poppy Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 A married Texas couple who are the biological parents of twins can't be listed on the birth certificate due to Texas law nonsense, or even adopt them. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/listen-even-after-dna-testing-texas-judge-denying-gay-dads-on-birth-certificates-of-their-kids/discrimination/2014/06/18/89481 The men had the child through a surrogate. The surrogate is the only parent listed on the birth certificate. Ironically, she is not the biological parent of the twins. Posting these here because of the interest in the Pelletier case. This seems on the same vein. Kind of a strange case. It seems like the men have custody of the babies but no legal connection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PinkyandtheBrains. Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It's sad. I hope they get custody of their children soon, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I think I understand why they can't both be listed on the birth certificates. But what the hell sort of reasoning keeps a judge from listing the DNA test bonifide biological parent of a child on the birth certificate? I have a question though. My DH and I have wills that list out guardians for our children should something happen to us. Not everyone on the list is a biological relation. Once each father is listed on one birth certificate, wouldn't they legally be able to make the other their child's guardian in a will in case something happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I think I understand why they can't both be listed on the birth certificates. But what the hell sort of reasoning keeps a judge from listing the DNA test bonifide biological parent of a child on the birth certificate? This, this. WTF. I could understand a judge -- even one who disagrees with the law as currently written -- saying "sorry, but I can't list you both" -- but what the HELL keeps the biological father off the birth certificate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Granted, I only read one article, but it didn't make sense to me. I don't understand why the bio father of each son can't be on the birth certificate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Is it because they tried to do it all at once? If they had done it as a series of actions, would they have been able to at least be on their bio kids' birth certificates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMamaBird Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 How can two males both be the biological parents, don't you need DNA from a female egg to produce a child? I can see which ever one was the actual donor of the sperm, but there needs to be a female donor involved in here somewhere, doesn't there, even if she isn't listed as a Parent. Not trying to be snarky, I am seriously questioning the biology of this. Legal, actual Parents are one thing, but if were talking genetics they both can't be, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It's sad. I hope they get custody of their children soon, They have custody of their boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 "According to GLAAD, it is unclear in Texas and 17 other US states whether LGBT parents can jointly adopt. This has resulted in legal rulings varying from judge to judge or county to county. Some judges in Texas have approved such adoptions to same-sex couples." - See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-dads-texas-are-denied-right-have-their-names-placed-birth-certificates-their-twins170614#sthash.HJdYv7A3.dpuf Another source (Gay Voices at Huffington Post) also states that friends of the men have done this, so they didn't anticipate problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 How can two males both be the biological parents, don't you need DNA from a female egg to produce a child? I can see which ever one was the actual donor of the sperm, but there needs to be a female donor involved in here somewhere, doesn't there, even if she isn't listed as a Parent. Not trying to be snarky, I am seriously questioning the biology of this. Legal, actual Parents are one thing, but if were talking genetics they both can't be, right? I think they wanted to adopt each other's child, which would make the twins have 2 dads each. I don't think they wanted to have 2 dads on the birth certificates. The Fox news article indicates that other gay parents have adopted in TX, so it's not like they were going in there looking for / expecting a fight. Having said that, I don't think I would choose to live in Texas if I were gay and married. But, hopefully nonsense like this lead to clarification of the laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cera Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It seems like if they can clear up the issue of not being able to be listed on the birth certificate for the child that is biologically theirs (which SHOULD be an easy fix) they can then at least establish guardianship and power of attorney for each other's biological child. Hopefully that can hold them over while they fight to have the state acknowledge their right to do a second parent adoption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I thought children who are adopted are issued new birth certificates with the adoptive parents' names on them. So shouldn't these children have new birth certificates with both dads' names on them? For example, a friend of mine married a man who was not the biological father of her child. He adopted said child. The child was issued a new birth certificate with her new husband's name on it. The child's biological father gave up all rights to him. This allows the new husband to do everything necessary for schools, passports, etc. without needed permission. He has as many rights as my children's biological father, to whom I am married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It's my understanding that one man is the biological father of one baby, while the other man is the biological father of the other baby. No idea who donated the egg(s), but apparently it wasn't the surrogate. Exactly. My friend was just a surrogate for a gay couple, actually, and gave birth to twins. They were not her eggs (I think this is very typical for surrogates - they "house" the fetus but do not donate their own eggs). It ended up that just one dad is the bio dad to both twins but it was attempted to implant her with fertilized embryos for both (one dad's didn't "take"). Seems like this could really mess up surrogacy in the state and frighten off women who would be one but would not want to be listed as mother on the birth certificate. My friend is not the mother of the twins she just gave birth to - it's crazy a judge would insist she was. They are not biologically hers at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Exactly. My friend was just a surrogate for a gay couple, actually, and gave birth to twins. They were not her eggs (I think this is very typical for surrogates - they "house" the fetus but do not donate their own eggs). It ended up that just one dad is the bio dad to both twins but it was attempted to implant her with fertilized embryos for both (one dad's didn't "take"). Seems like this could really mess up surrogacy in the state and frighten off women who would be one but would not want to be listed as mother on the birth certificate. My friend is not the mother of the twins she just gave birth to - it's crazy a judge would insist she was. They are not biologically hers at all. Some states' laws are that the woman carrying the baby is the mother, no matter that the baby is not genetically hers. So a judge that you'd call "crazy" would be legally correct in such a state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Some states' laws are that the woman carrying the baby is the mother, no matter that the baby is not genetically hers. So a judge that you'd call "crazy" would be legally correct in such a state. I didn't call a judge crazy - reread my words. And I stand by them. Those laws should be changed. A surrogate who does not use her own eggs and is not having the baby for herself should not be listed as the mother. And insisting it scares off potential surrogates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't understand why gay marriage laws would affect having the bio father's name on the birth certificate. In reading the comments section of one of the linked articles, however, a commentator wondered if what had happened was that the judge had to accept/reject the petition in front of her, which asked for both men's names to be on the birth certificate. That commentator said that the judge could not alter the petition; she had to rule on the petition as it was presented. Who knows? I'm not an attorney. I would think that if that is the case, that each man could petition to have his name added as the bio father to the child he is the bio father of. At least that way, there is security about being the legal father of their bio child while they legally pursue the more complicated 2 fathers on 1 birth certificate. Does any one know whether the issue of getting the bio father's name on the certifcate is because they didn't ask for that alone? I didn't think any of the articles was clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I'd be fine if IVF and surrogacy were made illegal, so, for me, this just illustrates yet another mess they create. The strongest emotion I have about it is sadness. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I didn't call a judge crazy - reread my words. And I stand by them. Those laws should be changed. A surrogate who does not use her own eggs and is not having the baby for herself should not be listed as the mother. And insisting it scares off potential surrogates. It'd be crazy...in your opinion...for a judge to follow a law, then try to have them changed. You'd have to go state by state because they do differ. On a personal level, insisting that a surrogate is just a vessel is something that I find sickening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 On a personal level, insisting that a surrogate is just a vessel is something that I find sickening. Why? Isn't that what they want to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It'd be crazy...in your opinion...for a judge to follow a law, then try to have them changed. You'd have to go state by state because they do differ. On a personal level, insisting that a surrogate is just a vessel is something that I find sickening. The law is crazy and should be changed. A surrogate is a vessel. This is something they have chosen with their own free will. It is can be an incredibly rewarding experience. Like I said, one of my best friends was literally just one for a gay couple. She gave birth a couple of months ago. It was one of the most rewarding, amazing experiences she has ever been through. And she would happily tell you she was the vessel to help this couple reach their dream of becoming parents. Have you had a close friendship with someone who has chosen surrogacy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 The law is crazy and should be changed. A surrogate is a vessel. This is something they have chosen with their own free will. It is can be an incredibly rewarding experience. Like I said, one of my best friends was literally just one for a gay couple. She gave birth a couple of months ago. It was one of the most rewarding, amazing experiences she has ever been through. And she would happily tell you she was the vessel to help this couple reach their dream of becoming parents. Have you had a close friendship with someone who has chosen surrogacy? It sounds like she was a hell of a lot more than a vessel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It sounds like she was a hell of a lot more than a vessel. OK, what was she then? How would you define her experience for her since her definition is not good enough for you? And, since you didn't bother answering, it sounds like you have never been good friends with a surrogate. Or have you? I shared this article with her this morning and she also agreed that it was "insane." Her words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I'd be fine if IVF and surrogacy were made illegal, so, for me, this just illustrates yet another mess they create. The strongest emotion I have about it is sadness. :( I'm curious about your surrogacy view. Some women, as mentioned in the other post, get great satisfaction for doing it and helping a couple have a child. Are those women wrong? (let's omit the gay couple angle, and assume an infertile traditional couple). You may not agree with it yourself, but why should it be illegal? (as opposed to something you yourself consider immoral). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I'm curious about your surrogacy view. Some women, as mentioned in the other post, get great satisfaction for doing it and helping a couple have a child. Are those women wrong? (let's omit the gay couple angle, and assume an infertile traditional couple). You may not agree with it yourself, but why should it be illegal? (as opposed to something you yourself consider immoral). One person I know wants this to be illegal because of the non-implanted embryos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 One person I know wants this to be illegal because of the non-implanted embryos. Oh, ok. That part makes sense. Wouldn't it be better just to address that part though? I have some friends who went through IVF and they were very careful about embryos for that reason. It is possible to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Oh, ok. That part makes sense. Wouldn't it be better just to address that part though? I have some friends who went through IVF and they were very careful about embryos for that reason. It is possible to do that.I really shouldn't even be on the net today bc I have lots to get done, so I'm just going to give a brief link on RCC teachings regarding IVF: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1774/church_teaching_on_in_vitro_fertilization.aspx And in related news... Child of surrogacy campaigns to make it illegal. http://nypost.com/2014/06/16/children-of-surrogacy-campaign-to-outlaw-the-practice/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 OK, what was she then? How would you define her experience for her since her definition is not good enough for you? And, since you didn't bother answering, it sounds like you have never been good friends with a surrogate. Or have you? I shared this article with her this morning and she also agreed that it was "insane." Her words. She was a surrogate mother, and based on her/your description, she was more than a vessel. A vessel is not a living, human being with sentient thoughts, emotions, physiological functions, etc. I didn't bother answering because my friends' experiences are not mine to share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busymama7 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 The child in her womb doesn't care about biology or who donated which part of his/her genetics. The surrogate is mother to him/her. The child's emotions at losing that can't really be ignored although it seems they are. And yes I know babies are adopted at birth and I know that bonding etc can be wonderful and I'm not opposed to adoption AT ALL so please don't jump on that. But it just seems sad to set it up on purpose this way. Also, it seems ironic to say that the baby isn't the surrogate simply because it's not her genetics. That also seems like people are discount adoption etc for children not biologically theirs. So what exactly does define parents, yk? It is all complicated. And the baby seems to be the one at most risk here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 I think 'vessel' can be respectfully applied to a human. Vessel, channel, instrument are all terms frequently used by people to describe their relationship to God and their purpose on Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RanchGirl Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Posting these here because of the interest in the Pelletier case. This seems on the same vein. Kind of a strange case. It seems like the men have custody of the babies but no legal connection? This sounds like a paperwork problem to me, they could have each had their names on the birth certificates of their bio kids if they had done the legal paperwork properly, and then had the non-bio dad adopt afterward, but they wanted to make it into a big deal. The judge had no choice but to follow the existing law. A baby can't be born to two guys, so a *birth* certificate can't reflect that IMO. They still have legal custody and no one is suggesting take the babies away. How can it possibly be considered be in the same vein as having your child taken away because two doctors disagree on medical care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 She was a surrogate mother, and based on her/your description, she was more than a vessel. A vessel is not a living, human being with sentient thoughts, emotions, physiological functions, etc. I didn't bother answering because my friends' experiences are not mine to share. She loves sharing her story and doesn't mind her friends to share it as well. It is one of her proudest accomplishments. She has used the term vessel so since this is her story and her body I'm going to go with that. You can judge how she refers to what she did all you want but it doesn't change that she is not the mother to these babies but she was a means for them to be born to their parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I agree that there are ethical issues surrounding surrogacy. Before I had complications with my third pregnancy, I had considered being a surrogate for my sister and her husband. I don't know that I ever would have been comfortable being a surrogate for someone and not being involved in seeing that child grow into adulthood. Of course, that is probably the number one reason why I would make a poor candidate for surrogacy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I think 'vessel' can be respectfully applied to a human. Vessel, channel, instrument are all terms frequently used by people to describe their relationship to God and their purpose on Earth. Those are metaphors, literary terms, poetry. I think a woman is more than a vessel, more than just her uterus, more than something empty that is filled up with a baby and then emptied, unchanged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I'm curious about your surrogacy view. Some women, as mentioned in the other post, get great satisfaction for doing it and helping a couple have a child. Are those women wrong? (let's omit the gay couple angle, and assume an infertile traditional couple). You may not agree with it yourself, but why should it be illegal? (as opposed to something you yourself consider immoral).I don't think it should be illegal but it is not something that I am personally entirely comfortable with. This is probably rooted in at least some of the same beliefs as Martha, as I am from an observant Catholic background. I've been asked at different times to donate eggs and be a surrogate and both times I was rather unnerved by it and actually sort of offended. Like, as a woman, I owe my body so some other person, male person, can have "their own child". I don't have a problem with gay parents (clearly, my nieces have two dads) but I don't think my body parts are for anyone but me and my family. My womb isn't available for lease or borrow. I could not see a child who was conceived from my egg as anything besides my child. Clearly the legal and financial issues are dicey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Those are metaphors, literary terms, poetry. I think a woman is more than a vessel, more than just her uterus, more than something empty that is filled up with a baby and then emptied, unchanged. Of course she is. You are being very, very literal. But a surrogate is still not a mother and she truly is a means to an end for another family. This is something a surrogate chooses to do and accepts. This is not randomly forced on unwitting participants. And re: LucyStoner's comments - I feel the same way about donating my eggs. But if my life was different (and I didn't have a difficult last pregnancy), I could see myself being a surrogate. I would love being a part of that and giving that gift to a couple who can't have children the old fashioned way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 This sounds like a paperwork problem to me, they could have each had their names on the birth certificates of their bio kids if they had done the legal paperwork properly, and then had the non-bio dad adopt afterward, but they wanted to make it into a big deal. The judge had no choice but to follow the existing law. A baby can't be born to two guys, so a *birth* certificate can't reflect that IMO. They still have legal custody and no one is suggesting take the babies away. How can it possibly be considered be in the same vein as having your child taken away because two doctors disagree on medical care? 'Because two doctors disagree on medical care' is too thick a sugarcoat for me. The parents in that case were suspected of abuse. I suggested the cases are similar in that it's two instances of bureaucracy in (probably inappropriately ) severing parents legal rights in terms of their own children. And also using the media to fight back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Child of surrogacy campaigns to make it illegal. http://nypost.com/2014/06/16/children-of-surrogacy-campaign-to-outlaw-the-practice/ I'm wondering if she would have felt differently if there was no payment involved? If the surrogate does it as a labour of love? In South Africa the surrogacy agreement is validated by the High Court even before fertilization. This allows the "commissioning parents" to be recognized as legal parents from the outset. The court requires psychological, financial and medical evaluations as part of the validation process (similar to those for adoption). The surrogate is not allowed to receive any payment and she also has to have had a child of her own. Her medical costs may be covered, but this is also governed by the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 The child in her womb doesn't care about biology or who donated which part of his/her genetics. The surrogate is mother to him/her. The child's emotions at losing that can't really be ignored although it seems they are. It is all complicated. And the baby seems to be the one at most risk here. You are making a huge assumption there as to who the child will view as his mother. There are plenty of adopted kids that view their parent as the parent that raised them. Period. Are there some who still think of their "biological" parent as thier true parent? Yes. But certainly not all of them. It is highly individual. You are assuming that children of surrogates will automatically feel a sense of loss or be hurt by the process. There is nothing to support that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't think it should be illegal but it is not something that I am personally entirely comfortable with. I could not see a child who was conceived from my egg as anything besides my child. I agree with both these points. I could never be a surrogate. But if both the surrogate and the parent feel good about it, and are entering into it with full understanding, I don't see why it should possibly be illegal. The only valid argument I see there is that if you believe life begins at conception, you would not want any un-planted embryos coming into the picture. If you believe unplanted embryos being destroyed as murder, then yes you would want that to be illegal. My personal beliefs would not allow me to destroy unplanted embryos, or fertilize more than I planned on using. But why would the surrogacy itself be illegal? The arguments Martha posted about unitive not being separated from pro-creative are certainly valid moral issues, but not legal issues, as that would not involve something anyone would consider murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Child of surrogacy campaigns to make it illegal. http://nypost.com/2014/06/16/children-of-surrogacy-campaign-to-outlaw-the-practice/ This is really harsh, and I have to think something besides the surrogacy issue was going on in this family. She could just as easily have been grateful by how much her parents worked to have her. Feeling her life is "the result of one big payday" is a possible conclusion out of many she could have reached. There have to be other issues involved that resulted in her choosing that one, rather than one of many others. (The dishonesty of the parents in not revealing the full truth to her is certainly a factor.) As far as the needs of the child being considered...well, it seems like they are more considered in this case than many other "accidental conceptions" where the child is not considered *period*. Yes, it is very sad that in many cases the child is not considered prior to it being conceived. But at least in these cases there are parents who *want* a child and hopefully are somewhat prepared to give it a good life. That is more than can be said for many other cases. ETA, sorry Poppy, I'm kind of derailing here and will stop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I know I have seen numerous study reports over the years about infants recognizing and responding to their mother's smell and voice as newborns. I do believe that infants bond in the womb, and while I acknowledge that infant adoption is sometimes best for all parties, it seems callous to me to intentionally conceive and carry a baby without planning to honor that bond by nurturing and raising the child. I cannot imagine that losing the mother he/she has known for nine months as a newborn has no negative effect on the baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I think it is really easy to be anti-IVF and anti-surrogacy if you have given birth to ten children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I think it is really easy to be anti-IVF and anti-surrogacy if you have given birth to ten children. Nonsense. The wanting of something doesn't make it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Nonsense. The wanting of something doesn't make it right. You have no idea how you would feel if you couldn't have children. Don't pretend you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 How can two males both be the biological parents, don't you need DNA from a female egg to produce a child? I can see which ever one was the actual donor of the sperm, but there needs to be a female donor involved in here somewhere, doesn't there, even if she isn't listed as a Parent. Not trying to be snarky, I am seriously questioning the biology of this. Legal, actual Parents are one thing, but if were talking genetics they both can't be, right? I'm adopted. My parents are not my biological parents, but they are the only two listed on my birth certificate as parents. This is how it was done in Michigan in the 60s. I'm thinking that eventually we'll see a change in forms, from Mother/Father…to Parent 1/Parent 2. This case just makes me sad…but then again, I live in FL where it was illegal for gay parents to adopt as recently as 2010. Crazy why no parents is better than one or two loving parents who happen to be the same sex. Something tells me if they'd asked the kids in foster care, they would have said…"Heck yes, I'd love two Moms or two Dads who would love me rather than going from home to home." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busymama7 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 You are making a huge assumption there as to who the child will view as his mother. There are plenty of adopted kids that view their parent as the parent that raised them. Period. Are there some who still think of their "biological" parent as thier true parent? Yes. But certainly not all of them. It is highly individual. You are assuming that children of surrogates will automatically feel a sense of loss or be hurt by the process. There is nothing to support that. Prenatal bonding is real and shouldn't be discounted. I'm not saying that makes her the real mother any more than being a bio mom does when a child is adopted. But I think completely ignoring that this could be detrimental to the child is not wise. I think most adoptive parents recognize there is at least some sense of loss when the birth mom disappears. I have been though pregnant and birth (almost) 10 times including one term still birth. I honestly can't imagine anyone not understanding the bond between mother and baby. She is not just a womb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 And here I thought the controversy was going to be about gay dads.... :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busymama7 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I know I have seen numerous study reports over the years about infants recognizing and responding to their mother's smell and voice as newborns. I do believe that infants bond in the womb, and while I acknowledge that infant adoption is sometimes best for all parties, it seems callous to me to intentionally conceive and carry a baby without planning to honor that bond by nurturing and raising the child. I cannot imagine that losing the mother he/she has known for nine months as a newborn has no negative effect on the baby. I should have kept reading before responding. This is what I was trying to say. And I know it's easy for me to say having never struggled with infertility. The only thing is I dont consider an adopted child less theirs than one they birthed. The biology is not what makes the child theirs. So I fully support adoption. I am hesitant on surrogacy but not totally against it. It just gives me pause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Do the people against surrogacy also believe every child is here by the will of God? Because then that objection doesn't make sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Do the people against surrogacy also believe every child is here by the will of God? Because then that objection doesn't make sense to me. Not sure what you are saying here. Which objection doesn't make sense? Concerns about disruption of maternal/infant bonding? Concerns about creating and then discarding excess embryos? Also not sure what you mean by the will of God. I believe every person is a child of God in a spiritual sense, but certainly human parents are usually responsible for the decisions that lead to conception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.