No, Your Baby Is Not a Miracle (Part 2)

Nobody loves Daniel Nester's $20,000 baby, he carps in the Daily Beast. Me, I have no problems with the baby — it's the dad I find just a bit unpleasant.

Mr. Nester and his wife had a child that they conceived through in vitro fertilization. That would have been a big deal 30 years ago, but medically speaking, it's a fairly routine matter today. The ho-humness of it all didn't deter our intrepid author, who, by his own admission, has long insisted on telling everyone, strangers included, exactly how the fruit of his loins was ultimately concocted "in an Upper East Side petri dish."

"For 18 months, I stuck needles into my wife's buttocks and masturbated into plastic cups," he starts the account of his ordeal.

I'd like to say I'm glad it wasn't the other way around, but then I'd be making  light of a veritable fertility adventure that Nester describes as "our ovary-stimulating and semen-whipping journey."

Um...thanks for sharing?

I wonder if there truly are (m)any people who like to be told unbidden how other couples' babies were conceived. My guess is no, but then, I don't live on the Upper East Side. In some circles, it might well be fashionable to discuss that little Jayden is the product of a reverse-cowgirl fuck that made his dad erupt with extraordinary propulsive power, and that little Emily is the result of a slightly mis-timed pullout one night when mom was ovulating like crazy. Pass the canapés, please!

Nester sounds like a particularly thick-headed specimen. He complains about all the people who don't want to hear the details of his baby batter's epic travails, yet charges ahead with the tale anyway, sure that eventually, he'll find the broad approval and admiration he believes he deserves.

Revealing the child's $20,000 dollar price tag — in the headline, no less — is more of the same. Most people might find such a mention a teensy bit crude, but to Nester, it's evidence of his own outstanding character — a measure of what he's been willing to sacrifice in order to create his golden child.

The most off-putting part of the story comes when Nester tries unsuccessfully to pass off his naked narcissism as some kind of public service.

"To share our IVF story with others would be to everyone's benefit, my reasoning went. I would demystify the matter, and maybe help others to feel less alone," he writes, charging further that our culture is in a state of horrible "IVF denial."

IVF denial? This past July, on the 30th birthday of Louise Brown, the world's first "test tube baby," thousands of news outlets reported on the history and current state of IVF. Celebrities like the Dixie Chicks and actress Marcia Cross happily pop out babies conceived through IVF, and publicly share that fact. The Internet is crawling with IVF information groups and support networks. Half a million Americans have been born through in vitro techniques, and the number of test tube babies worldwide is at least three million.

By continuing to foist the story of his child's gestation on others, Mr. Nester is not being altruistic. He's not blowing the lid off an important story that the media just won't cover. He's not heroically casting aside a stigma that denies millions of IVF babies their chance at happiness (there's no such stigma).

He's just being a self-absorbed oaf, prideful about a reproductive success that is completely inconsequential to everyone but two people: Dan Nester and his wife.

I don't think I'd find the Daily Beast story quite as obnoxious if it wasn't for the fact that this well-plowed ground was excruciatingly covered in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine. Its cover story, by Alex Kuczynski, tackled more or less the same topic — but went on at such length as to make Mr. Nester seem almost an exemplar of restraint. Ms. Kuczynski, a Times reporter who found a surrogate mother to carry her and her "very successful" husband's foetus to term, spent 7,500 words on a blow-by-blow account of her baby's genesis.

The article would exhaust even the imaginary offspring of Captain Von Trapp and Anne Geddes.

To visually crown her verbal excess (modesty being a rare virtue), Ms. Kuczynski also appears on the cover. It's an interesting photo. We see the celebrated Times-woman in her little black dress and high heels, patting her flat tummy, seemingly ready for a night at Carnegie Hall. Meanwhile, the bulging, somewhat schlubby-looking lady next to her, the Pennsylvania woman tasked with the actual pregnancy, looks less than comfortable — an inconvenience surely ameliorated by the $25,000 check she received from the Kuczynskis. (As with Mr. Nestor, that amount is disclosed without apparent reticence, as if the large sum of money bestows upon the baby — or on the parents? — some extra measure of worthiness.)

I'm in favor of commercial organ donation, and it follows that I have not the slightest problem with commercial organ rental either. Moreover, I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of infertile couples (been there, done that, saw the specialists; my wife and I ultimately decided to adopt our fantastic kids, at a financial expense that's none of the world's business).

It's wonderful that often, IVF can help out couples unable to conceive "normally." I would never sneer at that.

My profound irritation stems from the fact that the self-congratulatory, ain't-I-special tone of these baby stories is miles over the top — and symptomatic of a tendency to praise every newborn as a miracle that places him or her at the center of the freakin' cosmos.

Navel-gazing is one thing; beholding one's reproductive organs and deciding that they make for terrific dinner party conversation, and a great cover article in the country's top newspaper, is perhaps another.

It goes back to this:

I know we live in a dish-all culture that shamelessly churns private moments into public ones, but — news flash! — unless your names are Tom and Katie and you have a newborn with a freakishly full head of hair, your happy tidings will reap well-deserved yawns. Pray tell: Did your precious baby receive a visit from three frankincense-carrying wise men from the Middle East? Does he or she do anything miraculous beyond producing amazing quantities of poop and piss 24/7? If not, you expect people to care why?

Comments

[bobl]

No mention of the truly relevant side issue of IVF: how many states mandate health insurance companies cover this procedure as an illness, which cost is spread about the general premium-paying population.

