An issue

Quote:

---

What would happen if the child is born with a disability? Will the infertile parents accept the child whole heartedly? Will the surrogate be blamed for the child's disability?

---

That was a very relevant question you raised there, Roshan. Surrogacy is all fine when things go well...but as you have beautifully pointed out, what happens when there is a disability - physical or mental? If a mother has borne the child herself, she might feel compelled to love the child, no matter how the child is born, but would she be willing to lavish the same care if the child were "not normal"? Or would the mother that gave birth be burdened with the child? I wonder what they do - write out contracts and stuff when they decide to go for surrogacy?

I think the women who are willing to "rent out their wombs" and their families must be made aware of these possibilities. Unfortunately in our country, a few thousand rupees can effetively make people blind to so many other aspects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roshan

With the addition of a surrogate to reproductive environment the nature of motherhood, fatherhood, and the allocation of parental right and duties have all come into question.

---

I agree with you Roshan, the assignment of parental roles has undergone a sea change, with the advent of surrogacy. But then, the same thing happened with divorce and remarriage, with the introduction of new stepparents and not to mention the wealth of stepsiblings and half-siblings. :|

Speaking of confusing parental identities, let’s stop and compare the scenario with adoption for a moment –at the opportune time, when the parents decide to tell their child (surrogated or adopted) of the birth history, would you think it’d be easier for them to explain to the child that he/she is their OWN offspring borne in the womb of another willing woman or to tell the child that he/she was indeed born to some strangers? For a couple who are not comfortable with the idea of raising someone else’s child as their own, isn’t this an excellent opportunity of having a child who is genetically theirs?? How could we expect that EVERY infertile couple (regardless of whether the cause is the man/woman/both) SHOULD follow the adoption route? Isn’t it conceivable that a good proportion of the population of such couples would like to have their OWN child, willingly taking the huge RISK of having an extra member in the parenthood i.e., the surrogate??

Also, it is rather PRESUMPTUOUS to assume and REQUIRE that childless couple MUST adopt a child. It is not necessarily ‘evil’ to want to have one’s own biological child in place of an unknown stranger’s child. If so, even the fertile couples should stop having babies or trying to have babies and adopt the existing ones!!! After all, wouldn’t it signify to the adopted child that he/she was adopted because of LOVE and NOT just as a “LAST RESORT”? There is no perspective that is not without merit; regardless, I believe it is the prerogative of the couple involved to surrogate or adopt.

As Roshan mentioned, indeed there is a possibility that the baby might be born with congenital defects – due to variety of reasons. The biological parents might carry some dormant genes that get expressed in the next generation, they might have some medical conditions that results in a handicapped or otherwise unhealthy child, etc. The surrogate could be predisposed to some medical conditions, or on medication that may be contraindicated in pregnancy, malnourished during gestation, not provided with adequate care and suitable supplements such as folic acid (the lack of which causes certain birth defects) or a smoker/drinker (hopefully not DURING the pregnancy) and many, many other possible scenarios.

BUT, any couple who is willing to have a child by ANY means SHOULD be prepared for such outcomes. If not, they should not commit to such a process in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roshan

Giving away a child which is half hers is definitely a trauma.

---

Roshan, why would the child be ‘half hers’ – I thought we were discussing the specific type of surrogacy in which the ovum and the sperm come from the childless couple, NOT the kind where the surrogate undergoes AI, and her own ovum is used.
If you implied that the child is ‘half hers’ JUST because the embryo got implanted in her, what part of the child is actually her ‘contribution’? If science advances to the extent that the IVF embryos could be gestated in the lab using sophisticated ‘uterine models’ or simply incubators, would that be more acceptable than to have it live inside of a stranger, who may or may not stake a claim in the kid after it is born???

I am sure everyone understands that surrogacy is not some casual procedure. It is IMPERATIVE that both the surrogate and the expectant couple go though legal procedures and understand many of the unpredictable situations involved. In fact, even if someone in the family wishes to help out, it would be safe to say that, for the benefit of everyone involved, some legal procedure would have to be carried out. Also, the surrogate should be medically a good match (blood type, Rh factor, pre-existing medical conditions) for bearing the fetus to term and delivery.

I am not suggesting that the surrogate’s emotional attachment could be simply brushed aside. It cannot be stressed enough that the legitimate parentage should by established prior to even starting the procedure and the surrogate MUST understand that she is merely the ‘medium’ not the ‘source’. As Roshan has pointed out, it would be challenging for the family of the surrogate to accept the fact that the new baby will not belong in their family but that’s the whole construct of the system. If one cannot abide by that, it will surely end up in a disastrous situation.

Why does the involvement of money make something a commercial business transaction even if it is done with the UTMOST GOODWILL at heart? If it were so, we would have to outlaw the medical profession, the trade of curing people parading in the guise of service! If the surrogate herself is willing to be the womb for a woman who can’t bear a child in hers, there is no room for any other judgmental thought here.

In our society (SE Asia) it is a sad fact that a poor woman could be intimidated into or may force herself into being a surrogate for a measly sum, if it will alleviate her condition even briefly. That is totally a condemnable criminal act that has to be dealt with along the same lines as ‘organ trading’. THE WOMAN HERE IS MERELY THE VICTIM.

PP mentioned that wet nurses in old English novels were portrayed as hired help for women who can very well feed their babies themselves but wouldn’t do so because of their vanity. When talking about surrogating for money that analogy does not apply because the biological mother does NOT seek a surrogate for vanity reasons but only because she doesn’t have a choice. So I can’t blame the childless woman as a monster either; rather she is the victim succumbing to the pressures that characterize her as less than a woman for being infertile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roshan

Whether or not surrogacy is commercialized, when set within the context of women’s inequality, it inevitably supports and reinforces the view that bearing and raising children is what being a woman is all about.

---

I have to agree with this Roshan, it is an inevitability we face as a species that propagate through sexual reproduction. :( I feel all women regardless of education and circumstance would judge themselves by this yardstick of motherhood that they innately think they OUGHT to embrace, at one point or another in their lifetimes. I don’t think that this is exclusively a societal double standard (as I used to before), probably it is so due to reinforcement by our own thoughts and actions, but predominantly it is a derivative of the inner dialogue with the essence of one’s self that flames this pervasive notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cygnus

But then, the same thing happened with divorce and remarriage, with the introduction of new stepparents and not to mention the wealth of stepsiblings and half-siblings. :|

---

That's totally a different issue and has to be dealt separately. There's a famous quote which says - Two "wrongs" will never make a "right". :)

[quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roshan

Roshan, why would the child be ‘half hers’ I thought we were discussing the specific type of surrogacy in which the ovum and the sperm come from the childless couple,

---

I thought we were talking about surrogacy in general and that's how the discussion has to be. There are two types involved in surrogacy . The first is what you have mentioned above and the second is artificially inseminating husband's sperm into the surrogate. ( blah blah has already mentioned it clearly in his first message here) . That's why I raised the question asking whether an infertile husband would agree to inseminate sperms of an outsider into his wife's womb - in case she wants to bear a child.

As far as I know the method mostly adapted (specially in our part of world) is the second. In the first case the process if very fragile and only 10-20% formed result in actual pregnancy.

Quote:

---

Why does the involvement of money make something a commercial business transaction even if it is done with the UTMOST GOODWILL at heart?

---

I think I have clearly explained the commercialized surrogacy as opposed to altruism. In many cases brokers and middlemen are involved in the process and do you think they are doing it with utmost GOOD WILL?? Good will, altruism, compassion are all just 'saaljaapu' in many cases.

Quote:

---

In our society (SE Asia) it is a sad fact that a poor woman could be intimidated into or may force herself into being a surrogate for a measly sum, if it will alleviate her condition even briefly. That is totally a condemnable criminal act that has to be dealt with along the same lines as ‘organ trading’. [color=blue]THE WOMAN HERE IS MERELY THE VICTIM.

---

Yes exactly !! but are there any laws and regulations available to protect these poor women ? :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cygnus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roshan

Whether or not surrogacy is commercialized, when set within the context of women’s inequality, it inevitably supports and reinforces the view that bearing and raising children is what being a woman is all about.

---

I have to agree with this Roshan, it is an inevitability we face as a species that propagate through sexual reproduction. :(

---

Glad you agreed and for that matter no woman would disagree with the fact. :)

I am afraid Cygnus has rather misunderstood me. Even though I had the issue of wet nurses at the bottom of my mind I deliberately refrained from raising it for fear of crowding too many issues in the discussion. But when Cygnus raised it in the first place I came out with my associated thoughts about it. Jaiganes had mentioned the altruistic instinct in animal herds. Somewhat similar to that was my knowledge of aunts feeding another’s baby in a joint family at an emergency. But wealthy, fashionable English ladies employed wet nurses on a regular basis for, as Cygnus rightly put it, vanity. What Cygnus misunderstood is that I am critical of fertile women without any problem employing surrogate mothers to carry her baby. Nobody in their right senses will opt for surrogation if the wife is ok for childbearing- only women with weak uterus & a host of other reasons think about it. Women have not, God forbid, reached that height of vanity yet! Then why drag wet nurse issue into discussion, one might ask. Because childbearing involves so many intricate aspects which wise law cannot completely satisfy. I am not making monsters of anyone. Just analysing the pros and cons of an issue from various POV for which this forum has been very helpful as usual.

While some mentioned the trauma of the surrogate mother at parting with the baby & the necessity for subsequent counseling, I wished to point out the immediate physical problems also which are real serious ones not to be ignored. In it, I pointed out the baby also stands the risk of not growing into a healthy adult with sufficient stamina. In short, there are physical, mental, psychological complexities involved which should make couples opting for surrogation think well before deciding. If a woman consents to surrogate for monetary reason & not for altruism then it is purely commercialization of something-motherhood- which we have held precious, nay priceless, for centuries. That just rings in consonance with the trend of the era! And I, an old nagging granny, going about my habitual haranguing!

Somewhere in the discussion somebody wanted to know how husbands react to their wives being artificially inseminated with an outside donor’s semen.( Many infertility clinics resort to this). I have had this doubt for many years, knowing the conservative society we live in. I openly asked this to my doctor sister & one of my doctor nieces who have cognizance of this matter. They said women who come for fertility treatment come into 2 categories- 1. taking this treatment of artificial insemination without the knowledge of their husband or in-laws( does that come under marital dishonesty of a high degree?)- all they want is to be ridden of the stigma of infertility!2.women whose husbands( broad-minded or also desperate to face the situation of being issueless) mutely, confidentially consent to this treatment. This anxiety to have a baby at all costs, utilizing all the inventions available makes the childless couples in our families who remained so to the end stand out in stark contrast. A sea change in the mindsets & thinking patterns of society! A natural evolution!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pavalamani pragasam

1. taking this treatment of artificial insemination without the knowledge of their husband or in-laws( does that come under marital dishonesty of a high degree?)- all they want is to be ridden of the stigma of infertility!2.women whose husbands( broad-minded or also desperate to face the situation of being issueless) mutely, confidentially consent to this treatment. This anxiety to have a baby at all costs, utilizing all the inventions available makes the childless couples in our families who remained so to the end stand out in stark contrast. A sea change in the mindsets & thinking patterns of society! A natural evolution!

