Surrogate Motherhood

[Seraphim]

If you were unable to have your own children would you have a surrogate mother? What would be your concerns?

 

If you have had a surrogate mother what were the procedures?

[Sanesoul]

I don't think I would. If I could not have children, I would adopt.

[sophie274]

Hmmm, that's an interesting question. I haven't really thought about it much, but my instinct is to say I would probably at least consider it.

 

My worries would be:

- the woman used as surrogate running away or something similar with my child

- the surrogate wanting visiting rights - this is also something I would feel uncomfortable with about adoption, I would never want an open adoption

- cost + potential difficulties going through what's essentially IVF procedure, minus the last step

 

The first two worries might be unfounded, but I'd definitely want to look up the laws and legal precedents.

[Seraphim]

Hmmm, that's an interesting question. I haven't really thought about it much, but my instinct is to say I would probably at least consider it.

 

My worries would be:

- the woman used as surrogate running away or something similar with my child

- the surrogate wanting visiting rights - this is also something I would feel uncomfortable with about adoption, I would never want an open adoption

- cost + potential difficulties going through what's essentially IVF procedure, minus the last step

 

The first two worries might be unfounded, but I'd definitely want to look up the laws and legal precedents.

 

The costs yeah that would be a big consideration and the medical procedures.

I would not be uncomfortable with the surrogate seeing the baby or even in an adoption the parents seeing the baby. I think the more people to love a child the better. I might be worried though that the surrogate might not give me the baby at the end and get stuck in a big legal battle.

[sophie274]

The costs yeah that would be a big consideration and the medical procedures.

I would not be uncomfortable with the surrogate seeing the baby or even in an adoption the parents seeing the baby. I think the more people to love a child the better. I might be worried though that the surrogate might not give me the baby at the end and get stuck in a big legal battle.

 

The reason I would be worried in an adoption is if the genetic parents then tried to get custody or whatever of the child, or have some share in the parental decision-making, etc. I guess I just feel like I'd want to be fully in control of the child (not in a bad way), and feel that he was truly mine to raise, without fear that he could be taken away. But yeah, I might worry about the surrogate wanting some kind of parental right, although I think there are probably no precedents for that, so likely an unfounded fear.

 

Are you thinking of having a child via surrogate?

I know one of the issues with adoption is that it is hard to adopt a child once the parents are older (45 and over I think - they are reluctant to adopt children out to parents that age, I've read), so that could be factor in choosing between the two.

 

I suppose I might also be worried of others' judgments, or them thinking it was "weird" or selfish to have a child via surrogate, but that wouldn't really matter to me once I felt good about my own decision.

[Batya33]

Same here (and same with your last post too). I also would not have wanted to be a surrogate for those reasons, no matter what the financial benefit.

[Seraphim]

A surrogate would be my only option of having my own natural child, since I can not carry my own anymore.

We tried adoption but my husband backed out the week before we got our baby,plus too we are in our 40's now.

I really do not care about the opinions of others. If a woman was fine with doing that for me that would be great. If she wanted to see the baby,but have no decision making, you know like a good family friend that would be fine with me.

[sidehop]

The only concern would be the health of the child and of course the cost. And yes if we wanted our own child with our genetics, it's an option. But at the same time we probably would look at adoption as well as my wife and I talked in the past.

 

Most surrogates whether it's through an agency or privately always have lawyers involved with specific contract that state what's expected from both parties including after the birth, what's paid, what's not, termination of agreement, etc. The child being taken away by a surrogate mother is a very rare occurrence although it has happened in the past or surrogate mothers that become attached to the newborn especially if the eggs were from their own.

 

Procedure is lengthy I can tell you, even through an agency. Between the surrogate mother and intended parents, there are lengthy testing and documents that need to be signed before anything can happen. That of course it to make sure the surrogate mother doesn't have a criminal history, disease (every type of disease is checked), medical background as well as lifestyle. A lot of blood work (both mother/father/surrogate mother), ultrasound/sonohystogram, etc.

 

Of course the mother's embryo will need to be genetically tested especially after a past certain age. Many clinics also do psychological evaluation of both the surrogate mother and the intended parents.

 

The surrogate mother's body will need to go through a specific cycle so a lot of pills and hormone shots will be given for good couple months before the implantation can be done. Hormone pills, then Lupron shots for few weeks that go into the stomach then progesterone for 10 weeks that go on the buttocks. After everything is said and done implanting no more than three eggs (two eggs usually) you just hope that one will take. Multiples are always a possibility of course.

 

All the procedure of course will vary depending on which clinic you go through. Like our state is very strict with surrogacy while Massachusetts is very welcoming for surrogacy.

 

If you need any detailed info you can PM me Vic as my wife & I have gone through the procedure in the past.

[Seraphim]

This is great! Thank you! I will do that when I have deeper questions. I am just thinking about this right now. I know my religion does not allow it so I would REALLY have to think long and hard about whether I want to go against my religion or not.

[Pinnsvini]

No, I wouldn't. I believe that if I naturally cannot conceive/carry children, then its nature's sign of saying I shouldn't be a parent.

[Seraphim]

No, I wouldn't. I believe that if I naturally cannot conceive/carry children, then its nature's sign of saying I shouldn't be a parent.

 

I do not think that would be fair. I already have a child and am a good mother. I think I would be just as good a mother to any other child.

 

I guess it would be fair if you thought that just as an opinion for yourself or as a belief for yourself. (not meaning that as an insult,but just saying it is your own belief}

[Pinnsvini]

I do not think that would be fair. I already have a child and am a good mother. I think I would be just as good a mother to any other child.

 

I guess it would be fair if you thought that just as an opinion for yourself or as a belief for yourself. (not meaning that as an insult,but just saying it is your own belief}

 

I'm not saying its a definition of how good a parent one is, and I see it as a general outlook for everyone in life (I don't mean that as an insult or criticism of you, it's purely what I think of everything.) For example I don't agree with IVF either. For whatever reason, someone is unable to carry any children, or in your case, birth more than one child, and I think people should respect this natural occurrence. It's not a reflection on one's parenting skills- I have no doubts that you're a very good mother, in my opinion (and it is only that, and consequently means very little) for whatever reason nature's course is that you should only have one child. I apologise if it appears offensive as I've read about your past experiences, which I'm truly sorry to hear about, and don't mean it as a dig at you, as I said it's just a value I hold.

It's like when I hear about women in their 60s getting artificially pregnant; their bodies go through the menopause and render them infertile for a reason. Not to mention in that case I think it's very cruel as the child will have a parent who will be unable to be as active as a woman in her 40s or below would be, not to mention they will have the trauma of a parent dying when they're only in their twenties most likely. But I disgress.

[Seraphim]

No, I wouldn't. I believe that if I naturally cannot conceive/carry children, then its nature's sign of saying I shouldn't be a parent.

 

Does this mean then that you are against adoption as well though? I mean people who can not have kids naturally should never be parents even if they want to adopt?

[sophie274]

Does this mean then that you are against adoption as well though? I mean people who can not have kids naturally should never be parents even if they want to adopt?

 

Or against treatment for other illnesses?

 

Personally I consider infertility one of many diseases/"medical conditions" that affect us, and that can now be treated quite well, whether through fertility drugs or fertility treatments.

 

There's a big difference between a single woman of 69 getting IVF and a couple in their 30s getting it.

[Pinnsvini]

Does this mean then that you are against adoption as well though? I mean people who can not have kids naturally should never be parents even if they want to adopt?

 

I suppose I kind of backed myself into that corner. I'll be honest and say I'm unsure as far as adoption is concerned. To say that I'm against adoption makes me sound horrible, and I realise so many children would be left homeless, so no. But to say I am for it would be contradicting what I just said. So honestly, I don't know myself how I consider adoption. I personally wouldn't, but I think people who do do it (excluding celebritries who treat Asian/African children like little handbags rather than people) are very selfless, loving people and I admire that.

sophie274, I don't regard infertility as an illness.

[renaissancewoman101]

Pinnsvini, so what do you regard infertility as? A freak of nature? Just curious. To me, if I really wanted to have kids and wanted to too, and there was issues with being fertile and stuff, I would look at IVF and even surrogacy.

 

It's amazing how much medical advances have come though. A century ago, we wouldn't even have been able to contemplate this.

[Seraphim]

I suppose I kind of backed myself into that corner. I'll be honest and say I'm unsure as far as adoption is concerned. To say that I'm against adoption makes me sound horrible, and I realise so many children would be left homeless, so no. But to say I am for it would be contradicting what I just said. So honestly, I don't know myself how I consider adoption. I personally wouldn't, but I think people who do do it (excluding celebritries who treat Asian/African children like little handbags rather than people) are very selfless, loving people and I admire that.

sophie274, I don't regard infertility as an illness.

 

Ok,but all this only applies to you,right?