Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Surrogacy or Adoption? Which is Best?

This article weighs in on the debate, Surrogacy or Adoption?  Which is Best?:
The debate between surrogacy or adoption is won by the benefits of surrogacy hands down in our estimation. Are you prepared for the unpredictable and life long consequences of adoption as you contemplate one of the most important decisions of your life?

* * *

With the surrogacy or adoption issue it's not the child. It's where it came from that is the risk. You can never be absolutely certain about what the parents of the child you may adopt were like. The typical woman who places a child for adoption is not really a woman at all. She is usually a teenage girl, unemployed, uneducated, on welfare and can't afford to take care of a child. She often does not know which of her sexual partners was the real father. There are aspects you will never know, such as what emotional and psychological damage the child may have in the long run. In nearly every case of adoption there are problems down the road that will impact your family, for better or worse.

I was stuck the other day upon seeing Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt at the Olympics on TV with their adopted daughter from Africa. She was still clutching a security blanket and sucking her thumb. Also, there was the tragedy in February of 2010 when Marie Osmond's adopted son committed suicide.
Ugh.  The adoptee as irretrievably broken -- pathological, even -- is another favorite media meme.  Because, of course, no kids raised by their biological parents use a security blanket or suck their thumbs and certainly none of them commit suicide. And then there's all the insulting stereotypes about birth mothers -- on welfare, promiscuous, doesn't know who the baby daddy is.  Double ugh.


Anonymous said...

The author of this "article" is pimping his business, so of course he would speak of his "competition" in negative terms.

Sandy said...

Love this part..."Here is, however, your chance to choose wisely from the start leading to a predictable outcome. "You get what you pay for", truly applies to this most important step. Skimping on the quality of the origin of your child and going with a cheaper adoption could have you paying for that decision for the rest of your life."

"You get what you pay for...skimping on the origins of your child..."...obviously we are all fatally flawed in some way or another or missing pieces due to skimping.

Agree with Anon - he is pimping his business...but doing a really poor job at that because who would want to do business without someone who slams an entire community with absolutes?

Time for this adoptee to shut up there was no place to leave a comment.

OmegaMom said...

ACK. Ack, ack, ACK.

OMG. It's eugenics under cover.

*I* sucked my thumb until I was 12. I have friends who brought their well-loved security objects (bears, blankies, what-not) with them TO COLLEGE. All of them born-to, not adopted.

OOoh, those scary unknown adoptees! You never know what you're gonna get! Well, geeze, I know what I'm *not* gonna get: genetic tendency to adult-onset diabetes and lifelong depression from my side, heart problems, alcoholism and early death from hubby's side.

This guy can go suck dead toads.

Bukimom said...

Looked at the article. I couldn't figure out what makes the author an expert in this field. There wasn't any way to get more information about the author. A google search reveals someone who deals in taxation or possibly real estate. Am I missing something?

Anonymous said...

Bukimom, I googled the author too and found all the real estate stuff. I think this guy is just a businessman who does this surrogacy pimping as a side business, and this article is his sales pitch. He's the used car salesman of surrogacy.

Summer said...

Did you notice the typographical and grammatical errors in this piece? Clearly this man is an idiot!

cluelesscarolinagirl said...

Seriously man, I'm like all effed up and all. I'm the product of too much wine drunk by wanton sluts at the William and Mary College Junyah Prom in 1958 and my Oryental "pretend children" were probably born to peasant trash without even shoes to wear on their dirt floors. Man, we suck. i mean it. Good god almitey, i don't even no why we continuye to tri to go on sometimes I can't even remember what I was about to

Amanda said...

What an offensive article.

It's sad that we really live in a world where the value of children is based on one's opinion of the people who "fabricated" them as if children are nothing but objects and their parents fabricators. It's sad that children can no longer be children any more, all their flaws and quicks and all, because their parents want to be guaranteed a better "product" than that.

Amanda said...


The page is very poorly laid out but there is a small link somewhere towards the top of the article that says "there are ___ comments for this article" that you can click to leave a comment.

They are moderated, of course *sigh*

Amanda said...

oops *quirks, not quicks lol.

Jessica said...

This article is offfensive in every way. But it's a good example of how many in the "world" view adoption. This is one reason why I wonder why there is so much name-calling and criticism from within the adoption community--at each other. Doesn't the "world" criticize us enough?

I'm hoping for a day when we stand together on common ground.

Megan said...

Clearly, this man is an idiot. What amazes me though is that in the beginning of the article he's selling knowing the genetic origins of a child and having a biological connection. Then, later, he states he can arrange sperm and egg donations. Anyone who thinks that egg donations or sperm donations are vetted well is fooling themselves. I know one egg donor (whose eggs resulted in at least three live births) who is bipolar and never revealed this during her stint.

Hopefully anyone reading the article can see the broad sweeping generalizations. Really? All birthmothers are teenagers on welfare ... why is the average age for birthmothers in the US is something like 25?

Campbell said...

You can't have it both ways. So the offense taken to this moron's assessment of adopted people is justified because....why?

Why are people not just as offended at mothers portraying "The adoptee as irretrievably broken -- pathological, even"? I guess the difference is because when they do it it's not a reflection on the biological parents but rather the adoptive parents, and that makes it perfectly acceptable to portray adopted people in this insulting manner.

I'm stewing right now over two very prominent first/birth/natural/bio mom's very recent commentary doing just this. I think it's far more damaging coming from people within the so called adoption community than some snake oil salesman.

I understand the point you're trying to make here. I hope you're able to see mine.

Von said...

The beauty of adoption hey?

Myst said...

Ugh, how can one choose between one hell or another?

Being adopted is one trauma, I cannot imagine how for the child it must feel to be grown inside a woman only to be sold to whoever raises him/her to the highest bidder. It is dirty, "playing God", manipulating Nature... in a wod revolting. So for me they are both despicable because in both cases it is NOT about the best interests of the child but merely the whims of the adults. Sickening.

Myst said...


As to the author of the article, he is a first class idiot who knows nothing about anything and pretends he does... my question: Why? He is obviously invested in this somehow whether making money or using a surrogate. Sicko with no morlas or ethics. Typical for a real estate "person" too!

Reena said...

There really isn't much more to say-- folks here pretty much cover it. This guy is a jack-@$$.

From his demeaning comments about first moms to his demeaning comments about adoptees.


Molly said...

@ Campbell -- I think there's a notable difference between broken in the sense of wounded (by an inherently traumatic experience) and broken in the sense of flawed (from birth by bad genes/fetal exposure).

Anonymous said...

Sorry. You lost me at "Best"

It's not a competition. It is however an attempt to pander to an available market by the author.

Seriously, surrogacy is a suboptimal solution to a family problem, any way you slice it. It is however big big business and dollars for the surrogacy industry. Zero value to society, beyond fulfilling the selfish desires of wealthy couples.

As for Adoption, also suboptimal, but there are orphans that do need homes in this world, so there is some value to world society. Unfortunately, there are people who are in the business to make money from the adoption business and they blight an otherwise beneficial outcome.

Anonymous said...

Because we all know biological children are perfect in every respect *eye roll*