Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Surrogacy Contracts: Another of the Ongoing Attempts to Denigrate Women in their Role as Mothers

"Woman Births Children for Couples Around the World

Anita Brush, 39, of Modesto, Calif., is retiring from surrogate motherhood after delivering eight babies for four different couples (ABCNEWS.com)

May 31, 2005

When Anita Brush decided to go back to work eight years ago, she wanted to find a job that would allow her to spend time with her four children but also have an impact on other people. To Brush, becoming a surrogate mother seemed like the perfect solution. She just never expected to give birth to eight babies in seven years. "Every time after birth, when I'm able to hold the baby or babies afterward, and know that they're going home, it has really been a celebration," said Brush, 39.

Brush gave birth to Sarah and Michael Case's son Cole in 1999.

Doctors told Sarah Case that she would not be able to have another child after she gave birth to her older son, Garrett. The Mesa couple opted to work with a surrogate and met Brush through an agency.

"I just couldn't believe that somebody would do this for me," Sarah Case said. "When I look for Cole at night, and when I'm saying goodnight to him and reading to him, that's when I think of Anita."

That gratitude and the profound impact she has had on others' lives has kept Brush committed, even when carrying multiple babies.

In 2001, she gave birth to triplets for a gay couple from Ireland and two years later she carried twins for a gay couple from the Midwest. Last October, Brush gave birth to her eighth surrogate child for the same couple from the Midwest.

The first child she carried as a surrogate was for a Japanese couple.

Brush's fees ranged from $15,000 up to $35,000 for the triplets.

In total, she has earned $130,000 for the five pregnancies.

But she warns that it was not easy money.

"Absolutely do not do this for the money," Brush said. "If you want to classify it as a job, it's 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Brush, who is now a single mother, says support from her family helps her through.

"It affects us, but there aren't a lot of negative effects," said her daughter Margaret Fielder. "The only thing that's ever bothered us is when she's in the hospital and you miss her and we have to go to school and stuff. That's the only hard part."



OH MY GOD...

The ONLY good thing I can say about this horror is that as more and more of these stories come out, the closer we get to having MOST surrogate motherhood arrangements made illegal…

The bottom line as these articles make pretty clear is that these women are NOT going into surrogate motherhood in order to unselfishly help others have families, as the article originally stated. But, in fact, women are entering these arrangement to make money. As being a surrogate mother appears to have ‘morphed’ into just another ‘occupation’ and a pretty low-income one at that.

Although for many communities throughout the US getting paid either $15,000 to $35,000 cash annually (maybe even tax free) is NOT an income to sneer at…I, myself, who work five days a week, 8 hours a day don’t make $35,000 annually…and I’m a college graduate (single mother as well) living in one of the five most expensive cities in the world. Counting the OTHER public benefits Brush is entitled to as a single low-income head of household mother such as the Earned Income Credit, subsidized health insurance for herself and the children she kept, food stamps, rent subsidies, etc., and adding these benefits to $15,000 or $35,000 in cash she gets per child, this can be a pretty substantial income for a women with no discernable job skills in many regions of this nation.

Returning to the article, it states that Ms. Brush is NOW a single mother and it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out why.

My only question is why were the children she decided NOT to sell off to other couples allowed to remain with her, especially the girl children as I can’t imagine what those poor kids must of gone through over the years as the community and their little friends saw their mother pregnant with one infant after another, only to then watch her turn over each of their siblings in their turn to someone else in exchange for cash.

It’s the same situation we saw with Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe, his former nurse. Two pregnancies, a check and exit Debbie Rowe, stage left…BTW, I understand Michael Jackson tells his children they don’t have a mother. Imagine that, being told as a child that you have been left out of the closest biological bond that any living being can experience, the mother/child bond. You don’t have that because you don’t have a mother.

No wonder this man had the arrogance to think he could continue getting away with just about anything. Since we, as a society, have allowed him to do everything else, so why would he think someone would stand up to him now. I guess the DA who finally brought the charges against him was just ‘old school’ enough to take a chance and try to make a case. I don’t think that a younger DA would have taken the chance on it.

Well, we’ll just have to wait and see where it all ends.

Surrogate motherhood needs to be made illegal in MOST cases unless you want to allow someone to do it for NO PAYMENT, NONE, NADA, NOTHING…as $15,000 to $35,000 dollars per pregnancy (or child I don't know which) is FAR too much money to allow to be exchanged in these situations to not classify them as a business transaction. Thus, this whole surrogate motherhood business amounts to nothing more then the pre-arranged contracting for the creation and eventual sale of a child.

Our country has a tragic history regarding these sorts of issues, yet ultimately a proud legacy of being the ONLY nation in the world to have fought a war to STOP the sale of human beings, including children. I repeat we fought a war to STOP the sale of human being including children. AND that is NOT a legacy to sneeze at as EVERY civilization prior to ours had a history of slavery, every one. Sadly however, after banning the sale of human beings, including children, we are now allowing this degrading practice to be sneaked in through the backdoor again, as these surrogate arrangements continue to spread like a cancer throughout Western civilization's social fabric.

Women in the role as mother must put a stop to this forthwith. The women who participate in these arrangements, by their behavior, put ALL mothers and our children at risk of having our relationship with our children reduced to what they’ve allowed their relationship with their children to be reduced to. Nothing but a business transaction which is of no more signficance then whelping a litter of puppies and then handing them out to whoever has a check to purchase one.

The most sacred event that any mother can partake in, bringing forth life, is being reduced to a dollars and cents transaction of no more significant then a legal agreement to purchase a car. This is another attempt by men (and their gender neutralized feminist allies) in their ongoing attempts to denigrate the mother/child bond for their own selfish purposes. Both groups continue to spread their propaganda throughout society that motherhood itself is no more significant then a business transaction complete with a legal contract.

Where they hope this will ultimately end up is with a gender neutralized society where 50% of the armed forces is women, where 50% of mothers (or more) have lost custody of their children, where 50% of death row inmates are women, etc., etc., etc.,

These crazed, gender neutralized, social engineers will stop at nothing until their goal is achieved and reducing motherhood to a simple business transaction is one of the means they are using to achieve this...and it must be stopped by any means necessary.

19 comments:

The Biscuit Queen said...

Hi, though I would stop in and say hello. And also put my 2 cents in here. ;-)

I fail to see why this is a bad thing, other than children that are going into gay homes, where they will be deprived of a role model of each sex. But that is not the worst thing that can happen to someone.

There is no reason why this woman shouldn't make money from this. She is offering a service which puts her safety at risk, even if it is a mild risk. She deals with discomfort, lack of mobility, and at the end a painful days work. She gives the family their child which they could not have incubated themselves. And the babies that she births are not hers, they are the egg and sperm of the parents. She is simply incubating the baby.

Her children, I assume, are her and her husbands egg and sperm. We are not told why they are divorced, and I will not assume. It could have been anything.

I loved being pregnant, I have consided doing this myself, except i am a softey and can't even give up a foster dog!

I do not see how this has anything to do with denigrating mothers. If anything, it is showing how far people are willing to go to be parents.

Also, I do not see men as the culprites of denigrating mothers, I see gender feminism as the culprit. Gender feminism has been attempting to destroy the family, and telling women that simply being a mother is just not good enough for the last 40 years. That in order to become a true and whole woman you must have a career, you must throw off the bonds of social oppresion of wife and motherhood. That women are finally buying it is no fault but our own.

Yes, some men agree, but the majority of men I have come across feel motherhood is an important role, just as fatherhood is important. If you only look to extremist MRAs, you will find men who think motherhood is a joke. But that is extremism talking, not men as a whole.

Anyways, hope you don't mind me coming over, and throwing out my opinion. ;-) I seem to have so many of them, and I am trying to get off SYG for a while. It seems to be going down hill fast.

NYMOM said...

Hi Biscuit Queen.

I don't mind your opinion at all...albeit such an odd one surprises me...

Sorry to disagree, but I consider what this woman did to be nothing short of abomination.

For me this business of trying to lay claim to a infant due to which sperm or egg was combined in which petrie dish is a side issue, not signficant in anyway to the issue of becoming a mother.

I'll be honest, I really don't care how that sperm and egg combination got into her womb...

I don't care if it was done in a laboratory, an immaculate conception, the Greek God Pan sneaking into her bedroom window in the middle of the night or her going to the nearest bar and doing the football team in a drunken orgy...

It doesn't matter.

This definition, I hate to say it, is a legal/medical definition inspired by men since their ONLY contribution to life is a sperm donation...THUS, they are trying to reduce womens' contribution to the same status...ie., every parent is either a sperm or egg donor...with some women functioning as incubators to grow children within...that's the only difference between us to listen to their propaganda....

Sorry but I don't accept this sterile, and ultimately very male definition of what motherhood really is...

What makes a mother and has made a mother, since human beings first emerged from the primal mist, is the bonding that takes place in utero between mother and the fetus that she is bringing to term, not how or what got the fetus into her uterus in the first place. The fact that this bonding occurs while a fetus slowly develops within it's mother's body (as a part of it really) is the ONLY reason that a fetus is bonded/protected by its mother from birth as opposed to being abandoned or even eaten, for instance, just as the afterbirth is in many species...

This attempt to reduce motherhood to nothing more then an egg donation is more propaganda from Mens/Fathers Rights advocates and gender neutralized feminists always looking to minimize differences between men and women...

BTW, I have to say one other thing, I think there is something seriously psychologically/emotionally wrong with any woman who could carry eight children for nine months, birth them and then sell them...

I mean it's so far outside of the mainstream, going against all history, biology and every social norm that man has ever postulated that it shows me somebody who is seriously anti-social to even consider doing something like this...

Someone like this might even negatively impact a fetus in utero, as the little thing might experience a disconnection between itself and it's 'mother' and be damaged at birth in ways we don't even know about yet.

Sorry to say it, but this women is so far removed from what MOST of us would consider 'normal' that even the gay families appear to be more mainstream then her.

Thus, if our future depends upon seriously damaged women like this one bearing the children of our society, then we're probably already finished...

NYMOM said...

"There is no reason why this woman shouldn't make money from this. She is offering a service which puts her safety at risk, even if it is a mild risk. She deals with discomfort, lack of mobility, and at the end a painful days work. She gives the family their child which they could not have incubated themselves. And the babies that she births are not hers, they are the egg and sperm of the parents. She is simply incubating the baby."

This is pure feminist propoganda...

It's the heart and soul of most of their ideology...women CANNOT accept it, as it puts our children up for sale to the highest biologically related bidder, who has the financing to go to court and have themselves declared as a child's custodian/guardian...plus designates every mother as nothing more then an egg donor or incubator with no inherent rights to her children except through the courts...

That's where this is leading...

Of course men support this as they invest little in the process but yet stand a good chance of walking away with the child, after the fact, since they still dominate the financial and legal apparatus of our government.

For women to accept this, means that the MINUTE we have children, we'd become second class citizens. We would ultimately be signing away every right we have right now. We'd be hostages of our husbands and their families until our children were adults...

That's what we'd be signing off on...

Women like this surrogate who are allowed to sell their children are setting legal precedence that is going to impact ALL women negatively, at least the ones who chose to become mothers...just like the women who continue lobbying to go into combat will eventually have all women forced to register and eventually be faced with a forced draft into the armed forces...

That's the legacy we'll be leaving for all women following us, if this continues...

Anonymous said...

Hope you don't mind me dropping by for a minute, either. Just a couple of points…

The fetus is not part of a woman's body. Even pro-abortion activists don’t try to argue this anymore, although they would like to. It is a completely separate, genetically unique individual.

Secondly, I can’t reconcile your views about in utero bonding with the millions of children who, after supposedly "bonding" with their birth mothers in utero, were adopted by loving families and adapted beautifully. I think a mother usually forms an attachment to her baby in utero (although many do not, not until later) but I just don't believe a baby forms such a bond. At birth it recognizes a familiar scent and voice, I'm sure, and of course the mother usually becomes its primary food source, but I believe most "bonding" as we understand it occurs after birth. Although anecdotes don’t count for much I observed this phenomenon with my own daughter, who has always been a little more bonded to her father than to me. I believe this was because she spent her first days in the NICU of the children’s hospital downtown and it was her father who spent hours sitting by her bed, talking to her, stroking her, and giving her her first bottles, while I was still confined to the suburban hospital recovering from surgery. And after we came home he was there, feeding and caring for both of us. Of course she and I bonded closely later and by virtue of being a SAHM I’m her primary caregiver, but still when she’s tired or hurt her dad can always soothe her a little better than I can, and she’s more joyful when he comes home from work than when I come home from shopping. Just my thoughts. I’m sure your birth experiences were much different.

Thirdly, I can’t imagine how we could legitimately criminalize women for carrying an infertile couple’s child for them with compensation, when we don’t criminalize women for aborting their children altogether. I think this should certainly be an area where private individuals should be left alone with their own choices and decisions.

Anne

NYMOM said...

"Secondly, I can’t reconcile your views about in utero bonding with the millions of children who, after supposedly "bonding" with their birth mothers in utero, were adopted by loving families and adapted beautifully. I think a mother usually forms an attachment to her baby in utero (although many do not, not until later) but I just don't believe a baby forms such a bond."

But the problem being here that a baby cannot 'will' itself into existence, so even assuming you are correct (which I don't know if you are) then the bond between mother and child could turn out to be a critical component for the MOTHER as part and parcel of the whole maternal instinct thingy that probably compels her to want children eventually...and since she's the ONLY one who CAN do this, we might need to allow her to continue thinking her baby is as attached to her as she is to baby...

Don't you think???

Now I know there are fathers, grandparents, friendly neighbors, teachers, etc., who eventually bond with a child too, the ONLY problem being that UNTIL we can figure out a way for this group to have kids w/o involving a child's mother; then we're just going to have to continue doing things the old fashion way...

I mean following your logic I can see a time (which is here right now really) where women are going to be put off by the 'village' having the exact same rights as her without the same contribution and she then might just say forgot the whole darn thing already...

So, for the sake of the continuation of the whole species, let's not mention your idea to any prospective mothers okay...

Thanks.



"I think this should certainly be an area where private individuals should be left alone with their own choices and decisions."

I wish we could leave it up to their individual choices as well...however just like women who decide to risk themselves in the front lines, women who do these sorts of things get laws passed and policies made that negatively impact ALL women...

So no, we cannot allow these things to be a 'private choice'...

The laws they would have passed eventually impact me and my children, possibly setting up all women to be identified as either egg donors or incubators and thus, further eroding the rights every mother should have to any child she brings forth...

NOW we can't very well hold that position, if a couple of us are out there bringing children forth and then selling them off to the highest bidder now can we???

The Biscuit Queen said...

The mother does incubate the egg. Giving birth does not make anyone a mom. Biological mothers can and do give up their children for many reasons, and those children go on to live perfectly normal lives. I myself and my brother were adopted. My brother is about as normal as you could ask for. I am a little strange, but I think that is just me.

Motherhood is really all those things you do after the baby is born. Otherwise adoptive mothers would not be real mothers. And that just doesn't make sense.

I think a million abortions a year does more damage to the idea of motherhood than surrogate mothers. And i also do not see men's activists treatimg women like egg incubators. They are sick of being only wallets and sperm donors, which is the very problem you claim women face. Sounds like you are more in agreement.

I am sorry your father and husband were not there, but most fathers bond during the first 9 months, and babies can recognise a fathers voice immediately if he spent a lot of time talking to the baby. Fathers bond to children from the moment of birth as well, and more babies say dada before mama. I do not think any of this should be seen as a threat to motherhood. If anything, father involvment means safer children, which means proper motherhood includes encouraging the father /child bond if possible. My son Tom was just crying last night for his dad, who was away at school. Dave drove 5 hours this morning to come home for Tom, because he is more important than school.

Please do not dismiss dads because of your expiriences. Having good fathers is as important as having good mothers. They are not mutually exclusive. Men are not just sperm donors. That attitude is what causes mothers to be looked at as incubators, not men.

NYMOM said...

"Motherhood is really all those things you do after the baby is born. Otherwise adoptive mothers would not be real mothers. And that just doesn't make sense."

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree...motherhood is EVERYTHING you do before, during and after the birth of your child...if it weren't, there would be no reason whatsoever for women to go though the inconvenience, suffering and sheer bloody mess of the whole thing...

AND I have nothing against adoptive mothers whatsoever but nevertheless they are dependent upon other women (whatever the reason) to take the leap of faith for them to even have children...



"I think a million abortions a year does more damage to the idea of motherhood than surrogate mothers."

Yes it does. BUT men MUST accept their responsibility for these abortions as well...since much of women's behavior TODAY is based upon the irresponsible behavior of men in our historic PAST...and until more men are willing to admit to and accept that historic burden and work to change, many women will NEVER be able to trust men enough to agree to stop those 1 million abortions...

To be honest, I could live in a world w/o abortion, as long as all the other forms of birth controls were left alone...but of course they wouldn't be, since even now right wing groups (many composed mainly of men) are working to get the more effective forms of birth control banned as 'early abortificients'...so this is NOT just about abortion but about men trying to regain the control of women they lost the minute effective birth control became available...

Of course, men frequently overlook the fact that THEY invented birth control and were the most enthusiastic supporters of it, thinking they could all be like Hugh Hefner and have sex w/o responsibility or marriage...

Well guess what, men got what they wanted...Now they need to learn to live with their choice...and the world that choice created...



"And i also do not see men's activists treatimg women like egg incubators. They are sick of being only wallets and sperm donors, which is the very problem you claim women face. Sounds like you are more in agreement."

Again we must agree to disagree as my position is FAR HARSHER then that regarding men...Sadly the financial support is about the ONLY indepensible thing I see men as providing for mothers since they are vulnerable while pregnant and caring for young children... Thus somebody needs to provide the majority of the support to keep the household running during this period of vulnerability.

IF men have decided (and it appears many have) they no longer wish to play the provider role during those vulnerable periods for mothers, I see them as essentially useless to the whole family unit...

Men need to reassess their position and what significant and unique contribution they make to the family, otherwise, I see more women creating families on their own and more men being excluded from families and children.




"I am sorry your father and husband were not there, but most fathers bond during the first 9 months, and babies can recognise a fathers voice immediately if he spent a lot of time talking to the baby. Fathers bond to children from the moment of birth as well, and more babies say dada before mama. I do not think any of this should be seen as a threat to motherhood."

Unfortunately over 300,000 parental abductions a year, an FBI website now devoted exclusively to parents (most of them mothers) who are charged with 'abducting' their own children, hundreds of thousands of mothers having lost custody of their children already, many of them the poorest women residing in the most backward areas of our country...but you don't see any of this as a threat to mothers...well you must be blind then...

Although it might appear that my father and husband are behind this, it's simply not true...

I've been divorced almost 20 years now and did NOT have a bad relationship with my ex-husband and I hardly remember my father...

What drives this is my fear for my daughters' future, not my past. As I can see the legacy we're leaving them is a return to a time when women were held hostage by the men who controlled their children...and I have NO intention of allowing a return to that era...

