Pride, Parenthood, and Overpopulation

[Bells]

Not especially. There's a possibility that, had I seen the blog first, I might have lightened up a little. But then again, when she wrote, "The second and last point I would like to make and I can't believe I have to is that the children are biologically mine and my husband Joe's" (emphasis added), I can't say I was impressed.

It is her choice though. Strange.. I just find the whole concept of asking one's own mother to be the incubator strange, but that's just me. But it is her choice. Adoption is a harrowing and at times drawn out process with zero results at the end of the tunnel. Her eggs were obviously viable and she chose to go by way of surrogacy. She will not be the first or the last.

If we are to have children, it is not unusual to want a biological one. If given the choice, the greater majority of people would select to have a biological child over adoption.

In other words, she wants it and she wants it now, damn it! It's still about the parents, and not about the child.

Well yes. When you have a child it is either by accident or by choice, the latter being because you want to have a child. At no time is your sperm or the mother's egg banging against the walls of their confines demanding to be born. Having a child is not about the child but about the parents. It is entirely selfish but also very human. Once the child is born or even in utero, then it becomes about the baby.

My first child was entirely unplanned. I was not supposed to be able to have a child.. so yeah, it was unplanned. With our second, we could have adopted a child, but adoption in Australia is nightmarish at best.. in short, it is damned near impossible to adopt a child in this country and overseas adoption is not something I would want to contemplate because of the ridiculous amounts of tests, etc you must pass before being even allowed into the 'possible' file. So we had a biological child. Had we not been able to conceive, I don't know if I would have adopted regardless. I have always said that I would love to adopt a little girl from Asia, but after looking at what we would have to go through.. frankly, I don't want to put my children through that nightmare.

Almost every day—and today is one of those days, and, indeed, you're it—I get more and more hints of just how fucking cool my daughter is.

And, yes, I've had to clean shit off the walls and furniture, and no, I didn't have to go through pregnancy and labor, but still ... thank you.

And you are touting her 'cool factor' as a status symbol.. you are proud of her and so you should be. You are her parent and that is what parents do (usually).. be proud of their kids. I, for example, was damned proud when my 19 month old did a nudie run through the house while having a shower and then ran up to his father, peed on said father's foot, before laughing hysterically and running back to the shower. Granted, his father was not overly proud, but I sure as hell was.. even as I burst into laughter and gave my husband a towel and a few baby wipes, I was damned proud.

What it equals is that I'm staunchly opposed to the proposition that kids should be status symbols for the parent.

I would imagine most people would be. But I don't see how you can equate this couple's decision to go with surrogacy to have a child(ren) as a form of their thinking said children are status symbols. It is probably a bigger status symbol to adopt a child than to have one naturally these days. It is seen to be 'cool' to adopt and that is why you see so many wealthy celebrities queuing to adopt. They aren't doing it because they want children per se.. some might maybe.. they are doing it because it helps their image.

While, as I stated before, using her mother is a strange choice, if the mother was willing and her husband was willing to pump out his sperm while she removed her eggs to have her mother carry it, it really shouldn't be anyone else's business. They aren't breaking the law.

 

[Tiassa]

It's not supposed to be about the parents

What?

You'd actually have to read Saletan's article at Slate for it to make sense.

What's wrong with having your own kid? Oh, right...it's "not adoption"? Why not just let people make their own choices on this?

There's nothing wrong with having one's own kid. But having someone else have it for you? I'm not opposed to the principle, but in the face of the number of children who need homes and stable families?

The problem is that it's about the parents, not the kid.

In case you hadn't noticed, this lovely capitalist system that everyone enjoys so much relies inherently on at least replacement, and moreso on expansion.

In case you hadn't noticed, this lovely capitalist system that everyone enjoys so much is broken. Your point?

Colloquially, how about a divorced father living on his own? Should he be a parent?

Well, what would be the basis of that proposition?

How about anyone in bizarre circumstances not of their choosing, like some general infertility?

What would be the basis of that proposition?

See, in both these instances, you're too focused on some personal issue and not on the underlying proposition. I think pretty much anyone for whom parenthood is all about the parents should not be a parent.

Agreed, she tied her tubes, but was this actually part of a plot to get the mother involved?

Hysterectomy, which suggests to me there's a reason. But that's actually beside the point.

