of these new developments, I am concerned that fewer women will choose to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, since they cannot be granted confidentiality. Unintended consequences.

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I think a mother who gave her child the gift of life but gave him up for adoption has the right to privacy. She has the right not to have her life destroyed by being hunted down via DNA databases.

In the light of these new developments, I am concerned that fewer women will choose to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, since they cannot be granted confidentiality.

A birth mother certainly has the right to not engage in a relationship with anyone she doesn't want to.  

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

34 minutes ago, StartingOver said:

OK, so if we aren't talking adoption. Does that mean any adult doesn't have the right to know where they come from. My goodness, the sky is blue right?

Oh for Pete’s sake, the lack of critical reading skills are driving me nuts.

I do not care or have an opinion at all on whether adoptees should use these tests to find family. I can see pros or cons depending on the family and individual. 

I do not care or have an opinion at all whether people should use these tests for genealogical research. I see pros and cons. The caveat is that some information especially regarding ethnicity is not accurate so to say that this information is the gospel truth is misleading. 

I do not care or have an opinion at all whether people should use the medical dna tests. Again , I see pros and cons. But even the medical dna tests are not always accurate so to say that this is the gospel truth is misleading. 

What I have an opinion on is people knowing how accurate these tests are. Articles I have read on them including the medical dna tests say that these should be used more for fun than for any other reason. 

 

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

A birth mother certainly has the right to not engage in a relationship with anyone she doesn't want to.  

but she cannot prevent the offspring who tracked her down via DNA from showing up on her doorstep and exposing to her current family that she fell pregnant and gave birth to a child decades ago. 

And she cannot prevent the offspring from confronting her again with whatever trauma that caused her to choose adoption. Trauma that she may have worked very hard to overcome.

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, regentrude said:

but she cannot prevent the offspring who tracked her down via DNA from showing up on her doorstep and exposing to her current family that she fell pregnant and gave birth to a child decades ago. 

And she cannot prevent the offspring from confronting her again with whatever trauma that caused her to choose adoption. Trauma that she may have worked very hard to overcome.

And we are right back to the trouble caused by a life time of deception.

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

And we are right back to the trouble caused by a life time of deception.

"Deception" is a very loaded term.

Who are you to judge a mother who makes the choice to keep this secret? How do you know what consequences, stigma, and pain she would have to face if people knew the truth? How is not making rape or incest public "deceptive"?

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

Who are you to judge a mother who makes the choice to keep this secret? How do you know what consequences, stigma, and pain she would have to face if people knew the truth?

I don't think I am judging.  I am pointing out how deception and secrets very often causes big problems and pain down the road.  A baby grows up to be an adult with feelings and wants and sometimes a deep desire to know his birth and bio story.  That child now adult's rights are every bit as important as the birth mother.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Plum Crazy said:

While that scenario is a possibility, the DNA websites only allow for email addresses or internal messaging systems. So it's more likely that the bio mom/family never responds back or responds with a clear boundary line asking them to not contact them again. 

As someone who wrote those messages, I made it clear that I understood if they don't respond back and that would be the last they hear from me. I know not everyone will be like that, but for some, just the act of finding the bio family and knowing their name was enough to help them move past it. Of course, I was imagining the worst case scenario where the bio family is horrible and needy and now I've just invited them into our lives. It goes both ways. 

At some point in the past, there was an opportunity to do better with regards to records and establishing a safe way for bio parents and children to find each other if they want to. In my mom's case, they both were looking, but never found each other. Which is really sad. DNA has thrown that opportunity out the window and created a new one that is not quite so mutual (if you know what I mean). 

Yes my mom has encountered people who wanted to not speak to her.  She moves along. More often than not people want to talk.  

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Exactly.  I assume they have their reasons for wanting it closed, anything from marriage or relationship trouble, abuse, starting again after a big life change and wanting to shut the door on the past, etc.  But as someone who is firmly pro life the option shouldn’t be ‘you have to raise this baby, be open or available for contact, or murder it’ but actually giving the child up and having it BE given up, entirely, into the care of family.  

 

Genetics and DNA are just code that comprise us.  Relationships are what really matter, way more than blood.  And again, even with hereditary conditions and health concerns the personal history and symptoms are the biggest bit of the diagnostic puzzle.  I don’t think personal curiosity or identity gives someone the right to do whatever they feel they must to override the wishes of another.  If that was the case,  adoptions should all be open.   But they’re not, and there is precedent for that.  The DNA database matches override that.

 

 I totally understand how adopted children may find that for the best, but the desire of their mother matters too.  She gave life and a best chance to her child, must she give access to her entire life and future family as well?  I’d never give a child up for adoption, even if I were raped, but I have compassion for moms in that situation as well.  Nobody in an ideal life situation gives a baby up, there is pretty much always some level of dysfunction or difficulty there, which makes the parental side of it extra sensitive.

