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 ...
Currently it's a bit brutal, and ethically questionable ~ in many circles.
Isn't that essentially the point for watching porn movies? ... Never mind...
“I am guessing too much polygamist Mormon inbreeding is keeping them from having a child naturally.”
Not to defend surrogacy, because I don’t approve of it, but this piece does state that they had 3 children NOT via surrogate.
Which is how it says it, which sound a little odd, but presumably it means they had them the old fashioned way.
“I think John and Elizabeth Edwards might have avoided a lot of very ugly publicity if they had just claimed that Johnny’s last child was born by a “surrogate” for them.”
Well, that would have required John telling Elizabeth about the child and therefore the affair, and it seems like that was what he tried hardest to avoid.
It would also have required Hunter to give up her child and I don’t see why she would have been willing to do that.
Grams, you made my point better than I did. I agree with most of what you said, except for the last sentence.
The actual article referenced in FR has nothing about just why the parents decided to use a surrogate.
There is no information on the procedure to produce biological children out of a surrogate mother. That leaves fundamental questions unanswered. I guess that it is more convenient.
Maybe you missed my point.
‘’Those children have two mothers! The genetic mother, and the mother who carried them for nine months.’”
“And so do all adopted children.”
Typically with adopted children those are the same woman. They then have an adoptive mother.
I see nothing in the article that says she had IVF. It says that Romney is the father, nothing about the mother, so I’m thinking she was artificially inseminated.
The article just doesn’t say.
(Madprof, you want to listen in? Or add your thoughts?)
Almost any bodily organ (heart, kidney, lung) is part of a system whose function is that it keeps a person alive. It’s about survival. And if you can donate a kidney, or blood, or something under ethical conditions (not selling organs, not having an organ confiscated by some Organ Committee, but free gift) to help somebody else survive, well and good.
But the sexual organs have not a personal survival, but a maritally interpersonal meaning. For two reasons: they mean "you and I belong to each other (maritally) in an exclusive manner; and they can generate a new person, which gives sexuality an even deeper interpersonal meaning.
This isn't true of animals. That's why veterinary processes (insemination, cloning, interspecies breeding --- like making mules --- or any other laboratory reproduction technique) are not "depersonalizing" for animals. Not at all. But they would be for humans. It has to do with our identity, which is important to us. Animals don't have an intense “personal” interest in their "identity" or their "relationships" or a transcendent drive to ask “Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?” or any sense of personal violation. They aren't personally violated no matter how they are bred with each other. They don’t give a flip who their mama is or who their daddy is.
It's quite otherwise with humans. One of the main immoral aspects of slavery, for instance, is that it fractured interpersonal relations, separated husbands from wives, separated children from parents, treated persons as if they were some kind of livestock. It broke natural marriage (husband – wife) and natural parenthood (father–child and mother–child) to pieces.
OK. Here’s the bottom line: Hiring a woman to be a surrogate is that sort of wrongdoing. It treats her not as a whole person, but as a rented uterus. It’s as depersonalizing as just renting her vagina (prostitution); it intentionally thing-ifies her so that she is to have no ongoing relation to the child or children she bears; and it makes human procreation a for-hire contract rather than a love til-death-do-you-part two-in-one-flesh union.
Human procreation is an image of God. It is life-giving and love-giving at the same time, and it creates another image of God, a new human. Surrogacy make the child-bearer less than a mother, makes her as hired procreative collaborator less than a wife, and makes the child the end-result of a kind of manufacture, as if he were a product, less than a person.
I'm not saying this detracts from the worth of the child: eery child has a right to life. God bless the child, the children: God belss them forever. I am saying that the child will lack something basic that any child would want and have a natural right to: to be the child of the woman who gave him birth, the fruit of the love-union of his father and mother. He is being deliberately deprived of that.
Some former Santorum supporters can’t help themselves.
Surrogacy is just another example of our tendency to treat the lives of others as commodities to serve our needs. Of course, a child born through surrogacy is a precious gift from God, but that does not make the circumstances of his or her conception morally acceptable—no more than it is acceptable for children to be conceived in one-night stands or even rapes. In those cases too, what is at issue is not the worth of the child but the bad behavior of one or more of the child’s parents.
How about hers? Was it her egg or surrogate's?
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.
Sounds like they themselves had 3 biological girls. I get the idea that boys are more important to Mormons...thus the attempt to have 3 boys via surrogate.
Since you are Mormon, can you answer this question?
Do Mormons place more importance on having boys over girls?
Second question...there is something in Mormon theology about overseeing your own world after death. I'm wondering if this could be why Mormons like Romney's son wanted/needed to have boys...to be able to run these types of worlds?
Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but I have heard of this theology and am looking for more clarity. Thanks in advance for your reply.
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!
I agree with you.
But I still don’t like pious jerks.
Thanks, SuzyQue!
There was no "truce" called on Mormon and surrogate bashing.
“Unnatural babies. What does that even mean? What kind of judgement is that? “
It is a “judgement” on the “parents”(donors). The babies born out of this evil, unnatural process, are just fine in my book. The process is the problem.
“A couple wanting children to the extent that they would go through all this trouble and expense are to be denigrated?”
Yes, they should be ashamed of their selfishness and total disregard for the natural ways.
“What ever happened to judge not lest you be judged?
Does Christ consider them “unnatural babies”?’
Christ even saved a murderer. Read your Bible. Babies born out of unnatural processes are fine.
Why would you think the sperm were artificially inseminated? Couldn’t the biological mom be a surrogate for Tagg’s wife even if she was inseminated the regular way? I am really clueless here. Lol
I’m pretty sure his wife wouldn’t appreciate it if she was inseminated in the regular way. :-)
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.