Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Sept 17, 2019 19:43:51 GMT -8
File this under "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
The couple was first married in 1962. The woman and her husband will be 92 and 100, respectively, when these twin girls reach age 18.
Just another logical extension and consequence of the error of thinking we can ignore the connection between sex and reproduction. Biology be damned!
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Sept 17, 2019 20:24:26 GMT -8
The only saving grace is that it is India & not Indiana.
The problem I have with this is not that she is 74 & having twins, but that she had to conceive in vitro. If a couple can't get pregnant through humping, then that is natures way of saying there is a problem with one or the other. If she had gotten pregnant the normal way, I wouldn't have much problem with it.
When Malcolm Smith Jr. was born, his mother was 33 and his father was 82 . His parents had only known each other for weeks before getting married & conceiving Malcolm and Mrs. Smith never thought to actually ask Mr. Smith how old he was (she thought he was 50 something). Considering Malcom Jr's racing abilities, i would make the case that an 80 year old who can still impregnate women probably has some strong genetics.
|
|
slk230
Contributor
Skeptical
Posts: 42
|
Post by slk230 on Sept 18, 2019 6:14:29 GMT -8
What difference does it make "How" she got pregnant? If you really want kids nothing else matters.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Sept 18, 2019 6:45:19 GMT -8
The kids matter. What kind of parents can these people be when the kids are 10 years old? For how many years will they be around to raise these kids? There aren't going to be any uncles or aunts to pick up the slack.
It's touching that the woman always wanted kids, but her time had passed. It wasn't meant to be. Now for her few remaining healthy years she'll be able to call herself "Mom" for whatever transient benefit that yields, but those kids will likely be on their own at a very young age
Just medically speaking, I really disagree with having done this procedure. Just because somebody wants a procedure does not mean you're obligated to provide it. I suspect that this would not have been allowed in the US for ethical reasons..........................................Luca
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Sept 18, 2019 7:57:39 GMT -8
This may sound abstract or even harsh, but I would argue that no one has an absolute "right" to a child--even of our own genetic origin. That is, from the perspective of the moral law and the natural law, we have no right to "create" a child in any way we can devise. When we start going down that road (IVF, artificial insemination, cloning, etc.) we usurp the role of God as Creator. I know many people will disagree with this but my comments here are based on Biblical and Catholic moral teaching.
In the case of this Indian women, she is not even the biological mother of these girls since an egg was procured from another woman. Her time had passed. Perhaps they could have adopted, though the problem of raising the children remains, which is not fair to those girls.
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should that thing, even if it is done with the best of intentions.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Sept 18, 2019 8:22:08 GMT -8
Two observations:
(1) To prevent this kind of thing is the reason God invented menopause.
(2) The usual suspects would proclaim, "But, but, but a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. The hell with the kids."
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Sept 18, 2019 20:24:34 GMT -8
What difference does it make "How" she got pregnant? If you really want kids nothing else matters. I can't tell if that response is serious or if you are playing liberal devils advocate (i don't mean that offensively). I'll answer it as if it was a genuine response. To me, how they get pregnant is extremely important. Not being able to conceive via intercourse is often natures way of protecting a species, of making sure certain genetic negatives are not passed on to future generations. In vitro fertilization bypasses that natural selection process and allows genes that normally would not be passed to to stay in the genetic pool. A child is not a possession, so "wanting" one is an irrelevant emotion. |
|
slk230
Contributor
Skeptical
Posts: 42
|
Post by slk230 on Sept 19, 2019 4:44:00 GMT -8
RSM789 said:
I can't tell if that response is serious or if you are playing liberal devils advocate (i don't mean that offensively). I'll answer it as if it was a genuine response.
To me, how they get pregnant is extremely important. Not being able to conceive via intercourse is often natures way of protecting a species, of making sure certain genetic negatives are not passed on to future generations. In vitro fertilization bypasses that natural selection process and allows genes that normally would not be passed to to stay in the genetic pool.
A child is not a possession, so "wanting" one is an irrelevant emotion.
===============================================================================
Was my response was serious and genuine??? Surely you jest.
Your response is from the "Dark Ages". What next if "God" had wanted us travel in cars we would be born with wheels instead of legs??? Isn't all of medicine messing with nature? There have been thousands of healthy babies born by other methods than as you put it "humping".
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 19, 2019 6:11:33 GMT -8
(1) To prevent this kind of thing is the reason God invented menopause. Let's see how long this post lasts. God also invented astigmatism...yet we regularly give people glasses to correct God's handiwork...I suspect you see no ethical violations there. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 19, 2019 6:14:29 GMT -8
(1) To prevent this kind of thing is the reason God invented menopause. Let's see how long this post lasts. God also invented astigmatism...yet we regularly give people glasses to correct God's handiwork...I suspect you see no ethical violations there. God did not “invent” astigmatism. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 19, 2019 6:14:53 GMT -8
Your response is from the "Dark Ages". Isn't all of medicine messing with nature? Correct on both counts. Well said. I would imagine that every single person who objected to the elderly having this baby in this thread at some point in there life has had some sort of common medical procedure to correct some medical deficiency or congenital defect. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 19, 2019 6:23:16 GMT -8
Maybe messing with “nature” as we define it today, but not necessarily messing with God’s design.
God created us perfect and without disease or defect. Only when man disobeyed did life become subject to the ravages of time and “nature.” remember all those Biblical characters who not only lived into their multiple hundreds of years, but had children into their advanced years as well. As the earth has aged, germs, diseases, and even ur bodies have developed these processes we, today, call “natural.”
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Sept 19, 2019 6:38:16 GMT -8
The kids matter. What kind of parents can these people be when the kids are 10 years old? For how many years will they be around to raise these kids? There aren't going to be any uncles or aunts to pick up the slack. It's touching that the woman always wanted kids, but her time had passed. It wasn't meant to be. Now for her few remaining healthy years she'll be able to call herself "Mom" for whatever transient benefit that yields, but those kids will likely be on their own at a very young age Just medically speaking, I really disagree with having done this procedure. Just because somebody wants a procedure does not mean you're obligated to provide it. I suspect that this would not have been allowed in the US for ethical reasons..........................................Luca I want, therefore I'm entitled. When I either no longer want, or am unable to support my wants, someone else pays. I agree with SLK's argument about science "messing" with nature, and disagree with the God's will arguments. I don't think it at all appropriate to invoke God in this from a medical standpoint. I put this in the same bucket as the single moms who have kids with multiple fathers, knowing full well they have no ability to raise these kids without the help "the welfare". From this standpoint, they are equally disgusting. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Sept 19, 2019 6:41:01 GMT -8
(1) To prevent this kind of thing is the reason God invented menopause. Let's see how long this post lasts. God also invented astigmatism...yet we regularly give people glasses to correct God's handiwork...I suspect you see no ethical violations there. You're right. I shouldn't have deleted your first post. I apologized to the group here right after I did it, and now I apologize to you. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 19, 2019 6:50:09 GMT -8
I don’t think you understood my “God” argument (if you were speaking to me), Bick.
I do not believe God intercedes in all circumstances. In fact, when it is clear He has interceded, we call it a “miracle” attesting to its rarity.
Rather, my argument is that God created. With creation, all the processes were here and available, including our ability to have children and all the natural processes.
We quashed God’s original design when sin entered the world and a consequence of that has been our subjugation to diseases. I suspect something like Menopause would have been a factor of aging whether or not sin had ruined creation. God said, upon banishing Adam and Eve from the Garden, they would eventually return to the dust of the ground from whence they were created (loosely translated).
|
|
