Posted on 06/10/2011 11:33:24 AM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
Moms give birth to sons or daughters - pretty straightforward stuff. But when one English toddler grows up and starts a family, her child will be her own half-sibling.
At least that's the plan.
The toddler, two-year-old Mackenzie Stephens, was born without ovaries, so her 25-year-old mother, Penny Jarvis, intends to freeze her own eggs so that Mackenzie can use them someday to start her own family, the Daily Mail reported.
Jarvis, of Sheffield, England, told the paper she was devastated when she learned that Mackenzie would be infertile - the result of Turner Syndrome, a female-only genetic disorder that affects about one in 2,000 girls.
"She has three sisters and I couldn't imagine her growing up and watching them all have children while she couldn't have any of her own," Jarvis said. "Obviously, every mother wants to be a grandmother someday - that's what they dream of."
Jarvis said she read up on Mackenzie's condition and discovered that egg donation was a possibility.
But not everyone thinks the plan is such a great idea. Some medical ethicists say it could cause psychological problems for the mother - in this case Mackenzie - and leave her child confused about the relationship with her mother and grandmother.
"One can fully understand the sadness for a mother to discover that her little daughter suffers from Turner Syndrome, but I do not think putting her own eggs in the freezer is either a practical or an ethical solution," Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, told the paper. "Psychologists are already talking about the trauma of genealogical bewilderment, as egg and sperm donation and surrogacy create more and more artificial conceptions."
As for Jarvis, she seems unconcerned.
"A few people have told me they think it's a bit sick, but on the whole people have been supportive," she told the paper. "You could look at it as Mackenzie giving birth to her own brother or sister, but I choose not to see it like that."
Whatever you say, Mom. Or is it Grandma?
I’m sure all of the bureaucrats at Obama’s new Ministry of Health and Truth would agree with you.
Infertility isn’t necessarily related to a genetic problem. Often it’s just related to a woman’s advanced age. Though it sounds like this Turner Syndrome carries a host of other issues.
“To me the possible confusion of the child growing up is minor to the issue of the risk of lives.”
My major objection is not the confusion for the child about the artificiality of their birth and whose a “parent” and who is not.
I just think the motivations for the use of many artificial pregnancy means are simply selfish and, in addition, ignore the millions of orphan children already born whose already existent lives can be continually hurt or vastly improved, if only they could be adopted. By those two measures, I question the “self-interest” of the choice to use certain artificial pregnancy means instead of adopting. That’s just me and I understand others rationally disagree.
Well, that’s your argument.
My sentiments are that she should adopt, period. I know others can reasonably disagree. I always seem to question whether or not people who use extreme artificial means to achieve a pregnancy are operating out of the best motivations, or are simply selfish.
One could easily apply that logic to natural pregnancy. There will always be more orphans in the world than there are families to adopt them. In this country if you include children in need of foster care the numbers are ridiculous.
All procreation is in some way a selfish act; a desire to continue your family line in to the future beyond yourself.
It is the most natural thing in the world this desire or need to procreate. I think it is unfair to tell a person with the means to seek technological assistance to conceive that they are selfish in doing so.
If a person opens their heart and their home to an orphan I applaud them however I would not fault someone from do whatever they want with their money if they instead seek to have a child by artificial means.
But in this case, unless technology changes the outlook, it would likely be to risky for this individual to carry a baby.
I thought Mom was making a gift to her daughter of eggs should she need them in the future. If she were to choose the surrugate route she will already have the donor eggs (reducing the cost of the process), and some familial connection. Sounds like her siblings are too young to do this for her now.
Although if the condition is hereditary and not spontaneous, perhaps she should seek out unrelated eggs.
And to the other poster, my kids have my husband’s last name, not mine. Not all women change their last names upon marriage. Wasn’t a political statement, just wasn’t interested in doing it.
Yes, many married women do keep their maiden names or at least do so in professional dealings. I just noticed there was no mention of a father in the article.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
There is so much wrong here I can't begin. A perfect illustration of what happens when society divorces "procreation" from "normal family" and "Mother Nature". And divorces "sex" from "lifelong marriage". Just because Science CAN do something doesn't mean it's right or moral to do so. Science and technology when not guided by moral principles (real moral principles, not whatever people think up in their minds), leads to - well, the kinds of headlines we see very often. Any human endeavor when not guided by moral principles leads to destruction and evil. That's why God has given us moral principles to use as our guiding light.
I will be taking a leave of absence from pinging for a while. I love you all.
I will pray that when this little girl grows up she ignores those eggs and is as horrified as we are at the prospect of using them.
I know what you say and I know your view is rational. I respect your opinion, while I humbly disagree with it, FOR MYSELF, as in MY VIEW AND MY VIEW ALONE, the best unselfish and moral choice. To each his/her own.
You two are the only ones on this thread that I agree with so far.
The mother is giving a gift to her child. If I were able and if it were necessary, I’d do the same thing for my daughter. And I’d give the gift selflessly and completely. The daughter has a choice whether or not to accept the gift when she’s an adult. She may choose not to, but she may be happy that she has the option.
In the end, I don’t think that it’s any of my business what these people do to procreate. And i certainty don’t think that it’s “sick” any more than it’s “sick” for one sister to donate eggs to another.
A couple of months ago, my own daughter suffered a horrible miscarriage. At the time, there were fears that she’d not be able to have her own children. This is a young woman who’s wanted nothing more than to have babies. To be a mom. At the time, her aunt told her that she’d donate if necessary. It turns out that it probably won’t be, but it was a serious comfort to my daughter to know that she had options and lessened her fear and pain considerably. (I’d have volunteered myself, but it’s physically not possible.)
I never understood why many pro-family FReepers who love life so much are so negative to good people who want to make babies. And what about liberty? The freedom to choose how to live one’s own life?
I agree with you. I wish the best for your daughter.
If there’s no ovaries, there’s no female cycle, no lining for the egg to implant to.
How do they expect an pregnancy to *take* in that case?
Hormone therapy and progesterone shots will thicken the lining of the uterus and make it hospitable for implantation via artificial insemination or IVF. Or, she’ll have one of her sisters be the surrogate.
If she can’t have her own because of this condition, I don’t see the point of trying.
There is nothing so special about being pregnant that it’s worth going through that to have someone else’s baby.
Son, I’m putting my balls on ice in case you need them in the future.
infertile - the result of Turner Syndromeand infertility is the least of this child's future problems.
as a Catholic, I oppose IVF, but actually, the mom is performing an act of charity for her daughter here.
Of course, whether or not the eggs will be viable in 20 years is another question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.