The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
uh... what??? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5998 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | TheRiov [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | uh... what??? |
http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/celebri ... tml?hpt=T2 Quote: Los Angeles (CNN) -- Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband wants his 94-year-old wife to become a mother again using an egg donor, artificial insemination and a surrogate mother, Prince Frederic von Anhalt told CNN Thursday. "I've gone through the initial steps of donor matching and blood work and next week the donation process will begin," von Anhalt said. Gabor's only child, Francesca Hilton, described herself as shocked when told of the plan Thursday. "That's just weird," Hilton said. Von Anhalt, 67, said he is working with Dr. Mark Surry of the Southern California Reproductive Center in Beverly Hills. CNN calls to the center have not been returned. CNN Health: Relax! It won't happen Gabor has suffered major health problems in the last year, including hip replacement surgery and a leg amputation. She has been unable to walk since a 2002 car accident. "I'm a retired guy," von Anhalt said. "I can take care of it." Gabor talked about adding a new baby to the family when they got married 25 years ago, and she brought the topic up again in recent months, he said. One reason is their desire to have someone carry on the famous Gabor name. None of her two sisters left an heir and her only child does not use the Gabor name, von Anhalt said. Francesca Hilton, 64, is Gabor's only child, the product of her second marriage to hotel magnate Conrad Hilton. She told CNN that her full name is Constance Francesca Gabor Hilton. The process, which includes finding an egg donor and a surrogate mother to give birth to the baby, will cost about $100,000, von Anhalt estimated. The prince, who acquired his royal title when he was adopted as an adult by a German woman, is Gabor's ninth husband. He has complained in recent months about financial burdens caused by his wife's hospitalizations. While he put their Bel Air, California mansion up for sale earlier this year, he said he is not actively marketing it. "In life you need something to live for," he said. "If my wife passes away before me, I have nothing to live for." The Hungarian-born actress, the second of the three celebrated Gabor sisters, is famous for her many marriages and strong personality as well as her acting prowess. Her more prominent films include John Huston's Toulouse-Lautrec biopic, "Moulin Rouge," in 1952, "The Story of Three Loves" in 1953, "The Girl in the Kremlin" in 1957, and Orson Welles' 1958 cult classic, "Touch of Evil." Setting aside the pure stupidity of this all, why the hell would she be considered the mother of this theoretical child in any way shape or form? It wouldn't be her egg. It wouldn't be her carrying it. I'm trying to figure out why she wouldn't just adopt? |
Author: | Midgen [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
lol why is this in hellfire? |
Author: | Micheal [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
She would be responsible for the creation of the child (funding and arranging it) and Prince Fred would get to keep what remains of her fortune and raise the child with it instead of letting it all go to her daughter. It is all about the money. |
Author: | Hopwin [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: uh... what??? |
/raise hand What if the spiders in her vag reject the baby? Those cobwebs are coming from something and I doubt its silkworms. |
Author: | darksiege [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:20 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: uh... what??? |
Midgen wrote: lol why is this in hellfire? To answer you I give you... Hopwin wrote: /raise hand What if the spiders in her vag reject the baby? Those cobwebs are coming from something and I doubt its silkworms. And say, it will only go downhill from here. |
Author: | Lydiaa [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:09 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: uh... what??? |
I'm sure they'll inject parts of her DNA into the egg before putting it into the surrogate... Thus technically it will be her and.. the dude's child |
Author: | LadyKate [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:05 am ] |
Post subject: | |
There should be an age cutoff for anyone attempting to have children. I understand women in their 60s have broken some world records here and I think it's appalling. Imho, *EDIT* Anyone over the age of 45 s |
Author: | Taskiss [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:20 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: uh... what??? |
LadyKate wrote: There should be an age cutoff for anyone attempting to have children. I understand women in their 60s have broken some world records here and I think it's appalling. Imho, Anyone over the age of 45 should not be allowed to have children. It is unfair to the child to grow up with parents that are too old to play with him/her and participate in other activities with the child, too big of a gap to relate to the child, too old to have the energy required to maintain discipline, and there is the probablility that the parents might not live to see the child graduate high school. Again, not fair to the kid. How do you think your suggestion should be enforced, LK? |
Author: | LadyKate [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:32 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Oh no you don't. I'm not falling for that one, Taskiss! My term "should be" is merely my opinion, a suggestion, and in no way meant to be a cry for a law or some other method to stop people from having children against their will. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:39 am ] |
Post subject: | |
In that case I'd suggest changing the part where you say "should not be allowed to", since that pretty much means stopped against their will. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:41 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
LadyKate wrote: in no way meant to be a cry for a law or some other method to stop people from having children against their will. So, you're in favor of people having children against their will? /duck |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:43 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Their money, their genetic material, their time = none of my business. |
Author: | LadyKate [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:44 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Oh for Pete's sake ya'll! Hahaha, sometimes I swear you guys are more out for the argument itself and the vernacular and such used and the actual topic is merely a vehicle for the debate. |
Author: | Hopwin [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:14 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
LadyKate wrote: Oh for Pete's sake ya'll! Hahaha, sometimes I swear you guys are more out for the argument itself and the vernacular and such used and the actual topic is merely a vehicle for the debate. /bonk Oh hai, welcome to the Ranger's Glade! |
Author: | Taskiss [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
LadyKate wrote: Oh for Pete's sake ya'll! Hahaha, sometimes I swear you guys are more out for the argument itself and the vernacular and such used and the actual topic is merely a vehicle for the debate. I was nice about it though, wasn't I? You've never busted my chops, so I'll never bust yours, LK. nice being a relative term, of course. |
Author: | Aizle [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Hopwin wrote: LadyKate wrote: Oh for Pete's sake ya'll! Hahaha, sometimes I swear you guys are more out for the argument itself and the vernacular and such used and the actual topic is merely a vehicle for the debate. /bonk Oh hai, welcome to the Ranger's Glade! Yeah, no kidding. You've posted here how long? |
Author: | LadyKate [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:09 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Hahahaha, yeah I know, right? |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |