J. A., the woke are not able to see why this is offensive, either. All they see is a same sex couple that gets to have a baby, and that is beautiful.
Mike, I think there is a shortage of babies for adoption in the US. A lot of the adoptable kids are older than infants, and very few people are willing to adopt the older kids.
But this is a form of narcissism, insisting the baby should have their DNA (I presume one of the couple was the sperm donor).
Yes this thing called “surrogacy” is the opposite of adoption: it’s not giving parentless children parents, it’s renting women to make brand new personalized children for greedy narcissistic rich people.
All they see is a same sex couple that gets to have a baby, and that is beautiful.
Same gender. Sex doesn’t exist anymore, right? (And indeed, examples like this are proof of the non-existence of sex: two men were able to have a baby!)
Holms, I saw a play a few years ago in a festival where the situation was two gay men “having a baby”. They spent a lot of it trash talking the woman carrying the baby, and the playwright went so far as to make a correlation with hamsters also having babies. Talk about dehumanizing! And the gay characters were so smug and sure of themselves – and the playwright clearly believed they were the heroes, the good guys, of the play. (The scene where the mother hamster eats her babies – what exactly was that supposed to mean? A woman couldn’t be trusted to raise a baby?)
Yikes, seriously?
Whatever you do, don’t let anyone see that she even has a face, they might get the false impression that she’s a person.
I wonder how much she got paid. Evidently not enough to be part of the family.
Did they intentionally have her wear red?
Anyway, there are sure to be plenty of babies up for adoption in the U.S. No need for surrogacy.
Too bad the wind blew off her bonnet.
This crap makes me so fucking angry.
And they wonder why the phrase “uterus haver” is offensive to women. Well take a look at this and see why.
J. A., the woke are not able to see why this is offensive, either. All they see is a same sex couple that gets to have a baby, and that is beautiful.
Mike, I think there is a shortage of babies for adoption in the US. A lot of the adoptable kids are older than infants, and very few people are willing to adopt the older kids.
But this is a form of narcissism, insisting the baby should have their DNA (I presume one of the couple was the sperm donor).
Yes this thing called “surrogacy” is the opposite of adoption: it’s not giving parentless children parents, it’s renting women to make brand new personalized children for greedy narcissistic rich people.
Same gender. Sex doesn’t exist anymore, right? (And indeed, examples like this are proof of the non-existence of sex: two men were able to have a baby!)
I wonder if they can even remember her name immediately, or if it takes a few tries.
Holms, I saw a play a few years ago in a festival where the situation was two gay men “having a baby”. They spent a lot of it trash talking the woman carrying the baby, and the playwright went so far as to make a correlation with hamsters also having babies. Talk about dehumanizing! And the gay characters were so smug and sure of themselves – and the playwright clearly believed they were the heroes, the good guys, of the play. (The scene where the mother hamster eats her babies – what exactly was that supposed to mean? A woman couldn’t be trusted to raise a baby?)