To: JoeProBono
Seems oh so wrong to leave these kids without a mother who had them for the sake of her ego ...
2 posted on
07/15/2009 6:48:59 AM PDT by
mgc1122
To: JoeProBono
What a tragedy- she should have had at least 20 years with her children
I think using all those hormones to get and stay pregnant causes tumors. Have suspected this may have contributed to Liz Edwards’ cancer.
3 posted on
07/15/2009 6:49:09 AM PDT by
silverleaf
(Save the earth. It's the only planet with chocolate!)
To: JoeProBono
Some people will actually be surprised by this.
4 posted on
07/15/2009 6:49:42 AM PDT by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: JoeProBono
As if we didn’t see this coming.
God knew best in the reasons he gave mothers certain times in their lives to bear children.
5 posted on
07/15/2009 6:50:30 AM PDT by
autumnraine
(You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out)
To: JoeProBono
They children will die at a younger age also.
Studies have shown that the older the parents at the time of the birth of the child...the child will have a shorter life. Something about the length of the telemeres...(I think)
7 posted on
07/15/2009 6:55:17 AM PDT by
blam
To: Allegra; Tijeras_Slim; Jersey Republican Biker Chick
To: JoeProBono
I am convinced that "artificial reproduction" --- whether it involves in-vitro, hormonal manipulation of post-menopausal females, or even "just" no-sex insemination --- is just as wrong-headed as artificial contraception.
I don't care if it's done to animals. All this stuff may be a legitimate part of veterinary medicine. But human person find an essential meaning in natural sexual relations--- and I say "essential" because if the meaning isn't there, it's not just absent, it's positively wrong.
This whole set-up demeans the child from the first moment of his existence, making him not a gift of personal love, but an experiment and a lab product.
Furthermore, human children, as persons, derive their psychological security, their identity and their providence, in large part, from their fathers. To bring children into this world fatherless by design is unjust: it deprives them of their patrimony, which is their birthright.
Some children are fatherless by chance. N child should be fatherless by choice.
9 posted on
07/15/2009 7:03:34 AM PDT by
Mrs. Don-o
(My son, a 19-year-old Lance Corporal USMC, is soon to be deployed to Al Asad in Iraq.)
To: JoeProBono
10 posted on
07/15/2009 7:03:50 AM PDT by
Squantos
(Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
To: JoeProBono
No cause of death listed - I hope it had nothing to do with having these children.
11 posted on
07/15/2009 7:09:14 AM PDT by
Damifino
(The true measure of a man is found in what he would do if he knew no one would ever find out.)
To: JoeProBono
God's perfect plan was for young people to have children. When you mess with God's plan, you get a mess in return.
Pray for these unfortunate children.
12 posted on
07/15/2009 7:12:56 AM PDT by
rightly_dividing
(2nd Tim. 2:15, Eph. 2:8,9, 1st Cor. 15:1-4)
To: JoeProBono
“The births ignited a firestorm of debate over how old is too old for a new mother...”
Guess the debate is settled now.
15 posted on
07/15/2009 7:17:24 AM PDT by
ozark hilljilly
(Palin/Nugent 2012---Would a Secret Service detail even be necessary?)
To: JoeProBono
18 posted on
07/15/2009 7:23:54 AM PDT by
SJSAMPLE
To: JoeProBono
This is why God designed women to stop being able to bear children around age 50. That way, the kids can be grown before she kicks the budget.
21 posted on
07/15/2009 7:30:48 AM PDT by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: JoeProBono
35 posted on
07/15/2009 4:16:36 PM PDT by
fieldmarshaldj
(~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
To: JoeProBono
Okay, apparently she underestimated exactly how large a handful twin 3-year-old boys could be.
36 posted on
07/15/2009 4:18:26 PM PDT by
RichInOC
(No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
