In June or July of this year, a new internet domain will emerge - .xxx There are many sides to this debates and its effect on the culture.
I think it might be a good step, but that remains to be seen.
Some of the benefits:
- xxx sites will be contained in a single area, which makes them easy to exclude or block. schools, and people who do not want to go to these sites can simply set their computers to not show xxx domain names
- the sites will be regulated to disallow some of the worst filth on the Internet, such as child pornography.
However, I think the most benefit could be achieved if xxx was the exclusive area for pornographic material. As it is right now, porn sites can set up shop as a .com, .net, .org, .ca, etc. There is really no limit, and thus there is no protection. However, if xxx sites limited themselves to ONLY .xxx, it would be much easier to navigate away from this societal ill.
Some people say that the xxx legitimizes lewd websites. The issue I have with this argument is that the Internet is already inundated with porn, and it lures in victims each day. I doubt the xxx will make it any more prevalent than if they did not create such a domain.
Some people in the porn industry are against this change, believing it will force them into a corner. Obviously a vital part of the porn industry's strategy is to appear mainstream and to be accessible from anywhere. That's what Hugh Hefner did when he invented Playboy. It wanted to make sure it didn't come across as sleaze, but he wanted it to seem respectable. Often, he pictured high-class individuals. He wanted people to believe that viewing pornographic was somehow chic.
If people in the porn industry are against this, it is probably a good thing.
Others are concerned this will amount to censorship. Again, I ask: So what? Society already practices censorship in many ways. Porn is not allowed in schools or public libraries. Consumers should be at least able to clearly know what they are getting involved with and this in no way characterizes censorship. One comment I read the man was scoffing at the idea of "obscenity". I've heard this before. Basically the argument is obscenity is just a matter of personal preference, therefore nothing can be considered obscene because it's just subjective.
This is just a convenient argument to allow filth to be targeted at anyone, anywhere.
If this whole thing is done in the right way, I think it can be beneficial. It can help people make better decisions by disallowing a bombardment of porn at every turn. The xxx domain will serve as a warning sign for no morally upright person to enter.
Only time will tell the effect.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Update on Italian Crucifixes in Schools
Last year, I reported that a European Union judge ordered that Italy remove all crucifixes from school walls in the country after one woman complained about them on behalf of her children. She said they limited her freedom of religion. Anyway, a superior judge has deemed the crucifixes to be legal in the country, and thus they will continue. Keep in mind, this tradition is centuries old. Probably most, if not all, schools were originally established by the Church in Italy and the crucifix is the symbol of our faith. Removing it from classrooms is tantamount to banning national flags!
To read my full article from 2009, click here.
To get the new details, go here:
Vatican welcomes European court decision on classroom crucifixes | USCatholic.org
To read my full article from 2009, click here.
To get the new details, go here:
Vatican welcomes European court decision on classroom crucifixes | USCatholic.org
Friday, March 18, 2011
Canadian Movie Engenders Anti-Catholicism
A Canadian film (along with help from Hungary) is jumping on the familiar bandwagon of spreading anti-Catholicism through media. This time, CTV, Showtime, and other television networks are producing a television mini-series called "The Borgias", starring Jeremy Irons. The film focuses on Pope Alexander VI.
Of course, Alexander VI is generally considered the most immoral pope ever to take the office. Why is it that we have 265 popes to choose from, and you won't hear about any of them except someone like Alexander VI?
So steeped in controversy was Alexander that upon his election to the papacy, the future Pope Leo X, remarked:
Pope Alexander VI fathered many children, and arranged marriages for them. He also held orgies. He stole money from many people and was complicit in certain murders. Let's just say he wasn't a very good person.
It's also important to note that of the 265 popes we've had so far, only about 10 could be considered deficient in personal holiness. Why then does Hollywood spend millions of dollars portraying just this one bad apple?
Has the Church not suffered enough from generalizations and bad publicity? Why drag the Church through even more mud? It's hard to tell sometimes that there isn't a concerted effort to attack the Church.
This will only serve to give people more ammunition with which to attack the Church. Why resurrect such bad examples?
Can anyone truly imagine Hollywood, or the Canadian film industry doing something similar to another religion? How about a biopic of a greedy, blood-thirsty rabbi? Or maybe an unglamorous portrayal of one of the founders of Islam committing terrible and immoral acts? If someone did, they would probably be charged with a hate crime.
Trust me, you'll never see such films. Why is the Catholic Church society's whipping boy? Another Canadian miniseries was Pillars of the Earth about the building of a cathedral. The bishop was portrayed as a power-hungry opportunist willing to use any means to achieve his goal. Then we have Doubt, the beating-a-dead-horse movie about a priest who sexually abuses boys.
That's not to mention Angels and Demons or the Da Vinci Code. The list just goes on and on.
In fact, can anyone tell me the last time they saw a Catholic priest or member of the hierarchy portrayed in a positive way? In the rare event that an ordained minister is not shown to be absolutely corrupt, he is usually an outsider fighting the corrupt "higher-ups".
This is an all-out assault.
I have no evidence for this, but my suspicion is that the Government of Canada also has a hand in this. That's very typical for Canadian-made movies. I don't want my tax dollars paying for this!
I bet if you asked even Catholics about popes throughout history, most would say something like "well, there were MANY bad popes that did a lot of evil things!". It's almost taken as common knowledge. But like I said earlier, only about 10 popes could be considered personally unholy out of 265. It's important to note that Catholics do not consider popes to be impeccable, meaning unable to sin because of their office.
Note to movie producers: There is already enough anti-Catholicism in Canada. You don't need to promote it!
Of course, Alexander VI is generally considered the most immoral pope ever to take the office. Why is it that we have 265 popes to choose from, and you won't hear about any of them except someone like Alexander VI?
So steeped in controversy was Alexander that upon his election to the papacy, the future Pope Leo X, remarked:
Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all.
Pope Alexander VI fathered many children, and arranged marriages for them. He also held orgies. He stole money from many people and was complicit in certain murders. Let's just say he wasn't a very good person.
It's also important to note that of the 265 popes we've had so far, only about 10 could be considered deficient in personal holiness. Why then does Hollywood spend millions of dollars portraying just this one bad apple?
Has the Church not suffered enough from generalizations and bad publicity? Why drag the Church through even more mud? It's hard to tell sometimes that there isn't a concerted effort to attack the Church.
This will only serve to give people more ammunition with which to attack the Church. Why resurrect such bad examples?
Can anyone truly imagine Hollywood, or the Canadian film industry doing something similar to another religion? How about a biopic of a greedy, blood-thirsty rabbi? Or maybe an unglamorous portrayal of one of the founders of Islam committing terrible and immoral acts? If someone did, they would probably be charged with a hate crime.
Trust me, you'll never see such films. Why is the Catholic Church society's whipping boy? Another Canadian miniseries was Pillars of the Earth about the building of a cathedral. The bishop was portrayed as a power-hungry opportunist willing to use any means to achieve his goal. Then we have Doubt, the beating-a-dead-horse movie about a priest who sexually abuses boys.
That's not to mention Angels and Demons or the Da Vinci Code. The list just goes on and on.
In fact, can anyone tell me the last time they saw a Catholic priest or member of the hierarchy portrayed in a positive way? In the rare event that an ordained minister is not shown to be absolutely corrupt, he is usually an outsider fighting the corrupt "higher-ups".
This is an all-out assault.
I have no evidence for this, but my suspicion is that the Government of Canada also has a hand in this. That's very typical for Canadian-made movies. I don't want my tax dollars paying for this!
I bet if you asked even Catholics about popes throughout history, most would say something like "well, there were MANY bad popes that did a lot of evil things!". It's almost taken as common knowledge. But like I said earlier, only about 10 popes could be considered personally unholy out of 265. It's important to note that Catholics do not consider popes to be impeccable, meaning unable to sin because of their office.
Note to movie producers: There is already enough anti-Catholicism in Canada. You don't need to promote it!
Dolan Doubts He'll Be Pope, Wants Sex Abuse To Haunt Church : Gothamist
This will be worth watch on CBS's 60 Minutes this Sunday.
Dolan Doubts He'll Be Pope, Wants Sex Abuse To Haunt Church : Gothamist
Dolan Doubts He'll Be Pope, Wants Sex Abuse To Haunt Church : Gothamist
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Happy St. Patrick's Day Everyone
In the comments, tell me what you do for St. Patrick's Day. You can post anonymously!
Strange IVF story...
Ok, so there's a baby which in this family named Jamie who has a rare disease. A possible cure is to use the stem cells from a sibling's umbilical cord and possibly also bone marrow from this sibling. Problem, they do not have any umbilical cord blood to get the stem cells. So the solution the parents came up with is to do IVF treatment and "create" 5 embryos. Then scientists will determine which one does not have the disease, and implant it into the mother's womb. Once the baby is born, they will retrieve stem cells from its umbilical cord and possibly bone marrow if that doesn't work.
Of course, there are many problems here.
1) The baby is being conceived for the purpose of providing a "cure" for another sibling. This can easily create feelings, outward or subtle, that this newest baby was conceived for "parts". This will be psychologically devastating to this poor child.
2) 4-5 embryos will be killed. These are human beings which will be killed because the family only needs one. They are just getting so many to increase their chances of a good "donor embryo".
3) This sets an ugly precedent. What happens when people start "producing" babies in the lab to provide cures for other people? It's just too disturbing!
Here's the story:
IVF baby will help to treat brave Jamie - Health - Peterborough Evening Telegraph
Of course, there are many problems here.
1) The baby is being conceived for the purpose of providing a "cure" for another sibling. This can easily create feelings, outward or subtle, that this newest baby was conceived for "parts". This will be psychologically devastating to this poor child.
2) 4-5 embryos will be killed. These are human beings which will be killed because the family only needs one. They are just getting so many to increase their chances of a good "donor embryo".
3) This sets an ugly precedent. What happens when people start "producing" babies in the lab to provide cures for other people? It's just too disturbing!
Here's the story:
IVF baby will help to treat brave Jamie - Health - Peterborough Evening Telegraph
How serious is the 'predator priest' problem? We have no idea. - USATODAY.com
This is an article written by the non-Catholic distinguished professor of Humanities at Pennsylvania State University, Philip Jenkins
How serious is the 'predator priest' problem? We have no idea. - USATODAY.com
How serious is the 'predator priest' problem? We have no idea. - USATODAY.com
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Canada chooses infanticide once again
This is just one more disturbing story coming from Canada's medical community. A little baby boy was born with neurological issues. He required a breathing tube to live. Yet, the London Health Services Centre in Ontario felt he should be just left to die because trachetomies were reserved for more deserving patients. Dr. Frank Pavone, leader of Priests for Life, rescued the baby.
The hospital has released statements saying they disagree with the baby being brought to what they call American "faith-based" hospitals. One doctor said it wasn't in the best interest of the baby. I'm not sure what they thought was best, perhaps for the baby to just die? As for calling the hospital "faith-based", I'm not sure what that means. Is this a real hospital or not? Or are they trying to mock the hospital because it adhere to Catholic medical ethics.
Anyway, I'm glad this happened. It also highlights that pro-life organizations ARE concerned about babies that are born and not just those in the womb. Click below for more details:
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life Leads Covert Mission to Rescue Baby Joseph
The hospital has released statements saying they disagree with the baby being brought to what they call American "faith-based" hospitals. One doctor said it wasn't in the best interest of the baby. I'm not sure what they thought was best, perhaps for the baby to just die? As for calling the hospital "faith-based", I'm not sure what that means. Is this a real hospital or not? Or are they trying to mock the hospital because it adhere to Catholic medical ethics.
Anyway, I'm glad this happened. It also highlights that pro-life organizations ARE concerned about babies that are born and not just those in the womb. Click below for more details:
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life Leads Covert Mission to Rescue Baby Joseph
HE is our God.
I've noticed among some people, even some ostensibly devout Catholics, a reluctance to call God "he". They also avoid speaking about the masculinity of Jesus, and refer to the Holy Spirit as "it", rather than using the masculine pronoun. My sense is that this is more common among women.
This even went so far that certain Bible translations chose gender-neutral language over accuracy. This, in turn, became part of many Masses. Here is an example:
Romans 12: 6-8 New International Version
Original
New Translation (gender-neutral/inclusive)
Certain techniques are used to change a text from gender-specific to gender-inclusive: using "you" instead of "he" when referring to God, removing gender-specific words like "Lord", replacing "he" with "God" each time, etc.
There are many problems with this:
1) Bible as Word of God
The Bible is the Word of God, and therefore cannot be changed. There are several strong warnings about doing this in the Bible itself. The goal of translators is not to render the Bible politically correct but to render it accurate. We cannot say God made a mistake. Also, claiming the Bible to be sexist, would be tantamount to calling God sexist, unless you stop believing in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
2) God reveals himself as a father
God is constantly referred to as "Father" in the Bible, by none other than Jesus himself. By refusing to acknowledge this, we are contradicting Jesus. Consider the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father, who art in heaven"
3) Jesus took on the form of a man at the incarnation
Not as a woman or non-gendered entity. Jesus is a man, therefore it is appropriate to refer to him as such.
4) The priesthood
A related point is the priesthood. A priest shares in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and Christ's maleness is essential to his character, his being. The priest proclaims "this is my body" and at this moment, he is speaking In Persona Christi. He's not just repeating the word's of Christ, but acting in the person of Christ. Christ's maleness is essential to his identity, and therefore the priest who becomes an "alter Christus" must also be male.
5) God has always been referred to as "he"
God is masculine in monotheistic religions, even though many polytheistic and pantheistic religions existed at the time of the Jews and early Christians, which had multiple gods, some of whom they called "she". Jesus could have easily taught that God is feminine or "Mother", but he did not, and this was never the understanding of the Jews. But why? God is masculine, the universe is feminine. The reason is that God sends his grace from outside into the world, just as the male impregnates the female from without. A similar concept is found in the Church. Christ is the bridegroom, and the Church is the bride. Jesus sanctifies and leads the Church as the head, and we receive those graces. Jesus is the head of Church, just as husbands are the heads of the family, and the Church is the Body of Christ.
Peter Kreeft has produced a masterful essay on this topic, which goes into much more depth than my brief overview of the subject here. I suggest you check it out here: Sexual Symbolism
I think ultimately this whole issue once again comes down to obedience. Most of the time, women who advocate for calling God she, it, or a non-specific gender are also advocates for priestesses. Again, please check out Kreeft's essay on this to go more in depth. This article is not on female ordination, but it is important to note that Jesus selected only 12 men, no women. Since that time, only men have been ordained. It belongs to the ordinary Magesterium of the Church and is unchangeable.
On a personal note, I have been duped into this form of gender-inclusivism in my own experience. In the part of the Mass known as the Preface, the following is said:
Priest: The Lord be with you.
People: And also with you.
Priest: Lift up your hearts.
People: We lift them up to the Lord.
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God.
People: It is right to give him thanks and praise.
I have been accustomed to saying "It is right to give God thanks and praise". I notice now that saying "God" the second time is unusually grammatically. It would be like saying "There's Joe. Joe is walking over here. I hope Joe has the movie." Instead of saying Joe again, you would probably say he." I guess I got used to it after hearing many others using this. At one time the bishop asked me what follows "Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God." and even then I repeated God. It is clearly spelled out in the liturgy to say "he", rather than "God" in this instance.
This, of course, is a minor thing, but the bigger issue is that of disobedience and radial feminism which causes inaccuracy of translations and hostility toward the nature of God.
This even went so far that certain Bible translations chose gender-neutral language over accuracy. This, in turn, became part of many Masses. Here is an example:
Romans 12: 6-8 New International Version
Original
We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
New Translation (gender-neutral/inclusive)
We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.
Certain techniques are used to change a text from gender-specific to gender-inclusive: using "you" instead of "he" when referring to God, removing gender-specific words like "Lord", replacing "he" with "God" each time, etc.
There are many problems with this:
1) Bible as Word of God
The Bible is the Word of God, and therefore cannot be changed. There are several strong warnings about doing this in the Bible itself. The goal of translators is not to render the Bible politically correct but to render it accurate. We cannot say God made a mistake. Also, claiming the Bible to be sexist, would be tantamount to calling God sexist, unless you stop believing in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
2) God reveals himself as a father
God is constantly referred to as "Father" in the Bible, by none other than Jesus himself. By refusing to acknowledge this, we are contradicting Jesus. Consider the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father, who art in heaven"
3) Jesus took on the form of a man at the incarnation
Not as a woman or non-gendered entity. Jesus is a man, therefore it is appropriate to refer to him as such.
4) The priesthood
A related point is the priesthood. A priest shares in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and Christ's maleness is essential to his character, his being. The priest proclaims "this is my body" and at this moment, he is speaking In Persona Christi. He's not just repeating the word's of Christ, but acting in the person of Christ. Christ's maleness is essential to his identity, and therefore the priest who becomes an "alter Christus" must also be male.
5) God has always been referred to as "he"
God is masculine in monotheistic religions, even though many polytheistic and pantheistic religions existed at the time of the Jews and early Christians, which had multiple gods, some of whom they called "she". Jesus could have easily taught that God is feminine or "Mother", but he did not, and this was never the understanding of the Jews. But why? God is masculine, the universe is feminine. The reason is that God sends his grace from outside into the world, just as the male impregnates the female from without. A similar concept is found in the Church. Christ is the bridegroom, and the Church is the bride. Jesus sanctifies and leads the Church as the head, and we receive those graces. Jesus is the head of Church, just as husbands are the heads of the family, and the Church is the Body of Christ.
Peter Kreeft has produced a masterful essay on this topic, which goes into much more depth than my brief overview of the subject here. I suggest you check it out here: Sexual Symbolism
I think ultimately this whole issue once again comes down to obedience. Most of the time, women who advocate for calling God she, it, or a non-specific gender are also advocates for priestesses. Again, please check out Kreeft's essay on this to go more in depth. This article is not on female ordination, but it is important to note that Jesus selected only 12 men, no women. Since that time, only men have been ordained. It belongs to the ordinary Magesterium of the Church and is unchangeable.
On a personal note, I have been duped into this form of gender-inclusivism in my own experience. In the part of the Mass known as the Preface, the following is said:
Priest: The Lord be with you.
People: And also with you.
Priest: Lift up your hearts.
People: We lift them up to the Lord.
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God.
People: It is right to give him thanks and praise.
I have been accustomed to saying "It is right to give God thanks and praise". I notice now that saying "God" the second time is unusually grammatically. It would be like saying "There's Joe. Joe is walking over here. I hope Joe has the movie." Instead of saying Joe again, you would probably say he." I guess I got used to it after hearing many others using this. At one time the bishop asked me what follows "Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God." and even then I repeated God. It is clearly spelled out in the liturgy to say "he", rather than "God" in this instance.
This, of course, is a minor thing, but the bigger issue is that of disobedience and radial feminism which causes inaccuracy of translations and hostility toward the nature of God.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Martyrdom in the Abrahamic Religions
The word "martyr" is often bandied around in common parlance. In the more casual sense, it means someone who makes a sacrifice or is seen as a victim. So if a person is arrested, it may be feared that he will become a "martyr for the cause". Traditionally though, martyrdom means someone who dies for their beliefs.
Over the past few decades, we've heard the term applied to suicide bombers. These people often consider themselves martyrs. These people would not however be considered as such in Christianity. SO how do the three Abrahamic religions differ?
Jews have a similar understanding to martyrdom as Christians do. To Jews, it's a form of Kiddush Hashem or "sanctification of God's name". One of the most well known examples of Jewish martyrdom is found in the books of first and second Maccabees, which is found only in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. In it, Jews were killed for traditional practices such as not eating pork or circumcising their young males.
Martyrdom took a place of even greater importance within Christianity. Martyrdom was so common in the early days of the Church that Tertullian famously noted that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church". The first individual martyr is said to be St. Stephen who was killed on the orders of St. Paul. Over the centuries there have been hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of martyrs in Christianity.
It is important to note the definition of a martyr. In the Christian tradition it is very restricted. A martyr is one who is killed for his Christian belief after he refused to renounce it, even upon threat of death. Therefore, it automatically excludes:
- those killed during conquest or battle
- those who are killed while performing an evil action
- those who are trying to escape or conceal their identity
- those who renounce their faith
- those who kill others and are then killed
- those who commit suicide
- those killed by accident
There are probably more, but that's all I can think of right now.
In Islam, the meaning of martyrdom (or shahid) has a much broader definition, although not all Muslims agree on it. Muslims can do the following and still be considered martyrs:
- be killed in battle
- be killed in the process of killing others (i.e. infidels)
- be in an accident, such as fire or drowning
- die by disease
- die during childbirth
- die defending property
- die while in a building that collapses
- dies after being attacked by a beast
- dies while being a stranger in a new land
Obviously, the range of possibility for martyrdom in Islam is much greater than it is in Christianity.
Let's take some time today to remember the sacrifice of these great Christian people over the centuries and which continues to this day.
Over the past few decades, we've heard the term applied to suicide bombers. These people often consider themselves martyrs. These people would not however be considered as such in Christianity. SO how do the three Abrahamic religions differ?
Jews have a similar understanding to martyrdom as Christians do. To Jews, it's a form of Kiddush Hashem or "sanctification of God's name". One of the most well known examples of Jewish martyrdom is found in the books of first and second Maccabees, which is found only in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. In it, Jews were killed for traditional practices such as not eating pork or circumcising their young males.
Martyrdom took a place of even greater importance within Christianity. Martyrdom was so common in the early days of the Church that Tertullian famously noted that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church". The first individual martyr is said to be St. Stephen who was killed on the orders of St. Paul. Over the centuries there have been hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of martyrs in Christianity.
It is important to note the definition of a martyr. In the Christian tradition it is very restricted. A martyr is one who is killed for his Christian belief after he refused to renounce it, even upon threat of death. Therefore, it automatically excludes:
- those killed during conquest or battle
- those who are killed while performing an evil action
- those who are trying to escape or conceal their identity
- those who renounce their faith
- those who kill others and are then killed
- those who commit suicide
- those killed by accident
There are probably more, but that's all I can think of right now.
In Islam, the meaning of martyrdom (or shahid) has a much broader definition, although not all Muslims agree on it. Muslims can do the following and still be considered martyrs:
- be killed in battle
- be killed in the process of killing others (i.e. infidels)
- be in an accident, such as fire or drowning
- die by disease
- die during childbirth
- die defending property
- die while in a building that collapses
- dies after being attacked by a beast
- dies while being a stranger in a new land
Obviously, the range of possibility for martyrdom in Islam is much greater than it is in Christianity.
Let's take some time today to remember the sacrifice of these great Christian people over the centuries and which continues to this day.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Vatican bishop document raises questions - CathNews
The Vatican is sending questionnaires to Australia to determine if the bishops and priests are orthodox and true followers of the faith. However, a lot of people are up in arms about this. Most of the people who are objecting are saying the local bishop should have more power and the pope shouldn't be allowed to "intrude". Are these people even Catholic? Why such animosity toward the pope? I really find this point of view confusing, where people somehow separate the pope and other bishops, the priests from their bishop, and the laity from the "hierarchy". The Church is supposed to be united!
Vatican bishop document raises questions - CathNews
Vatican bishop document raises questions - CathNews
"Leftover" embryos
In another disturbing story from Canada, clinics don't know what to do with frozen embryos that the parents don't want. Keep in mind, these are children. Frozen children. Which the parents have left and abandoned. They are hoping someone else will come and take them and have them implanted in another woman's uterus to allow them to grow. Good luck. Imagine how the child who was conceived will feel if they find out their sibling was left to either die, be used in research, or implanted in another woman they'll never meet. We must get out of this Frankensteinian industry immediately. This is not God's will!
Should couples who've had success with IVF donate 'leftover' embryos? - The Globe and Mail
Should couples who've had success with IVF donate 'leftover' embryos? - The Globe and Mail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)