The flip-side, though, is that if I'm looking to marry a woman, and I want to have kids, one of the criteria—if reproducing my own genetic material is so damn important—would be that she's capable of having kids in the first place.

We can dwell on that for a moment, if you want. I mean, did he not think about this beforehand? Was there some awkward moment a couple months into the marriage when he told her how he couldn't wait for them to have a kid, and she finally said, "About that ... there's something you should know"?

And then there's the sob-story. They tried to adopt. It was taking years. Well, shit, how choosy were they being? Like I said, I looked up waiting times for adoptions, and the very first service I found ran between two months and two years. As I told Milkweed, "It shouldn't take years, given the bumper crop of kids out there, and, in the end, Mrs. Coseno implies that the period was about two years."

I was wrong, though. It's either two years or several years. And, frankly, if they're burning through money and it's taking several years, what the hell is the problem? Seriously?

Really, man, I want to know? What the hell adoption services were they using that was collecting enough money to threaten the family's financial stability over the course of several years? Hence, the beer line question. We'll get to that in a minute.

And what's wrong with wanting your own? Your argument seems to be based around some kind of resentment at being adopted, or some resentment that other people dared not to prefer adoption. Should I rage at adoptive couples because they just didn't try hard enough to do it the natural way?

Ye gads, are you trying to miss the point?

Anyway, there's a point when wanting "your own" child gets to be obsessive and destructive; that is when it becomes about the parent, and not the child. When the fact of a family, a child to love and be loved by, to nurture and share with, to raise and take joy in the happiness of another, is insufficient? When it's about "your own"? I mean, hey, if you've got the machinery, why would I object? And under certain conditions I have no objection to having someone else have your baby. But in a nation with so many kids needing homes, it's just stupid.

Your, your, your. Or my, my, my. His, his, his. Hers, hers, hers. I'll give you a hint on this one: When you adopt a child, bring it home into your family and love, it is your child.

I'm sorry, but your implication seems kind of like "how dare you breed". Is this it?

Not quite. It's more like, "How dare you make parenthood about yourself!"

I'll answer in the same line as Bells: no. Not as a general rule. You seem to have this festering resentment against the breeding population.

No. I have a scorching resentment of people who make status symbols of their kids. Parenthood is not about the parents. Well, that's the idyll. Unfortunately, too many parents believe the opposite.

Then children aren't status symbols in your family or anyone else's, one hopes.

Unless there's a typo there, I can't find any grounds to disagree with that statement.

First, your scenario is another construct. Yet let's address it. This is your progeny you're representing. You have an obligation to present his or her case as strongly as possible. Should you back down and admit that your kid isn't outperforming his or her peers, or, worse still, is subperforming? You might as well pack your bags and hit the road, because you clearly don't have this kid's back.

You're fucking kidding me, right?

First off, you sound like the back-philosophy for a Monty Python sketch. Secondly, subperforming compared to what? Some poor bastard whose parents are making him so fucking retentive he's shitting singularities?

Pride might enter into it, but this has fuck all to do with adoption so far as I can tell.

Well, that part came into consideration in terms of whether status symbols are purely tangible. You know, the yacht, the car, the trophy wife?

The adoptive parents I know are no less braggart for their adoptive children; if they were, it would be a matter for heredity, not heraldry. I can appreciate your internalized self-doubt, but while it's commendable in a way that you recognize this issue, it's not central to the well-being of your child.

Um ... okay. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring this part.

Or in short: you're in a competitive system, so watch your kid's back and give them the best leg up you can - and that also means competing with his peers, and the family of those peers.

I want you to think for a minute about how obsessed and materialistic Americans can be. How viciously capitalist and full of shit we can be. You're either with us or you're against us. There's nobody better than us. You know, all that stupid, jingoistic bullshit the rest of the world wishes we'd just get over? It's nothing more than a macroscale of Keeping Up With The Joneses. You want to know what buying into the competitive system gets you? Take a look at what we just did to the world. Wars, chaos, the short-selling of freedom, and now we've gone and fucked your banks, as well.

Yeah, seriously. That's the problem with making it all about the self, Geoff. We're a people determined to be Kings of the Hill in the end, even if the only thing left is a fucking rubbish tip.

