Slashdot Mirror
Petri Dish Babies, 25 Years Later
bl8n8r writes ""You can't buy a baby in the United States," said Caplan. "... But you can buy the sperm, you can buy the egg and you can rent the uterus." So, what I want to know is if it's cheaper than my current apartment, and if utilities are included :D" See also a good story about IVF in the Mercury News.
The NY Times also ran an article recently about the topic, that included an interesting statistic: IVF babies now account for 1% of all births in the U.S. I was genuinely surprised that it was that large a portion.
As the proud papa of IVF twins born last year, I've got to say it's an amazing process. Of course, as the male, that's easier to say. I didn't have to go through 100+ injections and get stuck with a foot-long needle to have eggs extracted, only to then get to go through pregnancy!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I doubt the utilities are included. Sheeesh!
You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. - Al Capone (1899-1947)
.....you can rent a uterus, but it is illegal most places to rent a vagina.....so I guess that means renting the uterus grants you vagina flyover rights? otherwise how are yo ugoing to get there?
Find me the uterus...
/.
I will donate the sperm.
They have to find the egg though, unless the uterus wants to provide one.
I feel like such a whore...oh wait. No that would be slut, i probably wouldnt charge for it.
God I need to get away from this computer more often, instead of pimping myself on
Don't waste your time, they are only offering a 9 month lease.
"So, what I want to know is if it's cheaper than my current apartment"
That depends if it's a womb with a view.
BA-DUM-CHA!
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
So, what I want to know is if it's cheaper than my current apartment, and if utilities are included
Yep, the utilities are included, but the plumbing tends to leak a lot for the first couple years.
if( read(this) ) { you = programmer; }
If I could find a uterus, I'd bring my own utilities!
A Womb With A View
I Think I'm A Clone Now
Isn't it strange
Feels like I'm lookin' in the mirror
What would people say
If only they knew that I was
Part of some geneticist's plan (plan-plan-plan)
Born to be a carbon copy man (man-man-man)
There in a petri dish late one night
They took a donor's body cell and fertilized a human egg and so I say
I think I'm a clone now
There's always two of me just a-hangin' around
I think I'm a clone now
'Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down.....
I think this is going to cause trouble later on. If two people can't get pregnant on their own, there's a reason for it. It's the gene pools way of saying you're not supposed to re-produce. (aka Darwinism)
By overriding this mechanism in nature you create a child of inferior genetic make up who would no otherwise be by natural process. I think this is going to bite us in the ass in a few generations.
While I'm sure it's nice for the parents (yay! we had a baby! look at the odds we've overcome!) I think it's unfair to create a child that may have genetic defects / other problems because of their parent's own selfishness.
IVF has reduced the number of tubal surgeries by 50%.
My guess is that people shouldn't be ignoring nature. If you were born without fallopian tubes or something else that prevents creating a baby naturally, maybe that's nature's way of saying you shouldn't be perpetuating your genes.
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
Hmm.. I wonder! How about that its not natural?
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
Someone learned the HTML for an ordered list. Will wonders never cease?
Nova recently had a great episode about IVF and other techniques. Some of it was actually kind of scary, like the tech in a fertility clinic who explained why multiple births are so common. His take was that it's all market pressure. If women look at the statistics for a fertility clinic, they will see that some percentage of all IVFs resulted in birth. Well, if you cram 5 viable eggs back in, instead of 2, you *are* more likely to get multiples, but you're also less likely to damage your success record in terms of viable implantations....
Hey, Slashdot editors, it's another dupe!
I also think the initial public reaction was much along those lines, how it was something unholy and a Frankensteinian perversion of natural conception.
We've come a certain distance, I guess, but I won't say a long way, I don't think.
They're all great, and I'm happy for those parents who couldn't have children otherwise.
But, has the number of couples that can't have children gone up? It always worried me. Am I just being paranoid?
Also these procedures are not cheap! That money could really change an orphan's life...
-- taking over the world, we are.
