Sunday, October 16, 2005

The Empire Strikes Back

Well we can see the direction where the desperate attempts by men, to be in charge of everything again, are heading. Even though men voluntarily turned their backs on being the head of family back in the 60s and 70s, instead choosing to become unmarried Playboys like Hugh Hefner engaging in endless casual sex without marriage. NOW they’ve changed their minds AGAIN.

What to make of it all and where will it all end?

As in most of these situations where men have shot themselves in the foot through their own stupidity, the historic thing to do is blame a woman for it. This has been going on as long as Eve supposedly tricked Adam into taking a bite of the apple. Every time men get in trouble through either their own mistakes or some whimsical behavior on the part of nature, fate, whatever, it traditionally was blamed upon a woman.

No wind for sailing to Troy, murder your daughter; men refusing to get married since it’s more fun being a single Playboy, criminalize a single mother…

Instead of men acknowledging their own mistakes, twists of fate, unpredictable nature, etc., it’s so much easier to blame some hapless woman for what ails them, isn’t it?

In essence, this is what the new ‘crime’ being discussed in Indiana is really all about…

The crime of Unauthorized Reproduction is really about blaming women for the fact that men refusing to get married and/or deciding to do it so late (like David Letterman, for instance, at 51 having a child and STILL not certain if he wants to marry the child’s mother or Stephen Bing, 37 years old, father of two illegitimate children one from Liz Hurley and another from Lisa Bonder, marrying NEITHER); thus this sort of very common behavior today leaves many ordinary women with little choice except to just stop taking the pill and/or artificial reproduction or adoption if they wish to have children at ALL.

It’s that simple. Fertility for women starts declining around 27 or 28 years old…then continues that decline until menopause. Women, simply due to our biological time clock, cannot afford to wait until 37 or 51 years old before deciding to get married and trying to have children. Sorry but that’s the facts. Allowing single women the choice to use these reproductive technologies enables women to have families in spite of men’s determination to wait long past the time our fertility starts running on empty.

Supposedly, this bill was inspired by a horrific event where a mentally unstable man almost got twin infants through use of a surrogate mother. Only the quick thinking of a pediatric nurse in the hospital, who noticed the guy coming to the hospital with a live bird in his pocket and covered with bird droppings, averted a potential tragedy.

YET men using surrogate mothers are a small group.

Most of those who use artificial reproduction methods are ordinary women looking to be mothers. Some few in number are lesbians, but for the most part it’s just run-of-the-mill everyday women who just never met the right man or met him and he didn’t want to be married until he was 40 (and/or traveled the world, had sex with at least a dozen more women and/or watched taped reruns of Monday Football every night for another dozen more years or so) very typical of many of the men we, women today, all know.

Thus, there was no need to take a shotgun when a fly swatter would have done to resolve the issues involved here. Some small tinkering with the laws regarding surrogacy would have resolved most problems. As many have said before follow the money and everything will become clear. So just outlawing the payments involved in surrogacy or limiting them to the point that it would not be financially rewarding, as surrogacy should NEVER be able to be a steady income for someone, would have been sufficient.

This would have limited it to women who were really ONLY interested in helping someone have a child for ethical reasons. NOT someone so anti-social, disturbed or just plain stupid that they would look upon surrogating as a way to make income regularly and not realize the rest of the community would be disturbed by it. NOT to mention that I bet it ultimately cost the taxpayers money as well when these surrogates became pregnant, since public benefits are eligible for all pregnant women depending upon their income, not how they got pregnant. Food stamps, subsidized housing, possibly taxpayer funded medical care, other benefits while out of work, etc., all of these can and probably are available to surrogate mothers at their community’s expense.

Mothers let’s THINK here, please…

Anyway, even through the Indiana law has been tabled for now, MARK MY WORDS, it will be back. This is only a temporary respite. As after being reworked in committee it will result in legislative action, which will eventually pass in Indiana and will eventually pass (or some form of it) in most states and/or even at the Federal level.

Just as the Federal government did with child support guidelines and enforcement, this will be the same thing.

Nevertheless, the law supposedly with irresponsibility surrogacy as the target is really a smokescreen. As the real target of it is the many women who have decided to continue leading useful, productive lives WITH CHILDREN in spite of the decision by our men to continue behaving like irresponsible chowder heads. Women simply do NOT have the time that men do to play these irresponsible games. Our reproductive lifespan is just too short to do that. Thus passing this law will result in more of the women in our society who are the “cream of the crop” (by every objective standard they are the most educated, highest income, etc.,) going childless or having to rush into marriage with inappropriate men and increasing the cycle of divorce, child custody fight/abduction that we see going on today.


The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction”

"Unauthorized reproduction":Law requires marriage for motherhood

by Uncle Ho
(Why Jerry Springer would adopt a persona named Uncle Ho is probably a whole new article for another day?????????)

Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:51:34 AM EST

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation and egg donation must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor."

The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."

http://www.springerontheradio.com/story/2005/10/6/65134/8436


To continue:

We can see that this is a two-pronged attack against women in their role as mothers by reviewing the story below. A woman, who already had two children of her own, deciding to be a surrogate for a third child (for a payment of $5,000) has just lost custody of her first two children.

Her husband decided to divorce her and the Judge awarded him temporary sole custody citing this woman’s decision to act as a surrogate as partial grounds for his ruling. Clearly it was a somewhat biased ruling as the Judge allowed the father’s character witnesses AGAINST this mother to run on for over 4 and ½ hours. While the mother’s witnesses were allowed only 10 minutes each and one of them was the children’s teacher, (as opposed to her ex’s family). So obviously a teacher, as a witness for this mother, was one of the most unbiased witnesses there. YET her testimony carried less weight then a father’s family, who are clearly going to side with him.

So the temporary custody decision was quite biased.

Nevertheless, I am still of two minds on this situation.

I do happen to think there are some underlying emotional problems that exist within women who decide to act as surrogates for money. Sorry, but it is simply going so far against what we know of biology, history and the normal behaviors of MOST other women, that unless the surrogate has a strong motivation for doing something like this ie., helping a sister or her best friend have children, I see it as a sign of either extremely anti-social behavior (no matter how well it is hidden), excessive greed for money or a lack of good judgment and/or plain common sense.

It’s just so darn foolish in the era of 50% of marriages ending in divorce and a custody fight these days being a very standard part of every divorce involving children. Mothers, you don’t pull stunts like this when you have your kids at stake especially when many courts at the county level have become infested with father’s rights supporters. Sure at the appellate levels courts might still talk the talk and walk the walk defending mothers, but how many mothers can afford to appeal an unfair decision made at the county level where most custody decisions are made. Short answer: very few.

