Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    My younger sister thought for a long time that she could not
    have a child. If I had been able to I would have offered to
    have a baby for her. Not for someone that I was not personally
    close to.
    
    Four of my five kids had biological mothers that gave them up
    at birth for adoption. I think they showed great courage and
    love and I try to remember to thank them in my heart often.
    
    Bonnie

    I agree with Bonnie; I might be able to do it for someone I really
    cared for who couldn't have children, but never for pay.
    
    G

    When in school, I got to know several gay couples very well.  One
    of the relationships has been extremely stable, and one half ("John")
    is a very ... well, he strikes me as the ideal parent type, certainly
    more so than _I_ am.  When Massachusetts had the huge scene barring
    homosexuals from foster-parenthood, he was very distraught.
    
    Like I said, he s the kind of person who would be a great parent,
    and could probably be very happy raising eight kids of both sexes.
    
    So the upshot is that I told him that if he and his SO decide they
    really want children, I'd donate my body and genes.  I still feel
    that way, and am willing to carry a child that is half _mine_ for
    either/both of them.  The important factors for me are: 1) they
    can't have a child on their own, 2) legislation still bars them
    from parenthood via adoption etc, 3) they are _very_ good friends
    of mine, and 4) "John" and his SO are more likely to do well with
    the child than I am.
    
    I am not sure I hope it ever happens; the idea of a little _person_
    coming out of _MY BODY!!!_ is pretty eerie for this youngster, and
    whether or not I raise him/her/it, that's a huge and very public
    undertaking.  Still, "John" without a kid?  I can't imagine it.
    
    Lee

    I personally could never give away a baby that I carried for 9 months
    inside my body.  I respect others for being able to recognize that
    choice, and appreciate the difference it could make in someone else's
    life - a gay couple, or infertile woman.  But, I realize I would
    not be capable of it.
    
    I wonder if some of the women who changed their minds after the
    baby was born were as honest with themselves?
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .3  Good for you, Lee!
    
    
    I would not become a surrogate due to my own circumstances and the
    fact that I would find it very difficult to give up a child.  However,
    if I felt it necessary, I would hire a surrogate.  I am a strong
    supporter of the availability of surrogates and their use, and I
    would promote support groups for these women.
    
                      Carol
    
    

    Surrogate mothering, albeit with slightly different conception
    methods, has been used for a long time to help close relatives
    who were childless.  She grew up in a fairly isolated Appalachian
    community where children were a very important part of life.  From
    the way she describes the family attitude it seems that between
    sisters or close women friends this was quite socially acceptable
    and brought the women involved closer to each other.n  It's an
    appealing idea to me.  I could be a surrogate for a close friend,
    but I don't think I could give birth to a child and never see it
    again.
    
    In our situation, my SO will probably have our children, because
    of economic and health reasons.  From my perspective, this is
    similar to using a surrogate parent.
    
    maureen
    

    I personally wouldn't be a surrogate mother.....but I think the
    concept is great for people who cannot have children.  I like Bonnie's
    idea of being close to the person and not just choose strangers to
    have children for.......I think it must be harder to not know the
    people.  
    
    I do believe also that "gays" should be allowed to adopt children
    or be foster parents.  Just because people are gay doesn't mean
    they aren't good parents.  
    
    bs
    
    

    This is a little bit off the topic, but did anybody see the wonderful
    program on channel 2 sometime in January about gay couples as adoptive
    parents/natural parents?  It was produced by a woman named Aimee Sands
    for WGBH, but I can't remember the exact name of it.  "We are Family",
    maybe??
    
    Anyway, there were three stories portrayed in this hour long-show.
    The first was about a family in New York City--the mother is straight,
    and the father is gay and lives with his lover.  They have two adolescent
    daughters who live part time with each parent.
    
    The second story portrayed a lesbian couple in the Boston area, one of 
    whom is deaf and the other is Asian. They adopted a deaf black boy, 
    one of the deaf woman's students who had no family.
    
    The third story is about my friend Tom Hermann and his lover Jeremy
    who live in rural New Hampshire, and who have had a number of foster
    children over the years.  They currently have a 16 year old foster
    son who has been with them since he was picked up for armed robbery.
                    
    In each case, the children are doing well, being challenged, and
    getting a great deal of love.  The children all talk about what
    it means to have parents/guardians who are gay.
                  
    The program is interspersed with quotes from "concerned citizens"
    in Massachusetts and New Hampshire who are trying to ban gay people
    from becoming foster parents--makes quite a juxtaposition.
    
    One of the reasons that this show was so good is that the crew went
    into the homes of these people, and filmed 20+ hours of each family's
    day to day lives and then distilled it into an hour-long show. 
    
    I recommend it highly for anyone interested in the issues of gay
    parenting and/or surrogate mothers.  Can anybody verify the title of
    the show?
    
                    

    re .8:
    
    Yes the title was "We are Family".
    
    It was excellent.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

re .8, .9

I also saw the "We are Family" special.  I meant to put a note in here earlier,
but, as usual, I didn't get around to it.

It was indeed an excellent show, and did a good job of demonstrating that
family is family, regardless of the sexual preferences of the parents.  What
matters is the love the parents/guardians have for the children, and for each
other.

What really got me ticked off were the "concerned citizens".  I'm not sure,
but I was under the impression these were people involved in politics, who had
more "clout" than an average citizen.  But perhaps it was good to have them
mixed in, because it made them seem more ridiculous when you see how happy
the families are.

re surrogate mothering:

I am in favor of allowing surrogate mothering to take place, and along with
that, allowing "simple adoption" of children by friends/relatives without
the need for expensive legalities.  (Note:  I have no experience in either
circumstance).

I don't know if I could be a surrogate mother; I've never been a mother at
all.  I could see it being a lot easier to give a child to my sister than
to a stranger, though.

Jill

    re .10:
    
    The only politician I remember being interviewed was a member of
    the New Hampshire legislature. She was almost a comical stereotype.
    A woman in her 60's spouting statements like "They [homosexuals]
    have to prosthelytize, since they can't breed", along with the veiled
    accusations of pedophilia, etc.
    
    If it weren't so sad, it would be hilarious.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

I've been thinking about this one...

I have a difficult time with surrogate mothering.  Personally, I'm against it, 
but I wouldn't say it shouldn't be allowed.  

I don't think I could carry a baby for a stranger for 9 months and then give it 
up.  Maybe (if the world were an ideal place) I could do it for a very close 
friend or for one of my sisters.  But, the question is irrelevant for me since 
I've had my tubes tied and won't be making any of my own little people.  

The reason I'm against it is because I'm pro-adoption.  I've never had any 
children, so I don't know how beautiful the experience can be.  I can understand
the desire to make one with someone I love (that's really "making" love isn't 
it?) and I can imagine the overwhelming emotions that accompany each try at 
"planting the seed", and the happiness at finding it has sprouted and taken 
root.  But, I know that I can love any little baby, or any child, so if I ever 
get to the point where I can financially support a child, and am certain that I 
will be responsible enough to raise a child, I'll adopt.  Maybe I've seen too 
many pictures of starving children, homeless children, or abandoned children, 
but I know I'd feel guilty if I made my own.

CQ

    Firstly let me say that I have particular views on the *technique* of
    surrogate mothering.
    
    However I am vehemently opposed to the financial aspects, which to me
    border very closely on "selling babies". [As a partial aside an attempt
    was made a couple of years ago by one of the major American surrogate
    agencies to recruit mothers in Britain - they even found one - but the
    government rapidly ruled the process illegal if *any* money changed
    hands, also the mother was granted a legal right to rescind the contract
    without penalty for a short time after the birth of the child - after
    that nothing much was heard of the process]
    
    So in relation to the current court battle: I think the fees should
    be strictly limited to paying the mothers legitimate, audited, expenses.
    And I think she should have a period after the birth - say a month -
    during which she could decide to keep the infant. That would have resolved
    the current mess without recourse to a knock-down drag-out legal battle
    (or should I say media circus). It's her baby, she wants it, she should
    be allowed to keep it!
    
    As for the TV special - yes that was a good program.
    
    /. Ian .\

Who was the biological father of this child.  

Isn't this a factor?

	~Mike

    re .10  The "concerned citizen" was Mildred - something, I don't
    know her last name.  She is a member of the NH state legislature,
    and unfortunately is gathering quite a following.
    
    Tom Hermann was pleased with the juxtaposition of her views
    and the sequences of the parents and children, though, and felt
    that it put her views in a useful perspective.  
    
    (One of the people I watched the show with said "Imagine letting HER 
    be a parent!)
    
    

    The program also pointed out that NH does NOT have any law against gay
    foster parenting while the MA does. 
    
- Vikas

    re:14
    
    Mike,
    
    I have to say that's why I'm not too sure about surrogating
    mothering....when the woman changes her mind what about the father?
    He should have rights too - It's almost like a divorce/custody battle
    not an adoption.....both people gave life to that little person
    so if the mother changes her mind she can't shut out the BIOLOGICAL
    father out of this little person's life....and what about the
    NON-BIOLOGICAL father......maybe he really doesn't want this little
    person as much as the biological father and the non-biological
    mother....so there is alot of feelings going on here and that's
    why I'm not sure surrogating works.......it's a good concept on
    paper but when your dealing with emotions not so good.
    
    Bobbi
    

    Babies (or for that matter, people) are not commodities.  It seems 
    to me that wanting a baby *of one's own genes* in the face of some 
    infertility problem has overtones of possession, of considering
    a child to be an offshoot of oneself rather than a small miracle.
    Surrogate motherhood (for payment!) is the buying and selling of a 
    baby, and I don't think that people who are willing to do this have
    an attitude which can provide an appropriate atmosphere for helping 
    a little life into the world.
    
    God (and anybody else with the ability to read) knows that there 
    are plenty of otherwise "unwanted" babies up for adoption, and 
    that giving the already living ones a home, a family, and a hope
    for the future is a more reasonable way to spend money on this 
    already overcrowded planet.
    
    Joanne
    

    I personally agree with .18.  There *are* too many people on this
    planet already.  I wouldn't be or hire a surrogate mother.  However,
    I really do not care what others do.  I feel that each person has to
    figure out this complex matter for his or herself.
    
    	-Ellen

I know it can't be done _yet_, but how do people feel about an 'artificial'
surrogate, ie producing a baby entirely 'in vitero', using an appropriate pair
of gametes?? 

Dave

    re .20
    
    I kind of wonder what kind of people would come from an artificial
    womb. A baby listens to the mother's internal noises and to her
    voice and to the other voices and noises from outside of the womb.
    How do we know what importance these have to the developing child's
    personality.
    
    Also I can't help but feel that even if all these parts of the 
    prenatal environment could be duplicated there is a type of
    almost psychic bonding or communication that could not be duplicated.
    
    

re .-1

I think you are probably right, so let's assume that all the technical problems
could be overcome - what about the moral ones (if indeed there are any if the
restultant being was perfectly normal)?


DK

    re .23:
    
    Let's all (re)read _Brave_New_World_ by Aldous Huxley.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    This was in AP news today.
    
    Incidentally in view of the publicity the American court case is
    attracting, note that British law doesn't allow either the surrogate
    mother, nor the adopting couple to be identified, even after the case
    is settled. [comments, anybody?]
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    
    =========
    
Associated Press Wed 11-MAR-1987 12:27                      Britain-Surrogate


           Court Allows Couple To Adopt Child Of Surrogate Mother

    LONDON  (AP)  -  A  judge  said  today  a married couple can adopt a 
    2-year-old girl born to the  husband  and  a  surrogate  mother  who 
    received a $7,500 fee.
   
    The  girl had been living with her natural father and his wife since 
    she was two days old and was "thriving ...  (in  a)  loving, normal, 
    parent-child relationship," said High Court Judge Sir John Latey.
   
    He said the natural mother did not oppose the adoption.
   
    Latey  said he had been asked by Attorney General Sir Michael Havers 
    to clarify how existing laws affect  the  adoption  of  children  by 
    surrogate mothers.
   
    A 1985  law  prohibits agencies from recruiting women to have babies 
    for other people but does not prevent a woman from  being  paid  for 
    bearing a child for others.
   
    A 1958  law  prohibits "the making of payments in return for consent 
    to adoption" and is "a bar to adoption unless the  court  authorizes 
    such payments."

    Latey  said  that  although  the couple paid the woman $1,500 before 
    birth and $6,000 afterwards,  that  did  not  disqualify  them  from 
    adopting the girl.
   
    He  said  he accepted that the surrogate mother was not motivated by 
    financial gain.  He said she had originally agreed to  bear  a child 
    for   $15,000,   but  then  refused  to  accept  the  second  $7,500 
    installment.
   
    Latey said the natural mother testified that she  wanted  to  help a 
    childless   couple   because   she  had  children  of  her  own  and 
    "sympathized greatly  with  any  couple  who  were  unable  to  have 
    children of their own."
   
    He  said  the  couple  had  tried unsuccessfully to adopt a child in 
    Britain and abroad.
   
    Latey said the father had  sexual  intercourse  with  the  surrogate 
    mother on several occasions.
   
    "It  was  in  no sense a love affair," Latey said.  "It was physical 
    congress with the sole purpose of procreating a child.   As  soon as 
    there was conception, intercourse ceased."
   
    The   judge   noted  that  the  man's  wife  at  first  opposed  the 
    arrangement, but then "acquiesced and later supported it." Now  that 
    they  have  a child, "there is no doubt that their marriage is solid 
    and stable," Latey said.
   
    He said the couple and  the  surrogate  mother  did  not  draw  up a 
    written  contract and described the surrogate arrangement as "one of 
    trust which was fully honored on both sides."
   
    Only after the child was born did the couple and  the  mother  think 
    about the legality of adoption, he said.
   
    The couple and surrogate mother were not identified in court.
   
    Latey  warned  other  couples  that "before they go down the path of 
    surrogacy they should know, and know fully, what it may entail.   It 
    is not a primrose path."
   
    Latey  previously heard the "Baby Cotton" case which led to the 1985 
    law barring agencies from recruiting women to have babies for  other 
    people.
   
    At  the  time,  Latey  ruled  that  "Baby  Cotton,"  a  child from a 
    "commercial" surrogate mother, be handed over to her natural  father 
    and his wife.
   
    The couple had paid $16,000 to a British surrogate parenting agency, 
    and the surrogate mother, Kim  Cotton,  28,  was  reported  to  have 
    received $8,400.
   
    In  the  United  States,  a  Hackensack,  N.J.,  judge  is hearing a 
    landmark case in which surrogate mother Mary Beth Whitehead  refuses 
    to  hand  over  the child she agreed to bear for $10,000 for William 
    and Elizabeth Stern.
   

RE: 20

Just a thought. How would one like to know that their natural
mother was a plastic tube, the act of conception was an eye 
dropper with sperm and egg from unknown donors.


Seriously what this is doing is making woman baby factories.

dave

re: .26
>  Just a thought. How would one like to know that their natural
>  mother was a plastic tube, the act of conception was an eye 
>  dropper with sperm and egg from unknown donors.

Consider the alternative.

Martin

    I find this distressing from a completely different viewpoint. The
    world is full of already born childern who are starving to death
    or being abused. Why must there be a way to produce more until we
    can take care of those already born? Liesl

    RE .28 Pity more of the abused and starving children aren't
    up for adoption. How do you go about convincing their
    parents to give them up ? Monetary inducements ? Then
    you're back to charges of "slavery". If two people
    badly want a child then let them pursue whatever poss-
    ibilities exist. Surrogacy is certainly no less expensive
    than adoption, with the benefit of the child posessing
    the same genes as the parent(s). I don't say this *should*
    make a difference, only that it often does.

    re: .26
    
    I thought that women had been oppressed for so long because they
    were considered baby factories. I guess that means I see your statement
    as nothing new. If only the women who want to make babies make babies,
    and that ones that don't want to don't, it sounds more equitable
    (this is a single narrow statement about a complex problem).
    
    Let's reinstate communities and tribal families, so that children
    can be nurtured and shared by those who want to! Or perhaps the
    three adult family? (tangent alert :-))
    	Mez

If I found out I was conceived in a test tube or in some other "non
conventional" manner, that would make me very happy.

I would then know that I must have been wanted very much. 

	~Mike

    
    I agree with .31.
    
    So many people I have talked with have said, "Our last child was
    a mistake."   I think it would be much worse to find out later
    in life that I had been a mistake, due to failure of birth control
    or whatever, than to find out I had been conceived technologically.
    
    Alison
    

Re: .29

There are already more children of disadvantageous circumstances up for 
adoption than there are people who want to adopt them.  Most people want 
babies (not children), and the younger the better.  And, most people want 
babies of their same skin color or ethnic background.

I don't see what difference any of it makes, nor do I see any benefit to 
me or the kid in having my genes.

CQ

    re .33
    Most of the kids who need adoptive homes are kids that are
    referred to as special needs. They tend to be older - a lot
    of them are teenagers, or handicapped - Down's syndrome kids
    are fairly common, or sibling groups, or kids that have suffered
    serious emotional damage due to disruptive homelife, or usually
    a combination of several of these.
    
    It takes a very unusual person if they have had no previous
    parenting experience to be able to successfully parent these
    kids. Many of them are *very* emotionally needy. They "act out"
    a lot - which is a polite way to say that they fight with you,
    steal, run away, bed wet, etc. etc.
    
    Every infertile couple is not necessarily an ideal candidate
    for these kids. It takes a lot more than love and a desire to
    be a parent.
    
    Our four adoptive children were quite easy compaired to what I am
    talking about. We had some close friends who went through the agony
    of a failed adoption of a trouble nine year old boy. They were
    both trained as child psychologists but had had no other children.
    
    While I would strongly encourage and support anyone who wishes to
    adopt, no one should be critcised because they are not willing to
    take on an older or handicapped child. 

    Bonnie