Posted on 10/31/2004 7:46:57 PM PST by The Loan Arranger
All signs point to yes.
During the past several months, the image has flickered into our homes with increasing regularity: Following the end of a campaign-trail speech, little Emma Claire Edwards, 6, and Jack Edwards, 4—both blond and cherubic—joyfully run up to the stage where their dad, Sen. John Edwards, 51, scoops them into his arms. Standing nearby beaming, always, is Elizabeth Edwards, 55.
Do the math, and it's not hard to figure out that Edwards gave birth to Emma Claire at age 48 and Jack at 50. And yet if Edwards used her own eggs, this is all but impossible—a woman's ovaries completely stop producing viable eggs by age 45 in all but a tiny percentage of women.
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.slate.msn.com ...
In the abstract, I agree that this topic should be "out of bounds". As applied to this particular player, I'm constrained to ask the question:
Aren't they "fair game?"
Politically irrelevant.
I wouldn't even go here. If Cheney's grown daughter's are considered out of bounds, this is doublely so. These are real live children who may 'hear' things if this subject were to get too public.
Doesn't mean we have to post it on FR. We can be bigger than they are.
Why do you feel the need to stoop so low as to post a thread such as this?
No argument with me on that point.
He's a lawyer. He'd breed with weasels if it served his purposes.
Of course, you know what a weasel/lawyer pairing gets you . . . more lawyers.
Ding! One Kewpie Doll comin' up!
"If so, where are the unused embryos?" if you knew, what was going to be your next move?
maybe.....they are not John's...
Of course, whether the children are the progeny of Sen. Edwards or some other donor, the question posed in the title of the thread is legitimate.
What does Kerry, the self-styled "Catholic" candidate for Pres., who describes himself as being against abortion personally, but unwilling to impose his personal beliefs on that question upon society, think abour "selective abortion", or "reduction", or whatever other euphemism the death merchants have coined for the process under which his running mate's children were engendered?
Do you suppose John Edwards might have "channeled" with the male zygotes vying for the privilege of impregnating Mrs. Edwards and ascertained which among them were worthy of the privilege?
I would be fine if they would keep family matters to themselves. But when they crassly bring up Mary Cheney's lesbianism for political points, they open their own lives to scrutiny, because the issue has then become character.
And as the article points out, Ms. Edwards' silence here is uncharacteristic, especially considering she could do everyone, particularly her own kids, a lot of good by airing the issues of artificial insemination.
Of course, if they tossed fertilized eggs, they have reason to fear the airing of this issue.
You know, what they said about Mary Cheney is irrelevant--two wrongs don't make a right. This is not an appropriate angle of "attack".
The paramount issue IMHO is two children, age three and six, who should find out from their parents, not taunting schoolmates, about the question raised in this article. At an age that their parents decide is appropriate. Which is certainly not six years old.
I cannot believe how low Slate has sunk. OTOH, maybe I can. No matter how you feel about John and Elizabeth Edwards, this is totally out of bounds.
I'm sure Bill Clinton helped her out...
He seems to like fat chicks... *smile*
LOL...he sure does
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.