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 ...
Well, the problem lies in how many were aborted in this process? . IVF has problems and it is not pro-life.
I missed everybody’s point!
Well, those ain’t no traditional values, LOL.
“Concubinage”?
I feel this thread has entered the dark ages... in more ways than one.
Your argument that a surrogate may abort makes no sense and only adds hysteria to the discussion.
Your explanation might make sense in a perfect world... but we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a fallen one. Where disease and illness can strike anyone. And so when an infertile husband and wife turn to modern science to give them the child they desire, who are you to tell them that God says they shouldn’t have a child? I believe that God decides, not us.
Your explanation might make sense in a perfect world... but we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a fallen one. Where disease and illness can strike anyone. And so when an infertile husband and wife turn to modern science to give them the child they desire, who are you to tell them that God says they shouldn’t have a child? I believe that God decides, not us.
They are nothing wrong with IFV if people cant have kids on their own. Like someone said you wouldn’t turn down someone else organ if you life or family members life depended on it. Alot of people are sounding awfully backward and stupid here. Zealotry with shades of Galileo redux. AKA blind ignorance.
It's not the word that's troubling, it's the practice that's troubling.
In our culture, which used to be a Christian culture (intil rather recently) it was understood that childbearing was supposed to be within marriage. Regrettably we fail in various ways, out-of-wedlock childen and so forth, but again (until recently) that was seen as something that fell short of the way it's supposed to be. It was not something you would set up to produce deliberately.
But we're more into perversity and "celebrate diversity" now, even on supposedly conservative websaites. A man and two women, two gay guys and a surrogate, two lesbians and their lab tech, hyperovulating your sister-in-law to get human raw materials, acquiring embryos as unconsenting human experimental subjects, generating dozens of half-siblings through insemination --- why not?
It's the premise of gay marriage: Screw "natural". We want what we want, when and how we want it.
Infertility means you've got some sort of disease or injury or malformity that makes you unable to have childen through normal intercourse, and it should be addressed by the medical profession with the ethical goal of curing the disease, healing the injury, repairing whatever is getting in the way of naural fertile sex.
Surrogacy does not cure infertility: Mr. and Mrs. Romney are still apparently inable to have children through normal intercourse.The morally upright thing to do, is to seek medical help to cure their infertility. There are effective drugs, devices, and surgery which can often address that problem, and restore their healthy sexual function.
Nobody's against actual CURATIVE medical inervention.
What's wrong is going outside your marriage to impregnate another woman.
Thank you, Mrs. Don-o. Excellent explanation.
(sarcasm - duh!)
A similar line of . . . "argument" . . . has come up repeatedly on this very long thread. It's what passes for thinking among today's liberals--that is, "You are ignorant and mean, and I am offended. Case closed." For the liberals and others--even self-described conservatives--who follow their lead, something is closed, all right. I'm beginning to understand how the upcoming election has come down to Obama v. Romney.
“Zealotry with shades of Galileo redux. AKA blind ignorance.”
I’m getting that impression, too.
I don't get the whole "mormon bashing" thing. I really don't. Growing up in the suburbs of Denver, I've always had Mormon neighbors, classmates and co-workers. Granted, I don't know all the ins and outs of their religion except that they avoid alcohol caffeine and tobacco, I've always found them to be decent, hard-working, politically conservative people who are trying to raise their kids right. I even went to prom with a Mormon girl, who, like the rest of us was enjoying a wild streak as a teenager (that her parents blamed on me! LOL! If they only knew...).
I already stated in another response that using modern reproductive technology to produce children for homosexual/lesbian couples is wrong because it denies children the right to be raised by a mother AND a father.
However, that does not negate the benefit that modern reproductive technology is for married heterosexual couples who for whatever reason cannot have children the typical way (notice I did not say natural) :)
Um, yeah- surrogacy DOES cure infertility! An infertile couple now has two beautiful children! God bless them.
“I don’ see where God is OKing the begetting of children with someone other than your wife. “
We don’t whether the twins were conceived using his sperm and her egg. That would mean that the children were “begotten” with his own wife, her uterus just couldn’t gestate them.
And even if it wasn’t his sperm/her egg, it doesn’t matter.
Women having children without having the father involved in the child’s life is wrong. But that doesn’t negate the benefit of modern reproductive technology for married infertile couples.
LOL, I suppose it's entirely possible that God DID tell the "infertile" couple that they shouldn't have a child.
It seems more that people like you are the ones saying they should.
Petulant children whining "but why CAN'T I have (whatever it is I imagine I "deserve")...??!!"
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.