---

..

For the first case my opinion is that it amounts to marital dishonesty of a high degree.The woman involved is handing over to her husband,a child which is not his while he believes the opposite.Not many husbands will forgive their wives if they come to know about this at a later stage.I will not,for sure.

Marriage is a solemn establishment with mutual trust as the base.Such breach of trust can not be and should not be forgiven.I get married with out knowing whether my wife is fertile or not.I will take it if she is not and expects the same deal back.If she prefers to carry and give birth to a child which is not mine,with out my knowledge our marriage will not go further,not even a singlepoint further.

PP,

Good post once again and thanks for adding more weight to my - the somebody's views :D

It is at times such as these that you wonder, were our forefathers and foremothers ( just making sure the feminists are appeased, ok!!) had little to worry about! At least, they were not faced with such moral dilemmas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blahblah

For the first case my opinion is that it amounts to marital dishonesty of a high degree.The woman involved is handing over to her husband,a child which is not his while he believes the opposite.Not many husbands will forgive their wives if they come to know about this at a later stage.I will not,for sure.

---

Whether it is done with or without the knowledge of the husband, as long as I'm concerned it is ethically and morally wrong. I hold the same opinion on surrogacy too !!

Looks like this discussion has now heated up to the right consistency, thanks to EVRYONE for their contribution!

Let me firstly relate a story that will help clear up why I am VEHEMENTLY supporting the right of the infertile couple to resort to surrogacy. I have personally known a young woman, about 25 at the time, originally from Ukraine, who was in the final stages of her doctoral program, married to a wonderful man, living in their own house in an affluent part of the city (Philadelphia). All she had left unfulfilled was her wish to have a baby. Now this couple tried to conceive for over a year and finally figured out that the girl was fine but the husband had a low sperm count (one of the reasons the MD said was could be due to the Chernobyl exposure :( ). They were shattered but then they had the monetary resources to go for IVF (each try costs about $10,000). She went though HELL, getting hormone shots to induce ovulation, had several miscarriages, physically and emotionally worn out, had to take a break from school. She was interning at a place where one of her subordinates was a woman from a lower social class, who had a son out of wedlock, and was currently pregnant with her second child through a new boyfriend!! :roll:

At work, ALL this girl could do was, constantly curse at the fact that she, who is very capable of raising children, had to go through immense heartache, when this lady who in her opinion did not deserve a child (for her wanton behavior and her economic status) was getting pregnant like it’s nobody’s business!! While this drama was unfolding, I was not only sympathetic to the girl but also EXTREMELY judgmental of the fact that she was throwing away nearly $50,000 in trying to get pregnant, when that money could help establish the life of an orphaned baby (heck, many orphaned babies) and that she was too narrow-minded and coldhearted to the plight of the children who are already here and need a home. After I moved, I haven’t heard the current status of what happened finally but then, now when I think back, I feel it wasn’t the right thing to do for me to judge her as a selfish person. She loved her husband and wanted to have a baby with his genes. She would go any length to make that happen. But to me it looked like she was oblivious to the sufferings of others.

Is it SO bad that someone wants a child of their own genetic make-up? All I see in this discussion is, we sit on a high horse and tell people to adopt children, but NOBODY answered my question of if one would adopt a child even without fertility issues????? After all, compassion is supposed to spring out of willingness, NOT when cornered into a situation of no choice, right? Querida, so aptly, raised the issue of adopting handicapped children and children who are older (over the ‘cutesy age’ she said). How many of us have the courage to do it? What about foster parenting? I don’t know if such a thing exists in our society, but in North America, people often enlist themselves with the social service agencies and provide temporary homes for children who are abandoned or orphaned due to a variety of reasons. This however is not without it’s own problems because we do hear incidents of abuse by the foster parents. Again, the other side of it, some foster parents actually legally adopt these children after a while of having them in the families and getting to know them well.

Roshan, I have presented my view of things as I see happening in the US. If in our part of the world, women bear their own children (by having her OWN ovum fertilized by donor sperm) for others (out of force or simply moneymaking deals) I CANNOT EVER ACCEPT THAT. Like Badri mentioned, why not do it the natural way and save some trouble of visiting clinics?? It is an ABSOLUTE insult to the mother bearing the child and motherhood in general.

Even a small visit to the physician here in the US, entails filling up of lengthy forms and listing prior medical history, not to mention signing several declarations of proof of health insurance, privacy and what not. In the case of a huge procedure like surrogacy, one would have to involve a whole team of lawyers to oversee the legal rights of everyone involved! So my understanding of the process is only based on the situation here NOT from India or anywhere else. I can’t believe middlemen and contractors are involved, which makes it sound utterly nauseating :(

About the point Roshan raised – sperm donation from an outsider so as to help infertile couple. Well, while I PERFECTLY understand the sentiments of men here who said they be dead against such an option…..let’s think about this issue in a different light, shall we? The child is biologically your wife’s, no matter if the sperm came from some other man. Shouldn’t it be EASIER to love this child than to love an adopted child, who is ENTIRELY some other set of parents’? By the same token, if a surrogate WILLINGLY (absolutely no coercion involved, to avoid interference from other factors) bears ‘half her’ child for an infertile woman, isn’t it easier for the woman to accept it than a total stranger’s child? (Of course, in our society, this would happen sooner because the husband’s sperm is considered a more important contribution than the wife’s ovum). Here I want to add one more detail, from the earlier story of the young woman going thru IVF – well, while at the fertility clinic, she met another couple originally from Ukraine, only in their case, the woman had a problem and this girl donated her ova to that couple so they can have a child. I cannot even begin imagine the kind of emotions charging through her, if the other lady bore a child with her help and she never gets that chance!!!! I sincerely hope that didn’t happen. All this talk about her, now I’m really gonna find out what happened finally. :)

I guess like I said before, if we dissect each perspective right down to its bare fundament, every one of them has a certain inalienable extent of validity.


