Dueling Sperm?

I occasionally listen to the Dr Dean Edell talk radio show. He seems to be a knowledgeable physician, but today I learned a little more than I wanted to.

The caller was a gay man. He is, with his partner, seeking to become a parent. Since the nature of their relationship rules out normal procreation, they have brought in a woman to be a "surrogate" and carry "their" child to term. This is weird enough, but there's more.

Apparently the surrogate mom has been visiting the two prospective daddies to be fertilized. The exact mechanics of this were thankfully not explained, but it seems conception has not yet occurred despite many attempts.

Then it emerged that the daddies have been combining BOTH their emissions, prior to the insemination ceremonies. The reason for this is so that both men can feel like they are "real" parents, not knowing which sperm actually found the target. The medical question for Dr. Dean was whether this would be harmful to the process.

Dr Dean observed that the human reproductive system actually seems to anticipate this possibility, and in prehistoric times it may have been common for a woman to be fertilized by several men in rapid succession. Sperm are therefore prepared for combat. The better sperm will prevail and reach the egg, leaving the others to die in despair. Dr Dean said he would defer to a fertility specialist but did not see any immediate problem. The caller was relieved and hung up.

I'm not sure where to begin reacting to this. First, it is simply not possible for two men to be parents, no matter how hard they try. The attempt is an inherently un-natural act. Both these men have a disorder and need to get some help.

Second, their attempt to reproduce strikes me as a very selfish decision. They "want" a child so they can be "normal" people. But they CAN'T be normal, as discussed above. Nevertheless, if they want a child so bad, why go to all this trouble to create a new one? And then, to make matters worse, deprive this child of a mother?

I'm not in favor of gay adoption. Nevertheless, there are plenty of children languishing in foster care or institutions who need parents. There is no reason for anyone, gay or straight, to take such extreme measures to create a child when they are already in plentiful supply. Adopt one. Better yet, find a young girl who is about to have an abortion, help her through the pregnancy, then adopt the child that would otherwise have been killed.

People don't do this because they want a child that is genetically "mine." Ok, I get it. This is an instinct that is hard-wired into all of us. If we think about it, though, we have to admit that WE and our desires are not the most important part of this equation. The child is. Every decision we as parents, or prospective parents, make should be directed to that end.

I suspect our gay friends just want something to love. Fine. They can get a dog or a cat - plenty of orphans there, too. They should not, however, produce a child. They cannot give it a natural, loving home with a female mother and a male father who are bound together for life. The same goes for straight people who aren't willing to make a full commitment. Parenting is serious business.

UPDATE 11/28 - My better half tells me the above post sounds unduly harsh. For the record, I think gay people should be treated with the same respect due to any human being. In turn, I hope gay people will accept that children deserve respect as well, and should be allowed to grow up with both a mother and a father. The desire to love and care for someone is laudable, and I'm sure you can find some other way to express it.

Also, my statement above that being gay is a "disorder" is easily misunderstood. I understand that many homosexuals believe they were born this way. This is quite possible. We are all born as sinners of various kinds. Some people have a propensity to steal, others to commit violent acts, etc etc. God calls ALL of us to repent and seek forgiveness for our acts. Your sins are of a different nature than mine, but we both need the same salvation. In this sense, we are all "disordered" in our own unique way.

The Rumsfeld Sack

Robert Novak has some of the best inside sources in Washington. The story he gets about the abrupt post-election departure of SecDef Donald Rumsfeld is thus very aggravating.

According to administration officials, only three or four people knew he would be fired -- and Rumsfeld was not one of them. His fellow presidential appointees, including some who did not applaud Rumsfeld's performance in office, were taken aback by his treatment...

The treatment of his war minister connotes something deeply wrong with George W. Bush's presidency in its sixth year. Apart from Rumsfeld's failures in personal relations, he never has been anything short of loyal in executing the president's wishes. But loyalty appears to be a one-way street for Bush. His shrouded decision to sack Rumsfeld after declaring he would serve out the second term fits the pattern of a president who is secretive and impersonal...

