Supreme Court Legalizes Sex With Animals in Canada

In a 7-to-1 ruling this week, the Canadian Supreme Court acquitted "D.L.W.," a British Columbia man convicted of 13 counts of rape and incest, of bestiality because he didn't insert his penis into the family dog but rather only engaged in other sex acts with the animal, and failed in his attempts to insert the dog's penis into his stepdaughters.

"Although bestiality was often subsumed in terms such as sodomy or buggery, penetration was the essence - 'the defining act' - of the offence."
-- Supreme Court of Canada (majority opinion)

"People who sexually abuse animals are sometimes linked to sexually abusing children as well, as the accused did in this case.  That's a really good reason parliament needs to act [to change the law]."
-- Camille Labchuk, Animal Justice

First we see it in Canada, then it permeates the U.S. (click headlines below):

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Bible as 'Hate Speech'

Canadian Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime

Canadian University: American Christian Arrested for Hate Speech

Canadian TV Bans Biblical Preaching

Canadian Man, 52, Newly Adopted, Becomes 6-year-old Girl

Socialist Government Schools Teach Bestiality

U.S. Democrat Senate Legalizes Bestiality in Military

U.S. Health Official Arrested for Bestiality

Animals Should be Treated as Humans: Gallup Poll

Also read Gay Men, Who Say They're Dogs, Demand Acceptance

-- From "Most bestiality is legal, declares Canada's Supreme Court" by Feliks Garcia in New York for the UK Independent 6/9/16

DLW's attorneys argued that bestiality linked to "buggery" - or sodomy - with animals beginning with an 1892 criminal code. Bestiality was first used in a 1955 code, but still was not defined to encompass every sex act with animals.

According to court record DLW smeared peanut butter on the genitals of his victims and had the family dog lick it off while he videotaped the act.

Court documents disclose that DLW attempted to have the dog perform intercourse on the stepdaughter, but that ultimately failed.

DLW is serving a 16 year prison sentence. He brought the bestitality conviction to the court on appeal.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "No Penetration, No Problem: Canadian Supreme Court OKs Bestiality" by Kevin Daley, Daily Caller 6/9/16

Canada’s legal definition of bestiality is rather amorphous. Before 1859, Canada prosecuted depraved sex offenses under the English Buggery Act, a broad prohibition on sodomy. Thereafter, an anti-buggery law was incorporated into the Consolidated Statutes of Canada as a capital crime. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1969, championed by Pierre Trudeau, later prime minister and father to current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, repealed the laws.

“Applying the principles that guide statutory interpretation leads to the conclusion in this case that the term bestiality has a well-established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal. Penetration has always been understood to be an essential element of bestiality,” the [Supreme Court] opinion read.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Supreme Court's bestiality ruling prompts call to change 'archaic' animal welfare laws" By John Paul Tasker, CBC News (Radio-Canada) 6/10/16

Justice Thomas Cromwell, writing for the majority, pored over the history of the law — and its evolution from Church of England prohibitions in the 16th century to early laws enacted in colonial Canada — and ruled that lawmakers have always intended to single out only a certain subset of animal abusers.

The Criminal Code does not expressly say that a penetrative act is necessary to be considered an offence. But Cromwell said that's what generations of lawmakers intended and subsequent legislative changes have added little clarity.

The only justice in the minority, Rosalie Abella, rejected the majority's decision. "Acts with animals that have a sexual purpose are inherently exploitative whether or not penetration occurs, and the prevention of sexual exploitation is what the 1988 amendments were all about," she wrote in her dissenting opinion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Canada Legalizes Most Sex Acts With Animals" by Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post Reporter 6/10/16

The Canadian legislature process recently made international news after the Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, introduced a new bill seeking to establish two year prison terms for people found guilty of transgender discrimination.

"There remains much to be done, though. Far too many people still face harassment, discrimination, and violence for being who they are. This is unacceptable," Trudeau said at the time, noting that the bill would expand existing "hate speech" prohibitions to include any public speech or communication that "promotes hatred" on the basis of "gender identity" or "gender expression," which is aimed at defending transgender people.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Canada’s Supreme Court Legalizes Some Sex Acts with Animals" by Warner Todd Huston, Breitbart 6/9/16

The question is a troublesome one here in the U.S. as well, dividing liberals and serving as a watchword to conservatives.

Recently, for instance, animal rights activists in Ohio were rallying for the legislature to make it more explicit that sex between humans and animals is forbidden by state law.

Ohio is one of only eleven U.S. states that don’t have any bestiality laws on the books, advocates say.

The U.S. and Canada are no outliers in having a mixed record when dealing with bestiality. A recent article from the Daily Mail lamented the troubling new trend of “animal brothels” rising in Germany as many humans are claiming sex with animals is just another “lifestyle choice.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

And read Christians Becoming Extinct in 9 Western Nations (including Canada)

Mutant Human-pigs Created for Organs in U.S.

American researchers are using human stem cells and modified pig embryos to create a new life form dubbed "chimera" in order to cultivate a variety of human organs suitable for subsequent transplantation to humans.

“Our hope is that this pig embryo will develop normally but the pancreas will be made almost exclusively out of human cells and could be compatible for transplantation.”
-- Pablo J. Ross, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, University of California, Davis

“The organ would be an exact genetic copy of your liver but a much younger and healthier version . . .  With every organ we will look at what's happening in the [pig's] brain and if we find that it's too human like, then we won't let those foetuses be born.”
-- Walter Low, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota

“Chimeras will be seen to be what they are which is a saviour, given that they will provide, life-saving, sustaining organs for our patients.”
-- Scott Fahrenkrug, Recombinetics (a Minnesota-based company)

For background, read U.S. Government Creates 'Humanized Mice' via Abortion to Advance Gay Agenda

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Human 'Lab Rats' Tortured for Weeks, Then Killed

Creation of Synthetic Humans Planned at Secret Harvard Meeting

UK Government OKs Frankenstein Designer Babies

Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life

Government Wants 'Defective Babies' to Harvest Organs

Also read Implanting Harvested Aborted Organs in Animals for Human Transplant

-- From "Scientists growing human pancreas inside 'mutant' pig in bid to solve transplant shortage" by Patrick Gysin, The Sun 6/5/16

The chimera embryos have been implanted in living sows and allowed to grow for 28 days before being tested and destroyed.

Pigs are thought to be an ideal biological incubator for growing human organs and could potentially be used to create hearts, livers, kidneys, lungs and corneas.

Critics say the experiment is “offensive to human dignity”.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "US bid to grow human organs for transplant inside pigs" by Fergus Walsh, Medical Correspondent, BBC News 6/5/16

The team from University of California, Davis says they should look and behave like normal pigs except that one organ will be composed of human cells.

Creating the chimeric embryos takes two stages. First, a technique known as CRISPR gene editing is used to remove DNA from a newly fertilised pig embryo that would enable the resulting foetus to grow a pancreas.

This creates a genetic "niche" or void. Then, human induced pluripotent (iPS) stem cells are injected into the embryo. The iPS cells were derived from adult cells and "dialled back" to become stem cells capable of developing into any tissue in the body.

But the work is controversial. . . . The main concern is that the human cells might migrate to the developing pig's brain and make it, in some way, more human.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists attempting to harvest human organs in pigs create human-pig embryo" by Nicola Davis and Kevin Rawlinson, UK Guardian 6/6/16

It was reported earlier this year that scientists had begun attempts to create the embryos, but there has been opposition from authorities. In September last year, the US National Institutes of Health said it would not back research into “chimeras” until it knew more about the implications.

Concerns have been raised about whether the transplantation of an organ from an animal into a human could risk introducing animal viruses into a patient. Researchers from Harvard Medical School, however, revealed last year that it was possible to use gene-editing technology to inactivate more than 60 retrovirus genes in pigs in a step towards such organ transplantation.

Prof George Church, who has led similar research into the possible use of chimeras, [said] “It opens up the possibility of not just transplantation from pigs to humans but the whole idea that a pig organ is perfectible.

“Gene editing could ensure the organs are very clean, available on demand and healthy, so they could be superior to human donor organs.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Chicken Cruelty Exposed, Baby Slaughter Concealed

In the span of only a few days, one federal judge ruled that an Idaho "ag-gag" law that prohibits undercover videotaping to expose cruelty to animals is unconstitutional, while another federal judge, appointed by President Obama (after the judge bundled campaign contributions for him), blocked release of undercover video exposing the horrors of abortion.

For background, read Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video while the Media, Obama and Democrats Conspire With Abortionists to Counter Videos

-- From "Judge Strikes Down Idaho 'Ag-Gag' Law, Raising Questions For Other States" by Luke Runyon, National Public Radio NPR 8/4/15

Animal rights groups cheered the decision on the Idaho law this week from U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Winmill found the state's "Agricultural Security Act" unconstitutional for criminalizing certain types of speech.

Laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas and Iowa have also made it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations. A new North Carolina law goes into effect in January 2016. But now those laws' days could be numbered, according to the lead attorney for the coalition of animal welfare groups that sued the state of Idaho.

"Ag-gag" refers to a variety of laws meant to curb undercover investigations of agricultural operations, often large dairy, poultry and pork farms. The Idaho law criminalized video or audio recording of a farm without the owner's consent and lying to a farm owner to gain employment there to do an undercover investigation.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Idaho Ag-Gag Law Struck Down" posted at Corporate Crime Reporter 8/4/15

Idaho’s ag-gag statute makes it a crime to conduct an undercover investigation at an Idaho agricultural facility. Under this law, journalists, workers, activists, and members of the public can be convicted for videotaping animal cruelty or life-threatening safety violations.

Public Justice challenged the law in Idaho federal court as part of a broad coalition including the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, Center for Food Safety, and Farm Sanctuary.

The coalition argued that the ag-gag statute violates the First Amendment by suppressing speech that criticizes factory farms, and that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was motivated by unconstitutional animus against animal advocates.

The court agreed on both counts, holding that the law has the effect of suppressing speech on topics of immense public importance including the safety of the food supply, and the safety of farm workers and animals.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge extends order blocking antiabortion group’s video release" by Bob Egelko, a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer 8/7/15

A federal judge in San Francisco agreed Friday to extend by at least six weeks his order prohibiting an antiabortion group from releasing videos or confidential information it obtained by infiltrating two national conventions of a group of abortion providers.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick had issued a temporary restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress [CMP] on Aug. 3, saying its members had signed a pledge of confidentiality before entering the meetings of the National Abortion Federation and might expose federation members to harassment and violence by posting videos.

Orrick had scheduled a hearing Aug. 27 on whether to convert the restraining order into a preliminary injunction that would remain in effect until a trial on the abortion federation’s suit for damages. He postponed the hearing until Oct. 9 on Friday at the request of both sides, who said they needed more time to prepare.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "U.S. judge halts release of secretly recorded videos of abortion providers" by Alan Zarembo, Los Angeles Times 8/1/15

In a statement Friday, the nonprofit Center for Medical Progress described the National Abortion Federation as "a criminal organization" and said it "will contest any attempt to suppress our First Amendment rights to free speech."

The court order was the second issued last week against the Center for Medical Progress. On July 28, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles ordered the group not to publish footage from a May lunch meeting with leaders of Stem Express, a Placerville, Calif., company that provides fetal tissue to researchers.

California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris is investigating whether the Center for Medical Progress violated any state laws in obtaining the videos. In California, it is generally illegal to record a confidential conversation without the consent of all parties.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal Judge Who Banned Planned Parenthood Video Releases Once Raised $230,000 For Obama" by Timothy Meads, Daily Caller 8/1/15

The National Abortion Federation filed a restraining order against the CMP early Friday morning, and only a few hours later Judge William Orrick, III approved the request to temporarily ban CMP from releasing any more videos.

Orrick was not only an Obama appointee in 2012 but also a prominent campaign bundler, the Federalist first reported. According to Public Citizen, Judge Orrick raised $200,000 for Obama in 2008 as well as over $30,000 for committees supporting Obama.

Orrick’s approval of NAF’s injunction came just a day after White House Press Secretary John Earnest said in regards to Planned Parenthood, “the President certainly will not support another effort by Republicans to try to defund an organization that offers important and needed healthcare services to women across the country.”

Earnest also said that “extremists on the right” released the videos in a “fraudulent way.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

When reading the following opinion piece, interchange "animal" with "unborn baby," and interchange "agriculture industry" with "abortion industry."

From "Idaho's Anti-Whistleblower Ag Gag Law Ruled Unconstitutional" by Amanda Hitt, Director of the Food Integrity Campaign (Government Accountability Project) 8/4/15

. . . U.S. Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who struck down Idaho's anti-whistleblower Ag Gag law [wrote]:

The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment.

The Court also emphasized the utility of undercover video, often relied upon by whistleblowers who justifiably fear retaliation when going through internal channels to report wrongdoing.

Audio and visual evidence is a uniquely persuasive means of conveying a message, and it can vindicate an undercover investigator or whistleblower who is otherwise disbelieved or ignored.

The agriculture industry is not known for its transparency. But increasingly routine undercover investigations showing mistreatment of animals have inspired more public interest in how these operations run and what's really happening behind the barn doors. Despite the public outcry, the industry hasn't changed its behavior. . . .

The Idaho law didn't just try to stop undercover investigations; it attempted to silence the truth and truth-tellers - even whistleblowing employees. . . .

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Animals Should be Treated as Humans: Gallup Poll

Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism

Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit

President Obama's Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature

American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets

Pope Slams Environmentalists on Abortion

Censored: Pope Slams Environmentalists on Abortion

Once again, the liberal mainstream media are touting Francis I, their "pet pope," by cherry picking portions of his Laudato Si' — what the environmentalists call "the Vatican’s encyclical on climate change."  Besides embracing totalitarians' notion of "man-made global warming," the Pope also ripped advocates of abortion, transgenderism, population control, animal rights, etc. for worshiping God's creation as a god itself.

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Pope Decries Abortion, Again; Media Ignore Him

Vatican Says Media Distort Pope's Words

Media Filter Pope's Procreation Declarations

Pope Cracks Down on American Liberal Nuns, Priests

Pope Blasts Liberal 'christians' as Pagans

-- From "Pope Francis: Climate Change and Abortion Are ‘Interrelated’" by Clare Foran and Jason Plautz, National Journal 6/18/15

The highly anticipated document says that global warming is real, is caused partly by human activity, and is a grave threat to humanity. . . .

For Pope Francis, caring about the environment goes hand in hand with taking a strong stand against abortion. . . .

Francis suggests that efforts to slow population growth are misguided and a distraction . . .

The encyclical says that governments need to think as "one world with a common plan" . . .

One solution that Francis swiftly dismisses is a deal that would use carbon credits in a cap-and-trade scenario.

Francis takes on pesticides in a section of the encyclical focused on "pollution, waste, and the throwaway culture." After noting that daily exposure to pollutants can create serious and even deadly health risks, the pope says that "fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and agrotoxins in general" cause pollution that impacts everyone.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pope Francis links saving the planet to ending abortion" by Rose Troup Buchanan, UK Independent 6/18/15

Pope Francis’s has explicitly linked protecting the environment with protecting the life of an unborn child in his encyclical.

The publication of the Pope’s first solely authored encyclical has been widely celebrated by environmentalists, climate change campaigners and other religious leaders.

However, the text confirms the Pope’s views on abortion and the sanctity of life in line with traditional Roman Catholic teaching.

His comments were welcomed by conservative elements in the Catholic Church – no doubt concerned by his liberal leanings towards the poor, as well as the LGBT community – but dismayed pro-abortion campaigners.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-Lifers: Pope Rejects Population Control, Abortion As Solutions To Global Warming" by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller 6/17/15

“Importantly, he suggests that to look to population control for a solution to environmental problems is not facing the real problem of waste and overconsumption,” John-Henry Westen, pro-life advocate and co-founder of the news site LifeSiteNews.com, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“In keeping with the pro-life traditions of the Church, the pope also condemned the ‘throw-away culture,’ and specifically said that we may not justify abortion with an appeal to protecting nature,” Westen told TheDCNF.

“He also criticized those who would turn nature into a god, and he criticized many animal rights activists who are, hypocritically, unwilling to save human beings,” Westen added.

One concern among pro-life advocates was that two of the pope’s environmental advisers have advocated for population control methods such as abortion, contraception and sterilization. Pro-lifers are referring to economist Jeffrey Sachs and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pope Francis Slams Abortion and Population Control in New Environmental Encyclical" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 6/18/15

“When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected,” Pope Francis writes. “Christian thought sees human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for others.”

The leader of the Catholic Church continues: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”

“If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away,” he adds.

“This false model of man and society embodies a practical atheism, de facto negating the Word of God that says: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,’” he explained.

The Pope said “there is an originary dignity of every man and woman that cannot be suppressed, that cannot be touched by any power or ideology.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "For Pope Francis, ‘green’ equals pro-life" by Thomas D. Williams, research fellow at the Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame, posted at Crux 6/18/15

This Pope had already revealed on multiple occasions his understanding that abortion is a “scourge” and that “a just society recognizes the primacy of the right to life from conception to natural death.” Using his characteristically colorful language, Francis has compared abortion activists with the Italian Mafia, drawn a parallel between abortion and Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, and wondered aloud how “modern” societies can get up in arms over parents spanking their children when they have laws “allowing them to kill their children before they are born.”

Now in his second encyclical, Laudato Si’, the Pope has integrated the care and protection of the unborn with responsible stewardship of creation. In rather blunt language, Francis has stated that concern for the protection of nature is simply “incompatible with the justification of abortion.”

This explicit disassociation of ecological engagement from the taking of unborn life will no doubt encourage those who had been worried that Francis’ environmentalism was dangerously close to being coopted by international programs advocating abortion as an essential means of population control.

. . . For the pope, this interconnectedness means that a person who cares for the protection of an endangered species or worries about the melting of the polar ice cap must also care for the unborn. “When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities — to offer just a few examples — it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected,” he said.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Catholic Bishops Warn Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin' for example, Rep. Nancy Pelosi is a Fraud, Catholic Leaders Say

And read Pope Francis I Says Wayward Politicians Can't Take Communion

From "Pope’s encyclical: Pro-climate-change, but anti-population control, pro-life, and anti-gender ideology" by John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews 6/18/15

The environmental tome of 180 pages – the longest encyclical in history – is an often-fascinating read, with many touching passages reflecting on a Catholic vision of care and concern for creation. These many passages, however, are being largely lost and subsumed under the most emphatic – even alarmist – passages devoted to detailed descriptions of "climate change" theory (described as fact) and the dire consequences of failing to take drastic measures to fight such change.

And those startling quotes have stolen the media narrative, making this, at least for the media world and thus the general public, the "climate-change encyclical." Released, as the encyclical was, just prior to the pope’s visit to the United Nations and the US Congress in September, as well as the World Climate Summit in Paris in December, this narrative was at least partially intentional on the part of the Vatican and the pope.

. . . The new encyclical also continues the tradition launched by popes Benedict and John Paul II of tying respecting nature to respecting life in the womb and God-given gender. The pope also clearly decries the idea of reducing population to address environmental concerns.

Out of the 245 paragraphs, the pope devotes two to debunking population control as an appropriate means to fighting climate change or general environmental degradation.

. . . This is the fourth time Pope Francis has condemned gender ideology [in his paragraph #155].  He does so this time in the language of respecting nature; in January, he did so by blasting the forcing of gender ideology onto students as a form of "ideological colonization" comparable to Hitler Youth indoctrination.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Excerpts from "Full text:  The encyclical letter of the Holy Father Francis - Laudato Si': On Care for Our Common Home" posted at Catholic Herald 6/18/15

iii. The Crisis and Effects of Modern Anthropocentrism

115. Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since “the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere ‘given’, as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere ‘space’ into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference” The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised. When human beings fail to find their true place in this world, they misunderstand themselves and end up acting against themselves: “Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original good purpose for which it was given, but, man too is God’s gift to man. He must therefore respect the natural and moral structure with which he has been endowed”.

116. Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the way of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. The time has come to pay renewed attention to reality and the limits it imposes; this in turn is the condition for a more sound and fruitful development of individuals and society. An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world. Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our “dominion” over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship.

117. Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for “instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature”.

118. This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity. There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology. When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then “our overall sense of responsibility wanes”. A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to “biocentrism”, for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.

119. Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. Christian thought sees human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for others. Our openness to others, each of whom is a “thou” capable of knowing, loving and entering into dialogue, remains the source of our nobility as human persons. A correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social dimension of openness to others, much less the transcendent dimension of our openness to the “Thou” of God. Our relationship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic individualism dressed up in ecological garb, locking us into a stifling immanence.

120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.

121. We need to develop a new synthesis capable of overcoming the false arguments of recent centuries. Christianity, in fidelity to its own identity and the rich deposit of truth which it has received from Jesus Christ, continues to reflect on these issues in fruitful dialogue with changing historical situations. In doing so, it reveals its eternal newness.

Practical relativism

122. A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle. In the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I noted that the practical relativism typical of our age is “even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism”. When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.

123. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.

. . .

136. . . . it is troubling that, when some ecological movements defend the integrity of the environment, rightly demanding that certain limits be imposed on scientific research, they sometimes fail to apply those same principles to human life. There is a tendency to justify transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living human embryos. We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development. In the same way, when technology disregards the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice whatsoever as licit. As we have seen in this chapter, a technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power.

. . .

155. Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of an “ecology of man”, based on the fact that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will”. It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings. The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.

To read the Pope's entire encyclical letter above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Vatican Says Gay Agenda is 'a Defeat for Humanity'

And read Pope Said the Gay Agenda is the Work of the Devil

Animals Should be Treated as Humans: Gallup Poll

A new public opinion poll shows that 94% of Americans believe that humans have a responsibility to consider animals worthy of protection from harm, while one-third of respondents said that "animals deserve the exact same right as people" — an increase over seven years ago.

“We have listened to our customers, and are asking our suppliers to engage in improved reporting standards and transparency measures regarding the treatment of farm animals.”
-- Kathleen McLaughlin, Senior Vice President, Walmart

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism

Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit

President Obama's Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature

American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets

-- From "A third of Americans believe animals deserve same rights as people, poll finds" by Alan Yuhas in New York, UK Guardian 5/19/15

Earlier this year Pew found that Americans were closely divided on animal research, with 50% opposed to animal testing and 47% in its favor; Pew also found that 89% of scientists supported animal research.

But Americans also remain among the largest consumers of meat in the world, with only 5% of the population identifying as a vegetarian and 2% as vegan. A 2014 study found that 84% of American vegetarians and vegans eventually return to eating meat.

Disparate campaigns for animal rights and protections have steadily gained momentum in recent years . . .

The US and Europe have also gradually changed their approaches to animal research. The EU banned cosmetics with animal-tested ingredients in 2013, and the US suspended medical research on chimpanzees in 2011 and began retiring the animals two years later. In the past two years, Congress has also initiated reviews of the treatment of animals in federal research programs, namely in agricultural programs found to keep livestock in dire conditions and to pose likely health risks to human consumers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Many Americans Support Equal Rights for Animals" by Tanya Lewis, Staff Writer, LiveScience 5/22/15

Across all demographic groups, an increasing fraction of people support equal rights for animals, although women were more likely than men to have this view, the poll found. About 42 percent of the women polled supported full animal equality in 2015, compared with 22 percent of men. However, the percentage of men and women who support this view has increased by about the same amount since 2008 — from 35 percent to 42 percent for women, and 14 percent to 22 percent for men.

