An issue

[pavalamani pragasam]

An Issue

This week’s issue of popular Tamil weekly, Ananda Vikadan carried an article on surrogate mothers. In olden days couple without issue had to swallow the grief and live a hollow life. Later many issueless couples were bold enough to adopt mostly relatives’ children and rarely orphans.
The recent option gaining favour is to lease a healthy woman and implant the embryo of the couple with problem, fertilisd outside the wife’s uterus, inside the sponsoring woman’s uterus and make her go through the term to deliver a baby which she shall hand over to the couple even without seeing the face of the baby. All this is arranged with full legal support. The volunteers for this surrogate maternity are invariably very poor women who find this a way for earning some money( not very much though, upto Rs.50,000!) for the pain of gestation & labour. In spite of this issue of bearing issue for others is undertaken out of acute poverty the surrogate mothers doing this service with a basic charity of heart are unavoidably a bit sentimental about parting with the baby that has been kicking inside them for so long.

What do you think about this issue?

[Sudhaama]

This peculiar Custom started from Switzerland where the Fertility-rate as well as the Child-Survival-Rate due to mother's innate problems...is very low... but it was not relished by many nationals... so became rare and got discouraged.

... Then it spread over to USSR (Soviet Union)... where too the Fertility-Rate is too low... That is why ... even to-day... in Russia... the whole expenses of Maternity, Child-birth and Bringing up ... by the Govt... till Major... persists there.

Now this Practice has spread over to this country America too. !!!

Whereas in India... Is it PERTINENT ?..... Applicable?

But the above-named Foreign countries resort to such a recourse only under unavoidable extreme conditions... especially after exploring the possibility of fetching an Adopted Child from the Orphanages.

Some such seekers search over the International arena too.

I know several Indian-born children adopted by the Nationals of Gulf-countries, Scotland, Germany and so on.

However.... it has to be accepted that there are still some affluent Ladies... who are sentimentally particular of owning her Husbands child only.... as an alternative to her inability to bear ... on medical grounds.

There is one more sort of Parents... highly Rich parents... who had observed some Subsequent property-disputes in cases of adoption from an Orphanage.......( The true-parents who deserted their child leading to the Orphanage ... subsequenbtly claim their Property- rights)....

So prefer such Surrogation.... as the doubly safe and attractive solution.

In any case this is a very Delicate Topic to be answered for the Indians especially Tamilians... for whom the ....

Motherhood is very Holy... as per Indian- CULTURE..

Chastity is the Supreme Character for a Lady.... as per Tamilian MORALITY..

When the Population in the Orphanages are escalating at a great speed now-a-days... it is better... the childless parents avail their best choice amongst the variety of options.... from Orphanages or from any Poor-parent willing to offer.

By the dint of offsprings born to the Invaders.... on Indian Soil....We already have several sorts of yet unsolved problems... Although they too are Born-Indians.!! .

Further...another Generation too ...joined with us as Refugees from Pakistan, Bangala-Desh, Burma, Sri-Lanka ... and so on... Pitiably

.Even though we love and treat such New Indians too at par with us....

Such an one more sort of Generation will only lead to Confusion in the Society and an added burden to the Government.

Should India add up one more sort of DUBIOUS Generation... ???

... who cannot proudly identify him / her self ???????

[Shekhar]

It is such a paradox, that on the one hand we have so many orphan children overflowing on to the streets. On the other we have couple resorting to surrogate their issue.
It simply shows we are not human enough. If you have a child to love and care for, it is yours irrespective of whether it has come from your sperm or not. A child is yours not by genes but by your love and care. To think that only a child of your blood is your child, is the result of appaling narrow mindedness.
I have a daughter (not my natural), who wouldnot have been more mine if she were born to me. Only those who have, know the feeling, that it is no different from having a child born to your sperms. Shakti can bear to what I am saying...

[Roshan]

Shekhar,

I remember you mentioning about your daughter some time back in the old hub. It's really great. If I remember correct I think you have a son of your own. To have your own child(ren) and adopt one and treat them all equally - is even more great. I have no words to express my appreciation to you and your wife.

[scorpio]

Bravo PP Ma'm,

What a sensitive issue to talk about!

When I read Shekhar's post, I felt every word he said are true. But, when I ask myself the question if I would adopt a child from an orphanage and show the same love and affection I show to my daughters, somewhere I lack confidence to say 'yes'. I may be narrow minded or whatever, but I would need counselling to be magnanimous. But, given the scenario, that I have no issues and would have to adopt an orphan, I think I would be a good mother but to bring up such a child amidst our own children will need lot of moral confidence.

Shekhar, I bow to you! :clap:
This topic also reminded me of an interesting incident that happened a couple of months back. My daughter suddenly asked me one day that if I come to know that she is not my blood child but one who got misplaced ,say, in the hospital, how would I feel. Though shocked to hear such a question at first, I did think about it. I finally told her that even if I come to know that she is not my 'own' child now, after 11 years of upbringing, I would still want her only, as my child and will not go in search of the 'real' one. The bond formed between us so long cannot be shattered by the fact that she was not really born to me. Though, it is a hypothetical situation, I was in a troubled mood for sometime and this topic has only kindled those memories back!

[Cinefan]

I would not encourage such a arrangement.If a couple can't have a child of their own,they should adopt.In fact it irritates me when I see people spending ridiculous amounts of money&time trying to have a child.Personally I&my wife had decided that if for some reason we can't have a child of our own,we will adopt.We have a son now but the desire to adopt a child is there in the bottom of our hearts.

[jaiganes]

There is this serial "Nilavai p pidippom" in Raj TV. There is a thread in that serial where a child less couple go for a surrogate mother for child and the surrogate mother starts bargaining for carrying the embryo! I felt yuck!! My parents were totally disgusted ! Still TV serials are in 1950s with every serial having one childless woman and her sufferings and her in laws ill treating her for being childless.
I dont know when this 'maladi' malady will get over in this society?
As Cinefan and co have put it, India is a land overflowing with kids, there should not be any problems in adopting. In fact government should come out with propaganda as a part of family planning to encourage adoption. On a related note, Podhigai telecast a programme on adopting HIV + ve children. The programme had interviews of mothers who had adopted HIV + ve children. It was heart wrenching to watch.

[pavalamani pragasam]

Sekhar, my hats of to you. You are one among the rarest.
One of my friend’s daughter in Bangalore also adopted her second child after having a natural one. Such deliberate choices evince a rare virtue, sensibility seen in very few who have widened their mental horizons.
Scorpio is right in her doubts about the broad-mindedness to accept a non-genetically own child as one’s own, may be in extremely impossible situations couple might get reconciled to it. And that is the reason for this increase in opting for surrogation. People are understandably obsessed with having issue of their own “blood”. But the possible trauma of the surrogate mother about parting with her umbilical attachment is the issue that saddens me.
Babies accidentally interchanged in the clinic has been good fodder for silver screen as also the hard situation of telling the adopted child at one stage that he/she is not a natural issue.

[a.ratchasi]

... as also the hard situation of telling the adopted child at one stage that he/she is not a natural issue.

Is it approapriate to tell the child that he/she was adopted?
In my view, as I see the child as my own, why must I tell her that she was adopted?

Of course, if the child were to find that out by herself, I would be more than willing to tell.

But for me to take the lead, it will shatter me to pieces. :(

[scorpio]

PP Ma'm,

I am trying to put myself in the shoes of an issueless woman. Our society is so very biased towards couples who have no issues and the scorn is wrongfully shown more on the wife. It is the wife who gets emotionally drained day in and day out for being stared and ridiculed for not having borne a child. For people who have the financial backing, I think the woman will definitely want to have a child which is very much 'theirs' even though it was born out of a different womb. I don't even feel the necessity to condemn such an urge citing the numerous orphan children we have in the country. Such an emotion, to somehow have something of her 'own', is very natural. What can substitute the joy of having a child whose eyes, face, chin and manners reflect you and your husband. Narrow-mindedness?? To an extent, but definitely pardonable.

Think of what the relatives and the society at large will react to an adopted child! Though I personally don't care about the 'naalu per' , they , in fact, never keep quiet. What a trauma for the child if someone other than its 'parents' tell him/her that he/she is not a natural child of the couple!

From the surrogate mother's perspective, I think if things were made very clear to her from the very beginning with an efficient counsellor /doctor, she can very much reduce her pain in being deprived of the on she carried so long. More so, if poor women who already have children of their own opt to let out their wombs for financial reasons that will only better her 'own' children, the complication of counselling gets even more reduced.

[Akash]

Feeling great, after reading all yr Msgs....
Thankz for all!!

[Roshan]

But for me to take the lead, it will shatter me to pieces.

True in one way but the problem becomes serious when the child gets to know on its own. At one point or the other the child would definitely get to know through various sources - especially through trouble making relatives. If that happens after a particular age - say 16 or 17, the situation becomes worst. Two of my relatives had this problem. They did not want to disclose the truth but ultimately the children got to know it through relatives and friends when they were around that age. The situation became unbearable and the adopted parents had to face a lot of difficulties. The children became so adomant, uncontrollable and the worst part was - they were forcing their adopted parents to take them to their real parents. The impact is serious when the child gets to know the truth from an outsider rather than from the parents.

One of our neighbours has as an adopted son and a daughter of their own. The son is just 7 years old now. They are under tremendous pressure these days wondering whether to tell the truth or not. Even after seven years - still there are people who purposely try to hurt their feelings by asking which child was adopted out of the two. The worst part is that they do it in the presence of the children. Changing the society on these issues is impossible. So I feel it's better to disclose the truth to the children before they reach their teens. 10 or 11 would be ideal I feel. But lets see what others have to say. I would like to know Shekhar's opinion on this issue .

[Roshan]

Scorpio,

I had just read your post! You have raised some interesting points. Specially the following;


From the surrogate mother's perspective, I think if things were made very clear to her from the very beginning with an efficient counsellor /doctor, she can very much reduce her pain in being deprived of the on she carried so long. More so, if poor women who already have children of their own opt to let out their wombs for financial reasons that will only better her 'own' children, the complication of counselling gets even more reduced.

I personally feel - that only women who have a financial need would agree to surrogate. Women who put moral values and sentiments before their other needs would hardly agree to it.

In the case of married women who have their own children, it would be interesting to know as to how the husbands would react to such situations. Would they agree their wives to bear a child of an outsider? Wouldn't it be a mental trauma for them?

[blahblah]

People are understandably obsessed with having issue of their own “blood”. But the possible trauma of the surrogate mother about parting with her umbilical attachment is the issue that saddens me.

Consider two forms of surrogate motherhood:

1.When the woman solicited by the couple is artificially inseminated with husband's sperm and carries the child till birth to be handed over to the couple.

2.When the couple is able to provide both sperm and egg but the wife is unable to carry the embryo due to an absent or defected womb or multiple miscarriages.

In the first case only the father is the genetic parent of the child and not the wife.

Now consider the psychological impact on the wife,the surrogate and the child when he/she grows up.

1.The wife realises that the child is only her husband's blood and another woman's,but not hers.

2.The surrogate who has undergone the gestation period realises that the very child who was kicking inside her womb ,who has her blood in its veins, no more belongs to her.[I remember a Mohan Lal movie with the same story but can't remeber the name.I am sure Sandeep or Cindy will]

3.The child,when grows up,may find out that his genetic mother lives elsewhere and the woman whom he called mother so far has no genetic or biological relationship with him.
---------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------
In the second case the embryo from the couple's sperm and eggs is evolved through in vitrio fertilization,where the ovaries of the wife is hyper-stimulated to produse a number of eggs which is mixed with sperm in a lab.The resulting embryos are inserted back in the woman's body.This is a very fragile process and only 10-20% of the formed result even in actual pregnancy.

