O'Reilly on transgender man's pregnancy: "[I]magine a poor kid getting born into that family"
On the April 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing pregnant transgender man Thomas Beatie, Bill O'Reilly said: "You imagine a poor kid getting born into that family going, 'Hey... whoa. Who are you today?' " Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg responded: "That's the real tragedy." Think Progress noted O'Reilly's comments on its blog.
From the April 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Jane, what do you think?
JANE HALL (Fox News contributor): Well, you know, I don't -- I think it is something of an oddity I suppose Oprah's women audience would love to know what a man being pregnant actually feels like, thinks like. You know, I don't consider it as bad as all the interviews with pimps that we saw after the Eliot Spitzer scandal. I mean, the man hasn't done anything immoral. He's done something very odd, and that's what they're cashing in on. But I don't think --
O'REILLY: Right, but if your 13-year-old is watching --
HALL: -- it's the same category.
O'REILLY: Do you want a 13-year-old watching this kind of stuff, and you've got to explain all this crazy stuff? Do you want that?
HALL: I'm more bothered by stuff that looks pretty darn pornographic. This looks like a medical oddity. I would say it's not as bad as some other stuff.
O'REILLY: All right. So --
HALL: That's all.
O'REILLY: -- neither of you are upset about this.
GOLDBERG: Well, I don't think it's good. I think it's one more example of how crummy television can be, and frankly, more than television, the whole culture. You know, a guy -- she's born a woman, she becomes a guy, but she still has ovaries and a womb. She marries some guy and she has a baby --
O'REILLY: She married a girl.
GOLDBERG: -- marries a girl.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
GOLDBERG: This --
O'REILLY: It's hard to keep track, Bernie. It is.
GOLDBERG: This is like --
O'REILLY: You imagine a poor kid getting born into that family going, "Hey" --
GOLDBERG: Now that's --
O'REILLY: -- "whoa. Who are you today?"
GOLDBERG: That's the real tragedy.
O'REILLY: Of course. But Oprah will deal with it, I'm sure.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Tommy, wether or not O'Rielly's point is "valid" is a matter of opinion. BUT what is needed here is an objective discussion, NOT the mindless "it's different so I hate/fear it" kind of BS that O'Rielly constantly spews.
I'm not even sure that have a different opinion, but I am sure that this man has no buiness leading the discussion. It may not look like like "misinformation" on the furfacem but O'Rielly is not treating the topic fairly. (Once again assuming that 99% of the world think like he does.)
That kind of thing doesn't happen any more. Kids are much more tolerant these days. Also depends upon the neighborhood.
Few kids are in any position to cast stones nowadays about their families, and they know it.
They'll be made fun of by the likes of O'Reilly.
The other kids will see a mom and a dad, just like any other family.
"The other kids will see a mom and a dad, just like any other family."
The "other kids" will see a daddy getting pregnant... NOT just like any other family! Using all of your faulty logic on this one, huh?
Here is exactly the hypocrisy of 'sex change' operations. She wants to be a 'he', but retain 'her' reproductive rights. Just goes to show that you aren't born that way, you choose that way.
I liked this quote by Tracy: "Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire but a human desire.". I wonder if this situation will cause men to gain "rights" when the woman wants to abort the baby. After all, it's a "human desire" to have a biological child. If the woman wants to get rid of it, then let the man have the choice of keepin it. It IS half his anyway.
Here is exactly the hypocrisy of 'sex change' operations. She wants to be a 'he', but retain 'her' reproductive rights. Just goes to show that you aren't born that way, you choose that way.
Explain this logic.
I wonder if this situation will cause men to gain "rights" when the woman wants to abort the baby.
Why would men gain "rights" to someone else's body? Would you being favor of women having "rights" over your body (specifically sterilization)?
Hey Loonz,
I don't know if you have children or not, but at about a month or maybe 6 weeks old a developing child in the womb has a heartbeat. I've heard the beat of my two children. And at about 11 weeks I've seen ultrasounds of both my children and that child has an extremely well-defined human body. That 'fetus' in the mother's womb is a separate HUMAN BEING. It is not simply "part of" the mother's body as say her appendix is. You're argument is not a valid one.
