54 piped up to “Dilemma Friday: Would You Have Her Baby?”

1. Marianne McA Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 9:26 am

   1 Depends exactly what she’s asking. If she can donate an egg, and needed to borrow my womb for the duration, I’d do it in a heartbeat. As long as the baby wasn’t genetically mine, I don’t think I’d have any problems parting with the baby – and I always liked being pregnant. My brother and his wife had fertility problems, and I know if surrogacy had been a solution to their particular problem (which it wasn’t) I’d have offered. (You’d have to be sooooo careful with someone else’s child though, wouldn’t you? No sneaky cups of coffee.)

2. FD Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am

   2 Ooo, good one, esp given that there’s no financial incentive for surrogates over here. Rationally, I’d like to say yes, but as a point of fact I don’t have kids so I say yes, while being aware that pregnancy hormones frequently change people’s points of view on these things, and if I were a four-time mother already, I’d maybe have a different reaction. I suppose one would also have to take the spousal unit’s pov into consideration too, and I don’t have one of those either. I guess no matter how helpful the sister & partner are, it’s his wife dealing with the health risks, and him (also) dealing with the morning sickness, mood swings, cravings and crabbyness. They aren’t going to be holding her hair in the bathroom after all. It’d still be damn hard to say no though.

3. Shiloh Walker Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

   3 My kids are the light of my entire life. Being a mom is one of the greatest gifts-if I could share that with a sister (don’t have one, but hey) then I’d probably do so. Wouldn’t be easy, but a lot of things in life aren’t.

4. Teddypig Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

   4 Why does the not willing to adopt part bother me?

5. Stephi Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

   5 I’m about to be a very unpopular person. These are my thoughts. No, I wouldn’t have her child. The world is overpopulated. There are children that need homes. Deserving children. Don’t tell me they aren’t just as special and wonderful as your own precious genetic offspring. Now for a bit of religion. Sorry. Children are gifts from God. If you can’t have children, and it isn’t due to an easily fixable medical problemm, maybe you shouldn’t have children. maybe your love is best given to children in need. JMHO.

6. theo Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

   6 I think it depends on a lot of things. Are they too ‘old’ to adopt? Because unfortunately, that’s still a problem here. And there are other factors adoption agencies will turn a couple down for. If the reason adoption is not an option in that case, provided they’re not so old that when their child is a teen, they’re close to 70, *maybe.* Then again, I’m just out of the teen years with my two girls. One was an awesome kid, not perfect, but none are. The other was Satan’s spawn and I’d have loved to disclaim her except she looks just like me at that age. So if watching my experience with them didn’t convince my sister not to have any (and I was an only, so this is very hypothetical for me)I probably would. On the condition that I get to throw in Satan’s spawn as well Tough question, Karen. It really is hard because of so many mitigating factors. Artificial insemination and my sister’s egg? Then I’m just the incubator. My having sex with her husband because maybe she doesn’t produce eggs consistently and they just can’t afford the overwhelming cost of harvesting? Boy, could any of us live with that after? Does a ‘child of her own’ mean one that’s genetically hers, but she is infertile so I’m the next best thing as her sister? I don’t know. Which doesn’t answer your question at all. Sorry.

7. Lori Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

   7 My daughter is 100% mine and she owns my heart like nobody ever has before in my life and I didn’t give birth to her, a woman I’ve never met in China did. My mother, sister and daughter are all adopted. Biology doesn’t make a bond, love does. I’d smack my sister upside the head and tell her to get a clue.

8. AztecLady Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

   8 Teddypig Why does the not willing to adopt part bother me? Same reason it bothers me, I think. Partly, what Stephi said–there are so many abandoned children in such desperate need of a loving family that it boggles the mind to think that a couple wanting children for years would rather resort to a surrogate than adopt. I apologize in advance to the people I am going to offend, but I wonder: if they can’t love a child not of their loins, then how much of the love for their biological children is self love rather than self less love. Edited to add: that last paragraph was born of my knowing a woman, in her forties, who kept having unprotected sex with a number of men, aiming to get pregnant because she wanted “a baby”–not a child, a son or a daughter, but a baby. And she was indeed willing to risk everything from STDs to injury to get it. Nevermind she wasn’t in a secury economic position or had a decent support network. She just wanted what she wanted–and each time she bemoaned not getting pregnant, I thought with pity of the helpless kid, if she ever did.

9. theo Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

   9 The not willing to adopt part bothers me too. But on the other side of the coin, there are couples who have tried for years to adopt, but the agencies don’t find them ’suitable,’ (whatever that entails) and then turn around and leave a child in the home with his/her biological parents even after that child has shown up a dozen times in the emergency room for contusions and broken bones, and been reported for it by the hospital, because if, and that’s a big *if*, the agency investigates, they don’t see any abuse the day they visit. Two weeks later, the child is dead and the parents are arrested for murder. Not a perfect world. Not trying to argue with anyone. Just making an observation. I didn’t ever want kids. Almost dying due to an ectopic pregnancy gave me a lot of time to rethink that. But if we couldn’t have had any of our own at that point, I’d have been the first one in line at the adoption agency.

10. MB (Leah) Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    10 I’d carry it for her if it’s a matter of embryo implantation and if all the other conditions were good for me, like appropriate age, solid relationship, financially secure and so on.

11. Las Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    11 I have absolutely no interest in having children, but I’m completely fascinated by pregnancy and childbirth, so on the surface surrogacy sounds like the perfect option for me. It would really depend on the situation. My sister would be a great mother, but if she were married and I had any reservations about her SO I wouldn’t go for it. It absolutely cannot be my own egg, and I’d be unwilling to go through multiple IVF cycles…I’m not taking any chanced with my health and those massive doses of hormones cannot be good for you. One shot, that’s it. Not willing to adopt does bother me a bit. I also have some issues with all the fertility treatments out there separate from adoption. But I also think it’s unfair to expect the infertile to adopt the unwanted children of the world–you can’t call someone selfish for going through extraordinary measures to have a biological child when you yourself have your own (naturally conceived) biological children and no adopted ones. Now, those people who choose to adopt regardless of their fertility status are awesome, but just how common is that? It seems the majority of people who adopt do so after years of trying to conceive, even back before all these treatments became available. Not exactly “selfless,” that. And I’m sure that the majority of adoptions turn out wonderfully, but I actually know someone who was adopted as a “last resort” and that left some scars, to say the least. People should adopt because they truly want to adopt, not because the zealots of the world have determined that a bum reproductive system is a sign from their god that you shouldn’t have biological children. Because if you’re going to go there, then you need to take the next logical step and say that your god obviously doesn’t want infertile people raising children at all.

12. Anon76 Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    12 First, I am one of those odd creatures who has never desired to have a child (long backstory on that), so I can’t even fathom placing myself in the position of a mother of four. But, the adoption issue does bother me a bit. I had a friend who tried everything under the planet to have her and her husband’s child (their OWN child, in their words). Why? Because husband and his family absolutely refused to consider a child not from hubby’s loins. Now to me, that sets up a whole number of problems as to why this type of environment might not be suitable for ANY child. To this day, the pair still has no children and have given up on trying. I figure that may be a blessing in disguise.

13. Bonnie L. Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    13 Endometriosis runs strongly in my family. My mother had to have a complete hysterectomy at 30 after the birth of my sister. It looks as though my sister is following my mother’s path. She’s only 19 and worries about her fertility. I have already told her that if she cannot carry her own child that I would do it for her. When I told her this, I meant that if she wanted one child that was “her’s” I would act as womb to her and her husband’s embryo. I carry and birth children very well and I am done having my own children, so it wouldn’t be a big burden to me. Having said this, I really do think that my sister would be very open to adopting if she could afford it. I just wanted to let her know that she has many options and that there is no reason to panic or fret over the unknown future.

14. Lolita Lopez Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    14 Yes, in a heartbeat so long as she could provide the egg. (She wouldn’t want mine since they’re so crappy.) Dave and I have struggled with infertility for so long now. I was diagnosed with premature menopause the week before my senior prom and then PCOS a few months after we married. Until you’ve gone through such a devastating diagnosis and all the painful (and often humiliating) testing and treatment, you just can’t understand it. You can sympathize, of course, but really understanding? No. Before Dave and I became serious in our relationship, I was really open about my infertility. We agreed immediately that regardless of our ability to have a biological child, we would adopt. We were extremely lucky and became pregnant (surprise!) a few months ago while in the beginning stages of our adoption. After our biological child is born, we’ll move forward with our plans to adopt two-four more children from the Texas foster care system, likely toddlers or a sibling group. That said, adopting a child isn’t as easy some people seem to think. It’s expensive as fuck to adopt an infant (cheapest infant adoption we found was 26K) and so incredibly emotionally draining. My cousin has been waiting for 18 months for a child placement through her agency. In that time, she’s had two infants yanked by the birth mothers within hours of accepting them. I can’t even describe to you what it’s like to watch someone you love come home to an empty nursery after all of that. And, Stephi, seriously, I’ve gotten that little tidbit of *advice* too often. I really wish you could understand how that flippant comment cuts so deeply to those of us struggling with medical problems beyond our control. Should I tell my dad that since his pancreas can’t make enough insulin he should just stop taking his insulin shots? Or someone with cancer should turn down chemo because, you know, that’s not an easily fixable problem. That is such bullshit to say that because my ovaries started failing at 18 I should simply brush off the normal, natural desire for a biological child and adopt all the unwanted babies and children desperate for homes. Why is it that only couples who can’t have biological children are the ones pressured to adopt? What? Reproductively healthy couples aren’t capable of loving non-biological children? Are infertile couples the only ones hardwired to love them? Jeez. Sorry for the rant, but that really touches a raw nerve with me.

15. Teddypig Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    15 I think you are right AztecLady. My father was the firstborn boy of his family of five kids. But I always noticed since I was also his first born son that he was always treated differently by my grandfather like he was kept at a distance. They were never as close and it was my father who always made the effort to call them etc. For example if there was any issues where my grandfather needed money my father would chip in but my grandfather always paid back the other kids first before ever thinking to pay back my father who it turns out usually was the one who gave most since he tended to have the money. Turns out my dad went to get his passport one time and had lost his birth certificate/paper work my grandparents had given him. We came to find out after getting the real birth certificate my father was not my grandfathers kid. In fact it goes even further. Seems my grandmother who died told all the rest of the kids (which is just fucking strange and hurtful and gives some clue how she felt about the deal) but she never told my own father. I was always shocked at how they treated my father. That family was whack-a doodles and such good Holy Roller Christians and yet had drug abuse and alcohol problems and the other brothers all ended up in prison. Yet my dad was the most stable of the whole crew and yet they treated him like dirt. So yeah, I wonder about the whole “blood of my blood” “child of my own” routine and if that is such a good way to want to be a parent.

16. Emmy Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    16 Nope. I’d tell her to go to Malawi and buy a black baby like Madonna does every few years. Or Cambodia, the other popular place to buy babies a la Angelina Jolie. Lots of kids to be had for a few bucks in the right pocket.

17. Venus Vaughn Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    17 I’d have the baby. She’s my sister, I’ll still get to see the kid and love it. And, again, she’s my sister. She’s in need. I’d do it. And, I must say how distasteful the above comment by Emmy is. *shudder*

18. Emmy Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    18 I must say how distasteful it is to me that people go to other countries and buy kids, many of whom were stolen from their parents.

19. Louise van Hine Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    19 A couple that is hung up on having a kid and won’t adopt a kid or even try adoption, don’t want a baby, they want a mini-me. No, I wouldn’t be willing to help. As a many-time foster parent, my view is those who wish to parent children have many, many opportunities. Those who want only their own genes in miniature form can either give birth to them themselves or go without if they are unable. For the commenter above who has fertility problems who posted: “Why is it that only couples who can’t have biological children are the ones pressured to adopt? What? Reproductively healthy couples aren’t capable of loving non-biological children? Are infertile couples the only ones hardwired to love them?” I don’t believe that, truly. I have always been “reproductively healthy” and so was my husband – I didn’t want to give birth, so I didn’t.