In the August issue of Wired magazine, there was quite a disgusting infoporn about how you could sell your body for $46 million. It priced egg cells at $7,000/egg and sperm at $75/donation.
It's... News for Nerds! Stuff that Matters! La-de-da-de-da-DE-da!
I have sex with women, you insensitive clod!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Insurance is a major factor in the popularity of IVF. In Massachusetts, health insurance is required by law to cover IVF for at least two cycles (I think they've increased it recently beyond that). I believe that's cited as a factor in the state having one of the highest average age for mothers giving birth.
god knows there are plenty of kids who need homes, and while there's that certain [stupid] ego-stroking factor of having a kid born in [about half of] your genetic image, what about... you know- doing something good for someone who NEEDS it rather than contributing to the overpopulation problem?
"Life is great; without it, you'd be dead." -Harmony Korine
That's a cut-and-paste from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. No wonder every point seems to be saying, "IVF is a wonderful thing."
A large contribute to male infertality is the plastic diapers. I forget why at this point, but I remember that much. :\
It's fairly obvious, by now, that humanity is no longer at a point where natural selection, in the genetic sense of the term, applies.
People who possess survival advantages don't tend to breed more. Almost any survival-limiting problem (problems controlling weight, respiratory problems, bad joints, whatever) are corrected or otherwise overcome via modern medicine, at least to the extent that you can still generally find someone to bear children with you, if you're so inclined.
Also, the majority of evolution for humans, now, is social rather than genetic in nature. That is to say, much more of our adult skillset is learned rather than genetically hard-wired. So, lack of genetically-driven selection isn't really a problem except where learning disabilities become a factor.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
Sex?
1.) You insensitive clod!<br>
2.) All your uterus belongs to U.S. <br>
3.) ??? <br>
4.) Profit!<br><br>
</td></tr>
Ordered list code? There isn't any. Sorry, you saw Mary with the Cherry on a dirty window glass again.
When I was a kid, sex education was fascinating. So was masturbation. So was my Jr. Scientists microscope.
Let me put it another way, i've seen my own sperm.
However, there are many positive ways to deal with that situation. Adopting within N.America is a long and difficult process, partly because we don't have orphanages full of adoptable children. China, Russia, and some S.American countries do. If you have the means to get invitro fertalization done, then you probably have the means to do international adoption.
It may not be a popular point of view, but there is no rule out there that says everyone has to or should be able to have a baby if they want to, even though they can't naturally. I think it is unwise to go through all sorts of unnatural steps to have your own child, ignoring what Mother Nature decreed. This is just the point of view of an environmentalist, applied to humans. I think we need to be responsible in our environment.
I have nothing against people who have been born due to fertility treatments of one sort or anther, but I would be interested in studies tracking those people and seeing if they had higher rates of cancer and other health problems than the general population. And is a child born to an infertile couple more likely to be infertile themselves?
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
If a baby is conceived by IVF, they're called test tube babies.
If a baby is conceived after drunken passion, then could it be called a beer bottle baby?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Looks like some fat and ugly got into Louise's test tube...
Of course, as the male, that's easier to say. I didn't have to go through 100+ injections and get stuck with a foot-long needle to have eggs extracted, only to then get to go through pregnancy!
:-)
This is true enough. My wife went through two (failed) IVF procedures, and it's no picnic. Hormone injections mess up a woman's emotions something fierce. Overproduction of eggs can be moderately painful, as can the harvesting of those eggs (anesthetic be darned). Implantation is fairly straightforward, but then she had to remain nearly immobile on her back for several days to help the implantation "take".
Since they almost always implant more than one embryo (four was the usual number, since statistically only about 25% of implantations take), there's the higher-than-usual risk of multiple births, which sometimes means one or more must be sacrified to help the other(s) survive. And there's still no guarantees, which can be another high emotional cost for both the man and the woman.
We live in Illinois, which is almost the only U.S. state to require insurance carriers to cover IVF as a treatment for infertility -- up to either three or four times per couple, I forget which. That's not to say we never spent any money on the procedures, just that it was thousands less than it could have been.
In summary: while IVF is a remarkable medical advancement, it's still far from an exact science, even by medical standards (where they can never guarantee success in anything).
But congratulations on your twins, nevertheless.
"Still more Sex.com"
"Petri Dish Babies, 25 Years Later"
For crying out loud, what's happening to slashdot??!
Oh wait...
"Laptops for warm climates"
Much better
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Is there any way I can get a rental price of a uterus with a "utility room"? I'm willing to provide my own plumbing, and I'm more than willing to pay quite a bit of the rent in advance. I just need something that's nice and cozy, but gives me the option of expanding if I feel the need.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
My last apartment was soooo small...
Nah. Too easy.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
For the price of IVF, they can probably afford adoption too. Another post quoted one cylce of IVF treatment as costing more than $12,000
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
This joke is not funny and off-topic.
Not exactly original, but you get geek cred for quoting Weird Al.
"a womb with a view" from the song "I think I'm a clone now"
Adoption is a risky thing--you don't want to adopt an American, because the legal system can give the child back to a biological parent, not to mention the cost and lack of infants available to be adopted. Hence, most adoptions are of foreign babies. The adoptive parents often don't get any medical information, and there is a much higher incidence of long-term medical problems.
And while I know eugenics isn't politcally correct, if you and your spouse are of above average intelligence, then it does make sense to want to pass that on.
Perhaps everyone who uses fertility treatment should donate to international family planning programs.
Too bad Europeans do not have the separation of the church and the state.
BOO! TERRO
The good old fashioned way is best! After all, "spare the rod, spoil the child"!
The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet. -- William Gibson
I agree with your points entirely -- I'm extremely frustrated by the resources devoted to fertility treatments vs. those devoted to the children we already have. (Multi-thousand-$ international adoptions also get my goat, BTW.) But one of your points needs clarification:
It may not be a popular point of view, but there is no rule out there that says everyone has to or should be able to have a baby if they want to, even though they can't naturally.
In some cultures, there are rules that make it harder to adopt than to undertake extreme measures. In March, 2002, a Saudi Arabian woman underwent a uterus transplant rather than adopt or look into "hiring" a surrogate mother, because of religious and cultural reasons.
Again, I agree with you that this is a waste of resources, and quite likely counterproductive. Not only did the woman not conceive, but her new uterus lost its blood supply after about three months and was removed (again). Even if she had been able to conceive, the effects of powerful anti-rejection drugs on her baby would be hard to predict.
Meanwhile, if I may make a rash generalization, her Filipino maid probably could have put the woman in touch with an orphanage with plenty of healthy babies needing homes.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
From an outsider's viewpoint, our society is screwed up. Some people go through great lenghts to have children and others go through great lengths to avoid having children. Its sort of like a farmer buring his crops while millions starve. Yeah its legal (his crops he can do what he wants), but kinda heartless.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Like "The Fly"?
My parents bought me a kit with a microscope when I was like eight. I got bored with looking at onion skins etc and told my father. He recommended that I look at my own urine. I saw things moving in there for the first time! This segued into how procreation works. Far less embarrassing/uncomfortable than the "birds n bees" schpiel IMHO.
...although I suppose after a moment's thought it's not really that odd, because IVF is all over the world and used every day.
But from my perspective it seems to be. My mother works at Bourn Hall Clinic in England, which is one of the locations involved in the original development of IVF and the birth of the first test-tube baby. To celebrate the 25 years thing, they're having a big party (tomorrow) where lots of IVF children and their families are coming back to the clinic to... well, not sure what really. Irritate those of us foolish enough to volunteer to help with the car parking, I'm sure.
So it's big news, but from my perspective, so caught up in Mum's accounts of their preparations for the party, it's hard to remember this is a world-wrapping thing. And it's marvellous really. Tomorrow there'll be about three thousand people there who are either IVF-conceived, or the parents of an IVF child, or some other relative, or one of the people responsible for bringing it about. It could be very impressive.
