People who do not have 1 square meal is accepting to become a sucide bomber which not only kills herself but also kills and damages the people, society & properties around her. So, what's wrong in renting the womb, which is lot better than forcing them into prostitution for feeding the family/herself.
Forget about how much money the doctor is making, she cannot support this noble cause without financial support, instead of depending on someone to fund her idea she is doing all by herself, really commendable with her innovative idea, which helps all parties involved.
Its a great cause and a unique idea. I would say not to get too much publicity on this...if not there will be some legislation by babus and it will kill the spirit.
RE:Noble Cause!!
by Anuradha Panigrahi on Nov 02, 2007 07:39 PM
Adoption is a social service. Not every one can have a heart big enough to do that. Having a child of your own is a human instinct. It is very hard to compromise with that desire. I think it will be a noble idea if people adopt after they have their first child.
RE:Noble Cause!!
by on Nov 07, 2007 04:07 AM
I totally agree with you, iam very happy to read your message. People should also understand the social stigma of especially an infertile woman, she wont be invited to auspicious celebrations, she will be neglected by family members, her husband will marry another lady and lead a happy life in front of her. The people who are raising their voices to ban the surrogacy, will know the pain of an infertile woman only when they are infertile.
RE:RE:Noble Cause!!
by sunanda mishra on Nov 05, 2007 07:59 AM
Unfortunately that is the hardest to do, once you have your first child, you will never go back for adoption. Adoption needs to be promoted for ALL, those who can have kids and those who can't. Most people in India think of Adoption as a last resort, but it doesn't have to be. It can be a simple choice one makes in Life, only if more people would talk about it and promote it.
though i have no qualms against this procedure and i am grateful to Dr. Patel for lifting so many poor women out of their misery i am afraid this might stifle the already poor adoption rate. though i understand that a couple would like to have a child of their own blood please spare a thought for that poor orphan.. why cant a couple desperate enough to go in for in-vitro fertilisation be a little more broadminded and give a new lease of life to one poor child..
RE:adoption
by sunanda mishra on Nov 05, 2007 07:51 AM
For a lot of people Adoption is not an option. Had that been an option, it would apply to ALL, those who can have their own kids and those who can't. So, asking those who can't have their own kids to open their heart is in my mind falls a little short in trying to promote Adoption. Adoption can be and should be an option for ALL. Also why only poor women should be surrogate mothers? If I am a healthy woman with the ability to bear a child, I can choose to be a surrogate mother, doesn't mean I am homeless, powerless and in dire need for money.
RE:adoption
by on Nov 07, 2007 04:12 AM
No body should force anybody to adopt a child, it should come from the heart. Particularly when you dont have a child but still there is a hope to get a biological child through surrogacy, whats wrong in trying that route? These surrogate mothers are giving a new lease of life to infertile couple, in turn getting a decent amount. Who will give 2.5 lakhs to a poor family for free ? Forget about adoption and giving a good life to an orphan, why cant you rich people give a new life to poor families by donating money to them. Please dont force on adoption, when you want to force on this issue, then you should also force donations to poor families to uplift their lives.
I don't think there is anything wrong in what the doctor is doing. There is nothing immoral in it.Only a childless couple can understand the yoeman service the doctor is doing.
RE:INFERTILITY
by on Nov 07, 2007 04:17 AM
Yes, it totally agree with you. Only a poor person will know how difficult it is to lead their life without enough money, and only an infertile couple will know how difficult it is to lead their life without a child for this "god given single life". I feel Dr. Nayna is a god by helping both infertile and poor. The people who doesn't want to encourage this noble idea please stay quiet but please dont discourage this, otherwise many infertile women will suicide themselves for not able to become mothers.
