Why does this bother me so much?
-
I know a woman who is married, early 30s, healthy, no fertility problems. Ambitious and rising to the C suite of a major corporation if she keeps grinding. Husband is also corporate but not on the fast track; approves of wife's career goal. They have plenty of money.
The couple has decided they would like to have baby. The plan is to hire a surrogate to have the baby. The reasons are that wife think it is creepy to have an alien growing inside you. Also, husband and wife agree that wife needs to stay focused on career and can't lose time or productivity to pregnancy and childbirth.
I have many reactions.
Egg retrieval is no picnic, and the time to interact with lawyers and vet surrogates is not insignificant.
Surrogacy means you surrender control during the pregnancy and especially the delivery; what if the surrogate refuses a c section doctors advise to protect the baby?
Surrogates are in short supply, so it seems selfish to take a surrogate off the market when there is no medical justification for choosing this route.
Isn't the healthiest thing for the child to be created inside the mom rather than retrieved, frozen, fertilized, implanted? If you can't procreate otherwise, this route is a lifesaver, but otherwise?
Am I just being sexist? Men get to prioritize career over procreation all the time. Then again, if a husband just ejaculates once and then ignores the pregnancy and childbirth, that's frowned upon.
@Cindysphinx said in Why does this bother me so much?:
The reasons are that wife think it is creepy to have an alien growing inside you.
This is kind of a red flag to me… is she going to think it’s creepy to change the baby’s diapers?
Also, husband and wife agree that wife needs to stay focused on career and can't lose time or productivity to pregnancy and childbirth.
This, unfortunately, is reality. Whatever else we might think about their choice to use a surrogate, society and the world of work is not kind to mothers, both during and after pregnancy. OTOH, what does she think will happen after they have the baby in their home? Is the husband going to be a stay at home dad? Because they are both most likely going to lose time taking care of the baby!
Surrogates are in short supply, so it seems selfish to take a surrogate off the market when there is no medical justification for choosing this route.
This is part of my reaction as well, adding in your comments about what would be healthiest for the baby, the choice to use a surrogate does strike me as selfish.
Am I just being sexist? Men get to prioritize career over procreation all the time. Then again, if a husband just ejaculates once and then ignores the pregnancy and childbirth, that's frowned upon.
I think the answer is, “it’s complicated.” Sexism is impacting her, in that her career absolutely will suffer if she goes through pregnancy herself. But it feels like they are also taking advantage of classism here. I don’t know any stats about who does surrogacy, but I can’t imagine the surrogate mother will be motivated completely by altruism, so that person’s need for money is a factor and puts them at a disadvantage.
The whole thing is kind of yucky isn’t it.
-
I know a woman who is married, early 30s, healthy, no fertility problems. Ambitious and rising to the C suite of a major corporation if she keeps grinding. Husband is also corporate but not on the fast track; approves of wife's career goal. They have plenty of money.
The couple has decided they would like to have baby. The plan is to hire a surrogate to have the baby. The reasons are that wife think it is creepy to have an alien growing inside you. Also, husband and wife agree that wife needs to stay focused on career and can't lose time or productivity to pregnancy and childbirth.
I have many reactions.
Egg retrieval is no picnic, and the time to interact with lawyers and vet surrogates is not insignificant.
Surrogacy means you surrender control during the pregnancy and especially the delivery; what if the surrogate refuses a c section doctors advise to protect the baby?
Surrogates are in short supply, so it seems selfish to take a surrogate off the market when there is no medical justification for choosing this route.
Isn't the healthiest thing for the child to be created inside the mom rather than retrieved, frozen, fertilized, implanted? If you can't procreate otherwise, this route is a lifesaver, but otherwise?
Am I just being sexist? Men get to prioritize career over procreation all the time. Then again, if a husband just ejaculates once and then ignores the pregnancy and childbirth, that's frowned upon.
@Cindysphinx said in Why does this bother me so much?:
The reasons are that wife think it is creepy to have an alien growing inside you.
This. If she equates a fetus with an alien, I think it's best she doesn't carry the fetus.
