-
Posts
-
Recently in the headlines some of you may have read about the young Bristol woman, becoming a surrogate for Osama Bin Laden’s grandchild.
Now putting the Bin Laden name aside for a moment (I’m sure the topic will end up talking about him :lol: ), I have always thought surrogacy is one of the most amazing acts someone can do for a childless couple.
But somthing I could never do. Not because I am selfish, I am not a selfish person, but I could never have a baby soley for the purpose to give it up.
What do you guys think?Surragacy hits the headlines for all the wrong reasons. For many it’s all about money. For the childless couples it can be the last resort.
I guess it all depends on the genetics of the child too. It could be that the woman just does not have the abilty to carry a child and the surrogate is really just the incubator which I guess makes it so much easier.
I know someone who carried her sister and brother in law’s child for them and thought it to be the kindest, most loving selfless act a sister could do.
Genuine selfless surrogacy that isnt money inspired is an amazing thing to do for someone. I would struggle to carry a child with my own genes and give it up, but if it was the parents own sperm and egg and i was merely the incubator for them i think i could do that (possibly)and see nothing wrong with it all. If you think how many people give their kids up for adoption though i suppose surrogacy isnt much different even if genetically linked, but i couldnt even consider doing that.
Can full of worms this opens up i think, emotionally dangerous.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!