Posted on 05/26/2004 7:49:57 PM PDT by BJungNan
The women in the picture named their 8 yr old daughter Hillary....
I rarely read "Doonsbury" anymore. Does Trudeau still make fun of USA Today's "surveys"?
While residents of Elvis Country may be surprised to hear this, any New Yorker would respond to this article with a good "no sh-t Sherlock!" Most of my gay male coworkers can barely tolerate children. Any walk in any city park, however, will reveal many lesbian couples with children.
no matter the result, the female behavior will be reinforced in the child.
I can't believe it. Your turkey baster is performing in "black face".
Which begs the question of the sexual preferences of women who artificiall inseminate. I know of one woman lawyer who is basically A-sexual or non-sexual. The only way she was able to have a child (which gets raised at daycare) was to artificial inseminate.
I guess this is to allow ugly homosexual women to have children, to borrow from rush.
Something for everybody, I guess. <|:)~
This is news??? Have Americans become so stupid that they need to know that Gay Women can go to a sprem bank to have a baby? It was either a slow news day or this country is going to hell in a handbasket.
The title at the link is now, "Lesbian Moms a Growing U.S. Phenomenon."
I liked the old version better.
Jurnalists, magna-cum-lewd, no doubt.
Ah, wait, never mind, I misread and assumed the "four times more likely" was part of the headline. It ain't, and it's still there.
Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Loretta: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!
Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But...you can't have babies!
Loretta: Don't you opress me!
Reg: I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?
I believe teh objective of this article is to show pictures of lesbians with children. Much like in the 80's Ronald Reagan did not care about the story as long as the pictures were good, I believe this is an effort to equate homosexual women with mothers.
These women are having children in a manner that can not hide the fact this child had to be generated in an artificial way in order to raise it in an abnormal environment. These children unlike adoptees into a normal house will always know theirs is not a normal environment, they will forever be defensive, forever second best.
Notice how the picture used has a RELIGIOUS ceremony with a homosexuals child. This is to make religious opposition to be divided rather than the vast majority.
You've heard of ectopic pregnancies, haven't you? That's where implantation occurs in the Fallopian tube rather than the uterus. Sometimes one of these 'tubal' pregnancies ruptures, and the unborn child implants in the peritoneal cavity, implanting its placenta on the intestine, which has a rich blood supply.
Of course, abdominal pregnancy, as its called, is quite rare, and even more rarely comes out with a successful result. Imagine medical science being able to manange the complications of abdominal pregnancy, and you could have test tube babies implanted into the abdomens of men. I can't imagine any ethical doctor doing this, but you know how it is with medical ethics.
Not an original idea, but something I read in an Omni magazine several years ago. Not enough money in the world to pay me to do it!
From Monty Python's Life Of Brian:
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
With a turkey baster.
Fertility drugs and hormones don't seem to help though.
LOL! That's exactly what I want to know. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.