Grandma, age 72, to have a baby with her grandson.

[G1eet]

Meh. Roswell's that ends well.

That just means Phil(ip? holy shit, it's Fry!) will lack the Delta brainwave, and thus be able to save us from the Brainspawn.
Edit:

So does that make the kid his own great-uncle? I wonder if he'll be able to save us when we're invaded by brainspawn.

FFFFFFFFUUUUUUU-
Damn it, I got ninja'd.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

my head exploded when i first saw the thread, but then i saw how they were buying a donor egg, and I was like "well thats not so bad". But still, how do you fall in love with your grandma?

 

[TheProfessor134]

So does that make her the queen of all cougars?

And also. Wat.

 

[MelziGurl]

Even though the egg isn't hers, a placenta will still join the baby to her, this can cause stem cells within the childs body to adopt genes similar to her own this could then spread thoughout the body of the child, or be forced out if it isn't forced out then effects similar to normal incest could appear.

Going to repeat until this works:

SURROGATE MOTHER CALLED ROXANNE WHO IS 30 AND UNRELATED WILL CARRY THE BABY, NOT PEARL.

Also, the ONLY genetic connection anywhere is from Phil (the grandson/father.) Pearl will not be donating any genetics to the egg, carrying the egg, or otherwise contaminating the baby until it's born. By which time it's too late to mess up it's DNA.

That's certainly not the definition of surrogate mother as Britain understands it, i've no idea what surrogate mother can be applied to in other countries however, i assumed it would be the same everywhere. Where i am that would make Roxanne a [normal] mother under indetured adoption inforcement to Phil and Pearl, not a surrogate mother.

A surrogate as I understand it to be a willing female has the fertilised eggs of another female inserted into her, then carries the baby till term, gives birth and then hands the baby over to the biological parents. Making Roxanne the surrogate while Phil and Pearl are the parents. That's usually how it works, but Roxanne is still doing a job for the couple making her a surrogate. Dictionary.com explains it all.

On topic: I don't usually feel too much on incestuous relationships, but I think this is a little ridiculous and disgusting. I feel for the baby's future in all of this.

 

[RelexCryo]

You're pretty late to the party, dude.

Awesome avatar.

On the subject at hand- should society define what is immoral based on what is natural, or what is a violation of human rights? If we define it based on what is natural, than both incest and homosexuality are morally wrong. If we define it based on the violation of human rights, than both homosexuality and incest are perfectly okay. Our perception that incest and homosexuality are gross might be instinctive (to promote breeding with healthy genes) but does the government have a right to intervene in someone's actions if they aren't violating another person's rights? Does a government have any more right to prevent an incestuous couple from raising children than they do to prevent homosexuals from raising children?

 

[elricik]

I did read the article, but even after all of this, even if she does not personally carry the baby, the possibility of doing the doner thing is still very dangerous. When you cross XX chromosomes to another XX chromosome, to transfer the egg over, its still a very daunting and physical process. If she can survive it more power to her, but usually women should not be having babies or transferring eggs over the age of 60, after this the body usually weakens a great deal. The risk can also triple if the women carries other medical problems such as diabetes.

Going to repeat until this works:

SURROGATE MOTHER CALLED ROXANNE WHO IS 30 AND UNRELATED.

Also, the ONLY genetic connection anywhere is from Phil (the grandson/father.) Pearl will not be donating any genetics to the egg, carrying the egg, or otherwise contaminating the baby until it's born. By which time it's too late to mess up it's DNA.

You can repeat it all you want, that doesn't make it right. The baby still even though it is going to be born from a different mother, will still have a very low chance of survival.

 

[firefly000]

That. Is. Disgusting.

 

[Mechanix]

Well that's just nasty......and to think they actually do it.....UUUUUUUUGHHHHHH.

Ironic thing is, the song Somebody To Love by Queen came on shuffle on my iPod.

 

[masterblaze0]

*gags*

Ewwwwww.

Does anyone but me think this could all have been part of someones master plan, Oldboy style?

You never know...but Oldboy was pretty badass.

Completely agreed. Oldboy is one of my favourite movies of all time...

But to add to the general tone of the topic:


EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Crystal Cuckoo]

That baby is (in all likelihood) going to be one fucked up kid.

His mother's over SEVENTY, meaning the chances he'll be born with a mental disability are far greater than if she had him at thirty, and the fact that the relationship is incestuous won't do much to help.

Christ, I feel bad for the poor child. He's going to have a rough school life, that's for sure.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

only in America.
Uh... this is against the law, it's incest, the kid might be born with a redundent heart or lung, it's just sick, both should be kept far far away from each other.

You think two people who love each other should be kept far apart?

That's far more sickening than the thread topic itself.

No it isn't, keeping two people who love each other part is mean, being in a SEXUAL relationship with your grandson is wrong. If this were a thread about a pair of second cousins i wouldn't think the same way, but it isn't, it's about a grandmother and grandson, whos SEXUAL activites are against the law (where I am anyway) because they're too closely related to be married.

You think they can help it?

People don't choose who they fall in love with. This is punishing someone for something they have no control over. Akin to homophobia, in a way.