So in spite of the unfair and biased means that this Judge used to arrive as his decision, even a temporary one, (since unless there is unfitness involved on the part of the custodial parent MOST temporary custody decisions morph into permanent) it appears likely that this mother has sealed her fate and will be the non-custodial parent of her children going forward. AND perhaps she deserves it. Personally I have mixed feelings about the whole thing as I normally would support a mother having custody of her children, unless abuse or neglect was involved but women selling off babies to make money is a serious breech of social trust I guess I would call it and does need to be stopped.

To sum up, the social sanctioning against mothers who act against the standard norms that favor most men (as men who will bother being fathers through surrogacy are a small group, thus MOST other men will benefit by sanctioning mothers who deviate from the norms) will now be the second prong of this attack against women in their role as mothers; along with the legal restrictions enacted (the Unauthorized Reproduction Act in Indiana) against women who try to be single mothers without a man acting as overseer of her and any children she might bear.

It appears that this is a very effective strategy devised by men to attack ALL women by using small deviant groups of women to paint the rest of us with a broad brush. Then convincing the public to enact laws that negatively impact all women because of the bad behavior of a deviant few.


Surrogate carrying novelist's baby loses custody of her children

Liberty, Kentucky

A surrogate mother carrying the child of a best-selling novelist has temporarily lost custody of her own two children.

A judge handed custody of Arletta Bendschneider's two children to her husband, Jack Bendschneider. The couple are in the middle of a divorce.

Bendschneider is carrying the child of novelist Jacquelyn Mitchard and her husband Christopher Brent. Mitchard lives in Massachusetts and is best known for her 1996 novel -- "The Deep End of the Ocean."

Casey County Circuit Judge James Weddle says that Bendschneider's decision to carry a surrogate is not in the best interest of her own children. Weddle says he would wait to rule on permanent custody until after the child is born. The baby is due in about two weeks.

http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=3966137&nav=4CAL

36 comments:

PolishKnight said...

Ok, I know I'm not welcome here but...

I'll ask the question and if you want to delete it, it's up to you:

What makes you think that a woman whose anti-social and "hasn't met the right man" (which translates to: waiting around 20 years for wealthy guys to ask her to marry them before getting up off her butt and doing something to have a family) is a good candidate to raise emotionally healthy young women and men after purchasing a child from a surrogate?

Extra credit: What makes you think that divorced fathers, who have competed successfully in the same workplace by the metrics you just used to validate career women are less qualified to raise children than ex SAH housewives who would be judged as losers if they were men?

NYMOM said...

As usual you have turned around everything I said and meant so you're back on probation...

The anti-social women I were referring to were the surrogate mothers themselves...which I think was pretty clear if you read what I wrote...

In the second part of the post, the Judge apparently felt the same way when he removed two children from a women who had chosen to become a surrogate mother citing as part of his reason the fact that it was not in her two children's best interest for her to chose to be a surrogate mother.

So I thought I was pretty clear in who I was referring to...Once again, playing stupid????

In general, I was referring to the sorts of treatments that the bill would attempt to intervene with in it's entirety...not just the use of surrogate mothers...as MOST women who would come under the restrictions put in place if it should ever pass, would be women who use artificial donors to get pregnant.

In essence, they are fertile but have no husbands as the men in their age group who should be their mates are choosing to marry younger less accomplished woman.

BTW, we've been OVER this a dozen times in other posts...and you agreed with most of what I said about women getting an education and career NOT making them more marketable in the marriage marketplace.

Now, you appear to be taking the opposite side claiming these women are anti-social...

Make up your mind.

This bill is attempting to stop both men from using surrogate mothers as well as women using sperm donors and IVF to conceive.

It's a broad based bill which wasn't necesary to stop surrogate motherhood if this was their aim. All that was needed was to enforce restrictions on the money paid to the surrogates and it would end overnight.

Regarding your second question: men and women are different and the criteria that make for a successful women do not ordinarily make for a successful man and vice versa.

Marines and mothers are NOT essentially the same, but very different characters, personality, etc.,...

Anonymous said...

NYMOM,

I just wanted to comment on your judgmental and all too self-righteous bashing that you did about the surrogate mom. I would start by telling you that when you don't know the facts of a situation don't talk on them and secondly I would ask you if you have checked into the cost of Surrogacy these days? 5000.00, I I make more money than that in about 3 mos, we are talking about taking shots for the first 9 weeks, carrying a baby for 9 mos, deliverying this baby and you are being paid less than what a teacher would make in three months, maybe you need to do the math to figure out that obviously there is not much monetary profit being made. Further for you to comment that she deserves to lose her children because of her giving this enormous gift to a friend is rediclous and to be frank (coldhearted).

Now to set a couple of things straight on this matter, the woman is a Gestational carry what that means is Mom's egg, dad's sperm, nothing to the surrogate. She is a walking incubator and nothing more.

Her children the real victims here cry for their mother the woman who bathed them, fed them, read to them, and sleep with them every night, While our hero father worked third shift (to his credit), and volunteered to be a firefighter, taking precious time away from his children. As of now he has moved his mother in to care for the children, and every account I have is very rarely at home with them….. Does this sound like a loving father…? Let me put it to you one other way, even if you don’t like what Arletta (my sister) did you should be extremely mad that her children, your future are paying for it. Her husband wants to talk about selling babies, what does he call what he is doing when he holds a birth order over my sisters head, and says I’ll sign if you give me the house, pay me child support and keep the kids all week, every other weekend, and holidays. Doesn’t that sound a little bit like selling children and his at that!

I am extremely disappointed in this country the chances of a man getting sole custody of their children from a Good mother is less than that of you coming across a corrupt judge. We as American’s need to be pissed off that the good ole boy network down in Casey county is deciding the fate of young very impressionable children. Don’t think it just happens in Kentucky, every person who thinks that could never happen to me, should think twice, she is the President of her daughters PTO, the assistant Brownie troop leader, Works as a city inspector, and was home every night with her children, and attended every school function, fundraiser that the school had. She is quit frankly the ideal mother and she lost her children, what does that say about the rest of us who are only doing what we have to, to get by?

Signed:
Becky Powell

NYMOM said...

"...I just wanted to comment on your judgmental and all too self-righteous bashing that you did about the surrogate mom. I would start by telling you that when you don't know the facts of a situation don't talk on them..."

First of all EVERY AMERICAN especially another mother has not just the RIGHT but the responsibility to talk about these issues...

Everyone of us...


"Now to set a couple of things straight on this matter, the woman is a Gestational carry what that means is Mom's egg, dad's sperm, nothing to the surrogate. She is a walking incubator and nothing more."

Now to set YOU straight.

There is NO such thing as a WALKING INCUBATOR...

NONE...

AND that kind of THINKING is what led us to the point that your friend is at today, that of being a non-custodial mother.

Okay...that's the kind of thinking that led to it.

She is that child's MOTHER, I don't care how that sperm and egg got together in her belly. If she did the football team, got drunk and got screwed by a total stranger in the backseat of his car, or the Angel Gabriel climbed in her back window in the middle of the night to have another 'immaculate conception'.

I don't care.

These sorts of definitions of mothers by eggs versus gestation is a product of men's thinking vis-a-vis their own physical removal from the birth process...men are fathers through who donated sperm. Women are mothers by being the person who carried a life within their own body for nine months, 24/7 and then in pain, suffering and blood birthed that life.

Okay...

"Her children the real victims here"

Exactly those are the REAL VICTIMS of this woman's stupidity to get involved with something like this.

AND I never said the Judge was right. I said he had some issues right, but I wasn't 100% sure if she should have lose custody...as I was of two minds about it...

NOW, however after listening to you, I'm thinking that Judge was right as this stupidity about EVER SAYING a woman is NOTHING but a walking incubator makes me think she's more damaged mentally then I thought.

Because anyone who thinks that HATES women...and probably should NOT be around children especially as they enter puberty...

NYMOM said...

"She is quit frankly the ideal mother and she lost her children, what does that say about the rest of us who are only doing what we have to, to get by?"

The ideal mother?

You are quite deluded if you believe this. She even put her children at risk of emotional distress and/or being picked on or ignored at school since she made her pregnancy obvious by being there a lot.

Now what was she thinking that she would tell people when they asked about the baby? What were her children supposed to tell other kids who asked about it? Other little kids see see their mother pregnant and a little brother or sister is in their home. What do her children say or think when their brother or sister winds up somewhere else?

She put her children under stress, maybe even having them think that the same thing could happen to them at some point when their family needed $5,000 again?

Man is a social animal. We live in communities composed of others where we accept the responsibilities we owe our neighbors, as they do what they owe us. If she or you don't like this MOVE TO A DESERT ISLAND...then you can do whatever you want w/o anyone knowing or caring about it.

Okay.

What she did probably puzzled and probably scared other kids in her community, as well as other mothers making light of their sacrifice to bring their own kids into this world. Your friend sold childrens' and others mothers' birthrights very cheaply.

So I hope she's not looking for any help from them.

She better closely examine that offer her ex is making that he keep the house and share the kids on a Joint Custody plan...if she plays her cards right she can probably get a good enough plan where she will NOT have to pay child support since if she fights this I see him getting everything he wants anyway and her JUST having EOW if that...as some Judges can decide she has no visitation until after counseling sessions are over...

Take that as the best advise she'll ever get...

Anonymous said...

nymom,
I know that almost anyone can post a comment any more. (as long as they have a working computer) But the thing I see way to often is that the people that post them, really just like to sit on their computer all day and type away. It's not that they even know what's going on. It's that they have problems in their life that they just don't want to deal with. I'm usually not so judgemental of people but when you say a MOTHER that loves her kids should be ripped away in a split second. It makes me question your character. I will leave you with one question.
Who do you think you are to say who should or shouldn't have their kids when you don't know them??????
J Guy

Anonymous said...

NYMOM,

You have some serious issues, and I can tell you exactly what she told her 7 year old. She got down on her level which is normally what she does when she talks to her. Told her that mommy had a friend who wanted to have a baby, but couldn't, her daughter replied oh that probably makes her sad, she then said momma was thinking about helping her friend. They would put the baby in momma's belly until it got big enough to take care of itself, and then our friend could have her baby... Her daughter replied oh so you would take care of the baby for a little while, she explained it would be a long while and that momma would get real fat. But once the baby felt like it would be ok he would come on out. Her daughter replied with oh, I think it would probably be very nice of you to help your friend. She then ask just to make sure that she had everything right, we don't have to keep the baby he would go home with his mommy, and my sister said yes. The child went to prenatal appts with her as did her husband who I might add signed the same contract, took the same psychological evaluations, and gave her shots of progesterone for quit some time. The woman didnt want any money for this pregnancy the man who is now accusing her of being money hungry encouraged her to take the money, as a matter of fact he was upset that it wasn't more money.

I have a degree in Child Development and I can assure that the 7 year old calls the baby by it's proposed name, she thinks of him as her cousin, someone momma is watching for a little while, and as far as psychological damage, why would you think that what is being done here would cause damage when this is clearly a gift of love, from one friend to the other and she is teaching her daughter the importance of empathy, generosity, and love, it may seem vague to her now but someday this little girl will grow up and understand the enormouse heart her mother has, and not just toward her family but toward man kind in general.... The family intends to have contact it's just not her baby... She has just been babysitting for the last nine mos, and as repulsed as you are by the thought she is an incubator (a vessel) for this child, and when he is born and brings great joy to this other family, she will know that no matter what you or any other person in this world thinks, she has done the right thing. Don't you think she knew she would face this kind of opposition? Don't you think she knew she would be criticized, especially when she went public, but she also thought people (specifically women, or any man who loves a woman) would see that it doesn't matter what you think about surrogacy what has happened here to her and her children, and our future is WRONG!

"First of all EVERY AMERICAN especially another mother has not just the RIGHT but the responsibility to talk about these issues..." I agree with you on that but tell me what makes her decision to bring another life into this world for someone so bad? I work with children every single day of my life and you know I care more about the situation than what the surrogacy means... I don't care whether you agree with me or not, it does not change the way I think and feel at night.
I work with women who live in such immense poverty that you would be astounded... You yourself comment on how many women would have the funds to fight this battle at a Appellate level, and you are 100% right in assuming that not many. The women I visit though poor are good mothers, but the sad but basic truth is that many male judges (especially in small towns) would or could be swayed to believe that a man is the better parent, or maybe he just doesn't care who is the better parent. And for those women that I work with, who are good mothers, they would have to sit back and let there children be taken, because there is nothing else that they could do. They are not worldly enough to know that men rarely get sole custody of their children, and when they do it's generally because the woman is unfit (and by unfit I mean stone cold proof), and they definantly don't have the funds to pursue it further.. This woman that you seem to despise so much for her surrogacy is giving those woman a voice, she is letting the world know that these kinds of injustices still take place. What are you doing? Running a discussion board that claims to care about the injustices women face, but yet when you are faced with a clear injustice, and a travesty at that, your not clear which side your allegance falls on?

In 1848 after the Seneca Falls Convention, and the passing of the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote, Elizabeth Cady Stanton asked, "What are we next to do?" I'll tell you what we should do, quit fighting amongst ourselves and defend each other. Join together and let the world know that the United States of America has not evolved so much that women can rest easy, you like what you got, then defend it, a judge taking custody of a woman's children because she is a surrogate may be fine with you, but what's next? If that's his reasoning behind it, and he openly show's his disgust and distaste for surrogacy and still he is aloud to sit on a bench and decide these children's future! What's next who's to say that this same judge or one like him, wouldn't have taken your children from you because you didn't have any help?

