Posted on 10/31/2004 7:46:57 PM PST by The Loan Arranger
All signs point to yes.
During the past several months, the image has flickered into our homes with increasing regularity: Following the end of a campaign-trail speech, little Emma Claire Edwards, 6, and Jack Edwards, 4—both blond and cherubic—joyfully run up to the stage where their dad, Sen. John Edwards, 51, scoops them into his arms. Standing nearby beaming, always, is Elizabeth Edwards, 55.
Do the math, and it's not hard to figure out that Edwards gave birth to Emma Claire at age 48 and Jack at 50. And yet if Edwards used her own eggs, this is all but impossible—a woman's ovaries completely stop producing viable eggs by age 45 in all but a tiny percentage of women.
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.slate.msn.com ...
I think this topic should be out of bounds. We shouldn't be criticizing someone for wanting to have children.
What difference does it make? They are HER children now.
I am an adoptive mom and my son is MY SON. It doesn't matter how he joined our family he IS family.
Donor eggs? It's the donor sperm that's more likely.
at Dennys, the Elizaphant is known as "Miss Grand Slam"
Ugh. This is just too gross.
Johnny runs for Senate and buys a new family for political momentum.
LOL
The story about how Jack and Emma came to be conceived is their story, and a story to be shared only with them and only by their parents- not fodder for speculation and politicization.
No argument from me. There are a thousand other things we can criticize the Edwards about.
Those hormone and fertilization treatments may have had something to do with her appearance.
That, and the fact that her body may be going through menopause on top of it should have given her pause. I wouldn't risk it for anything.
I agree, this is none of our business.
Her children, regardless of how classlessly her husband outs the Cheney daughter, are off-limits. It's a double-standard but the Dems would be the first to impose it. Furthermore, as a person who has lost a child, she is afforded a license of familial privacy that is sacred. Any comment about her family in any way would make her a martyr, and martyrdom is one thing we don't want to give them.
This is not our business and nor do I want it to be.
> Of course, there are personal considerations that may loom much larger than politics. Infertility is a tremendously painful experience and many who have suffered from it don't talk about it with anyone—sometimes not even family members or close confidants. Then, too, for most parents, the privacy of the children is of utmost importance. The Edwardses, if they did use donor eggs, may or may not plan to tell their children
Remarkable hypocrisyy. Ms. Edwards publicly opines that the Cheneys might be ashamed of their lesbian daughter, yet they keep the egg donation issue off the table to protect their own kids?
Or is this just more political calculation from the Party of cynicism, knowing this issue would be explosive among Evangelicals and serious RCs?
Although I agree there is no need to slam the family and how they chose to have children - you'd have to take it up with Slate.com for publishing the story at this time.
Well, only about 25% of IVF patients end up with any leftover embryos to freeze.
So I'd say it's very likely she has none frozen.
Maybe there *are* some things even lawyers won't do.
>>I think this topic should be out of bounds. We shouldn't be criticizing someone for wanting to have children.
I agree. It's a personal family issue and I don't believe that it behooves us to pick on her over it.
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.