Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?

[GoneOffShore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/magazine/02babymaking-t.html?ref=magazine

Story today in the NYT magazine about a couple who now have two children through the use of an egg donor - the Fairy Goddonor - two surrogates and multiple fertility treatments.

All I could think of was "selfish" and "adoption".

Mrs GoS and I have never wanted children so we don't get that impulse. We have adopted shelter cats and if we wanted a dog we would have gone the same way. Yes, I know that a puppy or a kitten is not a child, but still, why must one go to such extremes, spend so much money and go through the sturm und drang of finding donors, surrogates, etc, when adoption, even with the obstacles cited, is still an option?

Probably better that the author of the piece didn't get a puppy, because she would have bought from a breeder rather than getting a shelter dog.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. "Selfish" and "adoption" get my votes, too. n/t

[GoneOffShore]

2. Thanks.

Some of the comments at the NYT were making me gag.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. I am of the opinion that your brain produced the correct words. -nt

[uppityperson]

4. No matter how you "get" a baby, it can be difficult. If they were that set on what they

wanted to do, and willing to go through what they went through, it is their choice and I will not cast any judgement on them.

One reason to not try adoption is it can be difficult if you are over 35ish, unless you want a school age child. Some people are happy to adopt older kids, others want to start from the beginning.

Thank you for not having children.

[lunatica]

5. In all fairness, there are people who feel a very deep desire to create the baby with each other

I guess it's hard to explain to someone who never felt that. I think it isn't just surface selfishness. It goes psychologically and profoundly deeper. It's probably one of the basic instincts for most people right up there with personal survival. Wanting to procreate with your mate is like that.

I think this goes much deeper than a simple impulse or mere selfishness. We aren't all that removed from our primitive survival instincts.

[GoneOffShore]

8. They didn't create a baby with each other.

His sperm, a Fairy Goddonor and two surrogates.

She has no direct biological connection to "her" children.

[LisaL]

18. But he does.

She married a younger man and wanted to have bio kids but couldn't.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

7. +1 for everyone has an opinion, but you don't have to be that judgemental.

[GoneOffShore]

9. Fine - but sturm und drang, and unadopted children.

We made our own decisions.

Plus she published a story about "her" children (husband's sperm, donor eggs and two surrogates - she had no biological role here) and one is not expected to have an opinion?

Plus I'm way over over-priveleged rich women way past child bearing age figuring that getting a child anyway they can deserves my sympathy or approbation.

[emilyg]

11. Amen.

[Odin2005]

10. I agree with you.

Pathetic.

[SheilaT]

12. Anyone who would equate getting a puppy

to getting a baby really, really has no business judging those who do have children.

It is a seriously good thing that you didn't have children, if you honestly think it's like having a dog.

[GoneOffShore]

25. I don't think having children is like having a dog.

You're making an unfounded assumption about my personality and life.

Read the article and note the quote from the very prescient 7 year old whose mother was one of the surrogates - "They could get a puppy."

I used that analogy to generate some discussion.

[femmocrat]

13. How is this anyone's business?

Those two should have kept their private life PRIVATE, IMO. The rest of us don't need to know every intimate detail of everyone else's life.

And BTW, there are plenty of very responsible dog breeders who work to protect and preserve their chosen breeds, as well as work for breed rescue groups. Please refrain from using such a broad brush.

[GoneOffShore]

15. I went for the broad brush on the possible assumption that if they had adopted a dog

they wouldn't have been nearly as scrupulous when choosing a breeder.

And hey, I live in Pennsylvania, the home state of puppy mills. Plus in Philly, so we've got the extra burden of Michael Vick.

[Pool Hall Ace]

14. *Yawn*

This story is boring now (as one commenter noted, it reads like chick-lit), but it could be interesting many years from now from the children's point of view.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. It's their business; nobody else's.

I hope they and their children are happy. We don't have the right to judge these people.

[GoneOffShore]

23. Then why did they put an article in the Sunday NYT Mag?

If it was "their business" why tell the world and expect everyone to say - Jolly good. Well done. Excellent idea!