In addition, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents were more likely than their Republican counterparts to support complete animal equality. About 39 percent of liberal-leaning people supported that view this year, compared with 23 percent of conservative-leaning people. But the number of both Democrats and Republicans who support animal equality has increased since the last poll, according to Gallup.

Meanwhile, views on the treatment of marine or farm animals may have been influenced by popular documentaries such as "Blackfish" and "Food, Inc.," which sought to expose truths about the treatment of whales at SeaWorld and of farm animals raised for consumption, respectively.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In U.S., More Say Animals Should Have Same Rights as People" by Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup 5/18/15

The percentage of Americans who support the idea that animals' rights should be equal to those of humans increased across all major U.S. demographic groups. . . . There continues to be little difference between younger and older Americans.

To further discern Americans' feelings about animal rights, for the first time, Gallup asked Americans about their level of concern for the treatment of animals in various settings. The percentage saying they are "very" concerned ranges from 33% for animals used in research to 21% for animals in the zoo. When combined with those "somewhat" concerned about each, Americans are most concerned about animals in the circus, animals used in competitive animal sports or contests and animals used in research, with just over two-thirds expressing concern about each. They are least concerned about the treatment of household pets, with 46% saying they are very or somewhat concerned.

And despite increasing attention focused on the treatment of chickens, cows and other animals mainly used for human food -- as exposed in the 2008 documentary Food, Inc. -- Americans show relatively less concern for how these animals are treated, with 54% at least somewhat concerned, including 26% very concerned.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Walmart Pushes for Improved Animal Welfare" by Stephanie Strom, New York Times 5/22/15

Walmart, the nation’s largest grocery retailer, said on Friday that it would ask its meat, seafood, poultry, deli and egg suppliers to adopt animal welfare standards that include sufficient space and easy access to food and water.

The company also said it would ask its suppliers to report to it annually on their use of antibiotics, and asked them to limit treatment with antibiotics to animals that are sick.

Over the last several years, dozens of companies have announced commitments to better animal welfare and to eliminating the use of human antibiotics from animal husbandry. McDonald’s won applause when it announced in March that it would begin using meat from chickens that are not raised with antibiotics important to human medicine, and a month later, one of its major chicken suppliers, Tyson Foods, said it would stop using such drugs in poultry production by 2017.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Wal-Mart's Push on Animal Welfare Hailed as Game Changer" by Anne D'Innocenzio, Associated Press Retail Writer 5/22/15

The guidelines also aim to get suppliers to stop using pig gestation crates and other housing that doesn't give animals enough space. They're also being asked to avoid painful procedures like de-horning or castration without proper painkillers.

Other major companies, including McDonald's Corp., Nestle and Starbucks Corp., have already pledged to reduce or eliminate the use of gestation crates for pregnant sows and otherwise improve animal treatment. But activists hailed Wal-Mart's steps and said its guidelines would be one of the most sweeping and could become the blueprint for the food industry.

Wal-Mart said its own research showed 77 percent of its shoppers said they will increase their trust and 66 percent will increase their likelihood to shop at a retailer that improves the treatment of livestock.

Wal-Mart said it has adopted the "five freedoms" outlined by the World Organization for Animal Health to guide its approach to animal welfare. They include freedom from pain and injury and freedom to express normal behavior.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Acceptance of Bestiality Visible on the Horizon

And read Federal Health Official Arrested for Bestiality

Harvesting Aborted Organs for Human Transplant

While organ transplantations have more than doubled in the past 20 years, and available organ donations have increased at an even greater rate, the number of patients on waiting lists has more than quintupled.  Now a new company is publishing research with a solution to the organ shortage: grow aborted fetus organs in living animals for eventual transplantation to humans.

"If the [fetal] organs are available, it is better to use them to save somebody's life rather than throw them into the trash bin."
-- Eugene Gu, CEO of Ganogen, Inc., Redwood City, CA

UPDATE 8/6/15: 'Humanized Mice' Created with Aborted Babies for Gay Agenda (using taxpayer$$)

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Harvesting Blood of Children for Fountain of Youth

Type 1 Diabetics' Hope Rests in Dead Human Embryos

Human Embryos Cloned, Killed to Harvest Stem Cells

Boy 'Created' Artificially to Cure Sister's Disease

-- From "Coming age of Xenotransplantation: Would you accept an organ from a pig to save your life?" by David Warmflash, Genetic Literacy Project 2/12/15

A shortage of organs means a shortage of organs from human donors, and in the years to come, non-human organs may be used to fill the gap. Known as xenotransplantation, the idea of grafting organs from non-human animals to human patients is not new, but historically, it’s been essentially a surgical research tool.

As the technology has advanced, researchers have begun developing a technique that could get more kidneys to people who need transplants. But the method is controversial: It is now feasible to remove a kidney from an aborted human fetus and implant the organ into a rat, where the kidney can grow to a larger size. It’s possible that further work could find a way to grow kidneys large enough that they could be transplanted into a person, the researchers said, although much more research is needed to determine whether this could be done.

“Our long-term goal is to grow human organs in animals, to end the human donor shortage,” said study co-author Eugene Gu, a medical student at Duke University and the founder and CEO of Ganogen, Inc., a biotech company in Redwood City, California.

As for how people feel about xenotransplanation, a poll conducted at the turn of the century found 71 percent of the public saying that they would consider xenotransplantation for a family member, if no human organ match were available. But there is also the animal rights objection.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kidney Harvested From Aborted Human Fetus Grown In Rat: An End To Organ Donor Shortage, Scientists Say" by Susan Scutti, Medical Daily 1/23/15

“We feel that our research is more palatable than all the other researchers who use taxpayer money to fund their research involving aborted human fetal tissues, which is the vast majority of major biomedical research labs,” Gu tells Medical Daily. In fact, Gu and his research team acquired the fetal kidneys used in their experiments from Stem Express, a self-described “multi-million dollar company that supplies human blood, tissue products, primary cells, and other clinical specimens to biomedical researchers around the world.”

“We did this study in rats as proof-of-concept to show that human fetal organs can indeed survive in an animal host, can function to keep the animal alive, and can grow larger over time,” Gu says. Indeed: the rats survived roughly four months after the transplant, and one even lived for 10 months.

Among the ethical questions raised by Gu's work is whether the use of human fetal organs in research should be permissible and whether it is right to transplant human organs into animals. The Ganogen website argues that, as personalized medicine advances and becomes increasingly prevalent, “the differences between mice and men can no longer be ignored.” The reason? Simple animal testing of new drugs, which increasingly target highly specific proteins or genetic variations, cannot sufficiently safeguard our human health. The drug Herceptin is their case in point. This commonly prescribed breast cancer drug caused heart failure in some patients after extensive animal testing proved it safe.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Aborted baby organs to be used to grow transplants for medical patients" by Ethan A. Huff, Staff Writer, Natural News 3/3/15

Set to be published in the American Journal of Transplantation, a study on the process shows that it is entirely possible to cultivate living organs inside the bodies of animals. Whether these synthetically derived organs will be accepted by the bodies of actual human donors is still unknown, but researchers believe that the concept is promising for achieving their goals.

After obtaining human fetal kidneys from Stem Express, a California-based company that supplies researchers with various tissues harvested from both dead babies and adults, Gu and his colleagues implanted them into rats deliberately bred without immune systems. If the rats had had immune systems, their bodies likely would have rejected the foreign organs.

Earlier research has attempted to grow immature human kidneys in the abdomens of mice, but this latest study represents the first time that whole organs have been successfully sown inside animals. If the process proves to be successful on a larger scale, it forebodes a future in which aborted human babies become a commercial commodity for companies to capitalize on artificial organ development.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists grow kidneys of aborted babies in animals" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 3/3/15

A video by Ganogen glosses over the source of the organs by euphemistically calling them “discarded.” But obtaining viable human organs requires working in concert with abortion businesses.

Ganogen says it already is working on the processes for kidney transplants as well as human fetal heart transplantation.

Jim Sedlak, spokesman for the American Life League, the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life movement in the U.S., called the transplant program “totally immoral” and “another outlandish use of aborted babies to produce results that humans think are good.”

“We are totally opposed to any use of aborted cells from human beings to grow organs or for any other purpose,” he said. “Someone died in order for these organs to be grown.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Obama Administration OKs Aborted Baby Brain Experiments

And read President Obama's FDA: Why not Three Biological Parents?

Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit

Chimpanzees are being enslaved against their will according to multiple lawsuits filed in New York that use the same legal arguments made to free black slaves prior to the Civil War.

"Not long ago, people generally agreed that human slaves could not be legal persons, but were simply the property of their owners.  We will assert, based on clear scientific evidence, that it's time to take the next step and recognize that these non-human animals cannot continue to be exploited as the property of their human owners."
-- Attorney Steven Wise, president of Nonhuman Rights Project

For background, read Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism and also read Austrian Court Considers if Chimpanzee Deserving of “Human Status” as well as Obama Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature

In addition, read 'Planet of the Apes' Possible, Warn Scientists



-- From "Group Seeks ‘Legal Personhood’ Status For Chimpanzees" by The Associated Press and CBSNewYork 12/3/13

Nonhuman Rights Project, an animal rights group . . . is asking New York courts to recognize scientific evidence of emotional and cognitive abilities in chimpanzees and to grant the animals “legal personhood” so that they are ensured better treatment. The activists argue that the chimps are not things to be possessed and caged by people and should be released from “illegal detention.”

“In this case, we are claiming that chimpanzees are autonomous,” said Massachusetts lawyer Steven Wise, the founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project. “That is, being able to self-determine, be self-aware, and be able to choose how to live their own lives.”

The national group says it is dedicated to changing the common law status of some species other than humans. . .

If the lawsuits succeed, similar ones could eventually be filed on behalf of other species considered autonomous, such as gorillas, orangutans, whales, dolphins and elephants, Wise said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New York lawsuit seeks 'legal personhood' for chimpanzees" by Bernard Vaughan and Daniel Wiessner, Reuters 12/3/13

The lawsuit states that chimps are entitled to a "fundamental right to bodily liberty," which Wise told Reuters is the basic right to be left alone and not held for entertainment or research.

The lawsuit was filed at "the earliest point at which we have some reasonable chance at winning," said Wise, a well-known animal rights activist and author of books including the 2000 title "Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals."

"These are the first cases in an open-ended, strategic litigation campaign," he said. "We're just going to keep filing suits."

Nonhuman Rights Project in 2007 began a nationwide search for an optimal venue to file the lawsuits, Wise said. New York was ultimately chosen because of its generally flexible view of requests for a writ of habeas corpus, the centuries-old right in English law to challenge unlawful detention, he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Chimps should be recognized as 'legal persons,' lawsuits claim" by Holly Yan and Mayra Cuevas, CNN 12/3/13

"To be a 'legal person,' one doesn't need to be a human being or even a biological being. A corporation is a legal person," wrote Joyce Tischler, co-founder of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

Even if the chimpanzees don't understand what a lawsuit is, they benefit from being directly represented, she said.

"We see that in children. They can be removed from an abusive home and be protected, even though the child might not be able to formulate those desires and the issues represented in the court of law," Tischler told CNN.

"Lawsuits have to address a real problem faced by an individual plaintiff. You cannot sue on behalf of all animals everywhere," Tischler said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Suit champions chimp's right to not be held as a pet" by Donna Leinwand Leger, USA TODAY 12/2/13

Tommy [the chimp], who lives with a couple who have a reindeer farm in Gloversville, N.Y., is illegally imprisoned and under New York law has the right to live a more "chimpanzee-like" life at a sanctuary, says attorney Steven Wise, president of the Nonhuman Rights Project.

The lawsuit accuses Patrick and Diane Lavery of holding Tommy, a 26-year-old chimp, captive. The Laverys are "detaining Tommy in solitary confinement in a small, dank, cement cage in a cavernous dark shed" at their property, the lawsuit says.

Chimpanzees can make choices and, like humans, have an interest in freedom to live as they wish, Wise says. "It would seem exceedingly unlikely that any chimpanzee would choose to live life in a cave."

The cage in New York where Tommy now lives exceeds federal and state standards and is inspected every year . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Courts Should Reject Chimp Habeas Corpus!" by Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online 12/4/13

This suit furthers the subversive animal rights agenda–known as “animal standing“–which would allow animals to sue their owners and others in court. Of course, the real litigants would be animal rights fanatics who would be using the animals as fronts to further their own ideological agendas.

. . . these lawsuits are a malicious attack on human exceptionalism. A judge ruling that chimps have human-type rights won’t elevate them to our status, it will reduce us to theirs. If this lawsuit carries the day, the predictable and unpredictable deleterious consequences to human wellbeing will be hard to quantify.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 12/4/14: "Chimpanzees don’t have same rights as humans: court" by Chris Perez, New York Post

“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties,” a three-judge Appellate Division panel said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press.

“Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions.”

The judges ruled unanimously that chimpanzees are not entitled to the same rights as human beings. Tommy’s owner, Patrick Lavery, was happy with the decision.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read In Defense of Human Exceptionalism

In addition, read American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets

Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism

Environmentalists lay claim to the next civil rights movement . . .

We've seen movements for gay rights, pedophile rights, zoophile rights, Muslim rights and more, but now it's people fighting for those who can't fight for their own rights: plants and animals.

. . . antihumanism — the belief that people are the problem. As the Club of Rome summarized it in 1974: “The World Has Cancer, and the Cancer Is Man.”

For background, read Swiss Government 'Plant Rights' along with Animal Rights and also read American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets as well as White House Favors Lower Birth Rate and 'Green Abortions'

-- From "Natural wonder" posted at Denver Westword News 9/12/13

On Wednesday, September 18, the [Boulder County] planning commission will listen to a presentation from staff and ponder whether to include a statement in the comprehensive plan declaring that "Boulder County acknowledges the rights of all naturally occurring ecosystems and their native species populations to exist and flourish."

Whether or not it's approved, the proposed language signals that the Rights of Nature movement has landed in Colorado, complete with website and Facebook page. It's essentially a push by a wide array of environmental activists and thinkers to grant a kind of legal standing to native species; if corporations that promote fracking and other forms of environmental degradation can be granted personhood in the political arena, why can't entire ecosystems have rights, too?

Since 2008, laws that specifically acknowledge such rights have been passed in countries such as Bolivia and Ecuador and more than three dozen U.S. towns and cities. The locals pushing for a similar measure in Boulder include the president of the county's Audubon Society; an attorney whose bio lists "life-long experience in the study of consciousness, nature and the law"; an "ecopsychologist and poet"; and Priscilla Stuckey, author of Kissed by a Fox: And Other Studies of Friendship in Nature.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "For those who want to be together forever, NY says pet cemeteries can bury ashes of humans" by The Associated Press 9/14/13

New regulations will allow New York animal lovers to spend eternity with their pets.

The cemeteries can bury pet owners’ ashes as long as they don’t charge a fee for it and don’t advertise human burial services.

Ed Martin, owner of the 117-year-old Hartsdale Pet Cemetery in Westchester County, says he gets five or six requests a year from humans who want to have their ashes buried with their pets.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



From "Examining the Cult of Antihumanism" book review by Connie Marshner, National Catholic Register 8/31/13

Robert Zubrin’s book examines the philosophy that underlies one side of the struggle to value human life and dignity.

The first half examines the intellectual origins of antihumanism. The second half examines how the idea underlies current environmentalist policies and documents the compulsory worldwide population control that has been the foundation of U.S. foreign-aid policy since 1965.

Zubrin documents how eugenics is linked to environmentalism. In 1913, the neo-pagan tract Man and Earth, which became the bible of the continental back-to-nature youth movement, “laid out in full the conservationist case against humanity, technological progress, industrial development and advanced agriculture that has played a central role in the environmental movement ever since.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

'Planet of the Apes' Possible, Warn Scientists

For years, scientists have been secretively creating animal-human hybrids to seek cures for various diseases, which has prompted warnings of impending nightmare scenarios breaching every current bioethical standard.



-- From "Scientists warn of 'Planet of the Apes' scenario" posted at the London Telegraph 7/22/11

Exactly the same scenario is portrayed in the new movie Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, in which scientists searching for an Alzheimer's cure create a new breed of ape with human-like intelligence.

Currently research involving great apes, such as chimpanzees, is outlawed in the UK. But it continues in many other countries including the US, and British scientists are permitted to experiment on monkeys.

Professor Thomas Baldwin, a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences working group that produced the report, said the possibility of humanised apes should be taken seriously.

"The fear is that if you start putting very large numbers of human brain cells into the brains of primates suddenly you might transform the primate into something that has some of the capacities that we regard as distinctively human.. speech, or other ways of being able to manipulate or relate to us," he told a news briefing in London.

In the US, scientists have already implanted human embryonic stem cells - which can develop into any part of the human body - into mouse embryos.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years" by Daniel Martin and Simon Caldwell, UK Daily Mail 7/23/11

Figures seen by the Daily Mail show that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act.

This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.

Josephine Quintavalle, of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘I am aghast that this is going on and we didn’t know anything about it.’

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Acceptance of Bestiality Visible on the Horizon

Being a "zoophile" in modern American society . . . is "like being gay in the 1950s. You feel like you have to hide, that if you say it out loud, people will look at you like a freak."

"This is not a fetish . . . It's an orientation, a lifestyle."
"God is more concerned with how we treat others than what sex we have."