 

This is obviously just my opinion, I do also really sympathize with the desire of a child to want to know as much about themselves as possible,  I just don’t think that should involve getting information someone else didn’t want them to have.  It gets a little trickier when it comes to siblings or extended family, since they didn’t consent to be cut out of the equation, though.

Yes to the bolded.  

But I don't think being contacted by someone equals 'open and available for contact'.  There is middle ground. 

[liber]

3 hours ago, Scarlett said:

It is kind of you to not want to upset your half siblings.  However, this is the very thing that just drives me batty about these life long deceptions.  Here you are denying your desire to find your other siblings and you are also denying your known half siblings the right to know the truth about the unknown half siblings.  You can't know how they will react really.  My sister thinks our dad hung the moon too but she longed for me from the moment she knew I existed.  Those two feelings can co-exist.  

Basically, I am on the side of truth.  Let the truth sort everything out.  

It's not my story to tell, it's my dad's.  

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, regentrude said:

but she cannot prevent the offspring who tracked her down via DNA from showing up on her doorstep and exposing to her current family that she fell pregnant and gave birth to a child decades ago. 

And she cannot prevent the offspring from confronting her again with whatever trauma that caused her to choose adoption. Trauma that she may have worked very hard to overcome.

 

This has always been true.

[Katy]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

No. That it’s somehow more special at this or that longitude and latitude makes no sense to me. We know where we come from. Born this day. Given to these people to raise (bio or otherwise). Went to that school. And so forth. 

Knowing ancestral statistics doesn’t tell us where WE came from. It tells us where other people we are related via dna were from.

I don’t even know my maternal grandmother’s name. And knowing it won’t change a single thing about what I know about me or where I come from. I have no right to know anything about other people that they don’t happily decide to share with me.

 

I feel like as an adoptive parent with multiple half siblings of my own, some of which I know and some of which likely don't know anything about me, I have a lot of opinions about this. I know there are at least 1 set of twins whose married mother more or less used my dad as a sperm donor.  We know that because she sent pictures that arrived just before my parents got married. They wanted my dad to know the twins existed, but they didn't plan on telling them anything about it.  Their dad was their dad. And I have another half sibling who wasn't raised in my house.  He came to visit at 16, and despite not knowing my dad well at all, he was just like him.  Looked almost identical. Acted almost identical, down to the mannerisms. They are so similar I never grew up with the idea that DNA doesn't have much more to do with who we are than most people acknowledge. I think that who we are is mostly nature. So we go out of our way to make sure that our adopted children maintain relationships with their half siblings. And we are as tactfully and non-judgmentally honest with them (in age appropriate ways) about what we know about their bio families as we can.

IME with adopted kids the more open you are to the truth, and to the idea that they are free to explore their bio families whenever they want, with our support, the less interested in it they seem to be.  Not just in our family, but in every single adoptive family we know.

2 hours ago, regentrude said:

I think a mother who gave her child the gift of life by choosing adoption over abortion has the right to privacy. She has the right not to have her past dragged into the spotlight and possibly her family and relationships destroyed by being hunted down via DNA databases.

In the light of these new developments, I am concerned that fewer women will choose to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, since they cannot be granted confidentiality. Unintended consequences.

 

I think that's a legitimate concern, but I also don't think wanting to hide the truth is a good reason to keep the truth from people. It's probably better for her to tell her family she had a painful past and decided to give a child up for adoption than it is to lie about her past and pretend it didn't exist.

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

A birth mother certainly has the right to not engage in a relationship with anyone she doesn't want to.  

 

 

She has the right, but her children also have a right to have relationships with their siblings if/when they find them.

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

I feel like as an adoptive parent with multiple half siblings of my own, some of which I know and some of which likely don't know anything about me, I have a lot of opinions about this. I know there are at least 1 set of twins whose married mother more or less used my dad as a sperm donor.  We know that because she sent pictures that arrived just before my parents got married. They wanted my dad to know the twins existed, but they didn't plan on telling them anything about it.  Their dad was their dad. And I have another half sibling who wasn't raised in my house.  He came to visit at 16, and despite not knowing my dad well at all, he was just like him.  Looked almost identical. Acted almost identical, down to the mannerisms. They are so similar I never grew up with the idea that DNA doesn't have much more to do with who we are than most people acknowledge. I think that who we are is mostly nature. So we go out of our way to make sure that our adopted children maintain relationships with their half siblings. And we are as tactfully and non-judgmentally honest with them (in age appropriate ways) about what we know about their bio families as we can.

IME with adopted kids the more open you are to the truth, and to the idea that they are free to explore their bio families whenever they want, with our support, the less interested in it they seem to be.  Not just in our family, but in every single adoptive family we know.

 

I think that's a legitimate concern, but I also don't think wanting to hide the truth is a good reason to keep the truth from people. It's probably better for her to tell her family she had a painful past and decided to give a child up for adoption than it is to lie about her past and pretend it didn't exist.

 

She has the right, but her children also have a right to have relationships with their siblings if/when they find them.

 

This sums up my thinking pretty well. Our kiddo’s never had questions and we’ve always been open with knowns and unknowns. Even if we hadn’t, state law where we adopted has, for 30+ years, recognized both the need for info and the right of biological siblings to reach out and establish connections if they choose to, with or without parental (bio or adoptive) consent. This is not a new thing and adoptions are still happening.

[Scarlett]

5 hours ago, Katy said:

 

I feel like as an adoptive parent with multiple half siblings of my own, some of which I know and some of which likely don't know anything about me, I have a lot of opinions about this. I know there are at least 1 set of twins whose married mother more or less used my dad as a sperm donor.  We know that because she sent pictures that arrived just before my parents got married. They wanted my dad to know the twins existed, but they didn't plan on telling them anything about it.  Their dad was their dad. And I have another half sibling who wasn't raised in my house.  He came to visit at 16, and despite not knowing my dad well at all, he was just like him.  Looked almost identical. Acted almost identical, down to the mannerisms. They are so similar I never grew up with the idea that DNA doesn't have much more to do with who we are than most people acknowledge. I think that who we are is mostly nature. So we go out of our way to make sure that our adopted children maintain relationships with their half siblings. And we are as tactfully and non-judgmentally honest with them (in age appropriate ways) about what we know about their bio families as we can.

IME with adopted kids the more open you are to the truth, and to the idea that they are free to explore their bio families whenever they want, with our support, the less interested in it they seem to be.  Not just in our family, but in every single adoptive family we know.

 

I think that's a legitimate concern, but I also don't think wanting to hide the truth is a good reason to keep the truth from people. It's probably better for her to tell her family she had a painful past and decided to give a child up for adoption than it is to lie about her past and pretend it didn't exist.

 

She has the right, but her children also have a right to have relationships with their siblings if/when they find them.

Oh I agree with you completely.  I was just saying the birth mom won't be forced into a relationship if she doesn't want to. 

[Scarlett]

5 hours ago, liber said:

It's not my story to tell, it's my dad's.  

They are your siblings. That part of the story most definitely is yours to tell.  

[Liz CA]

9 hours ago, Scarlett said:

And we are right back to the trouble caused by a life time of deception.

 

Well, you are right IMHO that this can cut both ways - that some people are lied to in regards of parentage or simply have no info and some people do not want to be found. However, many people have lived successful lives without knowing who their father / parents were. Sure, most go through a period of intense curiosity and the thought pops up now and then but barring any rare circumstances where someone has a medical condition that somehow could be dealt with more effectively if the doctor had family history available, I don't think any of us have a "right to know." 

Sure, if you gave up a child for adoption for whatever reason and this child finds you later, you have the option of refusing to establish a relationship but as others have pointed out, the damage may be done. You and I may feel honesty is always best but we cannot decide what is best for someone else. Some women do not feel like explaining to their children that they were violated and became pregnant and that there is a half sibling somewhere or that they made a mistake that led to a pregnancy. For some, as Regentrude mentioned, it could potentially trigger traumatic memories. I think we have to remember that this is not a life or death issue and therefore nobody has a "right" to dig it up and confront a person.

[Carrie12345]

13 hours ago, Plum Crazy said:

While that scenario is a possibility, the DNA websites only allow for email addresses or internal messaging systems. So it's more likely that the bio mom/family never responds back or responds with a clear boundary line asking them to not contact them again. 

As someone who wrote those messages, I made it clear that I understood if they don't respond back and that would be the last they hear from me. I know not everyone will be like that, but for some, just the act of finding the bio family and knowing their name was enough to help them move past it. Of course, I was imagining the worst case scenario where the bio family is horrible and needy and now I've just invited them into our lives. It goes both ways. 

At some point in the past, there was an opportunity to do better with regards to records and establishing a safe way for bio parents and children to find each other if they want to. In my mom's case, they both were looking, but never found each other. Which is really sad. DNA has thrown that opportunity out the window and created a new one that is not quite so mutual (if you know what I mean). 

Well, while I am supportive of helping adoptees find the information they want, I have to admit that there's another thick layer to things.

Example: I have a DNA match whose mother was born and adopted in 1970.  I'm a '77 baby.  I personally know much of my extended family on one side so, if she happens to come from that side, I may very well know at least one of her parents, or someone close to me may know that person, and they're likely still alive.  Now, I have no intention of broadcasting any of this to the rest of my family but, if I help her and am able to find the link, I will know someone's secret. 

Realistically, I don't think she comes from that particular branch, though I haven't fully ruled it out.  And, because I have few close relatives who have done DNA, and she and I share very few distant matches, I might not ever narrow it down enough to be helpful to her.  But, if I had more cousins who were doing this, there would be a good chance that we would ALL know who the mystery parent was just by looking at who she matches with and who she doesn't.

I do feel more strongly about truth than privacy in these cases, but I'm also realistic about the downsides.  My DNA does have the potential to tell someone else's story without their consent. 

[Scarlett]

7 hours ago, Liz CA said:

 

Well, you are right IMHO that this can cut both ways - that some people are lied to in regards of parentage or simply have no info and some people do not want to be found. However, many people have lived successful lives without knowing who their father / parents were. Sure, most go through a period of intense curiosity and the thought pops up now and then but barring any rare circumstances where someone has a medical condition that somehow could be dealt with more effectively if the doctor had family history available, I don't think any of us have a "right to know." 

Sure, if you gave up a child for adoption for whatever reason and this child finds you later, you have the option of refusing to establish a relationship but as others have pointed out, the damage may be done. You and I may feel honesty is always best but we cannot decide what is best for someone else. Some women do not feel like explaining to their children that they were violated and became pregnant and that there is a half sibling somewhere or that they made a mistake that led to a pregnancy. For some, as Regentrude mentioned, it could potentially trigger traumatic memories. I think we have to remember that this is not a life or death issue and therefore nobody has a "right" to dig it up and confront a person.

I agree that it isn't a life or death issue, but I disagree about what people have the right to know.  I am sympathetic to people having to relive life events they have chosen to push to the back of their minds. 

3 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Well, while I am supportive of helping adoptees find the information they want, I have to admit that there's another thick layer to things.

Example: I have a DNA match whose mother was born and adopted in 1970.  I'm a '77 baby.  I personally know much of my extended family on one side so, if she happens to come from that side, I may very well know at least one of her parents, or someone close to me may know that person, and they're likely still alive.  Now, I have no intention of broadcasting any of this to the rest of my family but, if I help her and am able to find the link, I will know someone's secret. 

Realistically, I don't think she comes from that particular branch, though I haven't fully ruled it out.  And, because I have few close relatives who have done DNA, and she and I share very few distant matches, I might not ever narrow it down enough to be helpful to her.  But, if I had more cousins who were doing this, there would be a good chance that we would ALL know who the mystery parent was just by looking at who she matches with and who she doesn't.

I do feel more strongly about truth than privacy in these cases, but I'm also realistic about the downsides.  My DNA does have the potential to tell someone else's story without their consent. 

Agreeing with the bolding.  Well with your entire post really. I doubt I would announce to my entire family things I found out about a distant cousin....but if I found out my brother had a child out there I know I would tell him.  

I guess my feelings are more about dealing with future things.  I would always strongly strongly encourage anyone to not try and cover up such a big thing as another human being.  Not talking about it is different than trying to keep it secret.  Example...I always knew about my bio dad....rarely did I discuss it.  I mean I had my step dad's name (not legally just used it) and my step dad's family treated me like their own even though most of them knew I had a different bio dad.  By the time my sister found me when my son was 9 it occurred to me my son didn't know.  It certainly wasn't a secret from him, but there was a moment or two of awkwardness as I explained to him his Nana had become pregnant out of wedlock and so I had a dad and sister out there that he had never been told about.  

I know some people prefer the 'secret' route and I guess they have that right to some degree.  I just see a lot of heart ache from that choice.

[Murphy101]

I don't think it's fair to act as though they are keeping some dirty secret.  They are going about their lives as they so choose.  They didn't birth in secret and leave the baby in a dumpster.  They gave birth and gave the baby to others who presumably loved and raised them as their own and moved on with their life. The baby isn't hidden away.  It's raised openly with another family. That's not dishonest. There's a line between secret and simply deeply private.

When we are talking Rights, to me in order for something to be elevated to a Right means it has to be a lot more serious than some people just feels like they should know something about other people.  That's not enough.  Their life isn't in danger.  They aren't being kept from living life fully as a citizen.  People I have no financial or legal or familial obligation to have no right to know anything about me, my DNA, or my health. And feeling strongly like they should be able to isn't enough to make it so.

[Carrie12345]

8 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I agree that it isn't a life or death issue, but I disagree about what people have the right to know.  I am sympathetic to people having to relive life events they have chosen to push to the back of their minds. 

Agreeing with the bolding.  Well with your entire post really. I doubt I would announce to my entire family things I found out about a distant cousin....but if I found out my brother had a child out there I know I would tell him.  

