article (http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/wombs-for-rent-in-india/2007/12/31/1198949739194.html)

EVERY night in this quiet western Indian city, 15 pregnant women prepare for sleep in the spacious house they share, ascending the stairs in a procession of ballooned bellies, to bedrooms that become a landscape of soft hills.

A team of maids, cooks and doctors looks after the women, whose pregnancies would be unusual anywhere else but are common here. The young mothers of Anand, a place famous for its milk, are pregnant with the children of infertile couples from around the world.

The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand's surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies.

More than 50 women in this city are now pregnant with the children of couples from the United States, Taiwan, Britain and beyond. The women earn more than many would make in 15 years. But the program raises a host of uncomfortable questions that touch on morals and modern science, exploitation and globalisation, and that most natural of desires: to have a family.

what do you make of this?

sounds like surrogacy to me. I have no problem with it.

Whatever feeds them or their families. Better than prostitution, child labor and abuse.

Ey, you gotta do what you gotta do.

what's with creating more babies because someone wants one? Why can't they just go adopt one, there's plenty of kids in the world in need of a good home.

Better than prostitution, child labor and abuse.
How is it not prostitution?
When you think about it they kind of get reverse-penetrated by a strange babies entire body for money, that's pretty messed up really, it could be argued that a career in butt fisting porn would be more dignified.

If you decide to think about it like that, which I wouldn't, that would be crazy.

I don't see anything wrong with it, just people making money through making use of their bodies.

more from the article

Commercial surrogacy has been legal in India since 2002, as it is in many other countries, including the United States. But India is the leader in making it a viable industry rather than a rare fertility treatment. Experts say it could take off for the same reasons outsourcing in other industries has been successful: a wide labour pool working for relatively low rates.

Critics say the couples are exploiting poor women in India - a country with an alarmingly high maternal death rate - by hiring them at a cut-rate cost to undergo the hardship, pain and risks of labour.


and

But if commercial surrogacy keeps growing, some fear it could change from a medical necessity for infertile women to a convenience for the rich.

"You can picture the wealthy couples of the West deciding that pregnancy is just not worth the trouble anymore and the whole industry will be farmed out," said Dr Lantos.

Or, he said, competition among clinics could lead to compromised safety measures and "the clinic across the street offers it for 20 per cent less and one in Bangladesh undercuts that and pretty soon conditions get bad."

The industry is not regulated by the government. Health officials have issued nonbinding ethical guidelines and called for legislation to protect the surrogates and the children.

any looming issues at hand here?

any looming issues at hand here?

What issues do you see?

Well what i see here in america is that the family has been destroyed, and is governed by goverment. this aspect in india seems to be the other exstent of of the complete industrization of the family. surrocay had problems in america and so it seems that other countries have provided the out let for surrocay, regaless of the surrocagy difficulty in america domestic problems that make suuogacy non viable in america, the govemnet has pushed soicety in to postion where children and family are simular to cattle. they would never admit this in america because of pride and the belife and dream that america is upright. But it has come to that, large scams existed in america regarding paternity. but the goverments mainly state goverments still pushed the scams of paternity placing millions of children with fathers that where not theirs, this lead to a increased in child death and abuse, including neglect of mothers of their children. over the last 20 years the domestic family has been litered with problems and relationsships are pretty much hard case and disassocitaed, several anthropological studies exsplained the growing disassociation occuring in the amercian family little was done, and the goverments(state) continuted with there scams in paternitly. And so there exist this condtion where the goverment comes in and takes ove the family in america, really the whole family is treated like cattle.
so its not surprieing to see surrogancy being sought in other countryies, in america the goverment would come in and start deciding things reagless if thats what the parties wanted and things might not be so desireable once the govement gets invovled. a place out side america would seem more attractive as the goverment would have a more distant hand in appearance and no natural mother to consider.

personally if i had a women and she could not give birth and i wanted a family i would have to leave her, simulary a women of india should not be so poor that they give there children away for money.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

article (http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/wombs-for-rent-in-india/2007/12/31/1198949739194.html)

EVERY night in this quiet western Indian city, 15 pregnant women prepare for sleep in the spacious house they share, ascending the stairs in a procession of ballooned bellies, to bedrooms that become a landscape of soft hills.

A team of maids, cooks and doctors looks after the women, whose pregnancies would be unusual anywhere else but are common here. The young mothers of Anand, a place famous for its milk, are pregnant with the children of infertile couples from around the world.

