So What Happens Now?

So Mary Cheney is pregnant. Done deal.

From a progressivist standpoint, she’s chosen to have the baby, but her choice wasn’t one based on anguish or even desperation. She chose before she got pregnant. It’s obviously a bit more difficult than an accidental unprotected cock clasped in vagina for a gay couple to become pregnant. They discuss the idea, do whatever level of math on it that they’re comfortable with, and take steps to make it happen. It’s quite Pro-Life, actually, to decide in favor of bringing a new life into the world. So yes, from a progressivist standpoint, she will have the baby.

From a neocon standpont, she’s stillllll pregnant! Only we all know ahead of time what kind of family the child will be born into. We know that the baby won’t have a one-mother, one-father environment. We know, as neocons, that he or she will be under the influence of the Gay Agenda. We know, as neocons, that the one-man-one-woman context is better than any kind of environment a gay couple—simply because they’re gay—could ever provide. We also know that we’d never “murder an unborn baby” because it’s wrong…meaning, we know, from a neocon standpoint, she will have the baby.

Progressives—at least the ones who put humanity before politics—are happy that the child will have loving parents who will provide a stable home. The same subset of progressives—among which I fancy myself to be included—breathed a huge sigh of relief when the more famous set of the the child’s presumptive grandparents announced how happy they were to be welcoming a grandchild.

We know that not all is well for the neocons. Janice “Vulvamatic” Crouse called the situation “unconscionable” and Carrie Gordon “Sugar Tits” Earll insisted that “Love can’t replace a mother and a father.”

So why haven’t the Crouses and Earlls of the world come forth to proactively be “prolife” and try to remove the baby from the custody of the two big dykes? I mean, if they want to live according to their principles, they should be fighting to remove the child once it’s born from the clutches of the obviously inferior parentage and into a foster home that has a one-man, one-woman configuration. Those neocons less interested in the christianist side of the argument should be encouraging Mary to abort.

If they don’t, they’re just talking out their nethermouths and should shut the fuck up—but not before admitting their hatefulness and apologizing to Mary and Heather.

There’s no way to directly contact Mrs. Crouse, but you can email her work to see how she intends to correct Mary Cheney’s unconscionable act. As for Butter Nipples Earll, well, there’s a less indirect route, but still not so satisfying as it could be. But then again, you’ll be emailing someone who’s probably never been truly satisfied in her own lifetime.

Maybe we should leave it up to that self-satisfied, never-satisfied screeder, Bill O’Reilly? From Salon.com:

the December 13 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly dismissed scientific research on same-sex parenting to assert that “[n]ature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum” form of child-rearing. O’Reilly asked “why,” if children suffer no psychosocial deficit from being raised by same-sex parents, “wouldn’t nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?” O’Reilly declared that by arguing in favor of same-sex couples’ right to raise children, “you’re taking Mother Nature and you’re throwing it right out the window, and I just think it’s crazy.”

Bill must have had some really good cupcakes in his day.

Technorati Tags: