Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My partner and I had twins via surrogate/egg donor. The surrogate and egg donor were different women, btw. At the time we looked into adoption, it wasn't an option in Colorado for two men to both be legal parents. Half way through the surrogacy process, that law changed, so we could now adopt and both be parents, but that law changed too late for us.
We did this though an agency in California and the babies were born in CA. There was no adoption process and both our names went on the birth certificates as legal parents. It was expensive though... around $100K. But everything went smoothly and they were born very healthy. Now I'm chasing toddlers around the house all day! They're beautiful.
I'm not as open minded. I don't understand why people go to such extraordinary lengths to have biological children when there are so many children who need adopted.
There aren't lots of children who need adopting unless you're talking about children with issues. It can be hard enough dealing with a child's issues if you have them from birth and have had time to grow with the child.
Had either of my children been born with problems, we would have figured out how to deal with them but I am not qualified to take on an older child who has problems I haven't had time to learn how to deal with.
Surrogacy isn't cheap. Look at the pricing posted by rgomez912.
I personally know three families that adopted children through foster parenting. It didn't cost them much money at all. As a matter of fact, it's cheaper than having a biological child. Children adopted from the state come with monthly expense payments, free medical, and paid college in my state.
Why does the state provide all that after adoption? Because the state encourages the adoption of foster children. If someone doesn't live in a state that is forster-adoption friendly, it's probably cheaper and faster to move to a state that does allow adoption through fostering than going the private adoption route.
But I agree that the system is messed up. Adoption should be affordable and efficient. There are too many children needing homes. Everything should be done to make it easier for those children to have homes.
You are just simply wrong and you desperately need more education. The state does NOT encourage adoption of foster children, rather, the state's overwhelming focus is on FAMILY REUNIFICATION. As for what you "personally know," I "personally know" a half a dozen couples who cared for small children through the foster system, became hopelessly attached to them, expected to adopt them, only to have them ripped from their hearts and homes after a couple of years and returned to the drug addicted louse of a "parent" because said "parent" had been clean for a year.
Please stop perpetuating the MYTH of adoption, that there are so many children out there who need homes. If it were true, infertile couples would be adopting more and would not be turning to Asia and Russia and Guatamala and Ethiopia.
Furthermore, infertile couples should not be treated like beggars who can't be choosers. Unless YOU have "personally" adopted older children with attachment disorder, Down's children abandoned at birth, babies born drug addicted or with fetal alcohol syndrome or any other disorder, and unless you have personally entered into the new fad of "open adoption" where the birthparents are allowed to maintain frequent contact with "their baby" while you do all the hard work of parenting -- then SHUT UP! Infertile couples have every right to want an infant and to want an infant who is genetically related to them.
Gestational surrogacy is wonderful and it makes me feel better about the world that there are women who will help an infertile couple realize their dream of family.
I guess where I keep getting "stuck" in this discussion is that no one is asking why people who conceive "the old fashioned way" to justify their decision, so why should anyone else have to justify the very private decision for their family?
If indeed there are "so many children" out there and available, then really ANYONE who is not adopting these children is equally culpable, not just those who might choose surrogacy or in vitro or overseas adoption correct? Or are those who (for any variety of reasons) unable to conceive held to some "higher" moral ground than everyone else?
BINGO! Thank you for saying that.
I work in infertility as an RN and it just amazes me that in this day and age, people are still stuck back in the 50's mindset where there were lots of babies available for adoption. It amazes me the callousness displayed by "fertiles" who never have to prove themselves fit or justify their family building choices.
I understand what you're saying, but I didn't actively want children. They just happened.
Oh for God's sake, I can't believe you admitted that in a public forum.
Please, give your children up for adoption so that infertile couples who desperately want children and are emotionally prepared for them, and who have compassion for others born out of their own suffering, can adopt them and give them a home where they are WANTED.
There aren't lots of children who need adopting unless you're talking about children with issues. It can be hard enough dealing with a child's issues if you have them from birth and have had time to grow with the child.
Had either of my children been born with problems, we would have figured out how to deal with them but I am not qualified to take on an older child who has problems I haven't had time to learn how to deal with.
Yes, exactly. People are so very ignorant of what it means to adopt a child or adopt an older child, or adopt a child with issues (and most adopted children past infancy do have issues). I have said this before and will say it again -- the people who should be adopting most of the available children are EXPERIENCED parents, not infertile couples who have never raised even a normal child, much less a damaged one who needs special care.
You are just simply wrong and you desperately need more education. The state does NOT encourage adoption of foster children, rather, the state's overwhelming focus is on FAMILY REUNIFICATION. As for what you "personally know," I "personally know" a half a dozen couples who cared for small children through the foster system, became hopelessly attached to them, expected to adopt them, only to have them ripped from their hearts and homes after a couple of years and returned to the drug addicted louse of a "parent" because said "parent" had been clean for a year.
Please stop perpetuating the MYTH of adoption, that there are so many children out there who need homes. If it were true, infertile couples would be adopting more and would not be turning to Asia and Russia and Guatamala and Ethiopia.
Wow! That's quite a rant you made there!
I guess you completely missed the sentence that says if someone lives in a state that doesn't encourage adoption through foster parenting, they should seriously consider moving to one. Just becuase YOUR state doesn't do that doesn't mean that all states are like yours. At least I recognized that not all states are like mine.
My state does promote adoption through foster parenting. Parents who adopt foster children continue to recieve monthly financial support, full medical coverage and paid college education for the adopted foster children. Those are definitely policies created to encourage adoption through foster parenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chattypatty
Furthermore, infertile couples should not be treated like beggars who can't be choosers. Unless YOU have "personally" adopted older children with attachment disorder, Down's children abandoned at birth, babies born drug addicted or with fetal alcohol syndrome or any other disorder, and unless you have personally entered into the new fad of "open adoption" where the birthparents are allowed to maintain frequent contact with "their baby" while you do all the hard work of parenting -- then SHUT UP! Infertile couples have every right to want an infant and to want an infant who is genetically related to them.
Shut up? Jeeze. I have an equal right to stating my opinion as you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chattypatty
Gestational surrogacy is wonderful and it makes me feel better about the world that there are women who will help an infertile couple realize their dream of family.
I'm happy it makes you feel better about the world. Overall, I agree. I have an issue with it being used by those people who would refuse to adopt a perfect newborn if they could or those women who want a surrogate so they can keep their figures. There are people like that out there in the world. And I have a right to find them to be appalling.
I have an issue with it being used by those people who would refuse to adopt a perfect newborn if they could or those women who want a surrogate so they can keep their figures. There are people like that out there in the world. And I have a right to find them to be appalling.
No, there aren't people like that in the world -- and if there are, there are certainly not enough of them that you should be so "appalled" that it fuels your disdain for gestational surrogacy. I would bet that 99.9999999999% of couples who use a surrogate to build their families have some personal tragedies under their belt, like multiple miscarriages and stillbirths, like multiple failed IVF cycles, like learning they were born with a uterine anomaly, like getting uterine cancer at age 22, like having their uterus rupture and have to be removed during the STILLBIRTH of the only child they were able to carry, and so on and so forth -- I've seen it all. To ignore all that REALITY in defense of your phony outrage over an IMAGINARY scenario of a woman who pays 125K or so to hire a surro to carry her baby so she "won't lose her figure"??? Oh please! Please stop watching tv and reading National Enquirer. Volunteer for RESOLVE, the infertility outreach organization, and learn what infertile couples are really like.
Lastly, there aren't enough "perfect babies" for all the infertile couples out there who would love to adopt one. But even if there were (and remember, there aren't), it is a natural desire to want genetic offspring, period. There is nothing wrong with that and if modern medicine will allow it, then that's great. It is completely fine for a couple to PREFER their own genetic child. Unless you are advocating that everyone who wants a child just wait in line to take the offerings from the next teen birthmother, then you have no right to expect infertile couples to do that.
Edited to add: That 125K or so is NOT the amount that goes to the surro, but rather, the sum total of all the associated costs with surrogacy. Might be a bit less or a bit more. But that's a huge chunk of change and I imagine hiring a personal trainer after giving birth and even paying for some liposuction and a tummy tuck would be a LOT less expensive for a "figure obsessed" woman than paying a surro! On average, an agency surro gets about 20K to 30K for her services and she EARNS EVERY PENNY.
Oh for God's sake, I can't believe you admitted that in a public forum.
There is nothing wrong with what I shared. It's not uncommon for people to become pregnant without trying to get pregnant. Their pregnancies just happen. It's just a fact. Not sure why you think that it shouldn't be discussed openly on a public forum. It doesn't mean that my children weren't loved or weren't wanted. It just means that I became pregnant without trying to have children.
When I was a teenager, the doctor told me that I couldn't get pregnant due to a hormonal syndrome. Subsequently, I had two gyne surgeries---once as a teen and once in my early 20s that left me with one ovary and one tube---on different sides of my uterus. As a result, I just accepted that I couldn't get pregnant. There was no reason whatsoever for me to think I could get pregnant. Afterall, I was actively having sex for almost a decade before my first pregnancy at 28. I am not a lesser mother for not trying to have children.
I can just imagine that you would think my sister was a terrible person for having three children after getting her tubes tied repeatedly. She has four children. After her first, she had a tubal ligation. With each pregnancy, the doctor would put additional clamps on her tubes, but she just kept having children. Now THAT'S a women who didn't WANT children. But she's the most amazing mother. She has a beautiful family. She adores every single one of those chidlren. It's not uncommon for people, who do not want more children, to change their minds when they become pregnant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chattypatty
Please, give your children up for adoption so that infertile couples who desperately want children and are emotionally prepared for them, and who have compassion for others born out of their own suffering, can adopt them and give them a home where they are WANTED.
My sister and I didn't need to plan a pregnancy to be emotionally prepared for having children and loving them. It's entirely possible to want and love children without planning.
it is a natural desire to want genetic offspring, period. There is nothing wrong with that and if modern medicine will allow it, then that's great. It is completely fine for a couple to PREFER their own genetic child. Unless you are advocating that everyone who wants a child just wait in line to take the offerings from the next teen birthmother, then you have no right to expect infertile couples to do that.
Being a person who couldn't have children for 10 years, I simply can't wrap my mind around why a biological child is that important.
I always planned to adopt children when I was ready.
I KNOW that I would have never married a man who wanted biological children. Men with that type of mentality have always repulsed me.
I would have been crazy to marry a man like that. I have self respect. I wanted a husband who loved me for me, not for my ability to produce biological children.
Being someone who couldn't have children caused me to seriously think about the whole "needing a biological child" issue more deeply than the general population.
My opinions on this subject aren't superficially made. This isn't some issue that I randomly chose an opinion.
We are going to have to simply agree to disagree on this issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
