Skip to main content

Infertility! Where?

Kowshic was, or rather “is”, my first kid. I consider him so as he was the first baby whom I had an opportunity to handle (sans the nappy changing part!) and play around for a long time. I loved him. I adored him. I would have destroyed anything or anyone that even remotely tried harming him, for he was pure.

Pure goodness, genuine emotions, infectious smile, innocence untouched by vagaries of our politically correct lifestyle in public, rank opposite in private. Isn’t it the reason why we love most of the babies? I, for one, haven’t had any repulsive feelings towards any babies. I find them cute. All the people I have been around also feel the same. So they have told me. So far so good.

This post is not about Kowshic though. It is about our love towards toddlers like him.

How genuine it is?

Often, the true character of a person comes out in times of grave crisis. One such crisis in personal life, which I see in quite a few people, had thrown this thought at me, couple of years back. Though, the thought is old, its relevance, obviously, holds good even now, and also for years to come.

Off late, fertility issues for bearing a kid has been blown big time with many of married couples (and unmarried ones!), who despite all the efforts, blessings of forefathers, divine interventions, end up being childless. I have come across, in my limited circle of friends and relatives, atleast half a dozen such couples, who are childless.

Lot of reasons are attributed to this so called fertility issues. From biological to astrological imbalance. Stress in life (personal / official), pollution, fast foods, hereditary causes, medical disorders, side effects of some other medications, sins committed in previous birth / by forefathers, unfavourable position of Sun, Moon, Mars, Venus, Anus, Jupiter, Helicopter, Tractor, in the birthchart.

Reasons offered (by others, ofcourse) are endless. But then, so are the solutions.

Reason to the Power or Reason (Reason Squared) 100% Guarantee(e2)d solutions are also afforded – what with several medical alternatives being available – from Yunaani to Sidha to Ayurveda and to a lot of other alternatives practiced from time immemorial. Yogis offer certain Asana, the Purohit recommends Yagas, the Astrologer recommends 108 visits to Temples / Holy places, the Doctor recommends change in life style, neighbour recommends this Doctor, in–Law’s favour the other Doctor, the family Doctor recommends self, the TV anchor has introduced the India’s Best . .. . . . Phew! This list is also equally endless.

Some of them DO yield results. (Identifying which one would be as controversial as the Egg vs Chicken debate). It is also immaterial, to me and to this post of mine.

Even as the couples practice most of the solutions offered to them, most of them still seem to be in search of that elusive result. Priorities take back seat. What was of top most priority (career, family, in laws, recognition etc.) gradually moves backward. Child suddenly seems like the only object of life.

Mother of five would crave for recognition from the society which an Executive woman gets. The executive envies the other for being just that – a mother. As my sister recently pointed out, people crave for what they don’t have.

In some cases, the desperation for a child seems so much like a desire for a trophy which one would want to flaunt. Its value is derived from what others ostensibly give. (The fact that others don’t give a cribbing damn after sometime, is often realized only in hindsight!)

Childlessness also sometimes make people crazy, cranky, sinister, snide, evil, good, generous in equal measure.

I have seen couples getting into a shell. They lose interest in the happenings around them. Their concern for others falls drastically. There is an yearning for a kid, at the sight of one. There is a genuine love when they look at those tiny tots, and the lack of a person to shower that love make them cringe with pain.

Its absence breaks families. It breaks relationships. It makes people take a very very cynical take on life. Marriages are broken. Marriages for siblings are getting delayed (fearing the same childness). Concern grows. Gloom sets. People turn sick, physically and mentally.

In some cases, they end up doing something much better as well. Like, I came across a couple whose childlessness had made them rethink about the purpose of their life, and they focused their attention completely to serving the forsaken elders. I have heard of people starting schools in remotest villages citing the same reason – childlessness. It props them to do something else, away from all the negative thoughts that flows in if the mind is idle. It helps them stop thinking of gloom.

Having seen some of them break down, citing tremendous societal pressure, and the snide remarks they are showered with by outsiders, including remarks by so called super qualified professionals (without any restriction from Professional Accountants to Gynecologists to Software Professionals to “you–name–it–they–too–suck–professionals”), with an deplorable sense of decency, I am left wondering if those qualified thoroughbred bastards are really educated in dealing with human emotions.

All I am left with is just sympathy to the childless couple, and a wish, though not often communicated, that they do sire one.

Whenever I have discussed this with a few of those couples, I have asked them only one question “Why not adoption?” only to get a blunt response “No.”. My next “why so” is replied by an equally blunt “You won’t understand!” I would certainly like to know, with all the abilities endowed upon me, why wouldn’t I understand!

Even by any remote chance, if the couple do decide to adopt, their immediate circle is vociferous and ever so eager in raising the red flag, citing numerous reasons – caste, creed, religion, ancestry, purity of the sired (Hitler?), social acceptance, so on and so forth. All of which I would categorize under “Bull Shit”. The other reasons offered are “the psychological impact on the kid when it grows up and knows that it was an orphan at birth”. These reasons are categorized under “Pure Crap”. No different.

Honestly, I thought these junglee lines are something which one comes across only in retrograde movies, till I heard these ugly talk happening in person.

Some of these “desperate for kid” couples, when they come to know of their near and dear(?!!) have sired a kid, express extreme emotions in equal measure (so it seems to me) – desperation and contentment, jealousy / envy and genuine happiness, pain and peace, and I am not able to help myself from trying to fathom such reaction. Even more difficult to digest is the fact, is the reasons they themselves offer for not adopting a kid, which looks immature and lacks any real affection for the to be born kid, for what it is. "We want a kid, to keep others quite.", and I feel like "Eh??"

This is when, my sympathy towards them takes a “U–turn” to a kind of weird thought that urges my foot to do some tap service on their neck, break their skull and leave that place. On top of it, my “not–so–nice–but–not–so–stupid–either” question of “Why?” is being retorted with “You won’t understand” bullshit.

Thats when I am convinced that they don’t deserve a kid in the first place. To them, it is just a trophy, to show to the world that they are biologically proper, and that they are blessed. That they have no flaws. A superior sense of purity. It serves them just and proper that they don’t have a kid.

A transgender and a genderless individual knows more about parenting, than some of the biologically straight ones. In one of the news article, one of them had stated “Parenting is not biological, but emotional. The relationship is not necessarily established through the blood filled umbilical chord whose physical reflection we always carry in our belly, but is built on love and trust, which can only be felt and experienced.”

Adoption has been identified, in many cases, as the life and relationship saver. These are not just utopian ideas. Scores of published reports of real world incidents and experiences are available which highlight that people do get back their happiness with an adoption. It brings back the purpose. It makes us proud and happy. Parents have been found to work with a renewed vigour and zeal in their other facets of life. It creates an everlasting bond as well. Any kid, not only the one conceived in your womb, even the one you would have loved to, will create that bond.

Adoption does work. As long as people understand that they are adopting a kid, not a trophy.

Mere desperation without clearly understanding, or rather realizing, why we need a kid, serves only a sick mind.

Whether their desperation for a child is genuine? My answer is an Emphatic Yes.

Whether their love for “children” is genuine? My answer is neither an optimistic Yes, nor an pessimistic No. It is not emphatic either way, for I am not convinced either way.

All I would like to know is just an answer to the these questions – Why would I not understand? And most importantly, what is really infertile in them – the body or the mind? Is it their truest character, that of being politically correct, even in matters of love towards innocence?

Then what about the “blessed ones”? Is it just and proper for them to have that “trophy”? Thats for another day, another post.

Comments

I haven read the post yet but just wanted to say it s gud to see you back
I myself do not lend myself big to astrology.. but science as such is in its infancy.. Even as Einstein had pointed out.. the more we learn just shows how little we know about the Universe around us,, on this issue however, science is yet to figure out the impact of one human on the other (telekinetics i think they call it.. how one person's thought can have an impact in his surrounding without any physical action on his part).Similarly as you might know planetary bodies are objects of great power (magnetic , gravitational etc.. etc..) So their impact on humans have not yet been completely found out. I m not saying that astrology knew about all these and has spelt out everything correctly but i there my be a small chance that they might be right, considering that they were more open to nature and drew inferences from natural phenonmenon. I m not saying that they are correct, but we are not in a position to infer that they are wrong either. There is always the remote possibility that they might have been right.

I just finished seeing this movie "match point" wherein the story till the dialogue i m about to say goes something like this Chris (who has is married himself and) has an affair with his friend's wife gets her knocked up and says the following dialogue -
"There i v been trying to have a child with Chloe for such a long time without any success and here i get you knocked up the first time you are unprotected"
"That is because you love me Chris and not her"
"May be your right, with her it is always mechanical, with the sole aim of concieving a baby but with you, it is so much better"
First of the above two comments are no way in connection with the main theme of the post, but anyways i rambled whatever first came to mind.

Second of all, as you rightly said ( i remember us vaguely discussing the oncoming issue and the issue on infertility).. Those who want a child must know the very essence of the progeny of species and evolution, till they do there it s no use having a baby in the first place..

My first time such a long comment.. 10 Damn days of theory has left me so bored!!!
Ketan said…
Hello Saimukundhan!

I can only borrow MSP's words and tell you am very, very glad to see you back!

Well, about the post, I'm quite suprised that just in two days, this is the third post I'm reading on this issue, on which I'd never thought much before!

The other two are here:

http://ninakevende.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-settled-it.html

http://daspeak.blogspot.com/2009/05/semantically-pedantic.html

The first one is from a blogger I really admire, and just like you had been on a long break before writing that post, and second one is a blog I just discovered yesterday! But well, I don't want to talk too much about coincidences.

In a way, I'm very glad at your expressing uninhibited anger at something--it made me feel like you were talking to me!

At the outset I'll clarify, I don't know a childless couple personally, so it's very difficult for me to take in all the factor before commenting.

It's very deplorable and unfortunate for a child to be a mere trophy or a shield (against rantings of parents/relatives/peers).

At the heart of desire to have 'one's own' child is a wish to to leave a part of one's 'own self' behind in the world. For a majority, it is imperative that part of themselves be a physical part--the awareness that the baby born was with 'one's own' sperm and ovum.

They see it as their body-part growing into another human being. This 'physical' part is quite in contrast with other things that parents 'invest' upon their children as they grow up--emotions, hopes, guidance, discipline, their own conduct which the child would unconsciously imbibe, and which eventually go into shaping the children's personalities--what we call 'nurture'. (Prospective) parents forget that nurture is as much a 'part of them' if not more as are DNA and chromosomes that go into making of another human being. So probably, this lingering awareness makes them discriminate for a biologically own child as against a child owned through nurture. As it is if you see, in India, too much emphasis is laid on 'blood-relations'--those genetically related. Are we by default not expected to love more our relatives and prioritize them over our friends? Irrespective of how worthless and vile our relatives be?...
Ketan said…
...This 'bloodline' mentality also plays a role in this bias against adopted kids.

But is all this rational? No. In one of the informal debates I was having with my classmates, I asked people why have such a desire have a child with one's own DNA? After all, DNA is nothing but carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, nitrogen, phosphorous, etc. combining in various sequences. And moreover, constitution-wise even amoeba's DNA is similar to humans'! But this a hyper-rational/intellectual approach to life, and probably doesn't work. I'd made myself taste nonveg only on this logic that animals are also made of same chemical elements as plants! It was a challenge I'd put before myself to test the strength of my rationality. My rationality won, but at what cost? Of emotionally disturbing myself. I decided I need to stop tasting nonveg only to prove a point to myself. Do I consider myself hypocritical for no longer eating nonveg? Partly, yes. But of course, there's another issue of eating nonveg being possibly one of the worst forms of cruelty.

I recounted the last thing only to illustrate that at least in my case cold logic does not always work.

So possibly, people would still continue to prefer a biological child to an adopted one.

Almost all the couples first attempt to have their own children (I don't know why; possibly because of above reasons). When they fail in that attempt, would they be able to face their own conscience that adopted child was not a compromise? This might be another reason a few (but not all) couples refrain from adopting a kid, fearing their own biases coming in way of their giving most fair treatment to their adopted kid. But I don't think majority of couples are conscientious, otherwise they'd have never discriminated between a girl-child and a boy or between a less 'successful' and more successful one.

Also, there's hope for these couples that someday because of luck/technological advancement, they might be able to produce their own child, and then they'd be worried if they'd be able to maintain impartiality in their dealings with both the children.

I think on such issues the most pertinent question to ask is what would I do in such a circumstance?

Of course, it's very difficult to answer at this juncture. But you know there would be other difficulties in this decision. Which child to adopt and why?...
Ketan said…
If I adopt a child from, say, an orphanage, in effect, there are 15 to 20 kids I'm not adopting. The kid I adopt would definitely get much better care than one that'd not be adopted (by me) because of the simple fact that not all orphans get adopted! What criteria would I employ to choose a kid to adopt (and thus be unfair to ones I don't adopt)? Skin color, chubbiness-quotient, cuteness quotient (I personally don't find all the kids equally cute), age, activeness v/s laziness? Or some kind of lottery system? How are all these criteria any different from two- or three-hour exams that decide the fate of students. Sai, I'm not being escapist, but these are the doubts that come to my mind as I type this. I might eventually end up adopting a kid, someday, but even my own thought processes of the future are mere speculations.

BTW, for a change, I could see your taking a lot of time in the post to come to the 'point'! :P Not that I'm complaining--I thoroughly enjoyed that part about anus, helicopter and tractor in birth charts! ;)

You posted this post at 5:30 am? That was before sleeping or after waking up?

Also possibly this template does not support features like 'older post' and 'newer post', so at least for me browsing through my cell phone it's a bit inconvenient.

I hope I was able to bring some new perspective to what you already knew.

Take care.
Ketan said…
@ me...

If you find time, please go through the following blog-post:

http://nitwitnastik.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/the-scientific-case-for-astrology/#more-2389.

If you'd be able to read it without getting angry at the author because of his somewhat aggressive tone, you'd realize why the basic premise of astrology of planetary and stellar influences on human lives is wrong!

Also, just like astrology and the existence of God, you'd find many hypotheses that are philosophically logical, but not of much value only because they cannot be falsified! This happens because usually to reason out something event 'a' should lead only to event 'b' or only to event 'c'. If a hypothesis states that a could lead to either b or c under same circumstances, then obviously it would 'sound' true! ;)

But I won't hijack this post talking of entirely unrelated issue!

TC.
G Saimukundhan said…
MSP / Ketan,

Felt like Big Arnie (I am Back).


@Ketan
"People trying to leave a part of them behind on this earth" as a reason for seeking their own kid, is something, which I did not think about / consider, simply because I was not convinced if it is a reason / factor for the common man (probably yes for those idiots who think they are still ruling the country / people of the world)

I also did not consider the "compromise" angle, because I did not think of it. Probably thats the point "I don't understand". If people do state that openly, that would amount to a sign of being politically incorrect, and more importantly a proclamation "I am not perfect biologically", which many people do not want to (acknowledge their weakness/limitations)

My anger was more into the contradictory and hypocritical approaches to love towards a child (purity).

Having seen scores of people who cuddle, rub their fingers across new borns and other kids (only those under 3 or 4), in some cases, I have been a fool to believe that such adulation is true. (I am not trying to generalize). To me this is the crest of hypocrisy, for by doing this many people are probably trying to just pass on a message to the observers that they are very very caring about kids / child etc. When it comes down to showing some meaningful action, the plastic in the love stinks real bad.

My anger was more into this hypocrisy (it is always into hypocrisy in whatever form, I realized recently).

As to people having special affinity towards a child more than the other, I guess thats okay, if there are no two reflections of it.

Ketan, your observation about being hyper rational / doing cold analysis of things / people / emotions, its true. Very true infact. Often at the end of such an act / analysis, I find myself more troubled and emotionally disturbed than before. At times it feels a bit childish even to think that I have won a battle, which was not there in the first place. Then why create a battle?

On to the other observation that I took long to come to the point?! I thought I always growl around the weed, before trying to pluck it mercilessly. Honestly, I dont remember ever attacking a point directly.

@ MSP
On to astrology, my take on that may be part of a different post someday. It is a bit different from the usual rant whether it is science or whether astrologers have any right to live that way or whether they cheat! My post will have none of that as its intent.

BTW, by referring to "Match Point", did you intend offering any solutions to childless couple? (He He He)

Thanks for your comments

Cheers
G Saimukundhan said…
@ Ketan,

One more thing, as to Newbie Mommie's blog (Bindu?), the couple of posts I have read, my first observation was the amount of realistic yet positive thoughts flowing (as in non-offensive or non whining). She certainly has some style to back her stuff.

Cheers
Ketan said…
Saimukundhan,

Now I can state with a certain degree of confidence that both for me (without the four dots in tow) and MSP (see, this is something I don't like about MSP's nickname here--creates so much confusion :( ), you're no less than Arnie in certain ways. Only hope, you've come back for good and won't take such long breaks from posting and emailing.

Okay, coming to the issues you've addressed.

1. Have you seriously never noticed the need people feel to be influential, as in influencing the world around? When I talked of wanting to leave a part of themselves, it was not in sense of leaving a heir to inherit property, but something they had 'owned'. Have you thought, apart from possibility of momentary pain, why do people fear death? It's because nobody wants to be lost in oblivion. Why do people so badly want to believe in afterlife? Nobody wants to stop existing in entirety. Ask people if they'd want to die marooned on an island, such that nobody ever knows they even existed or such that people remember them even after their death, feeling a void and talking about it? In all likelihood, the answer would be the latter. Though most of us are not honest enough to confess it, biggest fear of the aftereffects of death is if people would totally forget us, and get on with their lives, feeling totally normal as if we never existed! I know it's weird, but that's humane! I'm able to state all this with confidence only because I've myself felt all these things at some points in time. Now, I don't feel like that, at least not at all times, but death is something I still fear (for reasons I've still not been able to completely elucidate). And here, death = total oblivion.

Also, people are 'common' man, not by choice, but by factors beyond them. Probably, just like emperors and kings people do harbor such desires to leave indelible marks on this world. It's just that they never got a chance! :) I'm not approving (or actually even disapproving) of such tendencies, but only stating what feelings I've observed in others as well as myself.

2. Compromise angle. I'd thought it very obvious that most of the couples first try to produce their own biologic children. That's the only way they discover that as a couple, they're infertile. ;) But yes, if people do not state this obvious fact (that they'd tried to produce their own child but failed at it), then they're certainly being less than honest....
Ketan said…
...But then what are you getting angry at? :) Don't you know we all would be easily much happier if we could admit our limitations effortlessly? Of course, society on the whole is also to be greatly blamed for making individuals dependent on others' perception of our selves. But as you rightly ask, if society is composed of us, why is society like that? I somewhat have the reason for that, but won't discuss it here, partly because it'd be too long, and also because those reasons are too ugly.

3. I'm mildly embarrassed to state that I missed a very important point of your post--the hypocrisy people indulge in while cuddling. Many do it only to look cool and sensitive and soft-hearted and all that. I can state this with lot of confidence as I've seen so many medicos not being bothered to see pediatric cases if they'd be feeling sleepy/lazy, or to prescribe medicines unsuitable for them, or make the parents wait only to make them aware of their importance, but yet, once in a while, they'd cuddle them up, especially in presence of members of the opposite gender or someone they'd like to impress! So you see, I've sufficient reasons to love mankind, and in particular, my colleagues! Sorry, but I guess sarcasm helped me maintain brevity in this regard. But then, I'm no fool to believe only medicos on the whole are heartless hypocrites. They're after all a random sample of people from the general population. Sorry, I partly answered your doubt of why society is 'thus'. But you know, there's nothing novel about human hypocrisy manifesting itself thus. It's pretty much ubiquitous. Think of eating nonveg. People who lift young pups and kittens on streets into their arms, play with them, call them 'sweet', complain when dogs are castrated, don't mind chopping and eating young ones of other species like chickens and lambs! What's the fault of that hen or lamb that was bred only to be mercilessly killed? That it was not 'cute' enough? Hey lamb, you're not cute enough! [chop, chop].

