Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it made clear by the holy profit-o-gawd that using a surrogate to have children was wrong. Or was that being a surrogate is wrong. Or was that only if your last name is not Romney?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/2-new-grandchildren-for-romney-with-help-of-surrogate/

so true!!!!!!!

Haven't you ever read the book Animal Farm, by George Orwell? (The same George Orwell who wrote the book 1984).



All barn yard animals are born equal, but some of the pigs are more equal than the rest of the pigs!

Beside the fact that he's a Romney and everyone knows the rules don't apply to them. I'm guessing their justification is because she is a "gestational surrogate" A gestational surrogate carries Tagg & Jen's biologial child, implanting her through IVF. As opposed to a regular surrogate that would donate her egg and the doctors would use Tagg's sperm, then do the IVF.

One of the issues with in vitro is producing many fertilized eggs. If life begins at conception and you have these excess fertilized eggs that end up not being used ...? In an IVF cycle the goal is to produce many eggs, hope that you can fertilize several of them and then grade them for their potential to transfer well and continue to grow into a viable pregnancy. Towards this end, it is not uncommon to transfer 2-3 or 3-5 fertilized eggs (depending on age of the mom) into the uterus to improve the odds that at least one will take. The extras left over from the cycle are then discarded, frozen and sometimes donated to other women undergoing fertility treatment. Trying to limit your cycle to not produce more than you want to use limits your liklihood of success (not every egg produced fertilizes, not every fertilized egg survives to transfer,not every tranferred fertilized egg will " take") it gets very expensive very fast. An ivf cycle can run $15 grand or more for ONE cycle. A surrogate adds to that expense considerably. And contrary to some of what the commentors have said, my personal experience is insurance will not typically cover it. We once had great insurance that would for 4 cycles. Now most insurance policies won't cover the injectible fertility drugs. Unless you're able to pay for it.

In the case of the Octomom, it came out during the course of her doctor's trial that he transferred well in excess of the acog recommendation of 3-5, more on the order of a dozen, if news reports were to be believed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 01:30AM by epsynonia.

"The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood. If parents want a child born to a surrogate mother to be sealed to them, the Stake President refers the matter to the First Presidency."

Church Handbook 1, (2010)

Anybody by the last name of Romney: "Um, Prophet Wiggly Ears, would you employ the Lard and ask if I can jack off into a jar (if I promise to only be thinking about my wife) so that I don't have to put her through a 4th pregnancy. I mean, hey, we're willing to keep multiplying and replenishing the Earth, but, you know, we're part of the 1%. We shouldn't have to do the WORK in order to get it done. But as always, we're more than happy to pay someone else to do it. And you know, we'll kick in another half a mil in tithing."

Prophet Wiggly Ears": OK. give me half a second. Yes, I just got a special witness. But could you keep it under wraps. I'm so tired of all the "How come the Romneys could get sealed the next day? or Why doesn't Ann have to wear her garmies when she's campaigning? or Why do the Romneys only have to pay 7.75% tithing or "Why do they get all the special privileges? Could you at least pretend like you live by some of the same rules as the lowly sheep?"

Did he have to masturbate to make this happen? If so, did he look at porn or read scripture?

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile/50690125-89/church-handbook-says-members.html.csp



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 03:16AM by Fetal Deity.

Sorry, gotta go off topic for a moment, is it just me or did no one else notice that the church issued a second book to be avaliable online...a second book? Am I the only that sees that this second book for the public is probably missing half the content from the original "handbook"?

Um, if this guy and his wife had three kids the normal way (i.e. no need for a surrogate), they didn't have fertility issues. They had a family. Where's the logic in turning to a surrogate for three more? Normal people would have been happy and called it quits and concentrated on raising the three kids they got to be happy, well-adjusted and productive members of society.

I mean, three biological kids? How many people are there out there who can't even have one and for whom the simplist of fertility treatments (not to mention surrogacy or adoption) is not a possibility due to lack of personal financial resources? Fertility issues? What a crock. These are rich people who wanted more babies and went out and bought themselves some more.

what it's like for the rest of the country, or humanity for that matter. There isn't anything they can't or won't buy. They already have 3 kids ferchrissake. This is just sickening. Even if they DO have "fertility issues," meaning for some reason they can't have anymore of their own, they have THREE! Why do they need to go buy more? Because they can! Buying kids and making someone else do the work (putting their life and health at risk) because they need the money, is no different to them than paying someone to service their car elevator.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 03:42PM by menomore.

I know a lady who was told in no uncertain terms that the church DOES NOT allow surrogacy. That's why I asked in the beginning of the thread (thanks for the reference to the handbook). They did NOT have any other kids, and she could not carry a baby, but she ovulated and they wanted so badly to go this route, which their parents were prepared to pay for. They have since adopted two lovely children, but that was a long, emotional, costly process.

This article lies and says the church discourages it but leaves it up to the couple. Huh? Where does it say that in the CHOI? Do they tell bishops that? No. It's very clear. And if they wanted to buy more kids why couldn't they adopt kids that need a good home. OMG, NormaRae, are you talking about kids cursed with a dark skin? Maybe. Well, we know why--have to keep that Romney dynasty in tact and the bloodline pure. Man, what a difference between the Romneys and the Huntsmans.

If your name is Romney, "hey, you want your parents at your wedding? No problem. You want to wear low-cut dresses? No problem. You want to pay only 7.75% tithing? No problem. You want to have three children born by surrogates? No problem. What else do you want. Just name it and fork over the millions. We got your back."

Also goes to show that the Romney family is Mormon in heritage only. They have little belief and certainly no concern for the opinion of LDS leaders.