The flip-side is that we are a cooperative species. We're supposed to compete with the rest of nature. Once certain material necessities are taken care of, we don't have to compete with one another. In the meantime, though, we like to fuck things up from time to time to make sure we never get to that point. What, if my daughter wants to be a cheerleader, should I shoot her rival's mother? (What? We're Americans. We do that sort of shit 'round here, in case you haven't heard.)

In fairness, there probably are those who do use their children as markers of pride - but I expect they're in the marginal minority.

That depends largely on how you measure that pride. I mean, I'm an American, sir. Those phrases I mentioned to Madanthonywayne? I used to get one a lot: "What will the neighbors think?" What do you mean, what will the neighbors think? They'll think we're normal kids, for fuck's sake.

Why is "normal" so goddamn horrifying? I mean, yeah, now that I see what statistically-normal people are like in my society, it's kind of disturbing. The last ten or twelve years, especially, have been unsettling, even disorienting. But more relevantly, how is it that a kid being normal means you're a bad parent? How the fuck does that work?

And, for the love of everything decent, sir, I can't tell you how common, "No kid of mine ...," is. I always wonder, "Why not?" I mean, my parents were smarter than to throw that sort of shit at me, but that doesn't mean I never heard it. Why won't your kid marry a Jew? Why won't your kid be gay? Why won't your kid work in the union?

Because the parents are embarrassed. Maybe it's a purely American phenomenon. Maybe it's a Pacific Northwest thing. Maybe it's only Pierce County, Washington where everyone I know has heard someone say that to their kids. I mean, sometimes I'd swear we were the only people in the world outside Japan who ever saw Star Blazers, so anything's possible.

But, to the other, I also know it's not just a Pierce County, or Washington, or northwest, or even American thing. I know Canadians know it. I know the British know it.

Who is asking you to?

Um ... let me see here ... oh, Milkweed. See post #2.

This is so. Is anyone else doing it? Why exactly should I inhibit my own genetic drive, if no one else is?

Well, at some point, if you end up with more kids than you can take care of, it's not healthy. For the kids. Or for you, if that happens to be what's important.

Fine. You only have to prove that your position is related to the case above. Or you could discuss it as a general proposition

The question is whether parenthood is about the parents or the kid. Seriously, man, I could draw out a list of regrets about having an unplanned daughter, but I refuse to regret it. I'm hardly the best father on the planet, and we all know that, but the last thing this is about is me. If it was, I would have taken my opportunity to duck out when it was offered. I could have left. I could have skipped out and never had a thing to do with this kid. Her mother, the day she confirmed she was pregnant, even asked my thoughts on putting our child up for adoption. I had every chance to get out. And from the moment I said, "No," and covered my bases by saying, "If you're serious about adoption, I'll take her," it's been about her. Doesn't mean I'm suddenly, magically not crazy anymore. Doesn't mean I have a goddamn clue what I'm doing most days. But it's not about me. That's the one thing I learned about parenthood that hasn't turned completely on its head.

And it's true, there are moments in which pride is inevitable. Some of the things my father has said to me since my daughter arrived ... the fascinating spectacles she puts on sometimes ... the moment when one of my friends looks at me and nods and says, "Yeah, she's your kid, alright" ... things her teacher said. Those moments happen. And it's always good to have a moment to relax and know I haven't blown it yet. But it's a far, far different thing, when your kid does something to stir your pride, than establishing demands and standards in order that you can be proud.

It's just not about me. Or else I would be somewhere else, stoned out of my gourd, maybe every once in a while stopping to smile unconvincingly at myself in a mirror in a tavern restroom, wondering what ever became of that kid I fertilized, and congratulating myself on a proper continuation of a disjointed and accidental heritage that was never supposed to be.

Some days it's hard. Truth told, though, I wouldn't give it up for the world.

Parenthood is not about the parents.
____________________

Notes:

"Trial to Open in Plot to Make Girl a Cheerleader". New York Times. August 25, 1991. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7D71138F936A1575BC0A967958260

 

[Tiassa]

Endless ....

At no time is your sperm or the mother's egg banging against the walls of their confines demanding to be born.

Well, perhaps not literally. But you seem to have adequately described, figuratively at least, the nature of the sex drive.

And you are touting her 'cool factor' as a status symbol.. you are proud of her and so you should be.