This man this judge, I have sat in his court room and it's not about surrogacy, I am not even sure it's about the "Good Ole Boy Network," he seems to have a general distaste for women... I watched three cases before this woman's all of which seem to go the same way, I have heard it said that this same judge takes children from their mother if she is dating someone other than the father... DO YOU NOT SEE A CLEAR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS? Do as I say or you could lose your children. That is really what the bottom line of this case is. With or without the surrogacy this woman may have lost her kids, because she had to have a baby sitter while she worked during the day.(and that was brought up, did you have to have child care while your children grew up, so that you could work, and if you stayed at home,(I applaud you if you did) do you think a man like this would have smiled on that choice? NO, because he seems to think that women are of very little value. I am sorry that we can't agree on this matter or surrogacy but if you don't see how unjust this male dominated world is then why do you run this board. Further there really is much more to this story than you know, than anyone knows so I guess you have the right to be somewhat judgemental, but really when are we as woman gonna say enough is a enough, that's my sister, that's my friend, that's my mother, and if not your friend, sister, mother she is someones, and someone cares that her charecter is being defaced.

Becky

NYMOM said...

"I'm usually not so judgemental of people but when you say a MOTHER that loves her kids should be ripped away in a split second. It makes me question your character. I will leave you with one question.
Who do you think you are to say who should or shouldn't have their kids when you don't know them??????"

I'm putting my faith in a Judge who does know the situation and has said that her doing this was NOT in the best interest of her children.

I happen to think he's right.

NYMOM said...

"This woman that you seem to despise so much for her surrogacy is giving those woman a voice, she is letting the world know that these kinds of injustices still take place. What are you doing? Running a discussion board that claims to care about the injustices women face, but yet when you are faced with a clear injustice, and a travesty at that, your not clear which side your allegance falls on?"

I don't despise this woman, actually I pity her.

Yet it wouldn't be fair to wholeheartedly support her when every day mothers who have done NOTHING wrong lose their children in this country. AND part of the reason they lose their children is because women like you and your friend have decided to make carrying and giving life to a child, which is a sacred duty of women, a sacred duty...well you have made it nothing but a nine-month 'babysitting job'...

No wonder her Judge feels it's okay to separate mothers and their children. YOU and her have given them permission to do that...by having defined some babies as a sacred obligation of their mothers and defined others as just a nine-month babysitting function.

You can't have it both ways, don't you see that.

Either carrying a baby within your body for nine months (no matter how it got in your womb) is either a mysterious and sacred obligation that mothers are solely responsible for OR it's a long term low paying babysitting job...

It cannot be both...

So sadly, this mother put herself in the position she's in today and gave her Judge a free hand to infer she was a mother who felt that children were just another babysitting obligation to her, and in that case she was no better or worse then her husband, her mother-in-law or some stranger who wants $5,000 to babysit her kid for nine months.

Sorry but your friend put herself in this position...and damaged a LOT of other mothers in the process.

AND if you are feeling guilty because you advised her that it was okay to do this, then you should be feeling guilty...

It's well deserved.

You damaged a LOT more then your client but all other mothers as well...you cheapened us... and made it seem we were for sale along with our children for $5,000.

Anonymous said...

Well I know that you don't belive in surrogates that's clear. But that's not the point. I can tell that your grand children bring great joy to your life. Am I right?
Well think of it like this your son or daughter never had those kids and couldn't. So you wouldn't have the joy that they bring to you. So your family would have to have help. That's what Arletta did she gave a baby to a good family. And like you the judge judged her on that, becouse it didn't fit into his world. That is wrong for a judge to do. And I'm sorry if you can't see it.
J Guy

NYMOM said...

Sorry that's not why the Judge ruled the way he did.

It was because he said her being a surrogate mother was NOT in the best interest of her children. Her living children should have been her first priority, although you are right I would not support this surrogate mother business whether or not she had any children previously...but you don't put the interest of a friend or $5,000 or whatever her other reasons may have been over your children.

The physical, emotional and psychological well being of her CHILDREN should have been her first priority before EVERYTHING ELSE and letting a 7 year old girl think that it's okay for her mother to be a "walking incubator" for someone else's children is NOT a healthy thing. She could have damaged that little girl for life and probably did. Why would you let a little girl think that probably the most important thing she'll ever do or be in her life, the mother of her own children, is comparable to something like that...a favor for a friend? A favor for a friend is lending her a pair of shoes or an extra place setting if she's having company, not giving (or selling) her a baby...

NOT to mention the damage she did to the reputations and well-being of millions of other women in this country by cheapening and debasing motherhood to a low-paying job as some sort of walking incubator, as this other woman who claims to work with children, put it...

Bearing our children is not something women do for money, get it. AND women who do this, risk the wrath of the millions of other mothers, who reject the label her thoughtlessness put off on all the rest of us.

That's the burden every women is laboring under now...overcoming the stigma of mothers who do things like that. It damages ALL of us.

And that says plenty about YOUR character that you can't see this.

Anonymous said...

You are the most hard headed person on earth. I don't think you have listened to a word me or Becky have said to you. That's completly fine with me thought becouse I can see that your not changing your mind. I'm just glad their arn't very many people out in the world that think like you. Trust me I have talked to several people that think just the opposite. So what i'm saying is im not going to wast my time on an unintelegent old woman that is set in her ways. All I really have to say in the end though is that I hope some how some day you are put in a odd sittuation, like this poor woman, so I can type about it and not even know what it is i'm typing about.
I'm sorry we can't see eye to eye!
J Guy

Anonymous said...

NyMom,

I really am not a confrontational person but you seem to have a real issue with surrogacy and that's fine that is your opinion! I thought I explained to you that this matter could have nothing at all to do with surrogacy and this judge would likely have still ruled for the father.

"I'm putting my faith in a Judge who does know the situation and has said that her doing this was NOT in the best interest of her children." Oh you mean the judge who didn't hear all the facts, who probably made his mind up before the surrogate even entered the courtroom. The judge who could care less about the children or the family, I could care a less what you think about surrogacy; your opinion is quit obvious to me.

How can you be unbiased about a subject that you don't agree with? I don't think that you can, and I don't think the judge could and maybe that's why you and he tend to have the same opinion. I think that is what is known as situational ethics, I believe a certain way as long as it doesn’t pertain to me… Hey, don’t get me wrong I hate this one; as much as the next but fact of the matter is it seems to suit this situation. I have always said that I am AGAINST abortion until someone approached me with, well what if your daughter were raped? I would help her through the pregnancy and then place the child up for adoption. What if you were pregnant and you had to choose between yourself and your child, (and as hard as it is for you to believe, nothing comes before my child) I would choose my child, what if your daughter was pregnant and you had to choose? (OH) that puts a different spin on things, because I would choose to abort that child, rather than lose my own. You support women’s rights, are mad at what this world is coming to, and the way men are portraying women, (OH) but wait a surrogate mother loses custody of her children simply because she is a surrogate, that’s ok? Do you see my point and I am not trying to like upset you or even offend you.

Again, I don't care how you feel about surrogacy, and I don’t care that you think it's hurt other women, I clearly think it will help them, but that is our difference of opinions. My question to you is how can you run this website proclaiming the injustices are the reason you started it, only to change your mind when it's a subject you yourself don't approve of.

I may not know jack crap about anything I am sure that is the opinion you choose to take, but when Commonwealths attorneys, staff at police post, and social service workers (all of whom I have spoke to on this matter) all agree with me and see this as at the very least a biased ruling and on a more extreme level possibly something criminal, I have to question whether you can see the real problem through your own feelings on the matter?
Becky

Anonymous said...

NYMOM,

One other thing, I might remind you that I would give my life for my children, and to be honest probably for any child, as would the surrogate. She loves her children, actually adores would be a better definition. If she ever thought that this would be the ramification of her action she probably wouldn't have done it(my opinion I can't speak for her). Her mistake was in discussing this with her husband of 11 years, for over 2 years before acting on it. She made a mistake but I don't think it was the surrogacy I think it was trusting that the man she loved would support her, He knows that she is an excellent mother and everyone else who knows her knows that. I ask you to try and remember that people feel and act differently that's what makes us who we are, You dont agree with surrogacy and wouldn't do it, that doesn't mean that you love your children anymore than she does. Love is love and just because she made a decision that you wouldn't have made, don't discredit the love she has for her children, people do a lot of things in life that could damage their children, most are not crucified for them. If you never made a mistake where your children are concerned, then I apologize you are the ideal and perfect mother, but if you have made a mistake that could have affected your child's life, what makes yours any different than hers? A mistake (though I don't think that this child is a mistake)no matter how big or how small is still a mistake. That doesnt change the fact that she is their mother she is the one they cry for at night and she is the one with arms that ache to hold them. Your mistakes, my mistakes, her mistakes no matter how big or how small are just that a mistake and they really aren't that different. It's when people learn to accept and tolerate others mistakes and not persecute them for those mistakes that we will all be in a better place.
Tolerence

NYMOM said...

"I'm just glad their arn't very many people out in the world that think like you."

Really...

Well there is ONE JUDGE out there who does.

BTW, don't come over here dumping on me because you are mad with that Judge's decision. You seem very invested in this situation and I have a feeling that you could have been more involved then you are letting on...

If so, shame on you for encouraging this young woman to engage in this venture, which ultimately led to her losing her THREE children...

Again, shame on you.

Disallowing payment of ANY KIND for this sort of nonsense will go a LONG way to putting a stop to it.

Additionally now the threat of losing custody of any other children they have, will also make many women think twice before engaging in this surrogate mother business.

AND that's a good thing.

Having a child is and should remain as a sacred duty and/or trust for every women who wishes to become a mother. Not what you and your ilk have tried to make it just another low-paid job opportunity for women without too many financial prospects...

Thus it is people like YOU who have caused this woman to lose her children...

YOU...

NYMOM said...

"How can you be unbiased about a subject that you don't agree with? I don't think that you can, and I don't think the judge could and maybe that's why you and he tend to have the same opinion. I think that is what is known as situational ethics, I believe a certain way as long as it doesn’t pertain to me…"

No, wrong again.

You can look at this blog, it's been here for almost a year now and guess what. My ethics are consistent across the board...

Consistent.

AND my strongest issue is that mothers should ALWAYS have custody of their children UNLESS abuse or neglect are involved. AND I'm sorry to tell you that I believe that this Judge, no matter how biased he might be against mothers, could be right in this particular ruling. Like a stopped clock being right at least twice a day.

As I consider what this woman did to rise to the level of emotional and pyschological abuse or her children. Sorry but you don't INVOLVE your 7 year old daughter in some bs like this. It was totally unnecessary and like I said, I consider it emotional abuse.


"I may not know jack crap about anything I am sure that is the opinion you choose to take, but when Commonwealths attorneys, staff at police post, and social service workers (all of whom I have spoke to on this matter) all agree with me and see this as at the very least a biased ruling and on a more extreme level possibly something criminal, I have to question whether you can see the real problem through your own feelings on the matter?"

I don't give a rat's behind about what those social workers, and commonwealth attorneys THINK about this or any other issue. I don't care.

They are invested, as much as you are, in having mothers out there who think of themselves as 'walking incubators' and are responsible as a professional class for much of this baloney that goes on today on this and other related issues.

You claim you have a degree in child development but think it's okay to refer to a woman, another human being, someone else's mother as a walking incubator???

Lady there is something wrong with YOU.

YOU probably as much as anyone are responsible for this woman losing her children. All I can say is that if you used that terminology with me and I was a Judge, that mother would NOT just have lost custody but been ordered into therapy before I would allow her to talk with those poor kids again. As who knows what other stupid ideas you put in that woman's head that she passed along to her child...

IF you were involved with this woman making the decision to do this surrogacy business, then YOU should have been horse whipped.

I think you should be embarrassed to even post in public after calling ANY WOMEN a walking incubator.

NYMOM said...

"One other thing, I might remind you that I would give my life for my children, and to be honest probably for any child, as would the surrogate."

Don't you mean the mother, not the surrogate...As donating an egg don't make you a mother. Hate to have to be the one to tell you that...a mother is not someone who donated an egg and then sat with her hands folded waiting for someone to deliver her a baby...


"She loves her children, actually adores would be a better definition. If she ever thought that this would be the ramification of her action she probably wouldn't have done it(my opinion I can't speak for her)."

Then this will be the ONLY good thing that comes out of this ultimately as other women will hear about this and understand what they risk if they chose this path and perhaps will be discouraged from involving themselves in these surrogacy situations.

AND that's a good thing.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

New Posting Rules:

Due to people making posts that are too long, rambling and incoherent, without proper punctuation, etc., I'v had to erase a post and make some new rules.

No post more then 4 paragraphs.

No paragraph longer then 4 normal sized sentences.

Proper punctuation must be used including quotes and indents when taking a quote from another source.

We must ensure everyone is posting using proper rules of grammer here as I don't want this blog to turn into a complete mess.

So take your time when writing and make sure you follow the rules otherwise you will be deleted.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Anonymous said...

NYMOM,

Your message is clear. I will not post on this sight any further.... Obviously, my input is not valued if it's not the same as yours....

Thanks for the time,
Becky

Anonymous said...

Hi NYMOM.

I just stopped to say I find it a little curious that you would "trust" this judge and support a primary caretaking mother losing her children over something held not abusive but just "not in her kids' best interests," when you so strongly supported Bridget Marks whom a trial judge and a whole panel of appellate judges expressly found abusive.

Do you really think it's worse for this mom to carry another couple's child for them than it was for Marks to mess with her kids' minds in such a way that will almost certainly impair their emotional and sexual adjustments in their future relationships? If so, I would have to disagree. Although since I don't know the facts of the case I would have to assume that there must have been SOMETHING other than just this behind this judge's decision, hopefully.

"Either carrying a baby within your body for nine months (no matter how it got in your womb) is either a mysterious and sacred obligation that mothers are solely responsible for OR it's a long term low paying babysitting job..."

Are these the only two alternatives? There is very little that's mysterious any more about conception, gestation and birth. And if you have no belief in a supreme being, which I gather from your previous posts, what makes giving birth, or any other human relationship, sacred? An important obligation, a moral obligation, an instinctive obligation, perhaps--but sacred?

Anne

Anonymous said...

Hey just wanted to let all who are interested know, that the surrogate is going to be on Inside Edition today.... I just saw it on their website.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

Anne:

As I have said many, many times to you, mothers should ALWAYS get custody of their children unless abuse or neglect is involved.

The Judge found evidence that it was NOT in the best interest of that woman's children for her to have become a surrogate mother. Frankly from what I have seen of her friend's comments on this site calling her a "walking incubator" I agree with him.

AND for your information, I NEVER just make a decision on anything SOLELY based on the words of a Judge.

Okay.

As it is my own personal opinion, that there is clearly something wrong in the heads of surrogage mothers...or their hearts I don't know which.

Sorry to disappoint you but my opinions on mothers has NOTHING to do with God or religion. I recognize Jesus as a person who probably existed, a prophet for Christians really, nothing more.

I appreciate Christianity as a movement that contributed significantly to western civilization and give it much respect for that reason only.

God could exist, I don't know and I don't think you do either.

There are many things that exist which are mysterious and sacred in nature. Just because you have coopted the mysterious and sacred language to ONLY refer to God or religion, others feel differently.

Last point: this has NOTHING to do with Bridget Mark's situation as that case should NEVER have even been taken to court. No man should be allowed to wait three years to establish paternity and then get custody switched after that amount of time. Unless he can prove the child was hidden from him. That was NOT the case here as Alysworth was at the hospital when the children were born. His rights should have been forfeited six months to a year after the fact. Just like what happens with women who abandon children...

What Mark's did I consider an attempt to protect herself and her children from a selfish man, a screwy court system (mostly instigated by people like you) that is far too friendly to money instead of the best interests of children.

What Marks did was a stupid act, yet an involuntary one as the fight was brought to her she didn't seek it.

What this surrogate mother did was a voluntary act she went into quite aware of the negative feelings people might have for her for doing it (as her friend posting on her mentioned), YET she chose to do it anyway.

Clearly anti-social behavior, unlike Marks who was getting pregnant to force her lover's hand into marrying her...

Very traditional and totally different from what a woman does who makes the chose to defy her community and bear a child to sell for money.

Big difference...

NYMOM said...

UNFORTUNATELY I'VE HAD TO LOCK ALL THE COMMENTS SECTIONS ON MY BLOG DUE TO A BUNCH OF IDIOTS TRYING TO MESS UP BY BANDWIDTH.

ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SERIOUSLY DISCUSS THIS POST: 'THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK' MAY DO SO BY EMAILING ME AT

nymom@womenasmothers.info

I'LL POST YOUR EMAIL HERE WITH MY RESPONSE AND THEN LOCK IT AGAIN.

SADLY THE INTERNET HAS NO PROTECTION AGAINST THIS SORT OF IDIOCY.

THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Anonymous said...

"What Marks did was a stupid act, yet an involuntary one as the fight was brought to her she didn't seek it… His rights should have been forfeited six months to a year after the fact. Just like what happens with women who abandon children..."



Respectfully disagree. Having to go to court was involuntary but she made a voluntary choice to first set the events in motion (by denying the rights of a father whom she had already allowed to know and bond with the children and from whom she had accepted financial support) and then to abuse her children AND the law to get her way--an antisocial act in a number of ways, with regard to the harm visited upon the children, her intended victim, and all the other women who come after her with bona fide grievances. And I agree with you that unmarried parents should not have enforceable rights against each other, but they currently do and your analogy doesn't work because failure to formally establish paternity does not constitute abandonment in and of itself, especially if the father has performed the role of father in other ways. You also have not stated whether you actually think that the surrogate's own children will suffer as much from her actions as Marks' children will from their mother's psychological abuse, and why--which was really the main point of my original post.



"Clearly anti-social behavior, unlike Marks who was getting pregnant to force her lover's hand into marrying her...Very traditional and totally different.."



We’re not talking about some silly young thing with zero self-respect using an unfortunate baby to maybe get a ring out of a guy who’s not too taken with her—we’re talking about a grown woman who should know better forcing her MARRIED lover's hand--a cold-blooded attempt to destroy another marriage and family (whatever the state of that marriage was is irrelevant--the man was not available). It's reasonable to assume she was quite aware of the negative feelings people might have for her for doing it, yet she chose to do it anyway, right? While it might be traditional in that many unscrupulous women have attempted it, it IS absolutely antisocial and in defiance of the community which is built upon marriages and families. And talk about bearing children for money!



"...what a woman does who makes the chose to defy her community and bear a child to sell for money."



I myself have some reservations about surrogacy and all kinds of IVF as well (which involve the creation of a great deal of human life to be destroyed) because inherent in the process itself there is arguably a certain disrespect for the “divine spark” of human life which I believe is given us by God and is the “torch” we pass on when we conceive a new being. But the baby-selling concept just doesn't work here. You can not sell back to a couple their own living flesh and blood. It is theirs until it reaches adulthood, is voluntarily and permanently relinquished to another with the law's approval, or is taken away by the state because of heinous abuse, none of which is the case in a surrogacy situation.



And about “sacredness,” in the interest of time and bandwidth I will skip an existentialist discussion and drop the subject altogether, except to point out that “we” have not co-opted anyone else's language. The word “sacred” originally comes from the old Hittite word “saklais” for “rite,” which means it has always carried the sense of devotion to a deity. It would be more accurate to say that nonbelievers have co-opted the language of sacredness in reference to issues they find extremely important, but it really doesn’t fit a secular world view as it implies a value directly bestowed on something by a supposedly non-existent supreme being.



Thanks.



Anne

NYMOM said...

"Respectfully disagree. Having to go to court was involuntary but she made a voluntary choice to first set the events in motion (by denying the rights of a father whom she had already allowed to know and bond with the children and from whom she had accepted financial support) and then to abuse her children AND the law to get her way--an antisocial act in a number of ways, with regard to the harm visited upon the children, her intended victim, and all the other women who come after her with bona fide grievances."

That's not true that she accepted financial support for her children as there was NO CHILD SUPPORT ORDER IN PLACE.

The money he was giving Marks was the same amount he was giving her every month from the first time he met her. The money stopped and the court case began when she stopped allowing him to sleep with her on his stopovers in New York.

He probably stopped there to see her and have sex, NOT to see his children at all...as he never even bothered having himself legally declared their father.

The man is a phony...whose rights should have been terminated.

AND BTW, I have another post on this blog about a similar situation in Wisconsin, where another 'prodigal father' tried to get rights years after the children were born and the courts told him NO...

In essence they terminated his right BEFORE he even had them and this was a good thing. AND the correct procedure to do in cases like Aylsworth and the Wisconsin one...


"While it might be traditional in that many unscrupulous women have attempted it, it IS absolutely antisocial and in defiance of the community which is built upon marriages and families. And talk about bearing children for money!"

Sorry you might hate it that women have had to pull these tricks throughout history but they have in order to get men to marry.

Even your own associates on other blogs were saying how studies have shown that 40% pf Puritan women were pregnant when married...and it's probably been the case throughout the ages that women have had these games FORCED upon them by selfish men always looking to gain advantage by promising marriage in exchange for sex.

That's the genesis of the game playing today between men and women...

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.

There was nothing unusual or particularly horrible about Bridget Marks.


"But the baby-selling concept just doesn't work here. You can not sell back to a couple their own living flesh and blood."

Sorry but I don't CARE what the law saids. You are flesh and blood with a child through carrying it for 9 months, bonding with it inutero and finally delivering said child through bloody pain and suffering.

NOT through donating an egg.

Sorry but donating an egg does NOT make you a mother. Not any more then donating sperm makes you a father.

That's in YOUR mind and your other gender neutralized feminist friends...again another case just recently found surrogate mother to be child's MOTHER, not egg donor...

AND this is correct.


"The word “sacred” originally comes from the old Hittite word “saklais” for “rite,” which means it has always carried the sense of devotion to a deity."

AND many ancient people with older traditions then Christianity have worshipped deities emanating from nature, which is just as sacred and mysterious to them as your Christian God is to you.

Again sorry.

Anonymous said...

“The money stopped and the court case began when she stopped allowing him to sleep with her on his stopovers in New York. He probably stopped there to see her and have sex, NOT to see his children at all...”



So she says, and she's been proven a liar--everything I’ve read about the case indicates that these kids knew this guy as their father and a relationship was in place already, and the original aim of the petition was to secure a visitation schedule when Marks got mad and shut him out. I agree that he should have seen that his name was placed on the birth certificate in the first place but a lot of unmarried parents don’t seem to bother with the formalities (not surprisingly), foolishly assuming that dad will help out with money and mom will allow regular access without any documentation to protect themselves when someone reneges. If you’re supporting a policy making failure to sign a birth certificate equivalent to abandonment, fine, as long as both parents are given fair notice of the consequences of not signing--one of which should be no child support.



“…women have had these games FORCED upon them by selfish men always looking to gain advantage by promising marriage in exchange for sex…There was nothing unusual or particularly horrible about Bridget Marks.”



Men are often selfish in the matter of beginning a marriage, as women are often selfish in the ending of it, but while selfishness is a universal aspect of human nature, I don't agree that using children for one’s own ends at either time is morally acceptable simply because a lot of people have done it. It's particularly stupid today, as there is little social or legal force behind marriage as an institution and "strong-arming" an unwilling person into it effectively sets up a broken home-to-be for a child. And perhaps there was nothing unusual or particularly horrible about Bridget Marks--except that she tried to forcibly take what ALREADY BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE, using a pair of babies, no less. That is an offense against society, and used to be recognized as such—many feel that perhaps it should be again.



“You are flesh and blood with a child through carrying it for 9 months, bonding with it inutero and finally delivering said child through bloody pain and suffering.”



Biologically incorrect, sorry—I guess we must again agree to disagree. While a surrogate does a great service for the child and its parents, the child no more belongs to her than upper-class children belonged to nurses who nourished them from their own bodies and raised them from birth onward in ages past, or than a child today belongs to a nanny who does the all-consuming job of childcare for a professional woman who works long hours and/or travels for her job. And no, the rulings that seem to undermine surrogacy are not particularly good for the policies you support, as I don't believe for a minute that they are based on any sentimental ideas about pregnancy and motherhood but are about preventing people from using these costly reproductive technologies to create more single-parent families, of which we already have too many.



“AND many ancient people with older traditions then Christianity have worshipped deities emanating from nature, which is just as sacred and mysterious to them as your Christian God is to you.”



True. And this would make Nature itself a supreme being with higher intelligence. It’s still the worship of a deity, which is not true of most nonbelievers who use the language of “sacredness” today.

Thanks

Anne

NYMOM said...

"If you’re supporting a policy making failure to sign a birth certificate equivalent to abandonment, fine, as long as both parents are given fair notice of the consequences of not signing--one of which should be no child support."

Yes I am supporting this...just as mothers who abandon a child generally have six months to a year before their rights are terminated; so too fathers who abandon a child (by not acknowledging their paternity in a similar time period) should have their rights terminated as well...

Unless they can prove the child existence was hidden from them.


"I don't agree that using children for one’s own ends at either time is morally acceptable simply because a lot of people have done it. It's particularly stupid today, as there is little social or legal force behind marriage as an institution and "strong-arming" an unwilling person into it effectively sets up a broken home-to-be for a child."

But the reality is that women have used this method of pushing a reluctant suitor into marriage for eons. AND everyone knows and accepts it. It doesn't work as well today obviously, but there is still a large enough group of men that will commit to marriage due to a pregnancy; thus making it a useful enough tool that women still do it.

People might not like it but they accept it.

However your argument that becoming a surrogate mother and then selling the result child is seen as morally equivalent to this is not correct.

AND there is generally an automatic negative reaction in most people to a woman who does this. The 'friend' of the surrogate mother who posted on here noted that herself and claimed the surrogate decided to do it anyway.

AND I know many women and men who joke about how they trapped (or were finally trapped) by their spouse into marriage...Yet I have yet to hear a surrogate mother joke about her experience.

To be honest, most people think something is wrong with a woman who would be involved with that sort of thing. As much as you would like to deny it getting pregnant to push a reluctant suitor into marriage is NOT the same as getting pregnant to sell your baby off to another woman whether it's her egg or yours doesn't matter. Most people don't make that distinction.

They see the woman who is buying the baby as equivalent to an adoption.

They see the women selling the baby as a serious psychological problem.

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this.

But you're wrong.

People are trying to crack down on the practice of surrogacy NOT because so many are doing it as you say and they are trying to stop more single mothers from being created as most of the people using surrogate mothers are couples I suspect. Additionally, it's expensive and most can't afford it. But they are cracking down on it because it's seen as unnatural and morally replusive...

Thus, this Judge who removed custody from the surrogate mother and even the Indiana law that was ALMOST passed about unauthorized reproduction (as that was instigated in response to an incident where a surrogate mother had twins for either an unstable or mentally ill man) is reflective of the genuine reaction of the public to this abomination.

NO matter what the legal community might think. Actually the legal community in general ranks very low in the opinion of most of the public, somewhere behind politicans and newspaper reporters as far as honesty and trustworthiness.

So ultimately yes, stopping surrogacy (or stopping ANY money from being exchanged that would be good enough to end it) is good for the policies I support which are about returning respect to ordinary mothers and motherhood (even the single mothers, yes)...not these weird artificial spinoffs of motherhood which don't exist in nature and should not be permitted to exist in civilization either.

Anonymous said...

NYMOM, I think we have a miscommunication going on here. My point was NOT that a surrogacy arrangement was morally equivalent to a woman using a baby as a tool to get a proposal. You brought that old trick up, not me, but it was not relevant to my first post although I did take up the ball and run with it—my bad. My original point was that the surrogacy arrangement in the custody case in question was not more harmful, and probably far LESS harmful, to the children in question than your heroine Bridget Marks’ psychological abuse was to her children. If you feel differently, I was interested in knowing why, but since you didn’t answer that maybe you don’t want to discuss it so I’ll drop it.



I’ll take your word for it if most of your acquaintances are as morally repulsed by surrogacy as you say. I haven’t found the same—now that most surrogacy arrangements today involve embryo transfers rather than simple artificial insemination most people in my experience (provided they understand how it actually works) don’t tend to feel very strongly about it one way or another. Years ago in school we touched upon surrogacy very briefly (these were the days when surrogates were genetic mothers as well), and I remember the first person to speak up on this in class was a mother of three in her thirties, who said that she would be glad when embryo transfers became the norm in surrogacy, as this should make everything easier and less confusing, and just about everyone agreed. And to anticipate your next comment, no, we law students were not some kind of soulless subset of humanity—almost 40% of us were women, many ordinary wives and mothers not that different from you.



“...not these weird artificial spinoffs of motherhood which don't exist in nature and should not be permitted to exist in civilization either.”



Artificial insemination, cloning (weird is far too mild a word for that), and most of all abortion also do not exist in nature, yet these are all policies for which you have expressed support. Consistency? Like it or not, and I don’t always like it myself, there is little that can be done in the long run to stop the advancement and use of technology. A few temporary barriers can be set up and slow things down, but ultimately reproduction will enter the space age like everything else, and I’d be willing to bet that women, overall, will be just as welcoming of it as men, if not more.



Thanks for the discussion.



Anne

NYMOM said...

"NYMOM, I think we have a miscommunication going on here. My point was NOT that a surrogacy arrangement was morally equivalent to a woman using a baby as a tool to get a proposal. You brought that old trick up, not me, but it was not relevant to my first post although I did take up the ball and run with it—my bad. My original point was that the surrogacy arrangement in the custody case in question was not more harmful, and probably far LESS harmful, to the children in question than your heroine Bridget Marks’ psychological abuse was to her children."

Sorry Anne.

But when you constantly post these 'rubik cube' questions to me buried within these long and winding posts, well I guess it's pretty easy to lose whatever point/question it is you're supposed to be making.

But the question is not that complicated here.

I think what Bridget Marks did was damaging, as she lied to try to keep custody of her children, but not as damaging as the remedy they tried to use to punish her: sending her kids off to live with her lover's wife, a total stranger to them, possibly a hostile stranger to them.

What kind of monsters would do something like that to two kids????

But anyway, I think that's something her daughters can deal with as adults...perhaps therapy will be needed, who knows.

However she did nothing to attack her daughters' essential sense of their own humanity or their future role as mothers. Which is what this surrogate mother did to her own children.

As what 7 year old girl understands her mother getting pregnant and then selling her sister for $5,000?

I don't know why you don't see the potential damage this woman did here to her own daughter, never mind what she did to the one she's about to sell?

I believe you post on that site Family Scholar's blog and have seen the discussion there regarding children conceived through anonymous sperm donations, never mind through surrogate mothers and quite clearly these kids react negatively when they are informed of the story of their conception.

Some have even begun forming groups to lobby against continuation of these procedures being used to create children.

Now I don't know how much of this is 'hype' from the people on the site who clearly do not approve of surrogacy themselves or how much is a real grassroots movement by people impacted by the practice...but I do know, they have valid questions and issues about the practice, as frankly so do I...

It remains to be seen as this will ultimately play out in the future...

What Bridget Marks did, as bad as it was, in NO way compares to what this surrogate mother did to her own children...not to mention the other little girls who saw her pregnant at her kids' school, as she paraded around there constantly. Even though her own friend claimed she knew people would be against this surrogacy business. Why would you do this to your kids???? That's what I don't get. Why would you expose them to their classmates asking them embarrassing questions about what happened to the baby when their mother showed up there in the future, no longer pregnant???

Not to mention the confusion she caused in the other little girls at school...whose mothers might want these little girls growing up thinking that having a child is one of the most personal, sacred, moving experiences they are ever going to face...

Not an economic opportunity to make a few thousand dollars when you're hanging around the house with nothing else to do...

Sorry Anne, but there is a big difference in Bridget Marks and this surrogate mother here.

No comparison.

NYMOM said...

Well just to let everyone who is interested know, I'm leaving this comments section open to see what happens.

I just changed my settings on the site to add some new security settings.

Anyway, let's see what happens.

Anonymous said...

"However she did nothing to attack her daughters' essential sense of their own humanity or their future role as mothers. Which is what this surrogate mother did to her own children."

OK, question answered. Thank you. I don't happen to agree, as I think she DID attack their sense of humanity by using them so shamelessly for her own ends and perhaps did indeed damage their future role as mothers--not to mention their future roles as loving wives and partners which is just as important as the mothering role and is the foundation for it. But you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

"I believe you post on that site Family Scholar's blog and have seen the discussion there regarding children conceived through anonymous sperm donations, never mind through surrogate mothers and quite clearly these kids react negatively when they are informed of the story of their conception."

I've posted there a time or two but it isn't one of my favorite sites. Yes I've read some of the comments from children conceived thru artificial reproductive technologies but it seems to me that their complaints are mostly about a feeling of incompleteness, of not being in touch with their origins.

I look at it this way--if I were by some happenstance to be conceived by one couple, gestated by a surrogate, and then adopted and raised by yet another couple, what and whom would I crave to know? My first loyalty and affection would undoubtedly belong to my adoptive parents who raised me--beyond that, although I would be very grateful to the woman who carried and delivered me, I would not have the urgent desire to know her as my parent. My craving would be to know about my genetic parents, the ones who actually began my life and whose combined selves make up who I am. I probably could never feel entirely complete without that knowledge--that's why I can not think of a surrogate as a true mother, as you do.

But anyway, thank you for answering my question and for the discussion. It's been a very good exchange.

Anne

Anonymous said...

Oh geez, I just realized I backspaced over a sentence last night. It was (substantially): "Children born thru surrogates would not have these issues about their origins as do the children of anonymous donors, since their roots are with the same parents who raise them."

I should never post right before going to bed. I always mess up somehow. LOL

But anyway, this time I AM going. Thanks for the time.

Anne

NYMOM said...

You obviously have a very strange idea of what constitutes roots...

I don't think dropping off a tube of sperm and an egg do...

AND yes, I believe children created in this quasi frankenstein fashion will have many issues..

Sorry...