Update on Frodo

because someone asked

He is 8 months now, and standing assisted. He uses his toys to help him stand, he uses mommy's arms to help him stand, he enjoys putting his hands on the floor, and plants his feet on the floorr, then lifts his knees and puts his bum up in the air and wiggles around- he doesn't what to do next. But he does put one foot in front of thr other if you hold him by his hands.

He is abt 18 lbs.Has 4 front teeth, eats grains, fruit, veggies, and meats, no milk, yet. Bear' sister is milk intolerant so MD told me to hold off until a solid nine months old.

Sleeps 3 naps daily, falls asleep about 11:00p.m. wakes between 7 and 9 am

All babies are good, but so far he is very easy going- thank God.

Will include photo soonest

Jobless, non-religious teachers turn to Catholicism in attempt for employment

This story from the Globe and Mail troubles me.

Not because non-Catholics are hoodwinking the Catholic School Board into hiring them, but because we parents won't know who and who isn't Catholic.

I would rather have non-Catholics teach my children, and know they are not Catholic and be on guard that possibly non-Catholic philosophy is entering my children's education, rather than assume that my children's teachers are Catholic.

In fact, the majority of my children's teachers are CINO. They were baptised, communicated, confirmed, even married in the Church, but have absolutely no knowledge of the basic tenets of the faith.

So really which is worse?

Cold Shower

Is what bear is taking right now.

The gas company came and cleaned the furnace yesterday- replacing the filters etc etc. Today, we have no hot water, coincidence- I think not.

Interesting Notes on Prayer Books

For Elder's Confirmation I gave her a prayer book- she has many "children's" prayer books, but I thought an older type prayer book would be more appropriate, after all she is an adult in the church - so anyway.

I noticed differences, one of which I would like to share with you and feel free to comment, ignore, or just ponder as you like:

Doesn't it appear that the new precepts did away with rule number six (Concerning marriage) and they split rule number one into two.

Now I know the Church does allow a Catholic to marry a non Catholic - with certain stipulations a dispensations, - I should mention that the new prayer book has a whole section on the "Church Laws concerning marriage"- so the laws are duly noted) but still shouldn't obedience to these Church laws on marriage be listed somewhere in the precepts- you know the six very basic things you have to do to be in "the church."

I suggest the following:

1. You shall keep holy Sundays and Holy days of Obligation by attending Mass and abstaining from labours and business.

and

6. You shall marry in accordance to Church laws.

Here. Have Some Sanity.

May 1.Updated below.

Someone pointed out to me a website on the net dedicated, among other things, to showcasing beautiful works of art by modern artists. No, really.

I find point number six in their mission statement to be particularly refreshing. It is their goal

To repudiate the idea that development in art requires destruction of boundaries and standards, pointless emphasis on 'newness,' or pursuit of the bizarre and ugly as ends in themselves, and to expose as artistic fraud those works conceived only to elicit outrage.

There are also articles on techniques and craft of painting, in an effort to keep the knowledge alive, and to stop the current trend of sweeping aside 2,500 years of technical knowledge and know how from disappearing in the blink of an eye.

They have contests among living artists and have posted the results of 2008-2009 Salon. I am rather fond of this drawing, a masterwork of light and shadow which took second place in its class.



Go. Enjoy.

Update: A few contest entries were of religious subjects. I particularly like narrative presentation of The Dicers the figure and lightplay of Gethsemane.

Another Piece of Coolness Puled From the Past.

I meant to post this earlier. French archaeologists digging at the bottom of the Rhone in Arles have found a life bust of Julius Caesar. The bust dates from Caesar's own time.

The image is in the Roman realistic style, as opposed to later idealised portraits. it shows a balding man in middle age. One corner of his mouth seems is starting to turn up- later portraits often show Caesar with a half smile.

Things like this always make me wonder what else is out there to be discovered. Not everyone shares my enthusiasm, though. I once spoke to a professor who lived in France, and he told me an odd story. While digging in his garden one day, he discovered the remains of what he believed to be some Neanderthals. Apparently, they had used that area as a gravesite.