But as PP pointed out, if the fertile woman, resorts to AI thru outsider sperm without the husband's knowledge - it is an utter breach of conjugal trust. There's simply no excuse for it. On the other hand, if the husband was fine and had a kid from an extramarital affair, should this woman accept that kid (let's say the mistress wants to abandon the kid) :?: I would say knowing our MCP society, that will be a resounding "yes!"
Why am I reminded of K Balachander's 'Sindhu-Bhairavi' and 'Kalki' here? :wink:

PP, also thanks for clearing up the ‘wet nurse’ issue. Of course, we can only HOPE that women won’t hire people to carry their babies, as they do to clean their houses, but there is NO telling what the future holds!! Now, if men could bear babies for their women, that’ll be an interesting turn of events…. (Predicting Shekhar running in here with a ‘blonking’ object borrowed from NM, of course!!!) :lol2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cygnus

but NOBODY answered my question of if one would adopt a child even without fertility issues????? [/color]

---

Why not? I am sure, many family these days adopt their second child,
or their first one(by refraining from having their own) for sheer want of rasing an orphaned child, and for doing some act useful to the society.

I don tknow how many of u are resident indians, if u are, YOU WOULD AGREE with me in this point, that thouth there is increase in cost of living, the affordability of citizen has also simultamously risen. thanks to the multinationals, and other foreign compaines firmly resting th eir foot in india, THE PAY SCALE has gone up.

Therefore, the idea of adopting and giving life to a child, NEED NOT BE BECAUSE OF FERTILITY ISSUES. I can point many examples.
And we dont have any answers for those who adopt their second child do we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cygnus

After all, compassion is supposed to spring out of willingness, NOT when cornered into a situation of no choice, right?

---

What I spoke before answers it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cygnus

Querida, so aptly, raised the issue of adopting handicapped children and children who are older

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cygnus

(over the ‘cutesy age’ she said). How many of us have the courage to do it?

---

This I agree, needs more empathy, courage and a lorge heart. NO.
Not many do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cygnus

if the fertile woman, resorts to AI thru outsider sperm without the husband's knowledge - it is an utter breach of conjugal trust. There's simply no excuse for it. On the other hand, if the husband was fine and had a kid from an extramarital affair, should this woman accept that kid (let's say the mistress wants to abandon the kid) :?: I would say knowing our MCP society, that will be a resounding "yes!" Why am I reminded of K Balachander's 'Sindhu-Bhairavi' and 'Kalki' here?

---

Well, there is no difference, whether it is a man or a woman.
Unfortunately, when infertility results in a woman, choices are more.
IF a man is having problems, COUPLE HAS TO LIVE WITH IT.
Now why cant they have surrgate fathers? (or faceless donar of sperm)
Not very easy to accept, like how its pointed out. (extramarital affair is BANNED to be thought from woman's point of view)

Being MC society, one has to go a long way in INDIA, to accept and redefine what is BREACH OF mutual COMMITMENT.

I would suggest ADOPTING a child, for couples who have no issues about showering love to the basic human kind. If u are prejudiced surrogate mom, dad, or any other method is suited.

One can also cosider living issueless. Its not a big deal after all..!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cygnus

She loved her husband and wanted to have a baby with his genes. She would go any length to make that happen.

---

Tell me Cygnus, for a woman does loving a person invariably mean having a baby from him? Aren't desire for a child and loving a person two different things? If a woman doesn't want to have a child from her lover/husband does it mean that her love is incomplete?? Honestly I donot know.
Your intellectual analysis of the issue is highly impressive. But how simple or how complex (complicated!!) life could be depends on how you approach life.
If you don't have a child, adopt ... simple. If you love the child it is yours.
Everyday we hear crimes committed by genetically related people against each other. We see cases of old parents left unattended by their genetic children. We see child abuse by the parents..yes even in US. So to eulogise desire for a child of ones own genes is hogwash.

Thanx, Cygnus for your explanation. That only recalls the very first response in this thread by Sudhama. As for healthy couples opting to adopt, don’t you see many exemplary hubbers around us? AND while recalling SB’s films why did you leave out the film where the deceased actress Jayalakshmi got her “adaimozi” “fadafat” to equalize aborting an illegal baby to an act like snapping the finger and the “wonderful” lady doctor who wanted a baby without the botheration of a husband and wedlock in “PaarthaalE paravasam”? There are a host of his films where he has wantonly, flagrantly, perniciously sullied, degraded everything that is grand, wonderful, unique, noble, enchanting, self-respectful in WOMANHOOD. Well, it would not be forgotten how mentioning SB is blowing off the lid for me, it is as hot as Etna, just a spark can blow it off!!!

Cygnus,

Wonderful analysis. I am really happy to see atleast one of the hubbers who support surrogacy like me! I somehow strongly endorse the view that there is no joy in the world as compared to having a bundle of joy which is entirely 'yours' in flesh and blood. After a tiresome gestation and painful delivery, the mother forgets them all by the first sight and first touch of the baby she had delivered. Is it not the same contentment one will cary to receive their 'own' child albeit it was carried all along by someone else? Even when the child grows, this situation is easy to explain to him/her and with today's scientific advancement, it can go well with the child that he/she was only carried by someone just because the mother was physically disabled to do so.

Purists may claim what is motherhood without undergoing the pain of labour but gestation and labour alone is not motherhood if the 'bearer' is well aware of the fact that the child is not hers but someone else's. The same detachment sets in in case of mothers carrying babies unwanted by them. The surrogate is educated about her role and the needy mother experiences a virtual bonding with the child that grows in someone's womb. The only thing that will hurt in the whole surrogacy is, it should not become a fully commercialised affair like buying apparels every year , with the woman renting her womb every 10 months.

On the question of the surrogate mother giving birth to a child with defects, no doubt, the child belongs only to the genetic parents and there is no question of dumping the child on the head of the surrogate. Law must come into helping the surrogate in this regard and the couple opting should be totally aware of the risks associated with it even before they agree to such option.

Now, for the outside sperm / ovum issue. If the woman can accept a child that is genetically her husband's plus someone else's, no doubt the other way around is also fully justified. The question of doing 'it' the natural way then, to avoid lab cost is totally absurd and obscene. Artificial insemination becomes adultery in that case with no morality attached to it. Why medical assistance at all, when you can achieve what you want by simply 'swapping' for a night?

Whether the sperm is from outside or the ovum, if it happens with the full knowledge and consent of both the wife and husband without any physical involvement, there is no crime being done to shout from the top of the roof. When PP madam raised the question of artificial fertilization with the mother's egg and a donor's sperm, quite expectedly, the male gender got wild at such an idea. It only reflects the maturity of the society we live in and sadly, even in this 21st century, it is male dominated.

Cygnus,

I think I have cleary mentioned my stand on this issue. My point of view was mainly on ethical and moral grounds . There may be exceptions but as long as I know in majority of the cases money and monetary needs play the major role in surrogacy and it is a well known fact that brokers and middlemen are involved in the process. I personally consider it a total disgrace to my own gender.

Anyways let me say a few words to the questions raised by you before winding up.

Quote:

---

All I see in this discussion is, we sit on a high horse and tell people to adopt children
but NOBODY answered my question of if one would adopt a child even without fertility issues?????

---

I dont understand your point here. Do you think that only those who have resort to adoption or intend adopting can express their opinion here against surrogacy? Besides, here the discussion on surrogacy is based on fertility issue and in my humble opinion it is only appropriate to discuss adoption within the same context.

Anyways, in response to your question posed (in case you have missed my intial post here), I would like to mention about our friend Shekhar - who is one of those who is against the idea of surrugacy and has got a biological son and an adopted daughter -but he is humble enough not to mention it . As for others not providing an answer , it may be due to their humbleness or some other constraints. Or else as I said before , even they may have thought - that the question raised - is something out of context - as far as the issue discussed here is concerned. What would your opinion be - if I - with genuine intentions say - "yes I would adopt a child even without fertile issues" ? I'm sure everybody would think "nallA katha vudurA" :x I'm not complaining about it coz, that's the human nature and thats why many of us hardly express the good things that we do or intend doing.

Quote:

---

After all, compassion is supposed to spring out of willingness, NOT when cornered into a situation of no choice, right?

---

Exactly !! and there are hundreds and thousands of people like Shekhar, my neighbour, a family friend of mine and many more around us who have got that willingness.

Quote:

---

I don’t know if such a thing exists in our society, but in North America, people often enlist themselves with the social service agencies and provide temporary homes for children who are abandoned or orphaned due to a variety of reasons.

---

Yes it does exist in all parts of the world but in different ways with their available facilities and resources. The authorities of the ladies hostel where I was boarded a couple of years back run a home for orphan girls as well. There, each child is sponsored by various affordable people. Schooling, clothing, medical and all their other needs would be taken care of by these sponsors. Each child is maintained a separate bank account and the sponsors from various parts of the world ( they are all sri lankans, mostly migrated) transfer funds to the relevant account on a monthly or annual basis. In some cases after a certain period the child is taken for adoption by the respective sponsors.

Quote:

---

Why am I reminded of K Balachander's 'Sindhu-Bhairavi' and 'Kalki' here? :wink:

---

May be to start another 'sindu mudithal' I think :wink: :lol: naan varalpA intha viLaiyaattukku :shock: PP madamOda kObam innum theerala. Still giving me a 'cold shoulder' by calling me 'somebody'. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakthiprabha

One can also cosider living issueless. Its not a big deal after all..!

---

Wow !! the point, all of us missed to mention !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shekhar

for a woman does loving a person invariably mean having a baby from him? Aren't desire for a child and loving a person two different things? If a woman doesn't want to have a child from her lover/husband does it mean that her love is incomplete??

Everyday we hear crimes committed by genetically related people against each other. We see cases of old parents left unattended by their genetic children. We see child abuse by the parents..yes even in US. So to eulogise desire for a child of ones own genes is hogwash.

---

I agree fully!!

Shekhar, see.. you cannot get rid of the hub ! :wink: :lol: glad this topic brought you back despite your deadline projects :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scorpio

When PP madam raised the question of artificial fertilization with the mother's egg and a donor's sperm, quite expectedly, the male gender got wild at such an idea. It only reflects the maturity of the society we live in and sadly, even in this 21st century, it is male dominated.

---

Hey scorpio!! the question was raised by me though I dont mind the credit being given to PP madam :D Anyways my views are same as yours on this. But that doesn't mean that I'm in favour of sperm insemintaion of an outsider. I strictly am against it as much as I'm against the idea of surrogate mother of any kind.
:)

Aiyo Roshan, vayasu aayiduchu, maradhi, mannichukonga!

hey paravailla.. I was just kidding :)

I agree with shekhar completely. Love is never incomplete because we dont get to see any flesh and blood of our loved ones.

