The Sodoma Experiment, Part III: The Accomplices

By all the disgust about the astonishing feat of these last days (two perverted children “adopting” – or something like that – a third child, this one very young) we have somewhat overlooked the fact that in this case, astonishing behaviour is shown on several levels.

Let us take, for example, the mother. I mean by that the rightful owner of the uterus considered fit enough for an aging rock star and his chosen boy toy. No doubt the lady can use the cash as, for what I know, the physiological process of pregnancy is neither of little consequence, nor entirely pleasant, nor devoid of some (residual, nowadays) health risk. This without considering the bikini shape, as I am risking the assumption that one able and accustomed to have almost any whim satisfied will choose to have his boy or (more importantly) daughter as pleasing to the eye as technology and money can make possible.

The mother, then. I can hear all the circle of friends and acquaintances emitting various  rumours and hushed cries of faked joy swearing about how “beautiful” this is. How “sweet”. How very “exciting”. By the money probably involved, the word “remunerative” might also have fallen in; though of course not in the presence of the sweet angel bearing the new life romantically injected into her after the documentation was finalised.

What is more to the point is that the lady prostituted her uterus for the well-paid pleasure of a strange royal family composed of two queens, and that all those who have helped in doing so (the doctors and medical personnel; or the lawyers caring for the, no doubt, ponderous legal side of the matter) have abetted this prostitution.

Think of it: in most Western countries the law does not allow to organise an establishment so that men can have an hour of (sinful, but humanly rather understandable*) pleasure, but in the same countries it would be allowed to rent a woman not for an hour of pleasure but for nine months of a complex biological process; not to satisfy an extremely common human craving, but to satisfy the extraordinary whim of a very rich person; not to satisfy a sexual attraction whose existence (even if wrongly directed in this case) is preordered by God and considered holy, but to satisfy a perversion God has never made possible in the first place and only a perverted use of technology in Mengele-style has made achievable. The madame of the establishment which Elton John might have visited to get a whim out of his system (if he had been a man; which he isn’t) would have risked jail, but the doctor who implanted a baby on the uterus of his choice doesn’t.

Funny world. Where are the feminists when they could, for once, be of some use.

The mother, then. Methinks, she reasons that this is only a biological exercise; that once the child has been given away he will be soon be if not forgotten, at least not remembered as her own lost child; that by all the money received in the process (I can’t really imagine her having financial cares, ever again) she’ll be able to go on with her life, have her own children, give them better chances than this would otherwise have been possible, & Co. Doesn’t work that way, though. Volens nolens, she is the mother. Nature is stronger than rationalisation and clever thinking. Nature doesn’t care for the content of legal documents. Nature will claim from her, one day, that motherhood that she has sold, prostituted away.

We see it happening in these tragic era, with female suicides on the rise largely because of abortions committed several decades before. We have seen it happening in all ages past, with mothers forced to give their babies to the care of an orphanage pining for their lost motherhood (involuntarily lost, poor souls) for the rest of their life. We see it happening even in men, developing an extremely keen sense of loss after divorce and partial isolation from their children. Think of the sorrow of the woman discovering one day (a day far away perhaps, but a day that will invariably come) that this was her child, made by her and sold. Wouldn’t want to be her, not for all money in the world.  

Far less tragic appears in comparison the position of the other accomplices and one can’t exclude that they will live and die in utter disregard of the evil they have contributed to create. Still, even for them the day will come when account must be given. I hope and pray that for them awareness and repentance may come before it’s too late.

I wish everyone a happy, prosperous and spiritually fruitful 2011.


* Before the usual idiots and feminists come out saying that “Mundabor approves of prostitution”, let me make clear that I don’t.

Posted on December 31, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. You make a good point, which I almost missed – despite being aware of my own brainwashing (that urges me to ‘move’ my thinking into the 21st century). I didn’t forget the mother, but was so focused on the Furnished Johns that I never stopped to consider how morally bankrupt a woman would need to become a ‘rent-a-womb’ who carries a living soul for 9 months then signs it away for money. Nothing justifies it. I never had (or wanted) children, but I look to the examples of my mother, other relatives and my friends – there is NOT ONE that I could imagine doing this, whether Christian or not. Some of the women I’m thinking about have already called me ‘bigoted’ and ‘narrow-minded’ on other media, for suggesting (really very gently) that the ages of 48 and 63 are Not Appropriate for voluntary first-time parents.

    Then there are the commentators who go on about ‘love’ and mention the abuse scandal. SUCH a non sequitur! One has nothing to do with the other. It’s a sad old world. “Christ, come quickly”.

    • PP,

      is was RedVelvet who draw my attention on this; for me as for you, the enormity of the news concerning the parents has initially taken most of the attention.

      It is rather telling that the women who criticised you made it because of your criticism of (merely) the age of the men. Can’t imagine what they would have answered if one had said “since when faggots are allowed to be fathers”. Methinks, they are old feminists seeing the entire planet in terms of “achievements”.

      I can’t imagine a child wouldn’t be – or wouldn’t have been – a gret blessing in your life provided the conditions (intact family etc.) are given. I am single and now in my mid-forties but should I marry at a reasonable age (and with a wife of a suitable age) that would be a very early project 😉 . I go so far as to say that for a man you know that you really love a woman when you desire to have children with her. At least it was so in my case.

      Best wishes to you.


  2. Irenaeus of New York

    In many cases where artificial insemination is used, the sperm donors are anonymous and remain so by law and names are not kept. So not only is the child placed in a dysfunctional family unit, but the child is denied a biological father by law. The child will NEVER have a biological father. The reverse is also true in cases of anonymous eggs. To be denied a parent by circumstance is tragic… to be denied by “civil” law and procedure is grotesquely criminal.

    • Thanks Irenaeus,
      so they are really donors and really anonymous?
      It must be interesting for a “donor” to know that his sperm has been used to provide an aged fag with a child to adopt together with his mistress. Life is truly full of surprises.
      I also read once of attempt to make the sperm donor responsible for the maintenance of the child as he is, undoubtedly, the biological father. No idea what has happened of this but I well remember what I’d have told to the “donor” now presented with the embarrassment of a life he was oh so eager to give: it serves you right.


  3. Maybe I should come (vaguely) clean: I am politically left wing, and I am not Catholic. Broadly speaking, my politics are ‘left wing’ while my morals and ethics are those generally associated with ‘right wing’ thinking. Religiously, if I *had* to use a label, I’d say Presbyterian-with-Catholic-and-charismatic leanings – attending an Anglican church (a Christian one, for a wonder).

    I had never expected to oppose women’s ordination (but I do); I had never expected to regard the science that permits the creation of a foetus outside the human womb as a dodgy development (but I do – with apologies to friends who have used it!) On both of these issues I am out of step with most of my friends, just as I was with not having wanted a child of my own. I agree that children are great blessings, but being at a similar age to yourself (and having required various surgeries) this would now only be possible Elton-style! But I had incredible parents and always knew that I was too selfish to love like that. More to the point – I never *wanted* to! On the day it became impossible, I’d have celebrated had I not been in so much PAIN!

    The friends that I am closest to know that I STRONGLY object to gay people having children, whatever their ages. Even if (and I genuinely don’t know!) sexuality is something that one is born with, the lifestyle is a choice, and that choice precludes children as much as my own (heterosexual) lifestyle choice does. It grieves me that human life can now be treated as just another commodity that anyone can purchase. If that means that I’m still in the Dark Ages (and the kids in my life assure me that I am!)…. I think that with every year modern thinking becomes increasingly overrated!

    • PP,

      I like people like you. I see in them a process of progressive enlightenment 😉

      More seriously, I’d say that we discover where our values are when we are confronted with the challenge to these values. You wouldn;t have expected to oppose ordinatioon because it was, probably, not a real and concrete possibility. When it became one, you had to decide where to stay. Same goes, I believe, for this abominations of homos adopting children or wanting to be considered a “family”.

      We’ll see more of this in the future: euthanasia rears its ugly head already and the first incestuous sibling demand “freedome to love” like almost every other pervert nowadays has. And in fact, why two poofs should be allowed but two adult siblings shouldn’t isnot clear to me, it doesn;t make a logical sense if you take away Christian value from the equation.

      You chose wisely on both issues. Not being a Catholic, this does you even bigger honour.


%d bloggers like this: