Woman gives birth to her own grandchildren.
October 16, 2002 8:15 AM Subscribe
Woman gives birth to her own grandchildren. This just seems wrong.
Seems wrong...how?
posted by DakotaPaul at 8:18 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by DakotaPaul at 8:18 AM on October 16, 2002
Err, no seems fine to me. Mother surrogates for daughter, is that worse than a stranger surrogating? There's no problem with the birth-mother wanting access for a start...
Can you explain why this seems wrong to you?
posted by iain at 8:31 AM on October 16, 2002
Can you explain why this seems wrong to you?
posted by iain at 8:31 AM on October 16, 2002
I don't see anything wrong either. Would it be wrong if she was the father's mother though?
posted by ifenn at 8:33 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by ifenn at 8:33 AM on October 16, 2002
It seems sweet to me. And a big thumbs up for technology improving people's lives!
posted by botono9 at 8:33 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by botono9 at 8:33 AM on October 16, 2002
I don't think it's wrong at all, but I can see the uncomfortable issues. Sex is connected with intimacy, and often an exclusively shared symbol. Sex is connected with reproduction. Is there, by implication, a connection between reproduction and intimacy, or a break of a promise to keep sex as an exclusively shared symbol (especially with... her mother)? I don't think so; the medical technique here clearly seperates any link between sex and reproduction, and thus with intimacy/symbology of sex. But since emotionally, the sense of all these things are located close to some similar center, I wouldn't be suprised if it makes anyone feel just a little squirmy.
posted by namespan at 8:38 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by namespan at 8:38 AM on October 16, 2002
ifenn - What? Wrong? Is surragacy wrong in general or are you saying it's only 'ok' if you don't know the surragate?
posted by iain at 8:38 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by iain at 8:38 AM on October 16, 2002
Seems like a kinda win-win situation to me. Two healthy babies, two happy parents, happy Grandma. What's wrong with that?
posted by jokeefe at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by jokeefe at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2002
*cough newsfilter cough*
It'd be sort of wrong if daddy knocked up grandma one night with mommy's permission, but actually its really a nice story.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2002
It'd be sort of wrong if daddy knocked up grandma one night with mommy's permission, but actually its really a nice story.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2002
Yep, this seems to make good sense. I'd buy into a bit of creep-factor if they'd insisted on inseminating the Good Old Fashioned Way, but that's clearly not the case
And even then, I wouldn't pin "wrong" on the act, though the motivations and personal issues involved would certainly be a minefield.
posted by cortex at 8:41 AM on October 16, 2002
And even then, I wouldn't pin "wrong" on the act, though the motivations and personal issues involved would certainly be a minefield.
posted by cortex at 8:41 AM on October 16, 2002
the really scandalous story was "children impregnate mom." this followup seems rather tame. oh wait...
posted by quonsar at 8:41 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by quonsar at 8:41 AM on October 16, 2002
Wrong?! The eggs were her own; her husband did not in any way inseminate her mother.
... and even if her mother was artificially inseminated using her husband's sperm, so what?
You go, moms! ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:42 AM on October 16, 2002
... and even if her mother was artificially inseminated using her husband's sperm, so what?
You go, moms! ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:42 AM on October 16, 2002
It seems wrong to me to go through all that trouble to create a child when kids go unwanted, both overseas and here at home. Yes, they "had a frustrating experience trying to adopt a child three years ago" but that was when she was 22. I was still living on student loans at 22.
posted by JoanArkham at 8:43 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by JoanArkham at 8:43 AM on October 16, 2002
JoanArkham, I understood that young kids, e.g toddlers, rarely go unwanted. And would a 25 year old first time mother want a older child?
posted by iain at 8:47 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by iain at 8:47 AM on October 16, 2002
kids go unwanted
Some people prefer a healthy child of their own race.
posted by mischief at 8:47 AM on October 16, 2002
Some people prefer a healthy child of their own race.
posted by mischief at 8:47 AM on October 16, 2002
It seems wrong to me to go through all that trouble to create a child when kids go unwanted, both overseas and here at home.
Why should people who can easily become pregnant be the only ones who deserve their own natural children? One could make the argument that anyone who chooses to have their own sprogs while adoptees want for parents is being selfish.
posted by rcade at 8:52 AM on October 16, 2002
Why should people who can easily become pregnant be the only ones who deserve their own natural children? One could make the argument that anyone who chooses to have their own sprogs while adoptees want for parents is being selfish.
posted by rcade at 8:52 AM on October 16, 2002
Can you explain why this seems wrong inspirational to you?
then were reminded of a woman who carried twins for her daughter. The couple took Dunn up on her offer to be a surrogate mother. On Thursday, Dunn gave birth to her twin granddaughters, Kaitlyn and Shelby.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:07 AM on October 16, 2002
then were reminded of a woman who carried twins for her daughter. The couple took Dunn up on her offer to be a surrogate mother. On Thursday, Dunn gave birth to her twin granddaughters, Kaitlyn and Shelby.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:07 AM on October 16, 2002
Why should people who can easily become pregnant be the only ones who deserve their own natural children?
I don't know, why not replace "become pregnant" with "afford fertility treatments"?
Since I have zero maternal instinct, maybe I'm not the best judge, but the question was asked "explain why this seems wrong" so I answered it.
posted by JoanArkham at 9:16 AM on October 16, 2002
I don't know, why not replace "become pregnant" with "afford fertility treatments"?
Since I have zero maternal instinct, maybe I'm not the best judge, but the question was asked "explain why this seems wrong" so I answered it.
posted by JoanArkham at 9:16 AM on October 16, 2002
Seems wrong...how?
Woman gives birth to own grandkids. I'm my own grandpa. Uncle Daddy. Wrong. It's just words. Those words do not seem right, not necessarily the event itself. (and sorry if I'm putting words in skwm's mouth piece.)
Plus what JoanArkham said.
posted by mikrophon at 9:26 AM on October 16, 2002
Woman gives birth to own grandkids. I'm my own grandpa. Uncle Daddy. Wrong. It's just words. Those words do not seem right, not necessarily the event itself. (and sorry if I'm putting words in skwm's mouth piece.)
Plus what JoanArkham said.
posted by mikrophon at 9:26 AM on October 16, 2002
Darwin perspective: Perhaps this woman wasn't supposed to have children.
Religious perspective: Eve was made of Adam.
Which seems creepier?
posted by DBAPaul at 9:32 AM on October 16, 2002
Religious perspective: Eve was made of Adam.
Which seems creepier?
posted by DBAPaul at 9:32 AM on October 16, 2002
Re: adoption. From the article:
Roberts, now 25, and her husband, Mike, had a frustrating experience trying to adopt a child three years ago and then were reminded of a woman who carried twins for her daughter.
posted by arielmeadow at 9:44 AM on October 16, 2002
Roberts, now 25, and her husband, Mike, had a frustrating experience trying to adopt a child three years ago and then were reminded of a woman who carried twins for her daughter.
posted by arielmeadow at 9:44 AM on October 16, 2002
Why should people who can easily become pregnant be the only ones who deserve their own natural children? (My emphasis.)
Er... Because it's natural? My emphasis again.
posted by Dick Paris at 9:54 AM on October 16, 2002
Er... Because it's natural? My emphasis again.
posted by Dick Paris at 9:54 AM on October 16, 2002
The only thing I see wrong with it is the mindless compulsion to have children. The world is more than sufficiently populated already. Maybe nature was trying to tell her something when she was born without a uterus.
posted by gordian knot at 10:04 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by gordian knot at 10:04 AM on October 16, 2002
If some day my daughter was not able to have children, I would much rather have my wife be the surrogate mother than a stranger.
As far as the mindless compulsion to have children, I now have two kids and although they are very young and can be hard to take care of, I wouldn't trade them for anything in the world.
If you don't want to have children then you shouldn't, but don't criticize someone else for trying to have some.
posted by Blubble at 10:18 AM on October 16, 2002
As far as the mindless compulsion to have children, I now have two kids and although they are very young and can be hard to take care of, I wouldn't trade them for anything in the world.
If you don't want to have children then you shouldn't, but don't criticize someone else for trying to have some.
posted by Blubble at 10:18 AM on October 16, 2002
Er... Because it's natural?
natural != good
If you don't want to have children then you shouldn't, but don't criticize someone else for trying to have some.
Actually, there are a lot of very valid reasons for criticizing someone for having or trying to have children, one of which is the mindlessness with which many people breed. If you fully understood the consequences of your choice to have and raise them, then more power to you, but many don't, and we all suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility.
posted by rushmc at 10:38 AM on October 16, 2002
natural != good
If you don't want to have children then you shouldn't, but don't criticize someone else for trying to have some.
Actually, there are a lot of very valid reasons for criticizing someone for having or trying to have children, one of which is the mindlessness with which many people breed. If you fully understood the consequences of your choice to have and raise them, then more power to you, but many don't, and we all suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility.
posted by rushmc at 10:38 AM on October 16, 2002
Why would you assume that the desire to have children goes away based on a medical condition? Darwinists would probably argue that the urge to breed is strong in all of us and deeply embedded in our DNA, regardless of our medical ability to do so. I think the "nature was trying to tell her something" argument overly simplistic.
And rushmc - the "mindlessness with which many people breed" ? Care to elaborate on that one?
posted by dhacker at 10:42 AM on October 16, 2002
And rushmc - the "mindlessness with which many people breed" ? Care to elaborate on that one?
posted by dhacker at 10:42 AM on October 16, 2002
Actually, there are a lot of very valid reasons for criticizing someone for having or trying to have children, one of which is the mindlessness with which many people breed.
*sigh*
posted by glenwood at 10:44 AM on October 16, 2002
*sigh*
posted by glenwood at 10:44 AM on October 16, 2002
Given how long this couple has been trying to have children (both their own and adopted), I think it's relatively safe to assume they do understand the consequences of their choice to have and raise them. This isn't mindless propagation for its own sake.
If this is "unnatural" and therefore wrong, does that make all artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood wrong? Or are you just stuck on "Ew, Grandma's having her daughter's baby!"?
posted by UnReality at 11:00 AM on October 16, 2002
If this is "unnatural" and therefore wrong, does that make all artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood wrong? Or are you just stuck on "Ew, Grandma's having her daughter's baby!"?
posted by UnReality at 11:00 AM on October 16, 2002
Future quote from future son-in-law, "You're Grandma is your mama?....do you guys have a chart around here to expalin this?"
posted by nyxxxx at 11:04 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by nyxxxx at 11:04 AM on October 16, 2002
Actually, there are a lot of very valid reasons for criticizing someone for having or trying to have children, one of which is the mindlessness with which many people breed.
You are broadening the issue a great deal. This thread is mainly about surrogacy and similar reproductive issues.
I agree that too many people have kids without wanting them or understanding the monumental responsibility of being a parent, but I think that is a separate issue. My wife and I were married for five years before having our first child. Thankfully, she was able to get pregnant very quickly. If we were not able to conceive, you can bet I that I would neither spare no expense, nor dismiss any reasonable options for conception.
It sounds like these people have been through a lot to have their child. While this is not a guarantee that they will be good parents, I would bet on them before many other parents who "accidentally" got pregnant.
posted by Blubble at 11:10 AM on October 16, 2002
You are broadening the issue a great deal. This thread is mainly about surrogacy and similar reproductive issues.
I agree that too many people have kids without wanting them or understanding the monumental responsibility of being a parent, but I think that is a separate issue. My wife and I were married for five years before having our first child. Thankfully, she was able to get pregnant very quickly. If we were not able to conceive, you can bet I that I would neither spare no expense, nor dismiss any reasonable options for conception.
It sounds like these people have been through a lot to have their child. While this is not a guarantee that they will be good parents, I would bet on them before many other parents who "accidentally" got pregnant.
posted by Blubble at 11:10 AM on October 16, 2002
side note here
I do know several woman who were told medically they could not conceive children one in her 20's another her late 30's. Now the reason was nothing as drastic as what this woman had, no uterus. Then they adopted, and some years later became pregnant. I wonder if the body sometimes knows when it's right or wrong to have kids naturally. I tip my hat to all parents.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:29 AM on October 16, 2002
I do know several woman who were told medically they could not conceive children one in her 20's another her late 30's. Now the reason was nothing as drastic as what this woman had, no uterus. Then they adopted, and some years later became pregnant. I wonder if the body sometimes knows when it's right or wrong to have kids naturally. I tip my hat to all parents.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:29 AM on October 16, 2002
I'm my own grandpa. Uncle Daddy. Wrong. It's just words. Those words do not seem right
I'll remember that when my father-in-law proposes to my mother, which he's confided that he's considering. If that happens, I'll be aunt to my own children, my own sister-in-law and married to my stepbrother. Will that change anything in reality? No, it'll be a giggle and a postscript in my eulogy. Big deal.
"You're Grandma is your mama?....do you guys have a chart around here to expalin this?"
The grandmother is not the mother, she provided no biological material, she simply carried the babies. The owner of the womb in which you gestate is no longer necessarily your mother. These are the times in which we live. And I'd be very ooked out if these kids are raised with enough awareness that the grandmother surrogated for them that they'd feel it necessary to tell people about it in their adulthood. "It doesn't matter how you got here, it's what you've done once you've arrived."
posted by Dreama at 11:35 AM on October 16, 2002
I'll remember that when my father-in-law proposes to my mother, which he's confided that he's considering. If that happens, I'll be aunt to my own children, my own sister-in-law and married to my stepbrother. Will that change anything in reality? No, it'll be a giggle and a postscript in my eulogy. Big deal.
"You're Grandma is your mama?....do you guys have a chart around here to expalin this?"
The grandmother is not the mother, she provided no biological material, she simply carried the babies. The owner of the womb in which you gestate is no longer necessarily your mother. These are the times in which we live. And I'd be very ooked out if these kids are raised with enough awareness that the grandmother surrogated for them that they'd feel it necessary to tell people about it in their adulthood. "It doesn't matter how you got here, it's what you've done once you've arrived."
posted by Dreama at 11:35 AM on October 16, 2002
Darwinists would probably argue that the urge to breed is strong in all of us
...except they'd be wrong, because the urge to breed isn't strong in all of us. There are even folks - can you imagine it? - who have no interest at all in creating children.
The only strange thing about this event is that it points out in unavoidable terms the not-so-novel fact that giving birth to a child does not make you a mother.
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:37 AM on October 16, 2002
...except they'd be wrong, because the urge to breed isn't strong in all of us. There are even folks - can you imagine it? - who have no interest at all in creating children.
The only strange thing about this event is that it points out in unavoidable terms the not-so-novel fact that giving birth to a child does not make you a mother.
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:37 AM on October 16, 2002
If you fully understood the consequences of your choice to have and raise them
As a parent, I can say with confidence that NO ONE can fully understand the consequences of birthing and raising a child before they make the decision to do so.
posted by mischief at 11:39 AM on October 16, 2002
As a parent, I can say with confidence that NO ONE can fully understand the consequences of birthing and raising a child before they make the decision to do so.
posted by mischief at 11:39 AM on October 16, 2002
I know that if I tried to have children naturally and wasn't able to conceive, I wouldn't waste time, energy and money on trying to do what nature refuses. I would adopt.
posted by agregoli at 11:49 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by agregoli at 11:49 AM on October 16, 2002
agregoli,
And those of us who are adopted would thank you immensely for it.
posted by goddam at 11:59 AM on October 16, 2002
And those of us who are adopted would thank you immensely for it.
posted by goddam at 11:59 AM on October 16, 2002
Arrrgghh. They tried to adopt. Should they have kept at it, despite finding the process frustrating? Maybe. There's no question that there are already children who need homes. But does that make their finding a surrogate mother for their own child wrong? How so?
If the surrogate wasn't the child's grandmother, would we even be having this discussion?
posted by UnReality at 12:04 PM on October 16, 2002
If the surrogate wasn't the child's grandmother, would we even be having this discussion?
posted by UnReality at 12:04 PM on October 16, 2002
Based on my personal beliefs, yes all surrogacy is wrong. But I wouldn't presume to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
We don't have all, or even many, facts about the attempted adoption. So it was frustrating. Does that mean they got halfway through the form and got bored with it, does it mean they were passed over after home visits, does it mean they thought it was a demeaning process? Based on this one article, who can say?
posted by JoanArkham at 12:23 PM on October 16, 2002
We don't have all, or even many, facts about the attempted adoption. So it was frustrating. Does that mean they got halfway through the form and got bored with it, does it mean they were passed over after home visits, does it mean they thought it was a demeaning process? Based on this one article, who can say?
posted by JoanArkham at 12:23 PM on October 16, 2002
I don't know if this is wrong or right... but it does give me the heebie jeebies
posted by rampage at 12:25 PM on October 16, 2002
posted by rampage at 12:25 PM on October 16, 2002
The article doesn't really explain what their frustrating experience was. Or how long they were trying to adopt. It just says that they tried 3 years ago, not that they tried for 3 years. Granted, it's not an easy process and many people have difficulty adopting for whatever reason, but it's not something that usually happens overnight and I think that some people don't have the patience to wait it out.
When my parents adopted my brother they put in for another adoption right away. It took them 5 years for them to get me. Sure that was in the early 70s but I can't imagine the process being that much different today. So, yeah, part of me wishes they had stuck it out with trying to adopt.
I have a problem with surrogates and fertility treatments in general. But I suppose I just have a skewed view of these situations.
posted by goddam at 12:25 PM on October 16, 2002
When my parents adopted my brother they put in for another adoption right away. It took them 5 years for them to get me. Sure that was in the early 70s but I can't imagine the process being that much different today. So, yeah, part of me wishes they had stuck it out with trying to adopt.
I have a problem with surrogates and fertility treatments in general. But I suppose I just have a skewed view of these situations.
posted by goddam at 12:25 PM on October 16, 2002
natural != good
I don't know of anything that exists in the known universe that isn't natural. I have yet to observe anything supernatural. So yes natural does NOT equal good which seems obvious to me.
posted by McBain at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2002
I don't know of anything that exists in the known universe that isn't natural. I have yet to observe anything supernatural. So yes natural does NOT equal good which seems obvious to me.
posted by McBain at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2002
I think that's interesting, Dreama. (My parents are divorced, Mom remarried.) It makes sense that you might socialize with your son's mother-in-law and fall for them. Of course, if it happens the other way around, it's slightly more tricky. If I'm 25 or 35 and my parent remarries and I marry my step-sister that's one thing. If I'm 12 when I "get" a step sibling folks might look askance.
Doesn't matter to me, of course, but it's curious.
posted by Wood at 12:45 PM on October 16, 2002
Doesn't matter to me, of course, but it's curious.
posted by Wood at 12:45 PM on October 16, 2002
Maybe nature was trying to tell her something when she was born without a uterus.
There are all kinds of unnatural things that affect procreation today: condoms, birth control pills, abortions, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, gender selection, Fruit of the Loom... I fail to see why surrogacy would be maligned for being "unnatural" when so much about the process isn't exactly Adam shagging Eve bareback behind some shrubbery.
Then again, I'm a parent of three boys conceived through a harrowing mixture of obsessive timing, perfunctory gymnastics, and misguided folk beliefs about gender determination. So when I hear the word "natural" applied to the process, as if what I went through was somehow more decent and upright than this grandma surrogacy, I have to laugh. I love the militantly childfree, but you folks can be militantly cluefree when it comes to the realities of parenthood.
posted by rcade at 1:37 PM on October 16, 2002
There are all kinds of unnatural things that affect procreation today: condoms, birth control pills, abortions, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, gender selection, Fruit of the Loom... I fail to see why surrogacy would be maligned for being "unnatural" when so much about the process isn't exactly Adam shagging Eve bareback behind some shrubbery.
Then again, I'm a parent of three boys conceived through a harrowing mixture of obsessive timing, perfunctory gymnastics, and misguided folk beliefs about gender determination. So when I hear the word "natural" applied to the process, as if what I went through was somehow more decent and upright than this grandma surrogacy, I have to laugh. I love the militantly childfree, but you folks can be militantly cluefree when it comes to the realities of parenthood.
posted by rcade at 1:37 PM on October 16, 2002
When my parents adopted my brother they put in for another adoption right away. It took them 5 years for them to get me. Sure that was in the early 70s but I can't imagine the process being that much different today. So, yeah, part of me wishes they had stuck it out with trying to adopt.
Another adoptee here, who is now at the age where I have investigated adopting my own children (no, I am not infertile, just want to do what someone else did for me many years ago), and from what I have turned up, at least here in canada, is disheartining. Open adoptions are encouraged as being the best for the child and the birth parents, which I totally disagree with. It seems like the only closed adoptions you can get are special needs children. So the process here is very different from the closed, government adoption my parents had in the seventies, and quite frustrating (not to mention extremely expensive).
posted by chemgirl at 5:28 PM on October 16, 2002
Another adoptee here, who is now at the age where I have investigated adopting my own children (no, I am not infertile, just want to do what someone else did for me many years ago), and from what I have turned up, at least here in canada, is disheartining. Open adoptions are encouraged as being the best for the child and the birth parents, which I totally disagree with. It seems like the only closed adoptions you can get are special needs children. So the process here is very different from the closed, government adoption my parents had in the seventies, and quite frustrating (not to mention extremely expensive).
posted by chemgirl at 5:28 PM on October 16, 2002
chemgirl, are there private adoptions in Canada? My older brother adopted a kid through a lawyer (a closed adoption).....I'm hazy on the details, but I know it took quite a while, and was expensive....
this story shows the lengths (and surrogacy is relatively easy compared to years of fertility treatments and egg freezing, etc..) people will go to have a child that's at least partly or wholly from their egg and sperm...and that's the issue, i think--If it doesn't matter where a baby comes from as long as it's loved and has a home, and if getting pregnant and giving birth doesn't make a mother a mother, then why do so many people who can't normally have kids still go through hoops to have their own?
posted by amberglow at 6:22 PM on October 16, 2002
this story shows the lengths (and surrogacy is relatively easy compared to years of fertility treatments and egg freezing, etc..) people will go to have a child that's at least partly or wholly from their egg and sperm...and that's the issue, i think--If it doesn't matter where a baby comes from as long as it's loved and has a home, and if getting pregnant and giving birth doesn't make a mother a mother, then why do so many people who can't normally have kids still go through hoops to have their own?
posted by amberglow at 6:22 PM on October 16, 2002
If it doesn't matter where a baby comes from as long as it's loved and has a home, and if getting pregnant and giving birth doesn't make a mother a mother, then why do so many people who can't normally have kids still go through hoops to have their own?
One would assume because, to them, it does matter.
posted by rushmc at 8:08 PM on October 16, 2002
One would assume because, to them, it does matter.
posted by rushmc at 8:08 PM on October 16, 2002
Personally, I just love how skwm posted this, with little to no explanation why he found it wrong, and then hasn't deigned to contribute to the actual thread, but instead seems to be happy to let the rest of us debate it. Sorta trollish...
posted by delfuego at 11:39 PM on October 16, 2002
posted by delfuego at 11:39 PM on October 16, 2002
but rush, i'm wondering why though--is it cultural (that women especially are expected to be able to bear their own kids or be seen-either by society or themselves as even now somehow less than) or something else? is it just this social and internalized stigma, or ???
posted by amberglow at 5:45 AM on October 17, 2002
posted by amberglow at 5:45 AM on October 17, 2002
Maybe nature was trying to tell her something when she was born without a uterus.
If you're enough of a pagan (and I'm all for pagans) to believe that nature has clear intentions and a desire to communicate them, you should really capitalize "Nature" as the name of a deity.
Of course, if we follow this line of reasoning, we have to accept that Nature is a pretty tough dame to fathom as she seems to grant lots and lots of fertility to people who don't seem so well-equipped to handle it.
Also, Nature's not very consistent with this woman, is she? Surely, if she's powerful enough to keep her from having a uterus, she ought to be powerful enough to keep the IVF from working properly and to strike dead the woman who was blasphemous enough to take these demon spawn into her womb. But, hey, maybe Nature got bored or fell asleep.
To me it seems more likely that this woman being born without a uterus was a random event not involving supernatural intervention, but then faith is something of a mystery to me.
posted by anapestic at 7:10 AM on October 17, 2002
If you're enough of a pagan (and I'm all for pagans) to believe that nature has clear intentions and a desire to communicate them, you should really capitalize "Nature" as the name of a deity.
Of course, if we follow this line of reasoning, we have to accept that Nature is a pretty tough dame to fathom as she seems to grant lots and lots of fertility to people who don't seem so well-equipped to handle it.
Also, Nature's not very consistent with this woman, is she? Surely, if she's powerful enough to keep her from having a uterus, she ought to be powerful enough to keep the IVF from working properly and to strike dead the woman who was blasphemous enough to take these demon spawn into her womb. But, hey, maybe Nature got bored or fell asleep.
To me it seems more likely that this woman being born without a uterus was a random event not involving supernatural intervention, but then faith is something of a mystery to me.
posted by anapestic at 7:10 AM on October 17, 2002
but rush, i'm wondering why though--is it cultural (that women especially are expected to be able to bear their own kids or be seen-either by society or themselves as even now somehow less than) or something else?
I guess I don't see what the mystery is. We have evolved with (and largely because of) a strong compulsion to breed. While some of us can and do contain or overcome this compulsion, it remains a driving subconscious force in most people's lives, one that, for many, is simply not going to be appeased by raising other people's children.
posted by rushmc at 8:27 AM on October 17, 2002
I guess I don't see what the mystery is. We have evolved with (and largely because of) a strong compulsion to breed. While some of us can and do contain or overcome this compulsion, it remains a driving subconscious force in most people's lives, one that, for many, is simply not going to be appeased by raising other people's children.
posted by rushmc at 8:27 AM on October 17, 2002
I agree with everything you say there, anapestic.
but then faith is something of a mystery to me.
I find that thinking of it as delusion clears it up pretty well.
posted by rushmc at 8:29 AM on October 17, 2002
but then faith is something of a mystery to me.
I find that thinking of it as delusion clears it up pretty well.
posted by rushmc at 8:29 AM on October 17, 2002
There are even folks - can you imagine it? - who have no interest at all in creating children.
And even more strangely, sometimes they manage to convince people to marry them who *do* have a very strong interest in having children. Geez, I would hate to be stuck in a marriage like that.
(been there, done that, got divorced, finally)
And what's this about Nature telling people something by making them born without something? Does this mean we never help anyone overcome a birth defect, ever? Sounds like a pretty cruel, nasty world I wouldn't want to live in. Yeesh.
posted by beth at 8:21 PM on October 19, 2002
And even more strangely, sometimes they manage to convince people to marry them who *do* have a very strong interest in having children. Geez, I would hate to be stuck in a marriage like that.
(been there, done that, got divorced, finally)
And what's this about Nature telling people something by making them born without something? Does this mean we never help anyone overcome a birth defect, ever? Sounds like a pretty cruel, nasty world I wouldn't want to live in. Yeesh.
posted by beth at 8:21 PM on October 19, 2002
« Older Timehunt. | An Awkward Situation Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by B2x_USF at 8:18 AM on October 16, 2002