The only thing that bothers me is where we're going to tell them to park their cars.
Miri it is whil Linux ilast...
From the Mercury News article:
Oh, really? That's not what I remember of that time period. Just who's rewriting history? I remember it being an enormous controversy. A survey showing 93% of USAns were "aware" of something is not the same thing as them approving of it. Of course they were aware of it. All the talking heads on TV were arguing about it and there were flamewars going on in the letters-to-the-editors columns of the newspapers.
And saying that 85% of USAn women surveyed thought that infertile couples should have a chance to try it begs the question of what the men thought.
To read the article makes it sound like landing on the moon. It wasn't like that at all. The article even quotes Newsweek:
I got news for Shanks: "brave new world" was not a complementary or approving phrase 25 years ago. It's an allusion -- which was much made in those days, concerning IVF -- to a novel in which all babies are made artificially and reared in artificial wombs, and this intervention of technology into reproduction is used as an opportunity for social control by a Big Brotherish government. It has only been in the last 10 years or so that the public has forgotten that the expression "brave new world" was originally cynical and sarcastic.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
ah, perhaps that is where I acquired my taste for agar.
*yum*
If you live there for life it's cheaper. But it's cramped.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
So.
"Sex slave" now has a whole different ring to it ? Doesn't it ?
Is it a seller's market. Bull or Bear ?
Etc.
The Mercury article mentioned opposition to cloning and I just had a strike of insight.
Sci-fi "designer babies" ieas tend to assume that parents (with the help of scientists) can determine exactly how their baby will turn out. They just select a default set of genes, add a few they like, and then send it to the manufacturer (er, womb).
Now, as any software engineer will tell you, no code worth anything works the first time. I make embarrasing mistakes on quick 3-line perl scripts, and anything with high complexity requires months (if not years) of coordinated planning, development, extensive testing, and lots and lots of debugging.
Surely constructing a designer person is as complex as, say, Microsoft Office (if not as complex as a Mars Rover). Office had a few bugs, and Microsoft releases patches from time to time. But people are different. Testing a person requires a lot more resource expenditure than running a shell script. You can't just code up a quick prototype and throw it away. And once the person is out in the wild, updates are nigh impossible. I sure don't know how to patch a 7-year-old.
That's not to say the gold standard isn't buggy. Sex has produced some pretty lousy people, in both hardware and software. But evolution is an ongoing develop/test/debug cycle on the scale of millions of years. I don't know many parents who want to wait that long.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
all I want to know is if, as a scientist, I can be referred to as a test tube babe? or even a petri dish babe would be nice.
We buy other animals, right?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
What do bugs have to do with anything, anyway?
That's just disgusting. Cunnilingus is for FOREplay, BEFORE the sperm get out! Eat to your hearts content first, give her multiple orgasms, but don't touch it after you've sent in the troops!
> When I was a kid, sex education was fascinating.
;-)
> So was masturbation. So was my Jr. Scientists microscope.
Masturbation with a microscope?
Come on! It may be small, but I have trouble believing it was *that* small.
I'm surprised the corporate masters haven't modded it down like any anti-"intellectual property" post. Must have slipped by them. Eat a fetus for logic!
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
I read an article commenting that the length of time that fetilized eggs can exist in vitro before they're inserted into the uterus is lengthening. The same article mentioned that the amount a child can be prematurely born and still saved is lengthening. It then asked the question: What happens when these two things meet?
Would it be ethical to have children (made) and not undergo pregnancy?
One idea was that if this were common, egg/sperm freezing and sterilization might be a typical approach to contraception.
Would this approach acceptable to the religions that bar current contraceptive practices (ie catholocism)?
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
I wrote a response under the "Catholicism" thread a few minutes ago.
I surveyed the responses to this posting, and it is disappointing that no Catholic seems to have given a response. I suppose that everyone who cares to respond is a materialist with some vague notion that what constitutes a human life worth defending is only to be found in the development of the body. It seems unpopular to believe that what gives the human person a free will, a conscience, and the ability to apprehend a concept is both a body and an immaterial soul. If one does admit, however, that the human soul exists and that in fact its very presence in the body is the reason for which man has inalienable rights, then one has to wonder when the soul is infused into the body. Not only is the idea of human right tied up with the idea of human soul but so too is the notion that every human person is an end of creation, a reason for which the universe exists. If an embryo is already infused with a human soul that, unconsciously on its part at first, somehow plays a part in directing the formation of the body and mind, then the embryo is already an end of creation and a person in that sense. An end of creation is not to be used or abused by another man, for the embryo has some right to develop.
I don't think that the Church has proclaimed an infallible teaching on the timing of the infusion of the human soul, but she does have an official, as-yet fallible teaching, to which as a matter of discipline Catholics are bound. Of course, even if a teaching is infallibly proclaimed, a Catholic is not bound by that teaching if his conscience leads him not to believe, but in that case he must also not try to convince others of his private view.
It is certain that the Church has consistently opposed abortion throughout history, and the current teaching on ensoulment at conception is perfectly consistent with her historical opposition.
don't knock til you've tried it.
Do a images.google search onm creampie.
Who would've thought a doctor could, before lunch, 'create a fetus', then come back after lunch and 'abort a fetus'. I guess it's all about keeping the numbers even, right?
Trust me on this one guys....
Never ever shake hands with a man you meet in a fertlity clinic.
I would rent out that uterus. Hell, I'm sure you would get payed very well in the process. Of course, I'm not a women so I don't know anything about such things. Any female geeks want to share some insite on this? How much would you want to get payed for this labor of love (bad pun, I know)?
Life is not for the lazy.
"Nature says" is just as much an imaginary hand as God; you are trolling for the creationists.
Darwinian Evolution is the result of chaos theory coupled with entropy. There is no old man with white robe and beard involved.
A: Your dad's a wanker!
EU countries thanks to the "life is sacred"
This doesn't happen in EU at all, but it does happen with the religious nutcases that run the current US government.
Call me crazy, but it seems a lot better to adopt a child than go to all of this trouble. In fact it seems downright selfish that one would rather spend tons of money rather than adopt a child that already exists. It seems so selfish that I might go so far as to argue that perhaps this desire that the child must be mine mine mine might go so far as to make people bad parents due to the fact that they are so slefish thinking of thier own needs and wants and are unable to love a child just becuse it doe snot have their DNA.
Now before I'm modded as a troll. Tell me, why isn't it selfish? Why is the idea of adoption so repellant that one would rather go through such effort to create a child?
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
of whether diabetes is hereditary is yes (and no).
Type 1 (or juvenile) diabetes may or may not be genetic in all cases. It was thought for years that type 1 diabetes was sporadic... until some familial clusters were identified, and some related genes located.
Type 2 (or adult) diabetes is almost certainly genetic in a large number of cases, particularly as it relates to "syndrome X," a constellation of high blood pressure, high cholesterol/lipids, diabetes, and insulin resistance. If you want a cocktail that increases your risk for coronary artery disease, cigarette smoking aside, you couldn't ask for a worse mix than the above. It does seem, however, that people with these genes express the syndrome more acutely when they become overweight (weight loss often ameliorates these conditions).
Darwin has been largely supplanted these days, but to be fair, our environment is radically different, with different selection pressures. Everyone has genetic defects, but they may still contribute in a valuable way to society and the human race. Alcoholism may be linked to genetics in some cases, but we would certainly be poorer without the Hemingways, Fitzgeralds, etc.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Have you tried fucking her? I hear that it is not that unplesent but what would I know. I read Slashdot in my underwear too.
As if man's intelligence somehow isn't part of nature's decrees. Sheesh. By the logic used to say that nature has intended mankind to die early because of other genetic shortcomings, nature has given us the genetic advantage of intelligence, which must mean nature intends us to use it. Hence, our intelligence provides a means of overcoming our other genetic shortcomings.
