Pete Buttigieg and Human Trafficking

 

I’m going to pick on Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg since his “parental leave” during a period of tremendous challenges to the United States transportation systems has recently brought up his claim to being a parent.

We know virtually nothing about the two babies Pete Buttigieg and Chasten Glezman “brought home” in August. Where did they come from? How were they created? Did Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman procure one or two women with wombs in which to grow babies for their own pleasure? If you think I’m a conspiracy theorist, then please point me to specific information that the actions of Mr. Buttigieg Mr. Glezman are something other than selfish actions by privileged men.

Despite my snarky comment in another thread, I know that the basics of human reproductive biology have not changed in recent years. It still takes one actual man and one actual woman to produce a baby human. I will also state upfront that I oppose creating a human baby with the specific intent of removing that baby from one of its biological parents or with the specific intent to hand the baby to a non-biological parent. Doing so is extraordinarily selfish of the customer, and intentionally deprives a child of the love and care of a biological parent.

Are the babies adopted by Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman unwanted creations that were adopted through the existing channels of adoption after being spared Mr. Buttigieg’s preferred solution of abortion? Or were the babies specifically created to be adopted by Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman? And if they were specifically created for Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman, from where and how did Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman procure the womb(s) in which to grow those babies?

Many “news” sources make statements about the babies that seen to be assumptions on the part of the news source, as the “news” source statements are not supported by Mr. Buttigieg’s actual statements.

Many sources refer to the babies as “twins,” but as far as I can tell, Mr. Buttigieg has never used that term, raising the question whether the babies have the same mother. Since Mr. Buttigieg does not seem to refer to the babies as “twins,” I assume they are not. It is extraordinarily unlikely that two newborn babies from different mothers become available at exactly the same time in the existing channels of adoption.

Some information outlets seem to assume the babies came through existing channels of adoption for unwanted babies because that was Mr. Buttigieg’s original plan. But after one effort at adoption failed when the baby’s (then singular) mother backed out of the adoption plan, Mr. Buttigieg stopped using such language. Therefore, I assume the babies Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman currently have were created specifically for Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman.

So we’re at the human trafficking question. How and from where did Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman procure the womb(s) that would allow them to claim to be “parents”? Did they use their power and wealth (“privilege”) to cause some less powerful or wealthy (“less privileged”) woman or women to let Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman use her womb for their pleasure and selfish purposes?

Mr. Buttigieg is part of the Biden administration. Allies of the Biden profess to oppose human trafficking. But the policies of the Biden administration, particularly with respect to the southern border, leave plenty of opportunities to facilitate human trafficking. The Biden administration does not seem particularly opposed to the concept of human trafficking and using the less privileged for the benefit of the privileged. How convenient for Mr. Buttigieg.

Published in Marriage
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    As you say, it is human trafficking, the commodification of babies. A child who will have virtually no chance of a normal life.

    • #1
  2. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Great questions! I want to know too. There is something smelly about all this. Least of all husband and husband relationship. 

    • #2
  3. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    As you say, it is human trafficking, the commodification of babies. A child who will have virtually no chance of a normal life.

    Two children: Buttigieg and his male concubine have procured two children as props for their charade.

    • #3
  4. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Biden runs the world’s largest human trafficking operation, so your suspicions have merit.

    • #4
  5. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Tabby, your post is wise and insightful.  In my last job I worked with a major university medical center which specialized in “non-traditional”  IVF procedures.  So long as any one of the three major reproductive organs or cells belonged to the couple or individual seeking to take the baby home, all was well: uterus, sperm or ova. So a single woman with no ovaries could take donor sperm and eggs. A couple could donate sperm and/or eggs to create an embryo to transfer into a gestational carrier.

    A true case: a woman living on the east coast giving her eggs to be inseminated by a man, not her husband, living on the west coast, with the resultant embryo to be carried by a paid donor in yet another part of the country.  The east coast woman would raise the baby.

    There is an element of grace in all of this, for a man being willing to give his tissue to make another man’s children, for a woman to take the risks of pregnancy so that another woman may take a baby home; but there is an element of sadness too.  And there is a large element of exploitation.  Egg donation has risks; carrying a pregnancy for another woman has much greater risks.

    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities.  It is a wonderful thing to adopt a foundling (as I have done) or two.  It is quite another thing to do what I suspect Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman have done.  I suspect they contracted with women willing to be gestational carriers, inseminated each with the semen of one of the gentlemen, and waited to see who got pregnant first.  In this case, I speculate that they both did.