------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------

Is human life so cheap?Aren't there more ethical issues involved? Most religions advice against surrogate motherhood.Infact Quran says the actual mother is the one who gives birth.It also says a mother should breastfeed her offspring.

A child is an individual from the moment he is conceived.He has to be respected and cared for from the very moment.Can we make an object of him and make him in a lab?

A surrogate can come forward due to many reasons-Money,Compassion being the most possible.I remember a recent incident when the mothe of a childless woman became the surrogate for her daughter.Willthe resulting child call her,mother or grand mother?And doesn't this pratice severely damages the perception of both the surrogate and the child about procreation and family? :?

I have utmost compassion towards childless couple.But I hope they stay away from this.There are many children in this world who need your attention.If a child is a gift from God,dont go searching for it when he has showered you with such gifts everywhere you can see. :)

After all,you may not find a packet addressed to you. :roll:

[scorpio]

I personally feel - that only women who have a financial need would agree to surrogate. Women who put moral values and sentiments before their other needs would hardly agree to it.

In the case of married women who have their own children, it would be interesting to know as to how the husbands would react to such situations. Would they agree their wives to bear a child of an outsider? Wouldn't it be a mental trauma for them?

Roshan,

Agreed. I too think women who need money will agree to be surrogate mothers since child-bearing has not descended to be an another profession. Or, in rare cases, others will agree if it is for their blood relatives. My ex-boss got his wife's sister to be the surrogate mother. Of course, the sperm was his and egg was his wife's. The sister knew very well that she had to help her elder sister have her 'own' baby and stopped with that without getting too emotional with the baby. She has now settled abroad and the child is happy with 'its parents'.

On the mental trauma for the surrogate's husband, I think he too should be counselled along with his wife. But, the emotional impact is high on the female rather than on the male, isn't it?

[a.ratchasi]

In response to Roshan's posting:

Why do people need to be as insensitive as that?
It is definitely another form of wickedness I would say.

Even as I type, I can, in fact, list the names of 'beings' that I know who are just waiting to divulge matters that do not concern them.

If only such 'naalu peru' could learn to MTOB, the world would definitely be a better place to live in.

[Roshan]

My ex-boss got his wife's sister to be the surrogate mother. Of course, the sperm was his and egg was his wife's. The sister knew very well that she had to help her elder sister have her 'own' baby and stopped with that without getting too emotional with the baby. She has now settled abroad and the child is happy with 'its parents'.

Settled??? What do you mean by settled?? Does she have her own family or living single? I'm sorry I'm so very irritated by this news. I'm really mad at this married woman (and her husband )- who had played with the life of her own sister. As blahblah rightly said - IT'S CHEAP !! :twisted:

[scorpio]

My ex-boss got his wife's sister to be the surrogate mother. Of course, the sperm was his and egg was his wife's. The sister knew very well that she had to help her elder sister have her 'own' baby and stopped with that without getting too emotional with the baby. She has now settled abroad and the child is happy with 'its parents'.

Settled??? What do you mean by settled?? Does she have her own family or living single? I'm sorry I'm so very irritated by this news. I'm really mad at this married woman (and her husband )- who had played with the life of her own sister. As blahblah rightly said - IT'S CHEAP !! :twisted:

Roshan,

You have misunderstood. The wife's sister is married and has her own children. She accepted to surrogate her sister's child as her sister cannot bear a child. She gave birth to a son who is not genetically hers. She gave him to her sister. The point I was about to drive was, she did not have any emotional bonding with the child that will hurt her sister and the child's future. I think it is magnanimous of her husband too to support her thru' her gestation to help her sister's family.

[Roshan]

I have utmost compassion towards childless couple.But I hope they stay away from this.There are many children in this world who need your attention.If a child is a gift from God,dont go searching for it when he has showered you with such gifts everywhere you can see.

Well said blahblah !!



If only such 'naalu peru' could learn to MTOB, the world would definitely be a better place to live in.

Exactly!! but the sad part is it never happens in reality ! :cry:

[Roshan]

Scorpio,

Thanks for clarifying but let me ask this.. what about the sister's husband? How did they make him agree? I just cant imagine this kind of a situation.

[Shakthiprabha.]

I remember seeing a movie (a telugu dubbed tamizh..cast sowndarya) regarding this issue.

They had brought out the probs which surrogate mothers face with
a pinch of salt in it.

I refuse to believe, THAT PPL LOOK DOWN UPON CHILDLESS COUPLE.
Its no longer valid, atleast in urban or semi - urban areas.
May be in rural areas, insults are borne by women who are issueless.

There are options, ivf, icsi and what not?!

Injecting sperms down to even embryo insertion is available.
Now this is another option surrogate mothers!!

__

From the point of view of chastity, I DONT BELIEVE
THE WOMAN loses her chasitity by becoming a surrogate mtoehr.

But what is motherhood? to bear a hcild and sell it for money?
anyway if we look at it from other end, ITS DONE ON DEMAND BASIS.
sOME couple wants a child, for which they pay. Rather BUYS a child.

What is a child?

A bondage between couples. It is a symbolisation of love between
couples. NOT A SYMBOL OF MONEY TO PROOVE THE EXISTENCE AND SAVE THE EXISTENCE OF ANCESTRY of the MALE.

Being issueless is NOT A CRIME. One can spend useful time,
doing service to society or poor and needy.

If, one feels they need a child...then why NOT ADOPT ONE?

sO MANY CHILDREN ARE WAITING OUT THERE FOR U!! just try.

Infact I would advise all parents, who even has one on their
own TO ADOPT ANOTHER.

Child is a child, AND IT NEED NOT BE FROM UR OWN TISSUE TO
call it ur own.

Think broader.

Surrogate mother..................HAVE IT AS THE LAST OPTION.
preferably................DO NOT HAVE IT AS AN OPTION AT ALL

Cheers

[scorpio]

Scorpio,

Thanks for clarifying but let me ask this.. what about the sister's husband? How did they make him agree? I just cant imagine this kind of a situation.

Roshan,

I dunno what all they did to make the sister's husband agree. I've met that guy in the bank a couple of times. He is a very soft-spoken gentleman. Probably, he would have looked at it as a help to his childless bro-in-law. As he already has 2 children of his own, letting his wife carry somebody else's zygote and delivering a healthy baby to the needy might not have troubled him much.

SP,

On yr exclamation at looking down upon issueles couples, my boss' wife was close to depression coz she was issueless. My boss was a very smart and successful VP in a reputed bank. His wife was his parents' choice. She was not a perfect match for him appearence-wise nor status-wise. I have myself seen and heard my colleagues laugh at her back at her 'luck'. Good for her that she had her own sister to partially repair the damage.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Scorpio,

I think its more on the mentality of each individual, its been injected in our blood that ONLY WAY TO RECIPROCATE the favour(!!!) that husbands do, by protecting us, IS TO REAR HIS CHILDREN(MIND IT, ITS ALWAYS REARING HIS CHILDREN..NEVER OURS :)...)

More than that, if a woman, marries somene who is superior in good-looks or status, the inferiority complex is rooted deeply within a woman (sadly the vice-versa is not true)

I doubt, society (esp educated society) looked down upon her. Its she herself, who fenced the thought that her child HAS TO BE HIS BLOOD(no matter even if she is involved).....she wanted to GIFT HIM HIS HEIR. I am happy for them, cause ANY PERSON NEED TO DO, what they feel is GOOD OR RIGHT.

And perfect match... sadly women should understand (FOR THAT MATTER MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD UNDERSTAND) is NOT in looks or money.

Its in their compatibiilty, or bondage or love between them.

All said n done, I WOULD STILL SAY, childless couple can RESORT TO ADOPTION AS next best choice, rather than torturing themselves orrr to ask the help or surrogate moms.

Sensitive issue...:(...

[Cinefan]

I remember seeing a movie (a telugu dubbed tamizh..cast sowndarya) regarding this issue.

They had brought out the probs which surrogate mothers face with
a pinch of salt in it.


I think the film was called '9 months'(9 nelalu)&also had Vikram(b4 Sethu) in it.

This entire issue is very complicated:the surrogate mother should be emotionally strong&so should her husband.If the egg is not the mother's then it's actually a case of a step child,will it not prick the woman at some point.Can he give complete love to the child.There's a big difference between bringing up a adopted child&step child.Also,can you hide the fact that the child has a surrogate mother?Will soceity still not blame the woman for not being able to conceive?It's a method to have atleast one parents genes in the child by any means.I maintain that it's ridiculous to spend money&time on this procedure&also risk trauma to a lot of people.Couples will be better off adopting a child.

[Badri]

Someone asked this question in this convesation, but I am going to ask it again - what is motherhood?

Is a baby that is carried for 9+ months something like an organ that can be donated, like a kidney or something perhaps?

Motherhood goes beyond mere thoughts and emotions. Science has revealed that a lot of mother's love and affection for the offspring has to do with hormones. That is why everything, from animals to birds to humans exhibit a very striking similarity when it comes to the maternal instinct. Every mother (and not just human mothers) is fiercely protective of her offspring.

Experiments have also shown that even male rats injected with the hormones produced in a female during pregnancy and childbirth can endow the male rat with curious maternal tendencies such as protecting and caring for the young.

And with humans, we have the additional dimension of emotions, coupled with hormones. I think it will be reasonable on my part to say that a woman that bears a child is hardly in control of herself, influenced by factors such as hormones and emotions, to say nothing of society. No amount of counselling can help her cut off all relations with the child she bore, as though it were the umbilical cord being cut off.

Just because science today allows surrogate motherhood doesnt make it ethically or morally legal, anymore than cloning is. At least, these are my strong thoughts.

I do sympathise with all the childless couples who look upon surrogate motherhood as a boon, but think a while about the mother who bears the child. She may do it for the money, but may be she doesnt just realize everything that is involved.

As the blahblah bunny rightly said, God in His infinite wisdom surely would have a better package waiting for you...

[pavalamani pragasam]

The mention of harmones urges me to explain another grave aspect of this issue: After delivery(even as labour starts) the mother's body experiences a host of harmonal changes. Lactation starts, along with it as the mother starts suckling the child the uyerus starts shrinking to its original size which takes a few weeks. In the case of the surrogate mother if she is to part with the baby soon after delivering it without setting eyes on it what a hell she must suffer for stopping the lactation process! The swollen breasts if unrelieved can be very painful leading to development of fever and abscesses which may necessitate surgical removal. The milk would be expressed and medicine given to stop lactation! What an atrocity! These things if happened to a luckless woman whose baby died after birth one can get reconciled to it, with grief, of course. But having to undergo this hell for a few thousands of rupees, for the selfish desire of a couple is really not palatable. So the "wise" laws behind this option & the media publicising this option cannot fail to fall under criticism from any sensitive,humane human being.

[nirosha sen]

Well guys, I hate to be the dash of cold water thrown in Pa!! But the truth is, we are all empathising here with our feelings and sentimentality thrown in!

The truth is if everyone feels the same way abt babies and children, born in this world, why are so many kids treated callously by adults????? Motherhood, lactation, post-partum blues etc are feelings of women towards a child, she would have wanted, but the truth is there are many women out there who do not bat an eye in carrying out this deed unemotionally.

Having a child is no mere bonding for mother and child alone, what of the father???? In surrogating, the women have no emotional bonding with the sperm donor, so to all practical intents she really is renting out her womb, Pa!! Sure, it's a real baby, but one that was conceived without any real attachments or bonding with a man!

I in all honesty, do not feel it's wrong, if there are women out there willing to do this deed for a good cause. Eventhough, money may or maynot change hands, I still think it's a good deed for a woman to help a childless couple to have a child. At least genetically, the man shares half of the child's gene pool which an adopted child would not have, Pa! :)

[Cygnus]

**Warning –rea…lly lo..ng post, couldn’t help it :) **

Surrogacy - yet another ethical double-edged sword in the world of choices ad nauseum!

Before we go into this is an ethical practice and examine the intricacies of the mother-child relationship, let's look at the historical options that have been offered to the childless couples.

Firstly, adoption came into practice - in our Indian society (sub-continent, to be politically correct) adoption of one's own blood relative was the customary answer to infertility. Later, the adoption of children born into other families started coming into practice slowly, with the concomitant qualms about such a practice. Could the child be really 'yours' if he/she is not from your caste, family, having some genetic connection with you even in the remotest way - were the kinds of apprehensions that were faced by people, and still continuing to be faced, from family elders.
Then came, treatments for infertility - artificial insemination and subsequently IVF or in vitro fertilization.

Artificial insemination is probably less ethically controversial of the two. IVF would have to simply boggle the mind of a 'creationist' - insertion of a sperm into the ovum and simulating conducive conditions for artificial fertilization and formation of embryo. Why is this all of a sudden a more acceptable practice when compared with surrogating, atleast for some? Aren't we not deciding which sperm will fertilize which ovum, thereby totally erasing the natural selection process in a way? Or according to belief systems, aren't we denying "God" the chance to see to which sperm will fertilize the ovum, thereby carving one more notch in the tree of god-playing tactics?? (This is an argumentative statement – not a personal one).

Furthermore most of the IVFs lead to multiple pregnancies since more than one embryo is planted into the womb of the woman, in order to maximize the chance of becoming pregnant with atleast one fetus. Is this not an unnatural way of procreating, forcing multiple pregnancies upon the woman, endangering her health as well as having to witness the painful decision of, in some cases, having to abort one of the embryos so the other(s) can survive??

Given that none of the above options are not without moral and ethical questions, what is so different about surrogating? It is only yet another ethical dilemma that the society faces. Here, it is important to specify that I'm only talking about willful volunteering of the surrogate in order to help the childless couple, NOT the 'womb for hire' type, which adds multiple dimensions to this already complex situation.

Recently, there was news of a Gujarati couple living in UK who had a child by a surrogate mother, this wasn't different from any other surrogate cases, EXCEPT the surrogate is the mother of the biological mother of the child, making her the first woman in history to give birth to her own grandchild!! I'd like to see Vikramadityan answer this riddle!! After the child was born, the proud grandma claimed, she would have done it any day for her daughter, to give her the gift of ‘motherhood’. Is this the pinnacle of motherly love for a child (grandmother and mother) or a twisted tale of sordid relationships abandoning all moral pillars upholding the institution of family??

Another peculiar case, this from the US - famous TV personality Joan Lunden recently had a pair of twins through a surrogate, the reason why this piqued my interest is that Lunden already has three full grown daughters (naturally conceived by and born to her) and she resorted to surrogate to bear these children because 'she yearns to be a new mother again' and could not conceive naturally since she is over 50. Now the twist is, after the birth of these two babies, she plans for more through the same surrogate!!!

I feel the urge to brand this woman (Lunden) as a psycho maniacal breeder of livestock but what do you folks think?!

The surrogate has been doing this as a sort of a profession - she is a single parent with 2 daughters naturally conceived by her, and she has borne many children previously, for others. Lunden claims that the surrogate is involved in the lives of the children and will be recognized as part of their family. What is this, 21st century “Brady Bunch”??

In the end, it seems that humanity’s constant urge to propagate itself has led to such circumstances. It is the built in desire to genetically replicate our selves that drives all of this. Before we judge the couple that resorts to a surrogate, claiming that they should rather adopt, let’s think about their unique positions. Not everyone is capable of parental love towards someone else’s child. I’m sure we all have seen people who treat their biological children as precious creatures and every other child as the spawn of evil. It is not an emotional bond that can spring out of nowhere; if it is not innate it cannot be forced upon.

Again, to reiterate, this argument assumes that the surrogate and couple understand the consequences and the surrogate willingly helps the couple to bear a child of their genetic makeup. In the case that PP has mentioned above, where women are subjected to the cruelty of having to ‘rent their wombs’ for a few thousand rupees, it is utterly deplorable and saddening. But I got to point out one thing though. In the past (may be even to day, I don’t know)“wet nurses” as they are called, some women were hired to feed babies in cases where the biological mother could not lactate or died due to birthing complications. Isn’t that a testimonial to the fact that motherly instinct overcomes relational barriers, and that if that was acceptable why not a ‘gestational nurse’ who volunteers to actually carry the baby in her womb? My personal choice, given the circumstances would be a different one, but this line of thought, I felt, deserved some merit.

[jaiganes]

Motherhood is one emotion that seems to be shared by almost all vertebrates. Care for young ones is the first emotion in this universe. All other feelings came much later. In the animal kingdom too there are surrogate mothers, although something like IVF and stuff is not there. In a pack of wild dogs there is always an alpha male and female. Alpha female is the "Godmother" for the entire pack. Whichever female gives birth to young ones, alpha female barges in and carries the pups to her den/burrow and starts feeding them her milk. The disconnection of bonds between natural mother and her pups is immediate. The natural mother is in tremendous mental (?) and physical pain and tries unsuccessfully to snatch her pups back so many times. The tussle between the natural mother and the alpha female goes on for months. I saw this on the discovery channel and was amazed by the whole gamut of feelings the natural mother in a pack of wild dogs displayed. The pain as Pavalamani madam has put it rightly is always for the surrogate mother. But looking at the other side of the coin at what scorpio says also makes sense in a way. We humans have from time imemorial have made it a habit to inculcate certain altruistic tendencies, like some among us have sworn to remain celibates and serve society like the monks and nuns of missionaries while some among us have attached ourselves with a cause and sacrificed many things for that all while going against the natural order. Although the concept of human surrogate mother is altruistic in its foundation, the fact that it has degenerated into "womb for hire" is a cause for concern. Compared to that the story of a sister acting as a surrogate for her sibling's off spring is in line with natural tendencies as well as the altruistic tint among humans.

[Shekhar]

Hi,
I don't mind to be a surrogate father!! :wink: :lol:

[scorpio]

Hi,
I don't mind to be a surrogate father!! :wink: :lol:

Shekhar!

While I appreciate your intentions to bring back some humour in threads where discussions are heavy and sentimental, don't you think your above statement is a bit out of place? :oops:

[Shekhar]

Hi,
I don't mind to be a surrogate father!! :wink: :lol:

Shekhar!

While I appreciate your intentions to bring back some humour in threads where discussions are heavy and sentimental, don't you think your above statement is a bit out of place? :oops:

You forgot. I was one of the nominees for the Hub Snapper award. I told you, I can't resist the temptation.
Pass on lady, just ignore me.. :wink:

[pavalamani pragasam]

(contd from my previous posting)
The baby is also a loser in this bargain. Colustrum in the mother’s first milk is full of antibodies vital for the baby’s resistance against infections & diseases.

Now, coming to other posts, Cygnus raised the question about wet nurses. In many old English novels I had read with aversion about fashionable wealthy upper class ladies appointing wet nurse in order to be able to freely merry-making in parties. When the mother is dead or is unable to feed her baby a wet nurse is a boon. But not acceptable to me in the first-mentioned case. In fact I used to be very surprised as a child to hear that in a large joint family of many daughters & and daughters-in-law in the lactating stage with a number of "thottils" hanging from the ceiling if one particular infant squeals in hunger & that particular baby's mother is unable to attend to it immediately any other lactating mother gave it a suck! This is the animal altruism jaiganes speaks about.
Luden cited by Cygnus is no doubt a maniac. Nothing else. The mother-grandmother feat which I also read in the news is also weird, leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Sister lending the womb is understandably a kind gesture. But strange poverty-stricken surrogate volunteers is a pitiable class making the practice a commercial transaction sans sentiment,ethics-a selfish, one-sided bargain. The practice stripped of any altruistic element will almost come to the same level as the oldest trade! Sorry if I sound harsh, I pray in advance to pardon my peculiarly emotional sentiments.

[Badri]

Mrs PP

Your harshness is understandable, given how strongly you feel about the issue. Yes, although I did not come right out to say it, I do share your thoughts on it becoming quite akin to prostitution, if it is sans the altruistic feeling. Is everything for sale then, is the question one finds asking oneself. If a surrogate mother is ok, why even go for artificial insemination? Why not have the father do it the natural way? Make infidelity overboard and legal and ethical.

If tomorrow, science discovers a method to sustain life say by sacrificing another, would we probably have the more poorer elements of our society willingly give up the lives of one of their innumerable and unwanted children?

Sometimes, we cloak our selfishness with a veil of altruism and hope everyone will be deceived, including ourselves. That, unfortunately was how the World Wars started, how nuclear proliferation started, how civil wars and mass massacres begun.

Somehow justifying these things on moral and altruistic grounds is not going to make them any cleaner.

Disclaimer: These are my opinions only..obviously!! If you feel differently, please feel free, only do not drag me into a controvery over these thoughts.

[Roshan]

Good posts by Cygnus, PP, Jaiganesh and others. Thanks to PP for bringing up this issue and starting a thread here. Though initially I was not that serious on this issue, I was terribly disturbed after participating in the discussions here yesterday. As a woman I do not feel comfortable with the idea of surrogacy what so ever. Personally given the circumstances, I would definitely go for adaption and never think of surrogacy.

Earlier the reproductive technology involved donor insemination (DI) and in vitro fertilization(IVF) , which gave the infertile couples new hope and the chance to have children. Surrogacy is the most recent addition which combines DI and IVF with surrogate mother arrangements. 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.

Agreeing to be a surrogate could be due to money or altruism ( I can hardly agree with the latter , in the case of surrogate being a complete outsider to the contracting parents). In majority of the cases it is done for money and if that is the case it’s nothing but commercializing one’s motherhood. As I said before, any woman who puts her moral values before her other needs, and who has self respect and respect for motherhood would not agree to surrogate. Motherhood for remuneration would reduce surrogates to the level of reproductive laborers. Services are bought and body parts rented as if the woman in which these parts reside did not exist. The women are treated as means of producing babies and not as individuals. Commercial surrogacy -in other words - the ‘womb renting’ has definitely changed the traditional understanding of motherhood and does injustice to the surrogate, the contacting mother and the women in general.

If the motive was altruism or helping an infertile couple out of compassion what is the gurantee that the surrogate will not develop a bond- because of her compassionate nature - with the child she bears? As PP said it would definitely be something hard for a such a woman to give away a child that was genetically linked to herself irrespective of brainwashing, counseling et al . Giving away a child which is half hers is definitely a trauma. And what about the trauma the family members of the surrogate have to go through? What would be the consequences of the impact the surrogate creates on her own children?