Futhermore, if more mothers considering an abortion saw an ultrasound in the first trimester, I'm convinced the abortion rate would drop at least 75 percent.
I don't know if you have children or not, but at about a month or maybe 6 weeks old a developing child in the womb has a heartbeat.
I have a son.
That 'fetus' in the mother's womb is a separate HUMAN BEING. It is not simply "part of" the mother's body as say her appendix is.
A fetus is not a separate human being until it can survive outside the womb.
Futhermore, if more mothers considering an abortion saw an ultrasound in the first trimester, I'm convinced the abortion rate would drop at least 75 percent.
Well, that would be her choice to see an ultrasound.
"A fetus is not a separate human being until it can survive outside the womb."
Hypocrit. You don't mean "can"! You mean "does". That's why you believe abortion is ok up until birth. Liberals lie so much to make your case sound innocent, but when the truth is known you people are shown to be the psychotic animals you really are.
Human sexual identity is pretty complex. Regardless of the desire that it be a simple thing.
I agree with your last though.
i knew there had to be more to this story when i heard it. i thought maybe someone with both sets of "equipment". [saw "shine a light" today. great. highlight is mick and keith duet on "girl with faraway eyes".]
I'm sorry. There is a clear difference between tolerance and acceptance of stuff like this.
To think that any child would voluntarily be born to a transgendered dad / mom and a mom / dad is absurd.
To not even discuss the ramifications that the Child will have to go through can only be explained by liberal insanity learned on today's Universities.
It has now turned out that even to question the ramifications for the child is to be a bigot.
If a woman wants to become a man; that's fine. If a woman wants to become a man and have sex with another woman behind closed doors, fine. But, don't tell me that it is "Good" to do both and get pregnant.
So let's discuss then... do you think abortion should have been an option?
If there is a danger to the woman, yes. If not, no. However, the liberal rules for abortion are: any time, any reason. So, I wouldn't doubt they abort the baby and use it's DNA to have a clone made and implanted into the "other" woman so that she can share the joy of abortion just like her pardner.
Do you think abortion is an option, in this case?
If there is a danger to the woman, yes. If not, no. However, the liberal rules for abortion are: any time, any reason.
Even if liberals believed in that nonsense you posted, The laws governing abortion don't reflect that.
Do you think abortion is an option, in this case?
This question is stupid. The person sort to get pregnant and wants to raise the child.
Yes, Loonz, you're absolutely right. But, I'd like to see these intolerant folks backpeddle.
Right-wingers, you still haven't answered the question: Should this woman have an abortion (because YOU don't like the fact that she is in transition to becoming a man, but still has female reproductive parts - and is using them to have a baby that both s/he and his/her partner want?).
The awful thing to me is this: That O'Reilly thinks the worst part about this is parents having to explain this to their 13-years olds. O'Really?
To me, the worst part about this is the intolerance and mockery O'Reilly and his haters are making of these two people who want to commit themselves to each other - and to creating a family. What ever happened to family values? Oh...their family values mean only straight man + straignt woman = straight children. Got it.
phillib wrote:
>>However, the liberal rules for abortion are: any time, any reason.
No, it's not, so stop making things up. In point of fact, it is also illegal to have an abortion during the last trimester, unless there is a medical necessity.
" In point of fact, it is also illegal to have an abortion during the last trimester, unless there is a medical necessity."
No body believes that horse-crap you peddle! If it was anywhere CLOSE to being illegal in the last trimester there would be NO need for partial birth abortion procedures. How many hundreds of thousands of those procedures have happened? Here's your opportunity to provide PROOF that one was done for "medical necessity". Even lying liberals have a hard time providing this kind of proof, but here's your chance.
Do you think abortion is an option, in this case?
This case has nothing to do with me.
Copiuous...What liberal ever "told" you to do anything? From your postings, you have a mind of your own and say whatever you want. Now is that so bad. But, PLEASE be free to tell other people man/woman woman/man what is good for them or their children.
Since this is something very new to the world, how can you and those GOOD/NICE NICE/GOOD people decide what will happen. Do you sell crystal balls on you blog?
Look, I'm a libertarian, so I don't want government imposing everything. But, explaining to a young child that mommy grew up and felt she was a man, so had surgery to remove her breasts and take hormones to grow hair and then have sex with another woman is going to create ridiculous problems for that child growing up.
The pretzels that someone has to twist into to say that there is nothing wrong with this picture has to have gone to a four year liberal arts college. There is no other explanation.
"Yes, I am completely convinced that college makes people dumber. "
Well...that's an interesting self-revelation
It's true....I've learn more in my years out of undergrad than the years in it.
I was an A student at a top university because I regurgitated liberal nonsense.
Relearning history took many years.
"just like your delusions about liberals."
My "delusions" on liberals are very real. How many sniper bullets has Hilary ducked this week?? And she's one of the best two your party can produce. Half has judgemental issues, the other doesn't tell the truth. I hate to think what the less qualified are doing.
"Yes you have real delusions. Congratulations. I am a liberal. Hillary isnt ours. No liberal I know really supports here. Let me join you in ridiculing her for telling such a stupid lie."
Thanks for proving that liberals lie every chance they get. Nobody believes you know "no liberal" that supports Hilary. You simply join the looong list of lying liberals.
Half has judgemental issues, the other doesn't tell the truth.
And both "problems" describe the republican nominee.
"It's true....I've learn more in my years out of undergrad than the years in it"
Well keep it up with the ongoing education...you still have a LOT to learn...as you have proven here.
There is an "immoral" war going on?? I never thought that retaliating against surprise attacks was not allowed. Imagine... according to solon, WWII was "immoral". Japan attacks us, then we attack Germany. Sounds a lot like our current situation --Syrians attack us, then we attack Iraq.
So (in the mental retardation of liberalism) fighting terrorists who use children as bombs is immoral, but fighting Germans when Japanese attack us is moral?
phillib wrote:
>>So (in the mental retardation of liberalism) fighting terrorists who use children as bombs is immoral, but fighting Germans when Japanese attack us is moral?
I don't even know what you are talking about. Iraq never attacked us, remember?
There is an "immoral" war going on?? I never thought that retaliating against surprise attacks was not allowed.
He's talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan.
WWII was "immoral". Japan attacks us, then we attack Germany.
This is a perfect example of conservatives altering history. Something took place in between Japan attacking us and us attacking Germany.
True, I thought you meant between the Japanese attack and us going to war with Germany. That was ongoing extermination procedured of Jews began before Pearl Harbor. I misunderstood your point.
And...something took place before we invaded Iraq. Saddam was murdering his people as quickly as he could. If we had let him continue, perhaps that would be known as a holocaust also. Why did we bomb inocent civilians in Dresdon? Did they have anything to do with the war? So, what's your point that shows I am incorrect?
"Exactly, Germany declared war on us and was invading European countries like they were blue plate specials."
Quick, go catch that turnip truck!!! Al queda (the organization) has declared war on the US. They did it BEFORE they attacked us, too. Also, you may not be aware of this (you are a liberal after all) but al queda has fighting forces in 30 or more countries and they are creating civil unrest in each country for the sole purpose of taking control of them.
"But, explaining to a young child that mommy grew up and felt she was a man, so had surgery to remove her breasts and take hormones to grow hair and then have sex with another woman is going to create ridiculous problems for that child growing up."
Why don't you take a poll of all existing children of transgendered parents and see if there's anything more to you allegations than your overactive imagination. This child won't be the first, and won't be the last, to have a transgendered parent. The child will survive it and thrive if the parents provide a loving, supportive environment.
It's all those other people who just HAVE to judge someone else that are the problem. Maybe someone should explain it to THEM. Start at home.
"You could drive your car with your feet too...it doesn't make it a good idea"
If I have no arms, it's a GREAT idea. Bad example. I know someone who does just that, with no problems.
Doggone wrote:
>>If I have no arms, it's a GREAT idea.
My handicapped friend (who does have arms, though they don't function as most peoples') drives just this way. He passed a policeman, and waved at him with both arms as he steered the car with his feet. He said it freaked out the policeman, though I tend to think the cop was just surprised to see him driving at all.
"He said it freaked out the policeman, though I tend to think the cop was just surprised to see him driving at al"
When I was in high-school (and this was 40 years ago!) our school cafeteria cashier was a women with no arms. She drove her own car and collected the money and made change, etc. with her feet.
"When I was in high-school (and this was 40 years ago!) our school cafeteria cashier was a women with no arms. She drove her own car and collected the money and made change, etc. with her feet."
You liar! Technology wasn't avanced enough at that time to have people drive with their feet. Even if they could manage it, they would not be licensed! Perhaps your memory is as good as Hilary's. Your sob stories sure sound the same. Are all liberals liars like Hilary??
phillib wrote:
>>You liar! Technology wasn't avanced enough at that time to have people drive with their feet. Even if they could manage it, they would not be licensed! Perhaps your memory is as good as Hilary's. Your sob stories sure sound the same. Are all liberals liars like Hilary??
And you know this how? My friend who drove with his feet did so 25 years ago. I don't know if the technology changed that much from 40 to 25 years ago, but I would tend to doubt it.
I can get you closer to the 40 year mark. When I was in high school about 30 years ago there was a news story we discussed in class. It was about a woman whose arms were shriveled and basically non-functional. The focus of the story was a grocery store that had asked her to stop examining the produce with her feet because a customer or two had complained. The store backed down. However, part of the story showed her driving with her feet, among other things that some wouldn't have expected her to do.
How much technology would be necessary for driving with feet that was available in the mid '70s but not the mid '60s?
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/09/Pasco/Armless_driver_eludes.shtml
Here's a story of your "armless" drivers. You people are dispicable! Using handicapped people to prove your lying ars's right. And, like I said, even if they could drive that way, they would NOT be licensed. So, both your examples are examples of people who broke the law and endangered other human beings. But, those are typical liberal views, so I would understand you believing them true.
"Or you could waste time writing a delusional website of rightwing nonsense and hilarious idiocy if you want. THAT isnt a good idea either."
Do you think it's a good idea for a delusional website of leftwing nonsense and hilarious idiocy?? Silly question, your hyocritical mind already likes the leftwing delusional nonsense, while decrying that the rightwing stop theirs.
To think that any child would voluntarily be born to a transgendered dad / mom and a mom / dad is absurd.
No child is voluntarily born into any family situation.
To not even discuss the ramifications that the Child will have to go through can only be explained by liberal insanity learned on today's Universities.
There are only [negative] ramifications because of people like you and O'Reilly who think there's something wrong with it and then you ingrain those views on your own children.
It has now turned out that even to question the ramifications for the child is to be a bigot.
It depends on what you think the ramifications are. What do you think are the ramifications?
If a woman wants to become a man; that's fine. If a woman wants to become a man and have sex with another woman behind closed doors, fine. But, don't tell me that it is "Good" to do both and get pregnant
On the same token, who are you to say it is "Bad" to do both and get pregnant?
Stop with the "who are you to say." How have you allowed yourself to be so brainwashed to not see the clear problems that are going to result by having this child grow up and attempt to understand this.
Children need role models in their lives. Explaining to a child that his mother had her breasts removed and took hormones to grow a beard, but then wanted to have children and may or may not have a penis is just not a good way to raise a family.
I know cultural anthropology classes teach everyone cultural relativism, but this is just absurd.
"Explaining to a child that his mother had her breasts removed and took hormones to grow a beard, but then wanted to have children and may or may not have a penis is just not a good way to raise a family."