Did they not expect that some people would find what they did not a good thing? And make comments?

She is looking for validation for her actions.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Maybe she just wanted to provide information

to other infertile couples, tell them what the experience was like, try to be of some help to people who can't have children the "normal" way. I still don't think it's for anyone else to judge whether these people were right or wrong or should have got a puppy instead. My impression is that they love these babies and will be good parents. So a couple of babies were born under unusual circumstances to parents who seem to be well-off financially, who wanted them enough to go through enormous effort to get them, and will love them and take good care of them. How is this bad, and who are you to judge?

[GoneOffShore]

29. Selfish and entitled rich people - we deserve to have children!

And we're going to pay for them. We don't care how it looks.

Selfish.

[LisaL]

36. If most people didn't have the desire to reproduce,

I imagine the human race would have died off a long time ago. I have no clue why this makes you upset, if they have the money to spend on fertility services, so be it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. Why do you care so much?

It's their money; I don't think they earned it by criminal means. They are too old to adopt. They wanted children, like many people do, and this was apparently their only means of having any. If they are good parents, what's the problem? Is it just that you resent people with money?

And I'm not sure why you consider wanting to have children is "selfish." Whether you have money or not, raising kids involves a huge expenditure of time, effort and resources. (I've been accused of being selfish because I chose not to have children.) Why is wanting a child enough to spend money on a surrogate selfish (especially when adoption apparently was not possible)?

Also -- If we "liberals" are to adamantly insist on a woman's right to choose not to have a child, should we not be equally adamant that a woman has the right to choose whatever legal means she can manage in order to have one?

Seriously, I think your problem is that you resent wealthy people spending money on something most people couldn't afford.

[uppityperson]

47. So? It is their money. Guess you'd rather have all them uppity poor folks breedin', eh?

I'm SERIES!!!!1111 Rich folks using their money to do something like have children?!?!? The GALL!!!!111111111

[LisaL]

17. And the problem with it would be?

They used their own money, it's their business what they want to do with their money.

[Quantess]

19. Good for them.

It's none of our business, anyway.

[madinmaryland]

20. Un-reccing for bashing people who choose to have children. nt

[GoneOffShore]

21. I was bashing her selfishness in wanting "biological" children

rather than going for adoption.

Lots of kids in this world without parents - they could have adopted - or gotten a puppy.

She and her husband come off in the self written article as completely self centered.

[Maru Kitteh]

50. So you are equating adoption with picking out a puppy

Thank you for not having children.

[shraby]

22. I think that's their business and not mine.

[GoneOffShore]

24. As I said up thread - If it's their business why write a story

and have it published in the NYT Sunday Magazine?

She's looking for validation for her essentially selfish actions.

[uppityperson]

26. To sell newspapers.

[GoneOffShore]

33. Well there is that.

But I do have a subscription to the NYT, so they don't have to sell me papers. I've already bought them - in advance.

[Maru Kitteh]

51. Well. It IS all about you.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. Did you even read the whole article?

But it seemed to me that there were no other good options. I had friends who spent all of their money trying to adopt, only to have things fall through again and again — birth mothers who changed their minds, foreign programs that were discontinued. I researched adoption in China but discovered that the criteria excluded us. When Michael’s parents adopted his sister in the 1970s, there was an abundance of babies in the United States in need of homes, but the widespread use of birth control and abortion, among other factors, has caused the supply of infants available for adoption in the subsequent three decades to plummet to a fraction of what it was then. Knowing that, I was still taken aback by how discouraging one adoption agency was about our prospects for “competing” against other couples. “Most birth mothers do prefer younger women,” the woman informed me. “But you’ll get a letter from your doctor, certifying you are in excellent health for the social worker anyway.”

[GoneOffShore]

30. Read the whole article.

Still the words "selfish" and "adoption" came up. Or if they weren't qualified, does their desire for kids mean that they should use extraordinary means to satisfy their desires?

And really, sometimes as the song says, "You can't always get what you want."

And sometimes you should just move on.

I'm sure the kids are loved and will be well taken care of, but I still get the feeling of entitlement and "I've got money, so I can get what I want" from this woman.

Just because you've got money you should be able to buy what you want? Really?

[uppityperson]

48. Are you Pro-Choice?

[Crunchy Frog]

54. Judgemental much?

You have no idea what I did to get the froglets, but I'm certain you would use the words "selfish" and "adopt" to describe me and my choices as well.

"Just because you've got money you should be able to buy what you want? Really?" Yes. Why not, if it's not harming other people? And what business is it of yours how somebody chooses to spend their money? If the same woman wrote an article about the expensive worldwide cruise that she took I doubt you would be so eager to condemn.

"You can't always get what you want." But sometimes you can, and if you can, they why shouldn't you?

Some people just seem to have major problems with women exercising their reproductive freedom.

[Statistical]

31. Why let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Personally it was their decision. As long as they provide for the kid (mentally & physically) then good for them.

Some people just like to hate wealth. I mean would it have been better if they spent the wealth on a larger home, pair of brand new cars, or ultra expensive vacation.
Had it been a poor couple who qualified for a program I doubt the OP would have a problem with it.

[GoneOffShore]

32. You think? Really?

I have a problem with anyone who think they deserve to have kids and will go to any length to have them.

[LisaL]

34. I think you made that very clear.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you have to realize that many people don't share it.

[GoneOffShore]

37. If this was a cocktail party, I'd probably walk away from you.

People can do what they want, but when they look for validation in the public sphere and get criticism instead they can't have thin skins.

The author of the article is looking for validation and approval. She shouldn't be surprised that some people are critical of her decision.

I understand that others can be uncritically supportive of a selfish decision, but that reflects on their own world view.

[LisaL]

38. Would you be as upset if this was a story about a gay

couple having children through a surrogate?
For instance, Neal Patrick Harris and his partner recently welcomed twins through a surrogate. Does that upset you as well?

[GoneOffShore]

40. It isn't about a gay couple.

[LisaL]

46. What exactly is the difference?

They are in exact same situation, they couldn't reproduce on their own so they got a surrogate.

[uppityperson]

49. What if it was? Would you be as upset if this was a story about a gay couple having children...

Would you be as upset if this was a story about a gay couple having children through a surrogate?

[Crunchy Frog]

55. And why don't you tell us what you think of Neal Patrick Harris and partner?

Or are you afraid of looking sexist on top of everything else?

[Statistical]

35. Well then at least you are honest. It also makes you a sad little person.

Who cares if they went to extreme lengths to have a child. If the child is well taken care of how does it hurt you. It was there money to spend. Maybe it wasn't the best allocation of resources but it was hardly worse than stupid conspicuous consumption.

Personally me & my wife have decided not to have children so I don't have a dog in this race. Then again I try to imagine if we were in that situation (and tried adopting and was told we had little to no chance) I am not sure what we would do.

I guess I just find it sad/confusing when we see people on DU (rightfully) bash freepers about wanting to control/attack people over sexual preferance, or who they want to marry, or what drug they want to use in their own homes. At the same time we have someone bashing parents who spent their own money to have a child.

[GoneOffShore]

39. It seems wasteful, stupid and selfish to go to the lengths they did.

And no I'm not a "sad little person", thank you very much.

Again, as I said to someone else, if this was a cocktail party, I'd walk away from you. And possibly spill wine on your shoes and not apologize.

Actually, consider the wine spilled and your shoes wet.

[Statistical]

41. OH NOES. Virtual spilled wine on my virtual shoes. They cost a lot of virtual money.

[GoneOffShore]

42. Love the cat.

[Maru Kitteh]

52. I'm sure that you've just shown that you are. n/t

[uppityperson]

53. Petty vindictiveness so well demonstrates you are not a "sad little person"? AH. nt

[Cid_B]

43. Thought this was an Elton John thread...

[SidDithers]

45. I try not to be judgemental about people and their reproductive choices...nt

Sid