Perhaps, but homosexual sex doesn't cause the birth of mishapen mutants (I know this particular case shouldn't but still...) nor' does it constrict the human gene pool, so the only reason to be homophobic is if you're part of a religion which demands it, or you're covering up something in your own life.

Whereas inbreeding (a very common aspect of incest) leads to higher amounts of congenital birth defects in children, recessive genes become more prominant and no amount of out-breeding will make these problems go away.

So.. since love is a mixture of lust and attachment, keeping the pair apart for a long enough amount of time, would eventually cause their feelings to dissipate.One other thing; Pearl is 72, she won't live to see her child into its late 20's, or maybe even into its late teens, so at age 15 the child will be left with no mother, a father who is also its cousin(?), an aunt who is also a sister and an uncle who is also a brother.

I think it's wonderful that someone has come out to defend free love, but crickey think about what procreation between these two would do to the family tree.

Fair enough. Incestuous couples having children would be a bad idea, for the reasons you stated. But would you take issue if they had planned not to have any children? It would remove the underlying issue, which would be the childs welfare and the gene pool in general.

 

[disturbed117]

well the thought of that just damaged my mind for the next 5-10 years.

 

[Catalyst6]

That will be one messed up freak of genetics. There's a thousand and one strict-Mendelian traits that are recessive and therefore buried in dominant traits, but this opens the way up for creepy diseases.

Also, ewwwwwww

 

[Elle-Jai]

That's certainly not the definition of surrogate mother as Britain understands it, i've no idea what surrogate mother can be applied to in other countries however, i assumed it would be the same everywhere. Where i am that would make Roxanne a [normal] mother under indetured adoption inforcement to Phil and Pearl, not a surrogate mother.

As far as I am aware, the egg is from a donor (probably anonymous, and therefore no relation). They used Phil's sperm. Then put the resulting zygote into yet another person (not related by DNA to either egg or Phil and Pearl) who will be a living incubator for the baby. She has no biological right to the baby, she is merely agreeing to incubate it in her body until it can survive outside of the womb (ie, birth), at which time it will be handed over to it's "parents".

That's what "surrogacy" tends to mean for both America and Australia, and these people are in America.

 

[Elle-Jai]

You can repeat it all you want, that doesn't make it right. The baby still even though it is going to be born from a different mother, will still have a very low chance of survival.

How not? It's a normal baby, whose biological dad is Phil, and who will be adopted by Pearl. It has an equal chance of survival as any other normal, healthy baby, since essentially, that's what it is. Grandma not only doesn't have any viable eggs (ergo the use of a donor egg), she also can't carry the baby (ergo the use of a surrogate) thereby there is no inbreeding and no chance of hurting the baby. It's just like every other baby, except that it's adoptive mother is related to it's biological dad. Which is creepy, but apart from mentally, isn't going to harm the baby. And even then, it won't mentally harm the baby; that's more likely to occur when it gets older.

Still not saying I agree with the decision, but it's not my choice to make.

 

[Elle-Jai]

That kid is going to be so the fuck far off of normal. Where did I say the Grandma was going to carry the baby? Sorry for causing your heckles to burst into flames.

Lol I LOVE XKCD =)

I know you didn't say that, it just annoys me when people either a) jump to conclusions, or b) pick on the baby. It's peers will do that when they find out; the only people we need to pick on are the "parents". Who I still say "ewwwwwwwwwwwww" to, but the baby should turn out to be a perfectly (physically) normal, healthy, beautiful bub, and mentally, as I said above, this isn't gonna scar it for quite a while to come.

And yeah, that was me in a bad mood. I'm not that great at them, and I refuse to swear at people even on the internetz =S (cue "man the **** up comments from Lycoris here). Oh and I think I included you originally on the basis that either a) you were making a nasty comment about the baby, or b) you were making a nasty comment about those with special needs. I work with those kids and they don't need any extra hurdles, so I take it kinda sensitively...

 

[Elle-Jai]

That baby is (in all likelihood) going to be one fucked up kid.

His mother's over SEVENTY, meaning the chances he'll be born with a mental disability are far greater than if she had him at thirty, and the fact that the relationship is incestuous won't do much to help.

Christ, I feel bad for the poor child. He's going to have a rough school life, that's for sure.

Adoptive mother. She will not carry the baby, nor will it be her egg. Please explain how this will then damage the baby?

 

[Sark]

I just vomitted in my mouth.

 

[Elle-Jai]

That will be one messed up freak of genetics. There's a thousand and one strict-Mendelian traits that are recessive and therefore buried in dominant traits, but this opens the way up for creepy diseases.

Also, ewwwwwww

I say this a lot lately, but I'll keep doing it anyway.

Baby has no direct relation to Pearl except adoptive. Not Pearl's egg, not carried by Pearl. Technically this is Phil and Donor #5463028 (or some such)'s biological child, carried by a surrogate. Since there is no incest genetics involved, how will this "open the way up for creepy diseases"?

 

[Purple Shrimp]

imagine, when the kid grows up, they'll have have sex with their dad (possibly grandmother) it's the "cycle of incest" EEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!

hot