Tuesday, March 25, 2008

An Amazing Thing

This article was posted on a forum I frequent.

Yeah, I know, most of you won't read it. What if I tell you it's about a pregnant man, would that get your attention?

He is transgendered. He has some gender reassignment surgery, but kept his reproductive organs. His wife lost her uterus to endomitriosis. Using donor sperm, they were able to inseminate the husbands uterus and are going to have a baby girl.

There has been a lot of controversy about this, including doctors refusing to treat them. I think that's a horrible thing.

I can understand people not understanding it, even needing a bit of time to process the whole reality of the situation (men don't usually have a uterus). However I don't understand why people think it's such a horrible thing that a loving, happily married couple want to bring a child into the world so they can love and care for it.

There are much better things to get upset about than that.

22 comments:

Dena said...

I think the most awful is doctors refusing to treat them. Is it worth the risk of possibly having a complicated pregnancy or something really wrong? Why should a doc have to agree with their desire for a child in order to help that child come into the world safely? Are un-wed mothers refused care because they have no husband? Gay couples adopt babies-do docs refuse to do check-ups on their kids because both parents are same sex? The baby deserves good med care like anyone else. That little girl didn't choose what her parents would be like, so why possibly endanger her life for it?!

Steph said...

I agree Dena! The couple is doing nothing wrong - not endangering the life of the child or anything, and are planning on raising their child in a duel parent (even duel gender) home. It makes me so sad that they're being given such a hard time about the whole process.

Mommy Rader said...

I'm confused. At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot...is he naturally born male with an inserted uterus, or is he (or she?!?!) naturally born female with "added" organs?? I'm SO confused by this article...please help!!!!

Steph said...

He was born physically male but emotionally/mentally female (transgendered) and has had surgery to remove his breast tissue, but chose not to remove his uterus, so basically he's a man with female reproductive organs.

Mommy Rader said...

AHHHH! Now I'm even more confused. Sorry, Steph :( So if he was born male how'd he get breasts and all that other stuff to be removed. Emotionally/mentally doesn't manifest physical traits, does it? I am just not educated on this stuff apparently. Forgive the vulgarity-so this man has a va-jay-jay??? How did he get that if he was born male? Okay...going to look up info on transgenders now...

matthew said...

I think Steph meant to say he was naturally born female? Right? If that is the case it's really not that weird a story. It's a pregnant woman who has taken steps to be a man.

Mommy Rader said...

Oh well now that makes a bit more sense! NOW I get it *DOH!*

Anonymous said...

ok so yes you accept this cool i think it is great i do laugh however becuase IF the transgendered male had a MALE partner and not a wife... aka he was gay and they were going to have a child this way you would all be horrified and grossed out... I just find it humourous how people are so bloody two faced it is sad....tell me your thoughts on that????

Steph said...

Actually I see no problem what so ever with homosexual couples having children. In the vast majority of cases that means adoption, and providing a family for a child that doesn't have one is one of the most wonderful things a person can do.

Mommy of Three said...

I'd have to say that I disagree with the transgender thing and gays having children. Every child deserves a mom AND a dad...not two moms or two dads. That's not God-honoring. Nor is mutilating your body to become a different gender. Don't you think that if God wanted you to be female, He would have created you as such? If He intended for you to be male, would He not have done so? Say what you want, but I do not believe that someone is "born" gay. I do not believe in a woman being "trapped" in a man's body or man "trapped in a woman's body. As someone who is entering the Obstetrical field myself, I can tell you right now that I would refuse to do fertility treatments and IVF on a couple such as this, because to do so would make me part of their sin...and yes, I do believe they live a sinful lifestyle. Just as I would not perform an abortion on a patient who comes to the clinic seeking one. Nor would I prescribe the morning after pill. Nor would I even prescribe the Pill. Because doing so violates my convictions, and I, as a human, have the right to stick to my morals and not support such things. My dad is also a physician and was turned down a job because he, like me, would not perscribe the Pill to a sexually active 15 year old, because it violates his morals...why? Because we believe that life begins at conception, and the Pill functions by thinning the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg (should it become so) cannot implant and succeed at life. We consider that abortion. And abortion is WRONG...and I applaud him standing for his convictions. Obviously, I wouldn't turn away the children in these cases (of gay and transgendered parents), because it's not their fault they were brought into the situation. But I would NEVER EVER okay IVF for gays or transgendered. Never. Period. What is this world coming to when even Christians are accepting of such things? The Bible says to be IN this world, but not OF it. I hope Christ comes back quickly, because my heart aches at the conditon of our world...

Steph said...

Kayla, I understand your strong conviction, but would you feel as strongly about a single parent raising a child? Do you think their children should be taken from them, or that they should not be allowed to adopt because their child won't have a mother and a father? And in this specific case, the child would be raised with a mother and a father, as he is legally male.

As for being transgendered, I feel if it is possible for a person to be born physically male and female (rare, but does happen), the why would God not "allow" someone to be born who is physically one gender while mentally/emotionally another? And what is wrong with that person seeking wholeness and harmony within themselves?

For your comments on the pill, I'd just like to point out (for anyone else reading, as I'm sure you already know this) that not all pills thin the lining of the uterus, some of them stop ovulation all together in order to prevent pregnancy. I also hope that any Dr. not comfortable with prescribing the pill would educate their patents on other forms of birth control - there are far too many 15y/o mothers with no support.

As for weather or not these lifestyle choices are God honouring - we can't choose that for other people. There are countless couples who are not Christians that have children and do not honour God with their lives. That's just the way the world works. We can not expect people who are not following God to live as tho they are. We can show them God, be Christ to them - and I personally don't think the way to do that is to condemn their choices, their dreams, their desire for a family.

Mommy of Three said...

No, I don't think singles should be allowed to adopt when that child could have had the option to go to a home with a mother and a father. Certainly, in extreme circumstances, I would be okay with such an adoption, if it came down to the welfare of the child being at stake. But, when I was growing up in California, it was actually illegal to adopt as a single. I honestly still wish this were the case, because since it is no longer, now gays are adopting. And that is definitely wrong.

And no, people are not born "both". They are born with both PARTS, which has been linked to having had an undeveloped twin while in utero. One embryo did not separate itself completely from the other and did not completely develop. What is left in the end are remnants of an undeveloped embryo. God does not "make" someone both a male and a female together. And if any such person were to be born, it is a result of our sinful nature. It is a birth defect, which results ultimately from the Fall.

Yes, ALL PILLS thin the lining of the uterus. All of them. And they all function by inhibiting ovulation and thickening cervical mucus so that sperm can't pass through. And in the words of my OB: "And if the first two fail, the lining of the uterus is thinned so that the fertilized egg cannot implant." I have asked after all three of my babies if anything new has been developed in the way of birth control that does not thin the lining of the uterus, and the answer remains the same. No. Do the research, and you'll see for yourself.

As far as condeming their choices, I certainly would disagree with you. Don't hate the sinner, certainly, but HATE the SIN! If their dream is to have a family (which is a God-given desire, by the way), then they should go about it the God-honoring way. In order to be "Christ" to non-believers, we should do just that...would Christ say that He accepts their lifestyle? No. Would He be content with their choices? Certainly not. But would He love the person? Absolutely. Jesus healed many corrupt people, and forgave the unforgiveable, yet He said "Go, and sin no more." When the pharisees brought the woman who had been caught in the act of adultery to Jesus, he said that whoever was without sin to throw the first stone. After the crowd had left he said, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "no one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus said. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

See? He didn't condemn HER, yet told her in love that her lifestyle was one of sin and that it needed to be left behind. I don't condemn the individuals who live these lifestyles, but I encourage them to make it a thing of the past and life a life pleasing to the Lord. In order to best be Christ to these people, we need to do so in love, and most importantly, TRUTH. We tend to leave that part out nowadays, because everyone's so afraid of "offending" them, and we're afraid the Truth will push them away...but what good are we doing them by "accepting" a sinful lifestyle and allowing them to believe that, because the church accepts them and their lifestyle that Heaven will do the same? Because that's what we're telling them when we don't share the Truth. Just because you go to church and listen to Christian music, and raise your hands during worship, that doesn't mean your lifestyle of homosexulaity and such isn't hindering you from entering the gates of Heaven. And that is the truth that everyone wants to stuff under the rug in order to not "offend" them and in order to "win" them. Christ never hid the truth from the multitudes he won over...He never sugar coated it, either. But He spoke it in love, which is ultimately what always wins in the end. I could go on and on, but my brain is getting jumbled more and more as I near my bedtime, which means I will start to ramble incessantly soon...:)

Steph said...

I'm probably the last person afraid of offending someone.

If someone is living a lifestyle that is contrary to God, then the real problem is that they have rejected God, and their lifestyle is a reflection of that rejection. Even if they stop living a homosexual lifestyle, that doesn't change the fact that they have rejected God. That's the problem we need to be working on, nothing else matters.

