Originally posted by souro
Originally posted by return_to_hadesYou are clearly biasing the response. When you're giving options to a respondent you have to give all the available options and in this case, one of the option happens to be marriage to another person who is fertile. Since, it's a very much valid alternative, so you can't just omit it because you don't want respondents to choose that option.
I don't think it is right for a man to leave a woman who cannot conceive. Nor is it right for a woman to leave a man who is shooting blanks.
How about shifting the debate to something more appropriate for todays times.
If a couple cannot conceive - what is the better alternative
2) Spend money on fertility treatment
If the issue is with the man - what is the better alternative
2) Sperm donor
If the latter. Should it be
a) anonymous donor
b) Involved donor
If the woman cannot carry pregnancy to term
2) Find a surrogate
This is trickier as obviously a surrogate cannot be anonymous. What is the role of the surrogate? There is also the matter of defining motherhood. What is motherhood, conception, carrying to term or raising a child?
Of course one option people face is leaving their spouse or significant other. Infertility and impotence are grounds for divorce. For some people one's own child with spouse and sexual satisfaction are imperative in marriage and if it is important enough a person will choose divorce. However, unlike adultery it is not covered under 'fault divorce'. It falls under 'no fault' divorce and both parties have to mutually agree. So it definitely is an easy divorce. However, lying about infertility, impotence or desire to have children can be grounds for annulment. That is the marriage becomes void and there is no divorce settlement, alimony etc.
The problem with 'leaving spouse' in certain parts of India is that the husband simply abandons the wife or has a second marriage or a keep. The legally wedded wife never gets the fair legal share. Also social stigma prevents women from getting a divorce if men are infertile or impotent.
Personally, to me children and sex life both should be discussed before marriage and have tests conducted if somethings are important to the other person. Get that bridge out of the way first hand.
Either way legally marriage is a contract between two people and the contract can be voided when the result is not satisfactory.
Morally and socially however, marriage is supposed to be a very committed bond and if such things will be grounds for divorce - a person should not be marrying and taking those vows in the first place.
However, I wanted to add that you have misunderstood my intent behind these options. No it is not to remove leaving the spouse as an option. It is very much an option as long as people have a divorce legally, properly and fairly under the extent of the law.
My intent was to draw attention to the choices faced by couples who choose to stay together in such situations. Not all people can spend money on IVF - there is a choice to be weighed between expenses of IVF vs the desire of ones own child. Similarly if IVF and other methods do not work - what is the better solution in these cases. The choices are not as easy as they seem. Neither adoption or choosing a sperm donor/surrogate is an easy option. So my intent was purely to debate the pros and cons, social/legal implications of these options, not to eliminate one choice.