It has been brought to my attention that I made an error in my recent article titled Male Pregnancy: The Greatest Miracle of All. In that piece, I claimed that the left’s recent accomplishment of enabling men to have children was the greatest miracle because even God could not do such a thing. While making this argument, I appealed to the idea that there are some things that even God cannot do, such as creating a round cube or making one plus one equal forty-seven. I then concluded that male pregnancy falls into the same category of phenomena.

A very perceptive reader pointed out, however, that I had made a mistake by failing to distinguish between two kinds of impossibility. He explained my error in this way:

Males becoming pregnant is a physical (biological) impossibility at most, not a logical one, and as such does not represent a limitation on the power of an omnipotent God any more than divine impregnation of a woman does. On the other hand, 1+1 = 47 and round cube express (demonstrable) logical impossibilities.

Image licensed to author by Shutterstock

Upon reading this I immediately recognized that the reader was correct. I have to, therefore, acknowledge my mistake and issue a correction. At the same time, I would like to note that this error does not take away from the article’s substance, which was to draw attention to the left’s craziness in its complete disregard for the physical and biological realities of human existence.

And as far as miracles go, to make a man pregnant is, in this writer’s humble view, a greater feat than to make a young woman pregnant. Those of us who have been around for a while know that a healthy young woman has all the requisite physiological apparatus necessary to conceive a child in her body and carry the fetus to completion. A man, on the other hand, lacks this kind of equipment. In which part of the man’s belly would a fetus be conceived and grow? Would it be in the stomach or in the intestine or would the chosen male receive a brand-new womb made especially for the occasion of this particular miracle? And even if a womb was given to this male how would the baby be delivered after it has completed its course of gestation?

Whichever way we look at it, making a man pregnant does seem to require greater skill and artifice than making a female pregnant. It may not be impossible for God, but as far as we know he has never attempted such a miracle. The left, on the other hand, has and has apparently succeeded magnificently. So much so that even the very learned and intelligent scientists and doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now speak of “pregnant people.”

What an astounding accomplishment indeed.

As a concluding observation, I find it interesting to see the kinds of things that people notice and react to. The perceptive reader spotted the error in my piece and wrote back calling it a “blunder.” His correction is, of course, appreciated, but one hopes that he also took note of the larger point. This writer’s “blunder” was a conflation of two categories of impossibility, a relatively small mistake in this context and one that does not have a substantial bearing on the point the article was trying to make. The left’s error in declaring male pregnancy, on the other hand, is a “reality blunder” par excellence.

One would hope that the reader would also take the trouble to write to those who propagate this error and call them out on their faux pas. He could, for example, write directly to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, an acclaimed physician-scientist, who is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and whose education includes degrees from Johns Hopkins as well as Harvard.

If he does write to the CDC or Harvard Medical School, which now speaks of “birthing people” and “birthing persons,” I would be interested to hear whether they, too, will own up to their “blunder” and issue a requisite correction.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.