20. Nino Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    20 I was thinking and thinking… and it’s too hard to find an answer.

21. willaful Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    21 “But on the other side of the coin, there are couples who have tried for years to adopt, but the agencies don’t find them ’suitable,’ (whatever that entails) and then turn around and leave a child in the home with his/her biological parents even after that child has shown up a dozen times in the emergency room for contusions and broken bones, and been reported for it by the hospital…” I don’t think this argument is very valid. From what I read when I was infertile, adoption is the *surest* way of actually becoming a parent if you have infertility issues. It may take time, it may take money (but what doesn’t?) but it is fair less of a crap shoot than infertility treatments. The real issue is people wanting newborns rather than older children. There are older children who *are* available for adoption, but don’t get adopted. “But if we couldn’t have had any of our own at that point, I’d have been the first one in line at the adoption agency.” Not to sound like a jerk, but I really hope you would have learned to eliminate the phrase “of our own” before that day had arrived.

22. willaful Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    22 “But on the other side of the coin, there are couples who have tried for years to adopt, but the agencies don’t find them ’suitable,’ (whatever that entails) and then turn around and leave a child in the home with his/her biological parents even after that child has shown up a dozen times in the emergency room for contusions and broken bones, and been reported for it by the hospital…” I don’t think this argument is very valid. From what I read when I was infertile, adoption is the *surest* way of actually becoming a parent if you have infertility issues. It may take time, it may take money (but what doesn’t?) but it is fair less of a crap shoot than infertility treatments. The real issue is people wanting newborns rather than older children. There are older children who *are* available for adoption, but don’t get adopted. “But if we couldn’t have had any of our own at that point, I’d have been the first one in line at the adoption agency.” Not to sound like a jerk, but I really hope you would have learned to eliminate the phrase “of our own” from your vocabulary before that day had arrived.

23. theo Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    23 @willaful I know you don’t know me, but I do want you to know I was adopted, to parents that tried for 12 years. Are you? If not, don’t criticize my choice of words. I’d have much rather adopted if we couldn’t have our own, regardless, but if we could have our own, that’s what we wanted. I take no shame in that.

24. Lolita Lopez Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    24 Louise, oh, I definitely agree with you. I was being sarcastic there, lol. But sometimes it really feels that the only people who are told, “Oh, just adopt!” are people with crappy ovaries or lame sperm. I think there are so many wonderful people out there who can love any child as their own. Dave and I are like that. We aren’t concerned about race, age, or any of the other hangups some couples seem to have. We just want to be parents. Our shocking pregnancy was wonderful because it relieved that pressure of fulfilling the infant experience (and toddler learning curve!) After this baby comes, I’ll feel much more comfortable adopting an older child or sibling group because I’ll have experience as a parent. I won’t be winging it, lol.

25. Fae Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    25 No way. End of statement, no qualifications, no excuses. Hell no.

26. Marianne McA Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 11:39 pm

    26 In evolutionary terms the point of being alive is to try to reproduce your DNA – I can’t see that possessing that instinct is evidence of some deep seated moral depravity. I’d be fairly clear in my own mind that I wanted my own – and very specifically my husband’s – child. I wasn’t infertile, so I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think I have a generalised need to parent children.

27. Samantha Posted: Apr 10th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

    27 Being I could be in this position one day, I’d have to think about it long and hard. My baby sister had an ectopic pregnancy and one of her tubes was removed at 20, I’d had 2 kids by 20. As it stands now she should be able to carry an implanted embryo just fine but once she gets her life together (she is a mess by herself currently) and cannot carry to term, then I’d probably do it just for economic reasons, it would be a considerable difference in cost for me to surrogate versus an outsider or an adoption. Plus there is no way I’d want a mini her running around my house, once was enough thank you.