As for birth control, I use FAM personally because I'm not comfortable with the hormonal stuff, but I was told (and my own research has confirmed) that not all pills are abortive. Perhaps it's something available in Canada that isn't available in the US? I'm not sure.

Anyway, this sort of discussion can very easily go no where, and that's not useful for anyone. I don't agree with the homosexual lifetyle, I agree that it goes against God's plan, however I don't see why that should exclude people from being parents unless we are going to somehow restrict everyone who is not a christian from having kids. But as I mentioned before, this specific case doesn't fall into that category since it is (legally and functionally) a heterosexual couple.

I posted the story originally because I thought it was amazing that they were able to have a family against the odds (since the woman had no uterus) without adoption, and how horrible it was that people were treating them so badly.

annoyed single parent raised child who is on birth control said...

ALL CHILDREN DESERVE THE LOVE OF A PARENT SINGLE, GAY, OR TWO MOMS OR DADS, as long as a child is raised in a home of LOVE and support it doesn't matter whether the family is a simgle adopting family I take great offense to you comment my mother was not able to have children and due to abusive realtionships in her past was not interested in having a husband in her life... but she wanted children. so she adopted me becuase of these reasons brought upon her due to no fault of her own why should you sit there on yoru fancy smart ass and judge her and say she does not have the right to adopt a child becuase she is a single parent. She wanted a child and I needed a home of love and a mother. I have been raised quite well and the only father I need is Jesus. Maybe we should be focusing on the children and what is BEST for them instead of your moral rights and beliefs... isn't a home of love more important than a home of RELIGION. About the PILL i am on the pill because I am married and becuase I am not in a finacial state to have children at this moment I believe it best for me to be on this mesure of birth control how does this make me a sinner???? and how does this make me a baby killer???? If it is God's will for me to have a child then he will will stop the affects of the pill and make the baby. I do not believe that I am commiting a vile act of sin taking a pill that is preventing me from bringing a child into the world at a time in my life when I believe that it would not be in the best interest of the child or of my family due to emotional, financial reasons. i wish with all of my heart that I could have a child but I do feel that right now is not the time. If it is God's will for me to not have a child he won't let me but taking a tiny pink pill for my reaasurance everday is not a sin. Judging those who do is...

Lindy said...

I don't really want to get into any discussons except that I would really appreciate a term other than "gays" to be used with talking about people of that sexual orientation. Sinful lifestle or not- it's an offensive term in that context- and completly unessesary.

Mommy of Three said...

Oh geez...anonymous, you obviously have fear behind your beliefs, or you wouldn't be posting as so.

I didn't say that those who take the pill are sinners. It's just not right for my husband and I, as it violates our personal convictions...and prescribing it to teenagers who are just out to have sex without the consequences, or to couples who just don't want a baby...that also violates our convictions. I would thoroughly inform my adult patients of how the Pill functions, and should they choose it anyway, then I would allow them that choice. The 15-year-old, however, I would not.

And no one's judging your mother. I'm glad you had a good home.

Let's also refrain from offensive name calling. "Fancy smart ass" is hardly mature adult conversation, and making personal attacks accomplishes nothing.

As far as "gays", it's easier to type out when I have one finger to type with while nursing my baby. And gays aren't offended by the term, and it's not derrogatory, and you're not even gay!

Anonymous said...

So, Mommy of Three, what do you use as birth control?

Mommy of Three said...

Natural family planning. I take my temp every morning at the same time and I chart it. I also watch my other fertility signals and we abstain during the fertal phase. It works quite well if you're diligent. Not always though...that's how we got #3. I went on the South Beach Diet and that month, I went from always ovulating day 20 to day 13. It was kind of my own fault, though...I saw the fertility signals, but thought that I was safe, since it always happened on day 20 or 21. OOPS. But, we got a great baby out of it, so I can't complain! I'm thankful for that "oops!"

Lindy said...

"And gays aren't offended by the term, and it's not derrogatory, and you're not even gay!"

Saying that someone is gay is very differnt that talking about "those gays". The secondary is offensive to gay people. Trust me.

curious said...

Mommy of Three is there something wrong with using a condom?

Mommy of Three said...

Nothing wrong at all. It just feels (to US) like a barrier to total intimacy as well. We'll occasionally use them during the fertile phase, but not otherwise. They just kind of hit the "off" switch for us, if you get my point...

Curious said...

Makes sense :)