With your own child it is totally different. It is a joyous occasion where you share everything with your husband and your family. With surrogate pregnancy you almost cut out the family. You don’t encourage the husband to be a father; grandmother to be a grandma, children to be brothers or sisters and you don’t start nest building and buying things for the baby. There is no comparison between the pregnancies, except that you are pregnant, only the physical symptoms. Why would women have to go down to a such a pathetic state just to help an outsider - who always has better options of owning a child.

Furthermore the baby is separated from the birth mother in a commercial transaction, which treats the baby as little more than a commodity. What then, is the difference between this form of baby selling and illegal forms of baby selling through adoption on the black market?

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.

[Roshan]

I have this questions..

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? Even if the social parents accept the child, will they - especially the social mother take care of the child with all her love and affection. I very much doubt it.

Next is.. we are discussing about surrogacy in the context the wife being unable to bear a child. What would happen if the husband is incapable and the wife wants to bear a child? Will the husband agree to infuse sperms of an outsider into his wife's womb? What would be the reaction of our society and the 'naalu pEr' in it?

[blahblah]

What would happen if the husband is incapable and the wife wants to bear a child? Will the husband agree to infuse sperms of an outsider into his wife's womb? What would be the reaction of our society and the 'naalu pEr' in it?

If I am in that place,I will never let it happen.I will never ever allow to sperm of another man to be infused into my wife's womb.I can say so confidently since I oppose surrogate motherhood too.

If such a situation arises,I would certainly prefer adoption.And I believe this will be the stand of most men here. :wink:

[Roshan]

If such a situation arises,I would certainly prefer adoption.And I believe this will be the stand of most men here. :wink:

That was the response I expected and I wanted. That gives the answer to the whole thing blahblah !!

[Cinefan]

[
If such a situation arises,I would certainly prefer adoption.And I believe this will be the stand of most men here. :wink:

That indeed is my stand as I said so in my earlier post.

[Querida]

This is a very touchy issue but i am heartened very much by the sensible and heartfelt replies made by all...

for me this issue is too far off i can no more think of surrgote mothers as i can think of even being a mother though i can say a few things:

-the movie was meendum seethai with Vikram and Soundarya...popular for taking on a issue but very much glossed over the emotionality of the subject

- i think however painful it is i would tell my adopted child that they were not my own to begin with...though they were meant to be...they have a right to know...but then again adoption is sensitive in that an infant is alright but what about all those over the 'cutesy' age 7 and up what are those children to do..but go from orphanage to orphanage...and it is very difficult to raise them...i know a foster mom...she is very dedicated but as the child gets older they are most likely to be abused in a number of ways and are psychologically damaged...what of children who remember their parents and have been separated from siblings?

-i think adoption as mentioned by the many hubbers the better solution rather than surrgote mothers

-what about couples who don't want children they are just as scorned as those who can't have kids

-what about children who are handicapped?

-there was a news item couple months back about the oldest woman to give birth an italian prof...i do not know of anything more selfish...raising a child starts from birth until your death...if pushed can say 16-18 years then? Does this woman even have that many years to properly take care of her child...i hate to say it if she is nearing the age that she cannot effectively take care of herself what about the child?

[Badri]

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.

[Cygnus]

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.


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.

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.

[Roshan]

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". :)






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.



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.



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=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. :)

[pavalamani pragasam]

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!

[blahblah]

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.

[Roshan]

PP,

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

[Badri]

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!

[Roshan]

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 !!

[Cygnus]

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:

[Shakthiprabha.]

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?



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.


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?

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


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..!

[Shekhar]

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.

[pavalamani pragasam]

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!!!

[scorpio]

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.

[Roshan]

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.


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.



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.


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.



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

[Roshan]

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

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




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



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.
:)

[scorpio]

Aiyo Roshan, vayasu aayiduchu, maradhi, mannichukonga!

[Roshan]

hey paravailla.. I was just kidding :)

[Shakthiprabha.]

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.

[blahblah]

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. :)

[scorpio]

[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!

[pavalamani pragasam]

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.

[blahblah]

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.

[Roshan]

[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 !! :)

[mellon]

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. :)


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.


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.


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?

[pavalamani pragasam]

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:

[pavalamani pragasam]

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!

[Shekhar]

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...

[Cygnus]

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

[Roshan]

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

[mellon]

You sound like Praveen Kumar now.



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!

[Shekhar]

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"

[Roshan]

....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:

[pavalamani pragasam]

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.

[Roshan]

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.

[a.ratchasi]

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

Well done!

[Roshan]

Thanks ratchasi :D

But I really missed you here !!

[a.ratchasi]

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:

[pavalamani pragasam]

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

[mellon]

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"! :)

[Cygnus]

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'.



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!




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.

[Roshan]

Wow Great !!!! things are back to normal with discussions on the 'issue' instead of talking unrelated stuffs like Vegs Vs Non Vegs :wink: :lol: :P 8)

Easy folks easy !!! 8)

[Shekhar]

Shekhar,
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?
..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.

Cygnus,
Like mellon did, you are also ascribing a lot of things that I have neither mentioned nor implied.
I have never used the word "should" .. I have always approached life with an element of cynicism about myself that I could be wrong.
I have not passed any judgment, moral or otherwise, about the couple who intend to have their own biological child at the exclusion of any other option. I was only suggesting an other alternative, a better one according to me, if only they can alter their outlook. I have stated, given a particular mindset, the issue is not arguable. If they believe there is no alternative to a genetic child, then end of the argument. Period.
But the irrevocable truth, which can be realised only with an extremely open mind, is that there is no difference between the love I have towards my daughter and my son.

[Shekhar]

Also I am raising a basic question, the answer to which may be different to different people...
Why do we want to have children?
I think, it is an innate desire to procreate our speciies. (Not necessarily our genes)
It is also due to the urge for loving and being loved in its purest form, which results in a complete family. If so, any child can be yours if you love it. If you have any mental riders to this, then there is some cost involved, which may include the guilt of involving someother's life and emotions. If you are ready to pay that and other costs, the option is yours.
Again, if the reason to have a child is extraneous, like an investment for the future, or competition with rivals, then my views are less kind towards them.
But IF it, is only to escape from the social aspersions of being called 'barren', there cannot be a meaner reason than this to bring a life on to this earth. If you call this moral, I cannot call any thing else immoral.

[pavalamani pragasam]

The issue of having an issue is intricately wound round many primal instincts and nurtured by social customs. In our country where “living together” has not taken root yet, where we still trade woman WITH cash and chattel in marriage business, where we widely avail the service of “matrimonial ads” angling for tall, fair brides and software engineers in MNC’s, marriage is a big issue in the first place. Next, the first question asked by anyone meeting the bride a few days after marriage is “any special news?”( in Tamil “Ethaavathu vishEshamuNdaa?).
Having an offspring in hands at the completion of ten months after marriage is the best risk-free, care-free choice and luck of many couples. Crossing this time limit starts the persistent queries from any and everybody. We are not a “sensitive” people to consider this potential matter a private issue. After all it is pure, genuine concern about progeny- the ultimate aim of marriage. Whether we like it or not “to grow and multiply” is the design of Nature. It is an inborn urge. Thus it is an understandable matter how the pressure mounts for issueless couples.
In bygone days adoption was the only choice and as science and technology has grown, multiple choices are made available for the couples who feel they must have an issue by all means. (We shall not forget that some couples decide to live for each other, without resorting to any method to prolong the family line.) It would differ depending on the temperament, the wealthy position and exposure to broadminded ideas of the individuals concerned.
The very natural, undebatable desire of all parents-to-be is to have children who mirror them in looks and characteristics. The whole family and community supports this basic desire. “It runs in the family” is something to take pride in. These fundamental, primal instincts cant be helped.
A superior mind which has crossed the barriers of narrow considerations can transcend mundane expectations in a pursuit of pure, sublime, humane love. A Shekhar can think, feel otherwise than this normal herd. But Shekhars are a pathetic minority. Let us be realistic.
So nowadays issueless couples if they can afford it resort to surrogacy, yielding to a compulsive, primal instinct. It is a very human thing to do- IF it did not involve so much sacrifice on the part of the surrogate mother. I am not passing any judgement. A particle of “humanness” is missing in this transaction, in my opinion-it is a sort of heartless business contract from the surrogate mother’s point of view. To think poverty is the reason for the surrogate mother’s consent made me feel sad. That was the mood in which I started this issue about issue.
To love an adopted child also requires real generosity of heart. Are step-mother stories unheard of? This is similar to that. There can be, there have been wonderful step-mothers.
An ideal policy of marital love and family ties as Shekhar has are very rare. Those who don’t have it need feel no regret either. It takes all sorts of people to make the world. To conclude animal-like attachment to one’s own “flesh and blood” literally is quite understandable. Whether it is acceptable or not is not ours to decide.

[scorpio]

PP Ma'm,

Wow! Excellent and balanced post. :thumbsup:

[Cygnus]

Cygnus,
Like mellon did, you are also ascribing a lot of things that I have neither mentioned nor implied.
I have never used the word "should" .. I have always approached life with an element of cynicism about myself that I could be wrong.
I have not passed any judgment, moral or otherwise, about the couple who intend to have their own biological child at the exclusion of any other option. I was only suggesting an other alternative, a better one according to me, if only they can alter their outlook. I have stated, given a particular mindset, the issue is not arguable.

Shekhar, please tell me how else one would interpret the statement -
*** 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. *** if not assuming that you implied that childless couples excluding adoption are selfish despite their natural deficiency which precludes them from pusuing other ways of begetting a child except adoption.

Let me reiterate that that I am not arguing for a personal stance, substantiating my choice. I don't want to color this issue with my personal choices. Regardless of what my choice is, what is my tolerance towards oters' choices - is the moral compass that steers this conversation for me. I could not make concise affirmative statements when the issue this deep and wide involving the decliate emotions and lives of many people.

PP, please accept my heartfelt thanks for your indepth analysis of the issue from many conceivable angles . I have echoed your thoughts in my all my posts that the desire to precreate is an innate drive that has led us to the present situation. It is not for us to decide upon the propriety of the many choices and the many struggles for clarity that have sprung from the choices. But it behooves us to embrace and learn to live with the variegations of our humanness.

[mellon]

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.

Adoption has its own complications as well. Especially very emotional ones hanging between the biological parents and the real parents is NOT COMPLETELY eliminated. It is never risk-free!

It all depends on the individaul couple's maturity and morality as what they believe in, to deal with the situation and, the adoption may not be a best solution for some couples at least. They may very well be happy with "their own children" rather than adopting "other's children" 8)


mellon,
You got me all wrong.

Cygnus,
Like mellon did, you are also ascribing a lot of things that I have neither mentioned nor implied.

You know what Shekhar, it is ALWAYS the people those have different view than what we(u) have, GET ALL WRONG.

I see you are SAYING that in every post as they getting all wrong but u should know that THEY FEEL THE SAME WAY about YOU!

I thought u should know that YOU ARE NOT ALONE and u r not the only one whose posts all have been MISUNDERSTOOD and MISINTERPRETED 8)

[Shekhar]

Fine..Got your point.

But why big bold letters?! :roll:
Do you know who shouts?!! :) :)

[Roshan]

But why big bold letters?! :roll:
Do you know who shouts?!! :) :)

LOL@Shekhar !!!! :rotfl:

[Shekhar]

Let me reiterate that that I am not arguing for a personal stance, substantiating my choice.

Cygnus.. Of course I know that. You are too mature to do that.
However strongly I was arguing my point of view, I had and have respect for yours. May be I lagged in my effort to look at the issue from your point of view.
PP Madam's post made me think a lot about my view point, or rather the 'rigidity' of my view point. I realised that I lacked the sensitiveness to understand the emotions of childless couple. This is where I realised that your sensitiveness and empathy in understanding the pangs of the childless couple is commendable. My view is flawed by two of my limitations. One is, being a man I lack the sensibility of a woman to understand the craving of a mother. The other is my lack of association with childless couple. My conviction has come from my own experience of having a child and almost forgetting she is not my natural child. But the draw back is that no one else can know what it is till they experience it. This truth cannot be 'told'. And I was precisely trying to do that.
We, in our infirmities, vehemently try to argue, mistaking our personal truths to be universal truths. I forgot for a while, that my truth is a personal one, true nevertheless, but cannot be a universal one. It is an infirmity on my part to expect others to accept my point of view. If someone had talked to me about adoption before I took my daughter, may be I would have reacted in a similar way you did.
I have not had close contact with childless couples, so I lacked the sensitivenss towards their problem. At the same time you have not seen my daughters relationship with me and my family. So such a solution doesn't enthuse you. Well it needed a PP mam to see both sides of the coin.
Is it a coincidence, that she is a woman? Honestly, I don't think so..

[Roshan]

Well it needed a PP mam to see both sides of the coin.

No two words about it !! I really admired the way she summarized the whole issue. But personally, I'm yet to be convinced as regards surrogacy. May be because I have associated with childless couples who have resorted to adoption without qualms - and I have seen how wonderfully the children and those parents share their love and affection with each other. I have also associated with parents like you who have chosen adoption despite of having their own child(ren). It's so encouraging and motivating. I personally feel that there should be as more counselors as possible to advice and encourage childless couples on adoption , as I - without any doubts consider it - as the best option available for them

And I rest my case !!

[Cygnus]

Shekhar, you have illustrated lucidly just why you are such an adorable gentleman!!!! Thank you for stepping into my shoes and looking at the issue from the other side of the bank, it is exactly what I meant by no perspective is without merit, in one of the earlier posts.

Just one small clarification though, at the risk of sounding factitious, let me state that 'your solution does enthuse me' more than you could know. :D

It is not so often that PP and I resonate with the same frequency of ideas but this is indeed a rare moment for me :wink: :D

[mellon]

Shekhar:

It was in fact difficult to discuss this issue keeping an annoying "one-sided moderator" around here. So the best I could do was "e-SHOUT" to emphasise some comments without any personal attack. After all it is going to hurt only my "throat' (my key-board) not others' heart . 8)

You know, Shekhar, it is very interesting to see and learn about people's attitude when you stand in the other side in a "silly" argument. I mean most of us are going to go with the same opinion we had for sure, eventually. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to learn about people and, to reveal their "unseen" attitude, Shekhar.

Hey if at all u needed to visit the doctor to fix your "damaged ears", due to my "e-shoutings", let me know the amount you paid to fix it. I will write you a check for that amount as I am liable. :) Take it easy, my friend, Shekhar! :)

---------------------

Finally, PP, I must appreciate your open mind in this issue. After all u did not "hire" the "moderator" for your thread and so I know u r not the one to blame for that. !:lol2:

You did your part the best u could. Thank you, PP. :)

[Shekhar]

mellon,

I don't know what you are talking about. :o
I dont understand the language. Can you post in english? :roll:

[Shekhar]

On second thought.... Dont. I am busy as such.

[blahblah]

On second thought.... Dont. I am busy as such.
Good for you,Shekhar,and even for us! :wink:

[scorpio]

Today's 'Dhina Thanthi' had an article on 'Surrogate mothers' in 'Thinamum oru thagaval' column. Here is the summary-

The ratio of childless couples to others in India is as high as 1:6.

The basic qualifications for a surrogate are- She should be married and should have atleast 1 or 2 children of her own by 'natural' delivery. Should be betwen 25-30 years of age and should be in good health.

For the lady to be a surrogate, she should consent wholly and should also have support from her husband and near-family.

The genuine couples and the surrogate are required to execute an agreement in front of the lawyer.

The identity of the 'real' couples is kept as a close-guarded secret to the surrogate and vice-versa.

Surrogates get a monthly payment of Rs 1500 and Rs 50k on delivery.

She is not allowed to even look at the face of the new-born. The new-born is immediately handed over to the 'real' parents.

[pavalamani pragasam]

Scorpio, that's exactly the gist of the Anantha Vikadan article which stirred me by its saddening implications to start this thread. Did Thanthi copy Vikadan's article? :wink:

[scorpio]

PP Ma'm,

Possible. Dhina Thanthi is not a very honest newspaper and many of its articles ( especially ones in its supplements) are all lifted without due credits. Somehow, the pre-condition that the surrogate should be married and should have atleast a child of herself offered me some solace that poor people will not 'use' their unmarried daughters into this 'profession'. With a child already hers, the surrogate may also not miss the new born 'entirely' as opposed to first time mothers who are foced to 'let out' their wombs.

[pavalamani pragasam]

Scorpio, the AV article carried interviews with some surrogate mothers. One was a widow who has been brought away to the city unknown to the relatives to finish this clandestine assignment according to her confession. All the women accepted this for money(Rs.50,000!).

[Roshan]

Scorpio, the AV article carried interviews with some surrogate mothers. One was a widow who has been brought away to the city unknown to the relatives to finish this clandestine assignment according to her confession.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


All the women accepted this for money(Rs.50,000!).

huh !! Where did altruism, compassion and all the blahblahs(not the bugs bunny :P ) go? :roll:

I read an interesting matter on the net during the week end regarding surrogacy. All these days not being able to have an issue has been an issue for gay couples and now with surrogacy they say that they do not have to worry about it any more. :twisted: Surrogacy is just another form of degrading human and moral values in the name of altruism and compassion and good will !!! :x

[scorpio]

Display of human values at its worst, what more can I say??? :shock:

[Shekhar]

You women always crib and cry on everything.
Look at this way... Can a man ever get an opportunity to earn money like this?? :lol: :lol:

(Scorpio.. Sorry!!... :oops: )

[blahblah]

huh !! Where did altruism, compassion and all the blahblahs(not the bugs bunny :P ) go? :roll:


Roshan,you too! :roll: :cry: :cry:

[Roshan]

I was just trying to be a bit safe coz, I have seen your response to raghu when he once said "I have a family, responsibilities blahblah.." :lol:

[pavalamani pragasam]

In this week's issue of Tamil weekly "Anada Vikadan" I enjoyed reading an article on Indian womanhood written by Thamizaruvi Maniyan under the title, "Oorukku nallathu solvEn". A very good dissertation on the esteem for motherhood in India with ample examples and quotes. It is heartening to read such wonderful articles in the traditionally family magazine retaining its old glory amidst its recent temptation to compromise its standard in its fight for survival in today's rat race.

[pavalamani pragasam]

This week Thamizaruvi Maniyan in his column, "oorukku nallathu solvEn" speaks about marriage & its value with wonderful examples. An excellent column with brilliant explanations! Thank you Ananda Vikadan!

[pavalamani pragasam]

Once again Thamizaruvi MaNiyan has given a wonderful article this week in his column in Ananda Vikadan. His article is worth its weight in gold! Thanks, AV!

[Roshan]

Thanks for the update PP, I'll go through the article asap. Thanks :)

[Girish11]

Motherhood is one emotion that seems to be shared by almost all vertebrates. Care for young ones is the first emotion in this universe. All other feelings came much later. In the animal kingdom too there are surrogate mothers, although something like IVF and stuff is not there. In a pack of wild dogs there is always an alpha male and female. Alpha female is the "Godmother" for the entire pack. Whichever female gives birth to young ones, alpha female barges in and carries the pups to her den/burrow and starts feeding them her milk. The disconnection of bonds between natural mother and her pups is immediate. The natural mother is in tremendous mental (?) and physical pain and tries unsuccessfully to snatch her pups back so many times. The tussle between the natural mother and the alpha female goes on for months. I saw this on the discovery channel and was amazed by the whole gamut of feelings the natural mother in a pack of wild dogs displayed. The pain as Pavalamani madam has put it rightly is always for the surrogate mother. But looking at the other side of the coin at what scorpio says also makes sense in a way. We humans have from time imemorial have made it a habit to inculcate certain altruistic tendencies, like some among us have sworn to remain celibates and serve society like the monks and nuns of missionaries while some among us have attached ourselves with a cause and sacrificed many things for that all while going against the natural order. Although the concept of human surrogate mother is altruistic in its foundation, the fact that it has degenerated into "womb for hire" is a cause for concern. Compared to that the story of a sister acting as a surrogate for her sibling's off spring is in line with natural tendencies as well as the altruistic tint among humans.

Hi all,

New here, doing a search at google about some movie review,
landed at forum hub and all these days I was just browsing
the tamil movie section. Since there were not many posts there
today, peeked in here and found the topics very interesting,
I do feel at a loss because I am not good at expressing myself,
further, my vocabulary is even worse. I wish I can bring up
my children to be as good as you guys. Just wanted to
say.....the topics and discussions here are very nice and
very helpful. It feels great to be reading your posts.

Further, request Jaiganes to please give the name
of the documentary of the discovery channel mentioned in
the above quote. I would like to watch it if possible.

Thanks.

Regards

[Girish11]

Further, we just had a baby girl 3 months back, I was also
looking for some good parenting sites, there are many
very easy to find thru search engines, I thought,
asking you guys, I can get to know a few of the best ones.
Shall appreciate your information. Thanks.

Regards.

[Nitai]

-deleted-

[pavalamani pragasam]

Here is an editorial from last week's "The Times of India":

"Fertility Rites

Why India is not worried about rising infertility worldwide

Making babies naturally has never been more difficult. Why? Because we're sitting on an 'infertility time bomb', warn experts who met recently in Copenhagen at a European Ssssociety of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) conference. One in six couples worldwide has some kind of infertility problem and the ratio could soon rise to one in three. The problem afflicts male andd female partners in equal measure. This is the obverse of the Malthusian doomsday scenario. The 18th century economist projected that a geometric growth in human population would eventually outstrip agricultural and economic production. However, advanced tecchnologgy and improved healthcare proved him wrong. The ESHRE disclosures, however, are alarming for ccompletely different reasons. Going by recent trends, especially in Western Europe and Sscandinavia, it seems that greater economic independence and higher standards of livvving are not conducive for procreation. Infertility is set to double in Europe in the next 10 years, warns Bill Ledger from Sheffield zuniversity and male infertility worldwide could rise faster because both quality and quantity of sperm are on the decline.

Decclining fertility rates - in rich and poor countries- are being attributed to any of the following reasons. Stress, smoking, obesity, malnutrition, women postponing marriage and motherhood because of inflexible working hours and career aspirations, sexually transmitted infections like chlamydia, drug or alcohol dependency, psychological factors and exposure to radiation and chemicals like pesticides. That's a huge basket of reasons and so affects a large swathe of the world's population, impacting every ecconomic group. Aaageing population and sharply declining birth rates are worrying Europe and the US. National health schemes of some countries are including the right to assisted reproduction. Denmark and Iceland provide generous paternity schemes that include paid long leave and other incentives. India, with a one billion plus population however, is not sweating- yet. With an estimated 35% of its total population under 15 years of age, Indian youth is set to dominate the world. Interestingly, China will soon experience the effects of the one-cchild norm that restricted family numbers and skewed gender ratio for more than two decades. All's well that ends well. By default we will soon find ourselves reaping the benefit of multiplying like rabbits."

