How do the children born via in-vitro surrogates do? Is there still that "Primal Wound"? Jaquie
This is a difficult question to answer. I tried to find a scholarly study on the subject, but couldn't find any. So everything I say here is pure speculation.
Surrogacy is probably more complex than adoption. Where adoptees are not directly generically related to their adopters, children born out of surrogacy can be related to either the father or the mother, to both, or to neither. So, I guess idenity issues of people conceived through surrogacy are more diverse than is usual in adoption.
Being adopted within my own family, I know how confusing it is to be genetically more related to one adoptive parent than the other. In surrogacy arrangements that is both more likely and more pronounced. When adopted by a family member the genetic distance is always larger than when one of the parents is genetically the father or the mother.
Disclosure of indentifying information of egg and sperm donors is even more contentious than it is for adoption, making it even harder for people conceived through ivf-surrogacy to learn about their genetic heritage.
All of that has very little to do with a "Primal Wound", which relates to the prenatal bonding between mother and fetus. There is unfortunately hardly any serious research into this topic. There are various magazine articles, but very few scholarly papers. So in the end there are more questions then there are answers. I wonder if prenatal bonding is different when there is no genetic affliation. Does an infant respond to smells that are genetically imprinted, or does an infant respond to smells resulting from the exchange in utero?
Without proper research into prenatal bonding, we will never know the answers to "Primal Wound"-like questions. So far there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm in the scientific community for this subject. So in the end we are mostly left with lots of questions and speculation and very few concrete answers.
a couple of years ago, I started to read blogs written by those who had donor parents. I don't have specific links I can offer, but I do recall "identity" being a real issue. [Identity meaning, "I have these facts, but who is this other person who is inside of me?"]
Absent parent = missing identity.
I think Primal Wound has more to do with trust, or an absence thereof... ("broken bond")...so the question is, if a parent can be trusted to be consistent, caring, honest and loving without being over-sexual or intrusive, will there still be a "Primal Wound"?... (will there be residual trauma resulting from a missing (ideal) parent-figure?)
I find that like all psychological or psychoanalytic theories, primal wound" theory is just a theory.