For once? What a rude thing to say. Have you been stalking me my entire life?

Yes, I think of it as infidelity. Instead of smiting me for it, maybe think of something constructive to add that might help me see things differently. All this is doing is making me defensive, and making me want to give my approval even less.

The whole reason I wrote this is because I want to approve but I can't cope with doing so. thanks for ruining that. I won't bother coming here for actual advice again. Honestly I'm surprised ad some of you. You're damned militant.

You haven't explained your views aside from saying that you are against your wife being a surrogate. That doesn't give us much to go on outside of what you have told us, which, to people here, seems possessive. Most of our advice so far has been "chill out and talk with your wife", in varying words. We can't give you the advice you want unless you further explain your objections to it and why you feel that way, instead of "I consider [it] to be a form of advltery".

Being a surrogate is simply not advltery, it says nothing about your relationship with your wife, who probably loves you very much yet still wants to help out this other family by being a surrogate. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.

I think we should give the man a break here, he's obviously discussed the situation with his wife but negotiations may have broken down because of their difference of opinions. We don't know all the facts in what is no doubt a very stressful situation and shouldn't try to judge something most of us know absolutely nothing about.

That's fair. I believe that the meaning of life for all species be them plant or animal is reproduction. In human terms, evolution has meant that we cohabitat in order to raise a child, because by mating for life we improve the chances that child will survive, thus we improve the odds of passing on our genes.

I'm talking meaning of life here. Obviously I don't live my life by those rules and I want to have children because I absolutely adore them and love my son to bits, and would kill for a large family. I then find it difficult merging my desire for s bigger family with my thoughts on how the meaning of life is to reproduce versus my wife passing on her genetic code without me. It feels as though she is denying me the right to pass on my genes while still passing on hers.

I look at it this way: Genealogy/Bloodlines are not logical or relevant to live an enjoyable life.

Raising a kid (biological or adopted) on your ethics, morals, and what not are a much more noticeable way to pass on your legacy. Being of blood does not make them automatically an extension of you. I can name a 1,000 examples of famous people whom blood children are nothing alike being a disgrace to their parents' legacy.

This is a serious question one that only you can find the answer to. Have you talked to your wife how you feel about her decision?

Thank you


Yes I have. I've told her I'll probably be okay with it, but I have some serious philisophical issues I need to sort through first before I give it my blessing.

Ok, that's helpful information. I'll take your presumptions as is (mating for life, etc).

It seems to me, based upon your stated views, that there is a bit of a disconnect between your view that the only meaning to life is reproduction, and your view that cohabitation (for life) is imperative to successfully raise a child. If we say that the only meaning to life is reproduction, then it would stand that it would be more beneficial for the male to have as many children as possible to pass down his specific genes, which as many females as possible. The downsides to childrearing is, basically, solely on the female. The male, once coitus is complete, has little incentive to stay with the female, especially after her childbearing years, whereas the male is virile 20-30 years after a female is no longer capable of producing a child. It's a simple numbers game - is it more beneficial for the male to father one child with one wife and take the risk that the child will die unexpectedly, or have multiple children with multiple females in different areas / situations, thus increasing the chances that at least one of those children will be able to successfully carry on his genes?

That isn't even getting into the issue of one male with multiple females, which means that the male can further extend his reproductive ability while providing for multiple females / children, while still "mating for life" with each of his wives, and ensuing that there are multiple females around to care for his children.

Are adoptive parents just nothing to their children?

I said that as a counter-point to a statement made by somebody else. You are taking of out of context.

The other worry is, what if the child wants to consider himself a part of my family as my wife will be his biological mother? How would I deal with that?

That's the biggest thing I'm having a problem with. Parents are not the people that birthed you, but the people that raised you and cared for you. The birth link is pretty trivial (though it's still a thing).

I highly doubt that would be the case, and if it was, then you'd learn to live with it, I guess? Would you turn someone away just because you're not biologically related?

I take your point, but in thus context that would mean that my wife is negatively controlling my genes while providing her genes to another male. That makes it worse!

How would you deal with that? Well, the child would be part of two families at that point, being connected to your family via your wife, and his (biological) father / his wife. Essentially your wife's friend's family would raise the child, but he could still be a part of your family's life very easily without causing you any undue hardship.

How does that "make it worse"? You (from my perspective) are correlating the spread / lack of spread of your genes with your worth as a human being.

You are placing restrictions on yourself (monogamy, mating for life) and then becoming distraught at the lack of children you have with your wife. Your wife doesn't want to have another child (likely for financial reasons or her (in)ability to raise more than one child) and that is stressful for you, but you are still bound by the self-restrictions of traditional marriage. Yet you are denying the happiness of another couple because of your self-imposed restrictions, which your wife might not even agree with.

Ultimately it comes down to your philosophy, which, I'll be frank, doesn't seem very coherent, at least in regards to this situation. Not to say that my own philosophy in this situation would be any more coherent, of course.

I know many people close to me that despise their birth parent(s) but find their adoptive parent(s) or step-parent(s) to have a closer bond to them than their blood relative(s) ever will.

Of course not, but I don't know how I would feel in 15 years time. I am terrified that I could resent the child, which would be awful of me but its a genuine worry. I just don't know how it would make me feel. Of course, thinking about it the other way, would I want to enter into a relationship with a single mum and take care of that child? Probably yes, I don't think I'd have an issue with that. Maybe I would see it in the same way. I hope so.

This is a helping by the way. I want to emphasise that I want to give my approval. I just need help getting my mind round this stuff. Thanks.

Heh, my best friend hates his birth mother and his adoptive mother. He's still got his bio-dad, though, and they get along great.

Well, from my experience, when put in a situation like that most people err towards the non-conflict route. My mom doesn't like gay/bi people, but she still loves me.

Interesting. I admit that it would be a strange feeling to know that another family had a child that was genetically my wife's. That said, I don't own her genes or her eggs.

Would you be jealous that she may have an interest in this child born to another family, or is it purely a feeling of exclusive ownership of her potential offspring?

The "it's her body" is a rather tired argument. It sounds like people are advocating prostitution, drugs and cheating.

Anyway, as far as the egg donation goes. Sure it's your wife's genes, but the guy isn't going to be screwing her to do it. They remove the egg, inseminate it and place it in the lady who wants the baby. Your wife won't be having the baby. I wouldn't be so caught up on genes anyway. We're 99.9% similar to other humans and pretty damn close to other animals as well. Less than a tenth of a percent means the difference between in humans.

For all you know, the whole experience might cause your wife to change her mind about not having another kid.

*Misread as your wife's sister not a family friend. In any case, if it was an actual intimate experience where they had intercourse, I could understand not allowing it. I absolutely loathe cheaters, but in this case it isn't infidelity.

[Actually, I'll delete this, don't want to derail the thread].

Others pretty much told you what I was going to tell you, so this is my two cents:

Just treat the child like anyone else. Would you treat some random kid on the street like crap? No? Then don't treat this kid like crap. Whoever he or she's genetically related to is irrelevant (no offense to your wife intended, please don't take it that way). Look at the kid and know that the both of you did some good for that family.

@ DemonsBlade- A woman gets to do whatever she damned well pleases with her own body, I think. If guys get to make decisions about their own bodies, then so can women. But that's a debate for another thread.

Yeah, she won't be a surrogate, it's a case of artificial insemination of my wife's egg with his sperm. Even just typing it, although no intercourse would be involved, I can't help but feel cheated on if this were to go ahead.

Actually it's both. It would feel strange for me, so I can't imagine how it would be for my wife, to see the child after he has been born and know that he is genetically her child. As for exclusive ownership of her offspring, it's not quite that. It is the refusal to allow me more offspring while giving her self another offspring regardless.


But I think that genetics do play a factor. A large one. The child will have to come to her, for instance, for information about genetic history if they get ill, or even if they child eventually has a child of its own. You need to know who your genetic parents are, so it does play a factor.

As for the child, it isn't jusg a random kid off the street. It's far more complicated than that. I'm scared I might see the kid as the child my wife wouldn't give me, but was happy to give him.

But she's not giving herself more offspring. She's giving another couple an offspring. She doesn't get to raise the child. You don't get to raise the child. The wife's friend's family gets to do that.

Genetically, it is her offspring.

I realize that. Why does that matter? Even if we assume that the only meaning to life is reproduction, having more (aggregate) children is a good thing, because it helps to further propagate the entire species. You as a person are not losing out on anything by not having (in your case, more) children, aside from the hormonal / evolutionary-driven desire to have more kids.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not the best person to talk about this stuff with. I don't want children. My partner (a woman) doesn't want children. I'll be quite happy remaining childless throughout my life.

Because she would be having a child with another man. Genetically.