Surrogacy

[Piper84]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

How is it bizarre? An adopted child has no parents to look after it and if they are adopted by a couple, same-sex or otherwise, that is a bonus and a far more selfless act than bringing a child into the world, spending a fortune in doing so and removing one of its biological parents.

Because you are saying that a child should not be removed from its mother, the outcome is still EXACTLY the same, it doesnt matter what proccess it was, the outcome is still 2 same sexed parents!

There's a difference between a child being removed from its home because its parents are abusive or a child being removed at birth because it will be endangered and a couple of rich blokes turning up with a cheque book, paying someone they don't know who probably would prefer not to be a surrogate but needs money and cutting off contact to the child's mother.

 

[LoraLoo]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

How is it bizarre? An adopted child has no parents to look after it and if they are adopted by a couple, same-sex or otherwise, that is a bonus and a far more selfless act than bringing a child into the world, spending a fortune in doing so and removing one of its biological parents.

Because you are saying that a child should not be removed from its mother, the outcome is still EXACTLY the same, it doesnt matter what proccess it was, the outcome is still 2 same sexed parents!

There's a difference between a child being removed from its home because its parents are abusive or a child being removed at birth because it will be endangered and a couple of rich blokes turning up with a cheque book, paying someone they don't know who probably would prefer not to be a surrogate but needs money and cutting off contact to the child's mother.

Surrogates dont get paid for carrying the child, they can recieve money for expenses, but that is all. Not all children who are adopted because they are endangers or abused, that again is a ridiculous statement to make, what world do you live in?

So 2 gay guys who have each have an average job, THAT would be ok? But because celebrities live a nice life and will be ableto afford to give a child what it needs, THATS wrong?! Strange.

 

[Piper84]

I think I may need some clarification then. You want everyone to have access to surrogacy, yet have an issue with celebrities using the method to become parents? Why are they different because they ARE rich?

How do you know that the children of same-sex parents don't have a strong female in their lives to love and nurture them? Just because it isn't on the front page does not mean that they don't exist in the children's lives.

Respectfully, I feel as though you
may be filling in the blanks regarding the situations of these individuals due to lack of information.

I think couples with fertility issues should be able to have access to surrogacy without the hardcore
financial problems.

I also think, if we're going to establish a priority queue of people who should have access to financially manageable surrogacy,
it should be a TTC male/female
couple that gets first dibs. They are the ones who have often spent years TTC and experienced chemical pregnancies, miscarriages and stillbirths and "should" be able to conceive naturally if all was well health-wise.
Same-sex couples do not have "fertility problems".

It's also completely possible for a male/male couple to enter into an arrangement with another female/female couple and have
children in this way. This doesn't
seem to be done that often by the mega-rich men I've mentioned, although it's no less possible. This enforces the idea that it's an inherently selfish move to remove the mother from the equation when
this doesn't have to be the case.

Erm sorry piper84 but this is wrong, being a same sex couple may not in itself be a fertility problem but that does not mean
that same sex couples do not experience fertility problems, still I know the NHS is under a lot if financial pressure at the moment so I guess you think I shouldnt be allowed treatment for PCOS, an
insufficient lining and a short luteal phase.

I suppose my wife and I can always find a gay couple to
continue trying with though and to share the child I dream of conceiving with my wife.

I'm still confused however why you thunk I'm wring for wanting a child of my own to deprive of a father but it would be ok for my wife and I to adopt a child and as you so
delicately put it, deprive that child of a father.


The children of same sex couples
do not grow up feeling that they are lacking a parent of a particular sex and several studies have shown that they are as well adjusted as children of straight couples. I dint see why they should
be at tge back if the que while male female couples get "first dibs"

I've not said anything about PCOS or other fertility issues or the NHS

It's your dream to not share your child with its biological father. What about what the child will want?

Adopted children have already been removed from their parents. The people who finally adopt the child have not deprived them of anything.

 

[TriChick]

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

Times change, your body does not stay in the same state forever. Just because she carried a child once does not mean to say that she can do it again, and again, and again, and again. And no, money has NOTHING to do with it. As many women in this thread have stated, they would do it for family, family would do it for them....money does not have to play a part.

Actually I'm talking about the women on here suffering multiple miscarriages. If they had the money, they would take the same route as NK.

Nothing is stopping them from making the same choice that she did. Surrogacy does not cost millions.

 

[Rainbow82]

I would do it for a close friend of family member experiencing problems, but with their eggs or donated eggs. It would be hard, but facing up to never having your own children is harder.

What I find hard to stomach is celebrities paying surrogates to have children when they are
capable of having their own. I also find the recent trend of people like Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, Elton John and Ryan Murphy buying little versions of themselves
wrong somehow.

It's not because they're gay,

more because they are buying little versions of themselves and removing them from their mothers without a second thought, just for the sake of passing on their genes.

I think your comments since have shown that one of your issues with this IS because they are gay.


I can't keep up with this thread at the moment because I'm on my phone but I hope I an lucky enough to have children and that they never have to come across someone with your views but I will teach my children regardless to be confident adults and show you you are wrong and hopefully your views on sane sex parenting won't filter down to the next few generations.

 

[Piper84]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

How is it bizarre? An adopted child has no parents to look after it and if they are adopted by a couple, same-sex or otherwise, that is a bonus and a far more selfless act than bringing a child into the world, spending a fortune in doing so and removing one of its biological parents.

Because you are saying that a child should not be removed from its mother, the outcome is still EXACTLY the same, it doesnt matter what proccess it was, the outcome is still 2 same sexed parents!

There's a difference between a child being removed from its home because its parents are abusive or a child being removed at birth because it will be endangered and a couple of rich blokes turning up with a cheque book, paying someone they don't know who probably would prefer not to be a surrogate but needs money and cutting off contact to the child's mother.

Surrogates dont get paid for carrying the child, they can recieve money for expenses, but that is all. Not all children who are adopted because they are endangers or abused, that again is a ridiculous statement to make, what world do you live in?

My point is that a child up for adoption has no-one to look after it, for whatever reason. The adoptive parents are performing a pretty selfless act in adopting the child and not taking it away from either of its parents.

Surrogates in the UK maybe. The surrogacies I have an issue with are the ones often in the US that involve large amounts of money, which the celebrity ones I've mentioned undoubtedly did.

 

[Piper84]

I would do it for a close friend of family member experiencing problems, but with their eggs or donated eggs. It would be hard, but facing up to never having your own children is harder.

What I find hard to stomach is celebrities paying surrogates to have children when they are
capable of having their own. I also find the recent trend of people like Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, Elton John and Ryan Murphy buying little versions of themselves
wrong somehow.

It's not because they're gay,

more because they are buying little versions of themselves and removing them from their mothers without a second thought, just for the sake of passing on their genes.

I think your comments since have shown that one of your issues with this IS because they are gay.


I can't keep up with this thread at the moment because I'm on my phone but I hope I an lucky enough to have children and that they never have to come across someone with your views but I will teach my children regardless to be confident adults and show you you are wrong and hopefully your views on sane sex parenting won't filter down to the next few generations.

If it makes it easier for you to think that, go ahead, but I haven't said anything to suggest I think gay people can't parent, just my distaste for the culture of rich celebrity men getting their chequebooks out and buying a child from its mother.

 

[TriChick]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

How is it bizarre? An adopted child has no parents to look after it and if they are adopted by a couple, same-sex or otherwise, that is a bonus and a far more selfless act than bringing a child into the world, spending a fortune in doing so and removing one of its biological parents.

Because you are saying that a child should not be removed from its mother, the outcome is still EXACTLY the same, it doesnt matter what proccess it was, the outcome is still 2 same sexed parents!

There's a difference between a child being removed from its home because its parents are abusive or a child being removed at birth because it will be endangered and a couple of rich blokes turning up with a cheque book, paying someone they don't know who probably would prefer not to be a surrogate but needs money and cutting off contact to the child's mother.

Surrogates dont get paid for carrying the child, they can recieve money for expenses, but that is all. Not all children who are adopted because they are endangers or abused, that again is a ridiculous statement to make, what world do you live in?

My point is that a child up for adoption has no-one to look after it, for whatever reason. The adoptive parents are performing a pretty selfless act in adopting the child and not taking it away from either of its parents.

Surrogates in the UK maybe. The surrogacies I have an issue with are the ones often in the US that involve large amounts of money, which the celebrity ones I've mentioned undoubtedly did.

You speak with authority on topics you have little to no concrete knowledge of, at least within the confides of this thread.

Women have attempted to provide you with factual information, which you chose to ignore.

 

[Tasha]

I could if it wasnt my egg and i had finished having childre, absoloutely. Using my own egg, no, I couldnt give away my own flesh and blood.

I always feel guilty because my Sister cannot have children (several m/c and 2 ectopics, failed IVF) and I look back and know that i potentially could have given her thr greatest gift, however I was young and still having children myself. I'd now happily do it but my Sister is now at an age and time in her life where she has accepted that she wont ever have children and is content with what she has.

If the show was on the other foot and I was unable to have any more children surrogacy is definitely a route i would expore

Dont feel guilty, you werent at the right stage in your life to offer it to your sister. I am glad she has come to terms with it.

Don't talk about my uterus please.

If she can have successful egg extraction, there's no reason for her not to carry the child with the amount of money she has.

To be fair, you brought your situation into this, so people will comment on that.

Are you kidding me? I could have all the money in the world and still wouldnt be able to carry if my next careplan isnt successful

I would like to think I could be a surrogate however due to suffering hyperemesis I wouldn't be able to go through 9 months and not be able to keep a baby at the end of it.

With SJP & NK both over 40 when they decided to use surrogates for their subsequent children? Also NK has already adopted 2 children with Tom Cruise due to fertility problems and had at least one miscarriage whilst he was divorcing her, I think she has the right like any other person (gay/straight) to choose how they bring life into this world, as long as they can care for them, in my opinion a child should come into this world just loved & wanted, if its 1 or 2 parents it doesn't matter and the sexual orientation of them is irrelevant.

Hyperemesis must be awful, and is classed as a complication so I can see why that would affect your decision.

Thanks for clarifying the NK situation.

Thanks Tasha, I grey up without a Dad and I had THE happiest childhood and I dont feel that I missed out on anything. My husband on thr other hand, grew up with both a Mother and Father (adoptive) and had a miserable childhood

I never knew that you was a single parent family and it was your Dad who brought you up. I do however know the stories of DH parents and they are dicks. Just goes to show that just because people go to the bother of adopting doesnt mean they will be great parents.

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Totally agree. I didnt know there was someone else on here who had twelve miscarriages though

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

I was able to, and am no longer able to. Fertility is not a fixed thing.

It doesnt have to be about money.

Times change, your body does not stay in the same state forever. Just because she carried a child once does not mean to say that she can do it again, and again, and again, and again. And no, money has NOTHING to do with it. As many women in this thread have stated, they would do it for family, family would do it for them....money does not have to play a part.

Exactly, look at my story.

 

[Piper84]

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

Times change, your body does not stay in the same state forever. Just because she carried a child once does not mean to say that she can do it again, and again, and again, and again. And no, money has NOTHING to do with it. As many women in this thread have stated, they would do it for family, family would do it for them....money does not have to play a part.

Actually I'm talking about the women on here suffering multiple miscarriages. If they had the money, they would take the same route as NK.

Again very presumption. You speak on behalf of all the women who have had multiple miscarriages on BnB? I'm glad you know their minds better than they do themselves AMAZING.

I was replying to the statement that it had nothing to do with money. Not intending to speak for anyone.

 

[LoraLoo]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

How is it bizarre? An adopted child has no parents to look after it and if they are adopted by a couple, same-sex or otherwise, that is a bonus and a far more selfless act than bringing a child into the world, spending a fortune in doing so and removing one of its biological parents.

Because you are saying that a child should not be removed from its mother, the outcome is still EXACTLY the same, it doesnt matter what proccess it was, the outcome is still 2 same sexed parents!

There's a difference between a child being removed from its home because its parents are abusive or a child being removed at birth because it will be endangered and a couple of rich blokes turning up with a cheque book, paying someone they don't know who probably would prefer not to be a surrogate but needs money and cutting off contact to the child's mother.

Surrogates dont get paid for carrying the child, they can recieve money for expenses, but that is all. Not all children who are adopted because they are endangers or abused, that again is a ridiculous statement to make, what world do you live in?

My point is that a child up for adoption has no-one to look after it, for whatever reason. The adoptive parents are performing a pretty selfless act in adopting the child and not taking it away from either of its parents.

Surrogates in the UK maybe. The surrogacies I have an issue with are the ones often in the US that involve large amounts of money, which the celebrity ones I've mentioned undoubtedly did.

Of the women on this thread that have said that they would be a surrogate, not ONE has said that they would do it for money. They have all said that they are doing it to give a childless couple the gift of a new life.

Your point doesnt really have any foundations any more for me, you have contradicted yourself throughout this thread.

 

[TriChick]

I would do it for a close friend of family member experiencing problems, but with their eggs or donated eggs. It would be hard, but facing up to never having your own children is harder.

What I find hard to stomach is celebrities paying surrogates to have children when they are
capable of having their own. I also find the recent trend of people like Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, Elton John and Ryan Murphy buying little versions of themselves
wrong somehow.

It's not because they're gay,

more because they are buying little versions of themselves and removing them from their mothers without a second thought, just for the sake of passing on their genes.

I think your comments since have shown that one of your issues with this IS because they are gay.