How would you even know? Are YOU the child of a transgendered parent? If you are not you have literally NO IDEA how this will, or will not, affect the child. Gay and transgendered parents have, are, and will, raise healthy, happy, secure children...in SPITE OF people with attitudes like yours. You could learn something FROM them.
I'm sorry. Children need masculine and famine role models that they are emotionally attached to growing up. It is part of proper development. I know they don't teach this anymore....but is simply a fact.
"I'm sorry. Children need masculine and famine role models that they are emotionally attached to growing up. It is part of proper development. I know they don't teach this anymore....but is simply a fact."
There's no law that says those role models have to live in the same home with the child. And it's going to come as a BIG surprise to all the children of single-parent homes who grow up healthy and secure.
"Gay and transgendered parents have, are, and will, raise healthy, happy, secure children..."
Oh?? And, of course, you are going to be able to provide evidence of this? Simply saying it does not make it true.
No evidence, yet? Hmmm, somehow I figured that.
Stop with the "who are you to say." How have you allowed yourself to be so brainwashed to not see the clear problems that are going to result by having this child grow up and attempt to understand this.
You're the one with the problem, buddy.
Children need role models in their lives. Explaining to a child that his mother had her breasts removed and took hormones to grow a beard, but then wanted to have children and may or may not have a penis is just not a good way to raise a family.
That's your opinion. The only way a child is going to think that there's problem with his/her family dynamic is if other people tell him/her that there's a problem.
copious wrote:
>>Just stop the nonsense. Boys and girls are biologically different. They have different brains in fact. They need role models to develop. You can just feel good about accepting this. But, you are just wrong.
You are simply asserting an opinion as fact here. Yes, boys and girls are different. But there is no way you can state with any certainty that they need role models to develop. That is just BS which you are trying to pass off as fact. Human nature is very complex, and tends to defy such simple dogmatism.
Just stop the nonsense. Boys and girls are biologically different. They have different brains in fact. They need role models to develop. You can just feel good about accepting this. But, you are just wrong.
Who said that they were the same?
You have a right to YOUR OPINION. YOU do not have any right to pretend YOU speak for society as a whole and when you DO. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE is an appropriate question. What is absurd is YOU thinking this is YOUR decision to make it isnt. I dont see anything wrong with it. That it is unusual doesnt make it wrong. It is unusual to have a genius IQ it is unusual to be an albino. It is unusual to have AB negative blood and yet none of those things are wrong and I dont really care if you happen to think they ARE wrong.
Understand something, Phil: biologically, she's a woman, hence her ability to become pregnant, carry the child to term and deliver. The fact that she's in transition to become a man, to me, is a different issue - an issue with which I have no problem. She'd rather be a man. Who am I to say otherwise? It's her body. It's her life. It's her decision.
Not yours.
"To think that any child would voluntarily be born to a transgendered dad / mom and a mom / dad is absurd."
Doesn't it kinda depend upon the family itself....? I'd rather have a trans parent than an a-hole one.
There is nothing "Good" about this situation, and Oprah is making it as if it is something wonderful. People can do whatever they want, but this me me me culture is obnoxious.
If you are so emotionally insecure with yourself that you need to remove your sexual organs and take hormones, you are not a good candidate to be a parent.
That does not mean that the government should do anything about it, but it also doesn't mean we should accept this and mimic it.
"If you are so emotionally insecure with yourself that you need to remove your sexual organs and take hormones, you are not a good candidate to be a parent."
How do YOU know it has ANYTHING to do with "emotional" security? Being born with a body at odds with your own self-identity could be FAR MORE emotionally devastating than CORRECTING that error on nature's part. Which leads to a MORE emotionally secure person...not someone less emotionally secure.
"That does not mean that the government should do anything about it, but it also doesn't mean we should accept this and mimic it. "
Who is forcing you to mimic it? If you can't accept it, that's your problem...not the problem of those parents, or of those of us secure enough to accept it without feeling threatened.
I have more respect for you to know that YOU know this is just not a good place to raise a child.
But, you want to feel like a good person, so you just accept everything.
