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 ...
Exactly...the tone on this thread is pretty low.
Happens a lot around here these days.
o. m. gosh.
Rape makes babies naturally? I thought your problem was that the Romney children weren’t conceived “traditionally”.
I cannot continue this discussion with a person who doesn’t understand the difference between natural and traditional.
natural- existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
There is no way that the Romney’s children wouldn’t have been conceived naturally. They are not artificial children. A sperm met an egg, creating an embryo. It was implanted. Just because YOU don’t like how or where that embryo implanted doesn’t make those children or AI wrong.
Comments like yours give conservative sites like FR a bad name.
Maybe Sarah should’ve claimed Bristol was carrying her baby as a surrogate. Libs would’ve ate that up as a fine progressive example, right?
They are both part of the progressive social policy of eugenics and sex selection. Part of the left’s agenda for “womens reproductive health”.
Since surrogate mothers get $50k and up for participating in this very unnatural act, what about regular folks? Will that be on Romney’s health care agenda for all women? Paid for by the American taxpayer? A very slippery slope!
I guess the Mormons don’t believe in adoption.
“after reading the posts here...
I checked to make sure I didn’t accidentally go to Democrat Underground...sure reads like some of their stupid insulting remarks.”
Well it is going to become really annoying real soon. Since Jim Rob’s manifesto this morning, I am sure we will be seeing the closet Romney clan come out in droves. There will be the anti romney clan of course and well, like oil and water, they will not mix.
now that's funny.
Don’t be silly.
That’s not a very effective way of trying to deny what I said.
Congrats to the Romneys. Twins!
Non-traditional reproduction and pregnancy termination is a great risk to society. Societies across the globe are experiencing the fallout from these on a massive scale. Reproduction is a fundemental, time-tested bedrock for preserval of the species and it’s very dangerous to mess with something like that. We now have a massive gender imbalance in China and aging, dying societies in every western country being replaced by unfriendly immigrant populations. We also have the possibility for single parents or homosexual couples to have children, an environment for raising children that is unproven and unlikely to be beneficial to their health. We also have the cheapening of life by reducing it to a test tube controlled in a laboratory. It gives human beings the power to make life and death decisions over our offspring, which can only lead to a moral coarsening towards respect for life and encourage infanticide, experimentation, abuse and exploitation of our young to create medicines for ourselves, etc. And then there’s Octomom...
They already have 3 other children that were not born via a surrogate.This is what is puzzling without more information. They already had 3 children so this surrogacy thing is either creepy or suspicious. And I don't want it to be either as it will be a big distraction during the campaign.
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?
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 Partners Shirt in Front of Sarah and Todd Palin (and Piper, too)
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.