Its all in our mind set which is tuned to thinking, 'LIFE OF A COUPLE, esp woman, is utter waste if its childless'.If we are able to think beyond this, THERE IS NO ISSUE AT ALL for any ISSUES or non-issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cygnus

let’s think about this issue in a different light, shall we? The child is biologically your wife’s, no matter if the sperm came from some other man. [b]Shouldn’t it be EASIER to love this child than to love an adopted child, who is ENTIRELY some other set of parents’?

---

I wish to disagree,Cygnus.I feel it would be easier to love an adopted child than living with the feeling that you allowed your wife's womb to carry another man's child.When I consider myself in that position,I feel I will never allow that and will feel a sort of aversion to my wife if it happens.It is hard to live with the feeling that she is carrying a 'forign element'.

I am quite a sentimental person and a bit selfish at that specially when it comes to my wife.May be there are men with a different perspective too. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blahblah

[I am quite a sentimental person and a bit selfish at that specially when it comes to my wife.May be there are men with a different perspective too. :)

---

Blahblah,

I am sure if I ask my husband this question, he'll answer the same way as you did!

As Ratchasi said somewhere, MEN!

Detestation for detractors womanhood’s virtues & admiration for appreciators of woman’s great role in mankind’s existence are two sides of a coin, I suppose. Man is special in Nature, woman is extra-special because the procreation of the race rests upon her. Everything surrounding motherhood, conception, delivery, lactation are awe-inspiring wonders. Latest attention has been focused on the umbilical blood very rich in stem cells which unfold a vista of future medical solutions & remedies.

blahblah & Scorpio have spoken utterly truthful words. I add, from a woman's pov, a husband is more lovable for being "possessive" -marriage makes sense only with this possessiveness, considering each other's body & soul precious & untradable. This is the common psychological fact. But of course there are exceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pavalamani pragasam

blahblah & Scorpio have spoken utterly truthful words. I add, from a woman's pov, a husband is more lovable for being "possessive" -marriage makes sense only with this possessiveness, considering each other's body & soul precious & untradable. This is the common psychological fact. But of course there are exceptions.

---

Oh!I was just thinking about the same thing and was about to respond to Scorpio about this.I know my woman loves me more because I am possessive about her.I have seen it in her eyes.Possessiveness of a partner declares love.Your words make sense to those who hold marriage sacred-"considering each others body and soul precious and untradable"!That is the very spirit of marriage and I feel that is enough reason for me to oppose surrogacy and artificial insemination.Should a marriage survive on conditions?What if you don't have children?For those who have experienced it,marriage is fruitful and is a fullfilment in itself.It makes a man a man and woman a woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blahblah

[Your words make sense to those who hold marriage sacred-"considering each others body and soul precious and untradable"! That is the very spirit of marriage and I feel that is enough reason for me to oppose surrogacy and artificial insemination

---

It's my opinion as well !! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shekhar

If a woman doesn't want to have a child from her lover/husband does it mean that her love is incomplete?? Honestly I donot know.

---

It depends on the woman. There is a spectrum of people with different moralities and desire, Shekhar. Some may not think like you do. They are not wrong either. :)

Quote:

---

Your intellectual analysis of the issue is highly impressive. But how simple or how complex (complicated!!) life could be depends on how you approach life.

---

It is ndeed a quite complicated issue when a couple dont have children of their own. There is all kinds of stress and, it all depends on the individual couple handling this problem.

And there is no "one single remedy" as "adoption" for every couple, I think.

Quote:

---

If you don't have a child, adopt ... simple. If you love the child it is yours.

---

You sound like Praveen Kumar now.

Is that not up to that couple to decide what they should do?

Especially when there are so many means are available to sort out the problem unlike old days, where the guy will go marry another woman and ruin the life of first wife.

Quote:

---

Everyday we hear crimes committed by genetically related people against each other. We see cases of old parents left unattended by their genetic children. We see child abuse by the parents..yes even in US. So to eulogise desire for a child of ones own genes is hogwash.

---

So? What do you mean? My children will look, act and do things like we do because they are mine and, that is mainly because they carry our genes. I really cant understand some other kids and their morality which might come through the genes of their biological parents.

Would I not be happier to see mine and my partner's in my kids' attitude rather than someone else's attitude which I can never understand?

Mellon, what you say is correct. Among millions of people around the world there is bound to be lots of difference in temperament, beliefs & preferences. And also it is true only the affected will know the pain of their problem. “Veyyilin arumai nizalil theriyum”. But what has been expressed so far is the general, common pattern of reacting to a very sensitive, private issue. There is no moralizing whatsoever. It is a matter of choices which as you said childless couples of the past didn’t have. But let me repeat what I already pointed out- in olden times childless couples chose to remain so not willing to seek the simple solution of adoption, bearing with grit the “stigma” of issuelessness & the sadness of solitude. Because it is there in the psychology- an unwillingness to resort to widening the horizons of self & self’s own. The times have changed, lifestyles have changed, perspectives have changed. It is a global atmosphere without inhibitions & restrictions of any nature. In such a liberal era people are bound to make different choices. And of course the hard-grained will continue also. Some convictions & attitudes don’t change. Need they? There is no alarming social harm done. Surrogation is not a crime, quite a legally accepted procedure. But still it is not wrong for observers to analyse the pros & cons of such a decision, the effects of it-mental, physical & conjugal- on the parties involved. :o
This thread has been creating an awareness about a practice gaining importance in our part of the world. Just that. Shall we move on to "sing" about Sania Mizra now, as the world expects us to? :lol: A gem, she is. Wish I were more athletically inclined like my hubby is! :cry:

A correction:”nizalin arumai veyilil theriyum”.
A jolly good juggler’s job I am doing tossed between chores of a household with a newborn baby, the delivered mother, a "Denis the menace" etc & hub addiction!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mellon

You sound like Praveen Kumar now.

---

Mellon, such a comment is uncalled for..
The greatest truths lie in simplest statements. If you cannot perceive that the loss is yours.

I know your views and mine never coincide.
All the complication arise from our own thinking, our attitudes. What is needed is a paradigm shift. If we are not capable of that, then we have to pay the price, whatever it is. We can go on arguing endlessly in this hub and elsewhere. But life doesn't change for us unless we do...

Shakthi, Shekhar, PP, Scorpio, Roshan, blahblah and mellon:

Thank you very much for having the patience to read through my lengthy posts and expressing your views and comments! :D

PP, I am sorry I couldn’t help the KB reference :P (isn’t he KB, you’ve mentioned SB, who is a veenai maestro, I think :? ). I’m afraid I haven’t watched the ‘fatafat’ movie, it was probably inappropriate for my age then and anyway, KB movies (with such controversial themes) were ‘taboo’ in our household, the ones I’ve seen were heavily censored DD versions. I share your sentiment on that. He portrayed liberalism as merely irreverent debauchery and the emancipated women as rampant vigilante women’s libbers!! :x

I am aware of the fact that some of our hub friends are adoptive parents. I am sure they would rather feel embarrassed (out of their humility) to be praised for it, so let me not go there. I would instead like to request them to be supportive, if and when they can, of hubbers who need direction on adoptive parenting. :)

My statements and questions (with too many Q marks :oops: ) weren’t meant as provocative, one-sided, headstrong ideas; they were mostly in wonderment and contemplations. So if I had conveyed the idea of being against something when questioning it, that wasn’t the fact, but only that I’m not very good at effectively putting my point across. :(


Shekhar, there could be nothing extraneous requisitely completing the love shared in a marital relationship. If the absence of something, in this case a baby, makes love incomplete, it wasn’t love to begin with. What I had tried to imply was NOT that when a woman loves a man she thinks has to have babies with him, but, when a woman wants a baby, she would love to have it with the man she loves! :D

Scorpio, I appreciate your outspoken frame of mind. Usually people tend to shy away from expressing non-populist opinions for fear of being misconstrued as misfits. I could freely speak for both sides while NOT being against either side, because I support both adoption and surrogacy! :)
My personal stance would be adoption but I have my own reasons for it.

I can understand how it would feel, to have a child with the features of one’s loved one and one that is a part of one’s self, to look into its eyes and get lost in the sea of inexplicable emotions. But at the same time, an adopted child could be someone that the parents could fall in love with, irrespective of whom the genetic material came from. It could be a child borne in the hearts of the adoptive parents not necessarily in the womb.

I am sure it is not possible for everyone to look at both options as being acceptable, this way. In fact, as I said before I used to be critical of infertile couple spending insane amounts of money and time without getting anywhere. After an introspective look at my judgmental attitude and my poor understanding of their inner craving to have a child I realized that, this is how we have built and sustained ourselves as humans. We procreate with the sense of instinctual ownership and belonging – the child and the parents belong to each other by simple yet indestructible bonds of passively inherited filial attributes. It is what we have done for thousands of years, and will continue to do, ever in search of the humbling human spirit that ensconces us. :)

On the other hand, an adoptive parent could become the “adopted parent” by the child. When a child that is denied its origins, develops the same kind of indestructible bond with a genetically unknown set of parents, isn’t it an awe-inspiring thing to be a part of! I strongly believe, genes or no genes parental love is love, pure and simple. To beget a child in one’s heart, without bearing it in one’s womb is nature’s powerful way of propagating parenthood – it may not be possible for everyone, but it is an undeniable faculty of uncorrupted goodness that can fill even the deepest void! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shekhar

Mellon, such a comment is uncalled for..
The greatest truths lie in simplest statements. If you cannot perceive that the loss is yours.

I know your views and mine never coincide.
All the complication arise from our own thinking, our attitudes. What is needed is a paradigm shift. If we are not capable of that, then we have to pay the price, whatever it is. We can go on arguing endlessly in this hub and elsewhere. But life doesn't change for us unless we do...

---

Good one Shekhar :thumbsup: As usual you have spoken some words of wisdom in simple language. Highly admired and appreciated :D

I have nothing more to say as regards this issue as I feel it's high time we wound up the subject (some may feel disappointed I know :wink: ). Thanks to PP madam, Shekhar, cygnus, scorpio, shakthiprabha, sudhama, querida, jaiganesh and blahblah for their insightful thoughts. It was indeed a great discussion after a long time. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mellon

You sound like Praveen Kumar now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shekhar

Mellon, such a comment is uncalled for..

---

Shekhar:

I never thought calling someone as * sounds like "pkm" is quite "offensive"*. Sorry, Shekhar, it could very well be a good compliment if you don't know.

As for I can see *pkm* has been very honest. He speaks of his mind clearly without hiding anything. I know there are thousands of Indians who do love to eat non-veg but does not have the courage to argue or say that they are eating non-veg like our *pkm* courageously said. I do believe his sincere suggestion to others to eat non-veg is just lack of diplomacy or lack of shrewdness in choosing the "correct wordings". Anyway, let us leave him as u feel that it is unnecessary.

I must admit that I respect u as an adopting parent. It is a great and courageous thing to do. At the same time, I do think Cygnus does have a valid point and knows what she is talking about. I mean she REALLY knows well what she is trying to convince. I wonder why do u have to give a serious lecture criticizing her view on that as if she does not know what she is talking about? If it is like the example brought up by Scorpio, “surrogating” is a "legal deal" between "two educated and highly civilized couples" to help each other mutually I don’t see a serious problem there. The consequence of that is similar to one who donates his/her kidney or of that sort. You would never know whom to blame if there were some complications later.

