Thanks for this. I have noticed more and more in popular media the idea of using a surrogate becoming an accepted norm for couples who are unable to have a child on their own. The message is out there that doing so is an act of benevolence and without any ethical quandaries whatsoever. Look for its approval in a grade school Social Studies textbook soon.
Surrogacy? Recruitment? How else are faggies going to reproduce their numbers & preserve their culture? IMO they call straight normal people “breeders” out of sheer envy.
ping
Yes, a new slavery where mothers sell the child they give birth to, just as slaves were sold in the past. See the author’s final paragraphs.
To homos, the word “Breeder” is a pejorative of the worst kind. There is no word lower. Tells you something about their sickness.
Breeders keeping damaged DNA alive.
Doesn't at least a dollar have to change hands for the contract to be valid?
And who, really, is going to do with without getting anything back in return?
its been very easy for the advocates and supporters of surrogacy to pass on that approval to the “gay” population as well, because the whole point of surrogacy is selfish in the first degree to begin with - it is to have (as in possess, as in this belongs to me) that which they cannot naturally obtain - a child, and in as much it also involves CREATING the child - making it come into existence, it, more than adoption turns human life, children, into commodities
to me it is selfish in the second degree, in that if one’s wish is really an UNSELFISH wish to give oneself as a parent, millions of children in need of ADOPTIVE parents wait all the way to their maturity never getting them
‘But then came gay men. Somehow “sexual orientation” was jimmied into the triangle of race, class, and gender. Homosexuals were deemed an oppressed people despite the flimsiest of historical grievances (even the legendary gay Holocaust involved no more than 15,000 victims, out of the twelve million people placed in Nazi concentration camps).
‘Gay men were teased about their sexual tastes and had to face anti-sodomy laws, which made it hard for them to find erotic release. They had the option of lying to protect themselves. Living a lie is hard, but living a lie when you enjoy all the economic, racial, and patriarchal advantages of having to worry only about your sex life is hardly on the scale of Jim Crow, women not having the right to vote, or poor people starving during times of famine or unemployment. There is an enormous difference between systematic, large-scale persecution and simply facing barriers to sexual pleasure.
‘By casting gay men as powerless, the left sealed their doom. A new crop of “allies” possessing financial and social capital far in excess of people of color, women, or the working class was bound to rise quickly to power and take over the whole movement, mowing down everything in their path, including the sacred goals the movement began with.’
Exactly. Someone like Rock Hudson who enjoyed great success and power as in his career field was hardly in the same category as a Rosa Parks.