Post by @ElleGray@mstdn.social

2024-01-10 03:43 UTC

@NoFlexZone@blacktwitter.io well, first of all, it's just a silly joke. secondly, those are made up people in a fantasy story. thirdly, the fact that the character Mary wasn't paid for her nonconsensual surrogacy doesn't really help that argument much

Replies (2)

@NoFlexZone@blacktwitter.io 2024-01-10 03:55

@ElleGray@mstdn.social I don't think I'm tryna help that argument more than to recognize it is an argument. Like to dunk on the position of "hey this is exploitative" definitely ignores the fact that not a small amount of exploitation in the surrogacy market (note it is a market) I don't take it as a a silly joke? But rather a good point you made.

Open ##2689556
@alexjcord@infosec.exchange 2024-01-10 16:24

@ElleGray@mstdn.social @NoFlexZone@blacktwitter.io I get the joke, but 1) the Bible does explicitly say in Luke 1:38 that Mary consented, and 2) the Catholic Church’s teaching is that she was Jesus’ biological mother, not surrogate. (I’m not here to debate about religion, just want to clear up the misconceptions since they aren’t helping your argument either.)

Open ##2689557