On Demand
Baby Blues
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Alex Kuczynski, New York Times style writer and the author of Beauty Junkies: Inside Our $15 Billion Obsession with Cosmetic Surgery (Doubleday, 2006), talks about her recent NYT Magazine article "Her Body, My Baby" and her experience having a child through a surrogate.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
I read 100 or so of the "comments" posted for A.K.'s piece before I read the article.
People were undeservedly vicious in their comments, and I say this as someone who's never been an AK fan.
I actually felt badly for Alex after reading the article, she seemed so lonely and anxious while waiting for this baby - which was hers - to be born by another woman. For all her money, Alex had been denied an experience that so many women, especially the poor, have. That experience is the bonding that one must feel during pregnancy.
That part of the story was poignantly told. It made me realize that, for better or worse, part of how we judge each other as women is not just whether or not we have children - but whether we have gone through childbirth.
It's the kind of thing that makes you realize how much of a sham a lot of old school feminism was - not because its goals weren't good ones, but because it failed to acknowledged this radical power that fertile women possess. A position that is far more visceral and real than, say, CEO or President, if not more powerful. Oddly, if we'd been reading Shakespeare instead of Steinem, we would have known this...
what a meaningful, thought-provoking comment, "ecca," thanks.
I can't have kids and would consider hiring a surrogate to do it for me.
How do you make sure the surrogate can't keep the baby?
I read the NYT article and was repulsed --- for economical, not biological reasons.
Just another example of a spoiled rich couple "using" the poor to their own ends.
Why couldn't AK and her husband have adopted?
This is too selfish. If you are not so Blessed to reproduce then you should adopt. More ridiculous issues of the rich.
Ask the guest, how did she make sure the surrogate ate healthy to get all the nutrition for the fetus? is there a contract specifing that stuff?
Too old to adopt??? Well certainly too old to surrogate, yes? These laws are in place for a reason.
What are her and her husband's age? 39 and 69?
The comments accompanying the article were mean, but so was the article and the silly follow-ups: "For all her money, Alex had been denied an experience that so many women, especially the poor, have." I'm sure poor women have just a difficult time conceiving as wealthy women--but they don't have the means to get their babies carried by someone else. I like Brian's comment about "breezy" or "fluffy" or whatever, about AK's usual pieces. Her piece was all about her, not about anyone else, so she's definitely lightweight. Well, at least her son will be well cared for.
ALex, Here's a CLUE: "my body was not reproducing? You were NOT meant to have a child in this life.
I don't think very many people - outside of the upper middle class - have a baby nurse
i don't judge women on whether or not they give birth, i do judge women (of means) on whether or not they raise their own children. i couldn't help but notice the photo of the baby nurse that was included in the sunday magazine piece. why go to such trouble to conceive a baby and then hire someone else to change the diapers, etc etc?
The world is suffering from overpopulation. Nature may have a mechanism for regulating the birth of too many offspring for the environment to support, namely, infertility.
In any case, human beings have mechanisms for controlling the population while still indulging their nurturing instincts. If adoption is unfeasible then there are opportunities to foster children full-time or part-time.
Every child these narcissistic parents bent on reproducing their "special" genes brings into the world will have multiple offspring. Why is that ok? Because these parents are financially able to care for their children?
Not so. The planet cannot support the population we have.
If you're infertile, accept the hand you were dealt and find one of the millions of babies in the world who need parents.
.
Thank you Alex for giving women who can't have kids biologically hope
Please, oh please, tell me that my medical insurance rates are not being driven up by these elective procedures!
Dan
Please have the guest and callers tell us what they know of the risks to the surrogates. What would they do if the surrogate would die or have a serious medical problem as a result?
the truth,
boy that's harsh
INSURANCE COVERS THIS!? MY COMPANY BETTER NOT!!!!
If you have money, you can buy anything!
While I am very sympathetic to the last caller and the guest, doesn't IVF cost $10,000+ per round. Couldn't that be considered as a burden on the health insurance system? I can't afford health insurance and it concerns me that someone else can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of insurance company money to try and have a baby.
The comments about adoption may have been ignorant and aggressive, BUT when Ms.Kuczinsky says "a lot of people have baby nurses in the first month," she shows how clueless she really is. As a New York mother myself I know how much a baby nurse costs (several thousand dollars for a month) and I definitely know that "most people" DO NOT get baby nurses, it is most people YOU KNOW, Alex. Get it if you can afford it, but please please show a little more awareness of economic differences.
your child will end up costing more than 10 box seats sweetie.
