So...it has been a long long time since I've sat down to write. But I'm back. What is it that brings me back, you say? The radio. No, no...not music or talk radio, but something I heard on the radio from a caller.

If you listen to the radio at all, you know that people will sometimes call in with questions or dilemmas. Sometimes, they are actually worth pondering. The caller tonight, however, just made me sad in terms of thinking about the survival of our species, at least as moral beings.

The dilemma was this: her young son went to the zoo, and brought home a frog which happens to be an endangered species. Whether he meant to or not is unclear. Her dilemma? What do I tell my son now that he's had it a few days and is attached to it? Ummmm...am I the only one who is mystified by this? HELLO!!! GIVE IT BACK! Why is this a dilemma? If I had brought home anything that did not belong to me, intentionally or not, I would have been marched straight back to return it as soon as humanly (and institutionally) possible! The boy has kept it a few days and is attached to it?

Listen, I'm not a parent, but I hope to be one someday. I can't think of a single instance in which this situation would not have been resolved that day or the next. But...let's say I had an out of body experience and I was such a big softie that I let my kid keep an animal that is from the zoo and endangered (I mean an out of this universe out of body experience). What then? Oh, yeah...when my body crashed back to reality, I'd tell the kid I was wrong and that together we'd be making a return trip to the zoo to unload what is not rightfully ours to begin with. And this time, we're not going to be taking backpacks.

And that's how I see it...at least for now.

As I was heating up my frozen dinner last night, little did I think that I would one day compare one of my organs to a microwave oven. I mean sure, there's the age old euphemism that refers to pregnancy as "having a bun in the oven," but I didn't ever think it might become somewhat literal! Shows you what I know. Science has once again mystified in its ... creative ... approaches to fertility and childbirth.

And yet, the Canadian scientific community can, in fact, now boast that it has birthed a thawed baby. Well, perhaps I am being aloof about what may be a significant scientific breakthrough, though its moral implications may not be as ingenius as the science behind it. It seems that scientists have successfully created a viable living infant from an egg which, taken from the ovary early, was matured outside of the woman's body, frozen and then later thawed and impregnated and put back into the woman to be brought to term. Talk about the truth being stranger than fiction! This would have made a great sci-fi movie way back in the day...

If I understand correctly, the purpose behind the procedure is to provide pregnancy options for women suffering from diseases that either prevent their eggs from maturing or destroy the mature eggs, such as certain types of cancers. Now, the results have not yet been replicated, and there is no indication that a pregnancy would be successful in a woman suffering from cancer, so the even the scientific jury is still out. And being that I'm not a moral theologian, I can't really make a definitive statement as to what the moral implications are based on our teachings and theology.

There are some notable differences between this new development and current fertility options, though, that make me think that our Church will need to put a little more thought behind any position it may take. For one, this procedure is done with one singular egg - there is no mass production of embryos that result in abortive procedures during the process. It is directly fertilized and then implanted, again, for the purpose of bringing this one child to term. No multiple births, and from what I have read, no hormone treatments to boost fertility.

The only objection(s) it seems to me from my limited understanding is(are) that it removes the physical act of intercourse, the unitive property of the act that calls forth the joining of man, woman and Spirit, and leaves the procreative potential to the hand of God. To me, this is certainly an important enough objection to give pause to any thought of promoting this new procedure. However, I do not live the lives of the women who may find themselves limited in their ability to bring forth life due to illnesses that are out of their control. This is a desire that is deeply embedded in so many a feminine soul, it really should not be lightly dismissed.

If what I understand of this new development is correct, there remains many a grey area as relates to ethics and morality. With so many other horrors out there, I wonder if there is room for helping women bring their own children to term, albeit in a rather unusual way, when it a)does not result in the loss of lives of other children and b) involves the biology of the married couple who are trying to have a child. I look forward to hearing what the collective wisdom of our Church has to say.

Perhaps you've heard that there will be a new Catholic glossary to help increase the average Catholic's literacy within Catholic-speak. Truly, I do think this is helpful, though I wonder if half the terms in there are really things that your every day Catholic would need or want to know. Who knows - perhaps it will come in handy when we create our own version of Catholic Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit. OOOH! Better yet - Catholic Scrabble! ;)

Ok, now, I know I'm sometimes a little out of the loop. (Shhh! Yeah, you know who you are. ;)) But when in the name of all that is holy did it ever become okay to inject a human embryo with animal DNA? Am I missing something? Shouldn't the first reaction of the Bishops be "STOP IT!" Ok, perhaps the Bishops wouldn't yell. But I mean seriously! We now have a name for humanimal embryos? (One that conjures up images of horrifying mythological animal hybrids nonetheless...)

Did I miss the article that explained why on earth this was ever done to begin with? In all likelihood, I'm sure I did. I just want to know why - why didn't I hear about it before now? [Not to open an old wound, but why am I reading about Lindsay Lohan again in the headlines instead of this?!?] I'm not a moral theologian - or any theologian for that matter. I shoot from the hip and go with my gut. And granted, I'm a little hungry right now, but this one just makes me queasy. Now, if you're talking some medical breakthrough that will vaccinate a child - okay...start talking and explain. However, in reading the article, that was not the sense I was getting. They did mention, however, that any splicing of a human egg/sperm with a non-human egg/sperm would continue to be prohibited... Genius. Sheer genius.

Anyone else feel a scene from MST3K coming on? Or perhaps the Bride of Frankenstein? Maybe a chorus from "Insane in the Membrane" would be more appropro. I'm really still hoping against hope that this is just a spoof - something illustrating that quirky British humor that I don't always get, but makes me laugh eventually just the same. Please, someone oh someone show me some purpose for this proposal that isn't just plain disturbing!

(Oh, and can you also answer me this? Why bring up gay adoption while discussing the creation of these chimeras and their rights as humans? Yes, I realize gay adoption is a rather sensitive topic in the Church right now, but really - putting that at the end of the same proposal that is talking about intermingling human and non-human DNA is a bit cheap and undignified.)

I'm floored, simply stunned...but clearly not speechless - sorry! :)

Signing off for now...
the Rakstar