[nirosha sen]

I just watched the SunTv programme, Achamillai-achamillai, where we had this lady called Karpagham who had handed over her 16 day old baby to another lady, called Marimah.

Did anyone out there watch this particular programme????? It raised quite a lot of questions for me on whole families appearing on this programme, despite the risk of legal actions. What are some of your comments, please????

PP - I hope you don't mind me writing my query on this issue, please! :D

[pavalamani pragasam]

The people in charge of the mega serials & all soaps expect their viewers to put aside their reasoning faculty. :evil: Only sobs & tears, without rhyme or reason! :evil: Quite a lot can see through the producers' treacherous intentions of working on the waterworks of weaklings without any proper, decent self-respect! :twisted: How do so many millions stay hooked to all the idiocies is something I still can't comprehend! :twisted:

[nirosha sen]

This was a talk show hosted by actress Lakshmi who has your everyday Muthu, Samy or in this case Karpagham as her guests to wash their dirty linen in public.

This particular case was fascinating in the sense that it takes a dig at covert sales of babies by the birth mother to the adoptive mother. The only problem that went awry was when the father of the baby came to know and demanded for his return!! And mind you, after 3 years too!!

A dispute of this sort shown on national tv, leaves the parents involved wide open for prosecution, doesn't it????? Also, to me, it raised the lack of awareness of contraception amongst Indian slum-dwellers, which is where these women were from.

[S.Balaji]

[tscii:a4eb0ddf0f]I find this thread really nice to share one’s thoughts… My close friend (though she could have had her own baby ) had adopted a girl from Orphanage and she is 7 years old… Doing extremely well.. The kid has become part and parcel of the family and dear dear to all…. Ofcourse , the kid does not know the truth.. Now my friend is really worried as to WHETHER SHE NEEDS TO REVEAL THE TRUTH SOMETIME IN LIFE ?? If YES, BY WHEN AND AT WHAT AGE ??

This issue has been worrying my friend of late….

Can someone come up with a wiser suggestion on how to deal with such a situation…..as it is a very sensitive issue….
She is worried on the consequences… how the kid will react once she comes to know the truth…
One thing is for sure... Its not going to be an easy task to reveal ....
Probably those Dfers who had already adopted earlier… can bring in their best suggestion…

Looking forward…
[/tscii:a4eb0ddf0f]

[pavalamani pragasam]

In all discretion the parents may themselves forget the child is an adopted one. A little amount of such self-deceit shall do a lot of good. There is no telling what the temperament of the child is, how sensitive/possessive he/she is. Why take the risk & cause trauma & pangs all round? The damages could be irreparable. Even if the child finds out the truth at any stage from an outsider the parents will be right to lie about it & maintain him/her to be their natural child. What has the great sage Thiruvalluvar said about 'truth'?: "vaaymai enappaduvathu yaathenin yaathonRum theethilaathathu solal".

Someone who has the big heart to adopt a child should be given the best moral support & appreciation.

[abbydoss1969]

[tscii:cb16ee2440]I find this thread really nice to share one’s thoughts… My close friend (though she could have had her own baby ) had adopted a girl from Orphanage and she is 7 years old… Doing extremely well.. The kid has become part and parcel of the family and dear dear to all…. Ofcourse , the kid does not know the truth.. Now my friend is really worried as to WHETHER SHE NEEDS TO REVEAL THE TRUTH SOMETIME IN LIFE ?? If YES, BY WHEN AND AT WHAT AGE ??

This issue has been worrying my friend of late….

Can someone come up with a wiser suggestion on how to deal with such a situation…..as it is a very sensitive issue….
She is worried on the consequences… how the kid will react once she comes to know the truth…
Follow Sushmita sen's idea
One thing is for sure... Its not going to be an easy task to reveal ....
Probably those Dfers who had already adopted earlier… can bring in their best suggestion…

Looking forward…
[/tscii:cb16ee2440]

[abbydoss1969]

[tscii:84b31eb0ad]I find this thread really nice to share one’s thoughts… My close friend (though she could have had her own baby ) had adopted a girl from Orphanage and she is 7 years old… Doing extremely well.. The kid has become part and parcel of the family and dear dear to all…. Ofcourse , the kid does not know the truth.. Now my friend is really worried as to WHETHER SHE NEEDS TO REVEAL THE TRUTH SOMETIME IN LIFE ?? If YES, BY WHEN AND AT WHAT AGE ??

This issue has been worrying my friend of late….

Can someone come up with a wiser suggestion on how to deal with such a situation…..as it is a very sensitive issue….
She is worried on the consequences… how the kid will react once she comes to know the truth…
One thing is for sure... Its not going to be an easy task to reveal ....
Probably those Dfers who had already adopted earlier… can bring in their best suggestion…

Looking forward…
[/tscii:84b31eb0ad]
Follow sushmita sen's lead in this matter

[Fan]

adopting a child, giving him/her Home, Love... and break everything by telling the truth, put him/her suddenly without any references?..... what's the need then to adopt? Please ask them not to reveal anything and keep the kid as his own... because adopting a kid and keeping that kid as an orphan in a Home has no sense...

[pavalamani pragasam]

[tscii:1dfea038e4]From today’s “The Times of India”:

Abortion trauma lasts five years

Women can take at least five years to get over an abortion, research shows. The study found many who opted to terminate their babies suffered long-term feelings of guilt and shame. The women who had a termination for lifestyle reasons also felt more anxious and depressed than those who miscarried.

Rachel Heath, of Life, said:”With miscarriage, women are very, very distressed but over time find they can come to terms with it because it was a natural event. “With an abortion, they often feel deeply that it is something they could have avoided. Regret manifests itself in a number of different ways like sleeplessness, anxiety and depression and, in extreme cases, suicide. Women need counseling to accept what they have done and grieve for the child they didn’t have.” The study, conducted by the University of Oslo, revealed the reasons for having an abortion often helped explain the intense emotions that followed it.
[/tscii:1dfea038e4]

[Shakthiprabha.]

[tscii:2ee164263d]I find this thread really nice to share one’s thoughts… My close friend (though she could have had her own baby ) had adopted a girl from Orphanage and she is 7 years old… Doing extremely well.. The kid has become part and parcel of the family and dear dear to all…. Ofcourse , the kid does not know the truth.. Now my friend is really worried as to WHETHER SHE NEEDS TO REVEAL THE TRUTH SOMETIME IN LIFE ?? If YES, BY WHEN AND AT WHAT AGE ??

This issue has been worrying my friend of late….

Can someone come up with a wiser suggestion on how to deal with such a situation…..as it is a very sensitive issue….
She is worried on the consequences… how the kid will react once she comes to know the truth…
One thing is for sure... Its not going to be an easy task to reveal ....
Probably those Dfers who had already adopted earlier… can bring in their best suggestion…

Looking forward…
[/tscii:2ee164263d]
Follow sushmita sen's lead in this matter

Someone please enlighten me as to what is sushmita sen's lead?

[pavalamani pragasam]

[tscii:c06b1e56ba]Stem Cell Storage
The ultimate health insurance?

What’s it all about?

Storing your baby’s stemcells might provide a lifeline in the event of serious illness in the future. Stem cells- the basic building blocks of human life that turn themselves into the many different types of cells needed to make up a person can be preserved and used to cure 70 life-threatening diseases including leukaemia, thalassemia and breast cancer. There is a mass of research underway worldwide to find new solutions – the latest being the ability to grow nerve cells, which promises whole new areas of treatment. These cells can be harvested easily from the umbilical cord of newborns at no risk to mother or baby and this as prompted the launch of stem cell banks worldwide and now in India.

Stem cells banks have been operating for years in the US and in some states it is the law to inform new parents about this potentially life-saving facility. Stem cell banks are giving parents-to-be the option of having stem cells collected from their baby’s umbilical cord straight after the birth and stored for up to 20 years, as a sort of “living health insurance” against possible future disease. Interestingly a baby’s stemcells can often be used to treat siblings or parents and even unrelated people.

Any risks?
No. Blood is taken from the umbilical cord, which is normally just discarded after the birth. Your baby no longer needs this excess blood anyway so you can think of it as a useful surplus that just happens tobe an amazing source of stem cells from your body.

The Ethics.
Morally, there is no real concern about stem cell extraction and storage from the umbilical cord as they are essentially by-products from the body or the birth.
[/tscii:c06b1e56ba]

[a.ratchasi]

[tscii:6dd1cb317a]Abortion's Middle Ground (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1152061,00.html)

How life's lessons tend to de-polarize the issue
By NANCY GIBBS

I watched the demonstrations this weekend marking the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and wonder at their familiarity; the candlelight vigil in front of the Supreme Court, the masses on the mall and in cities across the country, the urgent hope that protesters express as they see the fight breaking in their favor: John Roberts. Sam Alito. New laws in multiple states that are bound to wind up being challenged, so that the next battle is bound to be waged before a more sympathetic High Court.

It strikes me mainly because as visible and volatile as the issue is, the transforming events have already occurred, to an extent that makes the legal fight less practically relevant. It's not just that abortion is already unavailable in the vast majority of communities across the country, and would remain available in some states even if Roe were overturned.It's the personal changes that stand out as I talk to women of the post-Roe generation, those of us who came of age with the assumption that the abortion question was, for our purposes, settled.

When I graduated from college in 1982 abortion was not a matter of debate among women I knew. We didn't tug and pull at the ethical implications of it, or stay up late debating the legal logic underlying the Roe decision. It was just there, a safety net, the kind of right we hoped we'd never to have to exercise, but were grateful to have just in case.

That complacency began to change for me when I went to graduate school and met a philosophy professor who liked nothing better than making lighthearted and unreflective students stop dead in their tracks and assess the sturdiness of their beliefs. The Professor had a big heart, a mild manner and a lethally logical mind, and so in his moral philosophy tutorials, when it came time to discuss abortion he would invite his 20-somethings to choose which side they wanted to argue.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of us just automatically chose to argue the pro-choice side, which served his educational purposes perfectly. I lasted maybe 5 minutes-maybe less-before I was trapped and whimpering in a logical snare of my own making. These gentle queries, little pokes and probes into the inconsistencies in an argument, would be familiar to any logic student but they were new to me, and unnerving.

"Would it make any difference in your thinking," he would ask, "if a pregnancy lasted for nine hours rather than nine months?"

"What if your belly were transparent," he would ask, "and you could see the fetus as it grew? Do you think that would change your attitude at all?"

And on it went until I cried uncle. And then, most unsettling, the Professor asked if I would like to change sides, which came as a relief since by this time I was feeling like an infanticist and believed he had given me all the logical arguments to win.

Except that when he argued in favor of abortion rights and I took the pro-life side, I was backed into the opposite logical corner in about five minutes more, as he laid out scenarios involving autonomy, and control over our bodies, the proper role of the state in matters of health and privacy and family life.

What I took away from this was less a conclusion about which side stood on the strongest logical foundations than a profound sense that up til then I had reached a position without taking the journey to get there. This sense was heightened when I got married and got pregnant the first time, by which time technology had made the philosopher's hypothetical real: I heard the heartbeat, strained to see the image on the ultrasound, made out the features, like my womb had a windowÖand grieved at a miscarriage. If life, at this tiny, unimaginable stage, was a life worth mourning, was it not one worth respecting, and protecting as well? And then when my daughters did come, and the abortion question refracted through both the miracle of their births and the concern for their future safety and autonomy, I felt I was back in the classroom again, confounded.

At the same time I could turn on Larry King and watch a conservative Republican Vice President admit that if his daughter ever got pregnant, if her life or health or happiness were a stake, well "I hope I never have to deal with it. But obviously I would counsel her and talk to her and support her on whatever decision she made."

These journeys of course, are typical, which is why the public debate has shifted so much in the years since Roe. Many women who once defended the right to life or the right to choose as automatic and unfreighted have matured through their own experiences and those of their friends. It is increasingly common for Democratic candidates who would once have allowed not the least ethical elasticity into their positions to embrace the careful Clinton Construct: that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. When extremists on the right suggest that liberals view abortion as not just a right but practically a sport, or extremists on the left suggest that there is nothing deeply personal at stake here, only political, they are operating outside the region where I think the rest of us have landed. We have conducted, over the course of 33 years, a long and often painful tutorial that works every moral muscle. I don't know if demonstrations ever really change people minds. But life's lessons very often do.
[/tscii:6dd1cb317a]

[pavalamani pragasam]

I can't help a sigh escaping me!

[ssanjinika]

I can't help a sigh escaping me!

PP Mam,
Is that a sigh like "Sigh...abortion is a personal issue.What rights do politicians and the so called moral policemen
have in this ?" or "Sigh..wish these politicians and the courts hurry up and come to a decision more quickly.
Afterall abortion is murder and there are no 2 sides to it.Right"

[pavalamani pragasam]

A sigh to grieve the complexity of the issue! In rare cases when the scanning at the initial stage of pregnancy reveals a dreadful defect abortion is the wise choice, the one & only situation. For that it is better there is legal sanction for it. But when abortion is legalised it is not hard to imagine the extent of its abuse! There will be no holding back of the reckless, irresponsible, insensitive, immoral people from opting for this "murder".

[ssanjinika]

Yes Mam ,I am totally with you in this. I read about a 15 year old child woman brutally raped and forced to bear the consequence of the crime inflicted upon her. Wont an abortion be the better solution here?Then again legalising abortion would mean protecting those who heartlessly throw away a baby just because...

[a.ratchasi]

In the heartwrenching scenarios highlighted by you and and PP maam, ssanjinika, denying abortion itself will be a crime.

However, when abortion is used to accomodate one's life style, the answer is definitely no to legalising!!

[Sandeep]

However, when abortion is used to accomodate one's life style, the answer is definitely no to legalising!!

Why?

[Badri]

Can Law teach responsibility? Legalizing something or alternatively, making something illegal can only impose controls over our actions, but they can do nothing to instill any responsibility in us. And unless we learn that responsibility, we don't really become civilized.

Almost everything seems to be a two-edged sword these days! Gun control, abortion, euthanasia, cloning...on the one hand, there are the dreadful consequences of making these legal (they already are in some countries), at the same time, they can also become vital necessities in some cases. The whole problem with all these is it is so subjective!

AR, you made a statement...


In the heartwrenching scenarios highlighted by you and and PP maam, ssanjinika, denying abortion itself will be a crime.

However, when abortion is used to accomodate one's life style, the answer is definitely no to legalising!!

But in the end, what does it say? Can every instance of abortion be taken to court and decided there? The whole idea of legalizing something takes out the subjectivity of it. Here you take up both the sides and say, denying is a crime, as also allowing it!

I'm not blaming you, just wanted to point out that the common man/woman is himself/herself not sure of what the right course is! How then can the courts decide, one way or the other?

And so the battle rages on! If only man learnt responsibility!!!

Wait a minute....on second thoughts, maybe abortion should be made illegal except when

a) The child is afflicted with genetic or other abnomalities which will make it a liability both to the parents and itself

b) The child is a product of non-consensual union eg Rape

What other scenarios can we think of?

[Sandeep]

A woman doesnot want a child. But a mistake (of not taking enough precausion) resulted in pregnancy.

Why shouldn't she get Abortion?

Why is abortion legaly or moraly wrong?

[Badri]

Well, Sandeep, the reason for it being considered "wrong" has already been discussed several times in this and other related threads - that it is tantamount to murder of another human being.

Murder, for whatever reason, is still punishable by law, and the anti-abortionists use the same logic to apply for this as well.

[dev]

Can Law teach responsibility? Legalizing something or alternatively, making something illegal can only impose controls over our actions, but they can do nothing to instill any responsibility in us. And unless we learn that responsibility, we don't really become civilized.


Well said, Badri... :clap:

[NOV]

CAUTION: Extremely disturbing pictures!
DO NOT click on links unless you want to be haunted for the rest of your lives.
All ladies in fact, are discouraged from seeing these frames.
Click on the links at your OWN RISK.

Aborted fetus at 9 weeks:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/09week/01_09.jpg

Aborted fetus at 10 weeks: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/10week/01_10.jpg


Aborted fetus at 22 weeks: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/22week/01_22.jpg

Aborted fetus at 24 weeks: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/24week/01_24.jpg

Source & for more images: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/archive1.htm


These pictures are graphic. They are not pleasant to look at. They are not suitable for children. If you are squemish, or just don't want to subject yourself to this kind of unpleasantness, then don't go down the page.

http://members.tripod.com/~foxielady/abpics.htm

http://abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html

http://abortionno.org/Resources/inProgress.html

[dev]

Nov,

I couldn't make up mind to see any more than the first 2 pics...

[pavalamani pragasam]

The total impression the present scenario creates is huan life has become cheap, like all our use-& throw utilities! Life is no more precious.

The "awe" associated with conceiving a child closely knit with sexual union & the sanction of marriage for it is all gone! No planning, no contemplation, no visualisation of conception in the minds of present day youth is very saddening.

Is it such a trivial matter? When conception is no more a serious event automatically abortion fails to be a serious affair.

The condom originally invented for birth control is now the widely recommended "safety" tool made easily available in even universities! Similarly abortion is an easy way out for "uncivilised", beastlike people who will copulate when & where & with whomever their impulse leads to.

There is a surplus of choices, options today, ironically debasing us instead of making us a finer, more sensitive, more intelligent, more civilised people.

[Sandeep]

Well, Sandeep, the reason for it being considered "wrong" has already been discussed several times in this and other related threads - that it is tantamount to murder of another human being.

Murder, for whatever reason, is still punishable by law, and the anti-abortionists use the same logic to apply for this as well.

If you take the "Murder" logic, then how do you say that in some cases abortion is ok. There is no circumstance where Murder can be justified

a) Pregnency dangerous to mother - Murder for the sake of saving another life (and at that without getting permission for the person dieing) is immoral. As you would know a doctor will not take the husbands single kidney (means he doesnt have two kidneys) to save his wives life, even if the husband agrees.

As of now doctors are allowed to kill the feotus against the mothers wish if thats the only way to save mothers life. But with this new aproach even with mothers consent you cannot.

b) Rape - How do you Murder someone because others raped or got raped.

c) Abnormality - Its for the person who has the abnormality to decide and not his mother or father.

The moment you give full human status to the foetus (Nov's pictured where very convinsing) you are infact giving "it" (or "him/her") all legal and moral rights of a full human being and citizen. The earlier examples are just a precursur to the enormace adverse impact that decision will have.

[a.ratchasi]

But in the end, what does it say? Can every instance of abortion be taken to court and decided there? The whole idea of legalizing something takes out the subjectivity of it. Here you take up both the sides and say, denying is a crime, as also allowing it!

I'm not blaming you, just wanted to point out that the common man/woman is himself/herself not sure of what the right course is! How then can the courts decide, one way or the other?

I stand by the statement made by me. What you have elaborated, is what I have stated, albeit in a nutshell.


Wait a minute....on second thoughts, maybe abortion should be made illegal except when

a) The child is afflicted with genetic or other abnomalities which will make it a liability both to the parents and itself

b) The child is a product of non-consensual union eg Rape

Bulls eye, Badri!!

See, the common man/woman, are not so undecided afterall. :)
It is the matter of seeing both sides of the coin and wishing for the best possible outsome, albeit with discretion.

When a man kills another, is that man sent to the gallows without a hearing?

Murder is illegal, am I not right?

At the end of the day, it is discretion (his mental state, in self-defence, culpable homoside) that decides whether the man walks away scotfree or spends his rest of the in life in prison.

Just because the common men and women might seemingly 'fight' for certain issues to be made illegal, it does not mean we are detached to the plight of those who need compassion the most.

[pavalamani pragasam]

Sandeep, murder has been justified the world over under particular circumstances. What are wars, police "encounters", capital punishment and so on?

Answers to the list:
a. Very childish, illogical argument. Priorities in relevant situations need to be studied with discretion.

b.It is in fairness to the wronged woman. She cannot be forced to bear the consequences of what was not her doing/option. It will be adding insult to injury.

c.It will be too late to wait for the "abnormal" foetus to decide its fate, if at all it will be in a condition/maturity to assess the problem. All troubles bebest nipped in the bud. Yes it is a painful problem to rear an abnormal child. Spartans didn't hesitate to do away with babies lacking physical stamina!

[a.ratchasi]

Can Law teach responsibility? Legalizing something or alternatively, making something illegal can only impose controls over our actions, but they can do nothing to instill any responsibility in us. And unless we learn that responsibility, we don't really become civilized.

If by default we are all responsible, honest whatever not citizens, we do not need the law to govern us at all! :wink:

[pavalamani pragasam]

In a civilised world government & laws are necessary for peaceful, honourable & progressive living. Legislative changes must be sympathetically, sensibly introduced to ensure the smooth runnin of the machinery, a sort of lubrication. The changing tendencies, lifestyle patterns & technological advancement play a role in deciding the necessary legislative changes. Never can ethics be compromised in any decision. The sense of values, respect for human integrity must be upheld.

[Lambretta]

Law/Govt. can control only legal actions in ne society, they unftly cannot impose/regulate morality in said society! :(
So the latter rests in the hands of the society alone, which individuals hav to realise. Even in most of the 'developed' countries, law & order is maintained very well but morality on part of individuals, on the contrary, is on the lax!

[Badri]

Murder, for whatever reason, is still punishable by law, and the anti-abortionists use the same logic to apply for this as well.

a) Pregnency dangerous to mother - Murder for the sake of saving another life (and at that without getting permission for the person dieing) is immoral. As you would know a doctor will not take the husbands single kidney (means he doesnt have two kidneys) to save his wives life, even if the husband agrees.

As of now doctors are allowed to kill the feotus against the mothers wish if thats the only way to save mothers life. But with this new aproach even with mothers consent you cannot.

b) Rape - How do you Murder someone because others raped or got raped.

c) Abnormality - Its for the person who has the abnormality to decide and not his mother or father.

The moment you give full human status to the foetus (Nov's pictured where very convinsing) you are infact giving "it" (or "him/her") all legal and moral rights of a full human being and citizen. The earlier examples are just a precursur to the enormace adverse impact that decision will have.

Sandeep: Your argument has too many holes.

Killing in self-defence is allowed. If a pregnancy is injurious to the mother, then I'd say abortion in such a case is like self-defence. Killing to protect the mother.

As for b and C, you seem to think the foetus has an independent existence!!! Your logic is all valid if the foetus can have survive without the mother. But since it is dependent on the mother, it becomes subject to the mother!

