Posted on 05/04/2012 2:07:33 PM PDT by madprof98
O’HARA, 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 ...
You’re a disgusting person. If I was JimRob, I’d banhammer you immediately.
If you found out your wife couldn’t carry a child to term, would you divorce her and claim her to be unnatural?
On the contrary. I suspect that they would consider the use of surrogates to be “progressive”.
As most of us who have or have had teenage children, who have a motto of “won’t happen to me because I’m invincible” know parents can try to instill in them conservative values but there comes a time when they will make choices on their own and sometimes these aren’t the best ones. To say that Sarah Palin can no longer speak about family values because her daughter had a child out of wedlock is absolutely ridiculous. Jesus is the only one I know of who assumed responsibility for the sins of the entire world.
She turned her really bad decision into a positive platform by choosing not to abort, working to support her child, acknowledged her poor choice and speaks openly against teenage pregnancy-all things for which I applaud her. All children disappoint their parents at some time or another. Fortunately for almost all of them, their mother is not running for Vice President.
Unkus - obviously it makes you feel a lot better to be able to call people “pious jerks”. Sad for you!
This is the sort of "argument" usually advanced for abortion. "But what if she were raped? What if she were destitute and could not feed the ones she has? You anti-choicers are just cold-hearted!"
The moral thing to do is the right thing to do, not the thing that is easiest or feels best. None of us has a right to a child, much less to as many children as we can pay somebody else to incubate for us. Children, however, do have rights--among them the right to be born to their two married biological parents. Failing to honor that right has been a recipe for disaster.
If the guy didn’t have sex with the surrogate, then how is that polygamy? Last I remember, that’s having multiple sexual partners. If he didn’t have sex with the surrogate, then why do you have a problem?
Yeah, since these kids were born via surrogate, Mitt won't want them to have a future, right? Honestly, do you also contend that people who adopt children don't have traditional family values, as well? How about people who foster, do they have traditional family values?
“We look like DU right now on this thread. How any of you could say such things about people is beyond me. “
Exactly. Discouraged to learn that there are so many so-called conservatives that are pious, uncaring and judgmental.
Some of the opinions here are based on religious convictions. If you have an argument, make it.
Personally, my husband and I would accept God’s will and remain childless or adopt.
Put a sock in it sager. a baby is normal no matter how conceived, carried or born. A live baby is natural. There is no such thing as an unnatural baby.
Personally, I consider it ‘progressive’ purely in a medical and scientific sense. If the woman I marry turns out to not be able to carry a child to term, but has no problems with her ovaries and eggs, I’d seek out a surrogate to carry a child.
Though, that’s purely hypothetical. To be honest, I kinda want my DNA to end with me. For personal reasons.
“Those children have two mothers! The genetic mother, and the mother who carried them for nine months.”
As do children who are adopted (bio-mom and adoptive mom). Are you now saying adoption is a violation of all Judeo-Christian principles?
What Traditional Values?
Bristol Palin [unwed mother] Dancing With the Stars: Rips Off Partner’s Shirt in Front of Sarah and Todd Palin (and Piper, too)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCgAUDyUFaM
And that’s entirely your choice to make.
Like I said before, his wife may have a problem with her uterus.
They have two more children, and a woman was paid a sum to carry them to term. I really don’t see the problem here. Sounds to me like both made off well in the end.
Choreographed part of the dance routine. Next.
“The problem is that most Christians and Jews accept how ever many children the Lord blesses them with, whether one or five ir none.”
Not sure how many Christians and Jews you know personally, but the ones I know have no problem with using modern technology to have children.
It’s really interesting to note that most people who are against using modern technology to produce children usually have no fertility issues and don’t care about those who do.
I’m Catholic, and the link below is much of which I base my beliefs on regarding this issue.
Using another person, usually for payment to obtain a child is to me wrong. It debases what should be a bonding between husband, wife and child. If we look at the history of surrogates, it seems to me to be fraught with sorrow.
Because we are able to do something does not mean that we should do it.
God bless you, friend.
This falls into one of those categories of things we don’t really want or need to know. But now that we do know, could they elaborate so we can dissect this more? lol What did this surrogacy entail? Did they take put a fertilized egg (of Tagg and wife) into another woman? Did Tagg inject his sperm into another woman? Did Tagg collect his sperm and have it injected into another woman? So many options. I admit I just looked this up on Wikipedia.
However, it can be noted that surrogacy is a truncated form of polygamy or plural marriage: engaging with women other than your wife in order to gain offspring. (Yes, even if it uses the wife's ova.)
The reproductive concubinage practiced by Abraham and other ther patriarchs was not inherently perverse, since it always involved normal intercourse. However reproductive surrogacy is always perverse, because it uses a form of sex other than real marital union, and is a commercial transaction transaction substitutiong for real personal marital union.
It would be acceptable as a breeding technique in veterinary medicine, but not acceptable for humans because of the intrinsically interpersonal meaning of human procreation.
So surrogacy is both polygamous AND perverse.
Not Mitt's fault, though.
“The moral thing to do is the right thing to do, not the thing that is easiest or feels best. None of us has a right to a child, much less to as many children as we can pay somebody else to incubate for us. Children, however, do have rights—among them the right to be born to their two married biological parents. Failing to honor that right has been a recipe for disaster. “
I do agree that children have a right to have two married male/female parents (a mother and a father) just because they deserve it. But infertile people do not deserve infertility and to deny them the use of modern technology is archaic and mean. Yes, modern reproductive medicine can be used for evil (producing children for homosexuals so that the child never can experience being raised by a mother AND a father), but so can a gun be used for evil. I just don’t understand how people can say it is ok to use modern medicine (organ transplants, etc.), but not reproductive technology. As I said in my previous post, most people who have that mind-set have never experienced infertility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.