quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
Wet nursing, to me, is very different from surrogacy.

---

quote:

---

Suman Dodia, a pregnant, baby-faced 26-year-old, said she will buy a house with the $4,500 she receives from the British couple whose child she's carrying. It would have taken her 15 years to earn that on her maid's monthly salary of $25.

---

quote:

---

Gheewala, who plans to save the $6,250 she's earning for her two daughters' education. "The child will go to the U.S. and lead a better life and I'll be happy."

---

So as long as they are fully aware of the risks and what is being asked of them, then I have no problems with this (even in BB's hypothetical gaining weight or tennis figure) situation.

A psychologically damaging pregnancy may suck, but 15 years working as a maid (probably more due to living expenses in the meantime and the lost opportunity cost) may very well suck even more.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I tend to agree with Mucus, for the legal public ramifications. For my own self, I would also agree to it in both directions, in other words, I'd do it for a living if it paid well enough, and I would hire a surrogate if I couldn't carry my child myself. In either case, though, I would feel a spiritual family bond that transcended money. The money only makes it possible.

I wouldn't do it for mere convenience, since I would feel it a great loss if I couldn't carry my children myself. So I would do it only if it were necessary.

I think adoption is great too, but it's not necessarily for everyone.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
It should be legal, but I wouldn't use this system myself....at least I don't think I could.

Ask me again in 5 years if we still have no kids.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

I see it mostly as a physical difference rather then an emotional one, depending on what wet nursing entails. Some wet nurses simply feed the baby, some actually live with the baby and raise them for the first few years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
It may be "hard on the body and psyche" but there is also a possibility of whatever alternative labour that the women may have had to do to survive.

That is, these women do not simply go away and become invisible if the job disappears, instead they may have to take jobs which may very well be just as hard on the body and psyche as these.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:


For some people, having their own child who is their own genetic descendant is more important to them than it was to us, I guess.

---

If I never end up getting married (not super worried, I'm only 23!), I'll likely have a child who is my own, genetically, via surrogacy, though likely not in India. I'd strongly considering adopting a second child though. I want kids, I want a family, but if the wife thing were to never come through, I'd have kids anyway, and I want at least one of them to be my own, genetically. It's important to me.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
As someone who ended up being a single parent through no plan of her own, I think deliberately setting out to be one is foolish. To say the least. For both the parent and the theoretical child(ren).
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I wasn't about to say it, having never been one. But I was thinking how hard that would be, on the kids and the parent.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I can see why you'd both say that, easily I can see it. But for the moment I disagree. That's not to say that in the future I won't change my mind and agree with you, but for the moment that's my extreme fall back plan. I was raised by a single mother, and given how my dad was before he wisened up (which is to say, after I was done being raised), I think I'm the better for it. Anecdotal? Yes. The point being that it's different for everyone, and I wouldn't do it if I didn't have the time and money to give it all the attention it would deserve.

And I'd think for adopting, wouldn't it be better for a kid to have one parent rather than no parents?
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Oh, Lyr, I would never want my parents to get back together. They were bad enough to each other divorced. I doubt I would have survived to adulthood had I not been raised in a single-parent home. But, you know, that's not proof that that is the ideal situation, either. The ideal would have been to have two parents who were able to work things out and not hate each other. I didn't have that so divorce was second best. Sometimes one parent is taken out of the picture by his or her death, desires, actions, or unforseen circumstances. But to me the ideal is for two parents, supporting each other, able to help each other because it is really an overwhelming task that you don't comprehend until you try to do it.

I have nothing against single parents, and I know that many of them have no choice in the circumstances that made them such and even if they did have a choice, the choice is past, and now they have to do their best. A loving home for any child, no matter who is or isn't in it, is the best thing. But I guess it's the idea of bringing kids knowingly and deliberately-- not by accident, mistake, or lack of thought, but with intention to have them be born into a single-parent home with no mother present by design, that just makes me ache for everyone involved and the struggles that they will probably have to overcome, on top of the normal struggles of being a child and being a parent doing his best to raise kids.

Long story short, you've got a good long time to find a woman you'll want to raise them with together, or at least try to. And you are such a great guy, I know it's not going to be the only course open to you in your life. Don't worry too much about it yet. Focus instead on being a healthy, happy person, and I'm sure the opportunity will present itself in due time.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I thought about being a single mom for a long time, because I wanted (still want) a family and there was just nobody ever to be the husband and dad. But each time I thought seriously about it, I realized that it is an overwhelming job. I realized that the way I would have wanted to go about it is to pick someone I loved enough to marry and have kids with, and ask him.

Then I realized my kids would grow up with no real father. They would ache about that and miss him, and I would too. I realized I would be setting all of us up for a whole lot of heartache.

It's hard enough when you have ideal circumstances. Plenty of things can happen to mess up ideal circumstances. And then people just have to do their best. But to set out deliberately to put oneself in that position, that just never did seem like the right thing to do, to me. I don't know.

Everyone's different and plenty of single parents do an excellent job given the circumstances, but I guess for me, at least, that just wasn't the thing to do. I guess I realized that I needed a strong marriage first. It's hard to raise kids, so very hard. They test you to the very last ounce of your energy and patience and love. Being a team, working together, would make it doable. Alone, I just don't know. I would do my best, if it happened beyond my control, but I just couldn't choose that.

I know how much I needed a strong and loving father, and how much I suffered from the lack of one, even given the dad that I did have, who was awesome in many ways, just not those ways. How could I bring up daughters (in particular) with no dad at all, not even the memory of one? How could I do that to them? I just couldn't.

Still, I want a family.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
As someone who ended up being a single parent through no plan of her own, I think deliberately setting out to be one is foolish. To say the least. For both the parent and the theoretical child(ren).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by porcelain girl:
I'm going to strongly agree with Rivka. As a child of a single parent, and as a friend to many single parent children, I have vowed to never have ANY children (adopted or otherwise) unless I am in a secure relationship. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but to deliberately choose it is both foolish, and in some circumstances a little selfish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

I see it mostly as a physical difference rather then an emotional one, depending on what wet nursing entails. Some wet nurses simply feed the baby, some actually live with the baby and raise them for the first few years.

---

No offense, BlackBlade. But you've never been pregnant or given birth or nursed a baby, yes?

I agree that there's going to be some emotional attachment as a wet nurse, especially if the relationship also involves being nanny.

I disagree that it's the same degree as being a surrogate, especially if the wet nurse's baby is living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Synesthesia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by porcelain girl:
I'm going to strongly agree with Rivka. As a child of a single parent, and as a friend to many single parent children, I have vowed to never have ANY children (adopted or otherwise) unless I am in a secure relationship. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but to deliberately choose it is both foolish, and in some circumstances a little selfish.

---

I completely totally disagree. And I wasn't even raised exclusively by my parents, but mostly by my grandparent.
I don't think there's anything selfish about wanting to be a parent if you have given it a lot of thought, especially when it comes to all of these single people adopting children that most mainstream parents won't adopt.
It's really not easy though, especially when children come with all sorts of emotional baggage and pain and will do all they can to test and challenge their parents or parent to see if they will abandon them.
In some cases it might be better because a troubled child gets one on one attention and doesn't have a second parent to turn against the first. A single parent doesn't have to deal with another parent not understanding the child's wounds and how it effects them.
It's not totally ideal on some levels, but I don't see it as foolish or selfish because that is a bit too strong and too impolite to people such as this young women who has adopted several sons from foster care or many others who have adopted children from orphanages with horrible conditions and work hard to give these children the attention and affection they need.

---

Okay, I can agree that if you can handle it, it is good to adopt children that otherwise will not have parents. However, I don't think people should go out of their way to have children when they are a single parent, and that if you are adopting it is BETTER that you have a spouse/partner. Everyone should make the best of what they have, and try to help one another, but that doesn't change the fact that having both parents actively engaged in their upbringing is better than one. IMO.

I personally will probably never adopt if I remain single, mostly because I watched the struggles my mother went through with her six children. I don't ever want that. Will I be actively engaged in charities and social work towards helping children and families? Sure. But I won't add to the world's plight by throwing a child into my chaotic life. (I recognize that my circumstances are not the same as other single folk.)
 

---

Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
 
Another thing to consider is that a single loving parent is far better than two who are indifferent and both of those trumps no parent(s) at all.

I agree with porcelain girl though, I think it would be hard to find a situation where a single parent earnestly engaged in a childs life would be better than two such parents with the same investment. Especially if you factor in multiple children and the emotional and health considerations of the parents.

[ December 31, 2007, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: calaban ]
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I actually thought briefly about becoming a surrogate when I was younger. (and right after I became a single parent). Mainly because I knew someone who did this, and she made extremely good money at it (like $25,000 a pop, or more). And since I always had very easy pregnancies (no real sickness to speak of) and very easy deliveries, it seemed like a win-win; help some other woman achieve her dreams, and all that.

But I could never really decide exactly how I felt about it morally. Like whether it is right or wrong or interfering with nature too much. And the problem of going through explaining it (pregnancy, via surrogacy) to family, friends, co-workers. It just seemed like it might be too much, and cause a lot of conflict of opinions. So it never got beyond a thought in my head.

I still don't know for sure how I feel about it.
 

---

Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
 
My female friends and I in Los Angeles have all considered at various times replying to the ubiquitous ad for eggs: 5,000 dollars for a few of your eggs!

We all decided that it would bother us to know there was a child walking around with half of our genetic material, that we had nothing to do with. What if you saw them? How would you feel? We argued the ethics endlessly.

We were also very pro-adoption, and hoped more couples unable to have their own children physically would consider adopting first.

Farmgirl: My same friend that offered to bear and nurse my hypothetical children thought about being a surrogate because she enjoyed being pregnant.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
There are lots of children wandering around with half your genetic material that you had nothing to do with; of course, none of them were started from an egg of yours
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I don't think I could do that.
That child is half mine! I don't want a child that's half mine to be spanked for example. It would make me nuts, especially if it was like when I lived with my mother and she used the belt.
I wouldn't have any control over stuff like that.
Plus at this point, as much as I really want to adopt, if my half biological kids are brought into this world it will be by ME (Despite the fibroids, it's tmi, but i've got to do something about those.) and raised by me except in extreme circumstances.

quote:

---

Originally posted by porcelain girl:
My female friends and I in Los Angeles have all considered at various times replying to the ubiquitous ad for eggs: 5,000 dollars for a few of your eggs!

We all decided that it would bother us to know there was a child walking around with half of our genetic material, that we had nothing to do with. What if you saw them? How would you feel? We argued the ethics endlessly.

We were also very pro-adoption, and hoped more couples unable to have their own children physically would consider adopting first.

Farmgirl: My same friend that offered to bear and nurse my hypothetical children thought about being a surrogate because she enjoyed being pregnant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

I see it mostly as a physical difference rather then an emotional one, depending on what wet nursing entails. Some wet nurses simply feed the baby, some actually live with the baby and raise them for the first few years.

---

No offense, BlackBlade. But you've never been pregnant or given birth or nursed a baby, yes?

I agree that there's going to be some emotional attachment as a wet nurse, especially if the relationship also involves being nanny.

I disagree that it's the same degree as being a surrogate, especially if the wet nurse's baby is living.

---

Per some of the the responses to this I am going to say I was not at all offended by your objection to my inexperience. Certainly I'll never be able to do the field work necessary to make a comparison.

edited: because I missed your answer to my question in a later post.

I didn't quite understand how your 2nd and 3rd paragraph mesh together. It's seems your position is that a surrogate is going to me more emotionally bonded to a baby then a wet nurse, I didn't understand what a wet nurses baby being living had to do with anything. Could you be so kind to clarify?
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Sure.

In most cultures women hired as wet nurses would have either lost a baby shortly after birth/had a stillborn child or given birth to a baby of their own recently (so that they had an adequate milk supply for a newborn.) So either they would have a baby of their own they were nursing and caring for alongside someone else's baby, or they would be caring for and nursing someone else's baby having just lost their own.