I deserved that. But more what I meant was that it's been a blessed run so far. She came home from the hospital and slept, believe it or not, from eight to eight. I hear other people's horror stories about infants turning into toddlers into children and, frankly, I find the stories fascinating; most of it is completely foreign to me. Sure, there are the times that I had to clean shit off the walls, but what was I supposed to think when I walked into the room and found the words "I JOY" scrawled in feces?

I need to get a picture of this. That's what I thought.

But, yeah ... she's on a hell of a run. And I hope it never stops.

And that isn't my doing.

Her mother wouldn't let me name her Ceres Ananda. But, oh, so apropos.

(I'll take a look through the rest later.)

 

[swarm]

In short, I would do anything and everything for my two children.

Why make this false claim when you are going to contradict yourself in the very next sentence?

But if one day either of them approached me and said 'mummy, would you have my baby' (as in be a surrogate), the answer to that would be 'no'.

 

[GeoffP]

All right, I can't Fisk the whole post.

There's nothing wrong with having one's own kid. But having someone else have it for you? I'm not opposed to the principle, but in the face of the number of children who need homes and stable families?

The problem is that it's about the parents, not the kid.

All right, how specifically do you infer this? You could argue, I think, selfishness, but why pride specifically? I'll tell you directly: I don't think I'll adopt. I have my own genes to spread and I'm quite Darwinian about it. Why should I necessarily take on someone else's gene pool?

In case you hadn't noticed, this lovely capitalist system that everyone enjoys so much is broken. Your point?

My point is: go whole hog or change completely. Can't have it half and half.

See, in both these instances, you're too focused on some personal issue and not on the underlying proposition. I think pretty much anyone for whom parenthood is all about the parents should not be a parent.

? How are either of those a personal issue? I'm talking about general principle here. I can agree to your general stipulation, but the example you cite doesn't support your arguement.

Hysterectomy, which suggests to me there's a reason. But that's actually beside the point.

All right, so you're saying that she's too lazy or something. I suppose that's fair enough, although we don't know.

The flip-side, though, is that if I'm looking to marry a woman, and I want to have kids, one of the criteria—if reproducing my own genetic material is so damn important—would be that she's capable of having kids in the first place.

Really, man, I want to know? What the hell adoption services were they using that was collecting enough money to threaten the family's financial stability over the course of several years? Hence, the beer line question. We'll get to that in a minute.

Meh. Maybe they felt they were aging. Can't say.

Ye gads, are you trying to miss the point?

Utterly.

Anyway, there's a point when wanting "your own" child gets to be obsessive and destructive; that is when it becomes about the parent, and not the child.

OK, yes: but does this case actually relate to that? Maybe there is some unforgiveable sin here, but is sounds more to me like selfishness than pride. Which is as easily biological drive as anything else.

Your, your, your. Or my, my, my. His, his, his. Hers, hers, hers. I'll give you a hint on this one: When you adopt a child, bring it home into your family and love, it is your child.

Hint away! Mine is mine. :shrug:

You're fucking kidding me, right?

First off, you sound like the back-philosophy for a Monty Python sketch. Secondly, subperforming compared to what? Some poor bastard whose parents are making him so fucking retentive he's shitting singularities?

Wow, that was off the mark. It's a competitive world, Tiassa. You have to help them however you can. I don't like the fact that everything is a pissing contest, but soft-selling my kids' attributes won't change that.

I want you to think for a minute about how obsessed and materialistic Americans can be. How viciously capitalist and full of shit we can be. You're either with us or you're against us. There's nobody better than us.

Well, there I can't speak. I am only a recent migrant to your shores, and I didn't grow up experiencing the attitudes you're talking about. Is is better to compete and mangle your soul or not to compete and miss out? The latter, obviously, but you'd be forgiven, I think, for getting involved in a game you didn't invent.

The flip-side is that we are a cooperative species. We're supposed to compete with the rest of nature. Once certain material necessities are taken care of, we don't have to compete with one another.

Yep. But look around. That's not how your society works. (As for shooting cheerleader's moms; well, that's a personal thing I suppose. But it's reasonably rare nonetheless.)

Why is "normal" so goddamn horrifying? I mean, yeah, now that I see what statistically-normal people are like in my society, it's kind of disturbing. The last ten or twelve years, especially, have been unsettling, even disorienting. But more relevantly, how is it that a kid being normal means you're a bad parent? How the fuck does that work?

Well, how do you mean normal in this instance? Average scholastically? Not eating glue? Makeup on kids? Fair enough the last, I agree.

Because the parents are embarrassed. Maybe it's a purely American phenomenon. Maybe it's a Pacific Northwest thing. Maybe it's only Pierce County, Washington where everyone I know has heard someone say that to their kids. I mean, sometimes I'd swear we were the only people in the world outside Japan who ever saw Star Blazers, so anything's possible.

Yeah, I saw that. Watched the French rip-off version also.

Well, at some point, if you end up with more kids than you can take care of, it's not healthy. For the kids. Or for you, if that happens to be what's important.

I suppose. Yet my grandparents (both sides) had "too many". Anyway, I don't think your example is approaching this point.

And it's true, there are moments in which pride is inevitable. Some of the things my father has said to me since my daughter arrived ... the fascinating spectacles she puts on sometimes ... the moment when one of my friends looks at me and nods and says, "Yeah, she's your kid, alright" ... things her teacher said. Those moments happen. And it's always good to have a moment to relax and know I haven't blown it yet. But it's a far, far different thing, when your kid does something to stir your pride, than establishing demands and standards in order that you can be proud.

I suppose. It's also (or used to be) a British thing to expect a lot. I have standards of the kind you're talking about, I guess. I want them to achieve something decent in every area of their lives, so I'm impressed by how much above my standards they can go. (Branding irons and waterboarding can only accomplish so much.) It doesn't mean I love them any less of course. So I see what you mean on both sides.

It's just not about me. Or else I would be somewhere else, stoned out of my gourd, maybe every once in a while stopping to smile unconvincingly at myself in a mirror in a tavern restroom, wondering what ever became of that kid I fertilized, and congratulating myself on a proper continuation of a disjointed and accidental heritage that was never supposed to be.

Some days it's hard. Truth told, though, I wouldn't give it up for the world.

Parenthood is not about the parents.

Agreed, absolutely. And congratulations to you on the correct decision.

Best,

Geoff

 

[Bells]

Why make this false claim when you are going to contradict yourself in the very next sentence?

Sorry.. next time I will be a bit more specific and say that I will do anything and everything for my children, with one exception.. offering them my womb for service.

 

[GeoffP]

Quit your dirty talk. This is a science forum.

 

[swarm]

Sorry.. next time I will be a bit more specific and say that I will do anything and everything for my children, with one exception.. offering them my womb for service.

Didn't you already off them the use of your womb once? Why not a second time?

 

[Bells]

Didn't you already off them the use of your womb once? Why not a second time?

No. I offered my husband the use of my womb to carry his spawn.

Sheesh.. Get it right.

 

[Baron Max]

No. I offered my husband the use of my womb to carry his spawn. Sheesh.. Get it right.

So you're husband is now more important than your daughter? If your daughter had a problem with her ....ahhh, that thingie, ...then you wouldn't help her if she asked?

Baron Max

 

[Bells]

So you're husband is now more important than your daughter? If your daughter had a problem with her ....ahhh, that thingie, ...then you wouldn't help her if she asked?

Baron Max

"That thingie"? You can say uterus Baron. We are all adults.

I don't have a daughter.

And my children and my husband are equally important to me.

But lets just say I did have a daughter and she asked me to carry her child. The reply would be the same as it would be for my two son's.. 'As much as I adore you, there are some things I am not prepared to do and this is one of them'. I would help my children in any way, shape or form, but the restriction would be the use of my womb as an incubator.

If it makes me a bad parent, then so be it.

 

[Baron Max]

"That thingie"? You can say uterus Baron. We are all adults.

I'm sorry, Bells, I'm 65, but I'm definitely not adult enough to talk about ...well, those female thingies! Please, please, don't talk about those thingies, okay. I'm a very sensitive, easily embarrassed ol' fart.

Baron Max

 

[Asguard]

tiassa you do realise i made a thread similar to this in ethics a while ago with a poll asking if you are a man would you donate sperm for your children, if you are a women would you donate eggs and\or be a surogot for your children

I find it strangly amusing how close your initial post is to orleanders responce that if a couple wants a child and cant have one naturally then they are selfish if they use IVF or surogacy to get that child.

My comment to her as it is to you right now is that its no more selfish for a couple to want there own child and do whatever they can to get it than it is to not get a hystorectomy (or in your case a snip and tie) as soon as you hit pubity in order not to increase the worlds population.

Resorces symply dont care wether they are used by someone born of IVF or someone born to a crack whore who cant learn how to use a condom yet i can almost certianly garentiee that the child born of IVF will have a better life than the crack whores child

 

[Tiassa]

Something I hadn't considered directly

There are a few points I need to address specifically, but I'll get to those later when I have more time. However ....

I was hanging out with a friend, a psychologist, and he asked why I had emailed him a question about terminology, and by the way, Roman ... it's a form of narcissism you're referring to.

Anyway, he asked me why I had inquired, so I told him about this story, and in the course of that discussion, well, some would say I don't give people enough credit.

I had wondered about Mrs. Coseno's discussion of how the adoption process was taking several years and draining the family's financial resources. And, as I mentioned earlier, I do wonder about which services they're going through, since the first service I found looking up adoption waiting times online reported periods of six months to two years for a healthy Caucasian child, and only two to six months for a healthy black or biracial child. I shook my head, reminded my friend—who is also a novelist—that in our business, you never give an agent money up front. And that was what puzzled me. Who are these people working with that are taking forever and sucking up so much money.

My friend shrugged and said, "I wonder why they keep getting turned down?"

And that is an interesting question, I admit.

The inimitable (but then again, who'd want to) Paula Poundstone, I believe it was, once succinctly stated the point thus: "You need a license to have a dog. Anyone can have a kid."

 

[Asguard]

found the thread

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86131&highlight=Sperm

actually it might be fun to quote your own post from that thread

If I ever discover a blood sibling, perhaps then I will be able to answer the question. As my brother and I are not related by blood, though, it would seem rather an awkward family moment.

however now lets quote the relivent posts from that thread, pay paticular atention to cellerdoors responce

I couldn't do it because I think its selfish when there are so many children needing to be adopted.
I continue to try and talk my husband into us becoming foster parents. No luck so far.

orleander if thats the case then why did you not have a historectomy as soon as you turned 16 and adopt yourself?

I think that is the stupidest question I have ever read.
Seriously?? A hysterectomy at 16?? I went on the pill and went off when my husband and I decided to try and have kids. If for some reason we couldn't, we would have adopted.
A hysterectomy at 16??? How does that make an iota of sense??

im just wondering why your convictions that people should adopt rather than have there own kids doesnt extend to yourself?

duh! because I can have my own children. I did so. I had 2. That's how many I could afford to have. If we couldn't have had children we would have adopted. I wouldn't have laid the problem at the feet of a sibling asking them to solve it for me.
I wouldn't have had surgery after surgery, injection after injection just so I could have my own biological child.
I would have adopted.

Lord love a duck, a hysterectomy at 16 :wallbang:

You have missed Asguard's point completely.
The argument that 'being infertile and trying for a baby is selfish' is ridiculous.

Reproducing is the most basic, fundamental and natural need of all human urges. To find out that you are incapable of fulfilling that task must surely be one of the most heart-wrenching discoveries many women will ever know. You however, who are lucky enough to be able to have a baby, somehow think that is your indisputable right as a woman. Nevertheless, you brand those less fortunate than you as 'selfish' for thinking that too?

It is no-one's duty to adopt children they don't want, just because those children need care. So if both parties are happy to involve themselves in a surrogacy, why do you have such a problem with it?

 

[swarm]

almost certianly garentiee that the child born of IVF will have a better life than the crack whores child

Yet that is a mistaken presumption.

 

[swarm]

My friend shrugged and said, "I wonder why they keep getting turned down?"

Usually age.

That is what kept my brother-in-law and sister from adopting in the US, despite his being a multimillionaire.

 

[Tiassa]

Unnecessary surgery, and other notes

I find it strangly amusing how close your initial post is to orleanders responce that if a couple wants a child and cant have one naturally then they are selfish if they use IVF or surogacy to get that child.

We might refer to my prior remarks to GeoffP:

There's nothing wrong with having one's own kid. But having someone else have it for you? I'm not opposed to the principle, but in the face of the number of children who need homes and stable families?

The problem is that it's about the parents, not the kid.​

My comment to her as it is to you right now is that its no more selfish for a couple to want there own child and do whatever they can to get it than it is to not get a hystorectomy (or in your case a snip and tie) as soon as you hit pubity in order not to increase the worlds population.

And yet you are in health care as a profession? Two words, I would hope, should be sufficient: unnecessary surgery.

Dr. Frederick R. Jelovsek notes that hysterectomy—without ovarian removal—in premenopausal women requires a general recovery time of almost six months to return to preoperative function. And OB/GYN Dr. Bruce McLucas at UCLA Hospital and Medical School who pioneered Uterine Fibroid Embolization as a minimally-invasive procedure, an alternative to hysterectomy in cases of uterine fibroid tumors, reminds that, "Hysterectomy is not an easy procedure to recommend, and it shouldn't be the first thing we talk about with our patients". Given that these comments came in the context of uterine tumors, need we really wonder about the proposition of the removal of a healthy uterus as a mere birth-control method?

Additionally, vasectomy is something akin to suicide insofar as it is a "permanent solution to a temporary problem". Perhaps some would perceive an emotional inflammation in the comparison, but the proposition itself—a vasectomy as soon as one hits puberty—is a a dangerous appeal to convenience. The advice column, Go Ask Alice, sponsored by the prestigious Columbia University, notes of so-called reversible vasectomies,

Regardless of how the vas is severed or clamped, reversing a vasectomy is always difficult. Success rates, in terms of pregnancy rates, tend to be very low. The primary factors that influence the success of a reversal are: length of time between vasectomy and reversal, partner's fertility, patient's general health and age, technique used for reversal, and the presence of sperm antibodies ....

.... If you are in a relationship (and plan to stay that way), you and your partner might want to discuss male and female birth control options and decide upon those you both can live with until you decide to have children (assuming you agree that you both want kids!). Most health care providers would recommend waiting until after having children to have a vasectomy, mainly because the chances of being able to impregnate a woman would be pretty slim after a reversal surgery.

If you are single, an additional consideration is safer sex. A vasectomy will only prevent the release of sperm (but not semen) and would not provide protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs). In this light, a vasectomy is not a safer sex method. In fact, having a vasectomy could even tempt you to forgo condoms since you would not be worried about pregnancy.

(CUHS)

Certainly, the teenage vasectomy might seem more convenient than responsible family planning, and if convenience really is the priority, one might as well skip the reversible part and get snipped. But where you and I might share certain concerns about the ability of a twelve or thirteen year-old to make certain decisions we might describe with the phrase "informed consent", why would you prescribe this decision as appropriate? It makes for an interesting rhetorical proposition, I suppose, but it really does seem impractical.

After all, millions of males getting vasectomies in order to prevent accidental pregnancies would, in the long run, have a detrimental effect on society. Pretending, for instance, that the 110,000+ kids in the United States are then accounted for and placed in stable homes where they are wanted, what then? Should we then fulfill a population-reduction target to 3.5 billion worldwide through reduced reproduction, what then?

Responsible family planning really does seem the better option. And, perhaps, it is inconvenient, but so are red lights, taxes, and laws that forbid people from shooting one another for no good reason.

Resorces symply dont care wether they are used by someone born of IVF or someone born to a crack whore who cant learn how to use a condom yet i can almost certianly garentiee that the child born of IVF will have a better life than the crack whores child

As a general outlook, there is merit to that outlook.

However, this isn't simply about reproducing in and of itself. Rather, it is a consideration of extraordinary means.

What is it, then, that one desires? Parenthood? A family? Well and fine. There are practical issues to this story that we can, for the moment, actually set aside (e.g., he wanted a child, she already had kids, she had no uterus and it's hard to imagine he wasn't aware of this when he married her). But when circumstances protest a natural conception, what extraordinary measures are appropriate? We can obviously rule out certain fertility treatments focusing on the prospective mother in this case, as she had no uterus. In-vitro fertilization of a surrogate? As I said before, I don't object in principle, but in consideration of other circumstances, it becomes something of an extraordinary proposition. A partially-subsidized surrogate pregnancy? Oh, come on. Really. Please. When somebody else is paying for your mother to carry your child?

And, of course, there is the question of adoption, but there are certainly some issues we haven't enough information about, and, in truth, I'm doubting these parents' credibility the more I read about it. For instance, last month, Mrs. Coseno wrote,

Our story came out in the news and exploded. Somehow the Cleveland Plain Dealer got wind of it and took the info off our blog and the pictures and wrote an article and published it. I do realize that I made this blog public. I do realize people have and believe 100% in the freedom of speach. I do however wish I had been warned that it would be written and put out there for everyone to see so I could prepare my children, myself, my family.

(Coseno)

It sounds as if she was simply and unfortunately naîve, doesn't it? She posts a blog, not realizing that the whole world would take an interest, and suddenly they are unjustly thrust into the public eye.

Okay. So, what's up, then, with the TV show? No, not the interviews after the fact, but the one during the pregnancy?

As TODAY rolled video of the delivery supplied by the syndicated show “The Doctors,” Kim recalled the miracle of seeing her mother give birth to her children. “Elizabeth was the first baby to come out,” she said. “She was screaming at the top of her lungs. It was awesome, the best feeling in the whole world.”

(Inbar)

Jaci Dalenberg views an ultrasound performed on the
CBS television show, The Doctors. (Photo via MSNBC.com)​

And then there's her sense of melodrama. Of people who criticize their decision, Mrs. Coseno writes, "I am a mommy lion that becomes enraged when her family is threatened." So, wow, you post a blog and go on a television show, and some people question your decision, and that is a threat?

More and more, it becomes quite obvious that this is not about the children. Extraordinary measures, indeed, and for what? The satisfaction of the parents, it seems, is first and foremost.
____________________

Notes:

Jelovsek, Frederick R. "Is the Unterus Necessary After Childbearing is Completed?" Gyno. Accessed November 16, 2008. http://www.wdxcyber.com/nmood13.htm

Ivanhoe. "Unnecessary Hysterectomies". Ivanhoe's Medical Breakthroughs. September 12, 2005. http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=12035

Columbia University Health Services. "Reversible vasectomies". Go Ask Alice. Updated October 24, 2008. http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0876.html

Inbar, Michael. "She bore her daughter’s triplets out of ‘mother’s love’". MSNBC.com. November 11, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27661955/

Coseno, Kim. "Sat, Oct 25, 2008". AboutMyBaby.com. October 25, 2008. http://cosenotriplets.aboutmybaby.com/journal/216543

 

[Asguard]

tiassa this is going to sound really harsh but

wow, talk about pulling a john and missing the point

Of course a hystorectomy or a vacectomy is unnessary surgury, i especially found it funny that you posted about teenage boys getting one temporarly prevent teenage pregancy (BTW you know you still produce usable sperm after having a vectectomy?, the way they extract it for IVF is by use of a gun which shoots directly into the testical, not something i would do)

My point to you, as it was to orleander has to do with hypocrasy from those who already have children critising those who cant and chose other routes to get them. I actually knew the first mother in the world i belive (possably just the southen hemosphere but i think the world) to get identical (think they were identical but its along time since i talked to her about it) quad boys from IVF. Now forget for a second they were identical which is something you cant control. In IVF multiple embrios are implanted in the hope that at least one will take hold. This is because the longer IVF goes on the lower the chances of it working are so if you can throw lots in the first time you have a better chance than spending years trying. Further more the chemicals they pump into the potentual mother arnt healthy to be in such high doses for that long. This explaines quite easerly the triplets

As for why they chose surgocy (or other people chose IVF) over adoption the answer is easy. I know you dont like the mother of your child but think about the first time you held her. Now bells has touched on one reason why adoption isnt popular but Mad has touched on the reason most people dont concider it except as a last resort. Further more we are judged (ESPECIALLY women) by there ability to reproduce. Most women spend a fair portion of there life on the pill now or being careful with condoms and then when they finally want kids to find they cant have them leaves them feeling angry, frustrated, betrayed and hundreds of other emotions. Men also experiance these emotions but in general the blame or the feeling that they are being blamed falls onto the women. I have herd stories of marriages breaking up over infertility not because one or the other partner is a basted but because the strain that trying and failing over and over again puts onto there relationship is as great as losing a child. There is nothing at all selfish about accessing IVF, and its dam hypocritical of you to suggest there is. Read the very last post i quoted again

Im sorry if im being harsh but this is personal to me, its quite likly PB will be infertile and that the $100s we have spent on the pill and condoms was compleatly unessary.

 

[GeoffP]

I could stipulate to the argument about responsible family planning, but it still doesn't strike me an heinous pride. Arrogance? Selfishness? Possibly. Is the 110K unadopted children issue really going to affect world population much? Really?