We are just trying to overcome the shock of little Zachary, the result of the Sodoma Experiment about which I have written several times in the past days.
In the same league as that episode is a new “experiment” reported by the Daily Mail. In short, a mother whose daughter has been born without ovaries (“Turner syndrome”) is planning (planning, mind, this has not happened yet) to have her own eggs frozen so that her daughter may, one day, use them to have their “own” children through in vitro fertilisation.
The Daily Mail is, thankfully, not the “Telegraph” and they at least care to inform us that “the ethical implications would be immense”. As the Daily Mail itself puts it,
The test-tube baby would be a half-sibling of its birth mother as well as another child of its grandmother. The baby’s father would be fertilising his mother-in-law’s egg. In addition the baby’s aunts and uncles would also be its half-brothers and sisters.
We are clearly already in horror film territory. So much so, that even in politically correct Britain some acquaintances of the lady had the effrontery to tell her – or so she says – that they find the exercise “a bit sick”.
A bit sick. That’s a good one.
As always in these circumstances, the monstrosity of such an in vitro incest is not explored at all. The mother doesn’t seem concerned with it, not in the least. On the contrary, she is on record with the astonishing observation that: “it’s a comfort to know that if she did have a child they would still have part of her own genetic make-up as well, so it would still be a part of her”. This is brilliant and can actually be used to favour the use of her own father’s sperm (or if this is too much, perhaps of an uncle?) in case the young Mackenzie should marry a man (provided she marries a man; as we know, the options are now wider) with impotentia generandi. Hey, they’d have all home made! You do that with the shepherd’s pie too, right?
Fear not (too much), though, because this is apparently all in the planning phase. It would appear that the relevant legislation about the freezing of eggs will not allow the woman to proceed to the experiment for many years. What is breathtaking is that such a feat seems, at least for now, not to be forbidden.
This really tells you everything you need to know about the perversion of the times.
Interesting article from Daily Mail’s Stephen Glover.
Mr. Glover is the son of an Anglican vicar and, as such, not the least biased to consider everything Catholic. His deficiencies in matters of Catholicism are crudely shown by his assertion that the Anglican orders have been invalid since 1896 (which is obviously wrong: they have been invalid since the reign of the Bastard King, Edward VI; in 1896 it was merely repeated that they are invalid because many Anglicans were trying to pretend they weren’t) and that the Pope has been infallible since 1870 (obviously wrong for the same reason, the Pope having always been infallible and the Papal infallibility being merely declared dogmatically in 1870). He also gets it totally wrong when he says that Benedict was “slow to grasp” the extent of the homosexual priests’ child abuse problem, when the evidence shows that the man was uncommonly perceptive and decisive in his actions.
We can therefore see that this man has everything one needs to be virulently anti-Catholic: wrong religious background, erroneous conceptions about the Church and even what he thinks is, basically, an offence done to dad. (His comparison with a “witch doctor” in reference to his father is again totally irrational and wrongly emotional: the comparison with a lay preacher, albeit one in grave error, is the more appropriate one).
Still, even a person with such a biased background can reason and point out to some interesting facts:
1) there has been so much talk about the costs of the visit but I can’t remember (nor can he) the same kind of talk by the visit of African dictators, or the like. It is only when the Pope comes that suddenly everyone is interested in the costs. That the British government doesn’t pay for the cost of the pastoral visits and the £10m mentioned are largely forked by Catholic faithful also seems not to interest anyone. In fact, Mr. Glover also seems to have overlooked this simple fact;
2) Even an Anglican like Glover admits that “Pope Benedict expounds what he believes is Christian doctrine in a courageous way” and “does not bend to fashionable secular trends, and holds fast to beliefs which are those of the traditional Church”. Once again we see that unless one is completely blinded by his ideological hatred (Dawkins, C. Hitchens) or, probably more often, by his sexual perversions (Tatchell, Fry) one is naturally inclined to show proper respect to those who have ideals bigger than their own existence and fight for them. “Isn’t it admirable?” is the rhetorical question Glover asks his readers and we all know the answer.
3) He criticises the fanaticism of the hard-core atheists and more importantly the space given to them by the media, in primis by the BBC . If even biased Anglicans start to see that the BBC is truly crossing a line, perhaps there’s hope that something will change. Mr. Glover explicitly agrees with Cardinal Keith O’Brien on the matter, about which I have already reported here.
Let me conclude with the beautiful words of Mr. Glover:
Notwithstanding all the hatchet jobs that have been executed and others that are planned, Pope Benedict’s visit will probably make a deep impression on many people, including non-Christians.
We may not agree with everything he says, or even with his most fundamental beliefs. But his visit should be welcome because he is something rare in the modern world. A decent man of principle.