Posted on 01/23/2005 6:11:43 AM PST by flitton
And the Shadow's line started, "Who knows what EVIL lurks in the hearts ..."
I think that's quite relevant to this story.
Wrong..right...I'd like to know what your life choices were. People of FR are so quick to judge other people's choices. Shame on all of you.
Normal is undefinable, unless you happen to agree with shrinks--it's normal for underprivileged teens to shoplift (or kill or rape or lie); it's normal for 16-yr. olds to have had sex; normal that married couples "outgrow" each other and remarry; normal that unwed mothers should terminate unwanted pregnancies; normal that students in a very competitive environment plagiarize or cheat--this could go on and on.
Normal is defined by God's word, not by psychiatrists.
Thank you! That's it exactly. Unfortunate reference for me. I'll jump to Dickens (Bleak House, I think): "What have the poor if not their children?" Meaning (to me) that children, even when they're undeserved (talk about moral judgment) are the greatest of all wealth and understandably pursued or coveted maybe even against reason.
Keep telling yourself that, you selfish witch.
An utterly rational take. But there's so much we don't know . . . doing WHAT to a child, exactly? No mother is guaranteed of living out all her responsibilities to a child, no child guaranteed continued parenting.
Interesting point. However, wanting something badly does not make the acquisition of it by immoral means right.
I saw Ernest Borgnine interviewed by O'Reilly a year or two ago. He and his wife are raising their daughter's child(ren). He was gracious and loving about it, but Ernest is an old man and preferred that his daughter were able to do it.
I don't know what the outcome will be. Maybe she'll live to be 100. Maybe the hired nurse will be a good "substitute mother" for many years. Maybe the child will be happy. We can't predict the future, which is why morality can't be based on outcome.
Perhaps she could have dealt with her guilt by allowing this child (which is not genetically hers, after all) to be adopted by a married couple. Although that wouldn't help the (at least three) babies who died during the "production" of the one that survived.
My parents are 66 and 68, in above average health, physically active, etc., but they are overwhelmed simply by visiting with our family (seven children, from 13 to 1). They invite our children to visit them in Florida *one at a time*, and only when they're 7-8 years old and well prepared.
If my husband and I are hit by a meteor (during the one day a year that we're out with no children :-), a *younger* couple will be our children's guardians, with my parents as financial trustees. Elderly people raising children can be "making the best of it" for the children involved, as with the Borgnines, but I don't think it's a situation that should be deliberately sought.
I could see if she hadn't had her other babies murdered--- then they would have siblings if she dies of old age in a couple of years --- she doesn't look young for her age. Or I could see if she had a younger husband --- maybe 20 years younger who could raise the baby if she can't. But this baby is alone in the world except for her.
ah, but motherhood is not "logical"...
As a Catholic, I oppose "test tube babies" on the principal that it separates sex from procreation.
However, if you read the BIBLE, there are plenty of stories about women who do "immoral" things to get pregnant...and God doesn't punish them very much, because their hearts were good, and they did the "immoral" deed from motives of love.
Can you give some examples?
The only situation even close to what you describe, that I can think of, is Tamar, who seduced her father-in-law, Judah, and conceived Perez, an ancestor of David. And I don't recall anything about "good hearts" or "motives of love." The story in Genesis takes the position that she was justified because Judah had broken custom by not allowing her to marry his youngest son.
I can see someone in their 50's having a baby -- especially if they can do so naturually --- because they're likely to live well past 70 and have a good likelihood of raising the baby--- but 67 years old is definitely pushing it.
I guess if this woman would have allowed her other children to live, she would have grandchildren to love.
Lot's daughters thought the world was ended, and slept with him.
Jacob's wives gave their servants to Jacob to get more children (servants kids were considered their own). And Abraham's wife also gave her servant to her husband to have a child.
All of these things, like Tamar, are considered "justified"...but nevertheless, all were pretty shady business...that's the point.
And I know many women who have "replacement babies" to replace the ones they aborted when they were too young to know better, or when they were pressured by parents or boyfriend to abort. Babies are the way to heal this wound...
I agree, it would have been better to adopt, or to care for children in a differnt way. But I pray she has her heart healed by this child...
Well, you never know how long you'll live. But if I find myself pregnant in my 50's, I'm certainly not going to abort! Even if I didn't live until the (hypothetical) child was an adult, there would be other family members to care for him.
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.