Cancer-stricken wife keeps Edwards on the campaign trail (Somebody's gotta do it)

The Times ^ | March 27, 2007 | Tom Baldwin in Washington

[Gumdrop]

OK, I know this is not my business, but the subject of the children keeps coming up. Also, the notion that they were adopted, which I know is false.

But, biologically something is out of sync here. Elizabeth Edwards is 57 years old. She had these two children at the advanced ages of 49 and 51 years. I know and understand how a woman can carry a child at that age with the help of hormone injections to prepare the womb and also the probability of in vitro fertilization. The question I have is: are these children the result of Elizabeth's eggs/ovum or were they donated by a younger fertile woman? That is the big question. Although it's none of our concern, I do wonder whether women who are 49-51 years can produce healthy ovum. Can this be possible? I am really curious about this.

Again, it is just a biological question. I am not judging their decision to have more children after losing their 15-year old son in 1995.

[Yaelle]

How the Edwards children were conceived is not important. Whether the parents, after such a devastating loss, chose to adopt or use donor eggs does not matter. There is nothing wrong with older couples choosing to raise children if they can provide for them.

The question that needs to be discussed here instead of gossip about how they were conceived is: Are the kids being thrown to the wolves now by this campaign while their mother struggles for her life? And is Edwards doing the right thing for the country while doing the wrong thing for his precious children?

[Patriotic Bostonian]

I realize you don't give a damn about these kids. Edwards and his stepford wife should be nominated for parents of the year. Your remarks are disgusting also.

[Qwertrew]

:)))

[Dante3]

Unless he doesn't really love her but found her a nice prop for his ambitions. I am truly hoping for the best for her, but his actions fail to impress me.