The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand's surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies.

More than 50 women in this city are now pregnant with the children of couples from the United States, Taiwan, Britain and beyond. The women earn more than many would make in 15 years. But the program raises a host of uncomfortable questions that touch on morals and modern science, exploitation and globalisation, and that most natural of desires: to have a family.

what do you make of this?

I think it's completely fucking stupid. In the western world it costs £100,000 (10 kabillion trillion zillion infinity yankmerican dollars) to raise a child to the age of 18. Why pay that to raise someone who, for the poor barren mother, at least, is from your point of view a big fat baby cuckoo in your home?

Makes sense for the father, though. I wonder if they get to see first what their baby is coming out of though, who the fuck wants all that hassle for an ugly kid who's going to pass his or her ugly inferior genes thousands of years down your line? These women better be beautiful.

Why should the strongest and most beautiful women sell their children. you would think that only the runts and unwanted rejects would sell their children.
If strong and beautiful women have to sell the children, then the whole thing should be Illeagl.

The law should state that healthy,strong beautiful women of stature is forbibben form selling her children.

Not only that i don't like the sound of the overal operation even for runts and reject women, the goverment of india has a security interest in all of the inhabitants of the land of inda, really what is to stop some crazy genetic exspermint from happing, every and each single case will have to looked at and examined by a goverment agent interested in the security of human life. if even one genetic exspermint happens it will be to many.

Lastly I think it is man of low character, a misfit that does not have the balls to climb in between the legs of a women himselfand put his seed in place of womb, one that does not deserve a beatufiul attractive strong heatly women in the first place. actullay he does not desrve a women at all he should be forced to have sex with animals.
i doen't matter how much money he has, he should have dumped his wife and found a women that could give him a life.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

Why should the strongest and most beautiful women sell their children. you would think that only the runts and unwanted rejects would sell their children....


??? I thought surrogates used the husband's sperm and the wife's eggs. The surrogate just carries it. :shrug:

Well, orelander

I am really not sure what is happening in this case, but usally there is something wrong when crops are made of poor women in despair.
So there is no telling what will happen,maybe therre are some limits as to what type of surrogacy can take place.:shrug:

I think it's completely fucking stupid. In the western world it costs £100,000 (10 kabillion trillion zillion infinity yankmerican dollars) to raise a child to the age of 18. Why pay that to raise someone who, for the poor barren mother, at least, is from your point of view a big fat baby cuckoo in your home?

Makes sense for the father, though. I wonder if they get to see first what their baby is coming out of though, who the fuck wants all that hassle for an ugly kid who's going to pass his or her ugly inferior genes thousands of years down your line? These women better be beautiful.

You do understand that if the child does end up to be "ugly", it is carrying the father's genes, as well as the mother's? Ergo, they are using their own eggs and sperm and implanting the fertilised egg in another's woman womb. That is the crux of surrogacy. You do get that, don't you?

Why should the strongest and most beautiful women sell their children. you would think that only the runts and unwanted rejects would sell their children.
If strong and beautiful women have to sell the children, then the whole thing should be Illeagl.

The law should state that healthy,strong beautiful women of stature is forbibben form selling her children.
Do you think an ugly woman should be allowed to sell her children, but a beautiful woman should not? Anyway, that is beside the point and this is not what this discussion is about. It is illegal to sell one's children, whether the woman is "beautiful" or not.

These women are not selling their own children. Surrogacy is when a couple uses a third party (a woman) to carry and give birth to their child (after she has been implanted with the fertilised egg from the couple). This is usually the case where the woman (wife) is unable to carry a child through pregnancy. Therefore, they pay for the living and medical expenses for another woman to carry their child.

Lastly I think it is man of low character, a misfit that does not have the balls to climb in between the legs of a women himselfand put his seed in place of womb, one that does not deserve a beatufiul attractive strong heatly women in the first place. actullay he does not desrve a women at all he should be forced to have sex with animals.
i doen't matter how much money he has, he should have dumped his wife and found a women that could give him a life.
What throwback of the dark ages do you happen to come from? Do you ask a woman if she is fertile on the first date? Or do you save that little gem for the 3rd date?

Do you even understand what surrogacy actually is?

Well, orelander

I am really not sure what is happening in this case, but usally there is something wrong when crops are made of poor women in despair.


This from the man who states he would dump his wife if she could not have children? Kind of rich, don't you think?

??? He's married?

