Skip to comments.Mitt Romney’s Eldest Son Has Twins Via Surrogate
Posted on 05/04/2012 2:07:33 PM PDT by madprof98
OHARA, Pa. Tagg Romney, the eldest son of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, announced via Twitter that he and his wife Jen have new twin boys, delivered by a surrogate today.
Happy 2 announce birth of twin boys David Mitt and William Ryder. Big thanks to our surrogate. Life is a miracle, Tagg tweeting, linking to a photo of himself and one of his new sons.
This the second time that Tagg, 42, and his wife, Jen,39, have used a surrogate. The same surrogate was used for the twins carried their youngest son Jonathan, who was born in August of 2010. Their other three children were not born via surrogacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I will say this again, babies conceived due to rapes are NATURAL and should be respected, protected, and nurtured.
Now, that is out of the system, a traditional conception has to be natural. If it is unnatural, is cannot be traditional.
” They are not artificial children.”
These children’s so-called “parents” donated their cellular material to a doctor, who took it, played with the cells, and then implanted the cells into a rented-womb. Thus, AI produces AC.
They “used” a surrogate. A revealing choice of words.
Yeah...Hate is a bit non-traditional.
A whole lot of anger recently. I think it’s time to unplug for a while. Take care and thanks for the comment.
Finally a voice of reason. Thank you.
The problem is that most Christians and Jews accept how ever many children the Lord blesses them with, whether one or five ir none.
Mormons are not Christians and don’t trust on God. They assume they are gods in the making, and creators of life. Big difference.
Thank you for that.
And thank you for not expressing yourself in a hateful way.
I am Catholic and agree and understand.
When people come across as “pious’, it irritates me. I think when, as a young boy, my Dad called Teddy Kennedy a “Pious bastard” and explained it to me, I caught on.
Speaking as a Mormon with 4 "biological" children and 5 adopted children... hmmm.
P.S. - the article says "A special thanks to our gestational surrogate who made this possible for us." What does that mean? After their bio kids could they have no more conventionally and so used surrogacy to have more?
Or maybe a 39 year old woman doesn’t have the eggs to become pregnant? I’m not a Mitt fan, but this is an ignorant statement.
Good point Sarge. The fact is, there was another woman involved, the woman whose womb was used. This is a violation of all Judeo-Christian principles of monogamy in marriage.
Those children have two mothers! The genetic mother, and the mother who carried them for nine months.
From: INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION
3. IS “SURROGATE”* MOTHERHOOD MORALLY LICIT?
No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject heterologous artificial fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person. Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.
* By “surrogate mother” the Instruction means:
a) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of “donors”. She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.
b) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.
To everybody on here trying to rip them a new one, what if his wife has a problem with her uterus and is unable to bring a child to term; and doing so would cause her death?
What is wrong with you people?
It is not a gift, they bought children. What next?
And this is exactly why I don't identify with any mainstream religion. How could you say such a morally bankrupt and cold-hearted thing? If you found out your husband was sterile, would you leave him because he couldn't make babies with you? What would you do if you found out that carrying a child to term would kill you? Leave all your friends and family and become a recluse in the mountains?
We look like DU right now on this thread. How any of you could say such things about people is beyond me.
“Next, youll be saying that only children conceived using the missionary position should be allowed to live. Sheesh.”
Well you went to the core of the problem...wonder where the name came from?
Next, youll be saying that only children conceived using the missionary position should be allowed to live. Sheesh.
Don’t laugh there are those who think just that and it has to be in the dark and they have to have their night clothes on. Anyone who would do that different is depraved and perverted and going to L.
Note: I am terribly perverted.
I was against Romney in 2008, and I’m against him again this time. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to rail against his son and daughter-in-law for the way they had children. To do such a thing is morally bankrupt and comparable to Liberals praising abortion as a woman’s right.
“Thus, AI produces AC.”
Artificial insemination produces artificial children?
So by your logic, my cousin who got a donor heart is ‘unnatural’ and should be dead because it came from science?