[Sources] believe removal of Rumsfeld falling into the 24-hour cycle was intended to crowd out continued rehashing of disastrous election returns. It is hard to find anyone in the Bush administration who endorses the way Rumsfeld was handled. His friend and comrade, Vice President Dick Cheney, is reported to be profoundly disturbed. MORE

This is totally consistent with the way the Bush Administration operates. Bush has total confidence in his people and stands 100% behind them. Until he doesn't. The same thing happened with FEMA Director Michael Brown after Katrina, CIA Director Porter Goss, two different Treasury Secretaries, and various others.

Obviously the president is entitled to hire and fire people as he pleases. After awhile, however, it becomes difficult to find good people to join the administration when they know they will be treated this way. Bush is caricatured as someone who is surrounded by flunkies and insulated from the real world. Stories like this do nothing to prove the caricature wrong.

Pope In Turkey

Pope Benedict XVI will be visiting Turkey next week, Nov 28 - Dec 1. This is more than just a courtesy call and is important on a number of levels. We have the spiritual leader of 2/3 of the world's Christians visiting a nation that is 99% Muslim at a time when tensions could hardly be higher. It also comes two months after B16's Regensburg speech that incited Muslim protest and violence, including the killing of a nun in Somalia.

I think the Pope knew exactly what he was saying at Regensburg and what the reaction would be. He knows the demographic wave that is coming, and that there is no time to waste if Europe is to avoid becoming the next Muslim conquest. The pope recognizes that military force will not end this war. Therefore he is deploying an even more powerful weapon: ideas. He wants to bring Islam to a dialogue and, eventually, reach some kind of peaceful coexistence.

Meanwhile there are couple of sub-plots. As a Cardinal, B16 loudly opposed the admission of Turkey into the EU and the Turks have't forgotten. The Turkish government has been noticeably chilly about everything surrounding this visit. Another angle is the Pope's meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox church - Rome would love nothing more than to bring the Eastern churches back into full communion. Most of the theological differences have been worked out, except for the sticky issue of papal authority. This meeting is, in fact, the real reason for the trip - Patriarch Bartholomew invited B16 to visit long before the Regensburg flap brought new significance to the trip.

Time magazine, which I usually cannot stand, has a decent story about B16 and Turkey that reviews most of the issues at least superficially. Here it is. Also, Chris Blosser of Against The Grain has a terrific roundup of press coverage about the trip. Click here.

Protests and death threats are already beginning in Turkey. I feel sure the greatest precautions have been taken and security will be tight. Keep in mind, though, that the last Pope was shot right in St. Peter's Square - by a Turk, incidentally. So we must deploy the full armor of God for Benedict's protection on this trip. The Knights of Columbus are asking all Christians to say the following prayer daily until the Pope returns safely:

Heavenly Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name, we humbly ask that you sustain, inspire, and protect your servant, Pope Benedict XVI, as he goes on pilgrimage to Turkey – a land to which St. Paul brought the Gospel of your Son; a land where once the Mother of your Son, the Seat of Wisdom, dwelt; a land where faith in your Son’s true divinity was definitively professed. Bless our Holy Father, who comes as a messenger of truth and love to all people of faith and good will dwelling in this land so rich in history. In the power of the Holy Spirit, may this visit of the Holy Father bring about deeper ties of understanding, cooperation, and peace among Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and those who profess Islam. May the prayers and events of these historic days greatly contribute both to greater accord among those who worship you, the living and true God, and also to peace in our world so often torn apart by war and sectarian violence.

We also ask, O Heavenly Father, that you watch over and protect Pope Benedict and entrust him to the loving care of Mary, under the title of Our Lady of Fatima, a title cherished both by Catholics and Muslims. Through her prayers and maternal love, may Pope Benedict be kept safe from all harm as he prays, bears witness to the Gospel, and invites all peoples to a dialogue of faith, reason, and love. We make our prayer through Christ, our Lord. Amen.

... and Amen again. The Fatima title is a nice touch, since the town where the famous apparition took place is named after Mohammed's daughter. A small point - but maybe a start.

Post Office Treason

Michelle Malkin reports that protesters took down the U.S. flag from a post office in Maywood, California this week and replaced it with a Mexican flag, all while chanting anti-American slogans.

It seems that Maywood has declared itself a "sanctuary" city and refuses to cooperate with the Feds in enforcing immigration laws. So no surprise that local cops stood by and watched while Old Glory was torn down and stomped on. Story and video

Here's an idea: if you are an illegal alien, GO TO MAYVILLE CA. You are most welcome there. Be sure to use all the local public services that you can. Do not worry yourself over the poor taxpayers of Mayville who must pay to take care of you. Through their elected leaders, they have chosen to welcome you. So take full advantage of their red carpet. Bienvenidos a Mayville!

Border Insanity

Peggy Noonan has some of her typically brilliant thoughts today, this time about the immigration problem.

Both Congress and the White House, our official deciders, will likely do in the next session what they did in the last: spend a lot of time trying to confuse people into thinking they're closing the borders without actually closing them. There will be talk again of fences, partial fences, fencelike entities and virtual fences. While they dither and mislead, towns and cities will continue to attempt to make their own immigration policy.

You know the facts. Immigrants are here in huge numbers, unlawfully, in the age of terror. They swell the cost of local life--emergency rooms, schools--which has an impact on local taxes. There are towns and cities that feel, and are, overwhelmed. And no one will help them.

The essential reason, I think, is that America's elites don't want America's borders closed. Businesses want low-wage workers; intellectuals are wed to global visions of cross-border prosperity; politicians want Hispanic loyalty and the Hispanic vote. It's not convenient for any of them to close the borders. If Americans on the ground are enduring difficulties over this, it's . . . too bad. This is further eroding America's already eroding faith in its institutions. MORE

She's exactly right. Neither party has any political incentive to actually DO anything about the borders. Yes, there are people to whom this is a serious problem and they are screaming as loud as they can. Our Dear Leaders believe that we, the people, are stupid. If they just talk a lot and throw some bones our way, we will shut up.

Our political figures say they have to concentrate on an overall, long-term, comprehensive answer to the immigration problem. So they huff and puff about the long-term implications of this move or that, and in the end they do nothing.

They are like people in a burning house who sit around discussing the long-term efficacy of various kinds of water hoses while the house burns down around them.

The sad part is that, from the politicians point of view, this method works. Voters have short memories. We keep re-electing these people and we keep getting the same results.

Thoughts About Sex

Ha, that title got you to read this post! Calm down. Scarlett Johanson is, apparently, an actress of some renown. I have never heard of her myself. Anyway, she sounds like a shameless harlot, by her own admission.

The Lost In Translation star last month boasted about being so "socially aware" she gets tested for HIV twice a year.

Johansson says, "We are supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn't be educated about sex at all. Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions." MORE

Hat tip to Mark Shea for finding this article. He also has some interesting conclusions:

... there is a language of the body, as well as a language of the tongue. The act of sex means "I give you all of myself in sacrificial love."

In Johannson's world, the act of sex is recreational and semi-anonymous. The guy might or might not be giving you a deadly plague as he pursues his own pleasure with you as the useful apparatus. Best to be "socially aware" of how anonymous, disposable, and meaningless you are. And best to dispose of any by-products of that mechanical act. That's educated. God forbid you find yourself in a family full of love. That would require something of you. Liberation is isolated atomized autonomy. Slavery is a family of love and mutual care.

Feminists think they are somehow "liberated" by being able to have sex anytime, with anyone, and in any manner that they please, with no consequences for their actions. In fact, they are enslaving themselves to a meaningless existence that will ultimately destroy them.