Well since we are the subject, I'll probally lean over her back and put in place within the first five minutes of knowing her.


Yes I do understand what surrogacy is.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

Well since we are the subject, I'll probally lean over her back and put in place within the first five minutes of knowing her....n

I have no idea what that means? Her back? Put what in place? :confused:

You do understand that if the child does end up to be "ugly", it is carrying the father's genes, as well as the mother's? Ergo, they are using their own eggs and sperm and implanting the fertilised egg in another's woman womb. That is the crux of surrogacy. You do get that, don't you?

What throwback of the dark ages do you happen to come from? Do you ask a woman if she is fertile on the first date? Or do you save that little gem for the 3rd date?

Do you even understand what surrogacy actually is?

Easy there, being healthy and virile I have never needed to understand the intricacies of spazzy genitals and the workarounds. I was under the impression these women were knocked up with the gent's sperm, didn't realise the lady's eggs were also involved.

Why the fuck shouldn't you ask if a woman is fertile? What if you marry and find out she's barren and already knew it? What sort of shitty fate would that be? Are you seriously implying that men and women get together for something other than proliferation?

article (http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/wombs-for-rent-in-india/2007/12/31/1198949739194.html)
EVERY night in this quiet western Indian city, 15 pregnant women prepare for sleep in the spacious house they share, ascending the stairs in a procession of ballooned bellies, to bedrooms that become a landscape of soft hills.

A team of maids, cooks and doctors looks after the women, whose pregnancies would be unusual anywhere else but are common here. The young mothers of Anand, a place famous for its milk, are pregnant with the children of infertile couples from around the world.

The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand's surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies.

More than 50 women in this city are now pregnant with the children of couples from the United States, Taiwan, Britain and beyond. The women earn more than many would make in 15 years. But the program raises a host of uncomfortable questions that touch on morals and modern science, exploitation and globalisation, and that most natural of desires: to have a family. What do you make of this?

To me the problem isn't 'in' the clinic. It sounds like - on paper - they are minimizing the damage of what is being done and treat the women with respect.

The problem is around the clinic: poverty, for example. Ask a woman who had a miscarriage if she did not feel bonded to that child. It is not a natural or pleasant 'job' to go through a pregnancy and then give the child away and it is not a likely first choice for income, or even hundredth choice.

And yet, adoption would be a whole lot better approach to building the family.

Easy there, being healthy and virile ...

how many kids do you have?

Ahahaha, none. Of course I *could* be infertile but I am young and horny so I doubt it. The point(s) still stand though, whatever those were.

And yet, adoption would be a whole lot better approach to building the family.

No it wouldn't. Then you just end up spending all your hard earned money bringing up SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD who isn't even related to you.

Adoption is for suckers.

any looming issues at hand here?

What happens if the tests show the fetus is handicapped in some way, or something goes wrong at birth and leaves the child handicapped?

what do you make of this?

What sort of women seek surrogates?
Did those women previously have abortions, or have become infertile or otherwise unsuitable to bear a child as a result of contraceptive use?
If such women seek surrogates to bear their children, then they are hypocrites.

No it wouldn't. Then you just end up spending all your hard earned money bringing up SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD who isn't even related to you.

Adoption is for suckers.
An idea not backed up by research or experience on your part either I would guess. The 'is for suckers' part.

Only a very mental approach to life, cut off from the emotions or knowledge, would think this idea actually applies to reality.

I can only assume you are coming from some sort of 'not my DNA' perspective, so I'll mention
Even animals adopt, sometimes even across species.

I have no problem with it, sometime adopted children may have memories of their parents, While I'd rather people adopt first, As long as the mothers are compensated properly.
I understand that pregnancy can have adverse effects on some, like loss of calcium from teeth, increased chance of disease etc.

Only a very mental approach to life, cut off from the emotions or knowledge, would think this idea actually applies to reality.

Only a very emotional approach to life, cut off from any kind of mental processing ability, independent thought or knowledge, would think this idea actually applies to reality.

There we go, fixed it.



Even animals adopt, sometimes even across species.

Yeah, but they eat shit too.

Easy there, being healthy and virile I have never needed to understand the intricacies of spazzy genitals and the workarounds. I was under the impression these women were knocked up with the gent's sperm, didn't realise the lady's eggs were also involved.


Being "healthy and virile" says nothing about your sperm count. You can have 100 erections a day and still have a low sperm count or non-viable sperm, no matter how young or old you are.

Mostly, the 'wife's' eggs are used. Sometimes, in instances where she has been ill in the past (cancer for example) and had not had her eggs harvested, a donor egg may be used to be implanted in the surrogate mother. And sometimes, the surrogate mother may donate her eggs, but that tends to enter the slippery legal slope, so it is quite rare.

Why the fuck shouldn't you ask if a woman is fertile?
I'll put it to you this way. In all the time I dated my husband (and my other boyfriends before him), not a single one of them asked me if I was fertile. Nor did I ask them. After I had been dating my husband for a while, we were talking about children (his sister had just had her second child) and he said he didn't want any after seeing what his nephews were like. I then told him it was funny because I could not have any. He did not care either way. I guess we were together because we loved each other. Not because either of us wanted to spawn.:rolleyes:

We now have two children.:) Seems I could have children after all.. much to our shock and horror in those first few months of pregnancy with our first child..

What if you marry and find out she's barren and already knew it? What sort of shitty fate would that be?
Having children is usually discussed prior to marriage... 'do you want to have children?'.. 'yes.. no'.. And usually, and I mean usually, that is when the one who can't have them will explain their situation.

Are you seriously implying that men and women get together for something other than proliferation?
Yes.

with respect to bell (and sympathy) most people wouldnt even know if they were fertile or not, if they did there would be a lot less spent on the pill for instance. I mean would you just test everyone at the end of pubity for infertility? the first most people know about it is when they try to get pregant and cant

Source: NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com)
Link: http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/outsourced-wombs/index.html
Title: "Outsourced Wombs", by Judith Miller
Date: January 3, 2008


Author and XM Radio host Judith Warner posted this commentary yesterday:

They couldn't hear Julie speaking in her awful, entitled tone. And if they had, would they have cared? "From the money I earn as a surrogate mother, I can buy a house," said Nandani Patel, via a translator. "It's not possible for my husband to earn more as he's not educated and only earns $50 a month."

We, however, can hear the imperious tone, so much more audible in radio than in the troubling print reports that have surfaced lately on Indian surrogate mothers' "wombs for rent." And we should care about how things sound.

Because what's going on in India – where surrogacy is estimated now to be a $445-million-a-year business — feels like a step toward the kind of insane dehumanization that filled the dystopic fantasies of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and Margaret Atwood's "Handmaid's Tale." (One "medical tourism" website, PlanetHospital.com, refers to the Indian surrogate mother as a mere "host.") Images of pregnant women lying in rows, or sitting lined up, belly after belly, for medical exams look like industrial outsourcing pushed to a nightmarish extreme.

I say "feels like" and "look like" because I can't quite bring myself to the point of saying "is." And in this, I think, I am right in the mainstream of American thought on the topic of surrogate motherhood.

(Warner (http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/outsourced-wombs/index.html))

Perhaps most distasteful about "Julie", the American client seeking a surrogate in India is the thought that, in traveling abroad, she is merely shopping around for the best price:

"The legal issues in the United States are complicated, having to do with that the surrogate mother still has legal rights to that child until they sign over their parental rights at the time of the delivery. Of course, and there’s the factor of costs. For some couples in the United States surrogacy can reach up to $80,000 ....

".... You have no idea if your surrogate mother is smoking, drinking alcohol, doing drugs. You don’t know what she’s doing. You have a third-party agency as a mediator between the two of you, but there’s no one policing her in the sense that you don’t know what’s going on."

(ibid)

Warner asks the obvious question: "Would you want this woman owning your womb?"

And she also points out that the surrogate mothers in India don't seem troubled about such thoughts. Available for between about 7.5 to 12 per cent of the cost, Indian surrogates are an attractive option for cost-conscious American consumers.

But Warner is not wholly condemning. While I question her choice to invoke a recent Newsweek story about overseas adoption, she does make a point about the emotions driving these American consumers:

Being infertile when you deeply desire a baby is one of those heartbreaking, life-altering trials that an outsider to the experience cannot begin to appreciate; I appreciate that. Adoption is complicated; just how fatally complicated some of the cases of children adopted from orphanages in Russia and Eastern Europe turned out to be was chronicled, devastatingly (http://www.newsweek.com/id/74385), last month in Newsweek. And poor Indian women don’t have an awful lot of choices so far as real money-making – to pay for school, to pay for a home – is concerned.

