IS CHRIST GOD? PART I

WHO WAS THE WORD IN JOHN 1:1?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  (JN 1:1, New American Bible)

Q1: What and who was the Word?

A1: The Word was a life-giving Spirit who coexisted with God in heaven in eternity (1COR 15:45, 47).  The Word was none other than Christ, the Anointed of God (PS 2:2; JN 4:25-26).  After His prophesied incarnation was fulfilled (ISA 7:14, 9:5; MT 1:21-23), Christ was given the human name JESUS (MT 1:21, 25; LK 1:31, 2:21), the Name that is above every name of which absolutely all must worship (PHIL 2:9-10; HEB 1:6).  Therefore, the destructive heresies (2PT 2:1) that the Word was just a plan, a scheme, or what have you, which were being peddled around by the false teachers today, are excrements that must be flushed in the toilet bowl right away.

Q2: What is the proof of Christ being the Word?

A2: The “Word” is short for the “Word of God.”  The Word of God has many names like, "Faithful and True," "King of kings and Lord of lords," and even an undisclosed name (REV 19:11-16).  The Faithful and True is the source of God's creation (REV 3:14), who is none other than Christ (JN 1:3; ACTS 3:15; Col 1:15-17).  The King of kings and Lord of lords is the Lamb (RV 17:14), who is none other than Christ (JN 1:29, 36).  The prophet Isaiah was the first recorded in the Scriptures to name the LORD God as the Faithful and True (ISA 25:1).  The LORD God referred to by Isaiah is none other than Christ - the Alpha and the Omega who is coming soon (RV 1:8, 22:20).

Now that we’d proven that the Word was none other than Christ, we’ll substitute the said God’s Name in John 1:1, thus, we have:

In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was with God, and Christ was God.

Actually, there are at least two Bible Translations that are succinct enough to name Christ as indeed the Word, and here they are:

In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.  (Amplified Bible)

BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE existed, there was Christ, with God.  He has always been alive and is Himself God.  (The Living Bible, Tyndale)

An ambiguous rendition of the same verse above was that of the Lamsa Translation which implies God (the Father) was the Word and not Christ (the Son):

THE WORD was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word.

The mistranslation of John 1:1 by Dr. George Lamsa was made conspicuous with just 13 verses forward in his own bible version.  From John 1:1, God the Father (Word) turned out to be the first-born of the Father in this verse below:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, a glory like that of the first-born of the Father, full of grace and truth.  (JN 1:14)

Also in John 1:18, Dr. Lamsa sounded it like God the Father (Word/first-born) is in the bosom of his Father:

No man has ever seen God; but the first-born of God, who is in the bosom of his Father, he has declared him.  (JN 1:18)

In fairness to Dr. Lamsa, he may be very zealous in attributing the Word to the Father, but his fervor became undone in his mistranslation of ACTS 20:28.  In JN 1:1, Dr. Lamsa said, “and God was that Word” and in JN 1:14, he said, “the Word became flesh.”  The implication of Dr. Lamsa was very clear: God became flesh.  Dr. Lamsa could not be more divinely inspired in positively proclaiming the truth of God which jibes perfectly with 1TM 3:16, KJV, which says: God was manifest in the flesh.  But alas, Dr. Lamsa’s passion for God wafted “like a morning cloud or like the dew that early passes away, like chaff storm-driven from the threshing floor or like smoke out of the window” when he made a boo-boo in mistranslating Acts 20:28 in this wise:

Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.  (ACTS 20:28)

In all his earlier translations cited above, Dr. Lamsa was consistently affirming God was the Word, and that the Word (God) became flesh.  Ergo, he should be the most viable bible translator who would have steadfastly stuck to his guns that It was God who shed his blood to purchase his church.  But no, he contradicted himself instead.  All the other Bible Translations of ACTS 20:28 either say church of God or church of the Lord.  Only the Lamsa Translation says church of Christ.

Actually, God and Christ are interchangeable as the Father and Christ are one (JN 10:30).  Unfortunately, there are certain perverted people and churches that capitalizes on the title “church of Christ” who trade on the word of God to overstuff their wallets and coffers (2COR 2:17).  The sadder reality is that these wicked people and churches don’t even believe in the Divinity of Christ and won’t interchange God and Christ come hell or high water.  They just flaunt the Holy Name of God for their own greed that is idolatry (COL 3:5).  For mocking the Name of God by attributing it to a mere man, a false Christ (2COR 11:4), they are also guilty of violating the commandment of God that says:

You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain.  For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.  (DEUT 5:11)

The worst translation of John 1:1 and 1:18 was provided by the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a self-serving, tailor-made, homemade bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses which made the Word (Christ) a mere god – a fake God, ie, an idol (1JN 5:21).  This is primarily due to their adamant denial of the Divinity of Christ, whom they treat as a no-no God and coldly called “one”:

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.  This one was in [the] beginning with God.  (JN 1:1-2)

No man has seen God at any time; the only‐begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.  (JN 1:18)

I just can’t help wondering whether Jehovah’s Witnesses ever bent their knees to worship their “god” aka “one” in obedience to this word of God:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth.  (PHIL 2:10)

_________________________

OH MY GOD OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, HALLOWED BE THY NAME, I pray to You, please save us all Your children from these ravenous wolves in our midst today especially in our poor country, the Philippines (MT 7:15).  I beseech You in the Holy Name of Jesus Christ Your Son, in unity of the Holy Spirit, and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Amen.

† † †

_________________________

A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL PART VII by Atty. Marwil N. Llasos, OP

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

In sheep's clothing: Clothed in white are INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo and INC ministers

A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL

PART VII 

[This is the seventh part of my critique of Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo’s position on the RH Bill. The words of Mr. Manalo are in green while my comments are in black.]

The RH Bill supported by the Iglesia ni Cristo is also supported by foreign-funded pro-abortion group Likhaan

The Bible instructs married couples not to deprive one another of intimate marital relations for long, extended periods of time; further, any abstinence at all for a married couple is supposed to be with the mutual consent of husband and wife and not for the purpose of preventing pregnancies (I Cor. 7:3-5).

The above statement is presaged by Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo with his judgment that methods of natural family planning are “immoral, since they contradict the commandment that God has given to married couples.” What commandment is that? Mr. Manalo mentions 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 which says:

“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (NIV).

Mr. Manalo says that 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 is the commandment given by God to married couples

Notice that Mr. Manalo categorically calls the above as God’s commandment. But what does the apostle Paul say it is? Let the apostle Paul speak for himself:

“I say this as a concession, not as a command” (1 Cor. 7:6, NIV).

The apostle Paul says it is a concession, not a command. On the other hand, Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo says it is a command – from God, no less. Who are we to believe? The apostle Paul or Mr. Manalo? Does Mr. Manalo read his Bible? If he does, how come he misses that? How dare Mr. Manalo supplant the inspired and infallible Word of God with his human and fallible word! What else is left of Mr. Manalo’s credibility to preach about God’s Word which he distorts and misrepresents? We just simply cannot take his word.

The Apostle St. Paul, the inspired writer of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 says that it is a concession, not a command (1 Cor. 7:6). Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo on the other hand says that it is God's commandment. Who are we to believe? The apostle Paul or the INC Executive Minister?

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell! We have said it before, and now I say it again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel that is different from the one you accepted, may he be condemned to hell!” (Gal. 1:8-9, Good News Translation).

Posted by Marwil N. Llasos, O.P. at 4:16 AM No comments:

A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL PART VI by Atty. Marwil N. Llasos, OP

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Iglesia ni Cristo member bows to Eduardo V. Manalo 

A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL

PART VI 

[This is the sixth part of my critique of Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo’s position on the RH Bill. The words of Mr. Manalo are in green while my comments are in black.]

Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo slams natural family planning as "immoral" but accepts artificial means of contraception such as condoms, pills, IUD, tubal ligation, vasectomy, etc. as "moral" 

 … but they also are immoral, since they contradict the commandment that God has given to married couples.

This statement the Iglesia ni Cristo leader’s warped sense of morality. In what way do natural family planning methods contradict God’s commandment? As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, natural family planning is not sinful, hence moral, if open to life and the will of God:

“Couples who use Natural Family Planning are allowing God to have some control over their lives and over the procreation of their children. Natural Family Planning gives the husband and wife some influence over decisions such as: when they will have children, how many children they will have and when they will be born. Natural Family Planning can even be used by older couples to decrease the likelihood that they will have any additional children.

Anti-life: Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo supports contraception which literally means "against conceiving"

A husband and wife should have some influence over the decisions of procreation. But they must also allow, and even welcome, God's power over their lives, their family and the conception and birth of their children. To use contraception is to try to eliminate God's role in the procreation of His children.

