37 Pound California Woman Gives Birth To Healthy Son

[LyLMyssChaos]

I think that this woman should get major kudos!

TULARE, Calif. (AP) - A California woman who weighs 37 pounds, stands three feet tall and uses a wheelchair has given birth to her first child.



Rest of the Story (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/oddities/story.html?id=49c22e0d-2e98-4962-96f9-937c9a1aec5f&k=26904)

[AirForceLove]

Wow! :eek: :eek:

[jp'swife]

Oh my!! :eek:
WOW!

[LyLMyssChaos]

That is EXACTLY what I thought! I tell you, that is some determination. I can bet you that child is going to know more love than he ever thought possible. I think it's really great to see stories like this, where people who really and truly want a child can finally experience it. :D

[Lizard]

There are some pictures of the baby and the family here (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/6903228/detail.html?rss=dgo&psp=news). He is a little cutie pie!

[jp'swife]

Soooo cute!
God bless that family. What a miracle.

[nic]

Wow, that's amazing.

[allyray231]

I saw a video on her-what an amazing story.

[amygrrl]

blah

[lawyerlee]

I'm so glad things worked out okay for mom and baby! :)

[greenbunny]

While it's wonderful that her baby is healthy, I have to question how responsible it was to attempt multiple pregnancies knowing there was a risk of passing on such a horrific disease.

[ejs]

She had had two prior miscarriages and it was determined early in her pregnancy that her child did not inherit her disease.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/10/BAGDKH60DN1.DTL

[greenbunny]

I know. I read several articles about her.

[Bella Mama]

thats wonderful

[Delta]

While it's wonderful that her baby is healthy, I have to question how responsible it was to attempt multiple pregnancies knowing there was a risk of passing on such a horrific disease.She seems to be OK with it, so I don't see why she should be denied children because some people don't think her life is worth living with such a 'horrific disease.'

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

She seems to be OK with it, so I don't see why she should be denied children because some people don't think her life is worth living with such a 'horrific disease.'
Greenbunny didn't say she should be denied children. Just that she wondered how responsible it was to have them.

[amygrrl]

Just that she wondered how responsible it was to have them.

this is a tough call. is it the fact that the baby could have had her disease that makes it potentially irresponsible to reproduce? if so, there's an implication in the statement that the life of someone with that disease isn't worth living. i would venture to guess that she and the other people with the disease would strongly disagree with that statement... as would lots of other people born with 'horrific' diseases.

however, knowing her dr's i would venture to guess that they did the very responsible things all along. she had early genetic testing for the disease. and who can say but her and her dr. what she would have done had the test come back positive for an abnormality. but lots of healthy couples have early genetic testing and get abnormal results and are faced with the decision of what to do every day. there's nothing so unusual about that. some of those women decide to continue their pregnancies and some decide to terminate. that's a very personal choice and i think you could make arguements on either side about what the most 'responsible' thing to do is.

of course, that genetic testing, likely cvs, can't be done until about 10 wks or so i think. who knows why or when she had the previous m/c's. perhaps the scenerio is that she wanted a child and was working with stanford to do early genetic counseling and testing for the disease and simply had 2 m/c's prior to available testing or 2 m/c's of genetically normal babies for unknown reasons. i don't see how that's being irresponsible. lots of healthy women have m/c's and lots of healthy women have multiple miscarriages and yet they continue to try. dr's will tell you that most miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities. does that make these women irresponsible?

[Delta]

this is a tough call. is it the fact that the baby could have had her disease that makes it potentially irresponsible to reproduce? if so, there's an implication in the statement that the life of someone with that disease isn't worth living. i would venture to guess that she and the other people with the disease would strongly disagree with that statement... as would lots of other people born with 'horrific' diseases.
Exactly what I was trying to say.

