Things you secretly oppose, but don't want other people to know:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many people do donor eggs and donor sperm and use a surrogate? I don't know of a single example.

I know of a woman who is doing this (a good friend of a friend). She is single, 43 and using donor eggs, donor sperm and an Indian surrogate. I know the arguments regarding the ethics of the Indian surrogacy industry and have separate (though related) thoughts about that, but in the case of this particular woman, it seems like it would make sense to explore adoption. My friend said that she has not actually explored adoption at all, and that she had been planning on donor sperm + surrogate originally, but her eggs are not viable, so now she is pursuing this other option.

I've never met the woman personally and have my information exclusively from my friend who knows her, so I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but you asked for an example and this is the one I have.

Personally, if I was in a situation where I was unable to use my own eggs or uterus and I was not with someone who felt strongly about having his biological children, I would stop before using all ART at my disposal. But that's me personally. I don't think it should be ILLEGAL for people to do what my friend's friend is doing, but I am judgy about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many people do donor eggs and donor sperm and use a surrogate? I don't know of a single example.

I know of a woman who is doing this (a good friend of a friend). She is single, 43 and using donor eggs, donor sperm and an Indian surrogate. I know the arguments regarding the ethics of the Indian surrogacy industry and have separate (though related) thoughts about that, but in the case of this particular woman, it seems like it would make sense to explore adoption. My friend said that she has not actually explored adoption at all, and that she had been planning on donor sperm + surrogate originally, but her eggs are not viable, so now she is pursuing this other option.

I've never met the woman personally and have my information exclusively from my friend who knows her, so I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but you asked for an example and this is the one I have.

Personally, if I was in a situation where I was unable to use my own eggs or uterus and I was not with someone who felt strongly about having his biological children, I would stop before using all ART at my disposal. But that's me personally. I don't think it should be ILLEGAL for people to do what my friend's friend is doing, but I am judgy about it.

Very very weird. When it's this convoluted, you know what, it's just not meant to work out? Let me count:

single mom
not her eggs
had to purchase the sperm too
had to purchase the uterus

There comes a point where you just say, THIS IS JUST NOT MEANT TO BE and STOP.

Bizarre!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tattoos
Piercings other than single pierced ears
Anti-Semites
People who oppose circumcision
People who oppose Israel's existence
Fake liberals

See, and I really don't like Israeli boosterism. Make it a dual-religion state (since the chances of it becoming a state that sponsors no religion at all are roughly the chances of them resurrecting Jesus and appointing him Prime Minister) and work to create peace. I can't see that what they do honors the memory of their late ancestors at all.

Let Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran become a state that sponsors no religion at all.
The Palestinians can go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

It's interesting that you were deeply disappointed that the birth mother chose to keep her child rather than give it to you. I find your take on this to be selfish. You aren't guaranteed someone else's baby until the papers are signed, so it's best to not raise your hopes too high in the event they decide to parent their child. And when they choose to do this, be happy for the child.

And IVF wasn't free. Other members of your health care plan helped foot the bill for your pregnancy. Rather than pay to increase our population, I'd rather have *my* portion of the money go towards finding homes for the many children in foster care. But, of course, you didn't want a child *that* bad, right?



I'm the PP that you quoted. Your response is so rage-filled, inappropriate and misdirected - you have poor reading comprehension - that it's tempting to ignore it entirely. You sound like a real knuckle dragger. But I'll respond to say that I don't know many people who wanted a child more than DH and I, adopted or otherwise. Aside from the fact that you We spent over $60k and a total of four years trying to adopt, so we did want a child *that bad*. You are truly moronic if you think that couples don't get their hopes up about a child they've been matched with. And as I wrote (again, try paying attention to what you read), we understood the birth mom's decision but it was nonetheless heart breaking. Moreover I pay into a very high premium insurance plan that offers IVF - it's the reason why most people select that plan (in fact the insurance company promotes this feature of the plan). So don't worry, bub, you're not paying for me to have a kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

It's interesting that you were deeply disappointed that the birth mother chose to keep her child rather than give it to you. I find your take on this to be selfish. You aren't guaranteed someone else's baby until the papers are signed, so it's best to not raise your hopes too high in the event they decide to parent their child. And when they choose to do this, be happy for the child.

And IVF wasn't free. Other members of your health care plan helped foot the bill for your pregnancy. Rather than pay to increase our population, I'd rather have *my* portion of the money go towards finding homes for the many children in foster care. But, of course, you didn't want a child *that* bad, right?

You are an idiot. Nothing in what PP said suggest that she thought she was "guaranteed a child". It is completely understandable that she would be disappointed given that she was told the child would be hers. People get disappointed for much less and no-one judges.

As for IVF being free, of course it was not free, but PP pays for her insurance and therefore covers all kinds of stuff that troubles others. So over her lifetime, she will likely pay for it (and all the other things she uses).

How about you learn how to use the quote function before you start throwing out insults, Einstein.

I didn't say pp said she was guaranteed a child; I merely pointed out that she wasn't. See the difference? You can be told many things, but until the papers are signed, getting your hopes up on a domestic adoption is foolhardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many people do donor eggs and donor sperm and use a surrogate? I don't know of a single example.

I know of a woman who is doing this (a good friend of a friend). She is single, 43 and using donor eggs, donor sperm and an Indian surrogate. I know the arguments regarding the ethics of the Indian surrogacy industry and have separate (though related) thoughts about that, but in the case of this particular woman, it seems like it would make sense to explore adoption. My friend said that she has not actually explored adoption at all, and that she had been planning on donor sperm + surrogate originally, but her eggs are not viable, so now she is pursuing this other option.

I've never met the woman personally and have my information exclusively from my friend who knows her, so I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but you asked for an example and this is the one I have.

Personally, if I was in a situation where I was unable to use my own eggs or uterus and I was not with someone who felt strongly about having his biological children, I would stop before using all ART at my disposal. But that's me personally. I don't think it should be ILLEGAL for people to do what my friend's friend is doing, but I am judgy about it.

Very very weird. When it's this convoluted, you know what, it's just not meant to work out? Let me count:

single mom
not her eggs
had to purchase the sperm too
had to purchase the uterus

There comes a point where you just say, THIS IS JUST NOT MEANT TO BE and STOP.

Bizarre!!!!

That's my point.

I have several friends who have used donor sperm, several who have used donor eggs, and a couple who has also used a surrogate. I also have friends who have adopted, both domestically and internationally. I think it's great that there are so many solutions to physiological problems. But like the PP, I secretly believe that if you have to use almost every ART available today, you should maybe consider other avenues of parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many people do donor eggs and donor sperm and use a surrogate? I don't know of a single example.

I know of a woman who is doing this (a good friend of a friend). She is single, 43 and using donor eggs, donor sperm and an Indian surrogate. I know the arguments regarding the ethics of the Indian surrogacy industry and have separate (though related) thoughts about that, but in the case of this particular woman, it seems like it would make sense to explore adoption. My friend said that she has not actually explored adoption at all, and that she had been planning on donor sperm + surrogate originally, but her eggs are not viable, so now she is pursuing this other option.

I've never met the woman personally and have my information exclusively from my friend who knows her, so I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but you asked for an example and this is the one I have.

Personally, if I was in a situation where I was unable to use my own eggs or uterus and I was not with someone who felt strongly about having his biological children, I would stop before using all ART at my disposal. But that's me personally. I don't think it should be ILLEGAL for people to do what my friend's friend is doing, but I am judgy about it.

Very very weird. When it's this convoluted, you know what, it's just not meant to work out? Let me count:

single mom
not her eggs
had to purchase the sperm too
had to purchase the uterus

There comes a point where you just say, THIS IS JUST NOT MEANT TO BE and STOP.

Bizarre!!!!

Oh for god's sake. This is such an outlier scenario. Guess it will give you anti-IVF freaks something to froth at the mouth over but it's hardly the norm - in any repspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

It's interesting that you were deeply disappointed that the birth mother chose to keep her child rather than give it to you. I find your take on this to be selfish. You aren't guaranteed someone else's baby until the papers are signed, so it's best to not raise your hopes too high in the event they decide to parent their child. And when they choose to do this, be happy for the child.

And IVF wasn't free. Other members of your health care plan helped foot the bill for your pregnancy. Rather than pay to increase our population, I'd rather have *my* portion of the money go towards finding homes for the many children in foster care. But, of course, you didn't want a child *that* bad, right?

You are an idiot. Nothing in what PP said suggest that she thought she was "guaranteed a child". It is completely understandable that she would be disappointed given that she was told the child would be hers. People get disappointed for much less and no-one judges.

As for IVF being free, of course it was not free, but PP pays for her insurance and therefore covers all kinds of stuff that troubles others. So over her lifetime, she will likely pay for it (and all the other things she uses).

How about you learn how to use the quote function before you start throwing out insults, Einstein.

I didn't say pp said she was guaranteed a child; I merely pointed out that she wasn't. See the difference? You can be told many things, but until the papers are signed, getting your hopes up on a domestic adoption is foolhardy.

Please go back into your cave. Really. You are the lethal combination of hateful and stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

It's interesting that you were deeply disappointed that the birth mother chose to keep her child rather than give it to you. I find your take on this to be selfish. You aren't guaranteed someone else's baby until the papers are signed, so it's best to not raise your hopes too high in the event they decide to parent their child. And when they choose to do this, be happy for the child.

And IVF wasn't free. Other members of your health care plan helped foot the bill for your pregnancy. Rather than pay to increase our population, I'd rather have *my* portion of the money go towards finding homes for the many children in foster care. But, of course, you didn't want a child *that* bad, right?

You are an idiot. Nothing in what PP said suggest that she thought she was "guaranteed a child". It is completely understandable that she would be disappointed given that she was told the child would be hers. People get disappointed for much less and no-one judges.

As for IVF being free, of course it was not free, but PP pays for her insurance and therefore covers all kinds of stuff that troubles others. So over her lifetime, she will likely pay for it (and all the other things she uses).

How about you learn how to use the quote function before you start throwing out insults, Einstein.

I didn't say pp said she was guaranteed a child; I merely pointed out that she wasn't. See the difference? You can be told many things, but until the papers are signed, getting your hopes up on a domestic adoption is foolhardy.

Nothing in what PP said suggests that she wasn't aware that she wasn't guaranteed a child. Every normal person (not you, obviously), would in fact get hopes high in her situation. People can be acutely aware that things can go wrong, yet still be very disappointed when they do, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many people do donor eggs and donor sperm and use a surrogate? I don't know of a single example.

I know of a woman who is doing this (a good friend of a friend). She is single, 43 and using donor eggs, donor sperm and an Indian surrogate. I know the arguments regarding the ethics of the Indian surrogacy industry and have separate (though related) thoughts about that, but in the case of this particular woman, it seems like it would make sense to explore adoption. My friend said that she has not actually explored adoption at all, and that she had been planning on donor sperm + surrogate originally, but her eggs are not viable, so now she is pursuing this other option.

I've never met the woman personally and have my information exclusively from my friend who knows her, so I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but you asked for an example and this is the one I have.

Personally, if I was in a situation where I was unable to use my own eggs or uterus and I was not with someone who felt strongly about having his biological children, I would stop before using all ART at my disposal. But that's me personally. I don't think it should be ILLEGAL for people to do what my friend's friend is doing, but I am judgy about it.

Very very weird. When it's this convoluted, you know what, it's just not meant to work out? Let me count:

single mom
not her eggs
had to purchase the sperm too
had to purchase the uterus

There comes a point where you just say, THIS IS JUST NOT MEANT TO BE and STOP.

Bizarre!!!!

Oh for god's sake. This is such an outlier scenario. Guess it will give you anti-IVF freaks something to froth at the mouth over but it's hardly the norm - in any repspect.

You are wrong. I actually did IVF myself so I am not anti-IVF at all. But I was married to my DH, and we used our own sperm and eggs, and had the embryos transferred into my uterus.

So, you can be entirely pro-IVF and still say, to a situation like the one described above, "You know what. I think this is really just a bit too much."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

It's interesting that you were deeply disappointed that the birth mother chose to keep her child rather than give it to you. I find your take on this to be selfish. You aren't guaranteed someone else's baby until the papers are signed, so it's best to not raise your hopes too high in the event they decide to parent their child. And when they choose to do this, be happy for the child.

And IVF wasn't free. Other members of your health care plan helped foot the bill for your pregnancy. Rather than pay to increase our population, I'd rather have *my* portion of the money go towards finding homes for the many children in foster care. But, of course, you didn't want a child *that* bad, right?

