Top

Gepubliceerd in:

29-01-2021 | Original Paper

French People’s Positions Regarding Same-Sex Couples’ and Singles’ Rights to Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption

Auteurs: Maria Teresa Muñoz Sastre, Paul Clay Sorum, Etienne Mullet

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Child and Family Studies | Uitgave 5/2021

Abstract

The study examined French people’s positions regarding the right to parenthood of same-sex couples and singles. A convenience sample of 256 participants aged 18–82 were presented with 24 realistic stories that were composed according to a two-factor within-subject design: (a) relational contexts (married or non-married heterosexual couples, married or non-married homosexual couples, and single heterosexual or homosexual persons, who want to have children through assisted reproductive technology or adoption) and (b) ways to have a child (through sperm donation by an anonymous donor, through sperm donation and surrogacy, through egg donation by an anonymous donor and surrogacy, or through adoption). Through cluster analysis, six qualitatively different positions were found. They were called Never acceptable (8% of the sample), Acceptable only in cases of heterosexual couples (10%), Acceptable for all types of couples except in cases of surrogacy by choice (7%), Always acceptable for all types of couples (10%), Always acceptable except in cases of surrogacy (14%), and Always acceptable (52%). The majority Always acceptable position was more often expressed by single participants, participants without children, and atheists than by married participants, those with children, or regular church attendees.

vorige artikel What Does it Mean to be a Targeted Parent? Parents’ Experiences in the Context of Parental Alienation

Anderson, N. H. (2008). Unified social cognition. Psychology Press

Averett, P., Strong-Blakeney, A., Nalavany, B., & Ryan, S. (2011). Adoptive parents’ attitudes towards gay and lesbian adoption. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2011.537211.CrossRef

Belaisch Allart, J. (2012). Access to assisted reproductive technology, surrogacy, same-sex couples parenting. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité, 40, 3–7.CrossRef

Besen, Y., & Zicklin, G. (2007). Young men, religion, and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Men, Masculinities, and Spirituality, 1, 250–266.

Besmond de Senneville, L. (2018). Le sondage IFOP pour La Croix et le Forum européen de bioéthique confirme la mutation anthropologique de la société française. https://www.la-croix.com/Journal/PMA-GPA-fin-vie-vague-fond-liberale-2018-01-03-1100903196.

Busardò, F. P., Gulino, M., Napoletano, S., Zaami, S., & Frati, P. (2014). The evolution of legislation in the field of medically assisted reproduction and embryo stem cell research in European Union members. BioMed Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/307160.

Cabut, S., & Benkimoun, P. (2018). Le Comité consultatif national d’éthique se prononce de nouveau en faveur de l’ouverture de la PMA à toutes les femmes. https://www.lemonde.fr/bioethique/article/2018/09/25/pma-gpa-acces-aux-origines-fin-de-vie-les-propositions-du-comite-d-ethique_5359753_5243590.html.

Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique pour les Sciences de la Vie et de la Santé. (2017). Avis du CCNE sur les demandes sociétales de recours à l’assistance médicale à la procréation. http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/fr/publications/avis-du-ccne-du-15-juin-sur-les-demandes-societales-de-recours-lassistance.

Costa, P. A., Almeida, R., Anselmo, C., Ferreira, A., Pereira, H., & Leal, I. (2014). University students’ attitudes toward same-sex parenting and gay and lesbian rights in Portugal. Journal of Homosexuality, 61, 1667–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.951253.CrossRefPubMed

De la Fuente Fonnest, I., Søndergaard, F., Fonnest, G., & Vedsted-Jacobsen, A. (2000). Attitudes among health care professionals on the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies and legal abortion. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 79, 49–53.PubMed

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2013). Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons: A committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 100, 1524–1527.CrossRef

Golombok, S. (2017). Parenting in new family forms. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.004.CrossRefPubMed

Griessler, E., & Hager, M. (2016). Changing direction: The struggle of regulating assisted reproductive technology in Austria. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 3, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.12.005.CrossRefPubMed

Gurmankin, A. D., Caplan, A. L., & Braverman, A. M. (2005). Screening practices and beliefs of assisted reproductive technology programs. Fertility and Sterility, 83, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.048.CrossRefPubMed

Heikkilä, K., Länsimies, E., Hippeläinen, M., & Heinonen, S. (2004). A survey of the attitudes of infertile and parous women towards the availability of assisted reproductive technology. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 111, 1229–1235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00441.x.CrossRef

Heikkilä, K., Länsimies, E., Hippeläinen, M., & Heinonen, S. (2006). Assessment of attitudes towards assisted reproduction: A survey among medical students and parous women. Gynecological Endocrinology, 22, 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590601005631.CrossRefPubMed

Hertz, R., Nelson, M. K., & Suñol, J. (2016). Attitudes toward regulations of reproductive care in the European Union: A comparison between travelers for cross-border reproductive care and citizens of the local country. Facts, Views and Visions in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 8, 147–160.

Hofmans, J., & Mullet, E. (2013). Towards unveiling individual differences in different stages of information processing: A clustering-based approach. Quality & Quantity, 47, 455–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9529-7.CrossRef

Institut Français d’Opinion Publique (2014). Les Français et les droits des couples homosexuels deux ans après la 1ère manifestation de la Manif pour Tous. https://www.ifop.com/publication/les-francais-et-les-droits-des-couples-homosexuels-deux-ans-apres-la-1ere-manifestation-de-la-manif-pour-tous/.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966). https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.

Lambert, E. G., Ventura, L. A., Hall, D. E., & Cluse-Tolar, T. (2006). College students’ views on gay and lesbian issues: Does education make a difference? Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v50n04_01.CrossRefPubMed

Mullet, E., & Chasseigne, G. (2018). Assessing information integration processes: A comparison of findings obtained with between-subjects designs versus within-subjects designs. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1779–1788.CrossRef

Muñoz Sastre, M. T., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2016). The acceptability of assisted reproductive technology among French lay people. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 34, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2016.1188279.CrossRef

Nacher, M., Muñoz Sastre, M. T., Kpanake, L., & Mullet, E. (2019). Mapping French people’s positions regarding the children’s right to know their biological parents’ identity. Journal of Child and Family Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01563-w.

Petitfils, C., Muñoz Sastre, M. T., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2017). Mapping people’s views regarding the acceptability of surrogate motherhood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 35, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2016.1222358.CrossRefPubMed

Präg, P., & Mills, M. C. (2017). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe: Usage and regulation in the context of cross-Border reproductive care. In M. Kreyenfeld, & D. Konietzka (Eds.), Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, causes, and consequences (pp. 289–309). Springer

Prainsack, B., Cherkas, L. F., & Spector, T. D. (2007). Attitudes towards human reproductive cloning, assisted reproduction, and gene selection: A survey of 4600 British twins. Human Reproduction, 22, 2302–2308. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem113.CrossRefPubMed

Shreffler, K. M., Johnson, D. R., & Scheuble, L. K. (2010). Ethical problems with infertility treatments: Attitudes and explanations. Social Science Journal, 47, 731–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2010.07.012.CrossRef

Söderstroöm-Anttila, V., Wennerholm, U.-B., Loft, A., Pinborg, A., Aittomäki, K., Romundstad, L. B., & Bergh, C. (2016). Surrogacy: Outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families—a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update, 22, 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv046.CrossRef

Ulrich, C. M., & Ratcliffe, S. J. (2008). Hypothetical vignettes in empirical bioethics research. In L. Jacoby, & L. A. Siminoff (Eds.), Empirical methods for bioethics: A primer (pp. 161–182). Elsevier

Vecho, O., Schneider, B., & Zaouche-Gaudron, C. (2018). Same-sex parenting and assisted reproductive technology: What do we know about the development of children of lesbian mothers? Neuropsychiatrie de l’Enfance et de l’Adolescence, 66, 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurenf.2018.06.001.CrossRef

Wennberg, A.-L., Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A., Milsom, I., & Brannstrom, M. (2015). Attitudes towards new assisted reproductive technologies in Sweden: A survey in women 30-39 years of age. AOGS, 95, 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12781.CrossRef

Whitehead, A. L., & Perry, S. L. (2016). Religion and support for adoption by same-sex couples: The relative effects of religious tradition, practices, and beliefs. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14536564.CrossRef

Yerkes, M. A., Dotti Sani, G. M., & Solera, C. (2018). Attitudes toward parenthood, partnership, and social rights for diverse families: Evidence from a pilot study in five countries. Journal of Homosexuality, 65, 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1310507.CrossRefPubMed

YouGov Report. (2006). Assisted reproduction survey on behalf of Progress Educational Trust. https://www.cdc.gov/art/Archived-PDF-Reports/2006ART.pdf.

Zachia, S., Knauth, D., Goldim, J. R., Chachamovich, J. R., Chachamovich, E., Paz, A. H., Felberbaum, R., Crosignani, P., Tarlatzis, B. C., & Passos, E. P. (2011). Assisted reproduction: What factors interfere in the professional’s decisions? Are single women an issue? BMC Women’s Health, 11(21). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-11-21.

Zanghellini, A.(2016). To what extent does the ICCPR support procreation and parenting by lesbians and gay men?. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 9, 125–150. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1683184/Zanghellini.pdf.

Titel: French People’s Positions Regarding Same-Sex Couples’ and Singles’ Rights to Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption
Auteurs: Maria Teresa Muñoz Sastre
Paul Clay Sorum
Etienne Mullet
Publicatiedatum: 29-01-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Child and Family Studies / Uitgave 5/2021
Print ISSN: 1062-1024
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2843
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01898-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2021

What Does it Mean to be a Targeted Parent? Parents’ Experiences in the Context of Parental Alienation

Gender as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Parental Anxiety and Adolescent Anxiety and Depression

The Differential Effects of Parental Style on Parental Legitimacy and Domain Specific Adolescent Rule-Violating Behaviors

How do Saudi Children and Their Mothers Evaluate Religion-Based Exclusion?

The Family Stress Model in the Context of Pediatric Cancer: A Systematic Review

Autonomy-Supportive Parenting in Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Youth During Early Adolescence