Woman gives birth to own grandchildren.
- Thread starter pgm
- Start date
That story is sick.
Some people just need to be told "sorry, but you're not able to have children." I know it's tough luck, but that's nature.
Everyone wants to have everything these days: perfect body, perfect mind, perfect health, perfect children, no disease and die happily of old age at 100 surrounded by their perfect family.
Well life isn't like that, and some people need to wake up. Having children isn't a right, and children aren't a commodity. If nature says you can't have them then accept it. These poor children will probably grow up seriously messed-up in the head.
Some people just need to be told "sorry, but you're not able to have children." I know it's tough luck, but that's nature.
Everyone wants to have everything these days: perfect body, perfect mind, perfect health, perfect children, no disease and die happily of old age at 100 surrounded by their perfect family.
Well life isn't like that, and some people need to wake up. Having children isn't a right, and children aren't a commodity. If nature says you can't have them then accept it. These poor children will probably grow up seriously messed-up in the head.
sarahbot
New member
- Mar 9, 2008
- 23
- 0
- 1
well said Johnno, I agree, everyone wants everything these days and they want it supersized and yesterday!
Fatefinger
Member
- Apr 7, 2008
- 84
- 0
- 6
I can understand this couple's desire to have a child, but Johnno's right. To my way of thinking, if you've tried all the options and it just isn't happening, you know there are tens of thousands of children out there looking for a loving family, both at home and abroad... why not adopt?
Although it should be pointed out that in that country, the law was that surrogacy could only be carried out by another closely related person, and the woman was an only child and all her cousins had refused... if the law had been in place such as here where there isn't some weird proviso about being a closely related member of your own family, then absolutely I have no objection with the couple trying surrogacy. I don't understand why this country, was it Brazil, has that law in place... its pretty weird and in this case has got to cause emotional and identity issues for the children.
Although it should be pointed out that in that country, the law was that surrogacy could only be carried out by another closely related person, and the woman was an only child and all her cousins had refused... if the law had been in place such as here where there isn't some weird proviso about being a closely related member of your own family, then absolutely I have no objection with the couple trying surrogacy. I don't understand why this country, was it Brazil, has that law in place... its pretty weird and in this case has got to cause emotional and identity issues for the children.
Why?
It's not like she had sex with her own son or something.
She merely carried the embryo of her daughter (And presumably daughters partner) to birth.
I think you'll find the court of human rights think that being able to have kids is a right..
"if nature says?" so by that logic we shouldn't bother with any kind of natal care? after all - if you can't give birth naturally, tough.
It's not like she had sex with her own son or something.
She merely carried the embryo of her daughter (And presumably daughters partner) to birth.
I think you'll find the court of human rights think that being able to have kids is a right..
"if nature says?" so by that logic we shouldn't bother with any kind of natal care? after all - if you can't give birth naturally, tough.
michaelcrabbgrunge
New member
- Mar 14, 2008
- 23
- 0
- 1
tried ALL the options? surely surrogacy IS one of the options?!
She is carrying her daughter's kids and will give birth to them.
I think you'll find the court's jurisdiction governs legal relationships between individuals and other individuals and the state, rather than regulating their ability to have children. If medical science can't help you then what are you going to do - sue someone?
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick entirely.
Wow, that was quite a quantum leap you just made! What were you saying about logic again?
I think you'll find the court's jurisdiction governs legal relationships between individuals and other individuals and the state, rather than regulating their ability to have children. If medical science can't help you then what are you going to do - sue someone?
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick entirely.
Wow, that was quite a quantum leap you just made! What were you saying about logic again?
It is. I support it if they had surrogacy with another woman... but in that country for some reason the surrogate has to be a relation and whilst I think its okay for cousins and stuff, I can't say I'd support the grandmother giving birth to her own grandchildren. I'm not saying its evil or anything, I wouldn't campaign against it, each to their own, but I would personally find that a little uncomfortable - for me, it's a little too close, and I do think it causes certain issues, and quite apart from anything else you have to admit there are dangerous health risks involved in giving birth at that age.
Plus it just seems like people are going to ever more extreme lengths and practically bankrupting themselves to have a baby. I do understand, I really do, but adoption seems to be increasingly shunted aside and I think people should remember just how many children are out there that don't have a home and need one, and that they could give a home to.
Plus it just seems like people are going to ever more extreme lengths and practically bankrupting themselves to have a baby. I do understand, I really do, but adoption seems to be increasingly shunted aside and I think people should remember just how many children are out there that don't have a home and need one, and that they could give a home to.
john_ven24
Member
- Apr 9, 2008
- 36
- 0
- 6
Err...what? Children getting Cancer is "tough luck" and "nature". Should we deny them treatment?
So what? Your problem is with people wanting to be happy?
Who cares what nature says? We're able to go beyond nature now, what is natural has nothing to do with what's right.
And what possible reason could you have for believing this? You're just trying to justify your prejudice at the idea of people doing things that you consider a bit weird.
I'm surprised at this post; you're usually quite reasonable.
So what? Your problem is with people wanting to be happy?
Who cares what nature says? We're able to go beyond nature now, what is natural has nothing to do with what's right.
And what possible reason could you have for believing this? You're just trying to justify your prejudice at the idea of people doing things that you consider a bit weird.
I'm surprised at this post; you're usually quite reasonable.
theresagerber
New member
- Apr 8, 2008
- 24
- 0
- 1
I think it's sometimes a case of bloods thicker than water. To be told you may not be able conceive or have a natural conception is downright heartbreaking. Whilst surrogacy isn't the path I would go down personally I see nothing wrong with this womans choice its what she feels is best for her and her family, providing she can bring the children up in a stable/open enviroment then there is no reason that this should screw with the kids heads.
misscaustic
New member
- Feb 16, 2008
- 14
- 0
- 1
Yes. And if I couldn't, I'd explore all the medical options too. But I just... you see people these days who pay through the nose for stuff like IVF and go through repeated attempts and they still don't have their own baby. I'd explore all the options, maybe even a couple of times, but I don't think I'd put myself through that kind of grief over and over and over again when there are literally tens of thousands of children already waiting for families... *blush* I admit it, I'm a soft heart really, and I guess I just kind of feel like why go to such extremes and put yourself through all that when there are so many children who are orphaned or whose parents can't afford to keep them or worse, whose parents didn't want them, and who want loving parents just as desperately as these couples want a child to love.
No, we should try to treat people with cancer. But cancer has probably alway sbeen with us, and maybe always will. If we do one day find a cure for it then that might be a mixed blessing in an already overcrowded world, but that doesn't mean that we should stop striving for a cure.
But comparing treating a person with cancer with the subject of the thread is apples-and-pears. How do you compare the two?
No, you've missed the point, which was that people seem to thing that life owes them some sort of perfect existance, and if it isn't perfect then they expect scientific/medical developments to give them all the solutions on a plate.
I think that in the name of 'progress' it's actually a form of regression, because people get this childish sense of life having to be 'fair', and if it isn't then they expect someone to come along and make it everything all alright.
It's a question of where you set the boundaries. The question of morality acting as a check on science is nothing new - far from it. Consider the Hippocratic Oath, for example, and Frankenstein's monster.
The fact that we CAN go 'beyond nature' doesn't automatically mean that we SHOULD do. You have to look closely at what you are actually proposing to do. You can't just make some blanket rule that whatever we can do is OK.
Not at all. I've simply thought about the possible consequences. Have you?
Well thank you! I think I was being quite reasonable, but it's an emotive subject and people sometimes jump to conclusions if they think you might be saying something they don't like.
But comparing treating a person with cancer with the subject of the thread is apples-and-pears. How do you compare the two?
No, you've missed the point, which was that people seem to thing that life owes them some sort of perfect existance, and if it isn't perfect then they expect scientific/medical developments to give them all the solutions on a plate.
I think that in the name of 'progress' it's actually a form of regression, because people get this childish sense of life having to be 'fair', and if it isn't then they expect someone to come along and make it everything all alright.
It's a question of where you set the boundaries. The question of morality acting as a check on science is nothing new - far from it. Consider the Hippocratic Oath, for example, and Frankenstein's monster.
The fact that we CAN go 'beyond nature' doesn't automatically mean that we SHOULD do. You have to look closely at what you are actually proposing to do. You can't just make some blanket rule that whatever we can do is OK.
Not at all. I've simply thought about the possible consequences. Have you?
Well thank you! I think I was being quite reasonable, but it's an emotive subject and people sometimes jump to conclusions if they think you might be saying something they don't like.
They're both interfering with nature to treat people who have had bad luck. What difference is there?
This is a ridiculous point. It is nothing to do with people demanding that science rights the wrong in the world, without any regards to reality. There is a very real medical solution to their problem and they are using it. I cannot see anything wrong with that.
Of course we should not just do anything. What is natural, however, has nothing to do with what's right. I can see why someone would argue again flying on the grounds of global warming, but if they came out and said "nature didn't intend for us to fly", I'd think he was an idiot. Nature didn't intend for us to do anything, it's up to us to work out what is right and wrong. In this case, what they are doing is clearly unnatural, but I see nothing wrong with it.
Yes. They could go on to live a normal life. What possible reason do you have to expect that your scenario is any more likely than mine or any more likely than in a normal pregnancy?
This is a ridiculous point. It is nothing to do with people demanding that science rights the wrong in the world, without any regards to reality. There is a very real medical solution to their problem and they are using it. I cannot see anything wrong with that.
Of course we should not just do anything. What is natural, however, has nothing to do with what's right. I can see why someone would argue again flying on the grounds of global warming, but if they came out and said "nature didn't intend for us to fly", I'd think he was an idiot. Nature didn't intend for us to do anything, it's up to us to work out what is right and wrong. In this case, what they are doing is clearly unnatural, but I see nothing wrong with it.
Yes. They could go on to live a normal life. What possible reason do you have to expect that your scenario is any more likely than mine or any more likely than in a normal pregnancy?
Yes? And?
All you've done there is state the facts of the case. Why do you find that "sick"?
Not really. you said: "If nature says you can't have them then accept it"
So presumably you think tampering with nature is wrong (at least when it comes down to infertile women).
It's perfectly natural to die in childbirth - so do you think stopping that is also tamperiing?
What about premature babies who'd die without medical help? nature clearly doesn't want them to survive, is allowing them to live wrong too?
Plus of course, there is the fact that sperm counts are ever decreasing in the modern age. Does that mean that we should help men with low sperm counts (ie bring them in line with levels from decades ago) or is redressing the balance wrong here too?
Where exactly does your line of what is right to tamper with/wrong to tamper with come down?
All you've done there is state the facts of the case. Why do you find that "sick"?
Not really. you said: "If nature says you can't have them then accept it"
So presumably you think tampering with nature is wrong (at least when it comes down to infertile women).
It's perfectly natural to die in childbirth - so do you think stopping that is also tamperiing?
What about premature babies who'd die without medical help? nature clearly doesn't want them to survive, is allowing them to live wrong too?
Plus of course, there is the fact that sperm counts are ever decreasing in the modern age. Does that mean that we should help men with low sperm counts (ie bring them in line with levels from decades ago) or is redressing the balance wrong here too?
Where exactly does your line of what is right to tamper with/wrong to tamper with come down?
Because in my opinion it's going much too far. I'll expand on that in my reply to your next point.
You've hit the nail on the head here, because it's a question of where the line gets drawn, rather than trying to make it a matter of moral absolutes, like 'to tamper or not to tamper, that is the question'. I don't think it's a black-and-white issue like that.
For me, the whole issue of surrogacy raises issues, and frankly I don't have answers to them all. But my gut-level reaction to the idea of a woman carrying and giving birth to her own daughter's baby is that wherever the line is exactly, it has definately been crossed.
You've hit the nail on the head here, because it's a question of where the line gets drawn, rather than trying to make it a matter of moral absolutes, like 'to tamper or not to tamper, that is the question'. I don't think it's a black-and-white issue like that.
For me, the whole issue of surrogacy raises issues, and frankly I don't have answers to them all. But my gut-level reaction to the idea of a woman carrying and giving birth to her own daughter's baby is that wherever the line is exactly, it has definately been crossed.
kevinsnickle
New member
- Mar 10, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
You call it 'emotivism' (and I'll take your word for it that there is such a word) and I call it 'common-sense'. Maybe we should agree to disagree!