Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

Elton John and David Furnish don’t know which of them is the baby daddy.

I know it was mentioned earlier but you really should read this.


http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/221 ... aby-daddy/

Definitely a turkey baster job. Did she pick jar A or jar B for the dirty deed?
Do sperm mix? I have a mental picture of all the little sperms swimming for their lives nudging the opposition out of the way.
Who won? Answers on a postcard...

Well apparently Elton was told that because of his age, David was a better candidate, so who knows. Does it really matter?

The article says they had to be interviewed by psychologists......and Elton John passed this interview?????? Probably more to do with the money on offer than his actual state of mind.

The whole thing is obscene. Two homosexuals with money buying a baby. And making it with a cocktail as well. Disgusting!

No doubt the kid is gonna grow up being mocked relentlessly for this - something they obviously don't care about. If ever thee was a baby that was nothing more than an accessory, this is it. It wasn't that long ago EJ was cooing about wanting to adopt the little orphan boy in Romania - luckily the authorities there have the rigth idea and banned that one straight away.

If gays were meant to have kids, they would have the equipment to produce them without having to go to this length. They haven't, and therefore they should accept that kids are off the menu.

By the way, i'm not homophobic, i just find this scenario quite ing, and moreso because it's Elton John. He had the chance to have kids when he married the woman in the 80s, which was obviously done to try and convince people he wasn't gay....

Bethsmum wrote:Definitely a turkey baster job. Did she pick jar A or jar B for the dirty deed?
Do sperm mix? I have a mental picture of all the little sperms swimming for their lives nudging the opposition out of the way.
Who won? Answers on a postcard...

The article posted by OP states that the surrogate did not have an idea about the sperm owners, that would mean that her ovum (egg) was taken out and then fertilized on a petri dish , by exposing it to a mixture of sperms from both owners, then when the ovum was fertilized, it was implanted into the mother . As i stated in the last thread on this topic, The claims of the child possessing characteristics from both dads is just feel good talk and doesnt reflect reality.

Sperms cannot be mixed, if they are induced to mix, they would not be viable enough to fertilize anything.

BlueOrb wrote:If gays were meant to have kids, they would have the equipment to produce them without having to go to this length. They haven't, and therefore they should accept that kids are off the menu.

And the human race should be discouraging the reproduction of this defective gene.

benwj wrote:

BlueOrb wrote:If gays were meant to have kids, they would have the equipment to produce them without having to go to this length. They haven't, and therefore they should accept that kids are off the menu.

And the human race should be discouraging the reproduction of this defective gene.

Agreed !,

benwj wrote:

BlueOrb wrote:If gays were meant to have kids, they would have the equipment to produce them without having to go to this length. They haven't, and therefore they should accept that kids are off the menu.

And the human race should be discouraging the reproduction of this defective gene.

Mingin

Where is the story? I mean DNA = end of drama...

zubber wrote:

benwj wrote:

BlueOrb wrote:If gays were meant to have kids, they would have the equipment to produce them without having to go to this length. They haven't, and therefore they should accept that kids are off the menu.

And the human race should be discouraging the reproduction of this defective gene.

Agreed !,

Couldn't agree more!

Also to add, it's was tragic that they wouldn't let Elton and David adopt that child who had AIDS!!!!! They could have given a wonderful life to a child who now has no future!

Chocoholic wrote:

zubber wrote:

benwj wrote:If gays were meant to have kids, they would have the equipment to produce them without having to go to this length. They haven't, and therefore they should accept that kids are off the menu.

And the human race should be discouraging the reproduction of this defective gene.

Couldn't agree more!

Also to add, it's was tragic that they wouldn't let Elton and David adopt that child who had AIDS!!!!! They could have given a wonderful life to a child who now has no future!

Meaning the poor mite will now live out his days in an awful orphanage!

Chocoholic wrote:Meaning the poor mite will now live out his days in an awful orphanage!

Chocs, I was questioning what appears to be a contradiction by you in your post.

Bora Bora wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:Meaning the poor mite will now live out his days in an awful orphanage!

Chocs, I was questioning what appears to be a contradiction by you in your post.

What contradiction?

Yea bora , Whatsup with using this funny word - "contra-dic-tion" ?

Sounds scandalous Zub !

And the human race should be discouraging the reproduction of this defective gene.

Agreed !,

Couldn't agree more!

I often wonder why I don't look in on this place more...

^^Obviously an advocate of nurture over nature.

I don't see anything wrong with this providing that one parent will be around to care for the child at all times. If the kid is left with a nanny for months on end while the two are on the road touring, then what is the point of having the kid in the first place. I imagine this isn't the case though, and at least David Furnish will be around to care for the child when Elton John is touring.