The methods used in Natural Family Planning are not in and of themselves sinful, because these methods are open to life and open to the will of God. There is no barrier or chemical preventing conception from occurring. The couple is not doing anything to prevent conception, or to oppose the will of God concerning the procreation of children. If it is God's will, a couple using Natural Family Planning could still conceive a child each time they engage in marital relations. In Holy Scripture, Abraham and Sarah were still able to conceive a child, by God's will, even though conception seemed unlikely due to their advanced ages.

If the Iglesia ni Cristo wishes to be consistent with its support of contraception, it must embark on massive contraception of its members so that the INC will not grow and will become extinct in due time

If there were a natural method of birth control which gave couples complete control over the procreation of children, such a method would be, in and of itself, sinful, because it would not be open to life and to the will of God. The mere fact that a method of family planning is natural is not sufficient to cause the method to be, in itself, moral. The method must be open to life and to the will of God.”[1]

Since natural family does not positively exclude the possibility of transmission of human life through chemicals, gadgets and devices, it is still open to life and the will of God for the couple. Such, however, cannot be said of artificial means of contraception. Thus, natural family planning and not contraceptives fulfill God’s commandment in Genesis 1:28:

“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (NIV).

Iglesia ni Cristo deception in supporting the RH Bill citing Genesis 1:28

To justify artificial means of contraception and population control, the Iglesia ni Cristo has gone at great lengths to tinker with God’s word in Genesis 1:28. That beautiful verse on stewardship of God’s creation was twisted by INC ministers to mean as God's command to have population control. Violating all the rules of sound exegesis of Scripture, and defying Biblical scholarship, grammar and plain common sense, the INC ministers unabashedly argue that the phrase “subdue it” means to “subdue the population.” The INC ministers grossly insult the intelligence of their members. No thinking individuals should subscribe to that idiotic and idiotizing view. The verse is plain in simple. It says, “fill the earth and subdue it” – “it” clearly refers to the earth, not population! This is another example on how the Iglesia ni Cristo perverts God’s Word to suit its own purposes and interests! What an abuse of God’s holy word – a sacrilege beyond description. How long and how far can the Iglesia ni Cristo go in making a travesty and mockery of God’s Word? Only Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo can tell.

Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo of the Iglesia ni Cristo considers the use of these contraceptives as "moral"

---

[1] http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article01.htm

Posted by Marwil N. Llasos, O.P. at 4:15 AM 1 comment:

 

A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL PART IV by Atty. Marwil N. Llasos, OP

Friday, August 10, 2012

Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo supports the RH Bill which promotes abortifacients 

(photos of Mr. Manalo are from the Pasugo)

A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL

PART IV

[This is the fourth part of my critique of Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo’s position on the RH Bill. The words of Mr. Manalo are in green while my comments are in black.]

Abortion and the use of abortifacients involve the taking of life, which God explicitly forbids (Exod. 20:13).

Earlier, Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo makes this statement: “We support their [modern methods of contraception] use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacient.”

That statement is neither here nor there. He is supporting the RH Bill on one hand yet qualifies that support by stating that only those modern artificial methods of contraception that are “empirically not abortifacient” are the ones he support. Excuse me, but has Mr. Manalo really read and understood the RH Bill?

The RH Bill, which Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo and his church strongly support, actually promotes abortifacients. What is an abortifacient? Abortifacient means “causing abortion,” “an agent that induces abortion,” “an instrument or material capable of terminating a pregnancy.”[1]

Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo is neither here nor there

For Mr. Manalo to fully understand how an abortifacient works, he has first to learn when human life begins. Unfortunately for Mr. Manalo (and the Filipino people), the RH Bill (House Bill 4244) does not deliberately define when human life begins. But as we discussed in another article, the 1987 Philippine Constitution holds that human life begins at conception which means fertilization.[2] Medically, what happens at fertilization? The answer is obvious – the beginning of human life:

“If and when a sperm does penetrate the shell of the ovum, it sheds its tail, and will proceed slowly into the center of the ovum. Its 23 chromosomes will line up next to the ovum's 23 chromosomes, thus constituting a new cell, a fertilized ovum of 46 chromosomes. From the entrance of the sperm until the first cell division is a period of about 24 hours.

What is present at fertilization is an entire new human body, even though it is yet a single cell. This is the most complicated cell in the universe, for it contains within itself all of the information that is needed for this human to develop into a mature adult.

