Is it ethical to create a child as ‘the means for fulfilling the wishes of an adult, in any way possible, and at any cost?’[click to continue...]
If you support IVF, then I don’t see how you can morally object to what these women did. If you think sex can be separated from the creation of new human life, then what difference does it make how many wombs any resulting children pass through until birth?[click to continue...]
I hereby dare to offer proof that the Big Bang Theory is false.
This might stir up some anger for pointing out the obvious. So be it.[click to continue...]
Is the Left correct? After all, we have longstanding laws on the books that state a human being has no human rights until he or she is born. Is it the government who bestows unalienable rights to its citizens?[click to continue...]
“Here, too, when the common reference to values and ultimately to God is lost, society will then appear merely as an ensemble of individuals placed side by side, and the contract which ties them together will necessarily be perceived as an accord among those who have the power to impose their will on others.”[click to continue...]
In the end, Galvin’s thesis reads, “[Humanae Vitae] substantially altered the traditional teaching by wiping the slate clean of centuries of doctrine and then propos[ed] an entirely new way to view marriage and procreation.”[click to continue...]
The op-ed admits “semantic gymnastics” are necessary to reconcile adherence to this “new ethic” on abortion. When everyone knows life begins at conception, they admit it is “ludicrous” to expect people to support abortion. To get over this barrier of the Natural Law, they say they have implemented a necessary “schizophrenic sort of subterfuge” to confuse themselves and others.[click to continue...]
Did you know the Bible foretold of a society that had “ungodly men” make “a covenant with death?”
You can read it in the Book of Wisdom, a book written about 1,000 years before the birth of Jesus Christ. I will share the passage with you below.
“If unborn life must be denied, its incriminating witness, language, must be denied with it,” DeMarco points out. Thus, pro-abortion advocates have to change their language to hide (from themselves?) their true motives. Not only do they have to dehumanize the unborn baby by calling him or her a ‘fetus,’ but they also have to pretend to themselves that social interconnectedness does not exist.[click to continue...]
The right-to-life movement would be essentially erased, if pro-life advocates adopt Renkl’s short-sighted supposed solution.
Let’s begin by observing the most obvious error in her thinking. That is, by agreeing to not talk about the issues of abortion, contraception, so-called “gay marriage,” L.G.B.T. issues, and so forth, we would thus guarantee their further decaying of our culture. Only by shining a light into the darkness of sinful behavior does such behavior ever end. “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them,” the Bible instructs (Eph 5:11).[click to continue...]