I'm the PP that you quoted. Your response is so rage-filled, inappropriate and misdirected - you have poor reading comprehension - that it's tempting to ignore it entirely. You sound like a real knuckle dragger. But I'll respond to say that I don't know many people who wanted a child more than DH and I, adopted or otherwise. Aside from the fact that you We spent over $60k and a total of four years trying to adopt, so we did want a child *that bad*. You are truly moronic if you think that couples don't get their hopes up about a child they've been matched with. And as I wrote (again, try paying attention to what you read), we understood the birth mom's decision but it was nonetheless heart breaking. Moreover I pay into a very high premium insurance plan that offers IVF - it's the reason why most people select that plan (in fact the insurance company promotes this feature of the plan). So don't worry, bub, you're not paying for me to have a kid.

Knuckle dragger? How quaint. Whether you intended it or not, your post came off as you judging the bio Mom for keeping her child. That should always be viewed as a good thing.

If you wanted a child that bad, why didn't you pursue foster care? There are THOUSANDS of children in foster care who need homes and many of these children become eligible for adoption after a certain amount of time. So, is it that you wanted a child or that you wanted a newborn baby?

And re: insurance. You're kidding yourself. Everyone on your insurance plan is footing the bill. Are you honestly suggesting otherwise? IMO, if you want to pursue IVF, have at it, but pay for it (entirely) yourself. I want bigger boobs and a flatter stomach, but I'll have to foot that plastic surgery bill myself. Same should apply to IVF. This is one of the reasons why I believe the industry is flooded with scam artists falsely raising the hopes of women to do countless rounds of IVF so that they can make money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many people do donor eggs and donor sperm and use a surrogate? I don't know of a single example.

I know of a woman who is doing this (a good friend of a friend). She is single, 43 and using donor eggs, donor sperm and an Indian surrogate. I know the arguments regarding the ethics of the Indian surrogacy industry and have separate (though related) thoughts about that, but in the case of this particular woman, it seems like it would make sense to explore adoption. My friend said that she has not actually explored adoption at all, and that she had been planning on donor sperm + surrogate originally, but her eggs are not viable, so now she is pursuing this other option.

I've never met the woman personally and have my information exclusively from my friend who knows her, so I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but you asked for an example and this is the one I have.

Personally, if I was in a situation where I was unable to use my own eggs or uterus and I was not with someone who felt strongly about having his biological children, I would stop before using all ART at my disposal. But that's me personally. I don't think it should be ILLEGAL for people to do what my friend's friend is doing, but I am judgy about it.

Very very weird. When it's this convoluted, you know what, it's just not meant to work out? Let me count:

single mom
not her eggs
had to purchase the sperm too
had to purchase the uterus

There comes a point where you just say, THIS IS JUST NOT MEANT TO BE and STOP.

Bizarre!!!!

Oh for god's sake. This is such an outlier scenario. Guess it will give you anti-IVF freaks something to froth at the mouth over but it's hardly the norm - in any repspect.

You are wrong. I actually did IVF myself so I am not anti-IVF at all. But I was married to my DH, and we used our own sperm and eggs, and had the embryos transferred into my uterus.

So, you can be entirely pro-IVF and still say, to a situation like the one described above, "You know what. I think this is really just a bit too much."

Well, good for you. So glad you can find it in your heart after your own experience to judge how other people start a family. Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Actually, there aren't "thousands" of children in foster care who are free and clear for adoption. Most are there temporarily (however long that may be) and the goal is almost ALWAYS reunification; barring that, long term relative placement and inter-family adoptions are the next goal.

Just wanted to clear up that misperception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

It's interesting that you were deeply disappointed that the birth mother chose to keep her child rather than give it to you. I find your take on this to be selfish. You aren't guaranteed someone else's baby until the papers are signed, so it's best to not raise your hopes too high in the event they decide to parent their child. And when they choose to do this, be happy for the child.

And IVF wasn't free. Other members of your health care plan helped foot the bill for your pregnancy. Rather than pay to increase our population, I'd rather have *my* portion of the money go towards finding homes for the many children in foster care. But, of course, you didn't want a child *that* bad, right?