Again, this does not mean we need to pass laws to reach these goals. But, parading this man/woman around like it is something good is just absurd.
"I have more respect for you to know that YOU know this is just not a good place to raise a child."
You have literally NO idea whether it's good OR bad. If the child is loved and in a secure environment it will be a good idea. There are FAR worse situations that meet your narrow-minded idea of what is or isn't a "good" situation. For reference, read a few newspapers for stories about abusive parents.
"But, you want to feel like a good person, so you just accept everything."
That's a loaded statement. Can you back it up?
"Again, this does not mean we need to pass laws to reach these goals. But, parading this man/woman around like it is something good is just absurd. "
You're say so doesn't make it so. It's hiding the reality of the "situation" that would be absurd.
Doggone wrote:
>>You have literally NO idea whether it's good OR bad.
Yes, I completely concur, here. I don't see how anyone can make the absolute statements that copious is making.
"Yes, I completely concur, here. I don't see how anyone can make the absolute statements that copious is making."
It's even worse than that...I really think CD actually BELIEVES those things. Makes me wonder about the environment CD grew up in to produce someone so dogmatic and judgemental.
A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-A-R-I-A-N
Copious,
I agree. have a hard time believing that a child will grow up emotionally stable knowing his father was his mother.
We're not back in Kansas anymore Toto.
If you are so emotionally insecure with yourself that you need to remove your sexual organs and take hormones, you are not a good candidate to be a parent.
You can't make that judgment. You're nobody.
The emotionally insecure person around here is YOU. You are threatened that people might think and act different than YOU. I see why you are a hivemind disciple. The ME ME ME snivelling here is coming from YOU. You are saying THEY DONT GET TO DO THINGS I DONT LIKE WWWWAAAHHHHHHH, if they do I am going to demand every see it as bad the way I do WWWAAHHHHHHHH. Get a grip this isnt your call. YOU dont get to decide for society if its right or wrong. ALL you have is your OPINION yet you are DEMANDING that everyone see it YOUR WAY. Not going to happen. The people who believe things because they are instructed to are on YOUR side. People like YOU.
This is a terrible argument.
Societal views not efectuated into law are nothing close to the government.
Yeah, FMP, it's freaky even to those not as terrified as Copeydiss. I just don't have the reaction to these things that I did when I was a kid, the anger and revulsion that CD has. I think it's that compassion that comes with getting a little older and realizing how lucky you are to be (relatively) "normal".
Imagine being born in the body of one sex but completely feeling that you were the opposite sex. On top of everything, having people who were not even remotely connected to your life telling other complete strangers to not approve of you.
I hear the condemnation of education that CD spouts from a lot of right wing talkers, and with the same ridiculous reasoning. I think I've got a little insight from this thread; That college started opening up the mind a little, and some of the ultraconservative types can't wait to get out of school so they can start battening down the hatches on the ol' brain.
There's some weird and scary stuff on this big old goofy planet, and for some it's just easier to shove it under a rock somewhere and not think about it.
I'm sorry I'm not with any liberal who will defend this. Every man has a right to decide his own destiny, but there are socially deviant behaviors that we should not encourage to be norms. Women getting sex changes to turn around and have babies is disturbing. I also saw a special on people who would get surgery to look like their favorite animal. People do all kinds of disturbing things, but not every Ripley's Believe It or Not act should be covered by the media. This will only make it popular for transgendered men to give natural birth as men. Disturbing.
"Disturbing. "
Welcome to CD's world.
You must be a Santorum-ish republican. You know, the slippery slope believer that gay marriage will eventually evolve into man-on-dog sex.
One man's "deviant" behavior is another man's normal behavior, by the way. And who are you to decide what is or is not "deviant" anyway?
It does kinda creep me out a little, can't be totally comfortable with it, but I would hardly call it deviant, just kind of weird is all.
Of course this is deviant behavior...and acceptable by the liberal mindset that everything is a shade of gray with no real right or wrong.
