It may or may not be simply biological "wiring". Many women are fine with surrogates, and most surrogates are fine with carrying another woman's child without significant emotional attachment. Women who use surrogates want the child, the experience doesn't matter as much as a successful birth by any method.
I think a big factor in the cases discussed in the article is that these women were told they would never ever have their own children. Unlike women who are "infertile" (which is usually just a measure of probability, and not a binary diagnosis), women who do not have a uterus obviously understand that there isn't a probability factor for getting pregnant. But then tell a woman with such a diagnosis that there is an experimental procedure that will allow her to fully experience what she had always been told was not possible. It is more for her than just wanting a baby at that point-- the procedure offers her everything she was told she could not have in terms of giving birth to a child.
This is an amazing story of progress, technology, and hope. Do you need to make it about what it costs to you, or can that discussion maybe wait for another context?
Lucky for them there are no enforced prerequisites (i.e., test and/or license) for becoming a parent.
I don't doubt some level of that drive exists. What feels questionable is the sanity (?) of going to such extreme lengths to pursue it? As if there is a complete unawareness of the bigger picture.
That's one hell of an understatement. It's only the primary driving force of all successful complex lifeforms. Living things that give preference to offspring other than their own die with zero remaining trace of their existence.
Maybe they meant the specific drive to carry a child, which, in my experience, not all women possess, even if they possess other drives that lead to successfully promulgating the next generation.
I'll go out on a limb and say if you aren't a female I don't think you are well positioned to judge a woman's judgement towards wanting her "own" baby versus using a surrogate or adopting. (I'm not a female so I have no point of view here.)
"Want" as in they are biologically wired to want to do so; hormones/evolution/etc.
It may or may not be simply biological "wiring". Many women are fine with surrogates, and most surrogates are fine with carrying another woman's child without significant emotional attachment. Women who use surrogates want the child, the experience doesn't matter as much as a successful birth by any method.
I think a big factor in the cases discussed in the article is that these women were told they would never ever have their own children. Unlike women who are "infertile" (which is usually just a measure of probability, and not a binary diagnosis), women who do not have a uterus obviously understand that there isn't a probability factor for getting pregnant. But then tell a woman with such a diagnosis that there is an experimental procedure that will allow her to fully experience what she had always been told was not possible. It is more for her than just wanting a baby at that point-- the procedure offers her everything she was told she could not have in terms of giving birth to a child.
Literally all of your thoughts and feelings are biologically wired.
By the same token, you can just lay off having sex, since you are just wired biologically to want it ;-)
So many wants are biologically wired...
Sure, but I don't think any insurance should ever pay for this.
This is an amazing story of progress, technology, and hope. Do you need to make it about what it costs to you, or can that discussion maybe wait for another context?
It can't really wait, because I bet someone wants this now, and shouldn't get it from public coffers.
And they will petition the government to tax you enough to make it happen. They are doing soon.
Lucky for them there are no enforced prerequisites (i.e., test and/or license) for becoming a parent.
I don't doubt some level of that drive exists. What feels questionable is the sanity (?) of going to such extreme lengths to pursue it? As if there is a complete unawareness of the bigger picture.
>I don't doubt some level of that drive exists.
That's one hell of an understatement. It's only the primary driving force of all successful complex lifeforms. Living things that give preference to offspring other than their own die with zero remaining trace of their existence.
Maybe they meant the specific drive to carry a child, which, in my experience, not all women possess, even if they possess other drives that lead to successfully promulgating the next generation.
Drive to go through pregnancy and childbirth, not drive to reproduce.
I'll go out on a limb and say if you aren't a female I don't think you are well positioned to judge a woman's judgement towards wanting her "own" baby versus using a surrogate or adopting. (I'm not a female so I have no point of view here.)
It’s not about sanity. Desire for reproduction is a biological imperative.