…And I believe in One Child of the New Age, who was made incarnate by an Anonymous Sperm Donor of the Lesbian Mary…

Mary Cheney, the daughter of the vice president of the U.S., gave birth today to her child. Not only is there no mention of any father, or even of any sperm donor, or even of the means (I can think of at least three possibilities) by which the child was conceived, there is not the slightest reference, there is not the most indirect reference to the fact that the child would have had to be conceived, that the child would have had a male biological progenitor. Nope, the story is simply that Mary—the Bizarro Mary for our post-Christian world—had a baby, to all intents and purposes all by herself.

Here are my reflections from last December on “Mary Cheney’s test-tube baby: A new revelation parodying the old.”

Smiling and holding the baby in a photo seen at several websites are the vice president and his wife, both of whom I once liked and admired, in a galaxy long ago and far away.

- end of initial entry -

Ben W. writes:

And God or the universe commemorated Mary Cheney’s “virginal” birth at the same time through nature. The way nature “empathizes” with man in Shakespeare…

“A female white spotted bamboo shark at the Belle Isle Aquarium in Detroit surprised zookeepers in July by giving birth to two babies. Why the surprise? It was a virgin birth: She hadn’t been near a male for six years.

“The mother, who has been housed in a tank with a female brown banded bamboo shark for the last six years, laid a clutch of eggs in April.”

And coincidentally this shark was housed with another female shark! Ah, the Cheneys and the Sharks…what hath the universe wrought!

Also this:

“Female sharks can fertilize their own eggs and give birth without any sperm from a male shark, according to a new study into the asexual reproduction of a hammerhead in a Nebraska zoo.”

So if the sharks can do it, why not Mary Cheney?

Laura W. writes:

You may have already seen this excellent piece on artificial insemination by Kay Hymowitz in City Journal. As she notes, artificial insemination is considered so inhuman that a number of Western countries restrict it or ban it altogether when homosexual couples are involved. Yet here, the vice president’s daughter displays no shame that she has treated her child’s father as a mere vessel of sperm. (She won’t so easily fool her child.) This represents the complete death of common sense. Only in a country that sanctifies the whims of adults over the immaterial needs of children could such a barbaric practice take hold.

Ben w. writes:

“At a New York forum last winter, Mary Cheney said: ‘This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue.’”

So our parthenogenesist said last winter, “This is a baby.” Imagine that—this was a baby already as of last winter. Hmmm some liberals might not consider that to be a salient fact—that the baby was significantly human this early.

“This is a blessing from God.” Hmmm God might have other thoughts about this process and its outcome…

“It is not a political statement.” Hmmm, so let’s not read anything into what I have just done.

“It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue.” Hmmm there is no issue to discuss.

Hmmm a virginal birth done in a political vacuum about which there is no social issue that anyone can culturally discuss…blessed by God (who apparently does exist).

No wonder God chose a shark to commemorate this moment. In other instances he used doves…

James W. writes:

I would argue for the Cheneys.

First, we know the Vice-President and his wife to be fine people, and people who have survived many tests of their principles with dignity.

I suspect one of their understandings is that heterosexuality is so normal and natural, as nature intended, it does not need articulation. I believe they would have had the same experience many of us would felt were we to realize slowly through the years something was different about the daughter we loved. This was not a choice for Mary Cheney, as it is for some, nor was it a choice for the Cheney’s that they would love their daughter differently. These, then, are the people we have seen and judged, not misjudged.

Mary Cheney has stood by her parents as they have stood by her, unlike, should we care to remember, the dancing Ron Reagan to his father.

Mary Cheney has obeyed, unlike many heterosexuals immersed in themselves, the ingrained need to bear children. Yes, in circumstances we do not care to replicate. Yet, we do not see the usual lifestyles forced into our faces, we do not see the “other half”, but what we see instead are the two parents involved who raised her.

Let us all walk one mile in the shoes of the Cheney’s first and be judged.

We were a great people because we once had the confidence to live with our exceptions. The time came that the enablers of our exceptions, not so much our exceptions, became so noisy and noxious that they required of us to accept our exceptions as normal, or superior. This causes us to fight back, as we must. The Cheney’s are not part of the problem.

I’ve thrown a stone or two from my glass home, and I will again. But not at these people.

LA replies:

I should have been more clear. My criticism of the Cheneys, which goes back years, is not based on their loving and supporting their daughter. It is based on their complete public approval of her choices and of the radical homosexual agenda. In the 2000 vice presidential debate Cheney said he had no problem with homosexual “marriage”—staking out a position that was to the left of his Democratic opponent, Sen. Lieberman. In the 2004 vice presidential debate he said he supported homosexual marriage—disagreeing with the president, which the president let him do, thus trashing their own supporters—and he remained pointedly silent in the face of Democratic statements that opponents of homosexual marriage were driven by hate—thus trashing his own supporters even more. My disapproval of Mrs. Cheney is that in addition to the above she has turned over the years into a full-scale liberal who reflexively makes Martin Luther King her touchstone of everything good about America.

What they could and should have done re their daughter’s lesbian relationship and sperm-injected, fatherless baby was to say, “This is a private matter,” and say nothing more about it. Instead they’ve publicly approved of her choices, and they’ve publicly approved of the whole homosexualist agenda. They have repeatedly conveyed in public a quality of being almost subservient to her.

James W. replies:

Ah, well then, that is an entirely different kettle of stinking fish. I am surprised, disappointed, and illuminated.

LA replies:

Here are google results for articles at VFR touching on Vice President Cheney and the homosexual issue.

Among other items turned up by the Google search is a piece by me two years ago reporting that Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that anyone who doubts that Muslims are capable of democracy is a “racist.”

In other words, if you disagree with Bush’s democratism policy, you’re a racist.

In other words, no disagreement on Bush’s policy is allowed.

The left-wing hit-artist David Mills (“Undercover Black Man”) called me a racist for presenting data on black-on-white rape in a bold and sensational manner, which at least was arguably an offensive thing to do. Our “conservative” vice president says that anyone who doubts that Muslims can adopt democracy is a racist. Cheney is more PC than David Mills.

Cheney’s steady move to the left over the last six years has been thoroughly documented at VFR.

Laura W. writes:

You make an excellent point about the Cheneys: “They’ve publicly approved of her choices, and they’ve publicly approved of the whole homosexualist agenda. They have repeatedly conveyed in public a quality of being almost subservient to her.”

Obviously their public behavior is a reflection of their private relationship in this case. Which leads to the question: what should they have said to her in private? They could have said, “You are not an automaton. You have chosen to live differently. Nothing has forced you to live as a homosexual and sexual impulses are changeable. We love you, but could never feel toward your partner the way we would toward a son-in-law. We hope you do not have fatherless children. It would be selfish and cause us pain. It would set a bad example and others would imitate you.” That’s what loving parents would say.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 23, 2007 08:37 PM | Send