Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: Nika2003 on 25/08/2018 13:42:45
-
When individuals or couples can not naturally bear children, they have several other alternatives at the beginning of the family. Of course, although adoption is one option, many want to see the child through conception, pregnancy, birth and upbringing. For some, there is also the problem of having a real biological connection with this child.
Often these people choose the process of surrogate motherhood in order to achieve their goal of having a child. In this situation, a third person, called the surrogate mother, will carry the embryo throughout the pregnancy, rejecting the child to his prospective parents at birth.
Using a surrogate mother to give birth to children for couples who are unable to conceive for themselves is a process that is thousands of years old. This is proved in the writings of the Bible in the story of Abraham and his wife Sarah, who was barren.
Although the Bible does not specifically prohibit the very process of surrogate motherhood, it raises the question of whether it is moral and / or ethical, if it is considered moral, regarding the content of children conceived for love and born only of two persons who are married couple .
In addition to the numerous problems that surround the surrogate to help with the conception of the child and the birth, there is also an ethical and moral question that some groups have with those who actually act as a surrogate mother.
Some believe that the use of a surrogate mother to assist with the birth of a child is a privilege that is reserved only for the rich, since the cost can be prohibitive for the majority. However, there are many surrogate motherhood clinics that offer payment plans - and even reimbursements for unsuccessful pregnancy attempts - so the process can soon become much more popular.
Although, of course, moral issues are important for following and observing, it is difficult to judge anyone if they do not "pass a mile in the shoes of another person." In this case, many believe that infertility is a medical condition - and while someone does not actually face reality, when he can not have a child, it is difficult to understand how truly this situation is destructive.
-
There is an absurd notion that people have a "right" or worse a "duty" to bear or raise children. Nonsense.
There are far too many people on the planet, and far too many babies are born to people who cannot give them enough food, clean water, education or life prospects of any sort.
Most but not all women have the capacity to bear children. Most but not all men have the capacity to father children. Some couples are not interfertile. Some adults are not emotionally, intellectually or physically adequate to raise childen. About 20% of couples actually have the capacity and intention to produce children and give them a safe, decent and fulfilling life.
Surrogacy is an expression of vanity and inhumanity at its worst. Adoption is an expression of humanity at its best.
-
we have been dreaming of having a baby for a lont time! But because of some issues I couldn't carry by myself. My husband and I struggled with infertility for a long time and at least we tried surrogacy! We decided to find an agency who can help us to make our dream come true. We were worried about all the process, I mean documentation, payments, apartments and so on. We faced hundreds of clinics and finally decided to go with Spambaby.con and we have never regretted!!! The team was so kind, so supporting and helpful!!! They assisted us in everything! Can you believe that? So now we are parents of little angel and we are the happiest people ever!
-
We faced hundreds of clinics and finally decided to go with Spambaby.con and we have never regretted!!! The team was so kind, so supporting and helpful!!! They assisted us in everything! Can you believe that? So now we are parents of little angel and we are the happiest people ever!
Did you come here to engage in discussion or to spam us with your clinic??
I very much doubt that you really are what you describe.
How about you take a pregnant pause.
Bye
-
Why would anyone want to advertise their disgraceful behaviour?
-
. About 20% of couples actually have the capacity and intention to produce children and give them a safe, decent and fulfilling life.
What orifice did you pull that figure from?
-
A lifetime of experience and observation.
-
A lifetime of experience and observation.
I am saddened to hear that your experience is that 80% of families lead to unfulfilled, unsafe, indecent lives.
I hope you can take comfort from the fact that most of us have had a better "lifetime of experience and observation."
Incidentally my "lifetime of experience and observation." is...
...largely irrelevant, since I'm male.
-
Definitely a First World answer. Though, as you say, being male does invalidate our opinions on anything and everything.
-
If 80% of couples couldn't raise kids, we would be extinct.
-
It's not a question of reproduction, of which there is far too much anyway, but of providing a safe and fulfilling life for your offspring.
Since the customer won't experience pregnancy, childbirth or breast feeding, the only value of some (but not all) surrogate contracts is that the child will carry her genes. Now if her infertility was genetic that's hardly advantageous to the species but merely an expression of vanity. If the ovum was not donated by the customer, it's 100% vanity.
There are plenty of children needing adoption. All surrogacy does is add "subcontract" to the "make or buy" decision.
-
My wife and I made several attempts at IVF, but we didn't get any results. We were advised to seek the services of a surrogate mother. Has anyone had a similar experience? How do you rate it? Have there been no problems with parental rights? And are there any guaranteed pay-for-performance programs?
-
People should reproduce far earlier like they used to rather than waiting and putting careers dreams and ideals first. It is societies fault that this is so unachievable.
-
The question was raised at a Department of Health committee: "What should we do about teenage pregnancy?" I said "Encourage it, of course. We are at our fittest at the end of our school days, so fewer complications, healthier babies."
All the medics and scientists agreed with me. All the social scientists and policy folk were horrified - "That's against government policy."
Just one child, born to a mother aged under 25, would solve a lot of problems and move towards a sustainable population.
-
How far do you plan to push that argument?
Are you prepared to say the same "logic" actually applies while the kids are at school?
Or do accept that education is important?
And, if you do, do you accept that most people are still learning a lot when they are- to pick a number- 21 years old?
And wouldn't it also be worth considering whether or not the parents have a blessed clue about what they are doing, as well as biological fitness?
Maybe you missed the bit where the babies are born to teenagers, but raised by their grandparents?
-
I don't intend to push anything. What I have stated is a biological fact, mitigated by the need for people to learn to be law-abiding consumers and not join the dole queue before the age of 16 - or 21 if you proceed to a degree.
Nobody has any idea what they are doing when they first become parents. It's the one job that you have observed all your life but never been taught. And the later you leave it, the greater the shock when the social round of dinner parties and raves is replaced by buckets of sh1t, sleepless nights, and total responsibility for someone who can't walk, talk, or drive you home. At the age of 18, at least you have the strength to pick him up.
I'm still learning as I approach 80. Having kids didn't prevent the acquisition of knowledge but did put it into context. Given the choice of parent, would you prefer a recently-qualified nurse or Boris Johnson?
-
. Given the choice of parent, would you prefer a recently-qualified nurse or Boris Johnson?
Ah Alan you cannot study part time and obtain funding to study, you have to work. So it's either no kids career people or young mothers on the dole !
That is also an awful reality, some poor infants have a 50+ boris Johnson as a daddy. But then again he can afford to pay someone to pick his kids up just like Messuir Blair.
-
Given the choice of parent, would you prefer a recently-qualified nurse or Boris Johnson?
Can you be a teenage qualified nurse?
It's quite possible that, if we have to choose a psychopath like Johnson, an older, more experienced one like him might still be abetter bet than a teenaged one.
It's hard to say.
But it's nothing to do with age, so it's irrelevant, isn't it?
-
Nobody has any idea what they are doing when they first become parents.
And nobody has any idea what they are doing when they are teenagers.
So it's pretty obviously bad to do both at the same time.
-
My wife and I made several attempts at IVF, but we didn't get any results. We were advised to seek the services of a surrogate mother. Has anyone had a similar experience? How do you rate it? Have there been no problems with parental rights? And are there any guaranteed pay-for-performance programs?
Hello. I had this experience, and I’m so surprised that it is possible. We have found our surrogate mother at the base of [external link removed]. You will find detailed information on its website. They offer different candidatures and following their articles you will not have any problems with the law.
-
And nobody has any idea what they are doing when they are teenagers.
So it's pretty obviously bad to do both at the same time.
That's a very western, 21st century, peacetime point of view.
When my teenage kids complained about having responsibilities and duties, I had to remind them that at the age of 13 a Vietcong soldier would be a sergeant, responsible for the lives of five other kids. And the barmitzvah is not just a rite of passage but a passing-out ceremony, after which you are considered fit to defend the congregation.
The average age of RAF fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain was 20, after at least a year's training, and that figure was already skewed upwards by the experienced Polish and Czech squadrons. Bomber Command pilots, responsible for a crew of up to 7, were generally grounded or assigned to instructional flying at 25 if they survived that long - the rest of the crew and most of the ground engineers were probably teenagers, though just-qualified accountants and teachers were preferred for navigator posts - often addressed as "uncle".
The youngest U-boat commanders (known as "der alte" by the teenage crew) were aged 20.
In my youth, nurse training began at 16, but 14-year-old school leavers could work as auxiliaries.
-
Alancalverd, I can't agree with your teen mum idea, they are just not emotionally mature at that point. Yes you can force responsibility on young people but it can lead to problems. From an exclusively biologic point of view, of course it makes sense. I wholeheartedly agree with your point about population growth. As you so eloquently put it "we have squandered your resilience" or words to that effect. With our current population combined with air travel I expect to see more zoonoses with increasing regularity. That might well be how the population gets culled but it won't be pretty. Much better to start reducing population by humane means such as contraception. But I don't see it happening due to the nature of the human animal-they tend to breed like rabbits(or guinea pigs). I think we are headed towards the cliff without the brakes necessary to stop. And of course nobody has a "right" to have a child.
-
I woke up one morning in 1976 with a throbbing head and a mouth that would have disgraced the bottom of a parrot's cage. The adjoining heap turned out to be the band leader. We had two hours to get on stage for a brunch gig, and only half a band. Whilst simultaneously phoning everyone we knew who could recognise a treble clef and administering intravenous black coffee, he turned to me and said "Do you realise that by the time they were our age, the Wright Brothers had invented the airplane and Bix Beiderbecke and Ned Kelly were dead?"
Prolonged adolescence really hasn't achieved much.
-
That's a very western, 21st century, peacetime point of view.
Do you think peace, the West or the 21st c are bad ideas?
-
To the extent that the world cannot provide and sustain a western standard of living for an expanding population, I think something is wrong.
You could add that an increasing age at prima gravida is unhealthy for the individual and the species, and as I stated earlier, my professional colleagues who have to deal with the consequences would agree.
There's something a bit fishy about the UK economy that demands half the population do not contribute for a quarter of their lives but acquire debts (half of which are never repaid) and then cannot afford to house themselves and their families.
So in response to the OP there's little to recommend making more babies, and since the age of consent remains at 16, no legal impediment to making any when the mother is best able to do so.
Given that an increasing number of folk live with their parents until their 30's, there should be plenty of grandmotherly help and advice (the best kind) available.
I have proposed a method to encourage population limitation elsewhere.
-
I have to say that I have nothing against people who want to be happy. Moreover, it is unreasonable to oppose actions that affect you in no way.
-
Every child is a burden on the taxpayer and the environment.
-
There are plenty of children needing adoption.
I understand that there is a long waiting list (at least, in Australia).
- A much shorter waiting list for children who are blind, deaf, or disabled in other ways
I expect that many many unwanted pregnancies are aborted.
- Unwanted could mean "I don't have the money", "I don't have the support", "I don't have the time", "It's not the right time", "I didn't expect this", etc
- In addition to the medical reasons that would kill both mother and baby
- At least, that seemed to be some of the arguments raised by the recent "Roe vs Wade" reconsideration in the USA.
-
Every child is a burden on the taxpayer and the environment.
It doesn't sound nice. Moreover, any child brings happiness if the around people treats him rightly.