Icono Clast
Abortion, Marriage, and State's Rights; Artificial Insemination of the Aged
Send me a note.
Two Questions for McCain/Palin [In 2008]
and Mitt Romney [via FaceBook in 2011]
ABORTION and States' Rights
M cCain/Palin has said it believes the legality of a
medical procedure, the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, should be the decision of each State. Suppose, McCain/Palin, that only Alaska and Hawai'i legalized such procedures.What words of wisdom do you have for the matronly minimum wage couple in Miami for the mandatory motherhood your policy would impose?
M cCain/Palin has expressed the belief that, whether The State's business is whom you choose to marry should be the decision of each state, i.e., a same-sex couple could be legally married in one state and prosecuted for committing “crimes against nature” in another. I found one political entity recommending a “Yes” vote on a proposition dictating the gender mix of marriages.
Do you support the Republican Party of
California's position on that issue?
California's position on that issue?
Preceding two posted to UseNet Groups rec.arts.dance, rec.travel.usa-canada, ca.politics, alt.politics.democrat, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.california, alt.politics.bush, soc.culture.usa, and alt.abortion on October 25, 2008
T he media of communication are rife with reports of old birth-givers. Glowing comments surround these medical tricks that might have some lofty purpose that I cannot perceive.
In none of the reports to which I've given attention is any consideration given to the victims of these births, those tragic children whose parents, if alive when they get to school, will be an embarrassment even if they're well- and mobile-enough to participate with normal parents.
I see these self-centered, inconsiderate, selfish old orphan-creatresses as among the saddest, most self-deceived, egotistical, and needy of creatures. We should turn our backs to them with contempt rather than face them with praise. Their trickster “doctors” are even worse because, above all, what they're doing to those poor creatures is in violation of the first law of their profession.
The only case of which I know that fails to fill me with profound sadness for the unfortunate child is of a 60-ish woman who bore a child for her infertile daughter. Perhaps her ulterior motive was to become a grandmother but at least there was an altruistic façade.
Anyone in, or beyond, the fourth decade of life should very seriously consider the consequences for their offspring when discussing becoming parents at such an advanced age. The sociological, psychological, and physical well-being and compatibility with children 30 years younger than a parent are significantly different from those factors with children 20 years younger than a parent.
I implore the medical profession to accept the fact that it can perform this senseless trick. Isn't it enough that it's been proved possible? Must it continue to contribute to the births of babies who are all but guaranteed to be orphaned decades earlier than normal?
If it isn't enough to accept that it can be done without doing it again, I would like to see some sound reasoning why children should be intentionally burdened with parents so ancient that they're more likely to be care-takers for, rather than being taken care of by, their parents. So far, I’ve seen nary a word.