carrying 5 babies -- that are not her own!!

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> In the News

Carrying 5 babies -- that are not her own!!

1 2 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

BrachaVHatzlocha ↓

Wed, Apr 27 2005, 8:02 am

Surrogate Mom Gives Birth to Quintuplets
By MICHELLE ROBERTS, AP

PHOENIX (April 27) - In the space of five minutes, surrogate mother Teresa Anderson delivered five boys to a childless couple she met on the Internet, a bond that grew so close she eventually waived the $15,000 fee she had charged.

First came Enrique, then Jorge a minute later. Gabriel came third. Then Javier and, finally, Victor.

Luisa Gonzalez, 32, the children's genetic mother, said she began to cry when the first of the quintuplets emerged. ''I've been waiting for this for a long time,'' she said. ''I cannot say enough about Teresa and what she's done for us. She has given me my dream; she has given us our family.''

Four of the boys should be able to go home in about three weeks. Javier will be hospitalized longer to undergo surgeries to correct a heart defect.
The babies were born in the 33rd week of Anderson's pregnancy, a week earlier than planned because the mother was experiencing elevated blood pressure and other complications. A full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks.

''Teresa's a wonderful woman - she's doing great,'' Dr. John Elliott, who delivered the quintuplets, told ABC's ''Good Morning America'' early Wednesday.

Gabriel was the biggest, at 3 pounds, 15 ounces; Javier the smallest, at 3 pounds, 7 ounces. Enrique was 3 pounds, 14 ounces; Jorge 3 pounds, 13 ounces; and Victor 3 pounds, 8 ounces.

Anderson, 25, had planned to use the $15,000 to help her study to be a nurse and support her own family. She and her husband have two children.

But when the Andersons, of Mesa, discovered that all five embryos had taken hold, they decided to decline payment because of the expenses that Gonzalez, a homemaker, and her husband, Enrique Moreno, a landscaper, will now face.

''Quintuplets are very, very difficult to carry,'' said Elliott. Even for mothers carrying their own children, it is very hard, but ''to do that for someone else is extraordinary.''

Moreno and Gonzalez said they aren't sure how they will handle the

Pearl ↓

Wed, Apr 27 2005, 8:19 am

I heard that this morning on the news, unbelievable story!

queen ↓

Wed, Apr 27 2005, 9:52 am

don't get me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but why would a complete stranger want to carry 5 babies for someone else?

Tefila ↓

Wed, Apr 27 2005, 10:21 am

B/c queen there are some great people out there w/h tremendous compassion..... sadly, few and far btw. (Even if to start w/h she had an ulterior motive)

↑ BrachaVHatzlocha ↓

Wed, Apr 27 2005, 10:54 am

I actually saw somewhere that a couple is looking for a Jewish egg donor. No clue if the people are frum, but I was wondering the halacha with this...I've heard different opinions. It's not the same as CARRYING 5 BABIES, but the halachic shaila is similar. Anyone with any experience or info on this?

Motek ↓

Wed, Apr 27 2005, 4:18 pm

queen wrote:

but why would a complete stranger want to carry 5 babies for someone else?

look at the original artice (1st post)
it was a business deal and she did it for $15,000

the amazing thing is that she waived the fee

↑ queen

Thu, Apr 28 2005, 5:21 am

I agree that there are chasiday umos hoolam however one becomes quite attached to the baby even BEFORE birth, how could one ever give it up once it comes into the world!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!!?!?!??!!!?!?!??????

↑ Pearl ↓

Thu, Apr 28 2005, 5:28 am

I have read more than once articles about very good friends, or sisters doing this for each other. usually then the "receiving" parents are paying for medical bills, but other than that no money involved.

supermom ↓

Thu, Apr 28 2005, 11:50 am

queen I agree with you how can a person hold on to a baby for nine months and not become attach to the baby or babies for that matter?

pearl sorry to change the subject I have been thinking for a long time isn't the name of the choleh spelled wrong or that is how it is really spelled?

IndyMom ↓

Thu, Apr 28 2005, 2:00 pm

This is my third pregnancy and I am finally attached to the baby inside of me. For my first two I felt no attachment until after they were born. To some people that is just how it is.

↑ Pearl ↓

Fri, Apr 29 2005, 12:59 am

Quote:

supermom wrote:

pearl sorry to change the subject I have been thinking for a long time isn't the name of the choleh spelled wrong or that is how it is really spelled?

do you mean baruch? I think that maybe I spell things differently than others, like not in the "yiddish/english" but more in hebrew. does that make sense to you?

Rochel Leah

Fri, Apr 29 2005, 6:00 am

I don't know all the halachic implications of this situation..but I really think it is comendable that she isn't asking for the money, knowing the expenese they will go through to raise the children.

Rivka

Fri, Apr 29 2005, 9:30 am

Sorry this story sounds like an episode off Friends.
Imagine going through pregnancy and she was pregnant a while which is unusual if you are carrying so much and then she went through labour...I dunno.
I heard something about Jewish women being surrogates and I think it's to do with the woman carrying the baby and not actually to do with anything else.
So if a Jewish woman is a surrogate for a non Jewish family, the baby is Jewish....I really don't know the source for it. I think if one is serious about this they would probably ask their rav.

↑ Tefila

Fri, Apr 29 2005, 9:35 am

Pearl no I think super meant Awraham Mirjam.
Avraham w/out the 'w' w/h a "v", and Miriam w/out the ' j' but w/h an ' I'. Could be in u'r language thats how it sounds so it made sense to spell it that way Wink

↑ BrachaVHatzlocha

Fri, Apr 29 2005, 12:41 pm

I read up a bit on egg donation. it's complicated b/c there's a dispute who is the real mother. some say the egg donor, some say the woman who carries the baby. if one is jewish and the other isn't, it could have halachic ramifications. same if family wants to marry.

↑ Motek ↓

Sun, May 22 2005, 8:32 am

this is from about 3 years ago

US Surrogate Mother Gives Birth to Own Grandkids

DALLAS (Reuters) - A 52-year-old Texas woman has given birth to her own grandchildren -- a pair of twin girls she bore as a surrogate mother for her daughter-in-law.

Marianne Thoms, of Levelland, Texas, was released from the hospital and returned home Wednesday, three days after giving birth to the girls at Covenant Medical Center in the northwest Texas city of Lubbock.

"We were glad to get them into this world," Thoms said in a telephone interview. She added that the pregnancy was pretty easy, even though it had been about 28 years since she last gave birth.

Hospital officials said they did not know whether there were other cases of a surrogate mother giving birth to her own grandchildren.

Thoms volunteered for the role on behalf of her son Shawn Reed and his wife Traci, who could not give birth.

Shawn and Traci Reed underwent an in-vitro fertilization procedure in San Antonio. A doctor told them it would be best to find a family member to serve as a surrogate mother in order to avoid legal complications over custody of the children.

Thoms, a pilot, skydiver and scuba diver, stepped forward. "This pregnancy was much more exciting than those adventures," she said.

The twin girls, Sydney and Morgan, are still in the hospital but are in good health.

Thoms said she cannot wait to play with the grandchildren to whom she gave birth.

halachic issues:

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/refua/ivf.htm

Sunshine ↓

Sun, May 22 2005, 1:46 pm

Motek wrote:

US Surrogate Mother Gives Birth to Own Grandkids

DALLAS (Reuters) - A 52-year-old Texas woman has given birth to her own grandchildren -- a pair of twin girls she bore as a surrogate mother for her daughter-in-law.

Shawn and Traci Reed underwent an in-vitro fertilization procedure in San Antonio. A doctor told them it would be best to find a family member to serve as a surrogate mother in order to avoid legal complications over custody of the children.

This is the craziest advice I have ever heard of. Not only can they have legal complications over custody of the children but they can have emotional complications as well. What happpenes when grandma decides to do things her way bec she feels that they are partially her kids?! The dil feels that she is the one in charge. This is too close emotionally and no matter the good intentions it is asking for one major familt fight. Anyone agree/disagree?

↑ Motek

Sun, May 22 2005, 1:52 pm

considering the Baby M case, the doctor's recommendation made sense as it was then, "all in the family"

http://womenshistory.about.com.....m.htm

↑ Sunshine

Sun, May 22 2005, 2:23 pm

All in the family still can be a problem. What if the grandparents wanted to keep the child instead? Even if there are no legal issues the attatchment is stilll too geat that parents/grandparents will get into arguements over raising the child.

↑ IndyMom

Sun, May 22 2005, 3:43 pm

my friend just had a custody battle with her parents over her child becuase they were living in her parents house after her divorce and when she got remarried they didnt want her to keep the child since they had raised her too. messy messy. Can only imagine if the grandmother had actually given birth to her too!

Page 1 of 2

1 2 Next