Letters to the Editor
-
think twice, act once.....
I agree with the posters who emphasize that once married, and particularly with kids, one's first priority is to the spouse and children. My first marriage failed because my ex couldn't place the needs of his wife (me) and his child (adopted, as an FYI) before that of his dysfunctional parents and siblings.
Like other letter writers, I wonder if the sister has thought of adoption - an option that obviously worked for me (but I appreciate it isn't for everyone). Perhaps offering to underwrite any expense involved with that might be a more prudent move. Or, finding a non-familial surrogate - gives the option of having a child that is biologically theirs, but does not involve the LW's family in such an intimate way. A bit of distance may be the right option.
I must say however as a woman who has faced reproductive issues in a couple of ways that doing something that does not involve the support of your primary family is at best risky and at worst, irresponsible. Your first responsibility is to your own children and to providing as stable an environment as possible. Doing something that will knowingly introduce incredible tension and pain into your home with three young children, unless it is life-giving (ie physical or substance abuse issues), is not a wise move, in my opinion.
Best of luck to all of them -
M
-
Raise or Fold
LW, if it is worth your husband suing for divorce and being granted custody of your three children, then go for it. I have no way of knowing whether this would happen, nor do I have any clue whether he'd seek or win custody, but those are the ultimate stakes. You can choose to gamble with money you can't afford to lose, but there's no one but yourself to blame if you do, in fact, lose it.
Also, if the child has Down Syndrome, it would change your sister's life in ways that are far more stressful than the vagaries of raising a healthy bundle o'joy. How would that affect the overall dynamic?
-
Please Don't
I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus - please don't do this. At 40 a pregnancy is harder on your body than you might think. On top of that it's very possible it'll be a multiple birth. Recovery will be long and painful, you'll be out of comission for a long time and unable to fully be the wife/mom in your own family, and you will feel the physical repercussions for years.
On top of all that, your husband, the man you decided to make your life partner, has clearly told you he doesn't want to play the role you would need him to play in this situation. He flat out doesn't want to. Everyone who says that this will be a body-blow to your marriage is right. The damage would be severe.
Your heart is in the right place, but your brain is having a blip in this situation, probably because family relationships are full of Freudian madness. Please don't do this. I think it will be bad for you.
-
Ever heard of adoption?
This is horrible advice. Not only does this totally disrespect your husband, it's the ultimate in self-absorbtion. There's tons of unwanted children out there. Look into bi-racial or foreign adoption. Don't carry your sister's child, hep her look into adoptions. You still get a niece/nephew, your sister gets a child, and there's the added benefit of having given a child a loving home.
-
Not everyone's a breeder...
All that wasted money on fertility clinics. Does the LW not wonder that perhaps God or Nature (take your pic) doesn't want her to have children?
-
One word
Adoption
-
How so?
BR said: "The greatest indirect risk, as others have said, is that the surrogacy will destroy LW's marriage. On the other hand, no one seems to have noted that by effectively not permitting LW to act on her own conscience, her husband is threatening his own marriage. I would certainly resent my husband for a long time if I were in LW's position."
It strikes me that many people have commented on this point, perhaps you missed it. I'm not married myself and probably never will be, for precisely this reason: marriage necessarily permits a check on your actions/impulses/desires by another person, namely, your spouse. Is this truly surprising? It's her own body, sure, fine, whatever, but the burden attendant such a thing as LW suggests here could hardly be her own. To argue otherwise is to abandon all logic and wilfully ignore reality. She, likewise, has a check on his activities. Suppose, along the lines of what someone else previously said, that LW's husband has some sort of mid-life crisis and decides he'd like to, oh, I don't know, join the French Foreign Legion. If he's 40 or under and reasonably fit, they may well take him (he doesn't even need to know the language), and with current regulations, he could opt out within a year, putting the time commitment on par. It's his life. It's his body he's putting in harm's way. Who, praytell, does she presume to be that she should have a say on what he does with himself? He's just hiking through the Algerian desert or possibly engaging in an exchange of small arms fire with some enemy combatants rather subjecting himself to an unnecessary and possibly dangerous pregnancy. Why shouldn't her objection to his sudden, disruptive and possibly insane decision permit him to maintain a grudge against her? You're advocating a double standard, whether or not you'd like to admit it. LW's sister should adopt, LW should get a new puppy or something, and LW's husband should go play paintball. As Calvin Coolidge reportedly said, "[d]on't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?"
-
Find an alternative
I echo much of the previous advice: Don't do this.
I believe Cary has painted an optimistic picture here (his usual penchant ... and why I love most of his columns), but, in reality, I think slammed doors and nights spent on the couch would be a 'best case' scenario. My thought is ... carrying and bearing your sister's baby might, and probably will, result in the ultimate dissolution of your own marriage.
Even if your husband doesn't leave you, he'll never trust you again. Teamwork is such an intrinsic part of any successful marriage that acting unilaterally, when your husband has explicitly stated his opposition, will have big and lasting repercussions. NEGATIVE repercussions. He may choose to stay with you for the sake of your children, but he will never feel the same way about you. His trust in you will be fractured and may never repair. I believe the benefits you will receive from moving ahead (you become an aunt, you help to make your sister and her husband happy) are much less than the possible consequences to your own family (divorce, distrust, losing your husband and possibly your children, irreparably damaging the bond you have with your partner and teammate).
I agree with others that you should take an active role in helping your sister and her husband find an alternate way of becoming parents. Adoption is an excellent choice. As our crazy world spins out of control, what better way to do something life affirming and positive? Giving a needy child a loving home (with two loving parents and a loving extended family) sounds like a wonderful plan to me. Or explore the surrogate route with your sister. Do some research. Loan them some money. Help her come up with a plan. You'll feel useful and needed. And she'll feel better knowing you support her efforts to have a family. Most importantly ... your husband won't feel like you've disregarded his feelings, which are powerful feelings. Yes ... you need to help your sister. But not at your husband's expense.
I feel for you. This situation is tough. You obviously have a big heart. But please don't damage your husband's heart in your efforts to help.