Kids come from far worse situations in this world and it looks like this kid has two loving parents, a good home, food, and will be set for future opportunities because of his parents' wealth. Not bad!

I just wonder which one of them will be doing the breast feeding...



Knight

kanelli wrote:I don't see anything wrong with this providing that one parent will be around to care for the child at all times. If the kid is left with a nanny for months on end while the two are on the road touring, then what is the point of having the kid in the first place. I imagine this isn't the case though, and at least David Furnish will be around to care for the child when Elton John is touring.

Kids come from far worse situations in this world and it looks like this kid has two loving parents, a good home, food, and will be set for future opportunities because of his parents' wealth. Not bad!

Well I wish I had your faith in their capabilities as responsible parents, I’ve no doubt the child will enjoy the services of a small army of childcare professionals and one saving grace is that the couple have declared a wish for the Mother to remain involved throughout the early development life of the child, I certainly hope this happens as I firmly believe Zachary will end up as no more than a fashion accessory for this pair of old queers.

As for David Furnish assuming the stereotypical role of a mother when Elton is off at work? Well isn’t it his job to produce the promotional media from the concert tours, isn’t that how they met in the first place?

The only things that really matter and are missing from this manufactured Child’s life are in fact the most important components of a loving heterosexual Mother and Father in a stable relationship. And absolutely nothing on this, nor fuller’s earth, can replace those. Elton John should have stuck to singing Bernie Taupin’s songs and David Furnish filming them, and it truly sickens me that this pair of individuals have been allowed to create this child for their own gratuitous entertainment.

Why should Homos be given the right and responsibility to bring up children? Is it not enough that they are living an unnatural life? Should they be allowed to add to this?

OMG - Dillon, how many children these days grow up in broken homes with only one parent around? Lots and lots.

Zonker, if you think homos.e.xuality is unnatural, then you may want to watch Animal Planet every now and then and see what goes on between males of other species - it's certainly not specific to the human animal.

Come into the 21st century people.

I've got a friend whose dad got married and had 3 kids, then eventually couldn't keep up the charade and left his wife for his boyfriend.

benwj wrote:^^Obviously an advocate of nurture over nature.

Not really just believe that people should be free to love or take a partner with whoever they want without being labelled defective.

Is this the world you advocate? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12295718

Nice one.

kanelli wrote:I don't see anything wrong with this providing that one parent will be around to care for the child at all times. If the kid is left with a nanny for months on end while the two are on the road touring, then what is the point of having the kid in the first place. I imagine this isn't the case though, and at least David Furnish will be around to care for the child when Elton John is touring.

Kids come from far worse situations in this world and it looks like this kid has two loving parents, a good home, food, and will be set for future opportunities because of his parents' wealth. Not bad!

I don't see much wrong with the upbringing of the child either. There IS a question mark over the psycological effects of having a mother that does not love him, but I am sure the child will be loved by his 2 fathers and will never want for anything of monetary value.
I just don't think that this is what nature intended.

He may have questions about her, but I don't think he'll feel a lack of love when he will have two parents loving and caring for him since birth.

FTD wrote:

benwj wrote:^^Obviously an advocate of nurture over nature.

Not really just believe that people should be free to love or take a partner with whoever they want without being labelled defective.

Is this the world you advocate? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12295718

Nice one.

They ARE free to love and take a partner.

But having children should not be part of the deal.

-- Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:28 pm --

kanelli wrote:He may have questions about her, but I don't think he'll feel a lack of love when he will have two parents loving and caring for him since birth.

His mother is having him for cash and rejecting him at birth. Imagine someone coming and taking your child from you at birth. The feeling is mutual for the child.

Although, the effects are an uncertainty and not a good enough reason for stopping them from having a child.

You are assuming some sort of biological predisposition that doesn't really exist. It isn't built into the genes that women will bond with every baby they have. A baby is not damaged for life by not being raised by the woman giving birth to him/her. That's frankly something you hear from men who believe in the biological essentializing of women.

The woman did not reject him, she made him for other parents, just like other surrogates do. It is true that some surrogates have not wanted to part with children they carry, clearly those women were not honest about their intentions to be a surrogate. However, there are others out there who want to give the gift of a child to others who can't have children themselves. They carry the child but don't get attached because they know it isn't their child in the end.

Why no negative comments about Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman who just had a baby via surrogate? Does the baby pretend it came from Nicole's uterus and all will be well with her? Did the mother sell her baby and reject her? Um, no.

kanelli wrote:Why no negative comments about xyz and Nicole Kidman

because nicole kidman is h0t, even if she gives birth to a dinosaur