hmmmm.... this is certainly an interesting question and my initial reaction was dominated by the 'ick' factor. It would be very, very weird for Lois to have her father-in-law's child. I also think it would be more difficult for Martha than she may think at the moment. How do Martha and Clark not feel somehow inadequate for not being able to give their partners' children, necessitating this peculiar situation?
On to the purely scientific side...With respect to questions of paternity, genetically speaking, it would be possible for Lois and Clark to have a fair-haired, blue-eyed child, if both of them have recessive traits for those characteristics. Clark probably does, given his mother was fair-haired. With Lois, it's also a possibility - I assume either Sam or Ellen is naturally fair-haired (but it's hard to tell, since Ellen's hair color doesn't look natural to me and we don't know what Sam's natural color was before it turned white). Because dark hair and dark eye color are dominant, it wouldn't be possible for two blond-haired, blue eyed people like Martha and Jonathan to have a black-haired, brown-eyed child like Clark, but then, everyone knows he's adopted, so it's not that big a deal. Also, since Lois and Clark would be having a child so late in their marriage, when Lois is in her late 30s, I imagine some people will wonder (hopefully to themselves) if they needed fertility treatment and possible egg or sperm donor assistance to conceive a child.
What is a bigger concern to me is the ages of the respective biological parents. Lois is already 37 and would be 38 at the time of having her first child. In the U.S. and Canada, that puts her into a high-risk pregnancy category. It's certainly not that uncommon for women in North America to have a first child after 35, but it raises the possibility of serious complications and risks. Lois's socio-economic status and her weight and exercise history cut in her favor. As does the fact that she's only a few years older than the cutoff for what is considered advanced maternal age, but she will still face an increased likelihood of having a child with Down Syndrome, developing pregnancy induced hypertension, gestational diabetes, or pre-term labor.
It would be nice if Mother Nature would catch up with the realities of modern human lives. Many people, especially those who pursue graduate education, don't get married until their early 30s. Certainly, this has been the case in my cohort - many of my friends in their early 30s are engaged or recently married. My friends who are doctors are by and large, still single as they work 80 hours a week and make no money during residency. Most find that their lives lack the stability to allow them to focus on a relationship and make it their priority. Especially given the fact that the first part of a woman's limited reproductively viable years are a period when people generally shouldn't have kids (they should be focusing on their education from say 14 to about 22), it seems ridiculous that women face a deterioration in fertility beginning as early as 35. But then again, Mother Nature doesn't change as quickly as human society does. Thousands of years ago, when our lifespans were 40 or 45 years on average and getting married at 15 was normal, there was no real disconnect between a woman's reproductive life and her family and social expectations.
Jonathan's age, which I would estimate at this point to be at least 70, is perhaps a greater concern. Even though men can father children for pretty much their entire adult lives, the quality of their sperm seriously deteriorates in old age. The risk of autism, brittle bone syndrome, and muscular dystrophy all increase with advanced paternal age. Even genetic disorders for which there is no family history become more prevalent as advanced paternal age leads to autosomal genetic disorders - new problems occur in the DNA as the body is less able to make copies of DNA without creating new errors that lead to new problems.
Rac