Moreover, from a practical standpoint, it's okay if somebody has defective genes and passes them on. Modern technology corrects for them! It's not fair for me to pass on my genes that give me a bad back and make me otherwise socially backwards (a geek, physicist to be precise). Nevermind that I have 20/20 vision, perfect cardiovascular and muscular health, and a rather capable abstract intelligence. If infertile parents have infertile children by way of IVF, then their children can have children by way of IVF. Voila! Problem solved! Any concern about passing on genes for infertility is about as valid as concerns for passing on genes for poor eye-sight.
By overriding this mechanism in nature you create a child of inferior genetic make up who would no otherwise be by natural process.
Says whom? And where is your degree from?
Firstly, there is no evidence that IVF children are genetically inferior, period. Instead, "the consensus is that there is no increased anomaly rate in IVF. In fact, the anomaly rates are lower than recorded in birth defects surveillance programs. Irrespective, U.S. studies have never shown an increase in anomalies following IVF."
Secondly, studies show that "Children born through in vitro fertilization seem to be just as healthy psychologically as other youngsters."
I think it's unfair to create a child that may have genetic defects / other problems because of their parent's own selfishness.
I think you're fucking stupid. Selfishness has nothing to do with IVF. And your criticisms have nothing to do with scientifically documented reality.
Poor woman,
The 25-year-old lady who was the first test-tube baby doesn't look very attractive.
I guess I was getting real life and Gattica mixed up again.
Mmmm... Uma Thurman.
- Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
"So, what I want to know is if it's cheaper than my current apartment, and if utilities are included :D"
Men spend 9 months trying to get out, and the rest of their lives trying to get back in.
Already, genetic testing of potential IVF embryos is taking place. Shouldn't a parent using IVF as a means to become pregnant have the right to make sure that their kid does not suffer from some genetic disease. I know that I would want the best baby to be selected.
Why is it wrong to test the babies before implanting them? The second article pointed to this as a ethical dilemma, but I think that if one is too cheap to ensure a disease free future for their IVF baby, then they shouldn't be having a baby in the first place. Parents should have the right to get the embryos screened for whatever is technologically possible to be screened for. And, if this includes intelligence or athletic ability, then more power to them.
-hoch
2*31*37*263
Is it selfish to want to make ANY child while there are orphans (either by artificial or natural methods?)
Is it selfish to not go out and adopt one RIGHT NOW whether you are ready or not, married or not have other children or not?
It may very well be selfish, but it is a selfishness that is common to nearly everyone (at least those who have not adopted as many children as they can possibly financially handle.)
who is currently approximately the size and shape of a very unfit hippo - with sprog #2 due anytime now - I have to say that you probably couldn't pay me enough to go through this for any reason other than the prospect of the kiddo at the end of it - and I have (so called) easy pregnancies.
Then again, I'm in the lucky position that I can earn enough money via 'normal' channels that the prospect of a few (tens of?) thousands souldn't make me likely to do it - I appreciate that the surrogacy fee is probably a make or break figure for some.
Anybody seen that Max Headroom episode: Baby Grobags?
Uncle Bonsai
Lyrics
Womb for Rent
Womb for rent _ _ _ Womb with a view _ _ _ Nonsmokers womb _ _ _ For one or two _ _ _ No pets allowed _ _ _ No alcohol _ _ _ No questions asked _ _ _ No southern drawl _ _ _ A private door _ _ _ Come as you are Like father did _ _ _ In a glass bell jar _ _ _ Womb with a heart _ _ _ Waterfront home _ _ _ Old world charm _ _ _ For chromosomes _ _ _ Christian types _ _ _ Who bends the rules _ _ _ Don't quote the Pope _ _ _ About genepools
When the bough breaks _ _ _ The cradle will fall _ _ _ We'll get there quickly _ _ _ Checkbook and all
Womb for rent _ _ _ You bring the tube _ _ _ I've got this womb _ _ _ I'll never use _ _ _ A bargain price _ _ _ With wear and tear _ _ _ Out going type _ _ _ Some one to bear _ _ _ Land of plenty _ _ _ Fertile land _ _ _ Balloons are free _ _ _ At the kool aid stand _ _ _ A place to dream _ _ _ Of outer space _ _ _ To grow two arms _ _ _ Two legs, a face _ _ _ A faceless one _ _ _ A parent's joy _ _ _ A sexless girl _ _ _ A voiceless boy
I will be delivered _ _ _ I will be _ _ _ I will arrive and be counted alive _ _ _ I will be delivered _ _ _ I will overcome _ _ _ I will overcome this _ _ _ I will overcome what has been done _ _ _ I will be delivered
Womb for rent _ _ _ No kickers please _ _ _ No rock and roll _ _ _ Varieties _ _ _ No nausea _ _ _ No allergies _ _ _ No psychopath _ _ _ Enquiries _ _ _ A dream cottage _ _ _ A quaint escape _ _ _ A quiet street _ _ _ To contemplate _ _ _ A place to feel _ _ _ The ocean floor _ _ _ To ride the waves _ _ _ Onto the shore _ _ _ A parent's prize _ _ _ A human race _ _ _ With Daddy's eyes _ _ _ And a stranger's face
When the bough breaks _ _ _ Just give us a ring _ _ _ We will appear at _ _ _ Your christening
I will be delivered _ _ _ I will be _ _ _ I will arrive and look in your eyes _ _ _ I will be delivered _ _ _ I will overcome _ _ _ I will overcome this _ _ _ I will overcome what has been done _ _ _ I will be delivered
In a sterile room _ _ _ Just the two of you _ _ _ With a bare light bulb _ _ _ Father and Miss June _ _ _ Nailed against the wall _ _ _ In a pin-up pose _ _ _ Someone knocks at the door _ _ _ But you're indisposed
Womb for rent _ _ _ Womb with a view _ _ _ Non-smokers womb _ _ _ For one or two _ _ _ A place to dream _ _ _ Of outer space _ _ _ With Daddy's eyes _ _ _ And a stranger's face
You only need look at the picture to realise it was a horrible mistake!
which reminds me, I have to do some minipreps. And run a column. And do some tissue culture. And ... I'm not going to really list everything because it will just depress me.
Hilarious, great play on words!
For the price of IVF, they can probably afford adoption too. Another post quoted one cylce of IVF treatment as costing more than $12,000
Adoption of anything but a black baby costs 2-3 times that, and can take 2-3 years. Adoption costs run 25-35k. International adoptions have a lower up front cost than domestic American, but often involve multiple trips across the world and interpreters, which drives the cost up until it is roughly equivalent.
The more you are willing to pay, the faster you can adopt. That's because some mothers need monetary support during the pregnancy; the people who can only afford $25k can't pay for them, so they're available for the people who have more to spend.
Insurance pays for IVF - to some extent or another - in 12 states, currently. For the people living in those states who have a job with insurance, the cost of IVF is negligible compared to adoption.
Anyone who chooses to become a parent out of a sense of shame or obligation is setting up a disaster. I pity the child, because their childhood is very likely to be one long guilt-trip. That may be an overstatement, but some adoptees have heard "Do what I tell you, because if it weren't for me you'd still be in ...." enough times to internalize it.
(I'm only talking about those who make an active choice. I'm not saying anything about people who become parents accidentally and choose to accept it.)
I used to think that wanting kids, in a direct, selfish, I-wanting-a-baby-to-hold way, was an awful reason to have a child. During soul-searching before I adopted a child, I concluded the opposite: that kind of wanting is necessary to the psycological health of the child.
My Little Girl was mixed in a dish in 2001. She's quite the energetic 2 year old and I'd do it again.
Of course, her brother that will be here in a month was a surprise christmas present. Goes to show you that some doctors who say 'it can't be done' aren't always right
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.