PDA

View Full Version : What do you think about surrogate mothers?



Potty
04-11-2012, 00:36
What do you think about asking for help if you are unable to carry a baby by yourself ? Can it be an option?

Russian Lad
04-11-2012, 01:15
I don't see why not

MickeyTong
04-11-2012, 01:16
All men are obliged to take this option......

Ibanez
04-11-2012, 02:21
I don't see why not

Plus 1 RL...

What is the problem?

Potty
04-11-2012, 03:38
Plus 1 RL...

What is the problem?

I don't know. Ethical. So you guys think that it is 100% ok? Why is it still so unpopular among couples which can't have a baby? I wouldn't say it is too expensive. Not much more expensive than medical treatment they get while trying to get pregnant for years. They are gonna have 100% their child genetically. So what's wrong with them?

Nobbynumbnuts
04-11-2012, 05:45
I don't know. Ethical. So you guys think that it is 100% ok? Why is it still so unpopular among couples which can't have a baby? I wouldn't say it is too expensive. Not much more expensive than medical treatment they get while trying to get pregnant for years. They are gonna have 100% their child genetically. So what's wrong with them?

There's nothing wrong with an agreement between two people but the arrangement is very complex.
It's difficult for a woman who carries a child for 9 months to be able to give it up once it's born. Women are made that way. Why would a woman carry another woman's baby? If it's for money then i think it's done for all the wrong reasons.

It's fraught with danger and has the potential to bring distress to all. Not least the child it's self.

Russian Lad
04-11-2012, 08:51
I don't know. Ethical. So you guys think that it is 100% ok? Why is it still so unpopular among couples which can't have a baby? I wouldn't say it is too expensive. Not much more expensive than medical treatment they get while trying to get pregnant for years. They are gonna have 100% their child genetically. So what's wrong with them?

If you mean Russians, many still cannot afford it, it is over 10K dollars I think.



It's fraught with danger and has the potential to bring distress to all. Not least the child it's self.

Eventually the child will be happy, when he realizes that it is better to be born this way then in no other way at all.:) The woman who gives the birth? Many will be happy with the money, I think.

Nobbynumbnuts
04-11-2012, 09:08
...........Eventually the child will be happy, when he realizes that it is better to be born this way then in no other way at all.:) The woman who gives the birth? Many will be happy with the money, I think.

If only life were that simple.......

Russian Lad
04-11-2012, 09:12
...........Eventually the child will be happy, when he realizes that it is better to be born this way then in no other way at all. The woman who gives the birth? Many will be happy with the money, I think.
If only life were that simple.......

I did say "many", not "all". Some may suffer.

Carl
04-11-2012, 09:36
Adopt. Plenty of perfectly good children to choose from out there...:(

Russian Lad
04-11-2012, 10:07
By the way, many of you overestimate women's attachment/love for children. Maybe you watch too many movies. Just to remind you, millions of women decide to go for abortion every month, and some are already on the 3rd month of pregnancy, when the foetus is quite formed already. Of course it is not a born child yet, but it is pretty close. And it is shredded to small chunks of meat and removed from the woman, upon her full consent. Women may cry and throw tantrums more than men, but psychologically they are even more strong and more cynical than men, in most cases. One of the reasons they live much longer.

Jas
04-11-2012, 10:32
I wud have no problems I don't think in carrying a baby for someone- but I wud be looking for a proper contract between me and the genetic mother to cover all lead up expenses totally and money up front. I wud say I wud do it for $30,000- no agency involved, plus the other costs as I said.

Potty
04-11-2012, 10:41
I wud have no problems I don't think in carrying a baby for someone- but I wud be looking for a proper contract between me and the genetic mother to cover all lead up expenses totally and money up front. I wud say I wud do it for $30,000- no agency involved, plus the other costs as I said.

wow. you really know what you want.

Jas
04-11-2012, 11:21
wow. you really know what you want.

I constantly think about being pregnant......

Potty
04-11-2012, 11:29
I constantly think about being pregnant......

just being a pregnant without having a baby for yourself afterwards?

Jas
04-11-2012, 11:32
just being a pregnant without having a baby for yourself afterwards?

I actually do want a baby and it's a kind of aching anguish that I have tried to deal with for ages. I can't really imagine not having one cos it's such a part of life.
I wander around shops sometimes and find myself staring at pregnant women wishing that was me.

MashaSashina
04-11-2012, 12:01
I think this solution is not so popular as it could be because of legal problem. I didn't study this carefully, but from brief reading i remember that there is a risk that surrogate mum won't give a baby to the genetic parents because legally they mean nothing. The agreement is based on pure confidence.

rusmeister
04-11-2012, 12:46
I actually do want a baby and it's a kind of aching anguish that I have tried to deal with for ages. I can't really imagine not having one cos it's such a part of life.
So is having a husband, and parents and in-laws who live with their spouses.

It seems like a huge inconsistency, because you have talked about being a lesbian with a "partner". So what is it? Do you want the freedom of doing what you (sexually) want, or do you want the responsibility of raising children to adulthood? - something that humanity has found needs to be done within a family, a traditional thing that starts with a husband and a wife joined by a sacred vow that may not be casually broken, and witnessed by society.

rusmeister
04-11-2012, 13:07
The question that is the elephant in the room is NOT whether the thing CAN be done - we KNOW it can. It is whether it SHOULD be done.

My favorite writer once said:

"We have learned to do a great many clever things. The next great task is to learn not to do them."

What is natural and normal to man is more often threatened by what man can do than aided, especially in our time. We never seem to think through the consequences on how some technology or ability might be turned to evil, because we don't take the first fact that human nature is Fallen (aka "selfish", aka "sinful") into account.

If we can artificially replace the family, then the natural family will ultimately be replaced by force. The family is the main building block of society. All society. If a man takes apart a complex and dangerous machine without knowing the principles on which it operates, by pressing the button which happens to be nearest, he will soon, as someone once said, find out the error in his cheery philosophy.

We have already seen some of the risks in playing with nature and technology, starting with so-called "surrogates" that do not want to give up the babies they carried as a natural mother does, "genetic" parents that "change their minds" and so on. How is the child to relate to such an unnatural relationship of motherhood? Nobody even thinks of the question.

It may be that having a baby is impossible. As has been pointed out, adoption is a great and noble option. My mother was adopted, and s proud of the fact and after raising us, she adopted an invalid Mexican boy.

It is a utilitarian use of another person, who is a mercenary and to be discarded, in a matter of the greatest intimacy in the forging of the most powerful bonds of family. It in fact weakens them.

What makes our time particularly insane is our rush to embrace the unnatural and reject the answers of our forebears. Any answer will satisfy except the one which has always been accepted.

Jas
04-11-2012, 13:19
So is having a husband, and parents and in-laws who live with their spouses.

It seems like a huge inconsistency, because you have talked about being a lesbian with a "partner". So what is it? Do you want the freedom of doing what you (sexually) want, or do you want the responsibility of raising children to adulthood? - something that humanity has found needs to be done within a family, a traditional thing that starts with a husband and a wife joined by a sacred vow that may not be casually broken, and witnessed by society.

Ure so old fashioned ure living in the stone age. Do you know what a sperm bank is? Have u heard of artificial insemination?
Why is it inconsistent? Rus, what's amazing about u is that u got no idea how people tick! When me partner makes love to me, the only thing in me head is this inner voice saying "Impregnate me." I don't enjoy sex otherwise unless I'm thinking I'm making love- to get pregnant.
I don't suppose u get it of course.....

Potty
04-11-2012, 13:50
The question that is the elephant in the room is NOT whether the thing CAN be done - we KNOW it can. It is whether it SHOULD be done.
.

Yeah, i understand all what you wrote. But how a woman should deal with the pain of knowing that she will never become a mother of her own child? Adoption is great but it can't be compared to having your own child. They are just 2 different things, 2 different experiences. Some people would never love somebody else's child. Maybe they desire to with all of their hearts but they just can't. Hence they don't take such responsibility as adoption. When you see your own kids growing day by day you have feelings which couldn't be replaced. Any mother will understand my words. I feel very sorry for women who are desperately wanting to have a baby. If nobody suffers of surrogate maternity, then why not? Even if it is unnatural but can make somebody truly happy.

Jas
04-11-2012, 13:53
Yeah, i understand all what you wrote. But how a woman should deal with the pain of knowing that she will never become a mother of her own child? Adoption is great but it can't be compared to having your own child. They are just 2 different things, 2 different experiences. Some people would never love somebody else's child. Maybe they desire to with all of their hearts but they just can't. Hence they don't take such responsibility as adoption. When you see your own kids growing day by day you have feelings which couldn't be replaced. Any mother will understand my words. I feel very sorry for women who are desperately wanting to have a baby. If nobody suffers of surrogate maternity, then why not? Even if it is unnatural but can make somebody truly happy.

I totally agree with this and there are many women who don't have issues with being pregnant- even if it is for profit. For some of us, being pregnant is just a part of being alive. That's it. And yes, if we can help someone then that's a great thing to do.

Russian Lad
04-11-2012, 14:16
I totally agree with this and there are many women who don't have issues with being pregnant- even if it is for profit. For some of us, being pregnant is just a part of being alive. That's it. And yes, if we can help someone then that's a great thing to do.

Which proves what I was saying in my previous post...:)

Jas
04-11-2012, 14:23
Which proves what I was saying in my previous post...:)

U know RL, there's tons of stuff we agree on it seems!

Russian Lad
04-11-2012, 14:42
U know RL, there's tons of stuff we agree on it seems!

I don't see why not:) May be I should come to Kazan and impregnate you. :) I am a man on a mission, just like you.:)

Jas
04-11-2012, 14:46
I don't see why not:) May be I should come to Kazan and impregnate you. :) I am a man on a mission, just like you.:)

Mmmm, can I think about that one for a bit?

Russian Lad
04-11-2012, 14:52
Mmmm, can I think about that one for a bit?
__________________

Sure, no rush, take your time.:)

rusmeister
04-11-2012, 15:09
Yeah, i understand all what you wrote. But how a woman should deal with the pain of knowing that she will never become a mother of her own child? Adoption is great but it can't be compared to having your own child. They are just 2 different things, 2 different experiences. Some people would never love somebody else's child. Maybe they desire to with all of their hearts but they just can't. Hence they don't take such responsibility as adoption. When you see your own kids growing day by day you have feelings which couldn't be replaced. Any mother will understand my words. I feel very sorry for women who are desperately wanting to have a baby. If nobody suffers of surrogate maternity, then why not? Even if it is unnatural but can make somebody truly happy.
Well, Potty, I certainly agree that one does not experience pregnancy and birth in adoption. A great many people wind up forgoing that experience, even if we don't count men. I would even agree that a child of your own flesh and blood calls up an instinct of protection and love that must be consciously developed in adoption.
But to say that raising a child of adoption and raising your own offspring are different and unrelated experiences is simply not true. Having adopted the child, you are henceforth in the same boat as the mother that gave birth (we could even go into caesarian vs natural (via the birth canal) childbirth - some mothers must forego the natural experience of natural birth for the sake of saving either the child's life, their own life, or both - and THAT is an example of a definitely good use of human science.
But what surrogate motherhood does is it removes the essential link between the birth mother and the child. All of the things that enable us to artificially replace the natural family lead to the actual replacement of the family. I call the principle "You can, therefore you must". Cell phones, e-mail, mobile devices, etc enable us to do amazing things - but as we CAN use them, we are EXPECTED to use them, and held responsible, or even punished, if we don't. The employer who says, why didn't you call/e-mail me? etc, and requires you to remain plugged in even while on vacation as one small example.
This also means that arrangements that we would never call "family" will be able to mimic the family to a great degree. First same-sex couples use technology to produce children without requiring the traditional family, then other arrangements that we do not yet approve of (but will!), until what I once wrote as a parody has come true - when we have animals, perhaps dogs or other mammals carrying our babies to term and a host of other nightmares that would have our grandfathers scrambling to prevent our insanities if they could and returning to the traditions they themselves bucked.

Oh sure, some will scoff and say "That will NEVER happen!". They said it about easy divorce, casual and open adultery, people living together without marriage, same-sex marriage and openly tolerated polygamy, and yet each thing in its term became socially tolerated. I see a trend that will certainly continue, having no moral stopping point that people cannot change at whim, until society actually destroys itself, or until anarchy brings about a backlash of some kind of fascism or tyranny we have hitherto not seen.

Kartoshka
04-11-2012, 15:30
Why is it still so unpopular among couples which can't have a baby? I wouldn't say it is too expensive. Not much more expensive than medical treatment they get while trying to get pregnant for years. They are gonna have 100% their child genetically. So what's wrong with them?

It's not as simple as that. There are two types of surrogacy - straight and host. Getting a baby who is 100% genetically yours is the more complicated and costly of the two.

Straight surrogacy involves artificial insemination of the surrogate mother with the intended father's sperm. This means that the baby not be related biologically to the intended mother. This method is not expensive, but emotionally it can be hard for the surrogate and the intended parents.

Host surrogacy involves the baby being created by IVF and then implanted into the surrogate mother. This means that the baby can be 100% biologically related to the intended parents, but the couple may need to use donor eggs. IVF is costly, and the intended parents must also pay reasonable expenses to the surrogate mother (eg. to compensate her for loss of earnings during the pregnancy and recovery period, which could be very costly if the pregnancy turned out to be high risk and she had to stop work early). This method is more complicated that straight surrogacy, and may not result in a pregnancy.

I think surrogacy would be a more popular option if there were more surrogates available. It can take years to find a surrogate mother, and there is no guarantee of a successful pregnancy even then. Couples worry as well about getting along with the surrogate - it might feel very strange to have their baby "looked after" for nine months by someone they don't get along with.

rusmeister
04-11-2012, 16:30
Ah,, who cares about morality and bioethics, anyways? Let's just do whatever we CAN do, and damn the consequences!

That the consequences might damn us need not cross our minds. Two great scientists, Oppenheimer and Sakharov, made amazing bombs possible. That they repented later - who cares? (Just as an example)

The important thing is to refuse to think about what is good and morally right. The important thing is whatever I happen to want at the moment.

Potty
04-11-2012, 16:42
Ah,, who cares about morality and bioethics, anyways?

If personally I didn't care I wouldn't start this thread.

Jack17
04-11-2012, 21:55
What about surrogate fathers?

Potty
04-11-2012, 22:07
What about surrogate fathers?

You are very welcome to start a new thread :D

mds45
04-11-2012, 23:00
I wud have no problems I don't think in carrying a baby for someone- but I wud be looking for a proper contract between me and the genetic mother to cover all lead up expenses totally and money up front. I wud say I wud do it for $30,000- no agency involved, plus the other costs as I said.

I'll do it doe $25K !

mds45
04-11-2012, 23:05
I would say that Carl is quite right there are so many children who need a loving family in orphanages, but if that's not for you for what ever reason then as a last resort surrogacy is fine and good - sure as some have said there are some potential pitfalls but with the right people it could be a good solution to a devastating problem for some women.

Potty
04-11-2012, 23:08
I'll do it doe $25K !

Hey, I want my commission.

robertmf
04-11-2012, 23:10
If personally I didn't care I wouldn't start this thread.

:10806:

:boxing: This reply to Rusmeister is called a "zinger" :bong:

rusmeister
05-11-2012, 01:27
:10806:

:boxing: This reply to Rusmeister is called a "zinger" :bong:


It might be, Robert, if most people had raised or addressed the moral issue. But nobody did. It took me, the old fogey, to think of it.

Indeed, it seems that Potty recognizes that, and no one else has.

BabyFirefly
05-11-2012, 01:42
Well, since I'm pretty much infertile, I've considered this option very seriously. I'd go for the more expensive one where the child is genetically mine; yes, I want to adopt, but I also want a child who is genetically mine. If pregnancy is simply impossible for me, and I can afford it, yes, I'd get a surrogate.

Of course, the people against this type of thing are usually people who CAN have children, you know, because if "God" didn't make us to have kids, then we should ignore all technological advancements (which, as I understand, since "God" gave us the ability to invent for good purposes, "God" would approve) in order to limit (or should I say, "screw over"?) those who want nothing more than to have kids. Maybe it's because I've had enough health problems in my short life to give me this opinion, but I've realized that, if something personally does not affect me or my family, I shouldn't go around telling people to abstain from doing something which would give them great long-term, healthy (these aren't drugs, this isn't an addiction to rape or something) happiness.

I'd love to get pregnant, fat and morning sickness included, but, for reasons that have been beyond my control, I can't. I find it a testament to how terrible and unfair this world is that the powers that be want to limit my options of parenthood when they allow reckless teenagers, addicts, criminals, and the insane to have children at will, even allowing people who have a history of child abuse to still have kids.

*end rant*

rusmeister
05-11-2012, 07:10
Well, since I'm pretty much infertile, I've considered this option very seriously. I'd go for the more expensive one where the child is genetically mine; yes, I want to adopt, but I also want a child who is genetically mine. If pregnancy is simply impossible for me, and I can afford it, yes, I'd get a surrogate.

Of course, the people against this type of thing are usually people who CAN have children, you know, because if "God" didn't make us to have kids, then we should ignore all technological advancements (which, as I understand, since "God" gave us the ability to invent for good purposes, "God" would approve) in order to limit (or should I say, "screw over"?) those who want nothing more than to have kids. Maybe it's because I've had enough health problems in my short life to give me this opinion, but I've realized that, if something personally does not affect me or my family, I shouldn't go around telling people to abstain from doing something which would give them great long-term, healthy (these aren't drugs, this isn't an addiction to rape or something) happiness.

I'd love to get pregnant, fat and morning sickness included, but, for reasons that have been beyond my control, I can't. I find it a testament to how terrible and unfair this world is that the powers that be want to limit my options of parenthood when they allow reckless teenagers, addicts, criminals, and the insane to have children at will, even allowing people who have a history of child abuse to still have kids.

*end rant*
Dear BF,
That you are infertile IS very sad. I certainly wouldn't try to pretend that it is not. But not all options are good merely because they are options. Nor does pregnancy grant long-term happiness. Indeed, it lasts only nine months, and it is having a child that counts, not pregnancy. As I said, my mother was adopted and herself adopted, an aunt of mine adopted, and I know for a fact that the happiness comes from having a child, yes, even an adopted child, and not pregnancy.

Not everyone has two legs. Do you? Not everyone has a healthy mind, free from autism, schizophrenia and so on. There are different crosses that many of us bear. This life IS short, and fairness is NOT its hallmark, and things like justice and happiness escape many (I think most) of us. This is one of the things that began to turn me TOWARDS God.

If something is wrong, it is not wicked or unjust to want to limit or prevent it. Having children is not evil. It is abuse that is evil. Life itself is a good thing, and children born even to bad parents want to live.

DocHudson
05-11-2012, 10:23
Adopt. Plenty of perfectly good children to choose from out there...:(

+1500! Totally agree.

Potty
05-11-2012, 11:32
+1500! Totally agree.

it is very easy to say. have you tried? tell us about your experience then.

Garibaldi
05-11-2012, 12:20
This is truly a wonderful thread! As the human race evolves and develops culturally and technologically, we constantly redefine ourselves and our society. Only a hundred years ago, women and children were for all intents and purposes chattel property. Divorce was unthinkable for a woman because she stood to lose her children.

Today, divorce is common, women strive for equality in all aspects of life, and we almost universally think they should keep their children in the case of divorce - much to the dismay of many divorced fathers. But today it is possible for a man of any age - even in his 90's - to bear a child with his own genetics (or someone else's) without the need for any kind of partner at all. And in Russia, he can apply for and get a birth certificate without even a woman named as a mother. The only limit is the cash available.

This gives rise to an incredible number of questions for us to discuss in this thread. Let me suggest just a few.

1. Suppose a married couple (even a gay couple but better for this discussion if traditional couple) were to have, for example, two children where each parent contracted for a separate surrogate and the birth certificate for each child listed only the contracting parent, i.e. each partner "owns" one child of the two. Would this lead to decrease in the astronomical divorce rates we see in developing countries as a result of the reluctance of each partner to divorce and a) lose both the opposite partner and the opposite child and b) cause his/her own child to lose the society and companionship of the other child? (I call this the King Solomon solution - divide the baby, or in this case babies.)

2) Suppose a childless dying billionaire decides to spend 10 million dollars to produce 133 children (cost of surrogacy plus donor sperm and donor egg and IVF = about $75,000 today and less in the future). Suppose he is a dying 10 millionaire and leaves these 133 children penniless? Need I suppose some kind of question here?

3) Suppose a creative entrepreneur decides to produce children "titled" to him/her that are not genetically related to him/her at all. Aren't these children little more than indentured servants, bound to him until the age of majority? What would prevent a family from producing little, legal slaves tasked with serving the genetic family members?

Each of these scenarios is perfectly legal in Russia right now. And we have not even considered where this is going into the future.

celia
05-11-2012, 14:20
BG, ignore all the male theorists and have your baby, by a surrogate mother if you want to. Have twins if you want to!

Russian Lad
05-11-2012, 14:23
BG, ignore all the male theorists and have your baby, by a surrogate mother if you want to. Have twins if you want to!

If you bothered to read the thread you would see that the opinions of males are rather different.... Just saying.

Carl
05-11-2012, 14:36
it is very easy to say. have you tried? tell us about your experience then.

Yep.. Brought him home at 10 months. Now almost 4 y.o.
Truly a gift. Could not love a 'biological child' any more than we love our child..of this I am sure.

Potty
05-11-2012, 14:38
Yep.. Brought him home at 10 months. Now almost 4 y.o.
Truly a gift. Could not love a 'biological child' any more than we love our child..of this I am sure.

Wow. Cool.

Potty
05-11-2012, 14:43
Carl, how did you come to such decision? I mean adoption.

Potty
05-11-2012, 15:00
Carl, how do you think what is the best child's age for adoption?

robertmf
05-11-2012, 16:43
BG, ignore all the male theorists and have your baby, by a surrogate mother if you want to. Have twins if you want to!

*CatGirl* who posts the photos & images is prego with identical twins. Natural, not surrogate.

rusmeister
05-11-2012, 17:33
BG, ignore all the male theorists and have your baby, by a surrogate mother if you want to. Have twins if you want to!


If you bothered to read the thread you would see that the opinions of males are rather different.... Just saying.

To add to what RL said, dismissing our opinions because we are men (or because you don't like what some of us have to say) is unreasonable, based on a false idea that men have nothing to do with childbirth or children. The test is whether the normal female child wants to have a father or not. The answer is certainly in the affirmative. We are half the human race, and dependent on each other, and the popular paradigm that casts the sexes as in competition is false and destructive.

We were also babies, and the responsible ones among us are reliable fathers, or ready to be such, which is what the normal and reasonable woman really wants, anyway.

rusmeister
05-11-2012, 17:37
Yep.. Brought him home at 10 months. Now almost 4 y.o.
Truly a gift. Could not love a 'biological child' any more than we love our child..of this I am sure.

Good for you, Carl!

And it does chime in with my mother's experience with adoption. It is both more natural and gives an existing child who NEEDS a mother and father what he needs and all want.

yakspeare
05-11-2012, 19:04
I have one Aunt adopted and two cousins adopted and I am closer to them than other members of my family. These days adoption in Australia is near impossible and takes at least 7 years and tens of thousands of dollars. Russia's adoption laws are easy in comparison. I would be more than happy to adopt a child or even more than one, if it was possible. I don't live in Russia now though.

Carl
05-11-2012, 19:37
Carl, how did you come to such decision? I mean adoption.

My wife went through a rather difficult operation years prior, which left her unable to conceive.. so that left few options. It was really quit easy for us to decide. We were older (40ish), and I'm sure that effected our thought process.. and it really came down to this:
What's most important...Sharing the same genetics? The actual process of 'giving birth'? A healthy baby?
Of course the most important issue for us was having a healthy baby. We visited a few orphanages, saw a few children, and picked the one that felt right. Oddly enough picking was not that difficult. We knew from our first visit that he was the one. He laughed himself silly though out our first visit.. Just felt right. We didn't care about eye color, hair color or skin color. Just wanted a healthy, happy baby. I guess we had more to choose from, it seemed that most people we ran into had specific requirements regarding physical attributes such as eye/hair color/skin color.

Carl
05-11-2012, 20:39
Carl, how do you think what is the best child's age for adoption?

I think we hit the age thing perfectly.
10 months.
Old enough to look into his eyes and see a fully functional & intuitive mind.
Old enough to see any significant health concerns.
Young enough to bond completely, and have full supervision/control of the more formative period of a childs life..

Potty
05-11-2012, 20:49
These days adoption in Australia is near impossible and takes at least 7 years

why? no orphans in Australia?
It is easier to adopt for Russian citizens of course. As I know foreigners are obliged to do it through an agency. And it costs a lot. If you decide to adopt do you want to do it by yourself or together with the assumed mother?

Potty
05-11-2012, 20:51
I think we hit the age thing perfectly.
10 months.
Old enough to look into his eyes and see a fully functional & intuitive mind.
Old enough to see any significant health concerns.
Young enough to bond completely, and have full supervision/control of the more formative period of a childs life..

I agree. And no baby colics anymore :D Well, I guess you didn't miss teething at least :D

Potty
05-11-2012, 21:03
Carl, you see I know only some horror stories about adoption. Well, mostly. It is nice to hear a happy one. Very encouraging.

yakspeare
05-11-2012, 21:08
why? no orphans in Australia?
It is easier to adopt for Russian citizens of course. As I know foreigners are obliged to do it through an agency. And it costs a lot. If you decide to adopt do you want to do it by yourself or together with the assumed mother?

yes basically no orphans in Australia. The amount who become available is far, far less than the demand for them. The amunt of orphans in Australia is miniscule.

Oh it is quite easy to adopt while in Russia and I even considered it. I realized though that , since a great many women were ven against the fact I had children already, that if I chose to adopt then my chances of finding a spouse afterwards would be quite slim. I really don't care if a child is biologically mine or not. But raising chldren is one of the joys in life, even if I had to do it alone. But certainly I would prefer to be married, but I will see how things work out for me here in Istanbul.

Potty
05-11-2012, 21:14
I realized though that , since a great many women were ven against the fact I had children already, that if I chose to adopt then my chances of finding a spouse afterwards would be quite slim. .

wow. really? Well, I guess you just need a woman who already has a child.

Jack17
05-11-2012, 21:33
No one's going to like this; but here goes . . .

If a young woman, for altruistic reasons, wants to help a barren woman have her own child by carrying that child to term for her in her own body; then I think that is a great act of altruism and love.

However, if, since, in my experience, that kind of altruism is rare in this veil of tears, the young woman is looking to pick up $10K, then I'd say there are certainly easier ways for her to do it.

