Triplets, then five months later twins...wait, what?

[_Maureen]

After marrying and struggling with infertility for a year and a half, the Gryglas were surprised to learn that, through the help of artificial insemination, Julie was pregnant with triplets.

If she was undergoing artificial insemination--the entire point of which is to induce pregnancy--HOW IN THE HELL IS IT HUMANLY POSSIBLE to be surprised when it has precisely the effect you wanted?

I'm thinking the key word here is "triplets". She was probably pleased with the pregnancy, but surprised that it was triplets. IVF might give you a better chance at triplets but "artifical insemination" or even "intrauterine insemination" don't usually produce those results.

And the fact that they had twins later makes me think it's genetic for them.

M.

[_I have a question]

I wish them every happiness.

I do too, but I'm going to use them to make a point.

This family is being celebrated in the Deseret News, yet their family has been produced in a non traditional manner. Is non traditional conception acceptable so long as the two adults fit the Church model of traditional marriage?

If A.I. is an acceptable, albeit non traditional, non 'natural', method of producing children...doesn't that destroy the main argument the Church uses for being against same sex marriage?

[_just me]

I wish them every happiness.

I do too, but I'm going to use them to make a point.

This family is being celebrated in the Deseret News, yet their family has been produced in a non traditional manner. Is non traditional conception acceptable so long as the two adults fit the Church model of traditional marriage?

If A.I. is an acceptable, albeit non traditional, non 'natural', method of producing children...doesn't that destroy the main argument the Church uses for being against same sex marriage?

The church has no argument against same sex marriage other than homosexuality is against their religion. If you look at what could possibly be construed as doctrine (scriptures and Proc on Family) I don't think you can find one actual argument for WHY no same sex marriage or WHY homosexuality makes God cry. Sure, we could point to different leaders and members saying things about nature and all that, but they all fall apart. So, really, the only argument they are left with is that they interpret their doctrine as being against it.

The church picks its battles. This is typically guided by the personal issues the current leader has. Remember when they picked a battle with married couple and oral sex? How did that work out? Well, it died a quick death because the MAJORITY of members wouldn't have it. Now we have the church picking battles against the minority or underdog. They get away with it because they don't get a big enough backlash.

If they picked a battle against A.I. among straight members I believe they would get a backlash and get called out for being insensitive and hypocrites for touting family as most important while denying worthy couples another way to have children. They would lose tithing dollars. They also like doctors and have lots of them (I imagine) in leadership. A doctors job is to circumvent nature, in many cases.

Anyway, I'm just not okay with ragging on this couple for how they met or how short their engagement was or how many children they have chosen to bring into this world. I've got a big ass glass house, kwim?

[_I have a question]

Anyway, I'm just not okay with ragging on this couple for how they met or how short their engagement was or how many children they have chosen to bring into this world. I've got a big ass glass house, kwim?

Their story is out there as Mormon propaganda.
They put themselves forward into the public eye, they agreed to the multiple articles.
On that basis their story is fair game for discussion.

[_just me]

Anyway, I'm just not okay with ragging on this couple for how they met or how short their engagement was or how many children they have chosen to bring into this world. I've got a big ass glass house, kwim?

Their story is out there as Mormon propaganda.
They put themselves forward into the public eye, they agreed to the multiple articles.
On that basis their story is fair game for discussion.

Yes, and I've said what I, personally, am not willing to do in a discussion about them. I also gave the reason: I made some very similar choices throughout my life.

In other words, y'all can make fun of them all you want. I hope that they are happy with their choices and that they live happily ever after. (and that their whole family leaves the church some day together)

If they were my children I would caution them against putting the mother's life in peril to have more children or to have children they are unable to afford (based on their statement that they would have all the children even if it was difficult...sounds quiverfull to me). I would see that as my duty as a parent. I would also understand that they are adults and will do what they think it best for their family.

They probably wouldn't listen to me cuz I don't believe God has anything to do with giving couples babies. If s/he did we wouldn't see 10 year old rape victims getting pregnant and we wouldn't see women die in childbirth. Every healthy couple who wanted a baby would get one. Yeah. I don't think God has a single thing to do with it.