Recommended Posts
airann 1
Well, .... How is it that I would get pregnant?
Oh.. I mean NO
~AirAnn~
Oh.. I mean NO
~AirAnn~
QuoteOr a million. or a billion. I like having control of my body.
I'm contemplating donating my eggs though, for slightly less money.
mujie, if you end up doing that, let me know. I might be interested and would like to know how to get into it.
I agree on not bearing a child, tho, for 10k. Although, for a million, yeah, i'd do it.
Angela.
Quotei won't stupe as low as to use my body to make money. where's the self-respect in that??
It is not just using your body to make $$. You are also helping people who can't conceive, and that in itself is a kind gesture. The reason I say I wouldn't do it for 10k is because it has got to be very emotionally stressful. I can't imagine, really. I think that for a million, the stress wouldn't be so bad, and i'd have $$ to have my own children if I felt so inclined. Whereas now i'd be doing a child an injustice bringing it into the world under my care, I have nothing to offer financially, and not much time, either.
Just some thoughts.
angela.
Guest
QuoteOr a million. or a billion. I like having control of my body.
I'm contemplating donating my eggs though, for slightly less money.
Well, just don't let anybody poach 'em in the meantime...
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
Pammi 0
QuoteI would say you may even be right in the majority of cases, but clearly there are some that see it purely in financial terms.
I don't know if I would want someone that would be willing to do it for financial reasons only to have a child for me.
I couldn't give a child up once I had carried it to term......nope, couldn't do it.
Annie
They have a program around here where they are doing egg donation, but I've read on their site and it sounds very time consuming, a huge hit on your hormonal balance, a slight risk to your future health and a little painful. I think they were offering like $2500 to do it, but you had to take a lot of drugs to boost your egg production (shots every day I believe), go to the doctor a LOT to get bloodwork checked and the surgery wasn't a small thing either. I don't think I'd have the time it'd take to do it, even if I could deal with it emotionally.
I could only actually bear a child for someone I loved, be it a friend, family member or whatever. I'm way too emotional a person
Pammi
tbrown 26
Sort of eerie that you can sort of 'design' your kids that way.
Designer kids and paid surrogate moms are both really frightening. As far as designing kids go, either they want to breed some kind of super athlete, or else on a mass scale they'll want to breed two kinds - slaves and soldiers.
Paying a woman $10,000 - a really miserable pittance - to have a baby that's taken away is a modern form of slavery. I don't think we'll see any lady doctors, lawyers, or business execs having somebody else's baby for $10 K. Only women who are so desperate that $10K seems like a lot of money. And "seems" is the operative word, because $10K ain't shit - you can't even live on it (and you can't have more than one baby a year either).
It's like the old days of plantation slavery, when a woman, her husband, or their children could be sold anytime and sent anywhere, so massah could have anothe $10K to wager on his favorite racehorse.
Trafficking in human flesh ought to be illegal. I used to think it was.
Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !
Guest
QuoteSort of eerie that you can sort of 'design' your kids that way.
Designer kids and paid surrogate moms are both really frightening. As far as designing kids go, either they want to breed some kind of super athlete, or else on a mass scale they'll want to breed two kinds - slaves and soldiers.
Paying a woman $10,000 - a really miserable pittance - to have a baby that's taken away is a modern form of slavery. I don't think we'll see any lady doctors, lawyers, or business execs having somebody else's baby for $10 K. Only women who are so desperate that $10K seems like a lot of money. And "seems" is the operative word, because $10K ain't shit - you can't even live on it (and you can't have more than one baby a year either).
It's like the old days of plantation slavery, when a woman, her husband, or their children could be sold anytime and sent anywhere, so massah could have anothe $10K to wager on his favorite racehorse.
Trafficking in human flesh ought to be illegal. I used to think it was.
I remember having this argument with my co-workers when it came to a surrogate case in the late 80's in which the spouse of a garbageman carried a child for the wife of a pediatrician, then decided to keep it after having been paid. I believe the money was returned too.
The pediatrician and wife demanded custody of the child.
Some of my neanderthal co-workers said the wife of the garbageman should hand over the child because it was a written contract.
I countered that the trafficking in human lives in this country ended in 1865, and the judge would so rule, and made a standing $100 wager that I was right.
There were no takers.
The judge ruled in favor of the garbageman's wife, and she was allowed to keep the child, since it was half her genetic material in the first place (via artificial insemination, IIRC, not IVF, though the Center for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk, Virginia was considered the leader in IVF at the time).
I didn't crow, but it was satisfying to see a judge make a ruling that respected the rights of a human being as opposed to a piece of paper.
Some remarks in the press at the time were something like "It'll always be the wife of the garbageman having the baby for the wife of the pediatrician." - in other words, yet another means of exploitation of the working poor.
As always, draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion, there are some things money cannot and should not buy.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
Guest
It's all in the perceptions.
I think $10k is just the right amount. Here's why:
To the well-off, $10k for a healthy child would be considered a bargain.
To the working poor, $10k would be seen as a bonanza.
Any more or less wouldn't be acceptable to either the exploiters or the exploitees.
I think $10k is just the right amount. Here's why:
To the well-off, $10k for a healthy child would be considered a bargain.
To the working poor, $10k would be seen as a bonanza.
Any more or less wouldn't be acceptable to either the exploiters or the exploitees.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
WrongWay 0
Dude, if it were $10,000 tax free, I'd bear it!! 
Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.
Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.
wmw999 2,555
I agree that $10,000 is a good amount, but for slight different reasons. It's not enough to do it if you don't think it's the right thing, if you're the person having the baby (it's a lot of money if you're poor, but you're talking about a year's worth of impact to your life).
Wendy W.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Laurel 0
I wouldn't do it for the money, but if one on my sisters or one of my best friends wanted a child and couldn't have one and I felt comfortable with their state, I would do it for them.
.....................................................................
PMS#28, Pelogrande Rodriguez#1074
My Pink M
PMS#28, Pelogrande Rodriguez#1074
My Pink M
skytash 0
I voted yes, but not for the money, because if a couple is prepared to spend that kind of money on fulfilling their (presumably!) unfulfilled dream of parenthood and I know that they will love and care for the child and I was able to help them with this, I would. I admit I would only do so if the circumstance were right both in terms of the adoptive parents and my own.
I would prefer they donated the $10,000 to a charity which helps homeless/abused children than take it myself.
I know there is a bond which develops during pregancy, I've seen it happen. I also think that if you know in advance who will be loving and caring for the child for the rest of its live and it isn't you, that will affect the bond - I have seen something similar to that: a friend who until 10 days after her child was born referred to it as 'the neo-nate'. She commented during the pregnancy that she was glad I was around, because at least someone would feel maternal about her neo-nate. Throughout the whole pregnancy she felt that it was like a parasite and was not joyful about it at all. Her partner on the other hand would 'count' with the baby, tapping on the belly and waiting for the same number of kicks to come back!
tash
I would prefer they donated the $10,000 to a charity which helps homeless/abused children than take it myself.
I know there is a bond which develops during pregancy, I've seen it happen. I also think that if you know in advance who will be loving and caring for the child for the rest of its live and it isn't you, that will affect the bond - I have seen something similar to that: a friend who until 10 days after her child was born referred to it as 'the neo-nate'. She commented during the pregnancy that she was glad I was around, because at least someone would feel maternal about her neo-nate. Throughout the whole pregnancy she felt that it was like a parasite and was not joyful about it at all. Her partner on the other hand would 'count' with the baby, tapping on the belly and waiting for the same number of kicks to come back!
tash
Don't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe
QuoteNo I would not! I'm a mom and I carried that baby in me for 9 months. There's a bond there that even dads can't begin to understand. The feeling of that baby move and kick is the most awesome and amazing thing I've ever felt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>THat is SOOOOOOOO sweet!
Will you be my Mom?
I'm REALLY tried of walking to the plane & I just want you to "carry me" on the weekends
-Grant... (of course
)_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/
QuoteSome remarks in the press at the time were something like "It'll always be the wife of the garbageman having the baby for the wife of the pediatrician." - in other words, yet another means of exploitation of the working poor.
Kind of like having someone raise your kid for $70 a week. There is usually someone in charge and then a couple of minimum wage flunkies. People drop their kids off as they head for work. Their kids are raised by people that they wouldn't have as close friends. Weird, huh?
billvon 3,085
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>As far as designing kids go, either they want to breed some kind of
>super athlete, or else on a mass scale they'll want to breed two kinds -
> slaves and soldiers.
I have two very close friends of mine that would have paid $10,000 to have fixed one of their children so it didn't have a dysplasia that resulted in her death. I really don't see anything wrong with that. How much would you pay to have a healthy child instead of one that would die before age 17 due to a genetic defect?
>Paying a woman $10,000 - a really miserable pittance - to have a baby
>that's taken away is a modern form of slavery.
No more than any other contract. Many people sign contracts that obligate them to way more than 9 months of service for some amount of money - professional atheletes come to mind. Heck, there are often clauses in their contracts that say they MUST have surgery to repair damage to their knees, shoulders etc so they can keep on playing. Bearing a child is a lot more personal than a sports contract, but it is also easier to back out of.
>I don't think we'll see any lady doctors, lawyers, or business execs having
> somebody else's baby for $10 K. Only women who are so desperate that
> $10K seems like a lot of money.
Probably true; free choice and all. Just like brain surgeons don't take second jobs (generally) because they don't need the money, whereas waiters do. I'm glad I live in a place where people are free to do that if they so choose.
>And "seems" is the operative word, because $10K ain't shit - you can't
>even live on it (and you can't have more than one baby a year either).
I would not presume to tell other people how much $10K is worth to them. There are people to whom that is a lot of money.
>Trafficking in human flesh ought to be illegal. I used to think it was.
If the baby is forcibly removed from the mother after she delivers, leaving her no recourse, I would agree. Fortunately that is not the case.
>super athlete, or else on a mass scale they'll want to breed two kinds -
> slaves and soldiers.
I have two very close friends of mine that would have paid $10,000 to have fixed one of their children so it didn't have a dysplasia that resulted in her death. I really don't see anything wrong with that. How much would you pay to have a healthy child instead of one that would die before age 17 due to a genetic defect?
>Paying a woman $10,000 - a really miserable pittance - to have a baby
>that's taken away is a modern form of slavery.
No more than any other contract. Many people sign contracts that obligate them to way more than 9 months of service for some amount of money - professional atheletes come to mind. Heck, there are often clauses in their contracts that say they MUST have surgery to repair damage to their knees, shoulders etc so they can keep on playing. Bearing a child is a lot more personal than a sports contract, but it is also easier to back out of.
>I don't think we'll see any lady doctors, lawyers, or business execs having
> somebody else's baby for $10 K. Only women who are so desperate that
> $10K seems like a lot of money.
Probably true; free choice and all. Just like brain surgeons don't take second jobs (generally) because they don't need the money, whereas waiters do. I'm glad I live in a place where people are free to do that if they so choose.
>And "seems" is the operative word, because $10K ain't shit - you can't
>even live on it (and you can't have more than one baby a year either).
I would not presume to tell other people how much $10K is worth to them. There are people to whom that is a lot of money.
>Trafficking in human flesh ought to be illegal. I used to think it was.
If the baby is forcibly removed from the mother after she delivers, leaving her no recourse, I would agree. Fortunately that is not the case.
billvon 3,085
> i won't stupe as low as to use my body to make money. where's
> the self-respect in that??
I think actors, models, pro bodybuilders etc often have self respect even if they use their bodies (and faces) to make money. Not something I'd want to do but everyone's different.
> the self-respect in that??
I think actors, models, pro bodybuilders etc often have self respect even if they use their bodies (and faces) to make money. Not something I'd want to do but everyone's different.
When I lived in a house, I paid someone else to mow the lawn. It was easier to work in the air conditioning on that extra day every three months rather than mow in the heat. Washing/waxing a car or cleaning my boat, same thing. Two reasons, disparity in wages and inconvenience.
I wonder if it will ever become "too inconvenient" to have kids. If people will just say "I'd rather play tennis for 9 months while someone else carries it..." Movie stars who don't want to deal with the physical consequences or the wealthy person who is too busy.
I wonder if it will ever become "too inconvenient" to have kids. If people will just say "I'd rather play tennis for 9 months while someone else carries it..." Movie stars who don't want to deal with the physical consequences or the wealthy person who is too busy.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites