New details continue to emerge about the Sodoma Experiment behind the birth of “little Zachary”.
I had written in an older post that I assumed that Dame Elton would have chosen his rented useful wisely (meaning: attractive, possibly intelligent though I imagine he thinks he is fully sufficient for that).
It would now appear that
1) Dame Elton has been registered as the “father” of the child. Besides wondering how, in this case, the other man is called (my hypotheses: “significant male parent”; “diversely endowed mother”; “civil mother”), this has fuelled speculations that Elton John might be, in fact, the biological father of the child. Therefore, a further motivation to this act appears to emerge: to protect what he must surely consider the most genial DNA on earth from extinction. Cheaper than building a mausoleum, though one can’t exclude that this might be the next logical step……
Seen in this way, the Sodoma Experiment is clearly another Christmas Gift that Elton John has made to himself. I wouldn’t want to be a “son” discovering that my so-called “father” got me after all other toys had become boring but hey, it’s just me…
2) From the same source we apprehend that the woman who rented the uterus was not the one who “donated” (“donated”? Really?) the egg. In my naiveté, I had assumed as much in an older post of mine, but my ability to understand the mind of such people proved far short of the mark.
Clearly, our “man” couldn’t find any woman providing him with the ideal egg and the ideal uterus at the same time. No, it had to be the best of the best (he does it with everything else, too) and in matters of Sodoma Experiments there are clearly no boundaries. Therefore, a carefully selected egg was chosen to be implanted into a carefully selected uterus.
It will be interesting to be there in the kindergarten when the boy is asked: “and what about you, little Zachary? Who are your parents?”
3) The entire affair is so romantic that Jane Austen pales in comparison. I can imagine future generations of poofs choosing their E&U (“egg and uterus”) together amidst little cries of excitement. No doubt, the “Daily Telegraph” will be delighted to publish their letters to the editor: “Little Elton has been delivered today. His delivering uterus is a 1.85m tall blonde Chernobyl-free Ukrainian and his egg has been donated by a Russian rocket scientist and recent Playmate Of The Year”.
I hope that this matter will inspire the lawgivers of the West to put an end to such tragic perversion of procreation, and of Creation.
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.
I have written only yesterday about the extraordinary times we live in; times when an old pervert who, together with his perverted (er, what….. mistress?) decides to have a new and unusual toy can easily “rent a uterus” and, through the help of sperm of not yet revealed origin, provide to what he probably calls “procreation” and certainly “fatherhood”.
Today, the “Telegraph” has an additional article about that. The article shows at the same time the pit in which the “Telegraph” has descended, the indifference to perversion of its journalists and more broadly the indifference with which vast parts of society – even among those calling themselves “conservative” – looks at abominations of this sort before happily moving back to the enjoyment of Cheryl Cole’s secondary sexual characteristics.
The article’s position first. It is in the “celebrities” section of the Telegraph’s “news” internet presence. From this we infer that a) the “Telegraph” finds it necessary to have a “celebrity” section, and b) the “Telegraph” considers celebrity gossip “news”. Not many years ago such rubbish would have been considered something for the working classes; which, by the way, is still the case.
The content of the article is also revealing. Elton John’s childishness is heavily criticised, his decadent habits utterly (and, I must say, rather amusingly) exposed. Still, not one word about his perversion, the scandal he gives, the monstrosity of men “adopting”. Yes, the sperm-uterus-concoction used in this case does cause a certain discomfort, but I fail to detect any moral message in that. Basically, the fact that the man buys a tram and has it shipped through a couple of oceans is seen as morally reprehensible, the fact that he is an openly homosexual old perv living with his concubine isn’t.
So much so, that the article’s author considers clearly reprehensible that an Ukrainian child suffering from Aids could not be adopted by the “couple”. How backwards, these Ukrainians who continue to insist on a family being….. a family! “With a rubber stamp, a small boy’s life chances were crushed”, says Ms. Woods in an emotionally charged, X-Factor-cum-Dickens moment….. (I failed to cry, though. It must be me).
What? Crushed because the poor child has not been adopted by….. a couple of homos? What “adoption” is this? What “family” is this? And for Heaven’s sake let us set aside the donations. Donations don’t buy one the right to be above the Law and I am rather pleased that the Ukraine showed more integrity than Madonna’s Malawi (or whichever other tin-pot African post-colonial disaster it was).
So there we are: two homos go around a) trying to adopt children and – failing that – b) proceed to hire alien uteruses (and perhaps even sperm; who knows, they might have quarrelled about who is “the father” and I really wouldn’t want to see two aged homos in a kitchen fight…..) and the “Telegraph”‘s journalist doesn’t criticise the obvious monstrosity of all this, but merely the infantile, ego-driven, diva-like character of one of the two (good Lord, there we are again…) “fathers”.
Sometimes I have the impression that just as we speak, up above dear old Abraham is haggling with God again, trying to spare us the angel’s visit…….
As reported in a clearly festive and non-judgmental mood by what is becoming the most lavender-reeking newspaper in England, the once great “Daily Telegraph”, Sir (or should I say: Dame) Elton John has now – probably tired of other extravagancies – hired a uterus and procured a baby to be adopted by his lady-male-friend and himself.
The fact that this symbol of perversion is now 63 does not add anything to the monstrosity of the matter (men, and I mean real ones, have had children at old age in all ages past, particularly if they had the need to ensure descendants to family or kingdom), but helps one to understand to what extent the perversion of modern times makes a god of every ego-driven whim.
The man is not only old. He is homosexual to boot. His desire to “adopt a child” is not due to his thinking that Golden Retriever puppies are not original enough, or that – after Madonna’s episode – taking a black child away from his father and enlarged family is not so cool anymore. No, his uterus-hiring exercise is the product of the same militant poofdom which prompted him to have a so-called civil partnership contracted on the first day of this becoming legal in what was once a great Empire and has now become a laboratory for perversion experiments.
Dame Elton has an agenda. His decision is not about a man wanting to become a father, but about a fag wanting to show that he can become a father. For this, Labrador puppies are not good enough.
No doubt, this latest monstrosity (which would have terrified the most rabid feminists of 100, or even 50 years ago and would have been considered an absurdity even by homos themselves until very recent times) will be saluted by Satanic England as the newest achievement in the march toward “equality” and celebration of “diversity”.
These are the times we live in and even the supposedly conservative “Telegraph” sees it fitting to make of this just another “celebrity” article.
Time to wake up, folks.