Having nursed another woman's baby before (yes, I have, more than once-- it's a long story) and cared for other womens' babies, sometimes on the basis of day and overnight care for more than a week at a time, and comparing that to the experience of nursing and caring for my own, I had no emotional attachment that came from nursing the other woman's baby any more than the emotional attachment you feel when bottle-feeding a baby, and caring for another's infant, while I did care for the baby, it just was not the same thing as nursing and caring for my own, the level of bonding was very different for me. I am not really sure why, even. It just was. So if the woman had her own baby she was caring for alongside the baby she was hired to care for and nurse, I would think that the same separation of level of bonding might take place. If, OTOH, she had lost her baby, I can see how she might not have that comparison to make, and might get more attached. But to me it's on the same level as nannying-- of course you love the baby you care for. But it's not the same as the way you love your own children. (My brother had a nanny who had a daughter his age, and I remember very clearly that it was a different kind of emotional attachment between Gabriella and Gabby than between Gabriella and my brother, on both sides.)

Now, obviously, as we can see by maui babe's response above, not all women might feel the same way as me.

But at least from my perspective, it would be very, very different to me to be a surrogate than a wet nurse.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by calaban:
Another thing to consider is that a single loving parent is far better than two who are indifferent and both of those trumps no parent(s) at all.

I agree with porcelain girl though, I think it would be hard to find a situation where a single parent earnestly engaged in a childs life would be better than two such parents with the same investment. Especially if you factor in multiple children and the emotional and health considerations of the parents.

---

I'm wondering at what point hypotheticals become meaningless. You posit the absolute most ideal situation; that of two parents equally very involved in their child's life. What about one who does and one who doesn't? What if one is abusive? What if there are two parents and neither is ever there? What if there's one parent who is very devoted and has the time and money to make it work? What if, what if, what if? I think if there is one such good parent willing to give a kid a good home, wouldn't it be best just to do it? You can't say "but what about TWO parents?" because I think we all know there are an endless variety of two parent home situations that would NOT be better than one really good parent. Is a two parent home with two loving devoted parents ideal? Yes, I don't think we have an argument there. But how do you begin to measure the pros and cons when you can never, ever, guarantee that you're going to get THAT combination of good parents?

KQ -

Thanks I'm not worried at the moment, I'm still young, it's just something that I think about sometimes. I know I want a family, and I think about it every now and again and it's sort of an in the back of my mind contingency plan that'll get dusted off in 10-15 years if nothing comes through. I'm sure I'll come across a single girl geek who wants a family somewhere along the way.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

I think if there is one such good parent willing to give a kid a good home, wouldn't it be best just to do it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by calaban:
Another thing to consider is that a single loving parent is far better than two who are indifferent and both of those trumps no parent(s) at all.

I agree with porcelain girl though, I think it would be hard to find a situation where a single parent earnestly engaged in a childs life would be better than two such parents with the same investment. Especially if you factor in multiple children and the emotional and health considerations of the parents.

---

I'm wondering at what point hypotheticals become meaningless. You posit the absolute most ideal situation; that of two parents equally very involved in their child's life. What about one who does and one who doesn't? What if one is abusive? What if there are two parents and neither is ever there? What if there's one parent who is very devoted and has the time and money to make it work? What if, what if, what if? I think if there is one such good parent willing to give a kid a good home, wouldn't it be best just to do it? You can't say "but what about TWO parents?" because I think we all know there are an endless variety of two parent home situations that would NOT be better than one really good parent. Is a two parent home with two loving devoted parents ideal? Yes, I don't think we have an argument there. But how do you begin to measure the pros and cons when you can never, ever, guarantee that you're going to get THAT combination of good parents?

---

Absolutely, the hypothetical situation I was considering in that statement is hardly a rule.

There is also a point at which specific situations are not the rule.

The problem is the area between where hypothesis has to become more specific and specific situations more general. I'm pretty much to lazy to write every iteration and caveat.