How cruel it is to expect a woman to bear a child that is due to a rape! How cruel it is to expect a woman to bear a child that is medically known to be born with mental/physical abnormalities!

I am sad to say, your arugments may sound logical, Sandeep, but they also sound heartless!

[Sandeep]

Sandeep: Your argument has too many holes.

Killing in self-defence is allowed. If a pregnancy is injurious to the mother, then I'd say abortion in such a case is like self-defence. Killing to protect the mother.

Accepted.



As for b and C, you seem to think the foetus has an independent existence!!! Your logic is all valid if the foetus can have survive without the mother. But since it is dependent on the mother, it becomes subject to the mother!

How cruel it is to expect a woman to bear a child that is due to a rape! How cruel it is to expect a woman to bear a child that is medically known to be born with mental/physical abnormalities!


Exactly



I am sad to say, your arugments may sound logical, Sandeep, but they also sound heartless!
Couldnt help it.

Why opposing Abortion on basis of the rights/morality, giving the foetus a full human character, and them conveniently overlooking the very same based on "priority" and "particular circumstances".

The foetus needs to be seen as a part of the Mother and the rights and responcibilties of the foetus need to be bestoned on the Mother

[pooja.shankar]

omg ..people have so much to say about this ............

[pavalamani pragasam]

[tscii:f46eaaab9f]From today’s newspapers:

Most NRIs prefer surrogate mothers from India as it is cheaper and easier to find one. An agency abroad may charge between $30,000 and #15,000 for the surrogate mother. In India, the couple just needs to clear medical bills and pay Rs.1 lakh to the mother.

….A working mother of two children,”I came to know about surrogacy through another surrogate mother. Initially, I had a tough time convincing my husband to shift out of the joint family. However, he agreed as the fee was quite an incentive.”

In another case, three sisters and their sister-in-law have taken to surrogacy as a means of enhancing their living standards. “My mother-in-law suggested surrogacy to me. We needed to buy a good house for the family,” says one of the sisters. Three months back, the sister-in-law became a surrogate mother to twins. Another sister has kept the fact hidden from her joint family. “Only my husband knows about it. I feel it is noble as it will bring happiness into a couple’s life,” says she who is working in a kindergarten and is a mother of two children.
[/tscii:f46eaaab9f]

[Lambretta]

So it looks like even capacity of becoming a mother has become a means of making money these days!
Btw, one thing tho- I first thot the babies given birth by surrogate mothers r all test-tube babies.....but I understand they instead required to actually get pregnant (altho by artificial insemination) & give birth to the baby? Y wud they hav to udnergo tat when test-tube babies r a legally accepted alternative?

[pavalamani pragasam]

"So it looks like even capacity of becoming a mother has become a means of making money these days!"> Yes, a tragic truth, it seems!

In commercial in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) surrogacy the egg of the biological mother is fertilised with sperms of the father in a test tube. The embryo is then transferred into the uterus of the surrogate mother.

[malsi]

we need the help of a surrogate mother if the " original" mother's womb is not strong enough for the entire duration of pregnancy..

[Lambretta]

we need the help of a surrogate mother if the " original" mother's womb is not strong enough for the entire duration of pregnancy..
Yes I know there r women who r not physically suitable for pregnancy, (which used to result in delivery deaths in the past), but I feel y make another woman pregnant (altho not in the 'actual' way) & make her hav a child if u & ur wife want a baby?? Even if the man happens to be the 'actual' father of the child in this method, his wife wud obv. not hav the feeling of being the mother of the child neway, so wudn't it be better/easier to adopt a baby instead?? I guess this method of involving a 3rd party is all done out of ego on the man's side, as he wud satisfied of being the 'father' of the baby born, whoever the mother may be......also I feel it sounds cheap to use a woman as sumthin like a commercial 'baby-making machine'! :x
Besides, there r so many orphaned babies all over our country, surely adopting one wudn;t be more difficult or expensive than doing this.....! :huh:

[Sandeep]

How about Outsourcing surrogate pregnancy. :roll:

Could be a real good business as many western women wouldnt want to go through the troubles and pain of pregnancy.

[pavalamani pragasam]

"also I feel it sounds cheap to use a woman as sumthin like a commercial 'baby-making machine'! " :clap:

[pavalamani pragasam]

"How about Outsourcing surrogate pregnancy.

Could be a real good business as many western women wouldnt want to go through the troubles and pain of pregnancy."


I dont know whether to :rotfl: or :cry: :?: :!:

[Sandeep]

"How about Outsourcing surrogate pregnancy.

Could be a real good business as many western women wouldnt want to go through the troubles and pain of pregnancy."


I dont know whether to :rotfl: or :cry: :?: :!:
It will be :cry: :?: :!:, was not joking, just writing matter of factly.

[Shakthiprabha.]

"also I feel it sounds cheap to use a woman as sumthin like a commercial 'baby-making machine'! " :clap:

One of the very few times, where I COMPLETELY AGREE with PP MAAM.

Babies are symbolisms of emotions and love a couple share with each other.

NOT JUST a symbol of MARRIAGE or for the want of HEIR.

[pavalamani pragasam]

Thanx, SP!

[Shakthiprabha.]

:D :P

[dev]

well said, Lamby...

[Lambretta]

Tks Dev! :)

How about Outsourcing surrogate pregnancy. :roll:
Could be a real good business as many western women wouldnt want to go through the troubles and pain of pregnancy.
Well, even I donno wat emoticon to express here :huh:
But then, I guess their govts. wudn't like this to happen as they'd fear tat the Indian women who get to be the surrogate mothers of those babies wud later on claim parentage to them & use it as a basis to get a Visa to those countries! :P :lol:



"also I feel it sounds cheap to use a woman as sumthin like a commercial 'baby-making machine'! " :clap:
One of the very few times, where I COMPLETELY AGREE with PP MAAM.
:shock: Hey tat was I who said tat! :roll:
Neways, doesn;t matter who says it, the point is it makes sense....! :)


Babies are symbolisms of emotions and love a couple share with each other.
NOT JUST a symbol of MARRIAGE or for the want of HEIR.
Exactly! If u can't reproduce a baby, y not adopt one, as I said, there r many available to adopt in our country, needing good homes; instead of simply increasing the population where its avoidable!
Or on 2nd thot, I'm guessing now tat maybe these couples r suspicious abt the background of adoptable babies, like ther may be illegitimate ones too among them, & so on.....

[Lambretta]

:D :P
Btw SP, if I might ask, y the :P icon??

[pavalamani pragasam]

From today's newspapers:

Americans try to stop gays from adopting.

Efforts to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children are emergin across the United States as a second front in the culture wars that began during the 2004 elections over same-sex marriage.

[pavalamani pragasam]

[tscii:b42d03726d]From the article,”Grey matters” in today’s Hindustan Times, Mumbai:

…Where I live there are many, perhaps three out of every five, who live by themselves, that is, just the husband and wife. Their children are for the most part abroad, or elsewhere in the country- usually doing reasonably well in their chosen profession. For the rest of their lives of these elderly couples, they will see relatively little of their sons and daughters; the occasional visit on a holiday, perhaps once a year, would be about it. The children aren’t the issue; the parents are. Inexorably, age takes them towards frailty and ill health. Inexorably, the frightening spectre of dependence first comes into vision, then begins to advance.

What happens then? It’s bad enough for these relatively affluent couples. For the not-so-affluent and for the poor in cities, it’s a nightmare that the old head into, a world that would make many horror stories read like “Alice in wonderland”. NGOs working with the old have, I understand, innumerable stories of the manner in which the old are treated when they are dependent on their children or relations, at times even when they are not financially dependent but need care because of infirmities. Physical violence is common; verbal abuse is a daily ordeal the old dependents have to endure. Above all the humiliation- their reductionto ceatures who are best not seen, and who cannot, in some cases, even ask for any kind of help.

The situation is rapidly becoming even worse as the general age of the population increases; longevity brings with it mostly suffering and pain, physical and mental. In cities, the size of the apartments is, if one were to take a broad average, very small, perhaps two rooms, in which adult children and their families live with the old parents. As long as they can walk, the old can at least stay out for lengths of time, but again, age inevitably reduces that time, and they need more rest, and that means space. I’m not even going to mention any differences of opinion; that’s another world altogether.

What do we do with these old people? In a celebrated science-fiction film of the Seventies, “Soylent Green”, they had the option of going to beautifully appointed clinics where they were given luxurious death, with Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony playing as they gently drifted into oblivion. They were all converted into food- recycled, more effectively than the manner in which we are asked to recycle our refuse today. By entering the food chain they actually solved two problems at once. But if this is not seen as a viable method of dealing with the old, (beating and starving them being preferred as more humane) then some other way has to be found, as the numbers of the old continue to increase.

In all fairness, it is not very easy for the sons and daughters who have to care for old parents. Leaving aside the affluent, it is a terrible effort to keep a job, or whatever employment they have, and then return to a small tenement and cope with growing children and parents who, like as not, are ailing. Nothing, naturally, can excuse ill treatment of the old, but there are instances where the old become querulous and demanding and that leads to ugly situations. Situations in which, inevitably, the old suffer.

But it is a problem and it will not do to paint the adult children as totally villainous. Small incomes, tiny apartments, growing children, growing responsibilities are all factors that compound the problem and make it difficult to get out of- in any easily perceived manner.

….Perhaps it’s time for us to think of an institution that, in earlier years, we considered one of the most distasteful features of western societies- old age homes. We need to accept the fact that he way the old have to live in many families is beginning to break family ties, and if the old were taken to places where they retained their dignity and were cared for, the ties of affection may well remain intact. Our planners need to factor this into our plansfor the social sector- and it would be wise to start doing it now. What may, on the face of it, appear to be cold, even cruel provision may, in time, actually restore the ceremony of innocence we are now in danger of losing.
[/tscii:b42d03726d]

[silly girl]

pave, I think that some old people would actually choose to end their lives in this "luxurious death". I know I would rather die in peacefull surroundings than alone, or even worse, being beaten and abused by my "loved ones".

[pavalamani pragasam]

From today's 'Times of India, Mumbai':

Are you over 50? Come join the 'Sandwich Generation' club

London. People in their 50s and 60s have to shoulder so much responsibility taking care not only of their elderly parents, but also their own kids, that they have now been given a new name - The Sandwich Generation. A survey of more than 3,000 people by investment firm Clerical Medical, showed that though 50 and 60 year olds should ideally be thinking about a life of retirement, an increasing number are being 'sandwiched' between their aging parents and their kids, thus making it impossible for them to slow down and enjoy life.

When asked the impact of their responsibilities on their lives, a startling number revealed that they not only have to shelve holiday plans, but also move house, dip into their savings and refuse propmotions at work due to the amount of time and money needed by their elderly parents. Another ingredient adding to the sandwich is that people of this age group are also grandparents, who are constantly babysitting for their kids.

"Their elderly parents are in their 80s and 90s. They are goig to be still alive but they might be pretty frail. The things that used to kill people a generation ago no longer do. They are frail but far from dead," the Daily Mail quoted Mervyn Kohler from the charity Help the Aged, as saying.

The survey predicts that what will soon give emerge will be a 'five-generational living family' that will have grandparents in their 90s, parents in their 70s, children in their 50s, grandchildren in their 30s and newborn great-grandchildren. This means that people, who are already looking after their own children, will now have to find a way to support their own parents.

The bottom line: responsibilities, not retirement awaits even at the age of 65.

[pavalamani pragasam]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16988881/