I guess my feelings are more about dealing with future things.  I would always strongly strongly encourage anyone to not try and cover up such a big thing as another human being.  Not talking about it is different than trying to keep it secret.  Example...I always knew about my bio dad....rarely did I discuss it.  I mean I had my step dad's name (not legally just used it) and my step dad's family treated me like their own even though most of them knew I had a different bio dad.  By the time my sister found me when my son was 9 it occurred to me my son didn't know.  It certainly wasn't a secret from him, but there was a moment or two of awkwardness as I explained to him his Nana had become pregnant out of wedlock and so I had a dad and sister out there that he had never been told about.  

I know some people prefer the 'secret' route and I guess they have that right to some degree.  I just a lot of heart ache from that choice.

Funny enough, we've never kept secrets either, but have found ourselves filling our kids in on things we "forgot" to share.  They've met my half-brother without realizing Grandpa is my stepfather and I have a biological father out there.  My oldest has always gone back and forth between his father's house and mine without any real conversation with the youngers about it.  I mean, you don't bring these things up to a newborn or a toddler, and then you sort of forget it's a thing, lol.  Most of their cousins do not come from "traditional families".  We haven't sat them down to discuss it at great length.   None of these things are actual secrets, we just forget that they exist!

[Murphy101]

7 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Funny enough, we've never kept secrets either, but have found ourselves filling our kids in on things we "forgot" to share.  They've met my half-brother without realizing Grandpa is my stepfather and I have a biological father out there.  My oldest has always gone back and forth between his father's house and mine without any real conversation with the youngers about it.  I mean, you don't bring these things up to a newborn or a toddler, and then you sort of forget it's a thing, lol.  Most of their cousins do not come from "traditional families".  We haven't sat them down to discuss it at great length.   None of these things are actual secrets, we just forget that they exist!

 

More often than not, this is the case I think.  My kids didn't know I had siblings.  Even though I've mentioned them and they have met them a few times.  My dh's paternal grandfather is actually a step-grandfather, but I'm not sure any of my kids know it. THe bio father has been out of the picture since their grandfather was a tween.  They didn't know their grandpa was in Vietnam.  He never talks about it but it's not really a secret.

 

[Scarlett]

20 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I don't think it's fair to act as though they are keeping some dirty secret.  They are going about their lives as they so choose.  They didn't birth in secret and leave the baby in a dumpster.  They gave birth and gave the baby to others who presumably loved and raised them as their own and moved on with their life. The baby isn't hidden away.  It's raised openly with another family. That's not dishonest. There's a line between secret and simply deeply private.

When we are talking Rights, to me in order for something to be elevated to a Right means it has to be a lot more serious than some people just feels like they should know something about other people.  That's not enough.  Their life isn't in danger.  They aren't being kept from living life fully as a citizen.  People I have no financial or legal or familial obligation to have no right to know anything about me, my DNA, or my health. And feeling strongly like they should be able to isn't enough to make it so.

Sometimes the 'thing' overlaps between and among people. That is why it gets tricky.  That baby birthed and given up to another family grows up and wants to know who gave him life and if he has any siblings out there.  I say he has that right.  Some believe he doesn't.  Shrug.  People disagree on these things. 

[Katy]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

I don't think it's fair to act as though they are keeping some dirty secret.  They are going about their lives as they so choose.  They didn't birth in secret and leave the baby in a dumpster.  They gave birth and gave the baby to others who presumably loved and raised them as their own and moved on with their life. The baby isn't hidden away.  It's raised openly with another family. That's not dishonest. There's a line between secret and simply deeply private.

When we are talking Rights, to me in order for something to be elevated to a Right means it has to be a lot more serious than some people just feels like they should know something about other people.  That's not enough.  Their life isn't in danger.  They aren't being kept from living life fully as a citizen.  People I have no financial or legal or familial obligation to have no right to know anything about me, my DNA, or my health. And feeling strongly like they should be able to isn't enough to make it so.

 

I don't understand why DNA makes you so worried about what a child adopted out might know about *YOUR* health. Their DNA would inform them of their own health, in ways that makes it okay to not know anything else about you specifically. The testing being widely available means they have less need and right to track you down.

[KungFuPanda]

It’s not even the adoption angle that I think is skeevy. It’s the ability to generate a list of people who we know are x based in their DNA and target them for whatever reasons. 

Also, I can imagine an employer or insurance carrier screening for health. What if they don’t want to hire you because you might develop a health issue later, or you might have a child with an issue that they don’t want to pay for. 

Believing that everyone has a right to everything that is true and that privacy equals deceit is very problematic. Does anyone really “deserve” another person’s information just because they’re related?

[Scarlett]

29 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

It’s not even the adoption angle that I think is skeevy. It’s the ability to generate a list of people who we know are x based in their DNA and target them for whatever reasons. 

Also, I can imagine an employer or insurance carrier screening for health. What if they don’t want to hire you because you might develop a health issue later, or you might have a child with an issue that they don’t want to pay for. 

Believing that everyone has a right to everything that is true and that privacy equals deceit is very problematic. Does anyone really “deserve” another person’s information just because they’re related?