You have sons and I understand the issues are different...but I have two daughters and a granddaughter and have to worry about their future...

Sorry.

The Biscuit Queen said...

"IF men have decided (and it appears many have) they no longer wish to play the provider role during those vulnerable periods for mothers, I see them as essentially useless to the whole family unit..."

Your lack of expirience with a good father is exactly why you have this idea. If you had met my father, or my husband, or any of my uncles or male cousins on both my or my husbands side, you would see that fathers are worth FAR more than their wallets.

The single most important predictor of troubled children is not race, nor income, or even location, but fatherlessness. When the mother is gone the child has the same percentage of risk as an intact family. When the father is gone the rick factor skyrockets.

Mothers who kidnap their children are doing the same damage as fathers who kidnap their children. It is no different. I cannot agree with your putting all mothers on a pedestal, an all fathers in the ditch. There are some really bad mothers, and some really great dads. But there are the opposite too. You cannot label all of one sex one thing or the other. That is extremism.

It is in your daughter's best interest to have stable men who are good fathers in their lives.
It will benifit your grandchildren.

NYMOM said...

Again we must agree to disagree as NOT all fatherless households are pathological as you would like to paint them.

Many single mothers raise fine children.

Much of these statistics used are propaganda and lies put out by men, their obvious purpose to discredit women in their role as mothers and give men BACK the power they lost in the 60s and 70s when men decided they wanted sex w/o marriage...

The result is women learned to do without men and have families ANYWAY and now men are trying to get back in the game (that they voluntarily took themselves out of) by acting like everything is falling to pieces without men in charge...

It's total nonsense...

Children are being raised JUST FINE today by women. Every objective index of health, education, life span, etc., shows children in this country have the BEST of everything and do better then children in most other parts of the world...they are doing very well by every objective indicator...

This other business is just bullcrap and phoney stats put out by men...not to be believed...
Similar to what men did during the Cold War putting out lies about the Soviet Union and the missile gap, for instance, to convince the US public that we needed to spend more money on weapons and arms instead of public services...

This is a similar situation. Lies and half truths put out by men to encourage the public to believe that they are more concerned about children then their mothers are, that men are better parents, more stable, etc., all lies...

It's baloney...


AND how would it benefit my granddaughter to empower the kinds of men in the movement you support? I should allow the sorts of men who lurk around SYG and other similar places to come to power...over my dead body will I allow that to happen...and I think MOST people would agree with me after viewing their propaganda for any length of time...you yourself are leaving a site because they do NOT know how to act...and let me tell you that site is NOT the exception but the rule...actually it's slighly better then most other mens rights sites...so don't kid yourself that there are better places for you to go to and be involved with the MRA movement...as MOST of their other places are far WORSE...

As I said earlier, you are the mother of sons, so the issues are different but I HAVE to be concerned about my daughters and granddaughters, especially when I see the sorts of men (or monsters) out there lying in wait for them...

Sorry...

Probably we're not going to change each other's minds, so we should move on to other topics, I guess...

Anonymous said...

I see what you’re saying about setting negative precedents. Hard facts make bad law, as the saying goes. But almost all children in existence are born to women who are both their genetic and gestational mothers, and criminalizing the very, very few women who are willing to enter into surrogacy arrangements would not turn back the tide on parental equality in custody matters which is becoming part and parcel of our culture and laws. Parents—genetic parents—have solid rights, and virtually all mothers are genetic mothers as well with normal parental rights, and I don’t see how we can further erode a special maternal right which doesn’t exist anymore and likely never will again. The idea of “selling children off to the highest bidder” doesn’t seem to fit the situation either, as these children are not sold off to strangers but are given to at least one, usually both, genetic parents. You can not sell someone their own flesh and blood—it’s already theirs. You can only sell a service.

And Biscuit Queen took the words right out of my mouth. If a few surrogacy contracts make mothers look bad, just think for a moment how our current abortion laws make mothers look. What does it say about motherhood when pro-lifers (accurately in this case, it must be admitted) point out that “the most dangerous place for a child is in its mother’s womb?” One in three women will have an abortion, I think the statistics say. If you ask me, abortion on demand and its extremely frequent use (at a time when effective contraception and contraceptive information abounds, regardless of the efforts of extremist groups) has done as much to smear motherhood as anything MRAs could come up with. And yet, do we want to CRIMINALIZE that and accept all the consequences?

And it doesn't work to just lay the blame for all those abortions at the feet of men--they may be to blame for some, but you're ignoring the millions of women who terminate their pregnancies because they haven't completed their educations, are at critical points in their career, can not afford more children for financial reasons (dad may be there but they still can't afford it), they do not love the father, or they simply do not want to be mothers. My grandmother, for instance, was married to the most responsible man that ever was and loved him dearly, but she liked her life the way it was and did not want to be a mother and was willing to deliberately tumble down stairs or run herself into exhaustion in order to induce a safe and "legal" miscarriage. She had two, but my mom survived regardless.

There’s another way to look at it, too. If we’re really supposed to be worried about population decline, why not be glad that some women are willing to birth others' children for them, seeing that it really isn't going to affect parental rights one way or another?

But I’ll agree to disagree, as well.

Baking is certainly a more soothing topic, isn't it? See you at BQ's.

Anne

NYMOM said...

"...would not turn back the tide on parental equality in custody matters which is becoming part and parcel of our culture and laws.

I don’t see how we can further erode a special maternal right which doesn’t exist anymore and likely never will again."

You've said many things, but I'll only respond to one...

Either women will have their maternal rights returned to them or few women will bear children anymore, it's that simple...

Just as women will turn to abortion rather then carry a child to term for adoption by another family, so too women will continue NOT having children under threat of having to lose custody of them...

Same thing...

It's probably selfish, but it's the reality, as few women will bear children to give them up...

Anonymous said...

"IF men have decided (and it appears many have) they no longer wish to play the provider role during those vulnerable periods for mothers, I see them as essentially useless to the whole family unit..."

BQ said, "Your lack of expirience with a good father is exactly why you have this idea. If you had met my father, or my husband, or any of my uncles or male cousins on both my or my husbands side, you would see that fathers are worth FAR more than their wallets."

Yes, apparently her ill experiences have poisoned her against men altogether, but you make an excellent point.

Not only are fathers FAR more than their wallets, I'd like to see some justification for the premise that men have abdicated even that limited role. In fact, NYMOM blames men's failure to parent as THE main cause of abortion today; she blames the number of abortions on the very premise which she fails to back up: i.e. that men have abdicated parental responsibility.

Never mind that women commit far more child abuse than men, never mind that many women are horrifically abusive to their offspring and sometimes fail to bond so horribly that their children grow up homicidal and without conscience.

Perhaps NYMOM had neither father NOR mother to become amoral this way.

NYMOM said...

I'll allow this post to remain...and reply to it...

First of all as you and many of your associates CONSTANTLY point out men invented everything, built everything, and were in CHARGE of everything for centuries...SO if this is the case and I agree it is, how was birth control invented, how was abortion legalized, how were women finally allowed to enter the universities, professions, etc., in order to support themselves...how was ALL this achieved without the input of men...

Answer it wasn't...

Exactly...

ALL of these legal, reproductive and social changes came about through the initiative of MEN...who only saw what a boon and a benefit it could be to them so they could have as much casual and irresponsible sex as they wanted, with as many women as they wanted and NOT be forced into marriage and having to support a family due to an unplanned pregnancy...and like many have said before it's what happens when you 'get what you wish for'...

Thus, men got what they wished for and now MUST LEARN TO LIVE WITH THE RESULTS of their OWN WISHES...

So in spite of everything YOU and your associates keep saying it is not feminists responsible for 1 million abortions annually, casual sex, single mothers, etc., but, in fact, ALL of these things are the direct result of the irresponsible conduct of MEN who THOUGHT they were leaving behind a burden when they turned their backs on their family and fatherhood...and found instead they left behind the only thing that gave them their social status...

NOW they want these things back...

You know what, it could be too late...as you can't always cram the genie back in the bottle once it's released...

Your comment regarding whether men or women commit more abuse is irrelevant as FEW people commit abuse against their children...few...and I'm not playing this game anymore of comparing MOST mothers who do NOT abuse our children with the FEW who exist out there on the edge of the bell shaped curve...

AND no jerk, I'm not amoral at ALL..actually I was raised by nuns so can quite clearly see many things that people like YOU wish to blind yourself to...such as men who shot themselves in the foot and wish to be forgiven and accepted back within their community but STILL REFUSE TO ADMIT and ACCEPT responsibility for their own action...STILL INSIST upon blaming others and REFUSE to do appropriate penance...that's what I see and women like YOU continue allowing them to do this...

Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way, your factual claim that few people abuse their children (boy that was ballsy of you considering you want to paint men as abusive abandoners) does not nullify the point. The point is your claim that all mothers have a unilateral hegemonous RIGHT to their children.

That includes abusive mothers, and believe you me, they exist. They might not be plentiful but if you're going to pretend to give a shit about the children you'd best start dealing with this obvious fact.

NYMOM said...

It does NOT matter if abusive mothers or fathers for that matter EXIST...as they are few in numbers and we cannot make ALL public policy based upon this small group.

Just as many men complain when ALL men are judged by a FEW who abuse women and EVERY law is framed through the lens of abuse...

So ALL future comments from you trying to smear all mothers with the label of abusive will be erased...

crella said...

No one would be a surrogate for free...think of the expenses involved in prenatal care and the birth.

I've seen this woman interviewed, the Japanese couple she had a baby for are rather famous, so it was a prime-time special over here. They followed the parents and this surrogate mother throughout the pregnancy. The wife couldnt carry a baby as she had had a hysterectomy in her early 30's for unterine cancer.

This woman was wonderful...she really cared about the babies she carried. It's a helluva sacrifice, even if you do get paid for it.I can't knock it.

NYMOM said...

"No one would be a surrogate for free...think of the expenses involved in prenatal care and the birth.

This woman was wonderful...she really cared about the babies she carried. It's a helluva sacrifice, even if you do get paid for it. I can't knock it."


Yes, she should have CARED about the babies she carried as they were her own children and I'm sorry I don't care about how wonderful were the people who brought her children, she should NOT have done it...

Nothing GOOD can come from something so inherently EVIL and what this woman did was nothing short of an abomination...

Children are not puppies to be passed out to families as cute companion pets nor to be sold off to the highest bidder.

Nor should the creation and birth of a child be treated like a used car contract where you just sign on the dotted line and hand over a check and here's your baby...

Also, remember as I told you earlier what this site is about...It's about discussion with like-minded people regarding women in their role as mothers, not to have mothers roles be degraded to the point of insignificance and children to be traded as commodities as this foolish woman allowed herself and her children to be used for...

crella said...

".It's about discussion with like-minded people regarding women in their role as mothers, not to have mothers roles be degraded to the point of insignificance and children to be traded as commodities as this foolish woman allowed herself and her children to be used for..."

Got it. Support for mothers JUST LIKE YOU in NEW YORK and to hell with mothers who choose other paths and don't live near you.

NYMOM said...

"Got it. Support for mothers JUST LIKE YOU in NEW YORK and to hell with mothers who choose other paths and don't live near you."

Women who trade in children as commodities and/or allow themselves to make money off these transactions must be condemned whether they live in New York or half a world away...

Otherwise we risk all women and children being viewed in this light. What can happen to one can happen to all if we allow it to continue...

There is another article I will be posting shortly regarding exactly this situation...