Pro-choice activists say, “Women are not breeding machines.”
And yet… the same groups of people who say the above are the same groups of people who fight for this:
So let me get this straight. We’re supposed to rail against the misogynistic patriarchy that “forces” women to bear children “against their will”, and yet we’re supposed to turn around and PAY women to use their wombs as incubators, to bear children on demand?
There is something very wrong here. For decades we’ve been told that “barefoot and pregnant, and preferably cooking in the kitchen”, is the worst thing we can possibly ask of women. Motherhood should only be desirable once a woman has had a fulfilling career and decided that it is now time for a child. Meanwhile women who don’t choose to follow the eugenicist Planned Parenthood/Marie Stopes/United Nations/Gates Foundation script, roughly summarized “Enjoy sex 24/7/365 without the burden of procreation”, and everything that flows from that — contraception, abortion, sterilization — are, of course, oppressed and suffering from rights deprivation. Heaven forbid that women actually want to be mothers and make the rearing of children their primary role. Any man who would go for that kind of arrangement is an insufferable medieval pig.
Locally, we have celebrities promoting the “benefits” of same sex marriage, and their “needs” being highlighted like this. Since, they will be needing someone’s sperm so they can get the child they want, the only acceptable father is a father who is out of the picture. Cue mantra about sperm and fatherhood being non-sequitur.
It simply does not compute. The pro-choice narrative insists that the only acceptable situation is for all children to be wanted and perfectly timed, and that the only preferred family is one that depends on money. Only financially successful people should have children, only perfect children should be born, and since they are nothing but vending machine products, we can just churn them out according to our whims, and they should only be born in families that we create by choice — no matter how convoluted those choices may be — because it sure beats the manner in which we’ve been doing it for the past several thousand years. Since the traditional man-woman pairing in a marriage is bound to be unfulfilling and requires more sacrifice from us than we’re prepared to give, and therefore a failure, as evidenced by the number that end up in divorces and extramarital affairs, then chuck that kind of family and let’s construct what we think would be better. Even if it’s largely untried. Even if it’s the children’s lives that we’re experimenting with and putting on the line.
And men’s sperm and women’s wombs are nothing but commodities we can purchase at the right price.
Having children is now all about US, and not about the children themselves. Children’s needs and rights be damned. If there’s any child right we should be fighting for, it is the right for them to choose their own gender, because it’s important they are able to have sex just like we did, 24/7/365 without the burden of procreation. The pleasure principle, baby. Using the man as sperm supplier, and the woman as incubator, is the method of modern “love”.
We are living in an upside-down world, no question about it. Is this the kind of world you want?