"That's incredible!" I said. "What happened next? What did you tell the archaeologists?"

"Are you mad?" he shot back. "I didn't want them ruining my garden. I covered those skeletons right back up!"

From Puff: On the Mean Streets, Some Kindness

On the way home today, riding the TTC bus I witnessed traffic on a five lane street come to a standstill while a Mamma Canada Goose lead her three goslings with Papa Goose bringing up the rear across the road. It was absolutely beautiful. Everyone while rushing to get home stopping and giving this safe passage. Even when they reached the other side, the last lane waited while papa Goose helped a gosling hop the curb (When the gosling first tried, he flipped backward and fell into the road again. So Papa nudged him back up and stoop guard while the little one tried again.) All of a sudden getting home so quickly didn't seem so important any more. The cars waited patiently until all were off the road.

The sad thing is, that if traffic had been stopped because of an accident which had resulted in a human fatality, how many would have been as sympathetic?

Interesting Request For a Music Director

Faithful reader Teresa B. sent along "help wanted" notice from the diocese website:

Our Lady of Sorrows Parish

Music Director Wanted

The successful candidate will be a Roman Catholic attentive to the liturgical norms of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and its accompanying documents. Duties will include meeting with the parish clergy; planning and supervising all musical activities in the parish; directing, accompanying, and recruiting members for our 50-voice SATB Senior Choir; accompanying the Junior Choirs at Sunday liturgies; playing at Sunday liturgies and parish celebrations; weddings; coordination of funerals; preparing and submitting the annual music program and budget. An Associate Organist is already in place.

Applicants must be familiar with a wide range of musical styles, from Gregorian Chant/Classical Polyphony to the present day. In addition, they will demonstrate expertise in playing our 2-manual, Casavant tracker organ. The position is approximately 15 hours per week.

For further information please contact the church office olosorrows@bellnet.ca or 416-231-6016.

There's a webpage outlining the organ and its specifications here.

This ad is full of good news: They want someone who knows the liturgical norms, is familiar with chant, polyphony, and classical. Great stuff all, but coupled with a 50 part SATB choir? What's going on? Most parishes are struggling to get together ten singers, much less 50.

There are good things happening out there, if you just look around to see them.

His Reward

There's been a fair few posts out there the last few days concerning the Duggar family, and the recent announcement that Michelle Duggar is having her eighteenth child, and- even more stunning by today's standards- by the same man.

Large families are not common in general, although there are some groups who do have them, albeit more quietly than the Duggars. There is, for example, the Amish. I once spoke to an Amish farmer, a very nice man, while children whirled around us, all busy, happy, working and playing. "How many kids do you have?" I asked. His answer? "I don't know. I stopped counting at thirteen." I believe my reaction was a blink. Or possibly two. As an aside, our conversation somehow touched on barn raisings, and his comment there was equally priceless: "The thing I like most about barn raisings," he said. "Is that I don't have to eat my wife's cooking." This goes to show that no matter how we dress, some things are just universal for men, everywhere.

But the Duggar's are in the public eye, and people comment on it. Some support them, some are against them. Both sides can be very loud and vocal. The side that is most vocal against the Duggar's seems to have focused their fury on the mother. This side is also, surprisingly-or not- pro-choice. I say surprisingly because Michelle Duggar has made it clear that this is her choice. Pro choice advocates had claimed as a basis of their movement that a woman has an absolute right to accept and embrace or to reject motherhood. Mrs Duggar has accepted motherhood and embraced it in a rather extreme way. Pro Choice should theoretically accept her decision. Perhaps some do. But some don't, and not only do they not accept her choice, they believe her ability to choose should be stripped from her. "That woman needs to be sterilized," has appeared on more than one message board.

I don't know enough about the family to say much about them. They seem to have the means to support the children. The children seem to be happy. I find the letter "J" thing a bit odd, but if it works for them, so be it. I am glad to see a family that so joyfully accepts children, although there is a part of me- the part that spent far too much time at a very left wing university- that thinks: "Eighteen? Eighteen?" Like that long ago day with the Amish, I can only blink.

Even though I am Catholic, and have followed the teachings of the Church, I doubt I would have tried to have so many children. I just don't have the means, and sometimes struggle to support my two. I still have enough of the left in me to wonder if there are resources sufficient in the world to support such large families. And yet, whenever this family is in the news, I can't help but wonder what my own family would have been like if our four (possibly five) miscarriages had survived.

I went to the Duggar website and found they quote psalm 127 a fair bit, especially the part "Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord." This brought to mind Vivaldi's treatment of Psalm 127, particularly the Largo, "Cum Dederit". So, in honour of the Duggars and Amish (who will never see it, but there you are), here it is from Youtube:




The words translated go: "For he so giveth his beloved sleep. Lo children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb his reward." Odd. You'd think a song about the Lord blessing his people with children would sound less creepy, less ominous.

The Face of Genius

Behold the face of Johann Sebastian Bach.



Hat tip to The Roving Medievalist.

Scientists using computer programs have reconstructed the face of Bach from his skull. Here's the link. As I said in the combox at Roving Medievalist, this is cool. I'd love to dig up a few more people and see what their faces really looked like (Shakespeare comes to mind, and to heck with the curse on his grave.) although this is not the best of reasons to go digging up someone's bones....

Vatican issues statement on valid Baptisms

REPLY FROM DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH ON BAPTISMAL FORMULAE

VATICAN CITY, 29 FEB 2008 (VIS) - Made public today were the responses of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to two questions concerning the validity of Baptism conferred with certain non-standard formulae.

The first question is: "Is a Baptism valid if conferred with the words 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier', or 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer'"?

The second question is: "Must people baptised with those formulae be baptised 'in forma absoluta'?"

The responses are: "To the first question, negative; to the second question, affirmative".

Benedict XVI, during his recent audience with Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these responses, which were adopted at the ordinary session of the congregation, and ordered their publication. The text of the responses bears the signatures of Cardinal Levada and of Archbishop Angelo Amato S.D.B., secretary of the dicastery.

An attached note explains that the responses "concern the validity of Baptism conferred with two English-language formulae within the ambit of the Catholic Church. ... Clearly, the question does not concern English but the formula itself, which could also be expressed in another language".

"Baptism conferred in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", the note continues, "obeys Jesus' command as it appears at the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew. ... The baptismal formula must be an adequate expression of Trinitarian faith, approximate formulae are unacceptable.

"Variations to the baptismal formula - using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons - as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology", being an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names. Such variants, however, undermine faith in the Trinity".

"The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes an authentic doctrinal declaration, which has wide-ranging canonical and pastoral effects. Indeed, the reply implicitly affirms that people who have been baptised, or who will in the future be baptised, with the formulae in question have, in reality, not been baptised. Hence, they must them be treated for all canonical and pastoral purposes with the same juridical criteria as people whom the Code of Canon Law places in the general category of 'non- baptised'".
CDF/BAPTISM FORMULAE/LEVADAVIS 080229 (420)

Question, how far back has this "formula" been used, and how do Catholics find out if they were baptised without the Forma Absoluta?

FINAL DECLARATION

OF ANNUAL MEETING OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR DIALOGUE OF THE PERMANENT COMMITTEE OF AL-AZHAR FOR DIALOGUE AMONG THE MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS AND THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE (VATICAN) ) (CAIRO, 25-26 FEBRUARY 2008)

Final Declaration

- Believing in the role of monotheistic religions in providing a firm foundation for the values of peace, truth, justice, right behaviour and cooperation in the development and use of the earth's resources for the benefit of the whole of humanity, thus realising fraternity, peace and happiness for all peoples;

- Affirming that it is important that these noble principles and exemplary values guide human behaviour, especially at the present time when boundaries and distinctions between peoples are decreasing and the phenomenon of violence, extremism, terrorism is increasing, together with contempt for religions, religious values and everything that is considered sacred;

- Taking into consideration the place of al-Azhar al-Sharif, its history and its distinguished role within the Islamic world;

- Taking into consideration also the specific task of the Pontifical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue within the Catholic Church;

- Recognizing on both sides the importance of mutual knowledge and of the search for common ground between the two religions as a basis for wider cooperation and improved relations;

- The Joint Committee held its annual Meeting at al-Azhar headquarters on Monday 25 February and Tuesday 26 February 2008 under the joint presidency of Professor Sheikh Abd al-Fattah Alaam, Wakil of al-Azhar, and President of the Permanent Committee of al-Azhar for Dialogue with Monotheistic Religions, and His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

The Committee, with the help of papers presented by Reverend Father René-Vincent de Grandlaunay and Professor Abdallah Mabrouk al-Naggar, examined the theme of Faith in God and Love of Neighbour as the Foundations for Interreligious Dialogue.

