Life Would you allow your wife/girlfriend to be a surrogate? - Page 4

Bump · 05:27 PM

Imagine some rich couple that cannot reproduce or simply does not want to go through the hassle of pregnancy. Now imagine this couple offering $750,000 to your wife or girlfriend to give birth to their child with donor eggs and sperm.

This rich couple would require that your wife be held to a very strict diet, no smoking and no alcohol or any other drugs, including caffeine. This couple would require that your wife or girlfriend check in once per day with them and regular office visits with their doctor.

Your wife or girlfriend would have to follow a strict sleeping schedule and must follow every little guideline that they might require. Think of it as an extreme corporate job following every little rule and policy down the last detail. It would be stressful for sure.

Her meals would be paid for and any medical expenses.

Once the child is berthed, the doctors will take it away and hand her the check and you will never see or hear from them ever again.

These people are assholes and would probably make terrible parents and would assume that money would take care of any problems that their child may have. They aren't paying for a surrogate because they really want a child, they are doing for an image thing.

$750,000 for nine months of work, would you?

**luv** · 04-25-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H5N1

spoken by a woman who's never been married.

If getting married means I have to give up my rights to decide what to do with my body, then I never will. I will not marry someone who thinks he can tell me what I can and can't do.

eazyb81 · 04-25-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

Wow. You let her out of the kitchen at all? Does she need to get your permission to wear a certain outfit in the morning? You're right, it's HER body. You are her husband, not her keeper. Now, if she values you and your relationship, then I am sure she would listen. However, I don't think it would be a matter of her needing to get permission from you. If she wants to do it and you divorce her, then I'd say your marriage probably had some issues to begin with.

Yes, it obviously would be a matter of needing permission, since he just said it would be divorce-worthy if she went ahead and did it on her own.

I thought DJ spelled it out pretty clearly, and I would guess that his assessment of the situation is similar to how most guys feel.

And on your final point, if a wife goes behind her husband's back to do something crazy like this, then yeah, the marriage probably has some issues. Normal women would not disregard their husband's opinion on such a major issue if they valued their marriage.

**luv** · 04-25-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Yes, it obviously would be a matter of needing permission, since he just said it would be divorce-worthy if she went ahead and did it on her own.

I thought DJ spelled it out pretty clearly, and I would guess that his assessment of the situation is similar to how most guys feel.

And on your final point, if a wife goes behind her husband's back to do something crazy like this, then yeah, the marriage probably has some issues. Normal women would not disregard their husband's opinion on such a major issue if they valued their marriage.

Completely agree. I just think it should be a discussion. If she really and truly wants to help someone out, then I think he needs to consider her thoughts and feeling as much as she needs to consider his.

Ebolapox · 04-25-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

If getting married means I have to give up my rights to decide what to do with my body, then I never will. I will not marry someone who thinks he can tell me what I can and can't do.

oh, absolutely not. but to be married successfully, you have to lose a big bit of self-dependence and really buy into the partnership schtick. it's definitely not for everybody.

**luv** · 04-25-2011, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H5N1

oh, absolutely not. but to be married successfully, you have to lose a big bit of self-dependence and really buy into the partnership schtick. it's definitely not for everybody.

A partnership is not one person asking and the other person deciding. IMO, it's something that should be discussed, BOTH points of views taken into consideration, and a mutual decision made.

Some people are fine running their houses as a dictatorship. I'm just not one who would be a fan of that. Works for some people, though (regardless of which one is in charge).

Ebolapox · 04-25-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

A partnership is not one person asking and the other person deciding. IMO, it's something that should be discussed, BOTH points of views taken into consideration, and a mutual decision made.

Some people are fine running their houses as a dictatorship. I'm just not one who would be a fan of that. Works for some people, though (regardless of which one is in charge).

fwiw, nowhere did I mention that it's a one-sided partnership or dictatorship. don't get it twisted.

**luv** · 04-25-2011, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H5N1

fwiw, nowhere did I mention that it's a one-sided partnership or dictatorship. don't get it twisted.

My apologies. I get something in my head, and I can sometimes get others' thoughts distorted.

That, and I'm not a fan of really small children. One of the attorneys brought his two-year-old to work with him today, and he's running around here and yelling. Starting to irritate me a little.

Deberg_1990 · 04-25-2011, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

My apologies. I get something in my head, and I can sometimes get others' thoughts distorted.

That, and I'm not a fan of really small children. One of the attorneys brought his two-year-old to work with him today, and he's running around here and yelling. Starting to irritate me a little.

I know your fairly young now, but i cant imagine being 35, 40 and 50 years old without any children or partner share life with. Seems awfully lonely.

To each his own...at least you will have more money for yourself. : )

**luv** · 04-25-2011, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I know your fairly young now, but i cant imagine being 35, 40 and 50 years old without any children or partner share life with.

To each his own...at least you will have more money for yourself. : )

I will be 35 this year. Yes, I'm a loser. I'll keep my opinions to myself.

Deberg_1990 · 04-25-2011, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

I will be 35 this year. Yes, I'm a loser. I'll keep my opinions to myself.

heh, didnt mean it like that. If your happy, thats fine..everyones different. Who knows, your life may change if you ever meet your "true match" like Clay. : )

**luv** · 04-25-2011, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

heh, didnt mean it like that. If your happy, thats fine..everyones different. Who knows, your life may change if you ever meet your "true match" like Clay. : )

I'm happy, but I think it's a "because I kind of have to choose to be at this point" type of thing.

And I've met Clay. I'm still single.

-King- · 04-25-2011, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

A partnership is not one person asking and the other person deciding. IMO, it's something that should be discussed, BOTH points of views taken into consideration, and a mutual decision made.

Some people are fine running their houses as a dictatorship. I'm just not one who would be a fan of that. Works for some people, though (regardless of which one is in charge).

If you were married, would you be fine with your husband going around donating his "kids" behind your back?

**luv** · 04-25-2011, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

If you were married, would you be fine with your husband going around donating his "kids" behind your back?

Different scenario. The "kids" are his. This is donated sperm and egg. All your wife would be providing is the oven.

But to answer your point, no. I never said it was alright to go behind one's back. The point I was trying to make is that both views need to be looked at and a mutual decision made. Not one person forbidding and leaving the other no choice.

**The Franchise** · 04-25-2011, 09:22 AM

Nope. The wife wouldn't do it based off of the fact that the soon to be parents are complete assholes and don't deserve a kid.

stumppy · 04-25-2011, 09:31 AM

For that kind of money I'd be lining up future, current and past GF's.

View Poll Results: ?
I don't care what she does, whatever	4	5.56%
I'd let her do it for $30K	4	5.56%
I'd let her do it for $100K	6	8.33%
I'd let her do it for $500K	6	8.33%
I'd do the deal in a heartbeat!	11	15.28%
I'd have to think about it, but would lean towards going through with it	7	9.72%
I would require a cool million	3	4.17%
I would require more than a million	6	8.33%
I'd let her screw Gaz so I could raise his kid	2	2.78%
No dice.	23	31.94%
Voters: 72. You may not vote on this poll

04-24-2011, 05:05 PM
Bump YOU take YOUR seat Join Date: Nov 2007 Casino cash: $1745105	Would you allow your wife/girlfriend to be a surrogate? Imagine some rich couple that cannot reproduce or simply does not want to go through the hassle of pregnancy. Now imagine this couple offering $750,000 to your wife or girlfriend to give birth to their child with donor eggs and sperm. This rich couple would require that your wife be held to a very strict diet, no smoking and no alcohol or any other drugs, including caffeine. This couple would require that your wife or girlfriend check in once per day with them and regular office visits with their doctor. Your wife or girlfriend would have to follow a strict sleeping schedule and must follow every little guideline that they might require. Think of it as an extreme corporate job following every little rule and policy down the last detail. It would be stressful for sure. Her meals would be paid for and any medical expenses. Once the child is berthed, the doctors will take it away and hand her the check and you will never see or hear from them ever again. These people are assholes and would probably make terrible parents and would assume that money would take care of any problems that their child may have. They aren't paying for a surrogate because they really want a child, they are doing for an image thing. $750,000 for nine months of work, would you? Last edited by Bump; 04-24-2011 at 05:27 PM..
Posts: 32,751

04-25-2011, 09:22 AM	#59
The Franchise Most Valuable Villain Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $2635047	Nope. The wife wouldn't do it based off of the fact that the soon to be parents are complete assholes and don't deserve a kid.
Posts: 92,309

04-25-2011, 09:31 AM	#60
stumppy New and Improved Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Springfield, Mo. Casino cash: $998590	For that kind of money I'd be lining up future, current and past GF's. __________________ “As a nation, we can endure damaging policies for a four-year term. But we cannot survive a president willing to terminate our Constitution”
Posts: 21,297