Wait.  I am confused.  I thought the data bases gave you matches not the exact dna reading of anyone except yourself.

[regentrude]

On 6/12/2018 at 9:50 AM, Scarlett said:

I don't question your right to not upload your DNA.  But I still wonder what you think they will do with it? 

For example sell the database to health insurance companies so they can structure their premiums or deny coverage based on genetic predisposition to certain diseases?

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, regentrude said:

For example sell the database to health insurance companies so they can structure their premiums or deny coverage based on genetic predisposition to certain diseases?

Oh Ok, but not just anyone looking at it can see the full profile.

[KungFuPanda]

11 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Wait.  I am confused.  I thought the data bases gave you matches not the exact dna reading of anyone except yourself.

It’s data. It can be manipulated to use any way you wish. The company can change how they use it. They can sell it. They can go bankrupt. They can be hacked. They are subject to court orders. It can wind up in the hands of people who don’t need it and don’t have the original donor’s best interest at heart. 

How a private company uses data today is no guarantee it won’t be used differently tomorrow. 

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

It’s data. It can be manipulated to use any way you wish. The company can change how they use it. They can sell it. They can go bankrupt. They can be hacked. They are subject to court orders. It can wind up in the hands of people who don’t need it and don’t have the original donor’s best interest at heart. 

How a private company uses data today is no guarantee it won’t be used differently tomorrow. 

But that data is out there already in various forms.  I mean if we have blood drawn can't someone do a dna profile on us?  I hope it isn't allowed to be used against people, but I don't think we have much control over that anyway.  

[Katy]

Genetic discrimination of insurance companies is already illegal in the USA.

[regentrude]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

Oh Ok, but not just anyone looking at it can see the full profile.

The company that owns the database can. 

[regentrude]

59 minutes ago, Katy said:

Genetic discrimination of insurance companies is already illegal in the USA.

"already" or "still"?

If they could roll back the rule against discriminating for preexisting conditions, who is to say this law is here to stay?

[regentrude]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

But that data is out there already in various forms.  I mean if we have blood drawn can't someone do a dna profile on us?  

Sure - but there is no large database that has the information from all the blood draws.

Of course one can obtain DNA from a specific individual, but having millions of DNA profiles hosted in one database is a different order of magnitude and makes it very convenient to use the information for nefarious purposes.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

But that data is out there already in various forms.  I mean if we have blood drawn can't someone do a dna profile on us?  I hope it isn't allowed to be used against people, but I don't think we have much control over that anyway.  

Blood drawn has specific authorized tests done on it and then it is incinerated.  It is not kept around in case someone wants to supoena it to do a dna test on it.  So no, my dna data is not out there in various forms.  My choloesterol numbers, my iron levels etc. are out there but not my dna. 

As far as my dna goes, if I am suspected of a crime, they can get a court order for my dna.  They can then try to match it to whatever they have collected from the crime scene.  I hope that it is destroyed if I am ruled out as a suspect, but I do not know what happens to it.   (Since this has never happened to me this is based off of what the internet tells me, not personal experience.  ?  ) 

[gardenmom5]

On 6/11/2018 at 7:08 AM, StartingOver said:

If you are thinking of doing DNA, PLEASE be warned that you may not get the results you want but you will get the truth.

I have been working on the genealogy of my family for over 30 years. I started testing family last year to verify and broke through some real tough brick walls. Happily I made it through 2 long term brick walls. But got many surprises along the way. A sister who was put up for adoption by her mom that my dad never knew about was the first happy finding. My husband's father isn't his father, we are still working on solving this one. My ex husband's father isn't his father. My ex mother in laws father isn't her father. I have found the birth family of my 1st cousin who was adopted into my family. I found my 1st cousin's son he gave up in the 50's. I am waiting on the tests of 2 other 1st cousins to figure out which of my uncles is their father one of which was adopted from Vietnam. I am also working on trying to find answers for others, friends of friends. It isn't easy,

I can't always find answers, but so far the truth has been so much better than the lies and being able to use DNA to get a medical history has been amazing to some of these folks with mysterious symptoms no one can explain.

 

 

late to the thread, so haven't read the entire thread.

that's a lot of surprises.

I've also been doing genealogy for 35+ years.  I'm hoping dna will help get me through two roadblocks. (one is such a mess, it will probably never be solved.)

when I was researching the various testing companies, I watched youtube videos.  one woman's results came  back as 6% subsaharan african.  it left her extremely confused and she did more research to find out what was going on.  Fortunately,  her mother was still alive to answer her questions when confronted.  she was "passing"- she ended up in contact with a cousin who was doing a documentary on "passing".  such timing for them to get together.

then today - this story about two 72 yo women who were switched at birth.

[shawthorne44]

I can understand the OP's perspective.   

On one hand, when I was pushing for growth hormone testing for DD, the doc was resistant.  When I mentioned that my husband's uncle is 4'7", she started discussing testing steps.   That was very helpful information to have.   If I'd needed DNA testing to get that information, I'd have done it.  

On the other hand, a meta-study showed that Bio-Dad-Child relationships really aren't 12% of the time.  This is consistent across race, cultures, income and several other countries.  That 12% has plagued those studying genetic diseases.   So, there might be minefields in your DNA results.  

I haven't done it mainly because I am cheap.   I picked up some odd genetic quirks that match a great-grandparent on each side of the family, so I'm fairly certain my near family tree is accurate.   For both DH and I the parts of our ancestry which aren't American Mutt are known fairly well.   I've even met my paternal Grandfather's second cousin in Norway, and some ... relatives in Czech.   The trees joined at my Great-great grandfather.   What was freaky is how much one of them looked like my cousin in America .  

[StartingOver]

3 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

late to the thread, so haven't read the entire thread.

that's a lot of surprises.

I've also been doing genealogy for 35+ years.  I'm hoping dna will help get me through two roadblocks. (one is such a mess, it will probably never be solved.)

when I was researching the various testing companies, I watched youtube videos.  one woman's results came  back as 6% subsaharan african.  it left her extremely confused and she did more research to find out what was going on.  Fortunately,  her mother was still alive to answer her questions when confronted.  she was "passing"- she ended up in contact with a cousin who was doing a documentary on "passing".  such timing for them to get together.

then today - this story about two 72 yo women who were switched at birth.

I broke through two 20+ year old walls of great grandparents with DNA from 4th cousin matches. It was so thrilling. Now found cousins have tested closer in those lines to further fill in the lines. Happy hunting!

[Halftime Hope]

PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE!!!  My phrasing may get a bit awkward, but bear with me as I try to word this to preserve privacy. 

Every time you all discuss DNA, it reminds me of a story I've been told.  (Please don't ask probing or identifying questions about the characters.)

S was adopted at birth.  As an adult, S located S's bio-mom and found out the circumstances of S's conception.  It turns out that S was conceived in a rape, but S's bio-mom was surrounded by a close-knit, nurturing religious community, so she carried S to term and put S up for adoption. 

After S found Bio-mom, S and S's (adoptive) family became very close to Bio-mom and her later children, such that, in effect, S's children have 5 grandparents, as well as several "uncles" and "aunts".  There is nothing in DNA to tie S's half siblings, the later children of Bio-mom, to the r*pist, as S's half-sibs were from a subsequent marriage.  However, if S's own children were to use a DNA service, S would run the very real risk that the r*pist's extended family would turn up and quite possibly lead to the r*pist himself. 

No one in r*pist's family is entitled to information that S even exists or that they might have a another grandchild, a half-sibling, or a cousin out there.  R*pist forfeited any rights on the matter with his actions.  S has asked S's children to guard S's and Bio-mom's privacy and to honor her choice, at a minimum until both S and Bio-mom are dead.  S and children also figured out that if S's children *ever* did DNA testing, it could also expose the existence of Bio-mom's other children to the rapist's side of the family, so for now, S's children have concluded that testing is out of the picture. 

Crazy and dangerous stuff.

[Scarlett]

22 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

 

It is an amazing story.  I am struck by the openness and honesty of those involved. 

[Halftime Hope]

Scarlet, I was editing my post to add a disclaimer asking people not to quote my post.  Could you please delete the quote in your post please?  Thank you!!

[Halftime Hope]

7 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

It is an amazing story.  I am struck by the openness and honesty of those involved. 

Thank you; they are a family with a moving story on many, many levels--I haven't even scratched the surface.  It's a multi-decade story, one full of hope, redemption, and beauty out of ashes. 

S's mom (the one who raised S) was the one who encouraged S to find the bio-mom, and she is as much of a warrior/heroine as S's bio-mom is.

The part about the DNA testing came about in the last several years and took several months to sort through.  I've been privileged to have a sideline view and to share the knowledge gained from many candid postings here, including yours.

[IfIOnly]

I was surprised to read in the news today about two Midwest women in their 70s who found through DNA testing that they were switched at birth. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-midwestern-women-switched-birth-72-years-ago-are-reunited-n882941

[Bluegoat]

14 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

It’s not even the adoption angle that I think is skeevy. It’s the ability to generate a list of people who we know are x based in their DNA and target them for whatever reasons. 

Also, I can imagine an employer or insurance carrier screening for health. What if they don’t want to hire you because you might develop a health issue later, or you might have a child with an issue that they don’t want to pay for. 

Believing that everyone has a right to everything that is true and that privacy equals deceit is very problematic. Does anyone really “deserve” another person’s information just because they’re related?

 

I think this is my feeling.