28. willaful Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 12:32 am

    28 Theo, if your adoptive parents did not consider you “their own,” I can only pity you.

29. Mary Winter Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 12:36 am

    29 I would not. I have very strong views, and even as a teen I knew I did not want to pass my genes onto the world. Some of them, yes *grins*, but since heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and other diseases are pretty rampant, I do not want to wish those on any child no matter how pretty and smart she (or handsome and smart he) might be. I have always said, and as far as I know I am reproductively fertile if a doctor would untie the boy scout knots I had him put in my tubes, that if I wanted a child I would adopt because there are far too many who need love to bring another mouth into this very overpopulated world. To those who wanted children, had them, and care for them as good parents…thank you and bless you. I was very much wanted (I am an only child due to fertility issues), even though my growing up was tough. I wish all children were as wanted as I. I also apply this belief to all animals – puppies, kitties, horses, etc. If someone “wants” one, there are plenty who need adoption instead of breeding more. Because sadly, not every breeder is a responsible one.

30. willaful Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 1:00 am

    30 I’m sorry – that was unnecessarily rude of me.

31. Stephi Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 1:05 am

    31 Lolita Lopez, I am sorry for your trouble. I never said that medicine should be denied. Don’t be so dramatic and fill in things that were never implied. Medical care isn’t the same as implanting your child into another person. I only feel that in an over populated world, we can love a child that isn’t necessarily ours by birth but by choice. All children need love. There is also a colder thought than perhaps God in all this. It’s natural selection. Sorry. I know that’s not nice but maybe some aren’t suppose to reproduce. I can say that. I had trouble conceiving mine. It’s something I wrestled with. In the end, God gave me beautiful babies that I’m grateful for. I still wouldn’t put another person through a pregnancy when adoption is a beautiful thing. I would’ve handled adopting. BTW-lots of fertile people adopt.

32. Stephi Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 1:11 am

    32 BTW-If I had the money, I would adopt. There are so many kids that need love. Married, fertile couples adopt all the time.

33. Heather Holland Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 1:32 am

    33 Unfortunately, if my baby sister couldn’t have her own child, I wouldn’t be able to help since I can no longer have children. But if I could and she couldn’t, yes, I’d help her out, as I’m sure she would do for me if I didn’t already have 4. Luckily, she was able, and he’ll turn 2 Sunday.

34. Angelia Sparrow Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 2:52 am

    34 At this point I would say no. 10 years ago? Yes, of course. But I’m over 40 now, with a nunmber of health problems. And I work a job that is much to physical for a pregnant woman. (Moving 225 lb transmissions is STRONGLY frowned on during pregnancy) Since I carry the insurance, my first responsibility is to my kids, who need it.

35. Lori Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 3:21 am

    35 I can’t speak for every state but in Washington State where I live, one can become a foster parent and apply to have adoptable children to foster. If it’s a good match, the state pays the adoption costs, pays for the child’s insurance and helps out in many ways. Adoption doesn’t have to be the painful process people always believe it is…

36. KristieJ Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 4:08 am

    36 Nope – wouldn’t do it. If they adopted, the child WOULD be a child of their own. Karen’s supposition is they are not willing to adopt – not that they are too old.

37. Treva Harte Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 9:39 am

    37 I don’t have a sister so I don’t know what she’d be like. But I do wonder how I’d feel if I did give this child to my hypothetical sister and thought things weren’t going right. Having a kid should be a big responsibility and it would be hard for me step back and let someone else parent.

38. Anon76 Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    38 Stephi said: “There is also a colder thought than perhaps God in all this. It’s natural selection. Sorry. I know that’s not nice but maybe some aren’t suppose to reproduce.” Okay, I’m really going to have to disagree here. That type of thought reduces us down to an animal level where only the hardy survive. We are much more complicated than that. True, I do believe some miscarraiges are caused by a problem with the fetus, BUT, many are NOT. The woman may have problems within her that makes her unable to carry to term. Then, on the other hand, the sperm count for the man may be too low, and outside medical assistance is needed to complete the task. Neither of those last two scenarios means that there will be any health issues with the child once birthed. If the natural selection thing were truly valid when it comes to the human species, then people with severe mental health issues would also miscarry. (This is not a ding to the mentally impaired.) You see, our cognitive abilities are as much a part of us as our physical abilities. This is what seperates us from baser animals. And taking the same line of thought further, then miscarraiges would occur if the child had a mental disorder. Nope, that’s not how it goes. My mother was what you’d call a “fertile Myrtle”. But to this day I find it hard to call her a good parent. Something was wired wrong, and she had no qualms about bearing four children and then leaving them behind while all were still very young. Her reason? She wanted a divorce and the kids didn’t want to leave home. Little kids were given an ultimatum! And when they said no, she wrote them out of her life. To the point I didn’t even know until I was 21 that I even had siblings, and I only found out then because she’d been told another member of the family was going to spill the beans if she didn’t. I distinctly remember a horrible time at around the age of 14 when my mom was unbearable. Seems that her oldest son was hanging on to life in intensive care after a motorcycle accident. She was pissed, cuz she wanted no part of seeing him, but the family was calling and pushing her. So you see, this is why I find severe fault with the theory of natural selection when it comes to humans. If that held true, my mom would not have been able to have any. (Stepping off my soapbox and apologizing if I offened anyone, including Stephi.)

39. Stephi Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    39 No offense taken. Very good point. I’m sure all who know you are glad your mother had children.

40. Heidi Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    40 Stephi said “I’m about to be a very unpopular person [...] Children are gifts from God. If you can’t have children, and it isn’t due to an easily fixable medical problem, maybe you shouldn’t have children.” Stephi, I’m trying so hard not to go into a long rant using very big and very dirty words to tell you how many ways your comment pissed me off. But since I’m one of those unworthy people needing more than “an easy fix” to get pregnant — and therefore a tad bit hormonal from the assistance I’m receiving from medical advances and not from your God — I’m just going to thank the people who have commented on how the idea of natural selection would drastically reduce the average mortality rate, and try to keep my reply short You said: “I never said that medicine should be denied. Don’t be so dramatic and fill in things that were never implied.” If it wasn’t your intention to imply such things, you should have put more thought into the words you used in your first post. By presenting the idea that some medical problems should be accepted as “God’s will”, you are definitely implying that you’re of the opinion that medical assistance/medicine should be denied. Unless, of course, you think that only certain medical problems should be considered “God’s will” and, by the same token, certain medical advances/treatments should be considered results of “God’s mercy”. Tell me, Stephi… in your esteemed opinion, who should get to decide what is “God’s will” and what is “God’s mercy”?? I honestly don’t believe you meant to be so offensive when you first commented, but I suggest that you choose your words more carefully when commenting on things like who deserves to have babies and who doesn’t. Because posts like yours tend to bring out the hormonal crazies like me. And as for the beautiful babies God saw fit to bless you with: I’m very happy for you and hope that one day those of us who are less deserving will be as blessed.

41. Stephi Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    41 Dear heidi, Hormone therapy like you seem to be receiving isn’t the same as getting someone else to carry your child. I’m all for all the medical advancements. Please read more carefully. I said “If you can’t have children, and it isn’t due to an easily fixable medical problemm,” Apparently your problem can be fixed. you aren’t telling someone to change their lives to bless you with a child. Relax a little. You read it wrong wrong wrong. How dare you think that I would damn people if a pill or shot would fix the problem. READ MORE CAREFULLY. HOW DARE YOU! You’re the one who said you were less deserving. Not me. Surgery, whatever, great. That’s not even the topic of the post or did you not read that either.

42. Stephi Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    42 I’m so ticked off that there are actually people that believe I would want them to never have kids, die of cancer, die of diabetes, whatever instead of receiving medical help. I was only talking about adoption vs. having to get someone else to carry your child. Good grief. My point was adoption was an alternative. I never implied that people should not get medical help. I have things to do and can’t watch for the next idiotic comment. I will leave you all with this link. It goes to Carlos Mencia’s Dee Dee Dee song. It’s dedicated to those who actually went off the deep end over an innocent comment. (If the link is disabled, you can find it on YouTube.) youtube.com/watch?v=uwn17e7CjIU&feature=related

43. Anon76 Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    43 What a very nice thing to say, Stephi. Thanks mucho on that because admitting those facts, even though in Anon mode, is rather stressful. I appreciate that, and you made me smile.