The embryo then floats freely down through the mother's tube. During this first week, the one cell divides until this new being constitutes millions of cells. When this new human is one-week-old, he or she plants within the lining of the mother's uterus, burrows into the spongy, nutritive wall of her womb, contacts the mother's blood stream and sends a chemical, hormonal message. This message goes to a gland at the base of her brain and tells the mother's body that there is a new occupant. Accordingly, this gland sends hormones into the woman's body that prevent her from menstruating.”[3]

Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo was once like these

To belabor the obvious, at fertilization, haploid gametes combine together to form a diploid zygote, a genetically different individual from the parents. This zygote now has 46 chromosomes – a new life! Textbooks on embryology attest to that scientific fact, thus:

“The male and the female sex cell or gametes … unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.”[4]

“Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte(egg) and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)...

Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte (egg) ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent (multi-potential) cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”[5]

More textbooks and manuals on embryology can be cited but the above references are enough for Mr. Manalo to get the point. At any rate, the Philippine Medical Association affirms that life begins at fertilization.

Fertilization: Life starts here

Where do abortifacients come in? The RH Bill which the Executive Minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo supports defines “reproductive health care” as referring “to the access to a full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems” (Sec. 4, H.B. 4244). Moreover, the RH Bill, once enacted into law, mandates that “[a]ll accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods” (Sec. 7).[6]

What are included in the “full range of modern family planning methods” which INC religious leader Eduardo V. Manalo supports? Answer: ABORTIFACIENTS. That’s why Mr. Manalo’s statement that “[w]e support their [modern methods of contraception] use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacient” does not make sense because the RH Bill which Mr. Manalo supports actually includes abortifacients! And the RH Bill makes these products and supplies for “modern family planning methods” as “essential medicines”[7] to be regularly purchased by national and local hospitals and other government health units (Sec. 10).

What are these abortifacients included in the “full range of modern family planning methods” in the RH Bill and categorized as “essential medicines”? These are mainly the intrauterine devices (IUDs), pills and injectables which have post-fertilization effects; hence, abortifacients.

"We support their use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacient," according to Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo

1.    Intrauterine device (IUD) –

“The IUD or intrauterine device is available in two different types in America. The hormonal IUD called Mirena, and the copper IUD called Paragard. Mirena releases levonorgestrel, which is a progestogen. Its primary function is to prevent implantation by the tiny developing human (embryo).

Preventing ovulation appears to function as a distant second. A study of women, one year after inserting the IUD, showed about one-half (45%) of women were still ovulating. After four years, 75% of women were ovulating. Obviously, the greater the number of women ovulating means the higher the chance for fertilization to occur. Other mechanisms of Mirena include thickening the mucus of the cervix, thus not allowing sperm to enter the uterus, or affecting the mobility or survival of sperm.

If fertilization occurs, most likely the tiny unborn child will be prevented from attaching to the lining of the womb and he or she will die. This is a very early abortion.

The copper IUD's effectiveness comes from a continuous release of copper into the uterine cavity; however, they aren't sure why this works. The general consensus is that this is accomplished by preventing implantation of the human embryo.

With both forms of IUD, if the woman becomes pregnant, she has a greater chance of having an ectopic or tubal pregnancy. This is when the tiny developing baby attaches to the lining of the fallopian tube and may threaten the woman's life.

The IUD is not considered safe for women if they have not first given birth to at least one child, have a history of or had breast cancer, or have multiple sexual partners.”[8]

Health risk to women: CT Scan showing translocated IUD that perforated the rectum 

2. Oral contraceptive pills –

The first effect of oral contraceptive pills is to stop ovulation although this doesn’t happen all the time. The second effect is the prevention of sperm from migrating to the fallopian tube. The first and second effects are not yet abortifacient. But the third effect is. The third effect of pills is that they prevent implantation of fertilized egg when breakthrough ovulation occurs considering that prevention of ovulation is not 100% effective. The third effect makes the pills abortifacient. More so with emergency contraceptive pills (like Plan B) which prevents implantation or rejection of an implanted embryo; hence, chemical abortion happens. The following are examples of oral contraceptive pills:

“The Birth Control Pill is the most popular and widely used method of hormonal contraception. It involves taking a month-long series of pills—three weeks of pills containing hormones, and one without. This allows the woman to have a menstrual period. The Pill contains two synthetic hormones, progestin and ethinyl estradiol and has three mechanisms: 1) it prevents ovulation, 2) thickens the cervical mucus, which makes it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and 3) affects the endometrium or lining of the womb to make it more hostile to implantation. This means the tiny developing baby (embryo) cannot attach to the uterine lining and dies, which is a very early abortion. Even so, they define this as "preventing pregnancy."

