Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Michael van der Galien

Technically, they are not her children. They are someone else’s children that she has had implanted into her uterus.

Pregnancy for an older woman is quite risky. Not to mention the fact that life expectancy is around 77 years or so, meaning that it is highly unlikely that she will see those children reach adulthood. Is there some arrangement for the children’s biological mother to step in and assume their care at that point?


2 posted on 04/12/2015 8:07:07 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: exDemMom

Well she is expecting the State to step in and support her and those children, because somehow I doubt she is independently wealthy or has a full time high paying job to step into. So I am going to go with amazingly extremely egotistical or one full bubble off plumb.


15 posted on 04/12/2015 8:45:41 AM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: exDemMom

I think it’s wrong. But on the other hand, maybe she had her own children who refused to have children of their own (a common situation in Europe), or grandchildren for some reason could not come in the normal way. So I guess she decided to have her own.

Somebody else may have to bring them up, but at the age of 65, barring accident, she’ll probably live to see them grow up.

It’s wrong and I don’t think it should be happening...but so many things are wrong now that this almost seems like a positive thing, because at least she’s encouraging life.


16 posted on 04/12/2015 8:49:49 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson