A 61 year-old woman…has given birth to her own grandson.
Kristine Casey acted as a surrogate for daughter Sara Connell after she was unable to have children of her own. Mrs Connell and her husband Bill are the biological parents of the boy, who is called Finnean.
The 35 year-old lecturer sat holding her mother’s hand as she delivered the baby boy at a hospital in Chicago, Illinois, USA. She said her mother, who gave birth to her last child almost 30 years ago, had offered to act as a surrogate when she suffered years of heartache trying to conceive…
She said when she heard her son cry for the first time after the caesarean section delivery she could not hold back the emotion.
Mrs Casey, a mother-of-three, said she was grateful to be able to help her daughter.
“The three of the happiest days of my life were giving birth to my daughters,’ and I thought I could choose to do this for someone I love,” she said.
Bound to be a hundred preachers, politicians and pundits who will spend the next week NOT approving of this. Meanwhile, a couple of families are made happier by the event.
Classy, Eideard, assuming that preachers would be first in line to condemn a selfless act of love, and the respect for new life. I’m pretty jaded on the whole church thing, but if there is one demographic left in the country that still *really* loves babies, it’s Christians. (And you can keep your snide remarks about child-molesting priests to yourself, please, I think we’ve heard them all)
I’m thinking grandma probably isn’t interested in doing it 18 more times, however 🙂
The liberal media will be sure to spin this one as a great triumph for Obamacare and eugenics, just as you have, Eideard. Another touching story for you and your liberal social-control freak friends!
The fact is, this country is going to pay a heavy price for doing what is completely unnatural, from the obscenity of man-on-man love to the elevation of certain races and ethnicities above others, namely the one that founded this country.
Soon it will be permissible for the husband to sleep with the mother-in-law in order to produce the child. Or maybe this step will be *government-mandated* by one of your darling Obama’s birth panels. How much taxpayer money was wasted on this illegitimate couple’s desire to conceive? I wonder.
A civilized society would have seen the couple accept their infertility as their God-given fate. Not everyone is meant to have children. But liberal, Godless collectivists continue to sow the whirlwind. Watch what they reap.
There have been some small, legitimate advances in genetic engineering, most notably those modest efforts of companies like Monsanto, which come simply and straightforwardly out of a solemn duty to shareholders. But I pose the question: who elected this couple to be the first to conceive in this disgusting menage-a-trois? Who decided our tax dollars should be spent on an immoral doomed offspring, stained forever as he is by his parents’ indiscretions?
And you liberals claim to believe in “freedom”!
@ #2:
I don’t know where you have been but they have been using surrogate mothers now for a while. This is no ‘breakthrough’ as you put it.
I should also bring up that using your religious logic that it is not your place to judge these people. I’m pretty sure from what I’ve read in scripture that right is reserved for the most high. You are out of place sir.
Poster #1: read Post # 2. That is the right wing christian view.
Poster #2: Who the Fu** made you god? If couple needs to use a segregate to have a baby it is none of your business.
Alfie: What the family “reaped” was a healthy new child, not something “unnatural.” You’re supposedly pro-life, you should be happy for the mother, grandmother, and child, and shouldn’t get all weird about it.
Predictable Xhristians.
Read about the Sin of IVF…from True Christians:
http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/page13.html
I’m sure Alfred lives his life as god intended, living naturally, collecting berries, sleeping in a cave, wondering when god see fit to let a lion eat him, free from the distractions of modern medicine, or television, or computers or the internet.
A simple, natural life.
I’m Mine Own Grandpa
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw
Congratulations to the happy couple. I’m gonna celebrate with some man on man love tonight.
#2 SemiPerson
Alfie, Alfie, Alfie. You’ve gone right over the edge. How do you come up with this being a case of eugenics? Oh, you probably threw your dictionary away because you heard Webster had dealings with the devil. (The Devil and Daniel Webster – a story by Benét) Eugeneics is trying to improve the gene pool. This was just a man and wife trying to have a baby. And a triumph for Obamacare? This wasn’t done with funding by the Feds. In fact, their own insurance probably didn’t pay for it, either. Certainly not our tax dollars. Actually, it’s quite possible the granny may have lost coverage due to this procedure.
You see, 61 year-old women are not supposed to be having babies. They will have pumped her full of hormones to make her body receptive to the procedure. As a doc, I’m not sure I like that idea but I’ll bet they went through extensive counseling and signed a dozen different waivers. So she knew the risks she was taking.
Obamacare BIRTH panels? You’ve been hitting the joy juice, again, haven’t you?
“A civilized society would have seen the couple accept their infertility as their God-given fate”
What could you possibly know of civilization? A truly civilized society would have had you committed ages ago. If this couple had even one child on their own, I would condemn this procedure. But apparently there are none. I would have counseled them to adopt but it’s a biological imperative for couples to reproduce. This couple has undoubtedly invested tens of thousands of dollars in this outcome and that indicates they will be loving and nurturing parents. A civilized society would have done exactly what it did: Allow these parents to have a child.
Alfie, you are the best argument I can think of in favor of abortion. Maybe Obamacare’s Death Panels will authorize retroactive abortions. I’ll submit your name for you.
#8 He’s not his own Grandpa… but he IS his own Nephew and Uncle at the same time.
#10–Animby==thanks. I was wondering how a dried up and worn out uterus could be recalled to service. How do you make a hormone? Don’t pay her.
Yes, Alfie and I will be here all week providing our differing and unique brands of humor.
Alfie: wrong in every thing he says in his throwback to the Inquisition as the only Moral Model with the New Devil being Progressives.
Moi: being equally offensive by being correct, cutting edge, and pragmatic in all things.
Might make one slow down
and think for just a bit, or
just go and submit.
