Why the intense focus on what you think is “normal” or “natural”?
You seem to be ignoring the crucial issue here, which is that when a couple announce having a baby, whatever the makeup of the couple (up to and including same sex couples without the biology to enable them to conceive) it’s the height of rudeness to ask (or report speculatively on) intrusive aspects of it.
You don’t have to be a professional liberal PC SJW to read that story and quietly conclude that the biological mother isn’t mentioned because all parties have agreed that the people actually bringing up the baby are the only ones who want to be considered “parents”, and the only relevant aspect of the surrogate is that in practical terms, the existence of a surrogate is obvious, but her identity unimportant.
You see, your questioning is a barrier to things like this being considered “normal” (as in, part of the range of things that humans can do which is considered normal), and the “snowflakes” on here would probably just quietly have your issues occur to them when reading the story, then think “ah well, those details are unimportant, and mentioning it won’t have any positive impact on anything”
There’s no doublethink, you haven’t noticed something nobody else has. It’s just that there’s really no reason to question the obvious, unless you wish to highlight abnormality or resist “normalisation”
(, Wed 14 Feb 2018, 18:02, Share, Reply)
I’m not at all surprised
that you aren’t equipped to deal with a grand total of four short, concise paragraphs.
In the spirit of your “BUT THE ENN AITCH ESS” posts, I’ll give you the gist: “YOU’RE JUST RUDE MATE, THATS ALL IT IS”
It is though, rather funny that when taken to task by someone who isn’t in enough of a running feud with you for you to have a lot of “previous” to bring up in lieu of a point, you’re reduced to effectively “la la can’t hear you”. The only baby related mystery on this thread is how one managed to create and maintain an account here.
(, Wed 14 Feb 2018, 19:05, Share, Reply)