If the young lady is attractive and well built, then hooking for a month or two seems a lot easier to me than carrying someone else's child in her body for 9 months with all the morning sickness, stress and pain of child birth that it entails. Just my opinion . . .

DocHudson
05-11-2012, 21:36
it is very easy to say. have you tried? tell us about your experience then.

Well, bearing in mind that I have 4 children (not adopted), I have some experience. Actually, the biggest problem is the red tape. I have friends (they had 2 sons) -when they adopted a girl with a huge heart problems. Operation and rehabilitation was the less problem.
In any case, adopt an orphan, much wiser and nobler than play games with morality and ethics .......and to God, if you like.

Potty
05-11-2012, 21:41
In any case, adopt an orphan, much wiser and nobler than play games with morality and ethics .......and to God, if you like.

I wonder how many infertile men spent years in tears knowing they will never have their own baby. I know like 10 women and not a single man.

DocHudson
05-11-2012, 22:33
I wonder how many infertile men spent years in tears knowing they will never have their own baby. I know like 10 women and not a single man.

The baby is not Your own property. Trust me. This is the only way to establish good and creative relationships with your offspring. Spending years in tears Ladies just don't know about true maternity. They think that they will never love someone else's child. It's an illusion, false illusion.:sunny:

Potty
05-11-2012, 22:36
Spending years in tears Ladies just don't know about true maternity.

Really? How many miscarriages did personally you have in your life? Or premature labour with a died baby as a result?

Potty
05-11-2012, 22:48
Thanks.

DocHudson
05-11-2012, 23:03
Really? How many miscarriages did personally you have in your life? Or premature labour with a died baby as a result?

Each of us has its ups and downs. Imho its not very wise to knock on the closed door or climb through the window. Although I'm a doctor (not gynecologist), I'm critical of attempts to cheat Mother Nature. Sometimes we have to humble. Sorry.

Potty
05-11-2012, 23:07
Each of us has its ups and downs. Imho its not very wise to knock on the closed door or climb through the window. Although I'm a doctor (not gynecologist), I'm critical of attempts to cheat Mother Nature. Sometimes we have to humble. Sorry.

still not an answer to my question ;-)

Carl
05-11-2012, 23:59
Carl, you see I know only some horror stories about adoption. Well, mostly. It is nice to hear a happy one. Very encouraging.

It's like anything worth doing in life I guess..
Go in with a good plan & realistic expectations...add some real effort.. and you can expect positive results))
If you do plan to visit Riga.. I'd be happy to show you the results we've attained.:10806: The wife would also be more than happy to let you 'pick her brain' about the process (her being Russian, might help:)

Potty
06-11-2012, 00:39
It's like anything worth doing in life I guess..

Oh, you are so right.

martpark
06-11-2012, 12:54
This is a serious subject for many. Please no more off topic/hijacking. Thanks.

Jas
06-11-2012, 13:12
C, what we shud do is have a special advertisement section on our site for people in the west where they can seriously think about the advantages of signing up with one of the surrogate mother agencies here. The agencies wud have to agree to advertise of course...... and they wud have to pay expat.ru like any other business.
U cud also do the same with adoption agencies also- they cud use our site to advertise their services and we cud have like this:
a) Forum for adoptions
b) Forum for surrogate agencies

Also, if people didn't want to pay all the big fees to a agency, then they cud get in contact with posters here- like me- who wud be willing to help them on a private basis and for a fee less than a surrogate mum selected by an agency wud be taking.
Another, expat.ru shud get all schools in Moscow to advertise any vacancies for teachers. We cud also expand to a bride site section even- though I wud be against this.

I think there are millions of people who really need surrogate services and it makes sense for them to come to Russia for that.

rusmeister
06-11-2012, 15:04
C, what we shud do is have a special advertisement section on our site for people in the west where they can seriously think about the advantages of signing up with one of the surrogate mother agencies here. The agencies wud have to agree to advertise of course...... and they wud have to pay expat.ru like any other business.
U cud also do the same with adoption agencies also- they cud use our site to advertise their services and we cud have like this:
a) Forum for adoptions
b) Forum for surrogate agencies

Also, if people didn't want to pay all the big fees to a agency, then they cud get in contact with posters here- like me- who wud be willing to help them on a private basis and for a fee less than a surrogate mum selected by an agency wud be taking.
Another, expat.ru shud get all schools in Moscow to advertise any vacancies for teachers. We cud also expand to a bride site section even- though I wud be against this.

I think there are millions of people who really need surrogate services and it makes sense for them to come to Russia for that.

If it WERE moral - and it's not: treating your body as a commercial product is generally ALWAYS immoral, never mind the weakening of family bonds by the introduction of third-party mercenaries - then it would STILL make no sense for people to travel to another country to do it.

Jas
06-11-2012, 15:07
If it WERE moral - and it's not: treating your body as a commercial product is generally ALWAYS immoral, never mind the weakening of family bonds by the introduction of third-party mercenaries - then it would STILL make no sense for people to travel to another country to do it.

So don't u treat ure body as a commercial product when u go to work for a third party then?
There's nothing immoral about bringing life into this world. Hey, u shud be for that, shudn't u being such a pro lifer.
Oh I get it.... ure not pro life at all- ure just about limiting the choices females can make.

andymackem
06-11-2012, 15:32
So don't u treat ure body as a commercial product when u go to work for a third party then?
There's nothing immoral about bringing life into this world. Hey, u shud be for that, shudn't u being such a pro lifer.
Oh I get it.... ure not pro life at all- ure just about limiting the choices females can make.

You don't think that people limit their own options through the decisions they make? Choosing to live in Moscow is why I don't live, for example, in Berlin. I'd quite like to live in Berlin, but I can't because I also want to remain in Moscow. My choice isn't limited - nothing is stopping me moving to Berlin - but each choice has consequences which will rule out other potential choices.

That's why 'having it all' is an unrealistic aim - not because everyone should follow some pre-ordained social role (whether appointed by faith, tradition, government, society, whatever), but because it's impossible for all of those roles to sensibly fit into one person's circumstances. As soon as we choose one role, one lifestyle, we reject alternatives. Without reversing that original decision (which is possible, although not always very easy), those alternatives remain unattainable.

rusmeister
06-11-2012, 17:02
You don't think that people limit their own options through the decisions they make? Choosing to live in Moscow is why I don't live, for example, in Berlin. I'd quite like to live in Berlin, but I can't because I also want to remain in Moscow. My choice isn't limited - nothing is stopping me moving to Berlin - but each choice has consequences which will rule out other potential choices.

That's why 'having it all' is an unrealistic aim - not because everyone should follow some pre-ordained social role (whether appointed by faith, tradition, government, society, whatever), but because it's impossible for all of those roles to sensibly fit into one person's circumstances. As soon as we choose one role, one lifestyle, we reject alternatives. Without reversing that original decision (which is possible, although not always very easy), those alternatives remain unattainable.

This is (now) an obvious truth to me, the kind I didn't think much about, if at all, in my twenties and thirties. One of the more obvious examples is the woman trying to "have it all", particularly in the sense of being both a full-time mother and a career woman.

rusmeister
06-11-2012, 17:22
So don't u treat ure body as a commercial product when u go to work for a third party then?
There's nothing immoral about bringing life into this world. Hey, u shud be for that, shudn't u being such a pro lifer.
Oh I get it.... ure not pro life at all- ure just about limiting the choices females can make.

No. I don't give my body over to be used. There is a difference between performing manual labor and letting people do what they will with your body. A cashier at McDonald's is an example of the former. Prostitution is an example of the latter.

There are moral and immoral ways of bringing life into the world. The moral way is the traditional family, the moral alternative is adoption. To say that there's nothing immoral about "bringing life into the world" is easily refited - by showing how it can be immoral. Test-tube babies made artificially to create prostitutes, clone armies or to harvest stem cells would be decidedly immoral.

robertmf
06-11-2012, 17:32
...Test-tube babies made artificially to create prostitutes, clone armies or to harvest stem cells would be decidedly immoral.

What about harvesting stem cells for medical research to cure diseases :question:

Russian Lad
06-11-2012, 18:14
A cashier at McDonald's is an example of the former. Prostitution is an example of the latter.

Prostitution of mind is worse than prostitution of body, in my view. If I was an attractive and smart woman and was given a choice only between McDonalds and prostitution, I would certainly choose prostitution.

rusmeister
06-11-2012, 20:13
What about harvesting stem cells for medical research to cure diseases :question:


Well, the shortest answer is itself a question: Are you damaging or killing a living baby, an embryo in normal development after conception? If yes, it's wicked, murder in the face of ignorance or denial of the fact remains wicked, even when unintentionally so; the more so when placed before the fact. If not, then as far as I know, there's no harm in it. It's just that harm to a living baby in the womb is also harm, and that's what pro-abortion people fail or refuse to realize.

NotMe
06-11-2012, 21:51
Prostitution of mind is worse than prostitution of body, in my view. If I was an attractive and smart woman and was given a choice only between McDonalds and prostitution, I would certainly choose prostitution.


Prostitution of mind or body?:suspect: (sorry, I didn't dare to suppose both) :D

Jas
06-11-2012, 22:45
No. I don't give my body over to be used. There is a difference between performing manual labor and letting people do what they will with your body. A cashier at McDonald's is an example of the former. Prostitution is an example of the latter.

There are moral and immoral ways of bringing life into the world. The moral way is the traditional family, the moral alternative is adoption. To say that there's nothing immoral about "bringing life into the world" is easily refited - by showing how it can be immoral. Test-tube babies made artificially to create prostitutes, clone armies or to harvest stem cells would be decidedly immoral.

Er, so why are you claiming surrogacy is like prostitution and in the next bit linking it to immoral stuff?
By the way..... wasn't Prophet Ibrahim's wife-Saira- artificially inseminated and wasn't Hagar the Egyptian girl supposed to be like a surrogate? Do u know what's the story of Ibrahim and Saira and how Prophet Ibrahim wanted a son he wud call Ishamel and was ready to use Hagar for that? Don't u know that it was Saira herself who suggested he sleep with Hagar- as a surrogate cos she was that desprate to have a child but cudn't cos of her age?

Potty
06-11-2012, 23:20
By the way..... wasn't Prophet Ibrahim's wife-Saira- artificially inseminated and wasn't Hagar the Egyptian girl supposed to be like a surrogate? Do u know what's the story of Ibrahim and Saira and how Prophet Ibrahim wanted a son he wud call Ishamel and was ready to use Hagar for that? Don't u know that it was Saira herself who suggested he sleep with Hagar- as a surrogate cos she was that desprate to have a child but cudn't cos of her age?

:emote_popcorn:

Jack17
06-11-2012, 23:22
Er, so why are you claiming surrogacy is like prostitution and in the next bit linking it to immoral stuff?
By the way..... wasn't Prophet Ibrahim's wife-Saira- artificially inseminated and wasn't Hagar the Egyptian girl supposed to be like a surrogate? Do u know what's the story of Ibrahim and Saira and how Prophet Ibrahim wanted a son he wud call Ishamel and was ready to use Hagar for that? Don't u know that it was Saira herself who suggested he sleep with Hagar- as a surrogate cos she was that desprate to have a child but cudn't cos of her age?
I'm with you Jas. And I'm waiting for the day when drugs and sex, as well as Rock 'n Roll will be universally legal.

rusmeister
07-11-2012, 03:42
Er, so why are you claiming surrogacy is like prostitution and in the next bit linking it to immoral stuff?
By the way..... wasn't Prophet Ibrahim's wife-Saira- artificially inseminated and wasn't Hagar the Egyptian girl supposed to be like a surrogate? Do u know what's the story of Ibrahim and Saira and how Prophet Ibrahim wanted a son he wud call Ishamel and was ready to use Hagar for that? Don't u know that it was Saira herself who suggested he sleep with Hagar- as a surrogate cos she was that desprate to have a child but cudn't cos of her age?

Thanks for making my point, Jas.
(standard English spelling: Abraham and Sarah)

Artificial insemination means what it says, so no, Sarah wasn't "artificially" inseminated. And the whole point of the story of Hagar and Ishmael is precisely that it was immoral. It was a human attempt to "solve" Sarah's problem. Only it didn't solve anything, and Ishmael wound up an outcast, and God stooped to the intervention of miracle, facilitating the normal process in aged people, to provide the real solution. It was having faith in God that was the right move, and "believing in yourself" that was the grand error.

And your use of "surrogate" here is simply the most immoral type - that of a husband committing adultery to produce a child. The whole moral point of surrogacy is that it DOES adulterate the marriage.

Jas
07-11-2012, 10:42
Thanks for making my point, Jas.
(standard English spelling: Abraham and Sarah)

Artificial insemination means what it says, so no, Sarah wasn't "artificially" inseminated. And the whole point of the story of Hagar and Ishmael is precisely that it was immoral. It was a human attempt to "solve" Sarah's problem. Only it didn't solve anything, and Ishmael wound up an outcast, and God stooped to the intervention of miracle, facilitating the normal process in aged people, to provide the real solution. It was having faith in God that was the right move, and "believing in yourself" that was the grand error.

And your use of "surrogate" here is simply the most immoral type - that of a husband committing adultery to produce a child. The whole moral point of surrogacy is that it DOES adulterate the marriage.

Er, I think ure totally confused by what's in the Holy Qu'ran thanks- and probably Bible also even. If Ismail was a outcast that was cos of petty jealousy. So how come then God saved him and his mum by giving them water from the well of zam zam- which is now in Makkah of course? He cud have left them to die.
Next..... Saira was artifically inseminated. Did Ibrahim impregnate her? No. So?

One last side.... I was a haifiza of the Holy Qu'ran by the age of 12 so I think I wud know what I am on about thanks.

yakspeare
07-11-2012, 11:26
he didn't commit adultery, he took Hagar as his wife. It was polygamy.

And Ishmael was blessed even so, he would make a proud nation and even his name "el" comes from G-d.

But Rus is right that Abraham and Sarah tried to get around G-d's promise their own way and were chastised for it. Ishmael shouldn't have been born, it was a lack of faith on their part that he was.

yakspeare
07-11-2012, 11:30
and Abraham is the accepted CHRISTIAN spelling. It is not the accepted English spelling at all. To a Jew, he is Avraham and to a muslim, Ibrahim.

Potty
07-11-2012, 11:54
That's amazing...Discussion between people of 3 different confessions. Truly amazing...

Russian Lad
07-11-2012, 13:46
Prostitution of mind is worse than prostitution of body, in my view. If I was an attractive and smart woman and was given a choice only between McDonalds and prostitution, I would certainly choose prostitution.

Prostitution of mind or body? (sorry, I didn't dare to suppose both)

Try to guess.

rusmeister
07-11-2012, 20:38
To Yak - the accepted traditional spelling of Abraham and Sarah in English is many centuries old. You can't win that argument, no matter how much you think it ought to be spelled differently. The clear historical fact of how the names were spelled universally in the English language is far too well-documented. You may not like that English and American culture were, until quite recently, overwhelmingly Christian. But it remains the historical fact, and the modern attempts to insist in changing the spelling are merely part of the general denial of Christian heritage deferring to how non-English cultures write the names.

To Jas, I am not "confused" at all on the matter. I do not accept the Koran as authoritative or holy, nor do I accept Arabic conventions of spelling to be English, but merely transliterated Arabic. For that matter I do not assume that you accept that the Bible is holy. Nor do I even consider the Bible authoritative apart from the institution that produced it, the Church, a thing conspicuously absent from Islam. So appealing to the authority of the Koran or Arabic spelling is useless to a Christian Englishman - or American, or even Australian.

robertmf
07-11-2012, 20:49
... Nor do I even consider the Bible authoritative apart from the institution that produced it, the Church, a thing conspicuously absent from Islam. So appealing to the authority of the Koran or Arabic spelling is useless to a Christian Englishman - or American, or even Australian.

Please, can you re-phrase "a thing conspicuously absent from Islam".

What "thing" ? The 'a' reference is ambiguous (to me).

rusmeister
07-11-2012, 21:46
Please, can you re-phrase "a thing conspicuously absent from Islam".

What "thing" ? The 'a' reference is ambiguous (to me).



Islam does not have a single unified Church, such as the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. It's a general malaise of much of Protestantism as well, thus Islam is similar to evangelical Protestantism in not having central authority to define doctrine and heresy.

MickeyTong
08-11-2012, 00:36
Islam does not have a single unified Church, such as the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. It's a general malaise of much of Protestantism as well, thus Islam is similar to evangelical Protestantism in not having central authority to define doctrine and heresy.

Islamic central authority ended with the demise of the Caliphate (the fall of Baghdad in 1258, or the fall of the Ottoman state after WWI, depending on one's understanding of Islamic orthodoxy). The Caliphate will be re-established only by Imam Mahdi, in preparation for the return of Jesus to this world. So goeth the story.

In the meantime, the only central authority is found in the Hadith and sunnah of Mohammed.

yakspeare
08-11-2012, 02:04
To Yak - the accepted traditional spelling of Abraham and Sarah in English is many centuries old. You can't win that argument, no matter how much you think it ought to be spelled differently. The clear historical fact of how the names were spelled universally in the English language is far too well-documented. You may not like that English and American culture were, until quite recently, overwhelmingly Christian. But it remains the historical fact, and the modern attempts to insist in changing the spelling are merely part of the general denial of Christian heritage deferring to how non-English cultures write the names.

To Jas, I am not "confused" at all on the matter. I do not accept the Koran as authoritative or holy, nor do I accept Arabic conventions of spelling to be English, but merely transliterated Arabic. For that matter I do not assume that you accept that the Bible is holy. Nor do I even consider the Bible authoritative apart from the institution that produced it, the Church, a thing conspicuously absent from Islam. So appealing to the authority of the Koran or Arabic spelling is useless to a Christian Englishman - or American, or even Australian.

I don't give a fark what you think. You are never going to get a muslim to call him Abraham instead of Ibrahim. The audacity to demand such ignores the culture of the speaker.

Jack17
08-11-2012, 02:55
I do not accept the Koran as authoritative or holy,

Does the same hold true for the Book of Mormon?

rusmeister
08-11-2012, 06:22
I don't give a fark what you think. You are never going to get a muslim to call him Abraham instead of Ibrahim. The audacity to demand such ignores the culture of the speaker.

I am free to ignore the culture of a speaker who claims to be English, and then tells me I have to ignore the conventions of my own language and culture and spell it his way.

So the truth is reversed - he is ignoring and disrespecting MY culture, Yak.

rusmeister
08-11-2012, 06:23
Does the same hold true for the Book of Mormon?

3 guesses, Jack.

MashaSashina
29-11-2012, 21:16
It might be, Robert, if most people had raised or addressed the moral issue. But nobody did. It took me, the old fogey, to think of it.
Rusmeister, i occasionally found a group of people who seem to care and even going to meet and discuss it next wednesday in the polytechnic museum.
In case you are in Moscow you may wish to join. Though they usually have their lectures uploaded to the site.
Атом и Адам. Дискуссия о науке и религии. (http://pmlectures.ru/event/Atom_i_Adam_Diskussiya_o_nauke_i_religii-222)

rusmeister
29-11-2012, 21:55
Rusmeister, i occasionally found a group of people who seem to care and even going to meet and discuss it next wednesday in the polytechnic museum.
In case you are in Moscow you may wish to join. Though they usually have their lectures uploaded to the site.
Атом и Адам. Дискуссия о науке и религии. (http://pmlectures.ru/event/Atom_i_Adam_Diskussiya_o_nauke_i_religii-222)
It does look like it might be interesting. It doesn't seem likely that I could break away for something like that, but I would certainly be interested in having a fair chance to defend a religious position that accepts science, but doesn't give it carte blanche, rather seeing it as having its place in a general cosmic philosophy. I see 5-10% chance of being able to make that event... (I live in the oblast and have three young kids at home)

Potty
29-11-2012, 22:31
Rusmeister, i occasionally found a group of people who seem to care and even going to meet and discuss it next wednesday in the polytechnic museum.
In case you are in Moscow you may wish to join. Though they usually have their lectures uploaded to the site.
Атом и Адам. Дискуссия о науке и религии. (http://pmlectures.ru/event/Atom_i_Adam_Diskussiya_o_nauke_i_religii-222)

Like I don't exist? by the way this lecture is given by my spiritual father A. Borisov. I don't really have to go. I know what he thinks and we discussed it million times.

rusmeister
30-11-2012, 08:44
Like I don't exist? by the way this lecture is given by my spiritual father A. Borisov. I don't really have to go. I know what he thinks and we discussed it million times.

Hi, Potty,
Do you mean "spiritual father" in the Orthodox sense? (It has a very specific meaning to us, more than just "mentor"). Or just in the sense of someone you look up to? (and being able to look up to someone is a good thing, too - it means we haven't lost the virtue of humility)

Potty
30-11-2012, 10:41
Hi, Potty,
Do you mean "spiritual father" in the Orthodox sense? (It has a very specific meaning to us, more than just "mentor"). Or just in the sense of someone you look up to? (and being able to look up to someone is a good thing, too - it means we haven't lost the virtue of humility)

I meant a priest who you confess to before communion on sundays. For years.

rusmeister
30-11-2012, 20:43
I meant a priest who you confess to before communion on sundays. For years.

Got it. That doesn't always translate into a spiritual father relationship, though I get in your case it does. Just asking.

mds45
30-11-2012, 20:48
I meant a priest who you confess to before communion on sundays. For years.

What do you that's so bad you need to confess Potty?

Potty
30-11-2012, 20:59
What do you that's so bad you need to confess Potty?

as I remember you are a nonbeliever, right? Let's stick to discussing breakfasts.:11215:

mds45
30-11-2012, 21:01
as I remember you are a nonbeliever, right? Let's stick to discussing breakfasts.:11215:

The art discussion has died ( and on a forum which is ironic.

yakspeare
30-11-2012, 22:06
and I was about to break out the popcorn

Jack17
30-11-2012, 22:32
as I remember you are a nonbeliever, right? Let's stick to discussing breakfasts.:11215:
Potty, I'm very spiritually attuned and would be happy to serve as your online confessor - my child. Feel free to unburden your soul to me at any time via PM.

mds45
01-12-2012, 19:07
Potty, I'm very spiritually attuned and would be happy to serve as your online confessor - my child. Feel free to unburden your soul to me at any time via PM.

That's kinda where I was going :) I'd love to know what is worth confessing about , and think my worldly experience could help :p

Potty
01-12-2012, 19:09
That's kinda where I was going :) I'd love to know what is worth confessing about , and think my worldly experience cold help :p

i knew i would have to issue a tender.

Jack17
01-12-2012, 19:46
Come unto me all ye who are heavy laden.

rusmeister
01-12-2012, 21:12
That's kinda where I was going :) I'd love to know what is worth confessing about , and think my worldly experience could help :p

Well, I could put it in terms of a role-playing game. Since the goal is perfection, but you have to start from where you are, when you start, you might be confessing theft, betrayal, incest or murder (in a first (lifetime) confession. When you go "level-up" you find yourself confessing lies, deceit, screaming at your kids or getting drunk. When you go further "up", swearing, getting angry, laziness, passing by someone who needed help, dropping your prayer rule are what you are confessing. Finally, you begin to realize that pretty much everything is a failure to love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

It should go without saying that without repentance, confession is useless. Unless you firmly determine to not do a thing again, or to do what you ought, then merely reporting that you did it is useless. The whole thing is about changing our selves.

Priests probably know more about human evil than you or I ever will. Hearing confessions has got to be one of the hardest parts of being a priest.

MickeyTong
01-12-2012, 21:54
... when you start, you might be confessing theft, betrayal, incest or murder (in a first (lifetime) confession. ....

Golly gosh.......how much time does a person get for their first confession?

mds45
01-12-2012, 22:36
Well, I could put it in terms of a role-playing game. Since the goal is perfection, but you have to start from where you are, when you start, you might be confessing theft, betrayal, incest or murder (in a first (lifetime) confession. When you go "level-up" you find yourself confessing lies, deceit, screaming at your kids or getting drunk. When you go further "up", swearing, getting angry, laziness, passing by someone who needed help, dropping your prayer rule are what you are confessing. Finally, you begin to realize that pretty much everything is a failure to love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

It should go without saying that without repentance, confession is useless. Unless you firmly determine to not do a thing again, or to do what you ought, then merely reporting that you did it is useless. The whole thing is about changing our selves.

Priests probably know more about human evil than you or I ever will. Hearing confessions has got to be one of the hardest parts of being a priest.

I think I'd make a great priest, even knowing God doesn't exist , I mean it doesn't hold catholics or jews back does it?

rusmeister
02-12-2012, 00:54
Golly gosh.......how much time does a person get for their first confession?

It might take only five to ten minutes. (You might have to try to form some kind of list beforehand, and if you think you need a LOT of time you ought to ask if you can schedule it.) Confession can be tricky, as there are extremes of just dryly citing a laundry list on the one hand and psychoanalyzing each sin on the other hand. But the end run is coming to hate doing something that you might have once enjoyed - to see that it really IS destructive, even self-destructive, and determining not to do it again, to resist the desire or passion (So "Godfather"-type confessions where people see absolution as license to go do it again are totally out)

Russian Lad
02-12-2012, 02:46
Priests probably know more about human evil than you or I ever will.

We do indeed...

scd167
02-12-2012, 03:03
Priests probably know more about human evil than you or I ever will. Hearing confessions has got to be one of the hardest parts of being a priest.

Oh, I thought you were going to talk about all of the crimes against humanity that priests have committed... I guess they really enjoy the confessions (bragging?) of their pedophiles in arms... fellow priests.

rusmeister
02-12-2012, 07:40
Oh, I thought you were going to talk about all of the crimes against humanity that priests have committed... I guess they really enjoy the confessions (bragging?) of their pedophiles in arms... fellow priests.

Naturally the 99.9+% of priests who are no such thing ever occur to you, I suppose. This eagerness to paint all of them with the brush of a very few says something about you much more than about them.

At any rate, the average priest knows more about the darkest secrets of his parishioners than you or I - and they remain priests.

Father Brown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Brown_(film)

scd167
02-12-2012, 13:23
Naturally the 99.9+% of priests who are no such thing ever occur to you, I suppose. This eagerness to paint all of them with the brush of a very few says something about you much more than about them.

At any rate, the average priest knows more about the darkest secrets of his parishioners than you or I - and they remain priests.

Father Brown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Brown)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Brown_(film)

99.9+ percent are no such thing? I am sure the pope himself has fondled a few boys in his day, just like every Catholic priest... I personally believe 99.9+ percent of all priests are pedophiles...

rusmeister
02-12-2012, 16:35
99.9+ percent are no such thing? I am sure the pope himself has fondled a few boys in his day, just like every Catholic priest... I personally believe 99.9+ percent of all priests are pedophiles...

Comment j'ai dit.

moscow777
04-12-2012, 10:10
Why not?