I wouldn't even give them my eggs. Why are some people so desperate to be pregnant? :shrug:
sperm, egg donation and surrogacy
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
I wouldn't even give them my eggs. Why are some people so desperate to be pregnant? :shrug:
Well imagine going through all the trials and tribulations of pregnancy, having your vagina ripped up during childbirth and finally actually holding that new life in your arms...
... only to hand the fruit of your labours and love over to another without question.
Next, imagine having to see your child brought up by another - day by day, year by year - knowing that you will never hear him/her call you mummy.
Are you really that surprised?
That's why I couldn't do it.
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??
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:
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:
What does that even mean? I think Orleander has a really good point. Having your sibling's child is no different than adoption anyway because the child isn't yours.
not entirely. the child is still half yours, the other parent would be a step-parent essentially. but when we talk about donation to a sibling, then unless you inherited the exact opposite genes to your sibling, then there is still a significant genetic input from you.
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?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
One problem I have with maybe my future wife being a surrogant mother, is that the womb already is a natural "bottleneck" upon human fertility. If she opens her womb to raising a related family member's baby, out of love or something, is she closing her womb to my human seed then? Of course, adoption doesn't have that problem, as naturally growing families can adopt and continue to breed naturally, both at the same time. Even overcrowded homes overflowing with children, can be far more easily shared with even more children, than a womb can be "shared," well except for twins or triplets obviously. There's a question then. Can a surrogate be safely implanted, in a womb to share with an already naturally-progressing pregnancy? That would help answer my question, about the problem of the womb natural "bottleneck." Since already the body has temporarly suspended the natural reproductive rythms, until the baby can be delivered. "Sharing" quite often, is a virtue.
I don't believe humans should use any means of "birth control." But if more people were to believe so, wouldn't world population maybe be sort of growing plenty fast enough, without a lot of people having to resort to infertility treatments to multiply our "huge" numbers all the faster?
I'm just not into monkeying around too much with the ways of nature, or with what God must have intended. Sure, some infertility treatments are fine, and help to promote human life, but technically, might there be a "shortage" of available wombs, due to some rather understandable reasons?
Maybe some futuristic "artificial womb" might be the answer to some of this?
I don't believe humans should use any means of "birth control." But if more people were to believe so, wouldn't world population maybe be sort of growing plenty fast enough, without a lot of people having to resort to infertility treatments to multiply our "huge" numbers all the faster?
I'm just not into monkeying around too much with the ways of nature, or with what God must have intended. Sure, some infertility treatments are fine, and help to promote human life, but technically, might there be a "shortage" of available wombs, due to some rather understandable reasons?
Maybe some futuristic "artificial womb" might be the answer to some of this?
Last edited:
then I guess we disagree.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
That answer seems appropriate on a poll, in which many people may feel befuddled on how they want to vote. Some questions just can't be answered "right away," as they are too confusing or complex.
And I agree with the answers, that it could be good not to skew polls, with people voting at random, just to see what the results were.
Most polls I see, allow the (Obligatory) Other answer, to maybe partially fill that role though.
Also, I would like to donate sperm, to make my further contribution to the naturally-growing world population, except that there's way too many ethical issues about it. Am I then responsible for caring for any "anonymous" babies that then result? Or might that be a later legal interpretation? What for is sperm donations for anyway? So that wicked immoral people, say like lesbians, can have babies to train in their perverted ways? I wouldn't want a child of mine, subjected to that. So I have some possible misgivings, about humans trying to "play God," and reproduce in bizarre ways. Sometimes it's all good, and for favoring human life. But sometimes, it's not, and about trying to do weird stuff, designer babies, "selective reductions," long abandoning frozen embryoes in freezers, improper families, etc.
So I think I will limit my "sperm donations," to only my future wife. She can have all she wants, as much as I produce.
More like a quarter yours, but counting alleles is not my point. I don't think most people consider their nephews or nieces to be partly their children. They consider them close relatives surely, but not their children because they aren't. There is no genetic input from you, because it's not your child. I know what it feels like to be infertile it something that you come to terms with to some people it's worth all of the money they have to hire a surrogate in India, but for me adoption is the route I plan to take.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
According to many State's laws, and practical considerations, I think that even cousins may be genetically dissimilar/distant enough, to allow cousins to marry, and it wouldn't be "incest" or anything like that.
Of course I don't know any cousins of mine that I would like to marry though.
Of course I don't know any cousins of mine that I would like to marry though.