If there weren't 45+ million people without health insurance, this wouldn't offend me.
I was repulsed by the article, not by the photos.
What seemed to emerge at almost every comment was a shallow and spoiled nature, a capricious
whim that put yoga and gestational surrogacy on the same ethic-less level.
notice when asked if the child was sleeping she replied it was being feed, why after all that she went through to have her "own" child would she deny herself the bonding experience of feeding it herself
I hate that phrase "too old to adopt." The only thing that matters is that you can provide THAT child - which otherwise might not have been adopted at all - might never have had a chance - with a safe and loving place to grow up in. Age shouldn't be a deterrent. Granted there are things which may become tough for that child later on, for instance the fact that his/her parents are older than the other kids' parents... but you get over that - and without sounding cheesy, you see that everyday is a gift. I am happy that this way worked for your guest, but I cringe when I hear that statement about adoption. My parents are 'older' parents but it is because of that age that I learned many things that I otherwise wouldn't have. Every child needs at least one parent - IT should never be ruled out.
this reminds me of the use of wetnurses in the 19th century (or really throughout much of our human history)- strange to us now, but it made sense to people then...
This article disgusted me.
Not only are there so many more important issues in this world than whether this (already affluent) woman can have her hearts' desire... but there are-- obviously... many children already living who could have benefited with a pair of parents.
Her self absorption unwillingness to look beyond her own maternal urges really shook me and angered me.
I think if you look at the photos that go with this article...they say it all.
I am guessing that the real problem that people have with this is economic. Had the economic bubble not burst, people might sound a lot less bitter.
But here is a woman, well off and obviously wanting for nothing, who didn't earn her own money, dependent on her husband for her lifestyle, and benefiting from another woman's need for cash. Not just employing her but using her body.
Come to think of it, it sounds tawdry no matter what the state of the economy.
What is the compulsion to have a child? Is your life so empty? Try seeing your reflection in your self.
I read this article and was so put off by it I hardly know where to start. So just a few points for the author:
1. Did it ever occur to you that having a child with a guy who has already had--and left--6 children by two prior marriages might not be the best bet in the future domestic bliss sweepstakes? What is so necessary to the world about YOUR DNA, anyhow?
2. Please give that "gestational surrogate" back the baby! At least SHE sounds as if she has her head screwed on in such a way that she can see people other than herself.
Oh, and
You're not nearly as interesting as you seem to think you are.
to (30) sarah from manhattan:
But if she adopted she wouldn't have a child who "looked like her." Ugh.
After reading the article-- it seems that all she thought of was herself and her 'blood line'.
I feel sorry for her-- but also sorry for her child, who maybe will grow up to inherit her selfish, shortsighted traits.
I was also bothered by the photos the NYTimes decided to have accompany AK's article. Why pose AK in a cocktail dress with heels and an updo next to her bloated and frumpy surrogate mother on the cover? To show that while her surrogate was carrying her child socially connected Alex could still hobnob around the city and the Hamptons? Ick!
In addition to the medical resources being consumed when many people have no health care, that she imports an indentured servant to care for the child, further warping the nation's immigration policies, is also offensive. I say tax these people back into the middle class to give them some perspective.
Re.-"I don't think very many people outside of the upper middle class have a baby nurse":
THE GUEST IS A BILLIONAIRE!
HJS sorry but so is the life of foster children.
With their ages by the time their kid is 18 she'd be 57 and he'd be almost 80. I guess it wouldn't matter if they had the energy to raise a child, since they have the money.
And I don't think that someone poor or middle class could afford the $25,000 for a surrogate on top of the IVF and other medical fees. She obviously doesn’t understand the plight of the poor.
And insurance covering that stuff? I hope no more than 50% because when I lost my job and tried to get insurance I was quoted $1,000 a month for a HMO plan.
If a woman can legally rent her body to another for reproduction, why can't an adult, consenting, rational woman rent her body for sex?
Alex, get a hobby!
What is it with you people?
The woman had a surrogate child and you acting like she is the embodiment of Hitler, Mussolini and Pol Pat.
Get off yourselves already.
Not everyone can have kids biologically. We have the right to have children by surrogate.
Would you deny a gay couple the right to have a surrogate child?
No, so get off Alex.
If you can't say anything nice, than don't say anything.
She didn't commit war crimes! Lay off already!
Why are you so being so judgmental of her?
very apt point malcolm h albaum
O from Forest Hills asks: "What is it with you people? The woman had a surrogate child and you acting like she is the embodiment of Hitler, Mussolini and Pol Pat. Get off yourselves already. Why are you so being so judgmental of her?"
O: Relax; I'm just as judgmental about you.
Fashionable Arrogance
It would have been so easy for this woman to have made a positive contribution, there is nothing worse than an unfit parent.
Perhaps if she had spent all of that money and effort on a good therapist and done the work that goes along with self development, she would not have merely a reflection of her self left to be raised and cared for by others.
Parents who truly love their children feed them, change their diapers, and do as much personally as possible for their babies themselves, because they LOVE this reflection of themselves. But it is pretty clear that during this time of economic decline, within certain circles, it is currently fashionable to have babies as the cost does not matter.
It's not about right, it's about values. There are lots of things that we have the right to do as individuals that aren't very positive for society as a whole. This woman and her husband have amassed enormous resources and chosen to spend them in pursuit of a very personal, quixotic goal that seems to have nothing to do with family or love. And they have done so with no acknowledgement of their own sense of entitlement or relative wealth
o
i agree!
I give up on you people. Supposedly we are more sophisticated because we listen to NRP and open minded and the way you all are attacking her, I am very disappointed in youi, I expected more compassion and open mindedness.
O, can't we be open minded, consider the issue, and then disagree strongly with her?
It seems that you are the one not open to the views of those that disagree with her position.
If you read above, you will see nasty and harsh comments, not thoughtful responses.
Some are bitter and attack Alex as a privileged white woman with too much money. That's just racist and judgmental.
O don't give up on us!
they just think it's a waste of money, which it is but so is the hummer, the double sink in the master bath, the wars and baseball tickets
Furthermore,
What if this segment was two rich gay white men in Manhattan that had a surrogate, I don't think it would be the same reaction, or would it, why isn't she allowed children?
Everyone has the right to children.
Amendment to my everyone has the right to have children, is that as long as it is legal adoption, legal surrogate mother or they biological, it is a natural right and all couples have the right to have children legally, if not biologically, then adoption or surrogate. It is about choices!
http://gawker.com/news/new-york-times/the-fabulous-life-of-alex-kuczynski-116622.php
This is the woman you're defending?
hjs,
exactly!
Even if it is a waste of money, it is her money, she didn't steal or rob someone on the street to get the money.
I hate when people are cruel to women who can't have children. I am not a desperate woman for a child, I am happy with my life now, but there are women whom are desperate for children and they can't have them biologically and surrogacy is an option for them, or as I said, we are all for gay rights, there is a lot of discrimination against gay couples to adopt still so many are doing surrogacy.
it is their right and not our place to stand in judgment of how they chose to create their life and live it. They are not hurting anyone.
I was surprised at the venemance in some of the responses. They act like she is Hitler.
O, I must strongly disagree. Everyone does not have the right to children. Everyone has the right to try without government interference. That is as far as this right goes.
My objections are similar to those that others have raised. This, and similar processes are a huge waste of resources when you consider those that are in need of parents and those that have no access to medical care at all. I object to insurance companies raising rates so that people may choose to undergo these frivolous and elective and very, very expensive procedures.
I am not against surrogacy nor this woman. I would like to know, however, what such people know of the risks to the surrogates; and, What they would do if the surrogate would die or have a serious medical problem as a result.
I can't believe how much fur is flying over this issue.
By the way, everyone
most insurances don't pay for fertility treatments!
o
well marx might say they did steal their money BUT i won't go there.
i wonder if they are the same people who get so angry when some politician gets caught cheating on his wife.
i always say mind your damn business!
compared to the real troubles we are facing, this is just another distraction.
pam
guess that's why they get 25k
O:
If she want's her own child more power to her. I don't take issue with that. I'm happy that science can help women have children, when they couldn't before. Having a child in my opinion is a right, not a privilege.
What I do take issue with is how self absorbed Alex is. Her article is such a sob story. "I'm too ashamed to tell my yoga instructor or doorman that someone else is having my baby." "Oh what's wrong with my uterus?".
What about the plight of her surrogate, "she was frank about the fact that the money would help with her two children in college.", who's daughter Rebecca had to donate her eggs (which involves courses of potentially dangerous hormones followed by a surgical procedure) to help pay for college. Yet she says in the interview Cathy's economic state is not so far off from her own as if cleaning her porch would suddenly turn her into billionaire. Alex you're married to a billionaire, Cathy is a substitution teacher. What about her nonchalant comment that most middle class women can afford a baby nurse. What's middle class to her, a plain ole millionaire?
hjs,
I agree, people are venting. That's what WNYC boards are for, right?
I think O has a good point - compared to the real evil in this world, the outrage over AK is a bit much.
Like I wrote in the first post, I'm not an AK fan, but holy cow - this reaction is over the top.
I think it goes to show that people freak out no matter what women do. In that sense, women who were defensive about HRC make more sense to me now.
AK is just a pampered spoiled woman, but she is not Mussolini. Then again, don't let me see her in a Range Rover.
I was one of the callers today. My husband and I are 6 months pregnant with fraternal twins from gestational surrogacy. One is mine and the other his.
To answer some of the questions: Our insurance does not pay for any of this. The pregnancy falls under our carriers medical insurance. Just like if it were her own pregnancy. We pay for all procedures, drugs, legal, agency fees, and everything in the first trimester is out of pocket.
We are not rich! We have saved for this for ten years and this will take half of our net worth to achieve. So, this is not some vanity project we entered into lightly or did on a whim!
Congratulations Chad to you and your husband!
Hope all goes well with the birth.
eccA
if this segment was about pampered spoiled americans then i'd be ranting also. there's a lot of waste, greed, indulgences in this county but we tend to ignore most of that and focus on the strangest sideshows.
and ps don't adopted kids end up killing the parents all the time. why should anyone want that!?!
Hi O,
Thank you for the positive vibes. We love our fertility doctor. If you are considering this process to parenthood he would be happy to speak with you.
Let me know.
Chad
Chad,
Best wishes for a healthy delivery.
I think what's worth noting is that in New York, few people would criticize you, even though what you're doing is pretty radical. What AK is doing is, in the larger tradition of surrogacy, not THAT novel, but since she's a woman (and, egads, a wealthy woman) we can tear her to pieces.
Thank goodness for you and your husband that you're in a protected class.
I'm glad you're able to do this - you're obviously making a huge financial sacrifice, which bodes well for your ability to be caring parents. (And yes, I wish both you and AK had been able to adopt, but not all people who wish to adopt are allowed that privilege.)
Congrats Chad but I'm a little disturbed at your phrasing.
"One is mine and the other his." They're your kids, not some drumstick on the thanksgiving turkey. Shouldn't they both be yours and his to raise?
And there's some sense of vanity trying to have a child of your own genetic material.
chad
if i might ask what's the total to conception?
i'm sure it will be worth it!
I think it's important to mention that straight couples without fertility issues have just as much ability to adopt as people with fertility problems. Why aren't they hassled when they choose to have their own children? Why are gays and straights with fertility problems the only ones expected to be charitable to hard to place children? Why are we expected to fix this problem?
Yes they are "our" children. I just said one is mine and the other his so you would know a little more about the process and the science of it all. I will not prefer one over the other. Please don't hang me over semantics.
The cost is somewhere around $90,000- $110,000 if all goes as planned and you are pregnant on the first try, which we were.
Maybe because all the gay couples I know would probably make better parents than all the straight couples I know. ;)
Actually I believe children are all about vanity, since we want to instill in them our own genes, values, beliefs etc... so that they live on.
#71 Chad,
I think it has to do with the sense, as one poster wrote about AK, that there might be a biological explanation for why she was unable to carry a pregnancy to term. There is, in fact, a larger evolutionary scheme that we don't fully understand.
I remember when Wendy Wasserstein had her baby - I think she was in her early '50s. I remember thinking: do we know the cost of this in terms of the child's total development? I wonder what will happen to the second generation born to children who were conceived/born in such circumstances. The truth is, we don't know.
The other truth is that Mussolini was conceived entirely naturally.
#74, Jimbo: I think the operative expression there is "probably." Once gays are as socially obligated to have children, they'll probably be just as jerky as straight parents. Equality is equality, after all.
Mommy and Me Spanish class? OY!
To quote the late, great George Carlin, this seems to be a case of "today's professional parents. These obsessive diaper sniffers, who are over-scheduling and over-managing their children and robbing them of their childhoods. Even the simple act of playing has been taken away from children and put on mommy's schedule..."
#76,
What's wrong with taking a kid to a language class?
I wish my mother had been able to do that. She was working and in school at the time. But it doesn't make me want to take that potential skill away from AK's kid.
I think all American kids should get Mommy and Me language classes - but barring that, let's just make sure we graduate kids who can speak more than one or two languages.
77 currently, they can't even speak one correctly!
What if "her" baby actually turned out to be the surrogate's???(Stranger things have happened.)
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel people are toward people who have the affliction of infertility and who suffer miscarriages. Comments such as "you are not meant to have children" are so smug and self-righteous and obviously lacking in any empathy toward what is considered by many to be one of the most painful afflictions and life experiences a person can experience in life, it sure says much about the person heaping such a cruel judgement on top of people who are already suffering. (I sure hope one of your children don't experience such loss and hurt if that is your attitude.)
As for the folks who admonish those who seek treatment for their affliction that they not do so, and instead, should adopt--many of these folks do just that, but some choose not to for a variety of reasons--just as some folks who do not have to cope with the affliction of sub- or infertility or risk of miscarriage also choose not to adopt children who may need a family. That is the issue that really mystifies me--people who have not adopted themselves are generally the ones calling those selfish who have not adopted. Make any sense to you?
To Diana Manister from Staten Island: I am awestruck by your selfless approach to living. As a resident of this overpopulated planet, I thank you for being willing to remain childless for the good of the Earth. That is mighty generous of you.
Also, would you please share with us your adoption experience so we can all learn from your selfless example in caring for the children of the world that you tell others are in need of families.
Interesting that you tell those with afflictions that can contribute to infertility, such as thyroid problems, polycystic ovarian syndrome, hormonal imbalances, and countless other issues, that they should "...accept the hand you were dealt..." by "Nature."So, tell us, does your philosophy about accepting your fate
mean that when you get an affliction, or perhaps, a life threatening illness, you will not treat those things in the name of "Nature?" (You did capitalize "Nature" and suggested that it issues illnesses to people with reason.) Again, kudos for offering yourself up to Nature so it does with you as It will for the good of the planet. Wow! Very impressive.
I am stifling a laugh here at the usual ironic provinciality of urban folk who are incredulous when people in other parts of our country do not choose to place value on the things urbanites hold all-too-dear. I found this story because a friend of mine just found out that her surrogate (or rather, gestational carrier) is pregnant. While I admit this is a mind-blowing event, I also remember many years ago when my church was debating whether children born of IVF had souls. Many years later, the consensus finally became, yes, they have souls, but even though they have souls, we still don’t like IVF (for reasons I prefer not to go into here, let alone remember).
My friend’s carrier, whom I recently met, is very much like my friend in many ways. The most important way is that they both have a powerful drive to reproduce (which I do not share). They are also very different. My friend’s carrier decided to have children out of wedlock (though she is now married and has had a child with her husband as well). My friend is far too traditional for that to have been a comfortable option, so she waited until was married (at age 29). The other way they are different is that my friend’s carrier had very easy pregnancies. My friend had bedresting pregnancies, and none made it to term because of a deformed uterus.
Cont...My friend, while she was attempting to conceive, kept working on various degrees because she loves learning and is very involved in her community as well as outside of her community. She lives in an economically competitive area with many urban amenities and would not want it any other way. My friend’s carrier, on the other hand, never wanted to attend college. She is highly intelligent, but is, as she describes it, “a real homebody.” She lives in an extraordinarily tight community where generations stay amongst their families and are very close and loving. She calls urban areas “the big bad city” and strongly dislikes all the hustle bustle. When she once made a trip into New York City for a medical appointment, she was so overwhelmed that she did not leave her hotel room. She said she was so anxious to return to her peaceful town that she cried with relief upon arriving back home. Her home cost $50,000. She is not poor. She is living exactly as she wants to: at home with her children, doing hobbies such as scrapbooking, and cooking for neighbors (she and her neighbors bring soups and baked goods to one another as a matter of course). Motherhood and all of its trappings are revered in this town, and the women are quite content with this life. They do not envy (which is far more that I can say for my neighbors in NYC).
Cont...
This woman has such empathy for women who miscarry or who cannot conceive that she says it brings her such grief that she cries when she hears of such a deprived woman. Childbirth, she says, is the most beautiful thing in life, and she can’t bear the thought of a woman who cannot experience it.
She possesses far more grace than the pompous posters here who claim to know the hearts of such a woman as being one of such great need that they are exploited by “rich” people. My friend is not rich. Yes, she has been able to finagle ways to finance several IVF attempts, and has remortgaged her home. Ok, now the judgers will rip into that decision, I’m sure—who cares, when a child might be born who otherwise might not?—Oh, wait, the “save-the-earthers” will say that child should not have been born. I prefer the grace of a woman who is driven by an empathy many of the posters here are sadly missing out on than the humanitarian posers who are only just using these claims to hide their distasteful provincialities and political and spiritual arrogance. If they saw how happy my friend's carrier is, and how proud this woman’s family were of her, they might just keep their prejudiced, vitriolic assumptions to themselves.
By the way, for those here who will label a $50,000 home unfit, take a look around. The world does not revolve around NYC lifestyles or home prices. (This woman remarked with surprise that she thought my friend's upscale Connecticut town was supposed to be a "rich" area, but that the homes looked just exactly like the ones in her own neighborhood).
To poster #8, "The Truth from Atlanta/New York" who said, "Too old to adopt??? These laws are in place for a reason": Most programs that do not allow older parents to adopt, will allow older parents to adopt only the neediest and sickest children. I think that speaks for itself: if there was any doubt that older parents weren't fit, why would they be considered fit to parent in the most challenging of circumstances?
And, yes, many countries do have age restrictions, and it is mainly a way to sort through the huge numbers of families who are seeking to adopt children. Younger parents get priority. Though the rules change all of the time, and are often quite random.
Please consider reading this story about China's weight requirements for adoptive parents.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2743016
Then there are all of the bribes adoptive parents must pay along the way in countries like Russia in order to complete the "process." Then, consider what happened to a couple I know. They attempted to adopt a 7-year-old girl from an orphanage in Ukraine. The director basically used these children to extort money from unsuspecting adoptive parents. After the funds were in place, he would terrify the children so badly that they were unable to be placed. Horrific stuff, good luck if you want to attempt dealing with such a situation. Another couple I know went through a 2-year-long process with China, only to find when they flew there from New Jersey that the child they adopted was replaced with a child so sick and horribly disabled that she was not likely to live more than a year. A co-worker of mine is still waiting for his daughter from China--nearly 3 years later.
This didn't fit:
I don't want to focus on the horror stories, though unfortunately through my experiences I have met too many people with similar stories. But, of course, I also personally know so many very happy families with difficult but wonderful stories with great outcomes.
Please, unless you personally have familiarity with the way the adoption processes work around the globe, please keep the smug uninformed opinions out of this discussion. Adopting is not as simple as people here make it out to be, to put it mildly.
To poster # 34 (sarah from manhattan)
Here is a story about one of those horribly selfish women to whom you refer who are only thinking of their bloodline and whose children will grow up to be terrible people:
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&fg=copy&vid=1447F2A6-F895-4762-A9E9-CA7E4C579B84&from=00
The ones here ranting about health insurance issues might think about how many more miscarriages this woman should allow her health insurance to pay for:
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&fg=copy&vid=1447F2A6-F895-4762-A9E9-CA7E4C579B84&from=00
Sorry your uninformed judgement feels as good as it must for you to cling to it so.
I hope that the kid grows up to be a credit to them,e.g. not on drugs or into crime, good student getting into a good university. God knows,they have paid enough and deserve a decent kid for the money.
I haven't listen to the show yet, but I have read the original NYT Magazine piece, which I found through a post on Slate's XX Factor blog. The most informative point I learned from the blog post is that adoption is not necessarily better than surrogacy (I hadn't realized it was such a problematic industry, with a lot of coercion and human smuggling). http://tinyurl.com/5hzvxx
Nevertheless, while I can sympathize the pain of infertility and miscarriage, the biggest problem with her story is how obviously tone deaf she is to society at large (i.e., the idea that a lower income person could be thoughtful and well-educated).
While I'm not sure if she had a hand in styling the accompanying photos, but it only served to emphasize her snobbery. *Maybe* the NYT selected those photos to be provocative. But ultimately it reflected even more poorly on her class-consciousness.
one of the most dispiriting, depressing discussions I've heard in a long time. The guest's breezy attitude of entitlement was truly dreadful to hear. And there was no discussion of why it matters that both the egg and the sperm were from someone other than the birth mother. Brian seemed to think that this is a new 'technological' advance after the days of Mary Beth Whitehead (1987?). But in fact this possibility of implantation was available then as well, as were others. But the "rented uterus" (as Whitehead was called by the adversarial lawyer) is still a rented uterus, regardless of whose egg/sperm embryo was implanted. Also troubling was the invocation of the bigheartedness, the selfless volunteerism of the surrogate mother, which was also said of MBW.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.