The study was based on a "representative" online sample of 1,610 adults, including 485 conceived from donor sperm, 562 who were adopted as infants, and 563 raised by both biological parents.

One of the co-authors, Karen Clark, contributed to my "Voices of Donor Conception" book, as the voice of an adult conceived with donor sperm who has been unable to make positive contact with the man who provided the sperm. As she continues to do at talks about donor conception, she is a very eloquent mother of two who tells the story of how she was told when she was 18, after the death of her father, that a sperm donor was used for her conception.

As she wrote in Voices, "I am the product of my parents’ union. I was conceived of their love and intentionally brought into this world because of their commitment and desire for a child. In our particular situation, any relationship with the donor would have created further complexities and tensions within both of our families."

She also went on to say -- what I agree is the essential nugget of donor conception that more parents need to consider -- that what bothers her the most is: "Even after I was told the true nature of my conception I was encouraged to consider him as nothing more than a source of some of my DNA...No one predicted how I would feel about the truth of my origins. And no one speculated about how important this missing piece would be to my children and me.

"Our forebears are a part of us in a very deep and profound way. It is my strong view that it is misleading and dehumanizing to refer to my disconnected genetic father-my children’s genetic grandfather-as nothing more than a mere donor. I am an adult, and I feel that to intentionally reduce a genetic parent to nothing more than a source of sperm or egg demeans our need for genetic identity, heritage and connections. Especially as an adult, with children of my own, I do not like to be told how I should feel, or what I should call, the person who is one-half of my genetic make-up."

The report that was released in May 2010 was also co-authored by Elizabeth Marquardt, a woman I met at a donor conception conference in Canada a few years ago. She had some decided scorn toward me when I introduced myself. "Oh, it's you," was her reply. In Anne Coulter-like fashion -- for emotional reasons I do not know -- she is a young woman who very much opposes the use of donor conception to build families. Editor's note: as you'll see in Elizabeth's comment below, she says I misinterpreted her reaction.

Wendy Kramer and Eric Blyth are two others I know well in the donor conception field. Wendy is co-founder with her son of the Donor Sibling Registry, and strongly believes -- as do I, which is why we collaborated on the Voices book a few years ago -- that donor offspring should know as much as possible about their origins. She used an anonymous donor to conceive, shortly before she divorced, and together she and son Ryan have been excellent spokespeople for the fact that kids grow up with curiosities and, among other things, open identity donors should be required -- as has been mandated by law in the United Kingdom and other countries. I know many Choice Moms who used donor sperm or adopted, and wished in hindsight that they had provided a more open environment to help kids satisfy their curiosity about their biological origins.

I have met Eric Blyth many times at donor conversations. He is a U.K.-based researcher who has done extensive research with donor-conceived families.

So it was with great pleasure that Choice Mom Lorraine brought to my attention the commentary that Wendy and Eric co-authored for BioNews, in response to the Commission on Parenthood's Future report, titled "My Daddy's Name is Donor: Read with caution!"

Among other things they point out that "The major concern with the report is the authors' extensive misrepresentation of their own data so as to best promote their message that donor conception is 'bad', even when their own evidence doesn't support it."

They give several examples, including this one: The summary bite in the report indicates that 'About half of donor offspring have concerns about or serious objections to donor conception itself, even when parents tell their children the truth.' The actual survey results, however, indicated that: 44 per cent agreed that 'Donor conception is fine for children so long as parents tell children the truth about their conception from an early age'; 36 per cent agreed that 'Donor conception can be hard for children, but telling children the truth early on makes it easier for the children;' and 11 per cent agreed that 'Donor conception is hard for children even if their parents tell them the truth' (p. 100).

So, while the report hasn't received widespread attention, many Choice Moms have noticed it and wondered about its authenticity.

Between my brief commentary here -- and the fuller discussion of the report by Wendy and Eric -- you should have your answer. And if you'd like to hear other experts on the subject, don't miss the collection of interviews I've done with many of them, which you can find listed here.

Mikki