(ibid)

Additionally, Warner raises a certain issue that Americans tend to shy away from. After citing a French court ruling from 1991 that outlawed commercial surrogacy in that nation, she notes,

But our rules of decency seem to differ when the women in question are living in abject poverty, half a world away. Then, selling one’s body for money is not degrading but empowering ....

.... In its perverse way, surrogacy does seem to bring a measure of empowerment to the poor Indian women who take part in it. Dr. Nayna Patel, the director of a popular clinic that draws dozens of poor rural women as surrogates every year, houses them and provides them with constant monitoring and medical care, told Marie Claire magazine last summer that she takes steps to ensure that each woman who contracts with her as a surrogate keeps control of her money afterwards. “If she wants to buy a house, we’ll hold her money for her until she’s ready. Or if she wants to put it in an account for her children, we’ll go with her to the bank to set up the account in her name,” she said.

Which brings us back to the fertile question of the “feels like” rather than the “is.” In an awful world, where many women are in awful circumstances, how do you single out for condemnation an awful-seeming transaction that yields so much life betterment?

(ibid)

So it seems that one of the central arguments we must face is whether, while dignity is certainly a variable standard related to prevailing conditions, we should exploit it as such. It is easy enough to say that I would never wish such an enterprise on my own daughter, from either side of the equation. But we are Americans, and no matter how poor a father I might turn out to be, it is unlikely that, barring unforeseen cataclysm, she will ever have to make such decisions.

As an adopted child, I do object to surrogacy on the grounds that there are many existing children in need of homes, and the only thing that separates them from the surrogate offspring is a matter of pride. Consumers like Julie can say that a surrogate-born child is "theirs" in a way that they cannot if they adopt a child. Perhaps this is an evolutionary trait, but it is ugly nonetheless. While Julie shops around for the best price, thousands of children who have already arrived on planet Earth will languish in need of a home; perhaps it is best that they not go home with such callous consumers. My own adoption seems to have worked out for the best. Not everyone can say that.

Lastly, I'm curious about the long-term effect. American women are largely accustomed to complaining about the effects of pregnancy on their bodies. And many adulterous husbands would agree. Perhaps in twenty years, when someone brings forth a broad study suggesting the effects of low-cost surrogacy on the surrogates' health and quality of life, we will be in a better position to understand the implications of what this process is doing to people. To the other, since we Americans are consummate consumers, it is likely that the only quality of life indicator that matters will be the one preceded by a dollar sign.

Only a very emotional approach to life, cut off from any kind of mental processing ability, independent thought or knowledge, would think this idea actually applies to reality.

There we go, fixed it.

You fixed it to match your hallucination. You obviously know little about the people who adopt or are adopted since you can sum the former up as 'suckers'. People who are lured into doing something where they lose out. A hallucination that you cannot back up.




Yeah, but they eat shit too.
My point was related to DNA based arguments against adoption. But you have no argument against adoption. I'll treat your first post with your 'suckers' hypothesis as something like a burp.

OK then sowhatifit'sdark, explain to me exactly why it's NOT a complete waste of time and resources to adopt? What you end up with is essentially a very expensive human pet. Yes, it serves a good purpose in that a disadvantaged child ends up in a home with a "mother" and a "father", but that is not the angle either of us is coming from.

Schleebenhorst, you're a royal goose.
Are you trying really hard to sound like a dumbfuck pratt or does it just come naturally?
You're either stirring the pot for your own perverse amusement or you have not a single clue how far out of your depth you are on this topic.

Either way, time to shut the fuck up.

Maybe I'm just trying to provoke some independent thought.

Why are you so angry? Something amiss in the trouser department? ;)

Maybe I'm just trying to provoke some independent thought.

Why are you so angry? Something amiss in the trouser department? ;)

Mmmm! Independent thought?
Why didn't I think of that?

No, not angry but yes, haven't had a root since before lunch, I'm getting toey.

Mod Hat — Oh, come now ....

Oh, come now, people. What the hell?

Schleebenhorst: Your apparent value of human life is curious, indeed. Have you no love for anything that isn't related to you by blood? Or is that particular love reserved for something you can bang without going to prison?

Spud: Regardless of what kind of prat you think he's acting like, I would encourage you to remember that, according to his contempt for animals, he's also confessing that he's never had nor given a rimjob. Consider, for a moment, what kind of frustrated individual you're dealing with here, and have some mercy, man. I mean, and if I'm reading his user title (England !=UK) correctly, that would make him an Englishman who's never been rimmed. What does that make him, the only one?

As a general note, if Schleebenhorst's performance in #20 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1697096&postcount=20) above isn't a giveaway—


Why the fuck shouldn't you ask if a woman is fertile? What if you marry and find out she's barren and already knew it? What sort of shitty fate would that be? Are you seriously implying that men and women get together for something other than proliferation?

—then I would urge that people take the hint now.

Let's not allow ill-writ comedy lead us astray. 'Tis a fascinating topic, indeed. Or so says me. Oh, right: and that counts for something, for once.

Thank ye ....
:cool:

Indeed I have never received a rimjob.... ?

Tiassa: I just don't see the point of all the money and toil involved in raising a kid who's eventually just going to run off and find their "real" parents anyway. The child isn't yours, so what's the huge investment for? You will eventually be forgotten or resented. It just seems pointless.

P.S != means "does not equal". It's for those resident on the upper part of that continent containing yankleton D. C. and an apparent banjo:map ratio of several billion to one.

I just don't see the point of all the money and toil involved in raising a kid who's eventually just going to run off and find their "real" parents anyway.

That's quite the presumptuous stereotype.

The child isn't yours, so what's the huge investment for?

That's quite the presumptuous notion of family.

You will eventually be forgotten or resented.

Again, a presumptuous stereotype.

Oh, and the symbol for "does not equal" is ≠.

Not in most computer programming languages it ain't. I am using the geek version.

Tiassa: I just don't see the point of all the money and toil involved in raising a kid who's eventually just going to run off and find their "real" parents anyway. The child isn't yours, so what's the huge investment for? You will eventually be forgotten or resented. It just seems pointless.


You're going to be one of those guys who does a DNA test to make sure the child is yours, aren't you?

Your own spawn could run off and leave you behind to live his or her own life or to simply just get the hell away. Said child could also end up resenting you for a plethora of reasons, and after reading your posts, I envision the probability of that happening to be quite high.

The same could be said for the unfortunate woman you happen to marry.

I am using the geek version.

Explains a lot.

OK then sowhatifit'sdark, explain to me exactly why it's NOT a complete waste of time and resources to adopt? What you end up with is essentially a very expensive human pet. Yes, it serves a good purpose in that a disadvantaged child ends up in a home with a "mother" and a "father", but that is not the angle either of us is coming from.
Easy. Every parent I know who adopted that child loves that child dearly and is incredibly grateful they were able to adopt. They would not trade their experiences for 'resources'. They clearly did get something out of it that they found valuable and by definition were not suckers.

But let me put it in terms you might understand since the above involves having social emotions etc.
Here the situation: a guy buys a motorcycle in addition to the car he goes to work in.

Outraged friend: Oh, my god, you idiot. You bought something you will have to maintain, put gas in, clean. And unlike an adopted child you had to pay a shitload of money for it.

But I love riding on the weekends. The feel of freedom. The speed.

Outraged friend:
But you are basically taking care of someone else's machinery and supporting it. You'll be paying bills on that thing and they will only go up as time goes on.

I think you are fundamentally confused about why we are alive. Vroom, vroom. Later.

This is a crass example. The pleasure, joy and importance the adopting parent feels are of a completely different order. But since you seemed to not be able to consider that they might not be suckers, I felt I had to shift to another realm.

And before you go off on motorcycles - given the liklihood you will not get the general principle - take a moment to see if you, in your own life, invest time and money in something because it brings you meaning or joy and yet does not in purely economic terms give you a direct 'return on resources' like cash or stocks or crude oil or whatever it is you otherwise value.

If you have nothing like that, I feel sorry for you.

Guess i am missing something here. They really sell humans? Little people?

But I love riding on the weekends.


Well you could use your adopted child for that, but you'd end up in jail.

You have failed to make me "see the light" although I can see why people do it.

You have failed to make me "see the light" although I can see why people do it.

I never intended to make you see the light, especially if this means make you want to adopt. You, clearly, would not get anything from it. If you can see why other people do it, I consider that a success. Mine, yours? Who cares.

They really sell humans? Little people?

Not exactly. They're renting out the space to grow little people. You know, like an urban pea patch.

I never intended to make you see the light, especially if this means make you want to adopt. You, clearly, would not get anything from it. If you can see why other people do it, I consider that a success. Mine, yours? Who cares.

They're still suckers.

They're still suckers.
Ah..
I think you are confusing unwillingness to learn with integrity. I hope you are young.