French Prime Minister Valls just declared that surrogate motherhood (in French: GPA, “Gestation Pour Autrui”) is to be condemned so vigorously that the world ought to draw legislation against it. Greedy banksters are OK, and welcome in the French (or American) government, but those criminally pregnant women ought to be outlawed, and these innocent children ought to have no rights.
Who needs Marine Le Pen, when France has already worse?
Why is pregnancy criminal? Because surrogate motherhood, during which a woman brings to term somebody’s else child is “intolerable commercialization of human beings and merchantization of women’s bodies” (“merchandisation”).
Is the PM saying that there is such a thing as tolerable commercialization and merchantization of human bodies? Bad-breaking work is tolerable, but carrying someone’s else child, a crime? And these children are criminals under punishment for their existence, without having ever been convicted in a court of law?
Some will pontificate that PM Valls had to say that, because 500,000 Christianoid fanatics of the hateful persuasion, having learned nothing since the massacre of Saint Bartholomew, were going to demonstrate.
The cause of the fury of these half-wits? The European Court of Human Rights has condemned France for not recognizing the relationship parents and children, if surrogacy was involved.
How does that differ from recognizing as non-human people of color? Same idea, no? The way they were born!
So, forced by European Justice, France will recognize those relationships… But only those, and will keep on with its criminal behavior denying other human rights. France will affect to consider that even those children whose parents the European Court forced France to recognize, will have no right to nationality, or to inheritance, etc.
This atrocious French behavior relative to some children is a warning to those who affect to believe that the European Union has no merit. For years, the European Union judicial system forced Great Britain to recognize it was violating human rights in Northern Ireland, and finally the UK relented (so, lo and behold, peace came). Now it’s France and its God-enraged fanatics, which violate human rights.
Prior to the European decision, the French government had recognized the parents-child relationship in the case of the USA alone (that means, not with, say, Ukraine).
This fanaticism of Catholics given free rein, of course, undermines the struggle against Jihadism. Indeed, if the craziness of Catholic extremists has to be respected, why not that of Muslim extremists?
The fundamental reasoning of the Catholics is that, if a couple wants children, but cannot get any without surrogacy, it’s evidence that God did not want it. God, in Arabic, that’s Allah. So, in other words, surrogacy contradicts Allah.
Same story if a couple of lesbians want a child.
That reasoning about Allah is itself contradictory, in a meta way. Indeed, if God is almighty, that is, all-mighty, He (it’s never a “She”) has obviously created surrogacy. So, by denying surrogacy, one denies God’s work to God.
Moreover, by the same token, if the fanatics consider that any human technology is the work of Satan, and an effort to undermine Allah, then the fanatics should refuse all medical treatment, modern transportation, starting with using the wheel, etc. They should study this more carefully, and act accordingly.
However, chimpanzees, and even baboons, use technology: the ways of God are impenetrable.
In Japan in the Nineteenth Century, Emperor Meiji insisted on dramatic modernization. Some of the Samurai class resisted, and Meiji used massive bloody force to effect the change. He had to: Japan had to modernize if it wanted to survive. As I always say, survival is the primary moral imperative, and all what the concept of morality boils down to.
France, to some extent, and all of Europe, even the entire planet, is engaged in a similar situation: inappropriate morals have to be swept away, to be replaced by the fresh, new, and more sustainable.
Sometimes a clash of forces is all it takes. This is the sense of the bombing campaign against the so-called “Caliphate” in Mesopotamia (but it will not be complete if it cannot come to agreeable terms with progressive Sunis).
This is what both Thatcher and Reagan did to implement their long lasting counter-revolutions, and the triumph of greed: Thatcher broke the miners, Reagan put the air controllers in chains. Both destroyed the unions thus.
Great force has always to be used against great difficulties. It could be pure mental force (as intellectual Jihadists would point out). Still, one has to start somewhere. One may as well start with a cause that goes with progress.
Clearly, denying the right for some adults to have a child, if they are prevented to do so, for, say, medical reasons, is a human right violation.
Tolerating the right to violate other people’s rights is all it takes to go down the road of infamy. The Catholics insist that they have it. They are an easier nut to break than hard core Wahhabists, so they should be done first, as a warm-up.
It is pretty pathetic to see that today’s France is on the wrong side of human rights in an Union she was long the main conceptual motor of.
Now this is no surprise: the better human rights are enforced in a nation, the higher its mental, hence economic, performance. Thus the economic weakening of France (blatant in comparison to the, in many-ways-comparable Switzerland) is entangled with increasing violation of the spirit of human rights there. I am sure that many a Jihadist will feel just that way. And correctly, however perversely, so.
Patrice Ayme’
Patrice Ayme's Thoughts 