The article is about a woman who underwent hormone therapy and breast reduction to become a male. He's lived as a man for several years and is married to a woman. His wife had severe endometriosis, which resulted in a hysterectomy and infertility. Because he still had his female sexual organs (uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries), he stopped taking hormone therapies that kept him "male" and conceived a child. The article states that he's currently 20 weeks along and due July 3, 2008.
I think it's a bit disingenuous for a news agency to report this as a "pregnant man". Technically, if the he is a genetic female, then he is a she for medical purposes. Furthermore, he has a functioning set of female sex organs. So... to say that this is a pregnant man is not quite accurate.
That aside, I really have no problem with this couple choosing to conceive, carry, and give birth. Why not? It's clear that they want children and the seem to have a stable relationship. They appear to have thought out the roles they will play in the child's life:
"I will be my daughter's father, and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a
Still, there are some who see this as yet another example of the downfall of the American family.
Armen Hareyan, publisher and CEO of eMaxHealth, an independent health newsHow is this going too far? This "male" is a genetic female. If this person wants to parent, then who is Hareyan to say that they shouldn't parent. What is so "morally wrong"? And, my question to Hareyan would be, "Ok. So, would you suggest an abortion?" Parenthood, no matter what the gender of the parents, is always an "experiment". There are no rules and no guarantees.
website, added: "As a Christian I believe this is morally wrong. I feel that
this is just too far and that they are trying to do an experiment with the
"If they wanted to have a child, they could take an infant from an orphanage.
They should not be doing this."
Does anyone else see the irony here? This is a genetic female who is living as a male - they couple has been living as a heterosexual married couple in public. To me, the decision to obtain sperm from a donor and use the available uterus to gestate a child is no different than an infertile Christian couple turning to infertility treatments or retaining a surrogate. The only difference is that the surrogate in question is living, socially, as a man. Furthermore, since - genetically - this is lesbian couple, I find it hard to believe that Hareyan would've given his "blessing" on any adoption.
Speaking to Canada's National Post, Margaret Somerville, founding director
of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, Montreal,
described the case "a deconstruction of our biological reality".
Isn't removing eggs from an ovary; fertilizing them with ejaculated donor sperm in a petri dish; implanting them back into a uterus; and then supporting the pregnancy with man made chemicals doing the same thing (deconstructing biological reality)? Biological reality says that some people will never have a child. So, what is so different here?
ETA a link to Sean the Blogonauts current project.
If you want to read a history of his project, dealing with Mercy Ministries, then please go here.
Mercy Ministries is a national non profit organisation dedicated to
providing homes and care for young women suffering the effects of eating
disorders, self harm, abuse, depression, unplanned pregnancies and other
life controlling issues.
Unfortunately, it is emerging that the ministry denies proper mental and physical health care to its residents or patients. Instead, they prefer to use prayer, house arrest, and exorcism. While claiming to be a free program, it has come to Sean's attention that they really are running a for profit organization.