Well, I’m not the least bit religious and I think this is disgusting.
If mother nature makes you infertile, there’s a reason for it. If you can’t have your own kid and really, really, want one, there are plenty of orphans out there. Pick one up.
We have more than enough people already, and no trouble making more. We should be using science more towards Soylent Green than this kind of thing.
But, all that said, I have no distain for the child and wish it a happy, healthy long life, to the extent it can have one with an insane mother, grandmother and apparently, father.
Gilf is the new Milf.
I’m a preacher… and I approve. Sorry to burst your bubble Eideard.
IN THE NEWS: reported that men by 5-10 % margin want kiddies more than women do. When did THAT happen? Just projecting my own attitude on the issue: I don’t believe it.
Men love Women.
Women want kiddies.
Men go along with it.
So, #13–spsffan==I agree with the “sentiment” of your post but on reflection: its not “insane” for women to want kiddies–I see that all the time. And really, how bad can it be for the kiddie that his parents/grandparents really wanted him, or at least went along with it?
Love dem kiddies.
Taking this from another angle, it is expensive “premium” medical procedures like (which the U.S. is the #1 consumer of) that that makes our healthcare system the most costly in the world.
#14 – If mother nature makes you infertile, there’s a reason for it.
And if mother nature gives you cancer, or chooses for you to fall over in the street and break your leg?
“And if mother nature gives you cancer, ”
Then you are sick and seek a cure. Infertility is not sickness.
or chooses for you to fall over in the street and break your leg?”
Mother nature doesn’t do that. You do, you clumsy oaf!
I’m against this.. for one if your highly religious then god obviously choose them not to have kids. 2nd i really don’t care. I think it would be better for them to have adopted. I think people forget this fact when they can’t have kids.
Why do religious assholes have suck shitty websites?
http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/page13.html
Really? A 12 year old could design a site better than this. Maybe pray for better web designers next time?
# 20 spsffan said, “Infertility is not sickness.”
Oh? How about insanity? ‘Cause you’re not sick, you’re just crazy. So, we shouldn’t find a way for you to think straight? But enough about you. What about a birth defect? Not a “sickness” so should we not fix them? Scoliosis. Not a “sickness.” Shall we resign them to a wheelchair or give them a back brace and crutches? Regardless of your answers to the above, are you saying women who cannot have a baby because they are “sick” can avail themselves of this procedure but women who are infertile but not diseased can not? Poop. Your mother obviously wasted her womb.
# 21 jay said, “god obviously choose them not to have kids”
Excuse me? is your god such a weak entity it couldn’t stop these people from going around the almighty’s decision? Seems to me if I were ‘god” and hated some woman so much I made her infertile, I could probably stop granny, too. Do you even think about what you’re saying? Maybe god just wanted to see if these people were really determined to have a child against all odds? Your god is certainly a capricious and incompetent supreme being.
After due refection I don’t think this is any of my business.
#24–deowll==humor and insight? Wow, Mom, Wow. Yes, a sound appreciation of FREEEEEDOM that Libs and Cons should agreeably support. What a concept.
Although to risk being on Animby anti-god rant list: I don’t think the gov should pay for infertility cures. So, infertility has many characteristics of a disease, but it is not a disease. Yes: “a condition” like having no sense of humor? Ha, ha. The world needs more lerts.
As a right wing Christian I can say that right wing Christians have no problem with this.
#25 Bobbing and Weaving –
Shame on you. How did this woman get to be infertile? Maybe she had a bad case of endometriosis. Ooops, not a disease in the sense it is not caused by bacteria or viruses or even prions. Maybe she is infertile because of ovarian cancer. That, too, is just a “condition”, I guess. I know, I know: Maybe she has myxedema – no wait, that’s caused by a thyroid “condition.” Cystic Fibrosis, bicornate uterus, complications of IUD, pituitary problems? Poop, I give up. So many conditions not enough “diseases.” WAIT! Maybe she had TB. There you go. Caused by a bacterium AND can infect the fallopian tubes. NOW she is definitely infertile due to a “disease”. Noooo. Let me think. It’s actually just a complication of a disease, i.e. a “condition.” Nope. No babies for her!
Seriously, Bobbo. In my work I’ve seen more kids looking for parents than you can imagine. I’ve worked with so many orphanages I can’t even count. I think it’s almost criminal of these people to invest so much money in something so dangerous just to satisfy the vanity of having their own biological child. But, as deowll says – ain’t none o’ my business.
UNLESS someone says we should use my tax money. Then I will condemn the procedure.
To my own defense before anyone jumps in: yes, I know all of the “conditions” I mentioned are diseases. Only “infectious” diseases have a microbial cause. The lady of the article had been preggers before. Twice. Though at least once was by IVF (twins). She had stillbirths and a miscarriage. Infertility has many causes, very few caused by infectious agents. So, does that make them all “conditions”? I guess we could say that Stephen Hawking does not have a disease, just a condition…
To our bible thumpers.
Let me propose a hypothetical question. (Alfie, that means I’m just dreaming up a situation for discussion.)
Let us posit a woman who is able to get pregnant. In fact, she gets pregnant easily and has done so several times. Problem is, along about three or four months into the gestation period, she spits out a dead baby. Another miscarriage.
The question then is this: is it moral of her to keep trying and “killing” these human lives and is it immoral for her to use the services of a surrogate mother to carry her fertilized egg to term safely? (Sorry for the big words, Alfie.)
I know the bible doesn’t have anything to say about surrogates but even Sarah sent Hagar to Abraham when she was infertile. So my guess is surrogacy would be okay and surrogacy without fornication ought to be even better!
Just curious.
Can “I Am My Own Grandpa” be far behind?
#2 is a troll