Rent a womb ? Surrogacy, ladies would you do it ?

Dudess

I don't think I could.

Feeona

44leto wrote: »

I still say the pig is a great idea. No stretch marks, the hubby not having to turn up at the birth, no flowers and no more hearing about women moaning about the sleight inconvenience of child birth.

You must be raging you were born the traditional way....your very existence is a hypocrisy!

44leto

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

The pig idea won't work. A baby in the womb needs to be interacted with. There have been a few kids born from women in comas and they've all been ****ed up/not 'human' enough.

I'd do it, but only for my sister say. And I don't really consider 20k a lot of money considering what you go though for 9 months. Not the physical side so much, but the emotional investment. I could only do it for a baby that would still be around, I can't imagine giving birth to a child and then never seeing it again, that would tear the heart out of you. We are not meant to give our children away. Fair play to the women who could do that, but I wouldn't be one of them.

OK my idea needs a bit of tweaking, what type of interaction?, just movement and response I would imagine, which the pig could provide, but I don't know. It would be a very brave scientist even to propose this. I am sure it is possible.

But imagine with stem cells taken from bone marrow or embryos it is now possible to make embryos and sperm. So with pig wombs we are all potential Hermaphrodites.,,,OK the baby would probably be a"deliverance" type baby, but this science is still in its infancy.

Humans may not be needed for their procreation in the near future.

44leto

Feeona wrote: »

You must be raging you were born the traditional way....your very existence is a hypocrisy!

It was very traumatic, I remember it well.

Feeona

44leto wrote: »

It was very traumatic, I remember it well.

It's very generous of you to share your trauma.

44leto

Feeona wrote: »

It's very generous of you to share your trauma.

Thasnkyou for listening, its good to share, wellcome to the group.

Feeona

44leto wrote: »

Thasnkyou for listening, its good to share, wellcome to the group.

I think you should start your own thread for the horrific trauma you went through.

iguana

I haven't very much enjoyed being pregnant so far so it would be a very big deal for me in terms of physical discomfort but I would very much consider it if it was the only way for a very close family member (brother or future child) to have a child of their own. On an emotional level I do think I could detach enough from the foetus to only bond as an aunt/grandmother instead of as a mother. I would only be willing to carry their genetic child though, any child made with my eggs would be mine.

dark crystal

I have great admiration for any woman who could go through 9 months of pregnancy and then hand the baby over to someone else to love.

As much as my heart goes out to couples who aren't able to have children themselves, I just don't think I would be able to detatch myself enough from the baby either inside or outside the womb. Not even for 20 grand!

stovelid

cruiser178 wrote: »

I always thought you were a man.

I am. :pac:

hairyprincess

I would do it, but only for a family member or a friend. I seriously considered it a few years ago when a friend was going through fertility issues, in the end up she didn't need any help

Killed By Death

No way would I do it, even for a family member or a friend. I'm pregnant now and I'm happy enough with that but pregnancy is a sacrifice from a physical point of view.

I'm going through it to get my own baby but I'm not selfless or altruistic enough to do it for someone else.

As far as doing it for money I wouldn't consider €20,000 enough for the wear and tear on my body and the risk of potential health problems that can arise from a pregnancy.

So a resounding NO from me!

PrincessLola

Maybe if it was for my sister, but not for anyone else.

Jen Pigs Fly

I would do it, but with a lot of thinking, my major worry would be bonding with the baby and trying to detach myself form it, which would be incredibly difficult to do.

I would love to help people who can't have kids of their own though, be they straight, gay, single, whatever, doesn't matter to me I think everyone should be able to feel the joys of parent hood.

Satts

Satts wrote: »

Kill two birds at the one time, help a couple to have a child and cover your "expenses" at the same time ?

Giselle wrote: »

How is covering expenses killing anything? and why ''expenses''?

Have you never of heard the expression 'Killing two birds with the one stone' ?
i.e. To solve two problems at one time with a single action. The couples lack of a child of their own and the potential surrogates lack of money.

If you have lost your job and can't get another one and have a big mortgage to pay and your healthy and childbearing age, would it be so wrong to except money to become a surrogate and help all parites out ?

Why "Expenses" ? What I meant by this is, all expenses incurred by the surrogate mother to be reimbursed plus a lump sum payment (For pain endured and the inconvienence). I believe in some countries all payments to the surrogate mother are called expenses as it may be illegal to accept money to become a surrogate.

Giselle wrote: »

No, I couldn't do it. I wouldn't be able to get over a biological child of mine existing without having any information about its health, no say in its life, living conditions, upbringing or education.

I believe most surrogates to be carriers only. The egg is from the commisioning couple or from a third party donor.

Giselle wrote: »

If a couple couldn't have a child I'd point them to the millions of children already in existence around the world who desperately need parents and encourage them to explore international adoption.

Thats besides the point. The choice of adoption or having a child of their own has been already made. If a couple have made up their minds that they want a child of their own flesh and blood, in my opinion it is immaterial if they have it naturally or with help.

Satts

Giselle wrote: »

Typically a surrogate uses her own eggs, more often than being used simply to carry.

If a donor egg is needed, it depends on which country you go to. If you go to India and you want a white baby, you would have to use a third party (white) donor.

Satts

Feeona wrote: »

Personally, the financial side would be of little relevance to me, the emotional and physical aspects of carrying someone else's baby would be far more important when making a decision on surrogacy.

I find the focus on finance in the op to be bizarre!

If doing it for a family member there maybe no question of a financial side.

I would love to think that I could do it for another couple free of charge( If I were a woman), but I think I would have to be compensated for the wear and tear on my body and use the money to make my life easier.

Think of it like this, if you were in serious financial trouble, healthy, why not do it and everybody is a winner.

A non relative doing this for free would be a very rare and special person indeed.

iguana

Satts wrote: »

I would love to think that I could do it for another couple free of charge( If I were a woman), but I think I would have to be compensated for the wear and tear on my body and use the money to make my life easier.

Think of it like this, if you were in serious financial trouble, healthy, why not do it and everybody is a winner.

As someone who's pregnancy sickness made me vomit so much the blood vessels in my eyeballs burst and my eyeballs fill with blood, I honestly can't see anything under about €250,000 coming anywhere close to compensating financially for a pregnancy. If I was doing it for a family member in order to fill in a massive hole in the life of someone I love and to facilitate the creation of a beloved new niece/nephew or grandchild it wouldn't be for money.

phasers

I'm not sure. I love the idea of helping a couple to have a child, but I think I'm too much of a wimp to go through the actual childbirth bit :eek:

Fiona

No I would never do it but then again I never want to have kids anyway.

Satts

iguana wrote: »

As someone who's pregnancy sickness made me vomit so much the blood vessels in my eyeballs burst and my eyeballs fill with blood, I honestly can't see anything under about €250,000 coming anywhere close to compensating financially for a pregnancy. If I was doing it for a family member in order to fill in a massive hole in the life of someone I love and to facilitate the creation of a beloved new niece/nephew or grandchild it wouldn't be for money.

Yes indeed, but if you were someone who could pop one out with two coughs and your house was going to be repossed, what then ?

20 or 30 grand would keep the roof over your head for a good bit.

Satts

Fiona wrote: »

No I would never do it but then again I never want to have kids anyway.

If you became a surrogate you still wouldn't have any kids.

Satts

eviltwin wrote: »

No. I would donate an egg but actually have the baby? No way, that's a huge ask of someone not just physically but emotionally as well.

In the long term donating an egg would be a bigger deal.

Satts

redz11 wrote: »

I'd do it.

I have no aversion to pregnancy, but I'm really not too pushed about having children of my own (I'm 27 now; I do accept that this might change in the future.)

If I had an accidental pregnancy now, I wouldn't have an abortion, but I would very likely give the child for adoption. I guess that being a surrogate would be similar - except that I'd get paid for it! :cool:

I do like babies, and if I were pregnant, I'd do everything I possibly could to look after the baby, while it was in me! But motherhood is just not something I'm ready for, right now. So I'd much rather see the baby go to a home where it's wanted.

I'm not an overly emotional person. While I'd probably care about the baby, to some extent, I just don't think that I'd think of it too much once it was out of me. And, if I did, I'd just be happy that it was living a good happy life with a loving family.

Wow.

secretambition

I would try to make rules that prohibit people doing it for money. It must be massively emotionally difficult to carry a baby for nine months and then give it away. I think that we should try to ensure that only people who are "in a good place" and secure make this decision. It should not be possible for someone to agree to it out of financial desperation, because it could potentially really damaging for them if they couldn't handle giving away the baby. Not everybody could. In my opinion, if they need the money that badly, they are too vulnerable to be allowed.

Satts

xxxJennyxxx wrote: »

I would do it, but with a lot of thinking, my major worry would be bonding with the baby and trying to detach myself form it, which would be incredibly difficult to do.

I would love to help people who can't have kids of their own though, be they straight, gay, single, whatever, doesn't matter to me I think everyone should be able to feel the joys of parent hood.

Wow.

Satts

secretambition wrote: »

I would try to make rules that prohibit people doing it for money. It must be massively emotionally difficult to carry a baby for nine months and then give it away. I think that we should try to ensure that only people who are "in a good place" and secure make this decision. It should not be possible for someone to agree to it out of financial desperation, because it could potentially really damaging for them if they couldn't handle giving away the baby. Not everybody could. In my opinion, if they need the money that badly, they are too vulnerable to be allowed.

Good point.

Fiona

Satts wrote: »

If you became a surrogate you still wouldn't have any kids.

Yeah but it means I have to still bear a child which is something I don't want to ever do.

Satts

Fiona wrote: »

Yeah but it means I have to still bear a child which is something I don't want to ever do.

Never say never.

ChaseThisLight

A couple years ago my best friend was trying to have a child. She miscarried several times in one year and jokingly said to me one day after getting another positive test result, "If this one doesn't keep, maybe you could carry a baby for me."

I admit, I was a little freaked out - I'd already had two kids, both difficult towards the end of the pregnancies and I couldn't imagine having another - but I knew how devastated she was. If she had seriously asked, I don't think I could have said no. But the nutritionist she went to see found a food allergy that was causing the miscarriages and once that was cut from her diet, she was able to carry to term and she has a beautiful daughter now.