First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Woman who is '95 per cent genetically male' gives birth to twins.
65120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / None ya business.
Offline
Posted 2/12/15
The whole thing sounds very forced and unnatural to be honest. Surely there would've been far easier ways to accomplish the same thing. O.o

Is it a miracle that we can now force fertility? Sure it's nice that we've advanced that far and have gained such an understanding about repairing dysfunctional reproductive organs. But I just don't see how 3 years of treatment and carrying out a pregnancy in "A body that was not meant for it" is necessary unless you're really that desperate to give birth to something. Having someone else be a surrogate just seems so much easier.

I just fail to see how this process was the best possible option unless she was absolutely hellbent on having the children come out of her.
24966 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Online
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15

CherryDynamite8 wrote:
Having someone else be a surrogate just seems so much easier.


Not for "someone else" it's not.

Let the woman do her own work. If she can't, make it so she can. Makes sense to me.

Also, it sounds like she's 100% female to me. I don't think they understand how genes work.
65120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / None ya business.
Offline
Posted 2/12/15

Kavalion wrote:


CherryDynamite8 wrote:
Having someone else be a surrogate just seems so much easier.


Not for "someone else" it's not.

Let the woman do her own work. If she can't, make it so she can. Makes sense to me.

Also, it sounds like she's 100% female to me. I don't think they understand how genes work.


So treating an infantile uterus to mature for years and forcing a body that wasn't meant for pregnancy to go through pregnancy (whilst being monitored because it was likely a major health risk) is easier than having a surrogate with fully functional reproductive organs bear the child? Or adoption? Does not sound easier lol.
24966 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Online
Posted 2/12/15

CherryDynamite8 wrote:
So treating an infantile uterus to mature for years and forcing a body that wasn't meant for pregnancy to go through pregnancy (whilst being monitored because it was likely a major health risk) is easier than having a surrogate with fully functional reproductive organs bear the child? Or adoption? Does not sound easier lol.


It's not easier for the surrogate who otherwise wouldn't have had to do anything.

I mean, we're not exactly trying to min/max child birthing responsibilities on a strategic scale, here. It doesn't matter if someone is better at it.
37962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F
Offline
Posted 2/13/15 , edited 2/13/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


amyhasabowtie wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


corteznr1 wrote:

She may have given birth but genetically they aren't her kids. Very much like a surrogate parent. It doesn't really change anything in my eyes.


Still she their mom. A parent is the one who take care of you no because you came out of somebody vagina or penis.


She's not biologically their mother though.

Like, I understand what you mean; I class my step-dad as my dad to other people because he's the one who's took care of me, but he's not my real dad, I am not blood-related to him.

This article is pretty much a surrogate donor story.


To me personally even if they are your biological parent that does't make them your parent. Parent is the one who want to raise you. Hell even if you are full grown adult a parent is still the one who want to be in your life and teach you things.


Stop sugar-coating lmao
You're just making this woman sound like the biological mother when she's not, that's what I'm getting at.
Are your parents your biological parents or more like 'adoptive' parents?


BlueOni wrote:


Mr_Ed wrote:

I have to agree with Frenzify on this one. I think it was just over the top procedures which at the end of the day adopting a child would of had the same results. She could of saved that money, which im sure it wasn't cheap and could of been used to grow that child or send him to college.


The thing is that adoption isn't necessarily free (it can actually cost tens of thousands of dollars in addition to the cost of raising the child once you stack all the fees together), it's not an easy or comfortable process (practically every aspect of your life is scrutinized), and not everyone will qualify to adopt even if they hop through every hoop, fill out every bit of paperwork, deliver every cent of the cost of processing, and are found to be perfectly qualified to serve as parents. There are places where same-sex couples are specifically institutionally excluded from adopting irrespective of their willingness, competency, socioeconomic status, and personal circumstances like location, educational level, and so on.


Surely this 'experiment' she had was not free either. IVF is about £5000 a go in the UK, and $12,400 in the US.
Posted 2/13/15
I had no idea where you got the sugar coating thing from ? No I no adopted. My point is that biological or no she still their mother since she the one who going to take care of them.
37962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F
Offline
Posted 2/13/15 , edited 2/13/15

KarenAraragi wrote:

I had no idea where you got the sugar coating thing from ? No I no adopted. My point is that biological or no she still their mother since she the one who going to take care of them.


Thanks for ignoring the rest of what I said though
Posted 2/13/15

amyhasabowtie wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:

I had no idea where you got the sugar coating thing from ? No I no adopted. My point is that biological or no she still their mother since she the one who going to take care of them.


Thanks for ignoring the rest of what I said though :)


I not I just think you sound kind of angry and no sure how to respond to you.
35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/13/15 , edited 2/13/15

amyhasabowtie wrote:

Surely this 'experiment' she had was not free either. IVF is about £5000 a go in the UK, and $12,400 in the US.


Assuming that this treatment cost (in aggregate) roughly twice that much it still wouldn't beat the upper bound of adoption from a non-profit agency. From a county or state foster care institution? Oh, yeah. You could pick up about 12 kids for that treatment's cost (assuming a lot about it, though). So it's sort of a grey area.
65120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / None ya business.
Offline
Posted 2/13/15 , edited 2/13/15

The surrogate would do it anyway. Don't you know that surrogates voluntarily assign themselves to carrying children? Even if that specific lady did not request it, it's likely that the person serving as a surrogate would volunteer to be a surrogate for another couple anyway. A surrogate is sometimes a family member, but often it's a person assigned through an agency.

And it kind of does matter that someone else is better at it. The time, effort, risk, and (likely huge) cost of this procedure was all incredibly wasteful when you realize that it was by no means the only or most efficient option. None of it was really necessary unless this woman, for some reason, refused to just have a child that didn't come out of her.

A child that is not biologically hers but that she gets to raise. That's the product. There were easier, less risky options to go about acquiring this product. That is why I personally don't see the appeal. And that's what I was trying to say to begin with. It's cool that they were actually able to make this a possibility to begin with, don't get me wrong. But I just don't see how it's the best option. That's all.

All the clarifications~
7691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / Basketball Court
Offline
Posted 2/13/15
This is really cool.
Sailor Candy Moderator
200577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 9/15/16
OP Nuked. Locked.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.