Also I remembered one more reason people don't adopt children. Some are illegitimate! And as you know, illegitimate children are oh-so-... well, illegitimate.

Regarding Bindu's blog, you could've commented there itself! :) I'll not reveal too much, but she's not unaware of the same evils afflicting the people that we're aware of.

So, are you more free now?

TC.

PS: I've guessed your take on astrology. Do let me know if you're curious of my guess. ;)
Barging into the interesting dialogue i d like to say 2 things 1. Thank woody allen for the solution and 2. Selecting the baby to be adopted part - good analysis there .. Thats why i consider finance to be a much simpler study:) its all about the money honey:)
Sundararaman said…
The first thing that comes to my mind reading your post is a poem I read in my school days... Its called 'Gulzaman's Son'..
I do not how much of it is relevant here.. But I think you must read it sir if you haven't already.. (I'll see whether I can get a Link)..

Coming to your query why wouldn't you understand...?

I think by saying 'you won't understand' , they do not mean you won't understand...It simply a polite way of saying..'Lets change the topic and speak of something else'... I think its like this.. Its like accepting defeat.. They hope for a miracle.. If they decide to go for adoption , it means accepting defeat..They cannot hold the 'trophy'.. If you think , its showing off their trophy, let it be ....
After all no one can tolerate jibes.. Much worse is with reference to jibes at fertility..

Gotcha.. got the link.. http://www.subcontinent.com/misc/daruwalla/poem2.html
Sundararaman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ketan said…
me...,

It's not a dialogue, it's a trialogue. Wait, now it's a quadralogue! So technically, there's no such thing as 'barging in'!

Is match point a Woody Allen movie? Asking since I'd watched a movie with adoption as its theme called 'The mighty Aphrodite', which I'd really liked.

TC.
Yeah that s what the movie credits said.. And as regards the display name i d already wanted to change it but could n come up with any ... So either i ll use my real name or something else equally funky... Either way u ll be rid of the problem in a short while.... Cheers
G Saimukundhan said…
@ Sundar,

Truth be said, I never open a discussion on these with the couples. I find it to be too personal even to discuss in a roundabout fashion. Only when they directly open this up, I prop my question. So, they brought this topic, and not me. This is not my excuse, but I would certainly stay away from this discussion, if there is a blunt answer "Lets discuss something else, I don't want to discuss this" etc.

I understand the pain they have to undergo when somebody comments, even unintentionally on their virility. But my rambling was on the double life they themselves carry on.

Regarding the Gul's Son, I had already read that poem during my school days, though I did not understand it then. It makes sense now.

Thanks for your comments.

Cheers

Popular posts from this blog

Open Letter to the President, ICAI

Dear President, The substance of this letter is the state of examination and evaluation system of our Institute's qualifying exams. The recently declared result is just the tipping point, and not the substance of this letter. Let this communique not be misconstrued as demanding a revamp merely because the results have been pathetically low. This open letter would have probably been drafted still, even if the results threw out an extremely student friendly outcome of say 100% Pass. Before I move on to present my points, I would like to state that I have been a firm believer of assertion that you get only what you deserve. A person who got "100 Marks" deserved that "100 Marks". And a student who got "0 Marks", deserved that as well. As someone who got both the above extremes during my academic days, I have maintained the above assertion with a certain degree of understanding and conviction. I also would like to make it clear right at the ou...

THE ROAD TO PERDITION

the road to perdition Caution: This is a long post, with a doses of abuses and foul mouthers thrown in between, (fittingly and appropriately). Strictly for the grown ups only. PS: Grown Up = Person with any age, who can THINK. PS = Pre Script - - - - - - - - - - Ever been to hell? “Never” Think again! “Never” Think again! “Never” Think again! “What was that?” What is what? “That?” Hell? “No, I know that.” Then? “Think” Excuse me? “What does THINK mean?” Eh? “THINK, what does THAT mean?” You are on the road to it! “What?" Hell ...