During its exchanges the Committee underlined common principles and emphasised shared spiritual and moral values. These help to form the conscience and enlighten
reason, providing guidance to thought and behaviour, in particular as regards relations with brothers and sisters of the other religion. The Committee also discussed the question of freedom of expression, noting that it can never justify harming people's feelings in religious matters, thus creating strained relations and destroying brotherly love.

The Committee strongly condemned the republication of offensive cartoons and the rising number of attacks against Islam and its Prophet, as also other attacks against religion. Note was taken of the words of Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech to the Ambassador of Morocco to the Holy See, in which he expressed his conviction that: "in order to favour peace and understanding between peoples and human beings, it is necessary that their religions and symbols be respected, and that believers not be the object of provocations which cause harm to their religious commitment and feelings." (20 February 2006).

The members of the Committee expressed their satisfaction at the agreement reached, seeing this as an encouragement to continue to engage in dialogue.

At the end of the meeting the participants agreed upon the following recommendations:

1. to affirm that all religions respect the dignity and honour of the human person without consideration of race, colour, religion or conviction, and condemn any offence
against personal integrity, property and honour;

2. to foster true respect for religions, beliefs, religious symbols, holy Books and whatever is considered sacred: religious leaders, both Muslim and Christian, as well as intellectuals and educators, should make every effort to inculcate these values
in their activities in places of learning and in all levels of society;

3. to appeal to those responsible for the mass media, whether written or broadcast, in all countries, to be vigilant that freedom of expression not be taken as a pretext for offending religions, convictions, religious symbols and everything that is considered sacred, but rather to oppose extremism, to encourage mutual acceptance, love and respect for all, regardless of their religion;

4. to encourage exchange of views on matters of common concern which may arise;

5. to assess the application of these recommendations during the coming meetings of the Committee.

The Committee agreed that is next would be held in Rome, 24-25 February 2009.

His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis TAURAN
President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue


Professor Sheikh Abd al-Fattah Muhammad ALAAM
President of the Committee for Dialogue Al-Azhar

Feel free to comment. I haven't done more than peruse the document. It really appears to be dip speak for: "You don't insult my religion and I won't insult yours." That sounds hard, when "insult" isn't defined the same way between the two. Maybe what they should concentrate on is the definition of "insult"

Profanity unknown as profanity

'zounds = "God's Wounds" - profaning (swearing) the 5 wounds of Christ.

'sblood = "God's Blood" - profaning (swearing) the Precious Blood of Christ

Gadszooks = God's Hooks - Also refers to the crucifixion
Gorblimey = God Blind Me - taken to swear to the veracity of something

BLimey )
BLoody ) > all offend because they reference the BLood of Christ
BLinkin )

-- Source : "Evolution of Profanity" [ Language Alert- one can't have a discourse on profanity without the words.]

The Word of the Year

w00t

Second Monday of October

...is the Canadian Thanksgiving. So, to all who visit this weekend, Happy Thanksgiving.

In case you are wondering why we have it so much earlier than our American cousins, it is simply because, being farther north, our harvest occurs earlier, so we thank God sooner.

While we are enjoying our three day weekend, read our posts below. Prayers for our Catholic School Board would be greatly appreciated.

Muzack in Church

Toronto Catholic District Schoolboard abandons Catholicism

Pope Underlines Importance of Natural Moral Law

Discovered by a friend just before he realised that he had stayed up way too late drinking

The hymn, "Amazing Grace" and the theme song "Gilligan's Island" are interchangeable. Knowing this has left me completely unable to sing Amazing Grace with a straight face during Mass.

Bumper Sticker

Saw this bumper sticker, on the way home from Elder's Swim Lesson, and school shoe-shopping.


"Don't drive faster than your Guardian Angel can fly."


How true.

More from "A Man for All Seasons"

“God made the angels to show him splendour.. .animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man he made to serve him wittily in the tangle of his mind.”

--Thomas More, "A Man for all Seasons."

Well most people's minds are tangles, but what does one do if s/he has no wit?

Out of the mouths of babes

Children teach parents lots of things.

Take for instance the reactions of three parents when woken up at 3 am by their sick three year old.

First time parents.

"Daddy, I'm going to throw up."
Daddy boots out of bed and spends the entire night staying by child's side, even though, nausea passes and child is better by morning he rushes child to the pediatrician first thing in the moring. In fact he is there before the receptionist is.


Third Time parent.

"Daddy I'm going to throw up."
"Well, get to the bathroom. I'll be right there."
He encourages the child, and tell her that it's Okay, and if she needs to throw up to go ahead, it might make her feel better. After all its better out than in. After twenty minutes, if no vomitting occurs, he gives daughter pediatric gravol and helps her settle down to sleep.

Tenth time parent
The three year old has projectile vomitting.
"Ah, give him some water so he doesn't dehydrate, and he'll get over it."

First Canadians wish to Ban Abortions wins as top wish, now this from the US.

OPINION JOURNAL: FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OPINION PAGE:

The Roe Effect, by the Numbers

Overbrook Research, an Illinois-based polling firm, has a fascinating
study out on public opinion and abortion. Authors Christopher Blunt and Fred
Steeper analyze opinon-poll data from the bellwether state of Missouri between
1992 and 2006, focusing on voters' answers to the question whether they regard
themselves as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

The finding: Public opinion has moved strongly in the "pro-life" direction. In 1992, 34% of Missouri voters described themselves as "strongly pro-choice"; by 2006 this figure had declined to 23%. The proportion describing themselves as "strongly pro-life" rose from 26% to 36%. When those describing themselves as "somewhat" pro-whatever are included, the "pro-life" rise is 11 percentage points (30% to 41%), and the "pro-choice" decline is 13 points (43% to 30%).

These, of course, are measures of general sentiment, not specific policy preferences. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are imprecise, even tendentious, terms. Not everyone describing himself as "pro-life" wants to outlaw all abortions, and not everyone describing himself as "pro-choice" opposes all regulation on abortion. It's even conceivable that one could be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (if one believes
abortion is immoral but shouldn't be illegal).

Still, a willingness to describe oneself as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" suggests a genuine sympathy with the anti- or pro-abortion side of the debate, respectively, since this is how they prefer to describe themselves. So what does this shift mean?

Blunt and Steeper argue that the debate has shifted profoundly, in a way that benefits the "pro-life" side:

In the 1980s and early 1990s, there were dozens of attacks against abortion clinics and the physicians who perform abortions. According to one official government count, between 1977 and 1993, there were at least 36 bombings, 81 arsons, 131 death threats, 84 assaults, 327 clinic invasions, 71 chemical attacks, and over 6,000 blockades of clinic entrances. In response, in 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. . . .

The law worked. Threatened by stiff new federal penalties, Operation Rescue and other vocal anti-abortion groups abruptly ceased their clinic blockades. Dramatic demonstrations and arrests gave way to peaceful prayer vigils and sidewalk counseling.

As antiabortion violence abated, the violence of abortion itself took a higher profile. In 1996 Congress approved the first federal bill to outlaw partial-birth abortion--in which the abortionist partially delivers a baby before taking its life--but opponents of the bill had enough votes to sustain President Clinton's veto. Partial-birth abortion remained at the center of the debate for more than a decade. This past April the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

But there may also be a demographic component to the shift. Blunt and Steeper note that the most dramatic shift has come among the youngest voters:

Some have speculated that there is a self-interest component to abortion attitudes, and that the young--particularly young women--ought to be more supportive of legal abortion than those whose childbearing years have passed. That seems to have been true in 1992: those under age 30 (both women and men) were the most strongly pro-choice (39%), and the least strongly pro-life (23%). . . .