    • #5
  6. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Tabby, your post is wise and insightful. In my last job I worked with a major university medical center which specialized in “non-traditional” IVF procedures. So long as any one of the three major reproductive organs or cells belonged to the couple or individual seeking to take the baby home, all was well: uterus, sperm or ova. So a single woman with no ovaries could take donor sperm and eggs. A couple could donate sperm and/or eggs to create an embryo to transfer into a gestational carrier.

    A true case: a woman living on the east coast giving her eggs to be inseminated by a man, not her husband, living on the west coast, with the resultant embryo to be carried by a paid donor in yet another part of the country. The east coast woman would raise the baby.

    There is an element of grace in all of this, for a man being willing to give his tissue to make another man’s children, for a woman to take the risks of pregnancy so that another woman may take a baby home; but there is an element of sadness too. And there is a large element of exploitation. Egg donation has risks; carrying a pregnancy for another woman has much greater risks.

    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities. It is a wonderful thing to adopt a foundling (as I have done) or two. It is quite another thing to do what I suspect Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman have done. I suspect they contracted with women willing to be gestational carriers, inseminated each with the semen of one of the gentlemen, and waited to see who got pregnant first. In this case, I speculate that they both did.

    But if they’re both the biological/genetic fathers of those two children, doesn’t that satisfy your standards?  Not mine, but yours.

    • #6
  7. Nohaaj Coolidge
    Nohaaj
    @Nohaaj

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Tabby, your post is wise and insightful. In my last job I worked with a major university medical center which specialized in “non-traditional” IVF procedures. So long as any one of the three major reproductive organs or cells belonged to the couple or individual seeking to take the baby home, all was well: uterus, sperm or ova. So a single woman with no ovaries could take donor sperm and eggs. A couple could donate sperm and/or eggs to create an embryo to transfer into a gestational carrier.

    A true case: a woman living on the east coast giving her eggs to be inseminated by a man, not her husband, living on the west coast, with the resultant embryo to be carried by a paid donor in yet another part of the country. The east coast woman would raise the baby.

    There is an element of grace in all of this, for a man being willing to give his tissue to make another man’s children, for a woman to take the risks of pregnancy so that another woman may take a baby home; but there is an element of sadness too. And there is a large element of exploitation. Egg donation has risks; carrying a pregnancy for another woman has much greater risks.

    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities. It is a wonderful thing to adopt a foundling (as I have done) or two. It is quite another thing to do what I suspect Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman have done. I suspect they contracted with women willing to be gestational carriers, inseminated each with the semen of one of the gentlemen, and waited to see who got pregnant first. In this case, I speculate that they both did.

    This seems to be the most likely scenario.  The babies were never described as ‘adopted” (as far as I have read), which leaves your scenario as probable.  Ahhh, cynical me points to the perfect setup for a pResidential run in 2024.  First gay couple in the WH. 

    What else could liberals ask for?  

     

    • #7
  8. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Tabby, your post is wise and insightful. In my last job I worked with a major university medical center which specialized in “non-traditional” IVF procedures. So long as any one of the three major reproductive organs or cells belonged to the couple or individual seeking to take the baby home, all was well: uterus, sperm or ova. So a single woman with no ovaries could take donor sperm and eggs. A couple could donate sperm and/or eggs to create an embryo to transfer into a gestational carrier.

    A true case: a woman living on the east coast giving her eggs to be inseminated by a man, not her husband, living on the west coast, with the resultant embryo to be carried by a paid donor in yet another part of the country. The east coast woman would raise the baby.

    There is an element of grace in all of this, for a man being willing to give his tissue to make another man’s children, for a woman to take the risks of pregnancy so that another woman may take a baby home; but there is an element of sadness too. And there is a large element of exploitation. Egg donation has risks; carrying a pregnancy for another woman has much greater risks.

    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities. It is a wonderful thing to adopt a foundling (as I have done) or two. It is quite another thing to do what I suspect Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman have done. I suspect they contracted with women willing to be gestational carriers, inseminated each with the semen of one of the gentlemen, and waited to see who got pregnant first. In this case, I speculate that they both did.

    This seems to be the most likely scenario. The babies were never described as ‘adopted” (as far as I have read), which leaves your scenario as probable. Ahhh, cynical me points to the perfect setup for a pResidential run in 2024. First gay couple in the WH.

    What else could liberals ask for?

     

    Everything.

    Just like now.

    • #8
  9. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Tabby, your post is wise and insightful. In my last job I worked with a major university medical center which specialized in “non-traditional” IVF procedures. So long as any one of the three major reproductive organs or cells belonged to the couple or individual seeking to take the baby home, all was well: uterus, sperm or ova. So a single woman with no ovaries could take donor sperm and eggs. A couple could donate sperm and/or eggs to create an embryo to transfer into a gestational carrier.

