So they want us to believe this is normal?

I don’t think so.

Anderson Cooper, 52, an anchor on CNN, was overjoyed at the birth of his son, whom he named Wyatt…after his deceased father.

It wasn’t his wife who had the baby, since he’s a homosexual and he had split with his partner, Benjamin Maisani in 2018, so who gave birth?

In Cooper’s words “Most of all I’m grateful to a remarkable surrogate who carried Wyatt, and watched over him lovingly…”

Obviously, lesbian couples and homosexual couples aren’t able to have children by themselves, so they have to look elsewhere and find someone who will “assist” them in procreation or through an adoption.

The May 18, 2020 issue of People magazine (it’s on the news stand now) carried a centerfold article about how great this birth was, pics of Cooper feeding a bottle to Wyatt and kissing him on the forehead.

The only thing missing was a mother.

The surrogate is no longer in the picture, she had fulfilled her contract, delivered a baby, was paid and now is no longer needed…at least in this scenario.

But science shows that a child does best when a mother and father raise them, though many times circumstances force a situation where someone becomes a single parent.

But they will tell you, if they’re honest, that it is very hard to raise a child (or children) as a single parent.

So why does culture want to celebrate a situation like Cooper’s, trying to hand it off as “natural” or “normal” when it is just more of a selfish choice made possible because one is rich.

He chose a life style that would not allow the procreation of children, he thought it was out of reach.

But he just had to have one, needed to check a box, so he paid to get what he wanted…made a business deal, a transaction.

No matter how often TV or the movies portray this as happy or hilarious or sweet or normal, it really boils down to nothing more than a business deal, but it’s not normal.

A doctor and an agency was paid and the birth mother has no relationship with the child because her contract ended with the final payment…that child was really no more than a commodity to be negotiated for.

Some would say this is no different than an adoption, but they would be wrong.

An adoption gives a loving home to a child who was born and circumstances didn’t allow the birth parent(s) to raise the child and give it a solid home, so they did what was best for their baby.

In Copper’s transaction, that was what it really came down to, was special ordering of a child.

Too harsh you say?

It isn’t much different than the practice of a boutique birth…where the parents specify a girl or boy, certain traits, color of hair, even IQ.

An ultrasound is performed before the child is born and if the child doesn’t meet the specs, like male or female, an abortion is performed, and they try again.

In both of these scenarios, no one is even bothered to look at the ethics or legality, nor does anyone ask how the child will feel.

In a situation where the child is deprived of its natural mother, we are led to believe it is now normal…nothing to see here.

If one questions any part of the situation, very quickly the attacks come, as they did to writer Joyce Carol Oates, who asked to know more about the natural mother, as all the focus appeared to be on Cooper.

It didn’t take long for the knives to come out, her question was described as “virulent and unnecessary.”

Another pointed out that “…a relationship with a surrogate is very private”…except when Kim Kardashian a Kanye West used a surrogate for their last two children and employed a “surrogate therapist.”

The “therapist” served as the communicator between Kardashian and the surrogate.

Not much of a relationship there.

Another person wanted to have us feel for Cooper after all “First, think about being gay and the cost it financially entails having a baby.

Second, it is not so easy to find an egg donor and then a surrogate just for a gay person to be "pregnant" even if money is not a problem.”

Oh the pressure of it all.

Personally, I am more concerned for the child.

My friend, John Stonestreet said it best in his “Breakpoint Daily” column:

“Behind Anderson Cooper’s money and these headlines is this baby’s mom.

No matter what we tell ourselves, about how willing she was or how better off she is now, she is harmed and so is her son – who somehow knew from the moment he was born to look for her.

Unfortunately, he won’t find her.

Shame on us.”

And that should be our focus, not Anderson Cooper finally getting what he wanted…another box checked off, but the harm that is being passed off as “Baby dreams do come true.”

Rick G. Thielen lives in Grove, Oklahoma and enjoys sharing observations and ruminations on life around him.