Confused? Me too

The nation stirred in interest days ago when the story a transgender man from Oregon claiming to be pregnant hit the national media. Photos of what appeared to be a five-months pregnant Thomas Beatie, formerly known as Tracy Lagondino, were displayed everywhere, from CNN to abcnews.com. Several individuals, including some of his neighbors, were skeptical of the truth behind this claim. If Beatie was lying, he deserves kudos for one heck of a practical joke. But if his claim that he impregnated himself through artificial insemination is true, as his doctors say it is, some huge societal problems have just surfaced.\nDuring his appearance on “Oprah,” he asked why people think his decision to bear this child is selfish. He said he is “no more selfish than any other mother who wants a baby ...” He went on to ask, “Is it selfish when a couple uses in vitro? Or fertility pills?”\nNo, Mr. Beatie, there’s nothing selfish about a couple desiring to be fruitful and produce children. And it’s only natural, and commendable for that matter, that when a woman is unable to conceive a baby, the couple would seek other outlets for creating a child, such as adoption or in vitro fertilization. And I’m not arguing that this couple is not loving or financially secure enough to raise a child. If Beatie and his wife were able to adopt and thus “save” an orphan from a childhood of loneliness, that would be a benefit for the child, even though this child would face a hard enough life with the constant harassment from school mates when word gets out that he or she has a transgender parent. But they aren’t adopting – Beatie is planning to actually give birth. \nHe said in a recent interview, “I will be my daughter’s father, and Nancy (Beatie’s wife) will be her mother. We will be a family.”\nNo doubt about it, this little girl’s childhood will be a living hell after she – and her peers – discover her father is technically her mother. Many might argue this is none of anybody’s business. “Beatie’s decision is between him and his wife,” they might say. But this is bigger than just a “man” choosing to bear a child. This situation illuminates the individualistic, pompous sense of entitlement that has run rampant in today’s generation of young-to-middle-aged Americans. We skew mandates in biblical scripture to justify our sins, and we throw all moral guidelines to the wayside because this impedes on our earthly satisfaction.\nCall me old fashioned, but if a woman wants to become a man, she has implicitly chosen to give up the blessings of being a woman. That is, bearing a child is no longer something to which she is entitled, even if it is possible through artificial insemination. What are we saying? “I don’t feel comfortable with the sex God has assigned me. So I’m changing. But don’t get me wrong; I still want all the benefits of being my previous sex because I deserve it.”\nGive me a break.