Posted on 02/18/2006 12:20:36 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
"Neither does the Catholic Church since many embryo's/children are created and subsequently destroyed..."
But it's not just that, Coleus, it's that the Church does not approve of any "third parties" being involved in reproduction. They are so in favor of "nature" they could basically be hippies. But I'm not sure ALL fertility medical help would be off the table. I'm not sure about that at all.
Maybe someone else can give more info.
Hey, she's a leadpenny.
Childbearing, like teaching and healing, is a vocation that inherently draws you OUT of yourself and orients you toward filling somebody else's needs and desires.
I am not denying that there is such a thing as blameworthy selfishness, and that someimes it can be expressed through your children (or through your church, or through your political party, your job, or any other way.)
I'm just saying that people who are able to have, raise, and provide for large families are, in the main, outstandingly generous, and are making a contribution that enriches everyone in this society and --- if they do it right --- enriches heaven, too.
I can't see bringing children into the world at such an advanced age that you probably won't live long enough to raise them.
Hey, if her other children are healthy and happy, why not? My grandparents were healthy and vital into their 90s.
My mother's doctor is amazed by the fact that she's still menstruating and (theoretically) fertile in her 60s.
My wife's great-grandmother was married at 16, had her first child at 17, and her sixteenth at 48. 12 of them survived to adulthood. She lived to be 90.
With the above noted exception, both my and my wife's families (Northern Europeans all) tend to have small numbers of large, healthy children very late in life.
A generation in our families is 25 or 30 years rather than the accepted figure of 20. Long lifespans, long fertile periods, low fertility rates- I think we're decended from Elves.
BTW ... for the fruitbats out here ... I wish this couple of putzes nothing, good or bad, just that they will now go away.
She has three great-grandchildren! Imagine being older than your great-uncle.
Not to mention that this 62 yr old woman is also BLIND! Did y'all catch that?
"Wulf is used to defying the odds. Blind since birth, she was a synchronized swimmer in high school..."
I know of a family that had 22 but it involved two sets of twins.
An obvious statement, given the storyline.
Her husband is 48 and her oldest son is 40?
Curiosity.
There are a lot of risks involved with in-vitro, one of the main being multiples.
I had twins (by act of God) at 34, and know first hand the toll that a twin pregnancy.
I think it is horrible for the doctor to actually go through with in-vitro on a woman of this age due to the risks to both the mom and the future babies.
Anyway, I think it is tooo risky and doctors should not be doing this.
I think we're decended from Elves.
They must have lived in a very big tree.
She said she doesn't like to raise one without a sibling .... sounds like there are plenty of "siblings" for her "young" husband.
And, she's BLIND!!! Unbelievable.
It's her 3rd husband
So, her newborn is what now? An uncle and great uncle already?
I don't care how many kids she has, but a blind cook is a hazard to the whole neighborhood.
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.