[morningdew]

While it's wonderful that her baby is healthy, I have to question how responsible it was to attempt multiple pregnancies knowing there was a risk of passing on such a horrific disease.
Luckily, you don't find yourself in the position of living with a "horrific disease". I guarantee you that the choices are not quite so clear.

[looch]

Why shouldn't she be able to have children? Is she incapable of loving a child? And I bet she would be more accepting of a child born with disabilites than a person without "horrific" diseases. Which brings me to this point, what exactly is a horrific disease?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Nobody said she shouldn't be able to have a child.

[Delta]

You are missing the point.I have to question how responsible it was to attempt multiple pregnancies knowing there was a risk of passing on such a horrific disease.
She is questioning the 'responsibility' of having children who may inherit that parent's 'horrific disease.'

1) Who is anyone else to judge whether anyone else's life is worth living simply because that person has a 'horrific disease'? Considering the parent here has this 'horrific disease' it seems that she would be the best person to judge that, and she and her husband both have apparently decided that life is worth living even with her 'horrific disease.'

2) What exactly would define a 'horrific disease.'?

[looch]

Yeah, well no one wants to say it, but I would be willing to bet some people are thinking it. Otherwise, why would the responsibility of it come into question?

Delta, you have very well articulated what I was attempting to say in my previous post.

[PinkMartini]

Yeah, well no one wants to say it, but I would be willing to bet some people are thinking it. Otherwise, why would the responsibility of it come into question?

ICAM!

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

You are missing the point.
She is questioning the 'responsibility' of having children who may inherit that parent's 'horrific disease.'

1) Who is anyone else to judge whether anyone else's life is worth living simply because that person has a 'horrific disease'? Considering the parent here has this 'horrific disease' it seems that she would be the best person to judge that, and she and her husband both have apparently decided that life is worth living even with her 'horrific disease.'

2) What exactly would define a 'horrific disease.'?
No, I understand what she's saying. I'm not commenting on that one way or the other. I'm just saying she's not suggesting that the woman not be allowed to have children. She's just saying she wonders whether the decision was the wisest. There's a big difference.

[amygrrl]

She's just saying she wonders whether the decision was the wisest.

so given that the women pretested very early for genetic abnormalities and we have no idea if she would or wouldn't have terminited based on a bad result and we don't know when she miscarried or why... what about her decision would be unwise? is it the fact that she's *trying* reproduce with a known genetic disorder? or is it the fact that she wants to parent while she has a genetic disorder?

if you are calling into question whether or not a decision is wise, then there is an implication that you think it isn't... otherwise, you wouldn't call the decision into question in the first place. and if you do think it's unwise to for her to attempt to reproduce, then you are absolutely making a judgement call about her quality of life and/ or the quality of life of her child.

ETA: questioning anyone's choices in reproducing is a SUPER slippery slope and one that if pursued, we'd likely all find ourselves on at some point. perhaps it's not *wise* for me to reproduce b/c heart disease runs in my family or someone else shouldn't b/c they have epilepsy or diabetes, or carry a gene for 1 of a thousand different genetic disorders. it's easy to see slide from there to... it's not wise b/c someone is predisposed to being overweight or have really bad eye sight or isn't intellectually gifted. all of these things are genetics that we pass along to our children which result in life being more difficult.

[flygirl]

this is a tough call. is it the fact that the baby could have had her disease that makes it potentially irresponsible to reproduce? if so, there's an implication in the statement that the life of someone with that disease isn't worth living. i would venture to guess that she and the other people with the disease would strongly disagree with that statement... as would lots of other people born with 'horrific' diseases.
I've had many people get in my face about having children and possibly passing along a "horrific" disease (and there's no question about it; it's horrific). I struggle with this thought every single day, and it's easy to forget the counter-argument of, who are they to question the validity of a human life? Thank you for bringing this up. It makes me so sad & frustrated when people expect me to sacrifice a major part of my life because they can't stand the idea of sick people reproducing :rolleyes:.

[looch]

I don't even know what to say in this thread anymore. Who are we to judge?

[mamahammer]

I'd think that the woman living with the"horrific" disease would be the best person to determine whether or not life is worth living with the disease. I'd imagine that if her life was really that bad, she wouldn't have desired to bring a child into the world who might potentially suffer the same fate.

Knowing now that my own son is autistic and potentially has a complicating genetic disease, would you say it is/would be irresponsible of me to have another child? Because they might have the same impairments?

[Delta]

I'm just saying she's not suggesting that the woman not be allowed to have children.Inherent in her suggestion that it was irresponsible is the notion that perhaps she shouldn't have had children at all. That was my point. Perhaps my first statement should have been more clear, but I've clarified it 3 times now.

[looch]

We're all just talking to ourselves at this point.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Nothing like reading waaay into someone's statement.
I'm not saying anything about this woman's decision. All I said is that by no means did greenbunny say she shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

We're all just talking to ourselves at this point.
That's very true.

[greenbunny]

Luckily, you don't find yourself in the position of living with a "horrific disease".

And you know this...how?

DH and I struggled for a long time to decide whether it would be wise to have children, in fact due to a horrific disease in his family our child would stand to inherit. The disease is not in my own genes, but it would likely be passed on to my child.

As far as everyone else assuming I was implying a lack of worth in life for her child should it inherit her disabilities...um, no. My POV was more for her perspective as a parent, not the possibility of passing on the disease (though that is a good point, to those who made it).

As the wife of someone who grew up with a parent suffering from a terribly debilitating and fatal disease, I have seen how DH was so deeply and negatively affected by it. Since our early teens, I have watched her disease tear apart their family. In fact, BIL's mental problems were most likely caused by growing up the way they did. I have seen how having a terribly ill parent causes a variety of problems in the children, and I was expressing concern that her child may suffer in a similar fashion.

[mamahammer]

As the wife of someone who grew up with a parent suffering from a terribly debilitating and fatal disease, I have seen how DH was so deeply and negatively affected by it. Since our early teens, I have watched her disease tear apart their family. In fact, BIL's mental problems were most likely caused by growing up the way they did. I have seen how having a terribly ill parent causes a variety of problems in the children, and I was expressing concern that her child may suffer in a similar fashion.

I'm really sorry that your husband's childhood was so negatively affected. Seriously. And I can see how that might happen to some children. I'd pose to you, though, that the opposite could be true, as well. That growing up with someone who is living through a debilitating disease will give some children a sense of empathy, strength, caring and unconditional love than they would have known with a "healthy" parent. That it might serve as the catalyst for charity work, medical research, or a career in human services. And that some parents who are parenting with these diseases have a greater appreciation for the gifts that are their children than others.

I'd pose that, as in any other circumstances, their are good parents and their are bad parents (not to say that your DH's mom was a bad parent - I know nothing more than what you have said of them). And good parents will be good parents with or without complicating diseases. And bad parents will likely be bad parents with or without complicating diseases. The disease will either compliment who they are as a parent or exacerbate who they are. But it doesn't <i>cause</i> one to be a bad parent.

[greenbunny]

I'd pose that, as in any other circumstances, their are good parents and their are bad parents (not to say that your DH's mom was a bad parent - I know nothing more than what you have said of them). And good parents will be good parents with or without complicating diseases. And bad parents will likely be bad parents with or without complicating diseases. The disease will either compliment who they are as a parent or exacerbate who they are. But it doesn't <i>cause</i> one to be a bad parent.

I can see what you mean, but I have to respectfully disagree, at least within my own personal example. For years, DH has lamented that he wished I could have met his mother before her disease went out of remission, because he said she was a totally different person. The pain and the drugs made her lose her short-term memory, she was often incoherent, and she had a very short temper. Yet that wasn't truly who she was, it was the illness. So unfortunately having a severe illness can change a person for the worse.

[amygrrl]

I can see what you mean, but I have to respectfully disagree, at least within my own personal example. For years, DH has lamented that he wished I could have met his mother before her disease went out of remission, because he said she was a totally different person. The pain and the drugs made her lose her short-term memory, she was often incoherent, and she had a very short temper. Yet that wasn't truly who she was, it was the illness. So unfortunately having a severe illness can change a person for the worse.

it's unfortunate that this happened... but i still don't see how this translates into don't have kids. certainly, in your case, as rough as it's been, you and your husband are grateful that your mom did choose to have him, right? because the alternative you are suggesting is that perhaps it would have been a better decision on her part if she hadn't.

[greenbunny]

it's unfortunate that this happened... but i still don't see how this translates into don't have kids. certainly, in your case, as rough as it's been, you and your husband are grateful that your mom did choose to have him, right? because the alternative you are suggesting is that perhaps it would have been a better decision on her part if she hadn't.

Maybe it would have been better, I don't know. That's not my decision to call, it wasn't my parent. I'm fairly sure BIL feels that way, given the number of times he's threatened suicide.

And anyway, how would I know any better if he didn't exist? That argument really doesn't make any sense.

Besides, I never said "don't have kids", as several posters have pointed out. lawyerlee makes an excellent point, below. I fear I am becoming too emotional to speak clearly.

[lawyerlee]

it's unfortunate that this happened... but i still don't see how this translates into don't have kids. certainly, in your case, as rough as it's been, you and your husband are grateful that your mom did choose to have him, right? because the alternative you are suggesting is that perhaps it would have been a better decision on her part if she hadn't.
I don't think that is the suggestion at all. If I can be so bold as to try to speak for greenbunny, I think her DH probably hates the idea of ever seeing someone suffer that way again or making his children see him suffer that way, should he develop the disease. I suffer from a chronic illness. Thankfully, it is not terminal, but sometimes I wonder if it is the right decision for me to have children knowing that they will have this disease, too. I can easily understand seeing someone suffer and wanting to do everything in your power to never go through that again.

[morningdew]

And you know this...how?

DH and I struggled for a long time to decide whether it would be wise to have children, in fact due to a horrific disease in his family our child would stand to inherit. The disease is not in my own genes, but it would likely be passed on to my child.

As far as everyone else assuming I was implying a lack of worth in life for her child should it inherit her disabilities...um, no. My POV was more for her perspective as a parent, not the possibility of passing on the disease (though that is a good point, to those who made it).

As the wife of someone who grew up with a parent suffering from a terribly debilitating and fatal disease, I have seen how DH was so deeply and negatively affected by it. Since our early teens, I have watched her disease tear apart their family. In fact, BIL's mental problems were most likely caused by growing up the way they did. I have seen how having a terribly ill parent causes a variety of problems in the children, and I was expressing concern that her child may suffer in a similar fashion.

I apologize if I wrongfully assumed that you weren't in a similar position to the woman in the article. My sympathies to your family for what it has endured.

I would think, however, that being in that position would help you to see that the only opinions that really matter here are the opinions of the parents. It isn't for anyone else to stand outside and question their responsibility when no one else has to deal with the repercussions. I don't mean to pour salt on the wound, but it surprises me that someone who has dealt with the heartwrenching choices surrounding this issue can stand on the sidelines and question another parents' decision.

[chefker]

I would think, however, that being in that position would help you to see that the only opinions that really matter here are the opinions of the parents.


Well of course. I don't think anyone's inferred otherwise.

Honestly, I wrestled with whether or not to have children myself, due to a less than stellar medical history on both sides of the family. And while neither DH or I have a history of Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta (like the woman in the article), in either of our families, it's still a genetic crapshoot given the diseases that do run in our families.

If I had Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta, I would probably choose to adopt rather than have my own biological children. To each his own...if this woman did consult with a genetic counselor before conceiving (it sounds like she did), that shows some degree of responsibility before choosing to have children, IMO.

I find it interesting that many people (in general), think it is a person's RIGHT to procreate. I feel it is more of a PRIVILEGE than a right.

[looch]

I find it interesting that many people (in general), think it is a person's RIGHT to procreate. I feel it is more of a PRIVILEGE than a right.

By privelege do you mean a special advantage given to a specific class of people? How does one get this privilege?

[karlatta]

If I had Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta, I would probably choose to adopt rather than have my own biological children. To each his own.

It's fine that you (and others) would choose to adopt, but sadly, the reality is that even if a couple chooses to adopt, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will be permitted to adopt. In the United States, many adoptions are open adoptions, where the birthparents choose the couple that will adopt their baby. It's unfortunate, but I can imagine that many birthparents would shy away from selecting adoptive parents with a condition such as Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta. (Please note that I am not saying that I would not select an adoptive mother with Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta, but that from what I've seen through my friends' experiences with adoption, it wouldn't surprise me to see birthparents choose not to place their children with parents with conditions such as this.)

For international adoption, the different countries have different health standards that the adoptive parents must meet. I don't know how Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta would be viewed, as I've never looked into it (because I don't have any sort of debilitating health problems), but again, I could see it being a limiting factor for adoption.

I say this because, even if parents such as these two would choose to adopt rather than have a biological child, we should be aware that it might not even be a possibility. Should these (theoretical) parents then be denied the opportunity to be parents?

[lawyerlee]

By privelege[sic] do you mean a special advantage given to a specific class of people? How does one get this privilege?
She neither said, nor implied that she advocated making parenthood a legal privilege. :rolleyes: Why would you leap to such an insulting assumption? I happen to agree wholeheartedly with chefker that some people think they are morally entitled to become parents, regardless of the selfishness of that decision. Becoming a parent is a big deal and a decision that shouldn't be taken lightly. Personally, I have a lot of respect for people who consider the potential genetic ramifications of their decision to procreate. It must be very difficult to come to the conclusion that it is best for you and your spouse not to have biological children because of a genetic risk.

[greenbunny]

I apologize if I wrongfully assumed that you weren't in a similar position to the woman in the article. My sympathies to your family for what it has endured.

I would think, however, that being in that position would help you to see that the only opinions that really matter here are the opinions of the parents. It isn't for anyone else to stand outside and question their responsibility when no one else has to deal with the repercussions. I don't mean to pour salt on the wound, but it surprises me that someone who has dealt with the heartwrenching choices surrounding this issue can stand on the sidelines and question another parents' decision.

Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

I of course realize that it is always up to the would-be parent to decide such a thing. I am fully in support of individual rights on that issue. And yet I think that, even though it is such a huge and complicated issue, I tend to feel opposite what you've implied here--that seeing it firsthand has made me feel all the more strongly about what it puts the child through.

I obviously respect her right to make whatever decision she deems fit. That doesn't mean I agree with it. Certainly I hope that her child grows up to be well adjusted, and both mentally and physically healthy.

[looch]

lawyerlee:
Well, then what is this "privilege" of having children concept? I don't think it's an insulting question at all, I am trying to understand what the privilege is that was referred to and what exactly one does to get this privilege.

ETA: I just thought of something else. What happens if a seemingly healthy woman gives birth to a child with special needs? Do you loose the privilege to of having children?

[greenbunny]

looch, I really don't think she means that someone other than the parent should decide who gets to have children and who doesn't. Rather, it is a huge reponsibility that should be treated with utmost consideration before undertaking, and should be undertaken with all consideration for aspects other than only the wants of the parents-to-be. More of an abstract concept rather than a "rule", if you will.

[chefker]

By privelege do you mean a special advantage given to a specific class of people? How does one get this privilege?


You're putting words into my mouth, and I have to agree that your assumption is rather insulting. Where did I mention ANYTHING about 'specific class of people'?

By privilege, I mean people should THINK before having children, instead of just thinking they SHOULD reproduce merely because they have the ability to.

[looch]

That was my interpretation of what you wrote. Last I checked, I am entitled to interpret something written in a post.
You still haven't answered the question chefker. What did you mean by the privilege of having children? That you have to think about it before you have them?

[chefker]

That was my interpretation of what you wrote. Last I checked, I am entitled to interpret something written in a post.
You still haven't answered the question chefker. What did you mean by the privilege of having children? That you have to think about it before you have them?

I DID answer it. The ability to reproduce is a gift, and should not be taken lightly, by ANYONE. Is GIFT a better word than 'privilege'?

You'd think I was advocating for implementation of the caste system in this country, when that is NOT what I wrote.

[looch]

It doesn't matter to me what word you choose to describe it. It's your opinion, and sure, if you want to call it a privilege, gift, whatever, it's up to you. I personally don't think that the words are interchangeable.

ETA: I am not picking on you, chefker. I really interested in your viewpoint, but you have gone from saying it is a privilege, to you should think about, to it's a gift. I am not following your thought process, because a lot of people recieve privileges and gifts without thinking about things.

[jnettie]

I believe I get what chefker is saying.

People have children for any number of reasons, and it's not always because they want kids or like kids. Too many times it's more of a status thing, a way to make themselves important, or fulfilling the unwritten marital "requirement" to have kids.

There are people who don't think about the child in the equation in terms of best interest. They are concerned more with individual, sometimes selfish motives. They don't stop to think about what a gift to the world a new baby is because they are too concerned about themselves.

I don't have any idea why this woman chose to have a baby. I am happy for her that she now has a healthy child and that she is also in good health, considering her fragile state. But I hope that the reason she had a child was for unselfish motives, not to prove to the world that she was capable and a real woman.

Yes, there is no way to regulate when and how people have babies, and there should never be laws that do that. But there is something to one's personal accountablity. Just because you are biologically capable doesn't mean you should for any number of reasons. The biggest reason, to me, is if you can't be a good, loving parent, then don't have kids. If you are only having kids because that is what is expected of you, that's not so good.

Ultimately, it's up to the individual, always. Your choices about reproduction are nobody's business but yours and your partner.

[lawyerlee]

Yes, there is no way to regulate when and how people have babies, and there should never be laws that do that. But there is something to one's personal accountablity. Just because you are biologically capable doesn't mean you should for any number of reasons. The biggest reason, to me, is if you can't be a good, loving parent, then don't have kids. If you are only having kids because that is what is expected of you, that's not so good.

Ultimately, it's up to the individual, always. Your choices about reproduction are nobody's business but yours and your partner.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. You put it really nicely. :)

[chefker]

jnettie - You hit the nail on the head, of exactly what I was trying (apparently not very well!) to articulate. :)

[looch]

jnettie said:
People have children for any number of reasons, and it's not always because they want kids or like kids. Too many times it's more of a status thing, a way to make themselves important, or fulfilling the unwritten marital "requirement" to have kids.

I agree with this statement, but I don't think that this in any way relates to the concept of privilege. Maybe it is what you were trying to articulate chefker, but given that privilege generally implies that one person has an advantage over another person. I don't see how a teenage mother who decides to have a baby has privileges over a married woman with no children.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I don't see how a teenage mother who decides to have a baby has privileges over a married woman with no children.
I think you're being way too literal. "Having children is a privilege, not a right" does not equate to "a person who has a child has more privileges than someone who has not." It's more like, IMO, "just because a person can have children doesn't mean they neccesarily ought to."

[jnettie]

Right, exactly. Let's pretend the word privilege was never used, shall we?

[morningdew]

Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

I of course realize that it is always up to the would-be parent to decide such a thing. I am fully in support of individual rights on that issue. And yet I think that, even though it is such a huge and complicated issue, I tend to feel opposite what you've implied here--that seeing it firsthand has made me feel all the more strongly about what it puts the child through.

I obviously respect her right to make whatever decision she deems fit. That doesn't mean I agree with it. Certainly I hope that her child grows up to be well adjusted, and both mentally and physically healthy.
I have been thinking about this a lot, and I completely understand where you're coming from now. When you said "responsibility", you meant making a conscious, well-thought-out and educated decision rather than just getting pregnant without thinking about the ramifications... right? I got a little hung-up on the word "responsibility", thinking that you were implying that it is irresponsible under any circumstances to have a child when you may pass on a genetic disorder - and that's not what you were saying at all.

I just wanted to tell that I get what you were trying to say now :).

[suzubeane]

Last I checked, I am entitled to interpret something written in a post.Yes, and then when the author points out your interpretation was, in fact, incorrect, we are all entitled to have you stop harping on your original assumption.

[looch]

When the author provides an explanation, then it can be dropped. I wanted to know what her interpretation of "privilege" was and she responded with you have to think about it and having a child is a gift. I still don't see the connection that she was trying to make. But, alas, I will drop it, because it doesn't seem that it is possible to get an interpretation.

[dionysia]

When the author provides an explanation, then it can be dropped. I wanted to know what her interpretation of "privilege" was and she responded with you have to think about it and having a child is a gift. I still don't see the connection that she was trying to make. But, alas, I will drop it, because it doesn't seem that it is possible to get an interpretation.
No one's asking you to stop asking questions, looch. But people (including chefker, about whose post/choice of words you had the original question) are asking you to take a poster's clarification at face value and not assume she has other motives.

She gave you her interpretation of what she was trying to say. It's not her fault you aren't willing to accept it.

Di

[chefker]

But, alas, I will drop it, because it doesn't seem that it is possible to get an interpretation.


I think you mean you want an explanation, not an interpretation--since you have already interpreted my words to mean something other than what was intended. Which, of course, you have every right to do.

From Merriam-Webster.com:

Privilege (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege)

Main Entry: 1priv·i·lege
Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office (emphasis mine)


The 'right' to reproduce was granted by God, a higher power, whatever one would like to call it. Nowhere did I suggest some mortal being would get to confer this 'privilege' to have children on anyone.

You said that it didn't matter what word I chose "privilege" or "gift" in trying to clarify my meaning--but apparently it DOES matter since you keep questioning this.

I'm honestly puzzled how others in this thread seemed to 'get' what I was saying, and you do not. It's a matter of semantics and interpretation, and I think I have explained my comments, and the intent behind them, pretty well.

[greenbunny]

I wanted to know what her interpretation of "privilege" was and she responded with you have to think about it and having a child is a gift. I still don't see the connection that she was trying to make.

Okay, maybe this is why there is confusion. She didn't mean that you, looch, need to think about her, chefker's, definition. She means that the parent-to-be needs to very carefully consider the ramifications of having said child, given the risks.

Is that the disconnect in this conversation?


And yes, morningdew, that is what I mean. I'm so glad we "get" each other now. I was starting to confuse even myself! :)

[looch]

I don't think that is where the disconnect is. It is more around privilege meaning a right granted as a benefit, to use chefker's source. I just don't see how this has anything to do with the ability to have a child. Every woman, is then privileged if she is not sterile.

[greenbunny]

I don't think that is where the disconnect is. It is more around privilege meaning a right granted as a benefit, to use chefker's source. I just don't see how this has anything to do with the ability to have a child. Every woman, is then privileged if she is not sterile.

That's exactly the opposite issue at hand. It was said above that just because a woman is biologically capable of having a child, doesn't mean she should.

Having a child can't be a "right" to a parent, because that implies that the child itself is an object, a reward, lacking in its own needs other than as a service to the parent. The needs and best interests of the child are what must be considered.

[IrisHope]

Chefker, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think she said the woman is privileged. I believe she said it is a privilege having a child. Two different things.

[t3h_wookiee]

I don't think that is where the disconnect is. It is more around privilege meaning a right granted as a benefit, to use chefker's source. I just don't see how this has anything to do with the ability to have a child. Every woman, is then privileged if she is not sterile.


Why are you being so difficult? She's explained what she meant several times, others in here have also, and you are still *stuck* on your original interpretation, even though it's wrong. Are you just in an argumentative mood today, or do you have something against Kerrie?

[looch]

Chefker said:
I find it interesting that many people (in general), think it is a person's RIGHT to procreate. I feel it is more of a PRIVILEGE than a right.

I don't see where in there is says that it is a privilege to have a child in Iris's explanation.

Of course i don't have anything against chefker. Why would I?

[kam]

Of course i don't have anything against chefker. Why would I?

I think people are trying to figure out 1) if you're just being argumentative 2) if you really are just that dense 3) if you are picking on chefker. You asking her to clarify, and clarify, and clarify something that it seems every other person reading this thread gets is taking away from the discussion and it doesn't seem like you get that or care. That's why people are asking.

[t3h_wookiee]

I wouldn't say that it's rumormongering myself, but to each his own.

Seriously though, why are you so hung up on this? She's explained herself, others have explained her view, it seems like most everyone else understand what she's saying, but you're stuck on a single word that you interpret differently. So it seems to many of us that you either like to argue for the sake of arguing, are rather dense, or you have something against Kerrie. So which is it?


Edited: Wow I took too long to type, and wrote a rather similar post to Kam. So see, many of us do think the same way on this.

[looch]

I guess it would be dense. I do not view myself as being argumentative, and i don't have anything against chefker. I don't know her from a hole in the wall. I even went back to read her original post, and i guess i missed the leap from her original comment to what her position is now. And it is the context of how she used the word. I don't see how everyone else is missing that her original comment of how she felt it is more of a privilege than a right to procreate. But to each his own! I'll move on.

[lawyerlee]

Why are you being so difficult? She's explained what she meant several times, others in here have also, and you are still *stuck* on your original interpretation, even though it's wrong. Are you just in an argumentative mood today, or do you have something against Kerrie?
Seems to be a pattern, from my experience. :(

Maybe it's her first message board or something. :confused:

And even though lots of people think I'm a bitch, we all know Kerrie isn't, so at least leave her alone. Thanks.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I don't see how everyone else is missing that her original comment of how she felt it is more of a privilege than a right to procreate.
I don't think anyone missed it. I think that it's being read differently than how you're reading it.

[October2002Bride]

Maybe it's her first message board or something

I think it is.

I also think Looch should just give it up.

[pocket]

good lord, woman! WTF? this was completely tired the last time I checked the thread. lots of times there is confusion on a MB about intention. you ask, they clarify. you move on. everyone understood what she meant but you.

[msnicolea]

You know, my DH and I were recently talking about this very thing. We feel, as of right now, that if either of us were a "carrier" of something truly debilitating (and I realize that is subjective), we would probably elect to adopt (which we may do anyway). For us, it wouldn't be a matter of not loving the child enough or not feling like a good parent--it would be a matter of having a child who is forced to undergo surgeries or live in severe pain and that wouldn't feel right to us.

[IcedSkate]

I'm glad things worked out for this woman. I'm sure she will be very happy with her newly-expanded family. :) Kudos to her, indeed! She definitely hung in there, and gave all she could into this birth--to give life to a newbonr, healthy child.

[DiscoDiva]

Is anyone else wondering how she got pregnant? Seriously, she has a brittle bone disease, so regular methods might be a bit dangerous.

[skyblu]

Is anyone else wondering how she got pregnant? Seriously, she has a brittle bone disease, so regular methods might be a bit dangerous.

DD, I was wondering that myself. Maybe they used IVF or IUI or something.