I was reading in the New York Times Magazine yesterday an article called Her Body, My Baby about one woman's journey to finding a surrogate mother for her child as she was having no luck with pregnancy on her own.Now, aside from the environmental issues of overpopulation and the arguments regarding infertility and the subsequent option of adopting babies, this article struck me in a whole different way. I wasn't thinking so much at the environmental angle as I was about the extravagance of it. First of all, the woman never once mentioned the option of adoption and she came off as so impossibly selfish that I just had to discuss it with you guys.
Here's pretty much the story distilled down to the basics. The writer, a NY Times journalist, had undergone 11 unsuccessful attempts at in-vitro fertilization (IVF). It goes without saying that her husband is wealthy enough to indulge her in such narcissism since the average round of IVF costs about $10,000 out-of-pocket. Since these attempts didn't work, the woman decided to find herself a surrogate to implant her fertilized egg into.
This cost an additional round of IVF plus $25,000 paid to the surrogate plus a lot of other costs (distance travel to doctor's appointments, hotel stay during delivery, etc.). I can't even begin to estimate these additional expenses, so let's just stick with the basic costs of 12 rounds of IVF plus the surrogate fees. As a baseline, this baby cost about $150,000.
Let me further point out that this woman, who is 40, is married to a 60-year-old man who was previously married three times and already has 6 children of his own.
Am I the only one bothered by the conceit that would drive a person to undergo so many invasive procedures and spend such an enormous amount to ensure that she had a child that looked like her and then write an article describing how worrying it was that since she didn't give birth to her genetic child that she was somehow not fully its mother? Oh, that is, when she wasn't self-congratulating herself on how she didn't have to do the "work" of pregnancy:
The bigger Cathy [the surrogate] was, the more I realized that I was glad — practically euphoric — I was not pregnant. I was in a daze of anticipation, but I was also secretly, curiously, perpetually relieved, unburdened from the sheer physicality of pregnancy....
Cathy was getting bigger, and the constraints on her grew. I, on the other hand, was happy to exploit my last few months of nonmotherhood by white-water rafting down Level 10 rapids on the Colorado River, racing down a mountain at 60 miles per hour at ski-racing camp, drinking bourbon and going to the Super Bowl.
Even when she's trying to sound like she's getting the bum deal, somehow she portrays herself in the more flattering light:
At the height of her pregnancy, Cathy and I embodied several facets of femininity. She could be seen as the fertile, glowing mother-to-be as well as the hemorrhoidal, flatulent, lumpen pregnant woman. I could be the erotic, perennially sensual nullipara, the childbirth virgin, and yet I was also the dried-up crone with a uterus full of twigs.
Sorry, lady, but pregnant women are totally erotic and extremely sensual. It's called hormones. If the writer had been a bit more genuine and less smug and spoiled sounding, I'd have felt a little more sympathetic to her. But, then again, I don't know, maybe adopting five babies would have been a more noble thing to do with the ol' bank account.
Okay, now that I'm done with my screed, what's your opinion on reproduction techniques like IVF and surrogacy and, more fittingly, such extreme attempts at it?
[By the way, I'm not the only reader who was appalled by this story based on the comments on the NYT's website.]
109 Crunchy Thoughts:
First, my daughter is a product of 2 rounds of in vitro. So I know from experience that in vitro is emotional and physical hell!!! We only did the 2nd round because we had eggs in the freezer. The fact that this woman tried in vitro 11 times absolutely amazes me. She must be crazy, but then her comments about her surrogate prove that.
After the first round, we seriously looked into adoption and to get a healthy child in extremely hard, domestically or foreign. Adoption isn't always cheaper or easier. And some people do have stigmas about adopting, not me, but I know some do.
Bottom line, in vitro is not a walk in the park. My husband and I were both younger than 25 when we did our in vitro, so we had the best chances and it was still the hardest thing I've ever done. It really did make pregnancy seem like a walk in the park, after the months of multiple shots everyday and 20+ pills at times. I cannot believe women would go thru all of this for another family - it's amazing - I didn't even want to go thru it again for myself. Despite how "unnatural" it is - it's an absolute miracle and our daughter is proof of that. But I would warn not to say that adoption is a cheaper, easier way. It's not and can be just as emotional taxing.
I am never impressed with IVF stories. Like you I think that is the height of conceit, when there are so many kids who could be adopted. But people are in the misconception that you have to have a baby, not a 2, 5 or 8 year old. Then there are those not allowed to adopt- perfectly fine homes that could solve the problem of "unadoptable" kids. But Bush and the rethuglicans are seeing that we cannot adopt.
The author's initial description and her interaction with the surrogate mother, Cathy, completely dripped with elitism and ungratefulness. The article mentions how she even cropped out Cathy's name and hospital location from the sonograms in an attempt to 'erase Cathy's existence' before she (probably) gleefully sent out to her friends and family.
With the exception of the occasional hint at Cathy's exceptional grace and humility, the article made my blood boil.
I agree this woman definately sounds selfish. And with a husband 20 years her senior she obviously has some unresolved father issues there too.
While I have not had any children yet, being Maori I have quite a bit of experiences about whangai (kinda like an open adoption). My youngest brother was adopted to a friend of my Mum's and her husband who could not have children. Mum had just had the twins and they were only 1 when she got pregnant so she decided to give up K to her friends.
With it being whangai, it has been a open process. While K calls his adoptive parents Mum and Dad because for him they are Mum and Dad, he also knows about his birth parents and their children as his siblings.
I think if I was in that women's position I would rather adopt than go through the strife of failed IVF attempts after failed attempts. I'm not sure of her complete circumstances to why she didn't start her family till late so I don't want to be judgemental, but I would probably also try and start a family long before I turn 40.
This story absolutely disgusts me. That child is nothing more to that woman than an accessory, a dog to carry around in a handpurse to coo over. Look at little Max! We spent so much on him, but he's ours. Isn't he adorable!
The same goes for a woman I know here. Her husband had a vasectomy long before they were the reversible kind and they are both OLD. They had been together a long time and she decided she HAD to have kids. It took 4 in-vetro cycles, plus flights to DC as we live on a rock in the Atlantic with not a lot of options for things like that, and crazy hormone therapy because she was beginning menopause. Now she has twin girls that are getting older and they have lost some of their charm for her. It's sad really. Her IVF cycles were $14,000 a pop. Those girls should mean more. She could have adopted a local child for less. This really pissed me off. Are here genes better than everyone elses?
Sometimes I feel like the NY Times has it out for women. They always seem to find the least likable woman they can to discuss hot button issues. Like the other NY Times article I read a few days ago about a woman discussing her low sex drive, and woe is me, it's not my fault I don't want to have sex, but, oh also, I totally cheated on my amazing husband.
So like, no, I haven't read the article, and the woman sounds insane, but just because that woman is insane, does not reflect on the majority of women who go through IMF, in my opinion. And while I don't think I would pursue IMF, until I have personally gone through the hell that is infertility, I would never judge another person for pursuing IMF. Unless that women is just an insane bitch, like it sounds like this woman is. Because the NY Times hates women and thus chose an insane woman to write about surrogacy instead of a likeable woman.
I've always felt like the sheer physicality of pregnancy and birth was better preparation for raising a child than anything else was. Not that it should be required to be a parent, of course...but the line about avoiding it bothers me because it seems so important, and joyful.
There are too many waiting children out there for crap like this even to be considered. I'm sorry but you got this mom's (one bio, three adopted from foster care) dander up. And I don't want to hear any baloney (vegan or otherwise) about the cost of adoption. It doesn't have to cost much at all. In fost/adoption the cost is almost nothing. Check out this website for lot's of how to info. http://www.davethomasfoundation.org/
Whew I feel better now.
You guys act like adoption is such an easy process, but you've obviously never really looked into it. I agree that you don't always have to adopt a newborn, but once they turn about 3, you have HUGE behavioral problems after they've been in the system.
Also, some insurance plans cover up to $15,000 for "fertility". Adoptions can cost huge amounts and even then you're not guaranteed a child, My cousin was on the list for 10 years. Then they found out the baby needed brain surgery @ 6 months old. Adoption would be a more viable option is it was easier for being to give up their unwanted kids earlier on rather than dragging them in and out of the system.
I a mom to five children - two by birth and three by adoption.
This is a Catch-22 kind of thing. I absolutely would not want this mother parenting an adopted child. Adopted children experience trauma - even the "healthy newborns." You can't live with one rhythm, one voice, and one set of biology for nine months, and not experience grief when that is taken from you. Dealing with adoption as a child grows is traumatic at different times of life.
All children need parents that will love them and parent them forever, no matter what.
No matter what.
Brain surgery, attachment disorder, food allergies, learning disabilities, etc.
Heck, my bio daughter has Tourettes! Go figure. She's my child, so I learn how to parent Tourettes. It's not easy, but she's my child.
I'm a huge adoption advocate - blog about it until people want to poke their eye out with a stick. Yet, my two newest children (ages 12 and 9) come to me from an adoptive home that abused them. They have severe attachment issues. They had a childhood full of extreme poverty. They need a mom that would give them a safe place to heal. They were adopted into abuse. We have a long way to go.
So, while I want people to really learn about adoption, I want them to understand that every single adopted child comes with emotional baggage, even if they have no physical or medical problems. It is a part of who they are and how their family came together.
I haven't read the whole article, but this woman is certainly not at a place NOW where she could be the kind of mom an adopted child so desperately needs. The great thing is that many, many people CAN get to that point. It takes education. It takes some training. It takes courage.
And it is a privilege, even on the very worst days.
Interesting discussion. The sad woman in the article is obviously completely unprepared to be a parent with little understanding of the sacrifices she will need to make for her child. But then aren't we all that first time? I hope that she will grow into her role of parent.
Personally, I am a huge fan of adoption. Full disclosure: I am an adoptive single father, and a gay man. As such, my path to fatherhood certainly wasn't traditional. Or easy. Adoption isn't an easy process by any stretch (try having your entire life put under a microscope for review by dozens of often hostile people). Adoption is necessarily inexpensive either (although foster/adopt is generally).
Having been told by many that I shouldn't be a parent, that I was unfit because I was gay, I am rather loathe to tell others when or how or why they should be a parent.
Still, I am amazed by friends and coworkers who are having problems getting pregnant and who constantly complain that they "just want so badly to be parents." For those wanting to be a parent, there are many of thousands of children who are wanting to have parents. Adopt.
Most people however, don't want to be parents. They want to have offspring. Which is a very different thing.
The father in the article,with six kids from multiple marriages seems to have little interest in fatherhood. At 60, the odds of him being around and healthy enough to be a father to this new child are not great. Instead, he likes the idea of having offspring.
I think that most people who have kids are more interested in offspring than parenting. Usually, once they have the kids, they learn to be parents -- but not always.
I wish more people would figure it out.
Some great points, Christine, about the special challenges of adoption. And it certainly isn't for everyone.
Still, I think that every child comes with special challenges and special joys and rewards.
Perhaps because becoming a parent took such effort on my part, I think that it is a privilege in any regard. And not something to be entered into lightly or with little thought.
The ability to get drunk and have unprotected sex in the back seat of the car after prom hardly qaulifies someone for the challenges of parenthood.
It does kinda disgust me in a way-although I am guessing that much of it is the biological drive to reproduce coupled with enough money to go to these extremes.
Regarding adoption though-it is fantastically unafordable in general unless one is adopting an older, special needs hard to place child. This is not for everyone. I considered adopting another child or two- I have one bio child-but to do so meant going overseas unless I wanted the hard-to-place special needs kids- and I already have my own home-grown special one so I wasn't looking to take on more of that personally. Overseas adoptions are totally beyond my affordability limit so of course it never happened. So many people have their hands out for a piece of the pie in these situations- and they are preying mostly on the desperation of those who want to have children- if we really cared as a world community about finding homes for those children who really needed them, adoption would be way cheaper than it is.
This article drove me nuts - I barely could resist bitching about it. Now I'm certainly no one to talk on the overpopulation subject, but what really made me nuts was the way she spoke about her surrogate. The class issues are appalling - not only does she need to have a baby, but a baby from a white, college educated woman who types her responses.
Fascinatingly, she doesn't have a problem paying 25K for a baby, but she doesn't want her baby to touch the uterus of an actual poor person.
I agree, though, that people are too casual about the costs and responsibilities of adoption, although it is worth noting that low cost adoption is very much possible using US social services - my mother placed children for decades this way.
I hope for the sake of the child that she gets her perfect baby - no disabilities, no imperfections. Because I doubt she's fit to parent any child that isn't the right size, color and level of perfection.
Sharon
To respond to Ani and echo Sharon, adoption through social services (usually a foster/adoption route) is a very affordable option. I don't know about other states, but in Texas all adoption expenses are covered. The state pays for foster care of a child before adoption, and even continues to pay for very good health insurance for a child until they turn 18. And there is a large support network (formal and informal) for parents.
Yes, some kids in social services are "special needs" in that they have severe medical or emotional problems. But many are only special needs in that they largely have the same needs that most children have. Love, affection, structure, security, education, family.
I think that far too many people don't consider the foster/adopt route because they want that "perfect" child. Pregnancy hardly guarantees a perfect child. Obviously. And if you are only interested in parenting a "perfect" child, I'd recommend getting a dog instead. You can shower it with all that "love" you have to give and you can easily return it to the pound when it disappoints.
i believe that having more than the replacement rate of offspring by any means is irresponsible; the planet is straining under the current population.
RE comments regarding foster/ adopt programs: I know three families in three states who've ended up burned and heartbroken by that process. The system as it currently is does not work for parents or children. If you had a good experience with it, I suspect you're in the minority.
After having a stillborn son a week after my husband had a vasectomy, we were not qualified to adopt (or even foster!) because of our income (well below poverty line, but we knew how to make it work). We scrabbled the money together for a vasectomy reversal instead because it did seem like the only way we could have another child.
Obviously this is not an issue for anyone who can pay for IVF, but some people would actually prefer to adopt than have their own kids but just plain can't afford it or don't qualify for other non-legitimate reasons. In theory I don't think anyone should waste medical technology to put yet more children in the world but the current adoption system doesn't work for a lot of people (sometimes, unfortunately, including the biological mother who might prefer to raise her child if her life circumstances were different- were it not for income inequality, few children would be available for adoption).
A friend of mine wanted to adopt but his wife had to have her "own" baby so they went the IVF route 3 times. They now have a son and daughter.
The issue you haven't mentioned is the future health problems of women who've had these procedures. My friends wife recently had her gall bladder removed, she was told that her gall stones were probably related to her IVF procedures-- the hormones they flood your body with. I'm thinking eleven such procedure could really eff up you body.
Sarah -- certainly the adoption process is full of difficulty and heartache. As is the IVF route.
I was just addressing the cost issues by pointing out that the foster/adopt option is potentially very cheap as a counter to people who say that they can't afford to adopt (private adoptions can be very expensive).
I know many people with a good experience going the foster/adopt route. And many who haven't been as lucky. The same can be said about private adoptions. It is a difficult process.
And in my limited experience, state programs can be more restrictive regarding potential parents than some private adoption agencies. Not everyone will qualify for sate programs, and some good potential parents are shut out of the system. But generally, the people who work for the state agencies are working hard for the kids they have and will work hard to help a good poetntial family (still, there is only so much they can do).
Dahalia, absent neglect or abuse, I would never presume to tell someone how many children they should or should not have. However, I wish that our societies and particularly our religions would begin to think of parenting as a proactive choice and privelege instead of the normal and expected duty of women (particularly). I think you are right that our planet can not continue to suffer under the strain of so many people. We are in for a rude awakening from mother nature soon. And it isn't going to be pretty.
Anon brings up a good point about the potential affects of IVF on a mother.
But I wonder as well about the long-term afffects on the children born through this process. So far, we just don't have enough experience to know. Not saying that it shouldn't be done.
I'm just leary of "playing god." Mankind has a long and unfortunate history with the law of unintended consequences.
Only one person mentioned the biological drive to have your own kids. I think there is something to that. Evolutionarily speaking, our goal is to pass on our DNA. I think there is something to be said for that, and that it is a perfectly legit reason to try to have your own biological children.
However, I didn't read the article, just Crunchy's excerpts, but it sounds like this woman is the *worst* example one could use to discuss the issues related to biological children, surrogacy, adoption, etc.
I think IVF, surrogacy, etc. do have their place, and people who choose to use them should not be villified. That does not mean we shouldn't question their motives (and it sounds like there is much to be questioned with this woman). But would we feel the same way if the situation was a young couple, him infertile due to cancer treatments, saving for IVF to try to have their own children? Or a happy loving gay couple using surrogacy to have their own biological child? (I personally know couples like both mentioned above). I think adoption is wonderful. But I also think we should not judge others in how they choose to go about becoming parents.
Evolutionarily speaking, our goal is to pass on our DNA. I think there is something to be said for that, and that it is a perfectly legit reason to try to have your own biological children.
I disagree; I think it's egotistical- especially if you are passing on DNA that may very well render your own kids infertile! But I look at it the same way as I look upon plastic surgery; I think it's a selfish waste of resources, but I don't ahve the right to tell other people what to do with their own bodies.
Medical tourism in general is a real problem. There are first-world people buying services in India and China that are illegal in their home countries, and then when something goes wrong it falls on the poor people they were exploiting in the first place - have you all seen this surrogacy case in the news? In Japan, surrogacy is not allowed (there's no law yet but the OBGyn groups don't allow doctors to do it) so the couple went to India, but they got divorced before the baby was born and Indian law doesn't allow for foreign adoptions by single parents (or fathers maybe?). I just hope the father is financially supporting the surrogate mother, who is supporting the baby.
http://www.crnjapan.com/abuse/aarticles/2008/en/20080808-surrogate_baby_in_india.html
I too was disturbed by this article. As an adoptive parent though I find some of this discussion disturbing too. I think people should be careful pushing adoption as an earth friendly option.
Fertile families don't have the right to tell infertile families that they should address over-population when they themselves are contributing to it.
The stories of knowing families who have been heartbroken by failed adoptions are only excuses not to adopt. I am sure many more families have been heartbroken by miscarriages and stillbirths but that doesn't stop the average person from attempting a pregnancy.
The cost of adoption isn't really an issue for most families. There is much help out there and as others have mentioned adoption through the state is often completely free ( and yes, healthy infants are available through foster care).
There are a lot of myths about adoption. Adoption is extremely complicated but can work for many people, especially many of those children who are living without a family.
The author could have made other decisions. She could have written more sensitively. The fact is that adoption is considered second best by most people in this country. It is pretty incredible how far people like the NYT author will go to to ensure they never have to adopt.
CC, I was reading the story with mounting disbelief when the words of local doctor came back to me. "Sometimes", he said "God doesn't think that couples should be parents".
At the time I was more than sceptical about his view, but now, after reading this, I am not so sure.
I agree with Anne when she wrote 'That child is nothing more to that woman than an accessory'.
I may be in the extreme minority here, but I feel as though this woman is being quite unfairly judged. Certainly she could have pursued adoption rather than spending an incredible amount of money. But as many comments have stated, adoption is quite often a difficult path.
I have never tried to conceive, although I will at some point, so I fully admit my knowledge is limited. But what right do I have to judge this women for her methods of producing a child? I fully believe in a woman's right to choose, and I don't believe that just refers to abortion. This woman, and her husband, chose to have a baby. They did not produce multiples, they did not abort willingly. They simply found a method that worked for them.
What right do I have to tell her how to spend her time and money? No one was coerced into providing medical care or carrying the child. Yes, the mother may be immature but frankly, there are a lot of parents that emotionally are not ready to have children and do.
Crunchy, I love your blog and agree with you nearly all the time. But I strongly and respectfully disagree with your judgment of this woman. I truly feel her path to produce a child is just as acceptable as any other medical treatment, fertility or otherwise, and not nearly worthy of so many negative responses.
Sigh. Wouldn't it be nice if no one could have children until they had gone thru' serious counseling on why they want children, what they expect from their children, what they expect parenting to be, etc? In reality, I doubt that any of us entered parenthood totally rationally. Heck, we don't eat totally rationally (would I have had to start yet another diet if I was eating rationally to begin with?) and we all know the impact that our eating has on the earth in so many ways as well as on our bodies.
Millions of years of evolution tends to win over the scant tens of thousands of years of human reasoning and planning ability. Evolution urges us to breed (as do many parts of our society), and to some extent to eat differently during pregnancy so that the offspring has a better chance for survival. Combine the evolutionary urge with human reason, and it makes sense to look for a surrogate much like yourself and to rationalize lots of odd behaviors. Is taking the surrogate's name off of a sonogram much different than Leah having her handmaiden "give birth on Leah's knees" back in the day?
If we as a society was rational, so many things would be different, perhaps starting with all parenting being about what's best for the children. Best for the child might well mean that the children now deemed most 'unadoptable' would be the first adopted and by the most wealthy, as they would need the devoted care and increased options in care the most.
But in fact, we all hope for healthy babies when become pregnant and carry them ourselves, rather than asking for a child with congential problems. I've never noticed anyone saying that a person who is pregant who says that they just want a healthy baby is being selfish. Why do so many say that would be adoptive parents who want a healthy child are selfish? Is there really that big a difference? Do we really expect would be adoptive parents to be more enlightened/whatever than the rest of society?
Fern
THANK you, Crunchy! IVF is the ultimate in selfish conceit, and I feel that, by definition, the people so indulging are the least fit to be parents. It's all about fullfilling their OWN wants; does that sound like a good mother?
I've gotta go with Miss Anna on this one. Just a little too judgemental 'round here today for me.
MissAnna:
I completely agree everyone has the right to make intimate decisions that are right for themselves. And reproductive decisions are some of the most intimate. Personally, I have questions and concerns about IVF (as I do about abortion), but I tend to have questions and concerns about most everything.
I think you are misunderstanding much of the negative judgment about the woman in the article. It isn't her method of having a child (IVF) but really her motivation for having one.
While personal vanity is hardly a novel reason to have a child, I hope we can all agree that certainly in this overpopulated day and age, it is far from a noble one. And hardly one that is reassuring or responsible toward her child. One hopes that the immediate and constant requirements of a baby that needs to be fed and changed and loved will be a hard slap of reality for her. But I can't say I've got a good feeling about this one. I'm seeing years of therapy for this kid -- good thing mommy and daddy can afford it.
My husband and I can't have kids. We have accepted that this is just how it is. We never looked into testing to see exactly why, because in our mind it is us as a couple together that can't have kids, not a 'failing' of one of us. We have accepted that this how our life is meant to be, and are grateful for the position it puts us in to help out our brothers and sisters who do have kids. I just don't understand the 'need' to have a child by any means. But maybe I'm just not wired that way.
I have 4 healthy kids, conceived the regular old-fashioned way.
Because of that, I don't feel I am qualified to say what a woman should feel who cannot bear her own children. Neither should anyone who hasn't borne or fathered their own children. Until you are in that person's shoes, you don't know their perspective.
However, this writer seems very immature, and although she may not have stretch marks or hemorrhoids, she also did not get the joy of experiencing a baby kick in her stomach or breastfeeding. Those are things only a birth mother can experience.
Because of the joy of being pregnant, I can understand why a person would want to undergo IVF. However, I also believe in limitations because of safety and health.
But, ultimately, if she (or her hubs) has the money for these procedures, what's to stop them? I think this falls into the category that many environmentalists would abhor: wasteful spending. The objectionable content of this story is more about wasteful spending than about children, in my opinion.
I'll have to disagree with Anon that IVF is the ultimate in selifsh conceit.
I reserve that distinction for people who drive Hummers.
Although I see the...shallowness of this woman, I think you're all very quick to judge.
How many of you have children of your own? I have a bio. daughter...
And Mariella..a husband 20 years older does not necessarily mean she suffers from unresolved father issues. Is everything in your life so perfect that you can sit on your high horse and judge others?
I couldn't imagine ever going through ivf. Although I have considered being a surrogate mother.
Having said all this, gleefully preparing for motherhood by drinking bourbon and racing down a mountain...rad.
It's not my place to say whether this woman will be a good mother..
Who's to say what is insane though?
I'm more than certain I wouldn't pay $110,000 for IVF...but it's her money.
Driving a car is insane, how many people here drive cars?
Want to talk about damaging the environment?
I'm a huge fan of adoption, but I wouldn't adopt myself. Not because I don't want someone else's kid...
because I think one is enough.
Is IVF selfish..maybe.
It could also be said that having bio. children is selfish, and VERY environmentally damaging.
regardless of how it's done by bringing a child into the world, you're bringing in another consumer and user of resources. green badge on your belt or not.
Bucky, thanks for your comments--they've all been quite well thought out. In terms of your last comment, regarding personal vanity as the reason for having children...isn't vanity the reason any (educated) couple, with access to birth control, has children? There are certainly plenty of children from third world or poverty stricken areas available for adoption. Wouldn't the least vain, most selfless option for all of us reading this blog be to adopt? Yet many (most?) readers here have given birth to children that are biologically their own, whether because it was easier or because they wanted a child to look like them or to continue the family line.
I certainly don't disagree with wanting to have a child that has your DNA, I would like to do the same thing someday. And biologically speaking, we're all programmed to propagate our own genes (as often as possible). So perhaps my point here is, having a child, naturally or not, is vain and that those who went straight to adoption or foster parenting without ever trying themselves are the only selfless parents out there. Thus, how can we criticize a woman for pursuing a biological child, although through different, more expensive means, just because she was not able to conceive naturally? In this case, money allowed her to overcome biology. Wasteful perhaps, but just as vain and valid as the couple that conceives at home.
Bucky - you hit the nail on the head here:
Most people however, don't want to be parents. They want to have offspring. Which is a very different thing.
ADOPT!
I was pretty shocked by Alana's comment about "behavior problems" in kids after the age of 3. Guess what? That's why they really need your love and "parenting" - go be a parent. Be a role model. Be a good influence.
People who adopt have to be even better parents, in many ways, because they are scrutinized going into the system and they may end up with kids who need more love and support.
If you can't have easily offspring and don't like the idea of adoption, carefully consider your motives for wanting a child in your life. Go volunteer. Foster kids. Babysit. Not everyone is meant to be a parent.
MissAna, thanks for calling me on my use of the word vanity in describing Ms. K's motivation for having a kid.
It was a poor and inaccurate choice of words. There are many sorts vanities, large and small. And as you rightly point out, vanity likely plays a motivation in the desire for anyone that wants to become a parent.
Perhaps "fashion" would have been a better word. As an early commenter pointed out, she seems to see the child as a fashion accessory. Or perhaps a TODO item on an adventure checklist: scuba diving (check), bourbon swilling (check), white water rafting (check), motherhood (check), cycling in France (check) ...
Despite all her efforts to reach her goal of motherhood, she seem profoundly unserious about the entire thing. As if motherhood itself was the goal, instead of raising a happy and caring child.
Her comment that she wasn't fully her son's mother demonstrates how sad and shallow her understand is of what makes a parent.
Although I don't agree with the way she expressed herself (and I do agree the author has some mental problems), I believe fully it's a woman's right to have 100% choice in her fertility, or in how to deal with the lack thereof.
Just as I would not chastise or belittle a woman who has chosen to abort a fetus, I could also not place a moral evaluation on someone who chooses to undergo any sort of costly means of having a child.
Some people do not want to adopt children because they want a genetic link to their child. There's nothing wrong w/ that. The fact that some of us don't understand the feeling doesn't invalidate it.
I don't really find it appropriate for anyone to label her experience as narcissism, when they have no possible way to understand her fertility situation. We see the small parts she put out there - not the whole of the situation. And certainly not the emotionality associated with HER SPECIFIC infertility. These things are far too personal to place our own personal moral evaluations on.
Some people do not want to adopt children because they want a genetic link to their child. There's nothing wrong w/ that. The fact that some of us don't understand the feeling doesn't invalidate it.
I get your point, but I don’t think all feelings deserve to be validated either. Someone might honestly feel that they do not want themselves or their children to associate with people of other races. I don’t see efforts to dissuade them of that notion to be wrong because they’re being “invalidated.”
it's the new imperialism - let's colonize the uteruses of poor women
it's only a matter of time before this is "outsourced"
I agreed with the adoptive gay dad - many ppl do not recognize the difference between wanting to parent and want to spawn
How disgusting... I don't think women like this should have children.
True, adoption is no walk in the park and it is expensive, but I've had friends and neighbors who've adopted babies and infants from China, Guatemala and Texas. It's not impossible if you are willing to wait and aren't limiting the search to an Aryan baby. My husband wanted to adopt a third child, but 2 of our own is enough for me.
My uncle adopted two teenagers from an orphanage in Romania - both parents had mental problems and the father had hung himself in front of one of the boys when they were young.
I would have to say that this was probably the most difficult kind of adoption particularly since they also spoke little English. Needless to say the kids were a mess, but my aunt and uncle gave them something that no one else could or would have given them.
My husband worked for an IVF clinic/researcher in the early 90s, one of the few in the country at the time. I don't have issues with IVF per se, but at some point you have to call it quits. But 12 times? I would imagine forcing your body into super-ovulation that many times has got to have its risks. They still don't really know the long-term health impact of all those hormones.
My sibling's family has had their fair share of problems with fertility, although it wasn't due to inability to get pregnant. They now have 2 children, 12 years apart. They lost many babies, 2 full term and 3 miscarriages. I'm fairly sure that I couldn't have perservered through all of that, so obviously every person has their own experiences with this.
I still think this woman is selfish and, for all that, she has a full-time "baby nurse" to raise her child for her.
I didn't read the article but from what you have mentioned this woman definitely seems to have some emotional issues (conceit is really a sign of low self-esteem) and possibly exaggerates things (class 10 rapids in CO? class 6 is the highest and very dangerous esp.as a novice).
I have fertility issues and did different unsuccessful therapies both medical and natural but we chose not to go the IVF route for many different reasons. We considered adoption then moved and chose to not have kids at all and become world travelers instead. I wound up surprisingly pregnant (natural and not trying) within a year of that decision and am very grateful for my almost 5 year old son and the opportunity to experience pregnancy and all of the stages. I can understand the deep desire of any woman wanting to experience that natural act.
I've had a few miscarriages since his birth and we decided to go the fost/adopt route now because he really wants a sibling and we would love another child and feel that there are so many kids right here where we live that need a family to love them. We are in the process now and we won't be getting a baby since there is a waiting list for couples that only want babies. We just want someone younger than our son.
It is so sad to me to see how many innocent children are badly treated or neglected and how so many kids are in need of love and healing. It not only helps them personally but our society as a whole, IMO. I do wish more people would chose to adopt at least one person or be foster parents or get involved with needy children in some capacity that works for them and their family. I think it would help turn so many lives around but not enough info is really out there for more people to know about how to get involved at different levels. Your local social services dept. would be more than happy to give you all of that info.
I think she was portrayed in a brutal light...right in the first paragraph she says "THE DESIRE TO BE a mother — to give birth to a child, to care for that child — has always been rooted in me. I never doubted my ability to be a good mother. I had a charmed, happy childhood; I have a warm, loving, funny mother. Even so, I did not think of raising a child as a goal in itself. I saw motherhood as the natural outgrowth of a loving relationship."
What I got from the article is that she formed a strong bond with Cathy, respected, and treated her with utmost gratitude.
Unless your own children are adopted perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge someone else choosing not to adopt. and even then...seriously?
Have biological kids?
Me too, but what right do I have to knock someone else wanting the same?
You become a mother when you hold your baby, to say that she is less of a mother because she was unable to grow him herself would imply the same of adoptive parents...
from the article: "“No one would ever do this out of vanity,” she said. “It’s too overwhelming. The letting go is too overwhelming.”
having a child in any form is a selfish act, and only in the ways we treat the child are we selfless.
I see a lot of vitriol towards this one woman who is also painted by the pen of the person writing the article. She may feel completely misrepresented, we don't know, ask Jewishfarmer about that one...I sure wouldn't want the NYT to represent ME.
A very rich woman went to extremes to have a child.
So what. Should we really lambaste ONE person's choices?
One can argue having children at all is selfish, that it's selfish not to, that wanting a baby to adopt instead of an older child is selfish. No matter what you do, or choose not to do, it's because you wanted to make that choice. All choices, are selfish. Really.
Why not be glad we HAVE these choices at ALL for any of us. Shouldn't a woman's reproductive choices be her own?
We don't have to agree with what other individuals do, but geeze, so much hate. So much judgement. It's sad.
I mean, women in general have so much to live up to, so much to fight for still do we really need infighting over who's choices are the most 'socially responsible, moral, ethical, better than yours because of 'x'?"
Who are YOU to say what the right way to have a child is or the right reasons. Be glad you have CONTROL of those choices. Many people do not. even in our own country.
Readign the comments this morning made me want to hurl.
Jacobs - I'm not knocking her wanting to have her own biological child. What I'm knocking is the extreme extent to which she went to obtain her own child and all the accompanying snarky comments she made.
The vanity quote was said by the author's lawyer in regards to the situation of a woman getting a gestational surrogate even if she was perfectly capable of having her own child. It was not the author's sentiment and it wasn't in regard to her situation.
Kristijoy - The woman covered in the article is the author of the article, so all I can say is, if she is misrepresented, she misrepresented herself.
As usual, Double C mentions one of the most salient points in her comment: "all that, she has a full-time "baby nurse" to raise her child for her."
As Ms. K writes in her article about her surrogate mother "[O]ne of us was good at being pregnant. It wasn't me." Apparently she has realized she isn't good at mothering either, and so has hired a full-time nanny to take care of that for her as well.
I'm sure a top-drawer boarding kindergarten is in the not-to-distant future.
Which raises the question of why exactly she wanted a child? She answers that question when she tells us that she saw children as the natural outgrowth of a loving relationship." So basically, she is having a kid because it is the socially expected thing.
Acquiring the child is required. Actually mothering it, not so much.
And given the overall tone of the article, I've got to ask which loving relationship she was talking about -- her husband or his bank account. /snark
And to those who worry that we are being judgmental in our condemnation, I want to point out that Alex wrote this offensive article herself. About herself.
And although she calls herself a journalist, the fact that the majority of the sentences in the article start with the word "I" are rather a good indication of her focus. (Kristijoy, you may not have read the article or understood -- but Alex wrote the article about herself and her own thoughts and experiences.)
And let's not forget that she was the one that posed for that offensive photo where she is holding her son in front of the large white columns while the baby's anything-but-white nanny stands almost at attention nearby waiting to whisk the child out of earshot as soon as the photo is taken.
She sounds like an ass to me. I do agree that she has/should have the right to do what she has done, I wouldn't want that right taken from me, but I also have the right to say/think she is an ass.
Ok, worst case: BioMother gets quick acting cancer from all the hormones. BioFather is older than most dads and dies of natural causes. IVFKid is orphaned and ... adopted? Ironic? Or just really, really sad.
If I could bend her ear, I would say: Slow. Down. Put down the bottle of booze, quit whizzing down mountains and spend some time with yourself. It's gonna be hard, the rest of us find it hard sometimes too, but you need to do it.
She has a 'uterus full of twigs' and a head full of sawdust! I'd flat-out refuse to go through IVF even once; those excessive hormones are good neither for you nor your child. I can't believe homegirl would go through with it 11 times! And she is definitely not an "erotic, perennially sensual" ANYTHING. Isn't this the same women who spent tens of thousands of dollars on plastic surgery and various cosmetic procedures and still came out looking like hell? She seems to enjoy throwing money at a problem.
I agree with you Crunchy that adoption would have been a better choice for her and I don't personlly believe in doing in vitro.
There are also a lot of issues for the surrogate mother, too--$25,000 seems like a lot of money, but if you break it down by the hour that you are renting out your uterus and restricting yourself physically, she is making less than 4 dollars an hour.
Wow! There is a sector of people out there that have just completely lost touch with reality. And then there is that smug, sickening part of the healthcare industry that makes it all a possibility. It is kind o' frightening when you think about the ever widening gap betwixt and between.
By our standards the money that women spent on IVF seems extreme - offensive even. Yet perhaps the same could be said of the cost of bringing up the average child in the West. Its not easy to live ethically in the West - and I don't have any answers. I do however think most of us (myself included) have far too much money.
One question: In the end, what do all these comments bashing this woman accomplish?
Choosing to reproduce is selfish and egotistical no matter how we go about it. So, she has money to burn. Its her money...why are we criticizing how she chose to spend it? Yes, we might have chosen differently, but its still her money.
And yes, some of the things she said were ridiculous, but we all want the best starts for our children.
Reproducing isn't always easy or cheap (and boy do I know from experience) and adoption isn't always easy or cheap either (and I've watched this one with friends and nearly went through this ourselves). But the irrational desire to reproduce is with (nearly) all of us. And no one is ready for parenthood until that baby is placed in our arms for the first time.
I'm not sure I'm willing to pass judgement on this new Mom. I've been in her shoes, and if I had had her money, I might have done the same if I needed to.
I could never condemn this women for wanting to have her own baby--as someone who also feels that she was "made for motherhood" and can't wait to get pregnant and have a baby--I know that there would be a huge push inside me to have a biological child no matter what the circumstances
her comments about enjoying not being pregnant, to me sound like rationalizations for feeling "guilty"t hat she couldn't get pregnant herself.
I'm really surprised some people have such a strong visceral reaction against this story--I find it heart-breaking that she tried IVF 11 times--and honestly, if I were in her situation I'm not sure if I would do anything different--the desire for a baby is strong and it sometimes exceeds "common sense" or "normal" feelings--and I don;t think its our place to judge any of that
Just a few thoughts.
For some folks, through no fault of their own, adoption is not possible. Many places will not allow you to adopt if, say, you have had cancer, even a childhood cancer that has been gone for 20 years. In Alabama, you have to be married (even if you want to adopt your own nieces/nephews/grandchildren/younger siblings in the event of the tragic death of the parents). In some states, the foster care system is filled with 'social workers' that have an agenda that has nothing to do with the well being of children. In the case mentioned, the husband's age would have made adoption impossible in many places.
We have no idea whether the story that appears in the Times is anywhere close to the real story. Stories are cut and crafted, tweaked and focused by editors, most of whom are only interested in selling papers and ad space.
As others have mentioned, adoption can be BRUTAL. I have been horrified time and again at the mental abuse some of my friends have been subjected to by various parties in their attempts to adopt a child. Even the 'good' adoptions are challenging and extremely expensive.
I don't know what to think of the woman in the story. I guess I think I don't know the whole story, and that I should not judge.
-A
As an infertile woman, I take umbrage at my desire to find out why my gonads are misbehaving (environmental pollutants?) and the desire for medical assistance to help them work as "conceit". I didn't need IVF, but I do know that going through it is a painful, invasive nightmare. I hope I never have to go through it in the future.
The writer of the article is not the typical infertility patient. Most of us aren't fabulously wealthy. Most of us have husbands with low sperm counts or poor quality sperm, PCOS, endometriosis, scarred tubes, had cancer as a child, a septum in our uterus, an unknown blood clotting disorder, or like me, unknown reasons, despite being well below 35.
The costs of adoption can be just as large as IVF, especially international adoption. Most of us are able to conceive with much lower-tech options, like oral medications or intra-uterine inseminations. 3-4% will conceive with IVF.
Even those who are proponents of zero population allow for each one of us to replace ourselves with offspring.
As far as adoption goes, my infertility does not automatically make me deserve to raise another woman's child. Why don't women in the third world deserve the support to parent their own children? http://www.womenspress.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=3238&TM=55959.4
Telling a woman, "You could have bought 5 babies with that IVF money" is inappropriate. Children are not commodities- even those conceived by treatments.
How many of you conceived your children when drunk, or with someone you didn't love and didn't know well, or without thought or planning about how you would raise them? A woman who has endured IVF has endured every other day blood draws and vaginal ultrasounds, progesterone shots in the behind, and ovary stimulating hormones in the abdomen. She has had an 18 inch needle inserted through her vagina multiple times, and a catheter inserted through her cervix. Some may inject themselves daily with a blood-thinner throughout their pregnancy. That isn't conceit or selfishness, that is a wanted child born out of love.
The number one goal of foster care is reunification with the birth family. As it should be. Fostering is a calling, a wonderful calling that I plan on doing in the future. But not all of us can grow to love a child and then let them go, perhaps not to see them again. Can you? Many states, including mine, allow 6 months for a birth family to change their mind. Infertility already has a motherload of grief. Could you endure having to give back your own precious child 6 months after birth? I can't. Did you know there are 12 families waiting to adopt for every healthy infant?
How many of you have chosen to adopt in lieu of having your own children? How many of you with children would ever think that babysitting or volunteering could ever possibly equate raising a child? I have a son- and it sure as hell isn't the same thing. How many of you are foster parents? How many of you would agree that your children are the light of your life and your life wouldn't be the same- would only be in shades of gray- without them? You say that pregnancy is a wonderful, sensual thing, and yet you mock any woman that would want to experience that. Hypocrytical.
To those that say "Some people aren't meant to be parents.", I say, "Come look at my son- the one true miracle of my life- and say that to my face." I was born to be his mother.
FYI- there is no evidence that IVF drugs cause cancer, but there is evidence that infertility- even for those that have never done treatments- has an increased risk.
Wow. Uh, a few things I believe:
* Women have the right to control their own bodies without fear of repercussion, especially in regard to "invasive procedures";
* Consenting adults have the right to engage in any legal activities (including oocyte donation and surrogacy)together;
* As long as people pay their taxes and take care of necessary expenses, they can spend their money however they like.
Sure, the author sounds a bit off her rocker and comes off as quite selfish, but who is to say how she controls her body, her money, or her relationships? While I question all of their motives, I don't think there's anything morally or socially reprehensible about their decisions.
I have to side with Kristijoy and MissAnna on this one. Crunchy, I love your blog, and I read it faithfully. But today's topic has bred so much controversy, judgement and contempt. Sure, she (the author) may not seem like an ideal parent for obvious reasons, but at the end of day, when it comes to choices like IVF and adoption, what is it that they say? "Walking a mile in someone's shoes.."
It is true that the urge to reproduce is biologically programmed and that when your body denies you that joy, it breaks your heart and dampens your soul. Having options (assisted reproduction and the gamut it runs, adoption, fostering etc.) is a beautiful thing. Couples facing infertility have enough to deal with without being judged on the basis of their reproductives choices.
Okay, now I have to chime in on the criticism for her having a full time job and a full time nanny.
Um. Hello? That's what feminism in the '60's fought for (amongst many other things). The choice and the ability to have a career. To keep from being discriminated against for having a child. To not be told by our bosses. Another man needs your job. Go home and take care of your children where you belong.
Being a good mother is not determined by how much time you spend with your child. My mother worked 3 jobs to keep a roof over our heads and keep food (most of the time) on the table. She was an awesome mother.
Its not my choice. I'm lucky enough to take the choice to stay home and raise my kids. But it is exactly that...my choice.
Its not everyone's choice.
I (personally) don't understand her choice, but I will however vehemently defend her ability to make it.
I am not against IVF entirely....11times is insane....she could have donated all that money to an orphanage to support them for quite a while. She could have easily adopted!...and at 40 and 60 IMO is way too old to be having kids...JMO of course
It is absolutely appalling to me how quickly we are to judge.
Aelfie, as one of the people who has rather harshly criticized Alex for having a full-time nanny, I feel obligated to respond to your comment.
First and foremost, I never criticized her for having a full-time job. And I don't recall anyone one else in comments doing so either. I am a parent -- a single parent -- and have a full-time job. Frankly, I am one of those people that would not be able to be a stay-at-home parent. Beyond the financial considerations, I enjoy working and need the challenges and interactions that I get from my work. All that to say that I am hardly one of those who thinks that parents need to give up their careers to stay home and take care of the kids. We all make the choices that are best suited for our families.
And of course we all understand that time spent with a child isn't indicative of how good or bad a parent you are. Can we also all agree that there is a difference between a mother such as yours who is working three jobs to take care of her kids and one who pays a full-time nanny to raise her children so she can socialize with friends?
This isn't about feminism. Ms. K is a wealthy white educated successful woman of privilege. Her choices in life are fairly wide open. The opportunities available to her are numerous. Feminism was about making sure that women had opportunities and choices and the ability to take control of their own lives. In the case of Alex, it has been a roaring success.
She has no lack of choices, just perhaps a lack of good judgment in making them.
Alex wrote a nine-page article for the NYTimes and put a photo of herself in the paper standing next to the woman she pays to raise her child and captioned the photo "Every Day is Mother's Day."
No doubt.
It would be nice if her son got a few days as well.
She has every right to make the choices she has, and to write a lengthy article paying homage to herself as a mother. And I have every right to call bullshit on that.
It's not about feminism. It's about parenting.
I think the NYT gave us all a nice big IVF red herring.
this woman sounds like an ass.
also, practical.
the third wife of an older, wealthy man? Better get yourself an heir.
And I'm not quite sure good-old-dad of 6 other children would count an adopted baby the same as his other children. nope, adoption would just be another failure to her.
she herself says she would "skip the baby" (as if it's dessert or something) if there was no perfect relationship, so it's not motherhood she's really after. In her list of problems at the beginning of the article, "financial" was first. She clearly rates "genetically related" children above adopted. She donates an agg, receives the baby, and then has a baby nurse. Sigh. Well, at least the Dad will know that it's his.
underneath, it seems it's all about the money.
ugh.
Marnie, I think your assessment of the situation is precisely right.
Alana's comment after my has been irking me all day, I need to clarify something that might not have been clear from my original comment, I am mom to four kids. One by birth and three by foster/adoption. I feel plenty qualified to comment on either process.
Adoption is no picnic but neither is birthing and frankly if we need either process to be quick, simple or easy we might not be ready for the challenges parenting might bring.
My kids came at different ages (4 1/2 months, 16 months and 6 years) at different times, from different birth families all with little or no hope of reunification. Yes the goal of foster care is reunification but sometimes a birth parent isn't able to. Sad but ultimately true.
If you want to love a child and show a child the joy you see in the world then DNA shouldn't limit your ability to experience this. Just because a child is older or a different color or has a disability (and yes I'm qualified to speak on this too since one of my has mild cerebral palsy and another has learning disabilities) doesn't mean your heart won't leap into your throat when you see them fall off a bike. The urge to mother is strong and it kicks in really quickly when a child needs you.
It's certainly not for everyone, it's just something to consider...
Whatever the details of this story, I hope that the little boy will grow up with parents who truly care about him. This mother made sacrifices to become a mother and I hope that will be a positive thing in his life, that he will be appreciated for who he is rather than for who his mother imagined he would be. Parenting requires much patience - we never truly know ahead of time the challenges it will bring. Children will be who they are meant to be; when parents try to live vicariously through their children that seems to generally lead to trouble. I have to agree with my teen daughter who recently stated that parents should not have babies/children if all they want is an accessory. The true joy of parenthood is much deeper than that and parents who do not see that are missing all of the true joy. If this mother has not yet realized this, I hope she will and that her money will have brought her something that money can't normally buy.
Wow, how can you people judge so easily? IVF isn't selfish! I'm adopted myself at the age of 8 and it's been a huge trial for me so I can say they have behavioral problems.
I did IVF for non-selfish reasons - I wanted to be a mom. I'm a stay at home mom. I've dedicated my life to my daughter. If we want to be quick to judge, having moms work and put their kids in day care is a hugely selfish thing unless you're a single parent. Money can never replace raising your own child. You want to "save the world"? Stop being so concerned about money and raise your kids yourself. That's selfless. Or what about not wanting to breastfeed your child due to inconvinence? There are a lot more common selfish acts.
First, I hate the term OWN child which attempts to refer to biological children. The act of adoption happens and the child is your OWN. All my children are my own - see third comment/rant for family makeup.
Second, I found the photo just wrong. Why have the baby nurse in the photo. This woman wrote this article about herself and didn't seem to notice it portrayed her as a snob (or maybe it did and she is proud of that) I must have missed that she had a job in the article. I assumed she stayed home and had the nurse.
Third, I have 1 bio and 3 adopted (2 from foster at birth and 1 from guatemala at age 7). I take issue with the blanket comments about adopted kids having issues and the implication that somehow bio kids won't. There are tons are great kids available through the foster system - in Los Angeles many are given up at birth and there is not the risk of them going back. Every state has safe surrender laws where mothers turn in infants. Instead of just making blanket negative comments about foster children, I would suggest that people seek out agencies and get to know families who have adopted.
Forth, I wish I lived by Katie so our kids could play!!!
Looking at my family I could not imagine it any other way. I knew from childhood I would adopt.
As far as the author of the article goes, I think it is unfortunate. I don't think that her financial or emotional status was reflective of the general infertile population. The result will be an ever deeper ingrained negative thought pattern against ART. Which I think is obvious based on some of the comments to this post. Sad. Very sad.
I am an infertile woman. I deal daily with a pain that most people, probably most of you leaving comments, can never even begin to imagine. I am heart broken that some of you chose to use the word conceit. Were you conceited when you conceived your children? Was it conceited that you set out to intentionally create your own offspring rather than adopt?
If we are so concerned about over-population issues why aren't we requiring mandatory birth control for teens, hookers and crack addicts? How about mothers in under developed countries? Why aren't we sterilizing them? Oh, that's right, because unlike the infertile woman that wrote the article they have the right to do whatever they want to with their bodies. If anyone wants to point the finger about over-population they should begin by pointing it at the people that are doing the over populating. It is not my fault that the world is over populated. If you want to blame somebody blame the women that are popping out babies they can't take care of. Because we are infertile we are supposed to take up the slack of the mega-fertile baby makers? I don't think so.
I also found it interesting how you, CC, made a comment referring to your husbands interest in adopting but you felt like the two of "your own" children was enough. That comment speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of you calling this woman conceited for choosing ART.
As for the comments that have been made that refer to the idea that God doesn't intend for infertile people to have children. Right. Are you going to suggest as well that God wants kids with cancer to die? Maybe we should take everyone on a ventilator off of it because if God had intended them to live he wouldn't have allowed them to get sick or injured in the first place.
I am usually pretty reserved but the choice of language and vitriol that is going on here is too much for me.
Do you all know the definition of conceit?
excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue.
If we really consider it, believing that one has the right to call someone else conceited, makes them conceited themselves. Are any of us really virtuous enough to make a display of the flaws of others. Doubt it.
By the way, no state or country would have allowed that couple to adopt a child. Ten minutes of research reveals the adoption barriers for anyone with a spousal age difference of 20 years or over the age of 50. Really, over the age of 40 for most places. It's never as simple as just adopting. Never.
First, I can only defend my own comments here, not those of my readers. I will leave that up to them.
From what I know, this woman does not work full-time, but is an occasional writer. But mostly she is a socialite who is married to a billionaire hedge-fund manager. She's spent 10s of thousands of dollars on plastic surgery and has written a book about it. This isn't mentioned in the article and it really shouldn't matter - the rest of the content speaks for itself.
For those of you who haven't read the article, I encourage you to do so before claiming the commenters here as being judgemental. We, at pretty much every decision point, make judgements one way or another. Calling another person judgmental is in and of itself, judgemental.
Finally, for momofonefornow, it is definitely heartbreaking to struggle with infertility. The conceit I refer to here has nothing to do with her wanting to have her own child - it is the way she went about it. The conceit lies in the cost. How much is your personal genome worth? Well, if you are rich, apparently more than the rest of us.
My statement about not wanting a third child referred to me not wanting more than two children, genetically mine or otherwise. It would be more than I can handle. So, I don't see how my personal choice to limit how many children we are raising is a hypocrisy?
Oh, one more thing. My uncle was about 65 when he adopted two children and his wife is more than 20 years his junior. So, research goes both ways.
Wow, there's so much negative energy in here we need a space clearing ceremony.
I was able to get pregnant but just couldn't carry them. When I was considering my options, a wise friend said 'you love your husband don't you?' 'more than my own family', I replied. She then made her point: you don't have to be related by blood to love someone fiercely and with all your body and soul.
We ended up adopting a child, a foreign adoption, and feel that this girl is the right one for us. It happened the way it was supposed to.
You did this previously with the Sarah Palin attack, to the same results. This is really nothing more than a way for this blogger to stroke her ego. A "I'm so much better than this person" kind of thing. Disagree? Reread the posts and ask; "What was my motivation for this? What was my goal?" This solves nothing and helps not at all.
I think that IVF has a place in society, and so does adoption. But I do agree that this author's attitude was completely obnoxious, and also probably explains why her body remained adamant about not becoming fertile. I don't think you were out of line at all...My father is 61 and just had a baby. It's both a happy miracle and a bit disturbing... Not everyone should be a parent, not by a longshot, but unfortunately the only ones who have to "prove" themselves are adopters.
I agree that this woman seems horrible! Having grown up in a family with an adopted child, I will also say that I truly believe it takes a special person to parent an adopted child. Things I NEVER would have thought were hereditary, suddenly became clear when we all met my brother's birth mother (when he was in his 20's). They were things that he & my parents had locked horns over his whole life (and still do) and then we met his birth mom & she did things the EXACT SAME WAY. That was very eye opening for me, if such small things could be hereditary, what about bigger things. Also now with my own children there are just odd little things that they do (L likes to stand on her head on the sofa to watch tv) that I scratch my head at and then dh will see it & say "I used to do that too" and he can explain (sort of) why she's doing that. Obviously standing on her head on the sofa doesn't matter either way, but it makes me realize the advantage of having genetics so that one of the parents can say "I know why she's doing that, I've felt that way too" I'm not saying there shouldn't be adoption, obviously it's needed, but I would argue against pushing those who have doubts because it DOES bring a whole new set of potential challenges into the equation and some people just aren't equipped to deal with those challenges.
Who's to say that plastic surgery is a bad thing? Would you say the same about body modifications: tattoos,piercings,implants?
Sure she could have donated that money to charity, and I'm sure you probably don't need a lot of the things you own..and could donate those to charity.
Do you own your own house?
or a car?
That money could have easily benefited someone else in need.
I'm not arguing that everyone should be a parent, just that it's not anyone else's place to say who gets to be.
Marnie: looks like you hit the nail on the head.
Katie: you sound like the mother I wish I'd had!
women who undergo these invasive chemical stews to get pregnant have a much higher risk for cancers than the average female. The docs get super rich off these female experiments. Once again we women are being used as lab rats.
I wish you would block anonymous comments - that way it will be easier to string together the conversations as some folks have a habit/preference for commenting anonymously.
I am glad you brought this up - this has really raised a lot of perspectives that were unfamiliar to me. I have never known anyone who did an IVF treatment and the comments describing the pain and the effort required were enlightening.
I will never know the "pain" of infertility - it's kind of hard for me to relate to someone wanting so badly to produce her/his own offspring.
I'd rather adopt two Romanian teenagers who turn into vampires at night than squeeze one out. I see nothing romantic, sexy or compelling in the whole birth process. EYUK!
I'll just leave that all to you and you can all guess what gender I really am.
jennconspiracy - I just have one word for you: socks.
Also, are you sure you don't want to be able to store an extra 4 piece serving set in your nether regions? You don't know how handy that really can be.
I've never visited this blog before. I probably shouldn't have spent my evening reading the comments, but I did. At first I was floored by some of the intense negativity and judgment. But then I reached the conclusion that no opinion matters more to me than my own when it comes to this topic, as it applies to my family.
So I will just end by saying that as an 'old' mum to a beautiful, hilarious, cheeky, profound, just turned 4 year old conceived through IVF, I couldn't be more happy. We have so much fun, so many laughs and he makes me marvel every day. I learn so much about life through him. Tonight we had a picnic in the park, followed by some silly running around and belly laughs on the huge adventure slide. He had so much fun.
So I guess if my husband and I are conceited and selfish for having him, so be it. I don't think our son regrets it!
As far as I'm concerned, the problem isn't IFT,per se, but the fact that the women who wrote the article is one of the most self-centered people I've ever come-across. I have to adopted daughters -- I guess you have to tick me in the self-centered column becuase it never occurred to be to want to be pregnant when there were children waiting to be adopted.
I really have no problem with people wanting to give birth to a healthly baby. I'd like every baby born to be healthy. My daughters both have special needs; I'd much rather they didn't have them.
I had no trouble adopting, perhaps because I was open to certain special needs, but when one considers now minor some of those special needs are, I'm amazed more people aren't open to it. And the agency doesn't just say, open to special needs, we'll them them a really hard case. I, at least, was able to pick and chose. (You could, I suppose argue that this is unfair, since it's less of a crap shoot than giving birth.)
I don't think you can blaim the internation adoption for the fact that some third world women don't raise their babies. We didn't creat the cultures that make it impossible for them to do so.
And I can understand the horribe, all consuming desire to be a parent. It ate at me for years while I was working to be in a position to have a family. I think it's our DNA's way of replicating.
MEA
Crunchy - would that be flatware or serving pieces like gravy bowls and compotes? Either way - OUCH!!!
Seriously - socks are very controversial. I know people who think that they are a very important manifestation of personality. I also know people who intentionally wear two different socks all the time - and carefully consider which socks they'll use based on a number of factors that I consider to be a baseline indicator of OCD.
However - I agree with anonymous (the most recent one signed MEA) - "it never occurred to be to want to be pregnant when there were children waiting to be adopted."
Really - that is the bottom line. If you want the challenge of parenting - that's the way to go.
Jennconspiracy - Childbirth is neither romantic nor sexy, but it certainly is compelling. Your comment about adoption - "Really - that is the bottom line. If you want the challenge of parenting - that's the way to go." - is the most ridiculous piece of drivel amongst all these comments. It even beats out Rebecca Blackburn's condescending comment about everyone having too much money. That wasn't easy to do. No method of becoming a parent (natural, adoptive, IVF) is definitively better than any other. Each one has its place, depending on circumstances. If the end result is a happy family filled with love, then that is the way to go. Bottom line.
CJ
My son is the product of IVF. In total we spent about $20,000 trying to get me pregnant. I have absolutely nothing against adoption; in fact, two of my sister's kids are adopted. But when my husband and I started out on our infertility "journey" we didn't know it would end up costing as much as an adoption. I began by using Clomid, which did nothing, then did several rounds of insemination, which did not work, then tried Metformin, which also did nothing, and then proceeded to IVF -- which worked on the first round.
And also, I think it's easy for people who have kids biologically to say that people with infertility should adopt. You got to experience pregnancy and hopefully breastfeeding. You get to see which bits of you and your husband your child inherited. I'm not saying adoption isn't fulfilling in other ways...it's just that it's easy to say it should be the only route when you're not the infertile one.
Thank you for your charming, respectful response "CJ".
I don't think that my comment is "drivel" - and I don't think that of anyone else's comments on this discussion. I would prefer you refrain from such attacks.
I do believe that adoption is a better choice than bearing your own child. Period. There are many children who need parents and who would grow up for lack of care.
Choosing to have your own over adopting (as opposed to getting pregnant by accident as is fairly common) is, IMO, a pretty selfish choice.
Can't argue with that reason...
Just catching up on this thread.
Oh my.
One quick thought, JenC. If everyone followed your advice that adoption was the ONLY right thing to do instead of "having one of your own," there wouldn't be any kids to adopt.
Wow, the self-righteousness and judgement in this post and the comments really took my breath away. Yes, the woman in the article comes across as a jackass and yes, she obviously has tons of money and WAY too much spare time, but are those really reasons to condemn her? Especially all of the commenters and Crunchy herself, who HAVE biological children? Who's to say how this woman should spend her money? She's fulfilling a deep, spiritual, psychological need to have a child, to procreate, and she goes about it the only way she can. I can think of a ton of other ways her money would be worse spent. Hopefully this child will be as cherished and as loved as a biological or adopted child should be, and maybe more since his parents had to go through so much to get him. I'm just astounded at the lack of empathy here for a mother who desperately wants a child. And, just for the record, I don't have kids and I don't know if I'll have kids. I just kept thinking as I was reading Crunchy's post... what if I couldn't have kids and wanted one? If I had the resources, would I be judged as harshly? A desire to have a child is a powerful, inescapable, biological need and I'm very disheartened reading this post. In all honesty, there are much more powerful ways in which to effect change than to not have children.
Bucky - of course there would still be children to adopt!
Most children are born are not planned due to lack of access to birth control, information about how babies are actually conceived or sheer "accident" or misjudgement.
Seriously - do you think that most babies are planned? I know my parents tried to have me after a miscarriage but my sister and brother were the result of birth control failure, as are the three kids my sister has. I have very few friends who actually planned to get pregnant - it just "happened." I'd go out on a limb here by making any kind of numerical estimate but I'm guessing it's well over 75% of babies are not planned - probably higher if you look at figures worldwide.
Most people just have babies. The people like the woman in this article who go through 10+ rounds of IVF are definitely in the minority.
JenC. I hate to be ugly, but damn, you must know a bunch of dumb-ass people who don't know how babies are made.
Seriously, yes, almost all of the people I know who get pregnant have planned for that and are pregnant because they want to be so.
My friends aren't humping like dogs in the back of a Camero.
But that's just me.
As for worldwide, you are right.
Worldwide, women get pregnant because of ignorance and social constraints. We know that when given access to birth control, pregnancy rates drop and the rate of unwanted pregnancies is reduced dramatically.
But I assume that you don't live in some third world country. So if you and your friends are getting pregnant when you don't want to, either you are too poor to afford birth control (sad) or too dumb to know better (sad).
Well, Bucky - clearly, you're not dealing with a lot of Catholics around you. ;)
The people I know who have had kids in their 30s almost all planned to have kids or aborted accidental pregnancies.
Most of the people I know who had kids when they were younger -- had a lot of accidents. I have a friend who was one of 11 kids who got pregnant when she was 13 (she's in her mid 40s now). And - yes - poverty and ignorance are rampant in this country, in fact, I would say it is the dominant culture.
Jenn- Think about what you're saying! You're all for adoption, but aborted 2 assumingly healthy babies that could have been adopted. More people would adopt if there were more healthy babies to adopt instead of the many that are aborted.
Also, I don't think it's wrong for parents to want to have a healthy child. We had our own child with a heart defect. It's been a huge trial and I can't imagine choosing a child on purpose with such a trial if there was hope to have a healthy one. Parenting a challenge in and of itself. That said, I wouldn't trade my daughter in for the world, but I can't imagine purposefully choosing this path with a child I had no connection with.
I said that it never occured to ME to get pg with there were children who need at home. That was ME, my choice, what worked for me, in my circumstances. I never meant to suggest that it was the right choice for everyone. It's not the only way to go. It was the right way for ME.
And I'm sorry if it sounded as if I thought everyone should have made that choice. Different times, difference circumstances, who knows what I would have done.
MEA
MEA
I don't really like some of the attitudes of this woman interviewed. I long to be pregnant because it is one of the amazing things my body should be able to do. I would like to experience one of life's gifts to women.
I really don't like the attitudes of some of these comments. Walk in the shoes of a woman going through infertility and one would not be so quick to judge. I don't see people who have children "the old fashioned way" suggesting that they should adopt because it's better for the environment. Certainly, it should work both ways. No?
Jane - that's exactly what I'm saying. I guess when it comes right down to it - adopting is better for the environment, for the whole planet and the longevity of our species on it.
As an adoptive mother, I can only say that I don't think, in the long run it makes a rat's ares' difference to the enviroment, unless the woman whose child you adopted doesn't go on to have more children than her replacement and yours (and those of male partners, if anny). In the 1st word, women who make an adoption plan end up having the average number of children for their country, plus the ones who were adopted. Women in the third world go one to have the same number of children that is average for their country in total.
I created more impact on the enviroment by flying my children in from overseas that I would have with a low tech pg and birth (which, if I were to give birth would be by choice, all being well).
And you are creating a very strange world in which women who bear children they can't or chose not to raise place them with other families, but if they later are in a postion where they can and chose to raise children would then have to adopt them, IMO.
MEA
Okay, peeps, I'm planning on closing comments on this post at noon today (PST). So, if you have something else to say, get it out (in?) now.
I have never closed comments on a post before (except for the giveaway entries), but this one is getting a little too "animated", shall we say?
If you guys want an open forum for discussing overpopulation or fertility unrelated to this article, I can host something, but there are just too many threads going on here.
MEA - that's a very strange intepretation, and I wouldn't create any world of any sort.
A woman should be able to choose to terminate or carry, as she chooses. If she gives a kid up for adoption, that's also her choice.
My bottom line is that adoption is preferred and I would not go through efforts (heroic or otherwise) to bear my own offspring, even if I could carry to term, because there are kids that need to be adopted.
In the end, I prefer cats because they are far less argumentative than teenagers.
who, there are kids who need to be adopted. not that. I know I make a lot of typoes, but it drives me crazy when people refer to other people as objects, not human beings.
Sorry that I misunderstood your comments about adoption being the better way to go.
I'm rather fond of cats, myself.
MEA
"My bottom line is that adoption is preferred and I would not go through efforts (heroic or otherwise) to bear my own offspring, even if I could carry to term" - this is a very good thing
As promised, I'm closing comments...
Post a Comment