Heck, with that kind of reasoning...and believing that children are so resilient in understanding deviant behavior by their parents...I'm sure the child birthed by a surrogate goat would have no trouble sorting it all out.
Certainly the world is not all black and white...there are many instances where the gray area is completely acceptable...but this is not one of them.
Col,
I can suppress the goat reference...if you can suppress the "man has a baby and it's just peachy keen"........:)
First of all, I didn't bring up the topic, it's the subject of this item.
Second, I never said it was peachy-keen, it's just none of my business.
So there's nothing I have to hold back on.Now, about the conservative goat fetish, do you want help with that, or can you just work it out on your own?
Get a grip on the facts: She's not a man (yet). If she were a man, she wouldn't be able to give birth. Her outward appearance may seem male, but her inner workings are female, hence her ability to carry a baby to term. The fact that she is undergoing a sex change is, in my opinion, different.
The facts are: she's still a woman. She's in transition to become a man. What's so difficult to understand about a woman who's carrying a baby? So what if she looks like a man...Barbara Bush had children - and she's manly.
You right-wing bedwetters ought to be happy she's not aborting the child. But even if she did, you'd scream and yell.
I'm sure the child birthed by a surrogate goat would have no trouble sorting it all out.
This is what the republican's war on science has produced. People now believe goats can be surrogates for human beings.
transgender man?
here is the truth:
This guy is just a woman who is taking steriods. She's not a "man" in any sense of the word. And when people claim a "man is pregnant" they are just spouting nonsense.
I hope this clears things up for people.
I suppose its a rare moment in our history. Though say 600 years ago society defined eight sexual identites. They don't really get much print because all the attension, till recently concerned the movers and shakers. Some of them have been a bit off here too, but it is a secondary and little commented on thing. Suppose the most famous would be Joan of Arc. Would Joan do this? I can't call it, but she was a complex character.
This being the difference. Today she would have medical options, not the chance of being condemed by the church as a transvestite and burned as a witch.
MtF surgury is one of the most sucessful surgeries ever. The FtM is improving, I guess.
What ever, the worth and social comfort issues on both sides needs some attension, not fearful hysteria. The power of social acceptance is a powerful and community building thing. Nowhere,nohow of itself is the sexual identiy thing a dark thing for the society containing it.
Isn't this "horrible event" a reminder of when a black and a white would have a child and the GOOD PEOPLE shouted.."the kid cannot have a normal upbringing, what kind of life can this child have?" Maybe, just maybe, that child could grow up and run for President of the United States...but only as a Democrat.
Those prophets of the Con World are just fools to their ignorance.
<i>A fetus is not a separate human being until it can survive outside the womb.</i>
If anything that is alegal definition created out of whole cloth.
That fetus may not a VIABLE human being, but is indeed a human being distinct from it's mother. It is NOT just a PART OF the mother's body.
Also, a week-old baby that was carried to term can not survive outside the womb either without adult intervention. Why is that baby's life valued so much higher?
If anything that is alegal definition created out of whole cloth.
It's probably the most sensible definition.
That fetus may not a VIABLE human being, but is indeed a human being distinct from it's mother. It is NOT just a PART OF the mother's body.
It's part of the potential mother until it can survive outside of her. When it can do that, it's a separate entity.
Also, a week-old baby that was carried to term can not survive outside the womb either without adult intervention.
What intervention can save a fetus outside of the womb in the first and part of the second trimester?
Why is that baby's life valued so much higher?
It's not so much a question of value. No one should be forcing another person to do something they don't want to do. Why are you in favor of forcing women to carry something in their body for nine months? That should be left up to her, not you.
I'm not speaking about normal. I'm talking about socially acceptable behavior. And I'm asking you since you were the only one to respond, is this behavior you would like to see become a "norm?" Normal depends on what environment or culture you identify with, but norms are different. It is normal in some countries to eat monkey brains and normal in another country for people to eat chicken. What is not an accepted norm in most countries is for people to eat one another.
I mean cannibalism. Get your mind out of the gutter!!