To clarify, When I couched the statement using the term 'earnestly' I wasn't intending to imply that the situation was the most ideal situation possible in any fashion. I was just saying that where you have one parent who wants to be a parent, a second parent who wants to be a parent is probably going to be a better situation than just the single parent.

The model for the hypothesis we are discussing is one of father and mother and child(ren). Life loves to throw reality into the face of neat hypotheses like this. So given that general rule of chaos and considering the original topic there will inevitably be some real tough issues stemming from the concept of taking a very personal intimate process like creation of a child and turning it into international industry.

Consider for instance the spectrum of results that surrogacy could produce. Problems on the side of the person carrying the child to term could go from broken promises and an unwillingness to give up the child all the way through fraud. What of proper prenatal care and such, the list of possible issue is endless.

I fear that if such a practice were to become more prevailent there will be horror stories of human greed and vindictiveness on all sides of the issue. But such issues most likely won't be the rule, just the exception.

I guess I'm trying to say that the gamut of humanities failings and triumphs are possible in all things. It's just that more intense when children are involved.

[ January 01, 2008, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: calaban ]
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
Sure.

In most cultures women hired as wet nurses would have either lost a baby shortly after birth/had a stillborn child or given birth to a baby of their own recently (so that they had an adequate milk supply for a newborn.) So either they would have a baby of their own they were nursing and caring for alongside someone else's baby, or they would be caring for and nursing someone else's baby having just lost their own.

Having nursed another woman's baby before (yes, I have, more than once-- it's a long story) and cared for other womens' babies, sometimes on the basis of day and overnight care for more than a week at a time, and comparing that to the experience of nursing and caring for my own, I had no emotional attachment that came from nursing the other woman's baby any more than the emotional attachment you feel when bottle-feeding a baby, and caring for another's infant, while I did care for the baby, it just was not the same thing as nursing and caring for my own, the level of bonding was very different for me. I am not really sure why, even. It just was. So if the woman had her own baby she was caring for alongside the baby she was hired to care for and nurse, I would think that the same separation of level of bonding might take place. If, OTOH, she had lost her baby, I can see how she might not have that comparison to make, and might get more attached. But to me it's on the same level as nannying-- of course you love the baby you care for. But it's not the same as the way you love your own children. (My brother had a nanny who had a daughter his age, and I remember very clearly that it was a different kind of emotional attachment between Gabriella and Gabby than between Gabriella and my brother, on both sides.)

Now, obviously, as we can see by maui babe's response above, not all women might feel the same way as me.

But at least from my perspective, it would be very, very different to me to be a surrogate than a wet nurse.

---

Hey thanks! That all makes alot of sense to me. What rates do you charge if I end up sending my kids your way?
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Lol! I'm not sure wet nursing for hire is even legal in this country. It's probably regulated by the FDA or something. In any case, I don't do it. The arrangement for me to nurse her baby was a very private one between me and a very close friend-- most people aren't comfortable with another woman nursing their baby even once, especially with excellent nutrition from formula and clean water readily available in this country.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Okay, I just read a thread on another board by a woman who is pregnant with an "adopted embryo."

This is a fascinating moral dilemma scenario for me, because while I think it will be harder for her, as a single mom (she mentioned that herself, that she's worried she's being selfish by purposefully bringing the baby into the world without a father present), and I do believe that children have a right to have two parents unless one parent negates that right by his or her conduct (or both do), this is a baby that would not be alive otherwise. The couple whose embryo it was could not afford to keep embryos they had decided they were not going to be able to use in storage any more, and rather than allow them to be destroyed or donated for research (both of which are allowed for in their contract if they stop paying the storage fees), they allowed other women to "adopt" the embryos and carry them and raise the children if they manage to have a live birth.

This is fascinating because I can see both definite good and not-so-good parts of the scenario.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
Lol! I'm not sure wet nursing for hire is even legal in this country. It's probably regulated by the FDA or something. In any case, I don't do it. The arrangement for me to nurse her baby was a very private one between me and a very close friend-- most people aren't comfortable with another woman nursing their baby even once, especially with excellent nutrition from formula and clean water readily available in this country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
Lol! I'm not sure wet nursing for hire is even legal in this country.

---