(Closed) Spin off: Carrying the baby or being genetically related to him/her?

posted 6 years ago in Babies
  • poll: I'd rather
    carry a baby, even if we are not genetically related. : (39 votes)
    19 %
    Have a son with my genes, even if it was carried by someone else. : (125 votes)
    60 %
    Neither of those, I'd adopt. : (43 votes)
    21 %
  • Post # 47
    Member
    10651 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: January 2011

    Assuming we would want kids, the surrogate sounds appealing.  Being pregnant doesn’t sound like fun, and I have health conditions that would put me and the baby at a higher risk plus I’d have to switch a bunch of medications/stop takng anything for some things.

    My genes suck though.  I would rather not pass them on.  I would prefer to have a kid with DH’s genes, but adopting a fairly health child would be ok tolo.

    Post # 48
    Member
    1643 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: January 2015

    @AnaA:  I’d rather have a child that was biologically mine and my SOs. Because when they’re grown up they would still be biologically ours, and it wouldn’t matter where they grew in utero

    Post # 49
    Member
    894 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: January 2015

    @AnaA:  I voted to carry the baby even if it wasn’t my genetics, because I’ve seen WAY too many horror stories revolving around surrogates and I wouldn’t want to take the chance that my surrogate would change their mind and take my baby.

    Post # 50
    Member
    2863 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: June 2014

    @dodgercpkl:  what you are saying and what you are quoting are 2 completely different things. Of course my placenta nourished the babies but that still does not genetically make them “mine”. To come to the decision to use donor eggs is not one that is taken lightly and to pretend because the babies lived off of me ( in laymen’s terms) they are then a part of me just…. undermines reality. Anyone who has actually walked the walk doesn’t need to live in La La Land of niceties, we know genetics is the LEAST of what makes someone a Mother. I’m not trying to be combative, your words just really struck me wrong and as someone who has lived it I felt the need to say that. 

    Post # 51
    Member
    472 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: March 2014

    I’m still on the fence about children, but the most appealing aspect of having them is the idea of a person who is a mix of me (who I like) and my fiance (who I adore). The least appealing aspect is actually growing them in my abdomen and pushing them out through my genitals.

    So option two for sure, with adoption a second choice. The idea of going through pregnancy and labor to have someone else’s genetic child is… mystifying to me.

    Post # 52
    Member
    3277 posts
    Sugar bee

    In the end I will have neither the incubation or the DNA.  But I don’t care. Like @mixtapehearts said there are lots of ways to make a family. 

     

    As much as many people romantacise pregnancy, I think they often romancatcise adoption.  It is not easy, it is not cheap, there aren’t a plethora of unwanted babies (older kids, there are lots of, but not babies), many of the children are special needs or at the least may have attachement issues, due to being older, it’s also not emotionally less taxing then fertility treatments.

     

     

     

     

     

    Post # 53
    Member
    3277 posts
    Sugar bee

    @dodgercpkl:  So, if you think of your dream child as your dream house, the genes provide merely a basic blueprint, the biological mother takes care of all the materials and construction, from the foundation right on up to the light fixtures

    The problem with this analogy is that in the end of the dream house, the curtains, the light fixtures, the flooring, the walls, the foundation are actually there.  At the end of the surrogacy she hasn’t left any mark or imprint on your baby.  Those sugars that nourished the tissue aren’t there any more so then the dinner I ate last night is a part of me.  It didn’t define anything about me.  In your analogy she is more the the designers computer program that they layed out all the paint colours on.  Important and helps you get to your goal, but doesn’t define the pregnancy.
     
    Though I do agree that the surrogate had the ability to seriously mess up a fetus, they don’t really have any lasting imprint on the baby. 

    Post # 54
    Member
    3378 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: December 2011

    Darling Husband and I have talked about this, and we would adopt.  While I would love to experience pregnancy, if for some reason I couldn’t, neither of us is particularly fussed about the genetics of our child – DNA doesn’t make a family.  I’d rather adopt a child in need of a family than have another woman carry a child that is genetically ours.

    Post # 55
    Member
    2598 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: October 2010

    @AnaA:  When more than two people are involved in the conception/growing of a baby, it gets way to weird for me. 

    Post # 56
    Member
    2569 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: November 2012

    My husband and I have discussed what we would do if we were infertile and I am confident that we go straight to adoption. Adoption is something that I hope to do in the future anyway and if we couldn’t have biological children then it just makes sense for us to go that route.

    Post # 57
    Member
    1088 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: May 2013

    @mixtapehearts:  You actually might share *some* DNA surprisingly, although not significant. I found an article which also quotes the impact of the mother carrying the baby with an egg donor’s genes:

    “woman carrying the fertilized egg does not contribute a significant amount of DNA to the fetus.  But she could still affect how that DNA is eventually used.  This can affect the child for the rest of his or her life.  And the effects could even be passed down to grandchildren!”

     

     

     

    http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask420

     

     

    Post # 59
    Member
    2863 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: June 2014

    I appreciste what you are saying, but you don’t seem to get it so I’m going to bow out of this conversation. 

    Post # 60
    Member
    3314 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: October 2010

    @AnaA:  I’m not going to answer everyone, but where exactly do you think the material from the baby comes from?  It’s not the same as an apple nourishing a body, the baby is literally created out of the woman’s tissue who is carrying it.

     

    I didn’t mean to create anger with my comment.  This is stuff that was said to me BY someone going through this exact process.  A couple of them actually.  I’m absolutely NOT trying to trivialize the decision AT ALL, but to offer some smidgen of hope based on what friends of mine have found that have gone through it.  Obviously not every person choosing this path sees it the same and that’s fine.  

    Every single piece of tissue and blood that comes from the birth mom to “build” the baby contains her DNA.  It won’t change the GENETICS of the baby, but her DNA *will* end up being a part of the baby regardless.  And just to point out, there are very few genetic mutations that point to a specific end result.  Epigenetics are what push the genes into acting one way or another based on the “flags” or potential that the genetic mom provided in the “blueprint”.  Diet, environment, and so many other things will influence how those genes present themselves both within the womb, and after birth.  

    The topic ‘Spin off: Carrying the baby or being genetically related to him/her?’ is closed to new replies.

    Find Amazing Vendors