UPDATE 6/11/16: Supreme Court Legalizes Sex With Animals in Canada

UPDATE 10/16/13: Arizona School OKs Teacher -- Pedophilia, Bestiality

UPDATE 10/12/11: Federal Health Official Arrested for Bestiality

UPDATE 12/1/11: Democrat Senate Legalizes Bestiality in Military

UPDATE 8/3/12: Wrigley Sells Candy to Kids Using Bestiality

UPDATE 2/7/10: Socialist Government Schools Teach Bestiality

UPDATE 3/19/11: Bestiality -- Tolerance for This Also?

-- From "Zoophiles love and have sex with animals. Will the world ever accept them?" by Thomas Francis, Miami New Times 8/20/09

Cody Beck . . . an 18-year-old from Arizona who graduated from high school this past year . . . believes he and other members of this minority sexual orientation, who often call themselves "zoos," can follow the same path as the gay rights movement. Most researchers believe 2 to 8 percent of the population harbors forbidden desires toward animals, and Beck hopes this minority group can begin appealing to the open-minded for acceptance.

But if those like Beck are to make the same gains as gays, it's apparent they will have to do so without the help of gay rights groups, which so far want nothing to do with a zoophile movement. What's more, they will have to wage battle with well-funded and politically connected animal-protection activists.

As cave drawings will attest, there's a carnal desire in some humans to lie with beasts. And though many civilizations have tried, none has been able to eradicate it, much to the frustration of organizations such as the Humane Society.

Cody Beck, the Arizona zoophile who came out to his friends, was 12 then and had only just come to realize he was a zoophile. In the years since, he's been thrilled by how activists' efforts have broadened minds about what qualifies as moral, socially acceptable sex. He recognizes the exciting implications it might have for zoophiles like him. But he's crushed by the gay rights movement's rejection of zoophilia as a similarly legitimate orientation.

Beck believes these are expressions of fear that are natural in the early moments of revolution. "That's the story throughout history," he says. "People don't want to stand up for anything, because they don't want to get hurt." He draws some of his own strength from the recent movie Milk, in which Sean Penn plays the nation's first openly gay elected official, San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk. "If we all stand up at once, we'll share the load. What's the point of living if we have to hide who we are?"

. . . zoophiles might yet prove the new frontier in the battle for sexual civil rights.

To read all of this extremely lengthy article, CLICK HERE.

Obama Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature

“Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of [Obama nominee Cass] Sunstein’s record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal ‘rights’ for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts. Sunstein’s musings about instituting a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet are equally as troubling,” said Kevin McLaughlin, a spokesman for Cornyn.

-- From "Wait grows on OMB's regulatory review" by Kevin Bogardus, The Hill 7/23/09

The Obama administration is more than two months late in releasing a review of its regulatory process, leading critics to charge it is failing to meet its promise of transparency.

Many suspect the stalled nomination of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor and friend of President Obama’s, for administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) may be the reason the report has yet to be released.

Rena Steinzor, president of the Center for Progressive Reform, a think tank for liberal academics and scientists, said she did not know what has happened to the review.

But she suspects that Sunstein’s confirmation is key to the review being released, a point echoed by other observers of OMB. If confirmed, the Harvard professor would head the regulatory affairs office, which reviews every federal regulation issued across the government. For any new executive order dealing with review of regulations, that office would be the primary agency.

“I am not optimistic for it to come out because Cass Sunstein has been very bad on regulatory issues,” Steinzor said. “He is expected to come up with something that is more demanding and harder on the other agencies.”

Steinzor, a University of Maryland law professor, believes the report ordered by Obama will strengthen a 1993 executive order that consolidated reviews of federal regulations. That order, she said, has been used by past administrations to weaken rules that promote safety and health. Sunstein has not been well-received by Steinzor and other liberal supporters of Obama.

“From a conservative perspective, he is about as good as you can hope from this administration,” said David Mason, a visiting senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Mason said Sunstein has earned praised from the right, including an endorsement by The Wall Street Journal editorial board, because the Harvard professor believes in review of regulations and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis during the rulemaking process.

For now, Sunstein’s nomination, which was sent to the Senate in late April, is stalled and is unlikely to come up before the August recess. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has placed a hold on the nominee.

Sunstein co-edited Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a 2004 collection of essays that discuss whether law should ensure animal welfare. Cornyn will not release his hold on the nomination until he meets with Sunstein to discuss such views, McLaughlin said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama Regulatory Czar's Confirmation Held Up by Hunting Rights Proponent" by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, FOXNews.com 7/22/09

One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive branch.

That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the general public to eat less meat.

The Center for Consumer Freedom's David Martosko, a Sunstein critic, said those positions make the agricultural industry -- major stakeholders in the states represented by both Chambliss and Cornyn -- nervous.

Martosko said there are plenty of ways to pursue a "stealth campaign" on any one of these fronts -- guns or animal rights -- by putting pressure on the regulatory heads of the different agencies.

"He is the gatekeeper between the president and the secretaries," he said, noting that "as a regulatory czar, he won't be a judge or a legislator, so he cannot make laws. ... What he can do is nudge the departments in the direction of his philosophy," which is very much in line with "hard core animal rights zealots."

Environmentalists also say Sunstein's nomination is a potential blow to their efforts to roll back what they call Bush-era deregulation. Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Water Watch, wrote that "progressives would've screamed" if President Bush had nominated someone with similar views for the OIRA post." In fact, Bush did, O'Donnell noted, much to the chagrin of progressives.

Adding to animal rights and cost-benefit analysis is concern over Sunstein's positions on freedom of speech.

News of Sunstein's latest book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," lit up the blogosphere last week when The New York Post ran a column by a reviewer who received an advance copy.

Writer Kyle Smith suggested Sunstein threatens to tweak libel laws for the Internet and make online writers, particularly bloggers, legally responsible for falsehoods and rumors that get generated in cyberspace.

Sunstein, a prolific writer who has penned 35 books since 1990, has plowed the issue of rumors and how they are spread, and leaves much of the policy debate in the air.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.