While this might be evidence for the self-interest hypothesis, something interesting happened to the newest voters entering the electorate. Today's 18-29 year olds are as strongly pro-life (36%) as older voters, and are less strongly pro-choice (18%) than their elders.

The authors offer several hypotheses for this shift:

This youngest cohort's passage into adulthood coincided with the ascendance of partial-birth abortion as the issue's dominant frame; for them, the "abortion wars" of the 1980s and early 1990s were a dim memory at best. This is also the generation for whom fetal ultrasound images (often of a very high quality) have become ubiquitous, which has doubtlessly increased the sensitivity of many to the possible humanity of the unborn child. Furthermore, these voters have come of age with legal abortion, perhaps with the realization that they themselves could have been aborted had their parents "chosen" differently. . . . Particularly for those who may have reflected on the narrowness with which they themselves escaped abortion, the whole notion of self-interest seems to have been stood on its head.

What they don't mention is the demographic consequences of abortion itself--that is, the Roe Effect. It was in 1973 that the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, found a "constitutional" right to abortion, effectively legalizing the practice nationwide. By 1992 the oldest post-Roe babies were only 19. In 2006, by contrast, the entire 18- to 29-year-old cohort had been born after Roe.

If one makes the reasonable assumptions that "pro-life" women have a lower propensity to abort than "pro-choice" ones do, and that parents are a strong influence on their chlidren's moral attitudes, then one would expect the post-Roe cohort to be more "pro-life" than their elders.

As it happens, there has been a similar, though slightly less dramatic, shift, in the
attitudes of 30- to 49-year-olds. In 1992, 27% of women and 23% of men in this age group described themselves as "strongly pro-life"; in 2006, 38% and 34%, respectively. For "strongly pro-choice," the proportions declined from 38% to 26% of women and 34% to 21% of men.

The 30- to 49-year-old cohort in 2006 includes those who were 18 to 29 in 1992, so one may surmise that this group has moved in the "pro-life" direction. This would be consistent with the self-interest hypothesis: As young adults age, they tend to get married, and therefore to become less worried about unplanned pregnancy.

If both the self-interest and the Roe effect hypotheses are true, then one would expect, 15 years hence, that today's young adults--who will be in their 30s and 40s by then--will be even more "pro-life" than today.

This may be bad news for the Democratic Party. Blunt and Steeper find that the political parties have become more polarized around abortion: In 1992, 56% of "strongly pro-life" voters identified themselves as Republicans and 33% as Democrats; by 2006, the numbers were 62% and 25%. "Strongly pro-choice" voters have moved from 30% to 21% Republican and 58% to 68% Democratic. Given the electorate's overall "pro-life" shift, greater polarization is a net gain for the GOP.

Of course, the politics of abortion could change during that time, most notably if the Supreme Court overturns Roe. That could happen with a single change in the court's makeup: Currently the justices are split 5-2 in favor of sustaining the right to abort, but Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have not stated a position.

Overturning Roe would shift the debate away from the most brutal forms of abortion and toward the question of whether all or most abortion should be illegal--that is, from the "pro-choice" extremes to the "pro-life" ones. Such an outcome would likely benefit the Democrats, yet current politics oblige the Democrats to fight it with all their might.

Well, Let's keep praying the rosary, and lets plead with our Lady to intercede for the Unborn and obtain for us and the world the grace of banning abortion, most especially since the Korean Courts have just ruled that an unborn child at 42 weeks gestation is NOT human,until labour, in order to clear the charges against a midwife charged with negligent homicide.

But all is not lost around the world: In India, Mumbai Judges: The Foetus is a Human Being. (Well, they didn't say from Conception, but it is a start: "from the 13th to the 27th week, the embryo turns into a foetus and attains a recognisable human form." and "Hence in the case in point, the commission established that unborn child in the womb was living and therefore is considered a victim." ....

Read the full stories above, please.

Ave Maria, Dei Genetrix, ora pro eis.
Ave Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro eis.