http://www.slate.com/id/2204451
I am a big fan of science and technology, and don't have a lot of qualms about using each to reduce suffering in ways that some would not consider. However, this just starts to seem ridiculous.
---
Good news: Another guy got his mother-in-law pregnant.
No, not that way. It's a surrogate pregnancy. The guy supplied the sperm, his wife supplied the egg, and her mother supplied the womb.
I'd better explain. The wife is on her second marriage. In her first marriage, she had two kids. Then she had a hysterectomy and a divorce. Then she married this guy. He wanted a kid. He had the sperm, she had the eggs. All they needed was a uterus.
Enter the mother-in-law.
No, not that kind of enter. It's IVF and surrogacy, except this time the surrogate is Grandma. Nobody in the triangle has to touch anybody else. Fertility doctors mix the eggs and sperm, then transfer the fertilized results to the uterus.
In this case, the results were triplets. Grandma's 56. Imagine giving birth to triplets at 56.
No, this isn't the first time a woman has carried her own grandkids. It isn't even the fourth. It isn't even the first case of triplets. Four years ago, a 55-year-old woman in Virginia did the same thing for her daughter, whose womb was diseased. Two years ago, a Japanese woman in her 50s bore a child this way. This year, another Japanese woman did it at age 61-the fourth such case at a single clinic in Japan. The latest birth-by-Grandma took place in Ohio. Reportedly, there are other cases; nobody seems to know how many.
Now, I like to think of myself as an open-minded guy. And I love my mother-in-law, really. How many guys can honestly say they love both their home-renovation contractor and their mother-in-law? I am truly blessed. Still, the thought of my mother-in-law carrying my child ... well, let's just say it hadn't occurred to me.
But now, here it is. Motherhood is splintering. You can have a genetic mother, a gestational mother, an adoptive mother, and God knows what else. When one of your moms is Grandma, it's even more confusing.
---
Don't miss Grandpa/Dad-Daughter-in-law! Continued at http://www.slate.com/id/2204451
I try to be very measured in my approach to life, to always doubt and question things, to be nervous in a way so my emotional bets are hedged. So naturally, despite polls showing President-elect Obama with a victory prior to today, I had to maintain my doubts and basically expect the worst, but hope for the best.
Now I can relax.
But can I? No, my nature isn't even allowing me to take a night off. I have a new nervousness - I'm worried about peoples' expectations. With so much excitement and jubilation regarding the election... but for the next year it will appear that nothing changes in our lives, or at least not significantly in a detectable and positive way. People may be disappointed. There might be scandals in his administration. There will of course be a likely nasty reelection campaign beginning in 3 years... Fighting in and with Congress. Stupid bills that pass because of bloat. ...
But, President-elect Obama is a thoughtful, competent, and immensely intelligent man and he's becoming the most powerful person in the world. Sure, he could get screwed by circumstance and be unable to effectively lead, maybe because the economy fully collapses despite his best efforts or whatever junk goes down in Congress... but these are silly abstract things that don't deserve my concern. The man I want for the job won, and I'm taking the day off of being concerned about politics, hell, maybe I'll take the next year off...
I had a point I wanted to make though before my emotion jib-jab began. it is that President-elect Obama may inevitably let a large number of people down, simply because their expectation could be too high. However, he will be leading wisely and making prudent decisions and generally being a great President--regardless of whether we can even tell.
PS. It sure felt could to go back and change all my "Obama" referrences to "President-elect Obama". Haha...
I found this quite humorous. Not appropriate for work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDnKh1PgjU
often we complain about politicians - "they pander too much" "why can't they just stop talking like robots?" "why don't they answer the question?!" etc etc
but at this moment i was thinking to myself how amazing they are to slog through so much media attention, so many speaches, so many questions and interviews, and for so incredibly long. and what if they were to get a cold? what if they got nervous one night and couldn't sleep? and the next day, had a terrible headache but had to go through the whole day greeting people, smiling, acting "normal" but in reality just doping up on advil and wishing the pain would stop. particularly i find them not getting sick amazing (or very rarely at least, i guess i have heard of it)- obviously, they can't get sick, it would be a sign of weakness (could be completely disasterous for McCain because of his age and the questions about his health it would raise) yet they're flying around the country day in and day out, shaking people's hands, having people cough in their faces, yet if they said, "oh i'm feeling under the weather and will stay home from work today", all of a sudden they could drop percentage points in the elecion... think about what happens to bands and musician's when they get swarmed with attention? they go crazy, get on drugs... yet our politicians continue look, at worst, robotic and evasive, with just the occasional gaffe or two. pretty amazing really.
well, except for the case of palin. she just looked like an idiot.
by James Surowiecki
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/08/11/080811ta_talk_surowiecki
Interesting discussion about the "anticommons" (the opposite of tragedy of the commons). I feel this has been becomming a more serious threat to efficiency, innovation and technology in the United States than perhaps anything else.
first paragraph, but read the rest at the link!
"
In the second decade of the twentieth century, it was almost impossible to build an airplane in the United States. That was the result of a chaotic legal battle among the dozens of companies—including one owned by Orville Wright—that held patents on the various components that made a plane go. No one could manufacture aircraft without fear of being hauled into court. The First World War got the industry started again, because Congress realized that something needed to be done to get planes in the air. It created a “patent pool,” putting all the aircraft patents under the control of a new association and letting manufacturers license them for a fee. Had Congress not stepped in, we might still be flying around in blimps.
"
What if the guys own mother was the surrogate? I guess they don't broach on that cause it sounds like the guy knocked up his own mom, instead of his mother-in-law, which sounds less revolting cause atleast they are not blood related. I'm just shocked at 50 and 60 year old women having babies!!
I don't oppose IVF/ surrogate pregnancies on moral issues related to the treatment of embryos, but I do take issue with the arrogance that people have about their stupid DNA. It's way over-rated. I wish people would give more thought to adopting children who need good homes, rather than wasting so much money on reproducing their genes by such manipulative means.
Deborah: you took the words out of my mouth.
Agreed.
Crystal, from a genetic standpoint, the mother's fertilized egg would not find her MIL's uterus as hospitable as her own mother's. RH factors matter quite a bit, and women of the same family are more likely to have compatibile RH factors so that the environment won't start attacking the fetus. The guy's own mother would be a surrogate if only a woman in his maternal family were to supply the egg, but then the fetus would be inbred.
I also think it is a really selfish idea to ask your menopausal mother (or MIL) to be a surrogate. Why on earth would you want to put all of these physical risks on her and the fetus when she should just have a smooth-as-possible aging process and the fetus should have a smooth-as-possible gestation?
And yes, I think more programs should be out there for people to consider foster care and adoption without discrimination based on religious beliefs, ethnicity, and sexuality.
i dont think these people should be allowed any personal freedoms. can we lock them up in guantanamo please?
Not if it closes as Obama wants.
I've always been really passionate about adoption (the aunt I'm closest to was adopted) and have always hoped to have the resources to have a non-gentically-related kid or two.
I was reading this webzine article on the subject a few years ago from a religious perspective that pointed out that if Christians picked one out of every six churches, then picked one couple from that church to adopt, every child released to be adopted in the US would be taken care of. The article was pointing out how easy that would be and how apt, since the New Testament we "follow" points out that "true religion" is taking care of widows and orphans. Having read that in addition to my personal convictions, I was so happy that family friends of ours adopted two adorable elementary-aged girls this last summer. They don't have much money, but those girls are so happy and SO much better off than in their previous situation. How beautiful to get to see them grow up loved by some of the best people I can think of in this whole world. They're so happy. (Parents and girls alike.)