[Tatiana von Tauber]

Wow. I missed that NYT story but that photo speaks volumes; I don't even need to read the story. It's not the "her body, my baby" part. I'm all for the surrogate approach but did they have to dumb down the pregnant woman and upscale the apparent "virgin mary"? I guess the impact of the photo was the point, but wow, did that slap me silly! There's a whole other angle to this. Thanks for this post. I'll research and write about this. It coincides with the way motherhood is treated quite frankly: disrespectfully on various levels.

[Daniel Nester]

When exactly did I congratulate myself?

One clarification: the coverage of IVF is not what I was talking about; rather, treatments are mandated in 12 or more states, including New York State, where I live. My point, which I probably didn't make well enough, is that HMOs cover boner pills (Cialis, Viagra) but not fertility drugs that often have actual medical benefits for women.

But you probably knew that. You were cherrypicking to serve your own snarky ends. Buttwipe.

[Rogier van Bakel]

Daniel:

I just read your piece again, specifically looking for the key point you said you intended to make. No dice.

I searched for 'HMO,' 'Cialis,' and 'Viagra.' Nothing.

The only mention of boner pills is in the following context:

"More than 30 years since the first test-tube baby was born, people seem more reluctant to discuss IVF than boner pills or abortion."

I don't exactly see how this -- or any other statement in your article -- even BEGINS to address the issue you now claim you were really writing about.

None of the commenters on the Daily Beast seem to have picked up on your true intentions either. Just sayin'.

[Daniel Nester]

I'll take this slow. Pay attention.

You just quoted from one paragraph of mine to address another. I was clarifying your comments about how you object to the idea of IVF being covered by health plans. I did not address that all in my piece; but you continue to conflate the terms "fertility treatment" and "IVF treatments," and how it is or is not covered by health plans, including it seems, my own employer. I address it in the following sentence:

"The lapsed Catholic conspiracy theorist in me did notice, however, that fertility treatments weren’t covered by our health plan."

See those words, "fertility treatments"? Those are the ones I refer to in my earlier post to you. None of the commenters seem to have that kind of confusion you do. You can blog and debate and campaign against it all you want, but fertility treatments are mandated to be covered in several states.

Also: Just judging by some of the comments, it seems people still don't want talk about IVF in the normal pace of conversation. And I would love to talk more about masturbating into cups with you here. It might lighten up your blog a little bit.

[Rogier van Bakel]

Hi Daniel:

Wow, if THAT was your core argument, you couldn't have made it in a more wispy, ethereal, near-imperceptible way.

Anyway, I wasn't aware that I'd "blogged and debated and campaigned" anywhere for or against the mandated insurance coverage of fertility treatments. I wish I had an opinion on the matter (I'm not usually short on those), but I don't, and I've never touched the subject. Might you have me confused with someone else?

The only time I ever blogged about IVF was to defend the right of a woman who wanted to have the treatments. More power to her. See http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2006/05/a_child_for_me_.html

As for your kind masturbation proposal, I'm flattered. I have a lot of fans but so far none who've fessed up to being sufficiently enamored with my blog to want to spank the monkey.

Whatever you produce, be sure to keep us updated on the consistency, volume, and approximate sperm count. We're all dying to know. I mean, why stop now, right?

[Daniel Nester]

Reading comprehension? Not one of your strong points, Rogier.

My mention of non-coverage of fertility treatment was mentioned just once. You are the one to make it some other argument, in your mention of argument of many.

The money issue? I'll admit: my headline reflects a much different angle than the one the DB people gave. Mine was "Out of the Petri Dish and Into the Fire." Which means that in the course of everyday, normal conversation, mentioning IVF while talking about our kid has been an a surprisingly trying minefield, one that is filled with boorish nitwits like yourself.

We saved up to do IVF; we took loans; we got some people to help us. My wife did most or all of the work.

The fact that you paid for your kid through adoption same as we did seems to underscore many of your points.

[Rogier van Bakel]

"My mention of non-coverage of fertility treatment was mentioned just once. You are the one to make it some other argument, in your mention of argument of many."

Sarah Palin, is that you?

Seriously, I don't even know what that means. You must be right about my reading comprehension!

Happy spanking,

Rogier

[Daniel Nester]

My mention of the our non-coverage of fertility treatment was mentioned just once. It was not my core argument at all.

You are the one to make it into some other argument.

Either way, this only underscores my real, core point: people get worked up in various ways when, in the normal, everyday conversation, we mention our kid was conceived through IVF.

The way you get worked up, apparently, is to convince yourself that I am somehow congratulating myself when I write about all this. Nothing can be further than the truth. Are you congratulating yourself when you blog every day about matters that are important to you here? According to your own logic, you might.

Keep staring at your own navel!

[smurfy]

"my real, core point: people get worked up in various ways when, in the normal, everyday conversation, we mention our kid was conceived through IVF."

That's would be becasue your child's conception is a prvate, intimate detail that only a boor would share with someone in a normal, everyday converstion. And that is as it should be, not to keep IVF living in the shadows of shame (it does not), but to provide a sense of privacy that your new baby ( and your conversation partners) deserve. Your child deserves the opportunity to entertain a notion that they are normal, the opportunity to be grossed out thinking that thier parents did it, at least once.

On Insurance coverage: Non-IVF fertility treatments are reasonable affordable, on the order of day-care expenses once the child is born. I realize it is a shock to the insured to suddenly pay full price for a doctor's visit but I found that making those payments was a helpfull break-in period, an introduction to the economic crisis that is parenthood.

[marc J. Randazza]

"In some circles, it might well be fashionable to discuss that little Jayden is the product of a reverse-cowgirl fuck that made his dad erupt with extraordinary propulsive power, and that little Emily is the result of a slightly mis-timed pullout one night when mom was ovulating like crazy. Pass the canapés, please!"

BEST. WRITING. EVER.

You are a fucking genius.