I do think children, thinking especially of adopted children, have a right to know or investigate around their own parents.  I think it's just untrue to say it's "just DNA" or that it isn't part of who you are.  Physically, you can't divide who you are from your body - you are your body, and your experiences, in the same way that a particular bowl is defined by being made out of wood or clay.  There is an immediate significant link, even if there is no other point of contact.

That being said, I'm a lot less comfortable with the idea that other people can dig around and find their aunts' illegitimate child that was put up for adoption.  To my mind, the child has a real right to investigate, maybe reach out to the aunt and see where it goes, but it's largely between the two of them.  

[Scarlett]

3 hours ago, IfIOnly said:

I was surprised to read in the news today about two Midwest women in their 70s who found through DNA testing that they were switched at birth. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-midwestern-women-switched-birth-72-years-ago-are-reunited-n882941

 

3 hours ago, IfIOnly said:

I was surprised to read in the news today about two Midwest women in their 70s who found through DNA testing that they were switched at birth. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-midwestern-women-switched-birth-72-years-ago-are-reunited-n882941

Wow.  This reminded me of the story my mom tells about being in the hospital after giving birth to me.  This was in the days of dorm style rooms. So the nurse comes into the large room with a large  cart of babies and starts handing them out to the moms.  My mom looked at the red headed baby she was handed and thought, ' this doesn't look like the baby I had yesterday'. She said about that time a woman in the bed next to her with long bright red hair starts hollering "this is not my baby!''.  The nurses fall all over themselves switching us and showing both moms that the tags on our ankles were correct, that they just got mixed up by one bed.  

I still tease her about her lack of observation skills though.  I mean I have almost black hair.  But mom was barely 20 years old and all alone....thank goodness for the experienced mom in the bed next to her.

[maize]

26 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think this is my feeling.

I do think children, thinking especially of adopted children, have a right to know or investigate around their own parents.  I think it's just untrue to say it's "just DNA" or that it isn't part of who you are.  Physically, you can't divide who you are from your body - you are your body, and your experiences, in the same way that a particular bowl is defined by being made out of wood or clay.  There is an immediate significant link, even if there is no other point of contact.

That being said, I'm a lot less comfortable with the idea that other people can dig around and find their aunts' illegitimate child that was put up for adoption.  To my mind, the child has a real right to investigate, maybe reach out to the aunt and see where it goes, but it's largely between the two of them.  

 

Thing is, the cousin who was adopted out isn't going to show up in the DNA databases unless they have chosen to test and make their data available--probably in order to find their birth family. And the only way that effort can succeed is if some birth relatives happen to be in the database.

 

I really have never met anyone who did DNA testing because they were salivating to dig up dirt on known relatives. None. And I know a lot of people who have tested! I'm the administer for about ten accounts myself. My folks have tested primarily for genealogy purposes; I've got brick walls that I and other family members have been working on for many decades and this is our best hope to crack them.

Occasionally I've been contacted by an adoptee trying to sort out bio family relationships; I'm happy to help if I can, typically by looking at in common DNA matches to figure out which of my family lines they may tie into. These have generally been people in the fourth cousin range so maybe a common third great grandparent. It is very similar to what I do in reaching out to fourth cousins in Sweden trying to help my grandma figure out who her own grandfather was and where he came from. 

[Bluegoat]

28 minutes ago, maize said:

 

Thing is, the cousin who was adopted out isn't going to show up in the DNA databases unless they have chosen to test and make their data available--probably in order to find their birth family. And the only way that effort can succeed is if some birth relatives happen to be in the database.

 

I really have never met anyone who did DNA testing because they were salivating to dig up dirt on known relatives. None. And I know a lot of people who have tested! I'm the administer for about ten accounts myself. My folks have tested primarily for genealogy purposes; I've got brick walls that I and other family members have been working on for many decades and this is our best hope to crack them.

Occasionally I've been contacted by an adoptee trying to sort out bio family relationships; I'm happy to help if I can, typically by looking at in common DNA matches to figure out which of my family lines they may tie into. These have generally been people in the fourth cousin range so maybe a common third great grandparent. It is very similar to what I do in reaching out to fourth cousins in Sweden trying to help my grandma figure out who her own grandfather was and where he came from. 

 

I don't see what difference it makes if the cousin chooses to put their DNA in, when the real issue is other family members seeing the connection and coming to conclusions.  Or it could be illegitimate kids who never came to light, whatever. Individuals are not having to agree to this for it to impact them - it could be their family members making the decisions.  I don't think people have to be salivating over it either, it's simply a matter of it being there for them to see, and really not their business but they can see the implications.

I'm not convinced though, that there aren't nosy markers out there who would love that chance, as there are people like that in many families.

The fundamental questions o me are privacy - what does it mean when your information can be gleaned without you really agreeing, and also the potential power of a database like that.