    A true case: a woman living on the east coast giving her eggs to be inseminated by a man, not her husband, living on the west coast, with the resultant embryo to be carried by a paid donor in yet another part of the country. The east coast woman would raise the baby.

    There is an element of grace in all of this, for a man being willing to give his tissue to make another man’s children, for a woman to take the risks of pregnancy so that another woman may take a baby home; but there is an element of sadness too. And there is a large element of exploitation. Egg donation has risks; carrying a pregnancy for another woman has much greater risks.

    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities. It is a wonderful thing to adopt a foundling (as I have done) or two. It is quite another thing to do what I suspect Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman have done. I suspect they contracted with women willing to be gestational carriers, inseminated each with the semen of one of the gentlemen, and waited to see who got pregnant first. In this case, I speculate that they both did.

    This seems to be the most likely scenario. The babies were never described as ‘adopted” (as far as I have read), which leaves your scenario as probable. Ahhh, cynical me points to the perfect setup for a pResidential run in 2024. First gay couple in the WH.

    What else could liberals ask for?

     

    I too noticed that Mr. Buttigieg has studiously avoided the use of the term “adopted.” Some media use the term, but again I think they are making an assumption that Mr. Buttigieg’s words don’t support. This furthers my suspicion that the babies were created for Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Glezman by them using one or more (probably more) women. 

    • #9
  10. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Biden runs the world’s largest human trafficking operation, so your suspicions have merit.

    Evidence?

    • #10
  11. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Biden runs the world’s largest human trafficking operation, so your suspicions have merit.

    Evidence?

    Southern Border.

    • #11
  12. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Tabby, your post is wise and insightful. In my last job I worked with a major university medical center which specialized in “non-traditional” IVF procedures. So long as any one of the three major reproductive organs or cells belonged to the couple or individual seeking to take the baby home, all was well: uterus, sperm or ova. So a single woman with no ovaries could take donor sperm and eggs. A couple could donate sperm and/or eggs to create an embryo to transfer into a gestational carrier.

    A true case: a woman living on the east coast giving her eggs to be inseminated by a man, not her husband, living on the west coast, with the resultant embryo to be carried by a paid donor in yet another part of the country. The east coast woman would raise the baby.

    There is an element of grace in all of this, for a man being willing to give his tissue to make another man’s children, for a woman to take the risks of pregnancy so that another woman may take a baby home; but there is an element of sadness too. And there is a large element of exploitation. Egg donation has risks; carrying a pregnancy for another woman has much greater risks.

    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities. It is a wonderful thing to adopt a foundling (as I have done) or two. It is quite another thing to do what I suspect Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman have done. I suspect they contracted with women willing to be gestational carriers, inseminated each with the semen of one of the gentlemen, and waited to see who got pregnant first. In this case, I speculate that they both did.

    But if they’re both the biological/genetic fathers of those two children, doesn’t that satisfy your standards? Not mine, but yours.

    Not my standards, but those of the major university medical center. My standards are a little higher.

    Pregnancy is not always a fun or easy thing.  It carries a 25% risk of ending in major surgery, a 15% risk of early loss, a 2% risk of major complications.  I have no objection to two gay men (or two gay women) being “married”, nor do I object to single or coupled gay women using sperm donors. They are using their own uteri and taking their own risks.  However, gestational surrogacy, as Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman likely employed, exploits a woman who rents her uterus and takes a serious medical risk for no reward other than money.  I find gestational surrogacy to be repellent for these reasons and I would outlaw it.

    Mr Buttigieg, Mr Glezman, there’s lots of babies and other children who need loving families. What a pity you could not have taken two of them into your hearts and home.

    My first image of Darling Daughter, July 2001.

    • #12
  13. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    A true case: a woman living on the east coast giving her eggs to be inseminated by a man, not her husband, living on the west coast, with the resultant embryo to be carried by a paid donor in yet another part of the country. The east coast woman would raise the baby.

    There is an element of grace in all of this, for a man being willing to give his tissue to make another man’s children, for a woman to take the risks of pregnancy so that another woman may take a baby home; but there is an element of sadness too. And there is a large element of exploitation. Egg donation has risks; carrying a pregnancy for another woman has much greater risks.

    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities. It is a wonderful thing to adopt a foundling (as I have done) or two. It is quite another thing to do what I suspect Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman have done. I suspect they contracted with women willing to be gestational carriers, inseminated each with the semen of one of the gentlemen, and waited to see who got pregnant first. In this case, I speculate that they both did.

    But if they’re both the biological/genetic fathers of those two children, doesn’t that satisfy your standards? Not mine, but yours.

    Not my standards, but those of the major university medical center. My standards are a little higher.

    Pregnancy is not always a fun or easy thing. It carries a 25% risk of ending in major surgery, a 15% risk of early loss, a 2% risk of major complications. I have no objection to two gay men (or two gay women) being “married”, nor do I object to single or coupled gay women using sperm donors. They are using their own uteri and taking their own risks. However, gestational surrogacy, as Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman likely employed, exploits a woman who rents her uterus and takes a serious medical risk for no reward other than money. I find gestational surrogacy to be repellent for these reasons and I would outlaw it.

    Mr Buttigieg, Mr Glezman, there’s lots of babies and other children who need loving families. What a pity you could not have taken two of them into your hearts and home.

    My first image of Darling Daughter, July 2001.

    Actually, I would be against two women doing “the same thing,” or any single woman for that matter.  A child deserves to have both gender parents, unless circumstances prevent it.  Choosing to be a single parent, etc, is not “circumstances.”

    • #13
  14. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Biden runs the world’s largest human trafficking operation, so your suspicions have merit.

    Evidence?

    Southern Border.

    Exactly what I was going to say. He’s complicit.

    • #14
  15. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser
    @Buckpasser

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Tabby, your post is wise and insightful. In my last job I worked with a major university medical center which specialized in “non-traditional” IVF procedures. So long as any one of the three major reproductive organs or cells belonged to the couple or individual seeking to take the baby home, all was well: uterus, sperm or ova. So a single woman with no ovaries could take donor sperm and eggs. A couple could donate sperm and/or eggs to create an embryo to transfer into a gestational carrier.

    A true case: a woman living on the east coast giving her eggs to be inseminated by a man, not her husband, living on the west coast, with the resultant embryo to be carried by a paid donor in yet another part of the country. The east coast woman would raise the baby.

    There is an element of grace in all of this, for a man being willing to give his tissue to make another man’s children, for a woman to take the risks of pregnancy so that another woman may take a baby home; but there is an element of sadness too. And there is a large element of exploitation. Egg donation has risks; carrying a pregnancy for another woman has much greater risks.

    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities. It is a wonderful thing to adopt a foundling (as I have done) or two. It is quite another thing to do what I suspect Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman have done. I suspect they contracted with women willing to be gestational carriers, inseminated each with the semen of one of the gentlemen, and waited to see who got pregnant first. In this case, I speculate that they both did.

    This seems to be the most likely scenario. The babies were never described as ‘adopted” (as far as I have read), which leaves your scenario as probable. Ahhh, cynical me points to the perfect setup for a pResidential run in 2024. First gay couple in the WH.

    What else could liberals ask for?

     

    Yes.  Adopted will be the next “n” word.  We can’t use that term because, who says men can’t give birth.  We are all “birthing persons”.

     

    • #15
  16. W Bob Member
    W Bob
    @WBob

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    Pregnancy is not always a fun or easy thing.  It carries a 25% risk of ending in major surgery, a 15% risk of early loss, a 2% risk of major complications.  I have no objection to two gay men (or two gay women) being “married”, nor do I object to single or coupled gay women using sperm donors. They are using their own uteri and taking their own risks.  However, gestational surrogacy, as Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman likely employed, exploits a woman who rents her uterus and takes a serious medical risk for no reward other than money.  I find gestational surrogacy to be repellent for these reasons and I would outlaw it.

    Isn’t it already illegal to sell a child? I’m pretty sure it is… This definitely constitutes child selling. 

    • #16
  17. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    W Bob (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    Pregnancy is not always a fun or easy thing. It carries a 25% risk of ending in major surgery, a 15% risk of early loss, a 2% risk of major complications. I have no objection to two gay men (or two gay women) being “married”, nor do I object to single or coupled gay women using sperm donors. They are using their own uteri and taking their own risks. However, gestational surrogacy, as Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman likely employed, exploits a woman who rents her uterus and takes a serious medical risk for no reward other than money. I find gestational surrogacy to be repellent for these reasons and I would outlaw it.

    Isn’t it already illegal to sell a child? I’m pretty sure it is… This definitely constitutes child selling.

    If Mr. Buttigieg and/or Mr. Glezman supplied the sperm, then one or the other of them is biologically related to the child, so they are not (under the letter of the law) “buying” the child. They are buying only the woman’s unfertilized egg and renting her uterus, and she is selling her parental rights to the child, but I suspect that the law is written in a way in which that is not child selling as long as the “buyer” is a biological parent. I think is a form of human trafficking, but is not currently illegal.

    If a third party sperm donor were used, such that neither Mr. Buttigieg nor Mr. Glezman were biologically related to the child, then the details of the laws against child selling would need to be examined. 

    • #17
  18. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Tabby, your post is wise and insightful. In my last job I worked with a major university medical center which specialized in “non-traditional” IVF procedures. So long as any one of the three major reproductive organs or cells belonged to the couple or individual seeking to take the baby home, all was well: uterus, sperm or ova. So a single woman with no ovaries could take donor sperm and eggs. A couple could donate sperm and/or eggs to create an embryo to transfer into a gestational carrier.

    A true case: a woman living on the east coast giving her eggs to be inseminated by a man, not her husband, living on the west coast, with the resultant embryo to be carried by a paid donor in yet another part of the country. The east coast woman would raise the baby.

    There is an element of grace in all of this, for a man being willing to give his tissue to make another man’s children, for a woman to take the risks of pregnancy so that another woman may take a baby home; but there is an element of sadness too. And there is a large element of exploitation. Egg donation has risks; carrying a pregnancy for another woman has much greater risks.

    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities. It is a wonderful thing to adopt a foundling (as I have done) or two. It is quite another thing to do what I suspect Mssrs Buttigieg and Glezman have done. I suspect they contracted with women willing to be gestational carriers, inseminated each with the semen of one of the gentlemen, and waited to see who got pregnant first. In this case, I speculate that they both did.

    This seems to be the most likely scenario. The babies were never described as ‘adopted” (as far as I have read), which leaves your scenario as probable. Ahhh, cynical me points to the perfect setup for a pResidential run in 2024. First gay couple in the WH.

    What else could liberals ask for?

     

    That was THE PLAN.  The “marriage” didn’t add enough traction to help secure the nomination in 2020.  The Cup of Soup family might do the trick in 2024.  

    • #18
  19. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Nohaaj (View Comment):
    What else could liberals ask for? 

    I’m sure we’re going to find out, and keep on finding out. I don’t believe there is a limit to what they will demand.

    • #19
  20. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    I find it a travesty that we allow same-sex couple adoption and IVF. We apparently no longer believe in the dignity of the human person or the right of a baby to have a mother and father.

    This is diabolical deception.

    • #20
  21. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    After thinking on this some more, perhaps Pete should consider being a stay at him mom. ;)

    • #21
  22. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Biden runs the world’s largest human trafficking operation, so your suspicions have merit.

    Evidence?

    Southern Border.

    #mic drop#

    • #22
  23. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities.  

    One of the best ideas I have learned in studying the Philosophy of Technology is this: A technology becomes evil when it reduces the human being to an economic commodity.

    Indeed.

    • #23
  24. Suspira Member
    Suspira
    @Suspira

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Nohaaj (View Comment):
    What else could liberals ask for?

    I’m sure we’re going to find out, and keep on finding out. I don’t believe there is a limit to what they will demand.

    My mind boggles at the thought of no limits. I lack the imagination to come up with more and more demands. But it’s also impossible to imagine a satisfied progressive. I think that is likely a contradiction in terms.

    • #24
  25. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Suspira (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Nohaaj (View Comment):
    What else could liberals ask for?

    I’m sure we’re going to find out, and keep on finding out. I don’t believe there is a limit to what they will demand.

    My mind boggles at the thought of no limits. I lack the imagination to come up with more and more demands. But it’s also impossible to imagine a satisfied progressive. I think that is likely a contradiction in terms.

    Irresistible force vs immovable object 

    • #25
  26. Suspira Member
    Suspira
    @Suspira

    Update on the issue of whether the babies are twins—Secretary Pete said “And I’m not going to apologize to Tucker Carlson or anyone else for taking care of my premature newborn, infant twins.” 

    • #26
  27. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    Third party reproduction of this sort makes children into commodities.

    One of the best ideas I have learned in studying the Philosophy of Technology is this: A technology becomes evil when it reduces the human being to an economic commodity.

    Indeed.

    Humans have always been reduced to economic commodities. It’s not a matter of technology.

    In total, technology has freed poor people than shackled them.

    • #27
  28. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Trafficking children:

    https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/biden-secretly-flying-underage-migrants-into-ny-in-dead-of-night/

    • #28
  29. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Trafficking children:

    https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/biden-secretly-flying-underage-migrants-into-ny-in-dead-of-night/

    Those muslim “refugees” from Afghanistan need more brides.

    • #29
  30. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Trafficking children:

    https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/biden-secretly-flying-underage-migrants-into-ny-in-dead-of-night/

    Those muslim “refugees” from Afghanistan need more brides.

    Those refugees ain’t gonna marry themselves!

    • #30