I'm the PP that you quoted. Your response is so rage-filled, inappropriate and misdirected - you have poor reading comprehension - that it's tempting to ignore it entirely. You sound like a real knuckle dragger. But I'll respond to say that I don't know many people who wanted a child more than DH and I, adopted or otherwise. Aside from the fact that you We spent over $60k and a total of four years trying to adopt, so we did want a child *that bad*. You are truly moronic if you think that couples don't get their hopes up about a child they've been matched with. And as I wrote (again, try paying attention to what you read), we understood the birth mom's decision but it was nonetheless heart breaking. Moreover I pay into a very high premium insurance plan that offers IVF - it's the reason why most people select that plan (in fact the insurance company promotes this feature of the plan). So don't worry, bub, you're not paying for me to have a kid.

Knuckle dragger? How quaint. Whether you intended it or not, your post came off as you judging the bio Mom for keeping her child. That should always be viewed as a good thing.

If you wanted a child that bad, why didn't you pursue foster care? There are THOUSANDS of children in foster care who need homes and many of these children become eligible for adoption after a certain amount of time. So, is it that you wanted a child or that you wanted a newborn baby?

And re: insurance. You're kidding yourself. Everyone on your insurance plan is footing the bill. Are you honestly suggesting otherwise? IMO, if you want to pursue IVF, have at it, but pay for it (entirely) yourself. I want bigger boobs and a flatter stomach, but I'll have to foot that plastic surgery bill myself. Same should apply to IVF. This is one of the reasons why I believe the industry is flooded with scam artists falsely raising the hopes of women to do countless rounds of IVF so that they can make money.

Shhhhhhh. Quiet now, and go back to your cave like a good little monkey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

It's interesting that you were deeply disappointed that the birth mother chose to keep her child rather than give it to you. I find your take on this to be selfish. You aren't guaranteed someone else's baby until the papers are signed, so it's best to not raise your hopes too high in the event they decide to parent their child. And when they choose to do this, be happy for the child.

And IVF wasn't free. Other members of your health care plan helped foot the bill for your pregnancy. Rather than pay to increase our population, I'd rather have *my* portion of the money go towards finding homes for the many children in foster care. But, of course, you didn't want a child *that* bad, right?

I'm the PP that you quoted. Your response is so rage-filled, inappropriate and misdirected - you have poor reading comprehension - that it's tempting to ignore it entirely. You sound like a real knuckle dragger. But I'll respond to say that I don't know many people who wanted a child more than DH and I, adopted or otherwise. Aside from the fact that you We spent over $60k and a total of four years trying to adopt, so we did want a child *that bad*. You are truly moronic if you think that couples don't get their hopes up about a child they've been matched with. And as I wrote (again, try paying attention to what you read), we understood the birth mom's decision but it was nonetheless heart breaking. Moreover I pay into a very high premium insurance plan that offers IVF - it's the reason why most people select that plan (in fact the insurance company promotes this feature of the plan). So don't worry, bub, you're not paying for me to have a kid.

Knuckle dragger? How quaint. Whether you intended it or not, your post came off as you judging the bio Mom for keeping her child. That should always be viewed as a good thing.

If you wanted a child that bad, why didn't you pursue foster care? There are THOUSANDS of children in foster care who need homes and many of these children become eligible for adoption after a certain amount of time. So, is it that you wanted a child or that you wanted a newborn baby?

And re: insurance. You're kidding yourself. Everyone on your insurance plan is footing the bill. Are you honestly suggesting otherwise? IMO, if you want to pursue IVF, have at it, but pay for it (entirely) yourself. I want bigger boobs and a flatter stomach, but I'll have to foot that plastic surgery bill myself. Same should apply to IVF. This is one of the reasons why I believe the industry is flooded with scam artists falsely raising the hopes of women to do countless rounds of IVF so that they can make money.

NO IT DIDN'T. Quite the opposite, she said she understood. You are a nasty idiot (and I am not the PP).

And yes, you moron, she will in fact pay for IVF though her insurance. At the end of the day, everybody pays for whatever they receive, except for a small proportion of cases - otherwise, the system would not be sustainable. Perhaps one day your sagging tits and fat abdomen will be recognized as a medical problem and you will be able to fix that.