The pill kills! The third effect of the pill is that it prevents the fertilized egg from implantation

Plan B or Emergency Contraception is designed for emergency use and not recommended to be used as a regular method of birth control. Plan B One Step is a single pill containing a high dose of progestin, and is available to women without prescription if they are 17 or older. It claims that if taken within 72 hours of "unprotected" sex, it will prevent ovulation, but it also prevents the already conceived embryo from implanting in the endometrium, causing an early abortion.

According to the pro-abortion blog site, Reproductive Health Reality Check, Plan B isn't as effective as first touted, which has caused financial backers to put funding on hold. In addition, the blog site acknowledged that women are "abusing" Plan B by repeatedly using it instead of other birth control methods.

Yaz and Yasmin are not the same thing; however, they are very similar. Both are classified as a fourth-generation birth control pill that contains two synthetic hormones: progestin and ethinyl estradiol. There is only a slight difference in dosage of the two drugs. Yasmin has a slightly higher level of ethinyl estradiol than Yaz. Both Yasmin and Yaz function identically. They prevent ovulation, thicken the mucus of the cervix and make the endometrium more hostile to implantation. This medication is also used to treat the symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).

Yaz and Yasmin have proven to be even more controversial than NuvaRing. Consumer advocates have called on the FDA to recall the drugs. The FDA has accused Yazmin of misrepresenting their products and downplaying adverse side effects in their advertising. A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yaz products on behalf of 74 women who have developed severe health problems from these drugs.

Yasmin under fire for its scary side effects

(http://collegecandy.com/2011/12/18/yaz-and-yasmins-side-effects-are-more-common-than-you-think)

The Minipill is similar to the regular birth control pill, except that it contains only progestin. As a result, this pill must be taken every day of the month, compared to the regular birth control Pill that requires only three weeks. The Minipill still operates using the three common mechanisms of hormonal contraception: preventing ovulation, thickening the mucus of the cervix and making the endometrium more hostile to implantation, which is a very early abortion. It is considered less effective than the combined progestin and estrogen pill.

The progestin-only pill is considered to be Continuous Birth Control. This usually results in stopping the woman's menstrual period (a selling point of the drug). Types of birth control pills that are considered Continuous Birth Control are Seasonale, Seasonique and Yaz.”[9]

3. Injectables –

“Depo-Provera is like the Minipill, a progestin-only drug, but it is injected every three months into the woman's arm muscle or buttocks. Since it is progestin only, it functions in the same way the Minipill does, including the prevention of implantation.”[10]

Look at how they market Depo-Provera!

(http://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/prints/depo-provera-birth-control-surrounding-her-lifestyle-4376505/)

Let us now hold Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo to his own word: “Abortion and the use of abortifacients involve the taking of life, which God explicitly forbids (Exod. 20:13).” As already demonstrated, the RH Bill which Mr. Manalo supports includes abortifacients as among the full range of modern family planning methods. If indeed Mr. Manalo is sincere in what he says, and if he truly obeys the commandment of God, Mr. Manalo has no other recourse but to emphatically reject the RH Bill and enjoin the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo to do the same. Unfortunately, Mr. Manalo continues to support the RH Bill which promotes what God explicitly forbids (Exo. 20:13). What does that make of Eduardo V. Manalo? An enemy of God.

Enemy of God: Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo, Executive Minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo supports the RH Bill which promotes what God explicitly forbids 

---

[1] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abortifacient

[2] http://www.bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-reproductive-health-bill-is.html

[3] http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/index.html

[4] W.J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livinstone, 1998) pp. 1-17.

[5] K. Moore  and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1998 [6^th Ed.]) pp. 2-18.

[6] http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text

[7] It may be asked Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo: “Why are contraceptives included as essential medicines? What do they cure? Pregnancy? Does Mr. Manalo support the idea that pregnancy is a disease?”

[8] http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/index.html

[9] http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/index.html

[10] Ibid.

"Let me live": The unborn pleads to be born. Is Mr. Manalo listening?

Posted by Marwil N. Llasos, O.P. at 10:05 AM 2 comments: