Women should fear the LGBT West, not the Muslim East by Ms Bruna Frascolla!
(2024-09-12 at 20:05:48 )

Women should fear the LGBT West, not the Muslim East by Ms Bruna Frascolla!

The place where Western women should fear the possibility of becoming childbirth slaves is the West.

Whether on its right or left wing, the so-called West has struggled to paint itself as the womens champion. While the Right praises the freedoms of the Sexual Revolution and the Counterculture (which until yesterday were leftist), the Left insists on maintaining the free right to abortion as an inalienable right that separates barbarity from civilization. In the latter case, The Handmaids Tale, by feminist Margaret Atwood, is used as a bogeyman. This would mean that fertile women are going to be transformed into sheer broodmares, without freedom of choice.

I had already realized that Western propaganda aims to scare Jews and homosexuals, making them believe that, without United States protection, all Jews and all homosexuals in the world will be murdered by hordes of anti-Semites and homophobes.

I recently realized that the same spiel is being pushed on women. On X, I saw a bunch of posts showing what supposedly happens to women where Muslims predominate: everyone wears burqas. Thus, I should support the Zionist cause in particular because they represent Western values ​​in general. If they do not defend the West, Western women, accustomed to freedom, will become reproductive slaves, covered from head to toe because they can only be seen by their husband - a bearded man who is not a hipster.

In fact, the place where Western women should fear the possibility of becoming childbirth slaves is the West. It is the West that preaches (1) the commodification of everything possible and (2) absolute equality between the sexes. This equality is so great that, with sex being indifferent to marriage, the couple, even though they consist of two men, feel entitled to have at least one biological child. If heterosexual couples have biological children, it would be an intolerable discrimination that homosexual couples which consists of two males of the species could not have children as well. The problem of men not producing eggs nor having a uterus is solved by buying an egg and renting a belly. The egg and the belly may or may not come from the same woman.

The whole thing is risky for the woman and the new life. The woman needs to use Lupron (the same medicine used to castrate pedophiles and "trans children"), and then she needs to fill herself with artificial hormones. Obviously, no one knows the long-term effects of this, as it is a novelty. What is known is that it is easier for a woman to maintain a pregnancy made with her own egg than to keep an organism that is completely foreign to her.

In an anonymous case in England (of which feminist Julie Bindel provided more details), a gay couple wanted to have a child and, somehow, got a friends sister to agree to serve as a surrogate. As the pregnancy did not go ahead with another womans egg, it ended up with her own. During her pregnancy, there were disagreements with the couple because she feared they would not let her see her son. Still, she fulfilled the agreement.

Later, her fears were confirmed: they threatened to call the police when she went to visit the baby, and the case ended up in court. The couple claimed - correctly, according to Western moral standards - that it was homophobic to assume that every family had a mother. The role of parents was held by two men, and assuming that a child should have a mother was discrimination against the LGBT community.

Thus, radical feminists and conservative activists celebrated the decision of the English court that, this month, gave the mother the right to visit her son. It is a landmark decision, which sets a precedent for others.

It is undoubtedly important, but this only made England equal to the USA. The gay couple, despite owning a surrogacy agency, took an unusual risk by resolving things in a homely and domestic way. As Julie Bindel very well showed in this article, the gamete and surrogacy market is very globalized. Typically, the rich rent bellies from poor women from the third world or California, who, in addition to having precarious or conniving legislation in their place, would never be able to sue in another country.

In the USA, surrogacy was rampant until the case of Baby M., who was also the biological daughter of the surrogate mother. In 1988, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that no mother should be forced, by contract, to give up her child - but it also ruled that the child should stay with the biological father and be adopted by his wife, cutting off contact with the mother. In 1990, however, the California Supreme Court ruled otherwise, but in this case the surrogate mother did not own the egg. In concrete, this ended up creating a market reserve for clinics and agencies, because it is very easy to inseminate a fertile woman and no one needs a clinic to do so. Taking a ready-made embryo and implanting it in a different woman demands a lot of work and money.

It is this, not the delusions of forced Islamization, that Western women should fear. Especially those on the periphery of the West. We know well that in the free market there is economic coercion.

Poor children only stopped being practically forced to work when capitalism got brakes. As these brakes are being lost and science is advancing along with economic inequality, the fear of Western women should be that of having to sell their body in the most invasive way possible: bearing a child that they will never be able to see again, and of which they will receive no news. Colombia and Mexico are already integrated into this global trade. And it is this, not the ban on abortion, that makes the West resemble Atwoods dystopia.

"This relevant article, its pictures, and its links are here:"

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.