I can't keep up with this thread at the moment because I'm on my phone but I hope I an lucky enough to have children and that they never have to come across someone with your views but I will teach my children regardless to be confident adults and show you you are wrong and hopefully your views on sane sex parenting won't filter down to the next few generations.

If it makes it easier for you to think that, go ahead, but I haven't said anything to suggest I think gay people can't parent, just my distaste for the culture of rich celebrity men getting their chequebooks out and buying a child from its mother.

Guess what? The child is half theirs as well.

 

[Piper84]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

How is it bizarre? An adopted child has no parents to look after it and if they are adopted by a couple, same-sex or otherwise, that is a bonus and a far more selfless act than bringing a child into the world, spending a fortune in doing so and removing one of its biological parents.

Because you are saying that a child should not be removed from its mother, the outcome is still EXACTLY the same, it doesnt matter what proccess it was, the outcome is still 2 same sexed parents!

There's a difference between a child being removed from its home because its parents are abusive or a child being removed at birth because it will be endangered and a couple of rich blokes turning up with a cheque book, paying someone they don't know who probably would prefer not to be a surrogate but needs money and cutting off contact to the child's mother.

Surrogates dont get paid for carrying the child, they can recieve money for expenses, but that is all. Not all children who are adopted because they are endangers or abused, that again is a ridiculous statement to make, what world do you live in?

My point is that a child up for adoption has no-one to look after it, for whatever reason. The adoptive parents are performing a pretty selfless act in adopting the child and not taking it away from either of its parents.

Surrogates in the UK maybe. The surrogacies I have an issue with are the ones often in the US that involve large amounts of money, which the celebrity ones I've mentioned undoubtedly did.

You speak with authority on topics you have little to no concrete knowledge of, at least within the confides of this thread.

Women have attempted to provide you with factual information, which you chose to ignore.

What facts? All I've seen here is opinion and speculation.

 

[smileyfaces]

I would do it for a close friend of family member experiencing problems, but with their eggs or donated eggs. It would be hard, but facing up to never having your own children is harder.

What I find hard to stomach is celebrities paying surrogates to have children when they are
capable of having their own. I also find the recent trend of people like Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, Elton John and Ryan Murphy buying little versions of themselves
wrong somehow.

It's not because they're gay,

more because they are buying little versions of themselves and removing them from their mothers without a second thought, just for the sake of passing on their genes.

I think your comments since have shown that one of your issues with this IS because they are gay.


I can't keep up with this thread at the moment because I'm on my phone but I hope I an lucky enough to have children and that they never have to come across someone with your views but I will teach my children regardless to be confident adults and show you you are wrong and hopefully your views on sane sex parenting won't filter down to the next few generations.

If it makes it easier for you to think that, go ahead, but I haven't said anything to suggest I think gay people can't parent, just my distaste for the culture of rich celebrity men getting their chequebooks out and buying a child from its mother.

No but you have said (on several occasions) that same sex parents are inferior and are selfish for wanting to bring a child into the world

 

[LoraLoo]

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

Times change, your body does not stay in the same state forever. Just because she carried a child once does not mean to say that she can do it again, and again, and again, and again. And no, money has NOTHING to do with it. As many women in this thread have stated, they would do it for family, family would do it for them....money does not have to play a part.

Actually I'm talking about the women on here suffering multiple miscarriages. If they had the money, they would take the same route as NK.

Again very presumption. You speak on behalf of all the women who have had multiple miscarriages on BnB? I'm glad you know their minds better than they do themselves AMAZING.

I was replying to the statement that it had nothing to do with money. Not intending to speak for anyone.

But you ARE speaking for them. You are saying that if all the women who have experiences multiple M/C on BnB, they would take the same route as NK, thats exactly what you said lol

 

[TriChick]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

How is it bizarre? An adopted child has no parents to look after it and if they are adopted by a couple, same-sex or otherwise, that is a bonus and a far more selfless act than bringing a child into the world, spending a fortune in doing so and removing one of its biological parents.

Because you are saying that a child should not be removed from its mother, the outcome is still EXACTLY the same, it doesnt matter what proccess it was, the outcome is still 2 same sexed parents!

There's a difference between a child being removed from its home because its parents are abusive or a child being removed at birth because it will be endangered and a couple of rich blokes turning up with a cheque book, paying someone they don't know who probably would prefer not to be a surrogate but needs money and cutting off contact to the child's mother.

Surrogates dont get paid for carrying the child, they can recieve money for expenses, but that is all. Not all children who are adopted because they are endangers or abused, that again is a ridiculous statement to make, what world do you live in?

My point is that a child up for adoption has no-one to look after it, for whatever reason. The adoptive parents are performing a pretty selfless act in adopting the child and not taking it away from either of its parents.

Surrogates in the UK maybe. The surrogacies I have an issue with are the ones often in the US that involve large amounts of money, which the celebrity ones I've mentioned undoubtedly did.

You speak with authority on topics you have little to no concrete knowledge of, at least within the confides of this thread.

Women have attempted to provide you with factual information, which you chose to ignore.

What facts? All I've seen here is opinion and speculation.

I provided you with multiple links regarding the infertility issues of the women you claim to be completely fertile, as well as the website regarding secondary infertility which you don't seem to comprehend fully. Instead of reading them, you chose to make false claims based on assumption.

Those are facts, regardless of what you classify them as.

 

[Piper84]

I'm tired of replying to all these posts and being jumped on for having a different opinion to what's popular. In summary:

- Surrogacy for reasons other than infertility is, in my opinion, inherently selfish when the option to adopt is available
- It is never a good idea to deliberately remove a child from one of its parents or deliberately deprive it of a mother or father figure
- Surrogacy is a poorly-regulated system in a lot of countries open to abuse and massively unequal in its distribution
- Surrogacy is abused by the very rich
- It is not a "right" to pass on your genes

For everyone who thinks commercial surrogacy is all rainbows and butterflies and anyone who questions any part of it is an evil bigot, please feel free to search online for research on the moral and ethical issues it raises and see that it's not only the anti-gay brigade talking about it.

 

[TriChick]

I'm tired of replying to all these posts and being jumped on for having a different opinion to what's popular. In summary:

- Surrogacy for reasons other than infertility is, in my opinion, inherently selfish when the option to adopt is available
- It is never a good idea to deliberately remove a child from one of its parents or deliberately deprive it of a mother or father figure
- Surrogacy is a poorly-regulated system in a lot of countries open to abuse and massively unequal in its distribution
- Surrogacy is abused by the very rich
- It is not a "right" to pass on your genes

If you're tired of it, do some research next time before vocalizing "fact".

 

[Tasha]

I had the opposite of secondary infertility, but I was using my example to say that two and a bit years is a very short time to decide you're infertile.

I just can't condone removing a child from its parent, regardless of what contracts have been signed and how much love you can provide.

And as has been said, she had problems previous to this.

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

Times change, your body does not stay in the same state forever. Just because she carried a child once does not mean to say that she can do it again, and again, and again, and again. And no, money has NOTHING to do with it. As many women in this thread have stated, they would do it for family, family would do it for them....money does not have to play a part.

Actually I'm talking about the women on here suffering multiple miscarriages. If they had the money, they would take the same route as NK.

Again very presumption. You speak on behalf of all the women who have had multiple miscarriages on BnB? I'm glad you know their minds better than they do themselves AMAZING.

I was replying to the statement that it had nothing to do with money. Not intending to speak for anyone.

You said that women with multiple miscarriages would chose it, if they had the money. Its simply not true. I've spoken to hundreds of women who have had recurrent loses and I dont know any that have chosen adoption or surrogacy because they long to carry their own babies.

I am the only one I know who is considering the surrogacy route. BTW I am far from a milionaire

 

[TriChick]

I had the opposite of secondary infertility, but I was using my example to say that two and a bit years is a very short time to decide you're infertile.

I just can't condone removing a child from its parent, regardless of what contracts have been signed and how much love you can provide.

And as has been said, she had problems previous to this.

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

Times change, your body does not stay in the same state forever. Just because she carried a child once does not mean to say that she can do it again, and again, and again, and again. And no, money has NOTHING to do with it. As many women in this thread have stated, they would do it for family, family would do it for them....money does not have to play a part.

Actually I'm talking about the women on here suffering multiple miscarriages. If they had the money, they would take the same route as NK.

Again very presumption. You speak on behalf of all the women who have had multiple miscarriages on BnB? I'm glad you know their minds better than they do themselves AMAZING.

I was replying to the statement that it had nothing to do with money. Not intending to speak for anyone.

You said that women with multiple miscarriages would chose it, if they had the money. Its simply not true. I've spoken to hundreds of women who have had recurrent loses and I dont know any that have chosen adoption or surrogacy because they long to carry their own babies.

I am the only one I know who is considering the surrogacy route. BTW I am far from a milionaire

I actually know a couple people who are attempting surrogacy, so you aren't alone I came across a journal (I THINK it's in the surrogacy section) of a BnB member chronicling her journey as a surrogate. Wish I could remember who it was It's really interesting, and may offer you some insight if you are curious!