It is easy to suggest what the (un)fortunate couple should do which is adoption. I mean most of us would not know how it be something like not having your own child unless we experience it. I don’t want to suggest someone to "take it easy" or “just adopt a child” when I don’t have or face that problem she or he is facing. Because I just don’t know how it be like nt having a child or adopting. How can I suggest adoption is the best solution when I am “ignorant” about that problem? My intuition tells me it is very debatable.

If we are all really unselfish and care about India, we all should stop having our own children and just adopt no matter whether we are fertile or not. How many of us -the highly educated people and pretending patriots- are ready to do that? The fact is we are all selfish. Our selfishness is just not revealed when u can easily have your own children. We should not just insist or embarrass the people those who have difficulty in getting their children. We should not suggest not to try the new developments in the medical field as long as it is legal and mutually beneficial. Because I believe the couples those who have the problem only know how "precious" it is to have a child of their own (genetically). But I doubt very much whether most of such couples have the courage to say it loud just like "our non-veg eaters who lack the courage" to speak up or justify.

Cheers!

mellon,

You got me all wrong.
I never suggested that you adopt a baby for patriotic reasons or as a social service. Infact I am very apprehensive about people who declare themselves as patriots or as Social Workers.
It is also wrong that I 'adopted' (I hate to use this word) my daughter to give her a life. Such a notion is an insult to my daughter's existence. I took her because I felt the need to love that baby when I saw her. She has given my family more than what she has got from us.
Having experienced this heavenly relationship, I suggested that it is simple straightforward solution for childless couples, if only they change their mindset on adoption vis-a-vis having genetic offspring. This is where paradigm shift comes in. If they are bent upon having genetic offspring inspite of their natural inability to produce a baby, ruling out adoption, then they must be ready to face the complications and difficulties.
These issues are not arguable given a particular mindset. Well... each one to his path.. "Each path prescribes its own obligations"

....And Shekhar.. I think Cygnus and the others understood your point well. In my opinon both of you carried out the discussion in a mature and intellectual manner. For that matter PP madam, scorpio, querida, blahblaha .. all did their part well. And I dont see any necessity for a middleman to come in between you and Cygnus - especially at the eleventh hour, when you and Cygnus have developed a better understanding and have respect for each others views :wink:

Mellon is free to speak about her opinion. Shekhar made a calm reply. This is the spirit of a discussion.
In today’s “The Hindu” there is an editorial on “cord blood banking”- I mention this to recall my informing while discussing the greatness & marvel surrounding motherhood about the umbilical cord blood being a rich source of stem cells very vital for various medical treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pavalamani pragasam

Mellon is free to speak about her opinion. Shekhar made a calm reply. This is the spirit of a discussion.

---

Yes !!! that should be the spirit as long as there's no ulterior motives involved :wink: coz, that definitely spoils the 'spirit' of a good discussion. !!!

Anyways, this week'ss kungumam too carries an article which is somewhat related to the issue discussed here.

Each and everyone one of you deserve equal acknowledgement for the good job done here.

Well done!

Thanks ratchasi :D

But I really missed you here !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roshan

Thanks ratchasi :D

But I really missed you here !!

---

Well, Roshan, I wanted to comment on certain matters raised here besides to opine my stance on the 'issue'. Unfortunately (rather fortunately as I see it now) I wasnt able to do due to other commitments.

However, seeing the posts made by buddies here, especially the very points that I had in mind, made me realise that perhaps I would not have justified my thoughts as well as you guys did.

On the other hand, I believe it is just a matter of time before the new hub picks up speed to join the ranks of our beloved old hub!!
Cheers to all!!
:thumbsup:

Do we have to read between the lines? :wink:

That is not just enough, PP. You need to be a "mind-reader" as well and "imagine" as much as u could. You always get the right "scenario" based on your "imagination". As long as u dont tell that explicitly to others and talk in a language which can be understood only by urself, u r safe and u r "correct" and u r the "winner"! :)

mellon:

Thanks for your thoughts :D I take it that you have cited me in terms of adding strength to that view point, not to mediate between my arguments and others'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mellon

Because I believe the couples those who have the problem only know how "precious" it is to have a child of their own (genetically).

---

How so true mellon! Those who have it do not realize what they have as much as those who don’t!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shekhar

Having experienced this heavenly relationship, I suggested that it is simple straightforward solution for childless couples, if only they change their mindset on adoption vis-a-vis having genetic offspring. This is where paradigm shift comes in. If they are bent upon having genetic offspring inspite of their natural inability to produce a baby, ruling out adoption, then they must be ready to face the complications and difficulties.

---

Shekhar, I am sure you understand that is an immense responsibility to parent a child. While I admit that your view is one that I would personally embrace, I wish to disagree on your characterization of childless couple who resort to other options as being "bent upon having a genetic offspring inspite of their natural inability". This is a rather unkind judgment of couples already stigmatized by the society as 'barren' and 'sterile', as if the only purpose of existence is to have children. If nature didn't empower them with that faculty, is it wrong of them to acquire it through modern science and technological developments? When did we become so 'civilized' as to decide what the physiologically challenged should and should not do? Furthermore, imagine if someone half-heartedly adopts a child, so as to meet the requirements of what the high and mighty society thinks they should do, where is the interest of the child in that situation? Previously you had cited that even genetic children abuse their parents by deserting them in their old age. I am not suggesting that genetic offspring are better than adopted children. I am only saying that for some people, children mean only their own biological children and they don’t deserve caustic aspersions for their nature. It is not a simple thing, to live with infertility, the last thing they need is the scrutiny of the society in their attempts to have a child.