44. Anon76 Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    44 And just so no one reads my last comment as snarky, I was replying to Stephi saying: “I’m sure all who know you are glad your mother had children.” It was a generous and kind comment. I appreciated it greatly.

45. Heidi Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    45 Wow, Stephi. I must admit that I found your replies quite amusing. And I do hope that you find the time to come back and read my this comment — as idiotic as you may find it I read your first comment very carefully — as well as the title of the post and the other comments — and since I was responding to your comment in particular, I addressed my comment to you. I apologize if you’re so offended that *I* dare to find implications in your words that other commenters also found. I do not believe that you don’t want some people to have children or would want anyone to die of cancer etc… Which is why I clearly stated that I didn’t believe this was your intention and suggested you word your innocent comments more carefully so that people like me won’t go off the deep end. As for my medical problems… Unfortunately, my doctors are not as flippant as you are — but then again, they know all the details and not are going by a few random lines I wrote on a blog (which I enjoy — especially these Friday dilemmas — Thanks Karen, these are always fun And yes, I did call myself “undeserving”. I have to apologize here again, you see, I was using sarcasm. Apparently that wasn’t clear enough to everyone. I’m going to stop now since it seems that I have the ability to upset you more than I intented to. And Karen, thanks again for the blog. I enjoy the reviews, the bits of news and especially the dry humor.

46. Lolita Lopez Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    46 Stephi, I think our wires were crossed with the *easily fixable medical problem* bit. I can only think of maybe one or two infertility issues that are *easily fixable*–blocked fallopian tubes or a uterine fibroid. Everything else is super complicated so when I read your comment I took it to mean if you can’t have your tubes cleared with an HSG or surgery, well that’s just tough. And I’m not going to touch the natural selection comment because, um, yeah. Look, I’ll admit I’m overly sensitive when it comes to infertility. After years of having people spew really insensitive and often hateful remarks in my direction, I grew a smidge defensive. I find it even more difficult now that we’re finally expecting our miracle baby because I have such huge amounts of guilt when it comes to all the wonderful couples in my infertility support groups who are still waiting for that big freakin’ positive or their home study approvals or birth mother matches or the judges overseeing their foster kids to finalize the adoptions. Heidi, drop me a line (thru my website) if you’d like. I’m not sure what your IF cause is but if it’s PCOS or POF, I can put you in touch with some great online support groups or let you know what worked for us, recommend a therapy, doctor, etc.

47. Anon76 Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    47 Lolita and Heidi, I could never even comprehend the pain of what you are going through, nor the anguish. I think, for me, I get a bit ticked about biological offspring being more important than an adopted child. And what is up with people wanting an infant adoption? Do you have any idea about how a kid in a horrid situation, and then taken out of it, grows? It’s like having a plant have light over nothing but darkness (yes, I said we as humans are more than that, but the anology still works). Okay, now I’m done with this topic because it dredges up too much for me, past and present.

48. Lolita Lopez Posted: Apr 11th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    48 Anon, I get where you’re coming from. In our case, Dave and I set a limit for trying to conceive. We agreed we’d try anything up to IVF before moving forward with our adoption plans. With our chosen adoption agency, we had to be completely finished with the TTC process before we could even begin our paperwork. We also had to meet with a therapist/counselor to ensure we’d made peace with the idea we’d never have a biological child. Since we’d always planned to adopt since before marrying that wasn’t an issue for us. I am closely acquainted with couples for whom it is a huge issue. It’s only natural to want to make a child that’s half your loved one and half you, after all. As to the infant adoption, I think all of us dealing with infertility want the same chance every other couple has to experience setting up a nursery, bringing home a child from the hospital, even the sleepless nights and more. We looked into infant adoption for that reason and because we weren’t concerned with the race of the infant would have likely been placed fairly quickly. Now that our surprise baby is on the way, we’re putting our plans on hold until next summer. We’ve always been open to and are already moving forward with our plans to adopt a toddler from foster care in 2010 and likely a sibling group of older children in 2012. I also want to add that none of the families I’m acquainted with who have a mix of biological and adopted children make any distinction between them. I don’t feel that having our biological child was more important than adopting. For us, it was just the logical step to try some of the less expensive reproductive technology therapies first before moving forward and attempting to navigate the expensive and complicated world of adoption. I know other couples who adopted first then went through a few rounds of fertility treatment. Again, every couple’s situation different.

49. Anon76 Posted: Apr 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    49 You and your hubby sound like really good people, Lolita. I think I’m just a bit frustrated for/and by, my friend. I mean, she wanted a child so badly, but not enough to adopt. I’m a stepmom and now a grandma of seven, and I get to experience all the things she is missing out on. While I never wanted to raise children 24/7 (a latent fear I’d be like my mom, and NO WAY was I gonna risk that) I’m a member of a large and loving family now. It makes me sad to know that because of some DNA strands, she was willing to give it all up.

50. Tuscan Capo Posted: Apr 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    50 At the risk of sounding like an ignorant male, I tend to feel such choices are very personal and there’s probably never a right or wrong way to feel about having children or adopting. As long as it is remembered that children aren’t impulse items and can’t -or at least shouldn’t- be treated like returnable or trash-able merchandise, then whatever choice we make is the right one. And that includes being a surrogate mother.

51. Lolita Lopez Posted: Apr 12th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    51 Aw, Anon, that’s a really nice comment! I feel all warm and happy now! I too sometimes struggle with friends who feel they can only accept their *own* child. Yet, deep down inside, I can’t help but think it’s for the best they’re willing to accept their limitations and move forward. Every adopted child should be loved unconditionally and for a certain set of people that just might not be possible. Tuscan, you’re exactly right.

52. Karen Scott Posted: Apr 12th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    52 Author Comment I would for my sister, no question. As for the ‘God’s will’ comment, I’m pretty sure that if that were true, we wouldn’t have parents who are blessed with children, then go on and abuse/kill them. I think this is one of those subjects that God should be kept out of. The Big Shepherd in the sky isn’t doing so great at looking after his sheep right now. If I was marking him on his performance, I’d totally fail him. Hmmm, GodFail… Me likes.

53. Coco Posted: Apr 13th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    53 If it was my sister and I was a gestational surrogate for the embryos made from her and her spouse’s egg/sperm, I would do it, if I was healthy and if we had a close relationship. I would definitely want the baby/child to know their birth story and to know me – as his/her aunt and also the person who gave birth to him/her. If my sister showed resistance to that I would not be able to go through with it. I read the comments about adoption here with interest. I don’t want to go off on a rant, but I did want to respectfully say that in my opinion, adoption is not a “quick fix” to infertility. Adoption can work and work well – but it brings its own challenges and unique issues that parents need to be prepared for. Not everyone is equipped for that, and I don’t think anyone needs to be pushed to adopt if they don’t want to throw themselves 100% into making it work for the child. Before anyone assumes I am against adoption; I’m not. Yes, I have personal experience with adoption, as I relinquished a child 16 years ago in an open relationship. She knows me, we have visits, she knows her brother, I get along well with her family. I know other adoptive parents and consider them my close friends. If anyone would like to talk further about adoption I’m more than happy to.

54. Jen Posted: Apr 16th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    54 I wouldn’t. I suck at being pregnant. It’s hard on my body and at my current age, might be too hard on a baby. All the same, it’s damn unfair that it costs so much to adopt, and that many loving, stable couples in many states willing to adopt kids who need loving homes are expressly forbidden to simply because they’re not heterosexual, yet it’s okay when some religious nutbags decide they need to keep their foster kids in cages…when they’re not hand-building a crazy church for the dad.