-
They will have a nanny and another child will grow up cared for physically and abandoned emotionally.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
― Douglas Adams -
They will have a nanny and another child will grow up cared for physically and abandoned emotionally.
@Mik said in Why does this bother me so much?:
They will have a nanny and another child will grow up cared for physically and abandoned emotionally.
Yes, this is the concern, isn't it. Given the focus on work....
In fact, it's probably the case that being pregnant would be much less disruptive to the mother than actually being a parent will be for both of them.
It's just ridiculous to think you can have a child without it fundamentally altering every part of your life.
-
They will have a nanny and another child will grow up cared for physically and abandoned emotionally.
@Mik I think you are making assumptions about people you don't know. It is/was not uncommon to have wet nurses, nannies, governesses, etc. caring for children, especially among the wealthy. For all we know, this woman may be a wonderfully loving mother to her child.
-
Once the baby arrives, the plan is to hire "one of those Chinese grandmothers" who will do everything for the first three months.
Dad will not be taking on the role of caretaker, that's for sure.
I don't buy that this is motivated by a feeling that it will hurt her career to be pregnant. Her employer is so progressive that they pay part of the costs of surrogacy. Back in my day, ambitious women worked through pregnancy and were back to work in 2 weeks. Couples take that much time off for a wedding and honeymoon.
-
The child is not a person but an accessory. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are doing this because all their friends are having children and it is considered aspirational. It reminds me a bit of a wealthy woman I know--a contemporary--who would do anything to have her own biological child, but had no interest in adoption. She also had no interest in children, period. Unable to have one of her own, you'd think she'd adopt a dog, but no. Because it isn't about loving and being loved. It's about fitting in, hitting all your markers, and leading the kind of life your friends will be envious of.
-
@Mik said in Why does this bother me so much?:
They will have a nanny and another child will grow up cared for physically and abandoned emotionally.
Yes, this is the concern, isn't it. Given the focus on work....
In fact, it's probably the case that being pregnant would be much less disruptive to the mother than actually being a parent will be for both of them.
It's just ridiculous to think you can have a child without it fundamentally altering every part of your life.
@ShiroKuro said in Why does this bother me so much?:
it's probably the case that being pregnant would be much less disruptive to the mother than actually being a parent will be for both of them.
Precisely. I think you hit the nail on the head.
-
@Mik I think you are making assumptions about people you don't know. It is/was not uncommon to have wet nurses, nannies, governesses, etc. caring for children, especially among the wealthy. For all we know, this woman may be a wonderfully loving mother to her child.
@Bernard said in Why does this bother me so much?:
@Mik I think you are making assumptions about people you don't know. It is/was not uncommon to have wet nurses, nannies, governesses, etc. caring for children, especially among the wealthy. For all we know, this woman may be a wonderfully loving mother to her child.
I see no reason from their own words to believe that.
-
-
Choice of method aside, at least this couple is willing to have and raise a child. Not all bad given this society's way below-replacement fertility rate.
-
Somebody should talk to them about adoption.
@Axtremus why would you think it desireable for the earth to have more people? We are still grossly overpopulated when you consider how many species are going extinct at a rapidly accelerating rate and that the earth is also rapidly being stripped of the resources to sustain life. We do not need more people. If the human race died out entirely it would give the planet a much-needed respite from our destructiveness.
fear is the thief of dreams
-
-
@Axtremus why would you think it desireable for the earth to have more people? We are still grossly overpopulated when you consider how many species are going extinct at a rapidly accelerating rate and that the earth is also rapidly being stripped of the resources to sustain life. We do not need more people. If the human race died out entirely it would give the planet a much-needed respite from our destructiveness.
@pique said in Why does this bother me so much?:
@Axtremus why would you think it desireable for the earth to have more people? We are still grossly overpopulated when you consider how many species are going extinct at a rapidly accelerating rate and that the earth is also rapidly being stripped of the resources to sustain life. We do not need more people. If the human race died out entirely it would give the planet a much-needed respite from our destructiveness.
Yes, but the FORUMS, Pique - think of the forums that would die!
