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.
Highlights
-
A majority of participants agreed that everyone has the right to be a parent and that all means of enjoying this right must be approved.
-
Disagreement was more often expressed by married participants, those with children, and churchgoers than by single, childless, or atheist participants.
-
Only a small minority consistently opposed access to assisted reproductive technologies and adoption for same-sex couples and singles.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data are available from the corresponding author.
References
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.
Belaisch Allart, J. (2012). Access to assisted reproductive technology, surrogacy, same-sex couples parenting. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité, 40, 3–7.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.T.M.S. and E.M. designed the study and research material. M.T.M.S. supervised the data collection. E.M. conducted the statistical analyses. M.T.M.S., P.C.S., and E.M. contributed to interpretation of the data. E.M. and P.C.S. wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors contributed to subsequent drafts and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Toulouse (CERNI). All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the current laws in the country, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sastre, M.T.M., Sorum, P.C. & Mullet, E. French People’s Positions Regarding Same-Sex Couples’ and Singles’ Rights to Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption. J Child Fam Stud 30, 1381–1391 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01898-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01898-3