Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This Is So Crazy
From the Daily Wire, a story about a transgendered, male-to-female “mother” being given a drug so she can breastfeed her adopted baby.
I will admit that when my first husband and I were beginning the process of adopting a fifth (!) baby, I thought about whether — should we get a newborn — I might be able to kick the ol’ yabbies back into gear and give the kid at least a year of mother’s milk. Naturally, I imagined it magically undoing any nutritional deficiencies or substance abuse issues that he or she might have been subjected to in utero.
So, maybe that was silly too?
But this seems actually crazy. Really crazy. Because, among other, lesser questions (aesthetic, psychological, social):
Published in Culture[W]hile we’re pushing the ethical envelope under the banner of transgender “rights,” are researchers considering the health and wellbeing of the child in question, who is now potentially at risk of the drug’s serious and sometimes fatal side effects?
Apparently not.
“While Reisman and Goldstein’s patient took her dose [of domperidone] orally, the FDA is reportedly still worried about the possible effects of domperidone on infants, since the drug is passed through breast milk,” notes Romper.
Domperidone has been banned in the U.S. by the FDA since 2004. “The serious risks associated with domperidone include cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and sudden death. These risks are related to the blood level of domperidone, and higher levels in the blood are associated with higher risks of these events. Concurrent use of certain commonly used drugs, such as erythromycin, could raise blood levels of domperidone and further increase the risk of serious adverse cardiac outcomes,” says FDA.gov.
I’m pretty sure discussion of one’s yabbies is against the CoC.
Ay, yi, yi, dolores…
Pray for the children of the future…
Why is he allowed to adopt a child as a “mother”?
Yabba-dabba-does or does not?
On what legal basis would he not be allowed to adopt children?
Kate, when I came across the term “yabbies” (for breasts) in your post, I vaguely remembered that usage from long ago.
Just to make sure, I looked it up. I could find no mention of breasts. All I could find, in citation after citation, was that yabbies (so rare that my spell check just corrected yabbies to tabbies) were some kind of crayfish from Australia.
You weren’t going to feed crayfish to your baby, were you?
Kent
Being silly creatures doesn’t require we become crazy creatures, right?
To quote the great Clay Travis, “I believe in boobies AND the First Amendment.”
As Fred Flinstone said, “Yabbie, Yabbie, Dooo!”
Right?
Other than the patent psychosexual unfitness of Mr. Mom I can’t think of one.
“Yabbies” was one of my late husbands many terms for these and other bits of life: I always thought it was a Southernism? Evidently not…
Australian Crayfish are not CoC-compliant?
A perfect example of how the normalization of gender and sexual deviancy always and necessarily hurts children, which in the end is the most important reason to oppose it.
It’s also an example of how the desires of adults are always allowed to trump even the most reasonable needs of babies and children.
We’re doing human experimentation on defenseless babies. Well, why not?
Oh, don’t get me wrong, Mr. Mom is a nutter. But “psychosexual unfitness” doesn’t have a legal definition that I know of. Let alone one that could be used as a basis for denying parental rights.
Insert your favored “this is the bottom of the slippery slope after gays were allowed to adopt” argument here.
Thirty-six couples are attempting to adopt for every adoptable infant, and this is who the state picks.
The slippery slope I was picturing is the one that descends from assisted reproductive technologies, maybe because I know people who have had kids not just through in vitro fertilization, but IVF with donor sperm AND donor eggs AND a surrogate birth mother… all of whom were chosen from catalogues explicitly listing the features that made them eugenically acceptable…
So many theories (spoken and unspoken) to test out on the innocent!
1.) Children don’t need a father.
2.) Children don’t need a mother.
3.) Children don’t care whether they know any of their blood relatives.
4.) It will not seem strange to a child that their biological parents were willing to combine their genetic material, via FedEx, with people they’d never met, in exchange for money.
5.) It will not seem strange to a child that her father breastfed her with his drug-laced breastmilk.
Why can’t the he-mother just pretend s(he) is one of those mothers who have a hard time nursing? I mean, with so much imagination in play, why is giving an alternative bottle such a great demand on it? Or this: Women (real ones) from far distant times have used substitute wet-nurses if s(he) needs some help in the process of not depriving the child of yabbie-nipping. Just pretend s(he) is in pioneer or earlier times, like Queen Victoria, and then add on being a royal. Why not? Of course, that would also mean being a queen and not a king.
Right?!?
Much as I appreciate Rev. Kate’s work I’m not prepared to be part of her. :-)
Yeah, this is crazy.
Wow, just…wow. So the left wants to remove children from Christian families that homeschool but is fine with this. Got it.
We don’t really care about children, they are things. They do not have human rights or worth. I think the narcisstic phrase “If I’m happy, my kids will be” needs to be put to rest. It is generally used to justify divorce. I am sure if you asked the grown children of those divorces if that was a happy time in their lives it would surprise them. I don’t think any child sits around thinking they hope their parents divorce so one of them can be happy and he/she can too.
The justification that adults use to engage in acts of low character have no bounds nor concern for others that aren’t so happy or hurt along the way.
The gay who comes out and walks out of a marriage is applauded, and the spouse who knows there will be now reconciliation is left abandoned by both them and the social justice warriors. The collateral damage is not their concern. Celebrating the abnormal and destroying the normal is their job.
Agree.
There are terrible marriages that really do need to end—those are the ones that make sense to kids, and divorce can provide them with some relief from the tension and stress of living in a high-conflict or even abusive household.
That being said, the reality is that kids actually want their families to be…families. My step-children love me, are happy to have step-siblings, are well-adjusted, happy people…but I know there is nonetheless a longing for that “us” that is Mom + Dad +Kid.
I’ll reiterate: pray for the children of the future.
And I’ll add pray for adults…
Oh, I don’t think this is the bottom of the slippery slope nor is it the potential start of a slippery slope – that slope started slipping some time ago. There are states, such as Massachusetts, in which Catholic Charities have closed up their adoption services rather than violate their religious beliefs and provide children for homosexuals wishing to adopt as dictated by the state. That doesn’t help anyone – either the children in need of adoption, potential parents looking to adopt or even gays looking to adopt (the lack of Catholic Charities just means longer waiting lines at other adoption agencies for all).
The lack of Catholic Charities’ participation-by-coercion in facilitating a situation they believe is not in the best interests of a child has to do with more than the mere logistical problems caused by their withdrawal from offering the service. It has to do with resisting the state’s encroachment on the religious liberty that is expressed in the title “Catholic Charities” not to engage in activities contrary to doctrine and practice. (This would hold for other situations and faith communities, too, by the way.)
This particular segment of the population thinks only about themselves. They care about what THEY want, and care nothing for the interests of the innocent person they act as parent to.