RE:INFERTILITY
by on Nov 05, 2007 09:38 AM
I personally, would choose to adopt a kid in the event of my not being able to bear a child. But that%u2019s just me. But, I have seen a lot of people who want to have their own flesh and blood in their children. In the Indian context, women who are infertile are not respected, they might feel insecure and choose to end the relationship. Men who are impotent, might feel inferior and insecure and this could completely ruin a relationship. Even if the couple feel that adoption is a solution, there might be relatives who want their own lineage to be established. Even though all that I%u2019ve said point to a possible support to surrogate mother-hood; it%u2019s going to be very long before it becomes even remotely acceptable in India. As usual, there will be a broad-minded few who will go ahead, but support for this will be scant. I personally feel it is ok to get someone else to carry your child, since you basically can%u2019t. What discomforts me in this is the involvement of money. If a relative is ready to bear one%u2019s child, it%u2019s ok. But, once people start speaking money, that too in a country like India where there is so much poverty, this has the potential to cause very foreseeable harm for poor women who might come forward to do this. Right now the picture painted here is all rosy,but once a lot of people start doing this, it%u2019s going to be one more thing that feminist movements have to tackle so as to prevent helpless, illiterate, poor women from
buying a kidney is not wrong. so how can buying motherhood be wrong? money cannot buy a lot of things, but what's wrong in using one's money to buy things it can?
RE:what's wrong?
by KRISHNA on Nov 02, 2007 06:02 PM
Yes but at the same time it is important to pay the right price. If you look at he money which is being given it is pittance. If anything happens to the lady while delivering the child what system is there to protect the orphaned children of hers. It is ok as long as both the parties are agreed but also remember, the kind of women who are offering these services. these women are needy with lack of knowledge. Can Dr. Patel tell the readers how much does she charges to the couple. It is ridiculous to glorify just because Oprah has praised her. Why do we dont look at the picture on larger scale.Have you checked what is the compensation being offered to the women in the west who offer this kind of services. Here we are not talking about the any kind of expertise. We are talking about the motherhood which women across the globe share the same pain in the process.
RE:RE:what's wrong?
by S on Nov 02, 2007 06:36 PM
Your concerns does make sense but look at bigger picture, people who do not have 1 square meal is accepting to become a sucide bomber which not only kills herself but also kills and damages the people, society & properties around her. So, what's wrong in renting the womb, which is lot better than forcing them into prostitution for feeding the family/herself.
Forget about how much money the doctor is making, she cannot support this noble cause without financial support, instead of depending on someone to fund her idea she is doing all by herself, really commendable with her innovative idea, which helps all parties involved.
Wake up dude!! saving a human life & preserving it is more important than stupid beliefs.
if a man is single (not married, widowed or divorced) can he get a surrogate mother?? it would be utter confusion then...what about the legal rights of such a child? what is the gurantee that the surrogate mother will not use the DV (domestic violence )act to claim right on the father's property?? so it should be discouraged otherwise these women organisations will make laws demanding "rights of surrogate mothers"...
RE:RE:confusion...
by yogindra vasavada on Nov 02, 2007 04:57 PM
a single man, not married, widowed etc. can still adopt a son! there's a fashion designer in b'bay who has done that. that's no confusion!! yogindra vasavada, navsari
RE:confusion...
by Anand Chakrapani on Nov 02, 2007 06:10 PM
Dude, how can a single male become a father. He would need some female's eggs to fertilise. The surrogate mother lends her embryo, not her eggs.
RE:confusion...
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Nov 02, 2007 03:19 PM
Read it properly... "Sonia (name changed), a poor Indian woman, is now carrying their baby in her womb. The embryo was created in Dr Patel's laboratory with Jennifer's eggs and Kendall's sperm."
They are not talking about artificial insemination. The child will still be the couples biological child.
And its not that they pick up some random woman & make her a surrogate mother. And obviously, all the pros n cons are explained to the parties involved.
RE:confusion...
by xyz abcs on Nov 02, 2007 04:32 PM
dude. for all practical purposes, the child is the couples child. the egg and the sperm belong to the couple, its just that the womb is that of someone elses. take the guys sperm and the womans egg, fuse it and put it in someone elses womb. the child would have the same genetic make up as the parents.
