"Nobody knows exactly why they have been preserved."

That is NOT true. The bodies were unburied so that all survivors who would see them would be reminded of the truth: "Remember, man, that thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt return." The bodies were those of Capuchin (Franciscan) friars. At first, those who would see the bodies/skeletons were other friars, who were helped by being reminded that they should avoid coveting life outside the friary, which is over pretty quickly, and "you can't take it with you."

I forgot to say this: The second-worst crimes, after the "hit" by the abortionist, are the lies told to the baby's mom, which resulted in her consenting to the murder. These lies are usually told to the moms by the media, dead-beat spouses/boyfriends, so-called "friends," and (sad to say) the parents of the moms (i.e., the grandparents of the dead babies). The fathers and grandparents of the babies often pressure the moms into doing what they don't really want to do, because they suspect (or know) that it is wrong. The term, "pro-choice," is do deceptive and is such a lie -- deceptive, because it fails to mention that the "choice" is to kill or to love and let live; a lie, because usually the mom feels that she has no "choice" but to have her private parts invaded by a murderous stranger. Let us instead SUPPORT these moms to give birth always. Abortion always has at least two victims -- one dead and one gravely wounded.

It should be obvious that abortion is murder, the always-unjustifiable killing of an innocent, defenseless human person.

Mao Zedong (aka Mousy Dung) was a MASS MURDERER, who killed even more than did Hitler. He was also an atheist who suppressed religions, another crime against humanity.

All you many folks who claimed to get 100% right actually got 93% right, because you answered the final question incorrectly. The quiz-writer's explanation of the final answer is bogus, as at least one person (above) has explained.

Anyone who would manufacture this is mentally ill.
Anyone who would publicize it on the Internet (e.g., Jill Harness) is sheer evil and may be diabolically possessed.

PS to Jill Harness and others: There is nothing "weird" or "distasteful" or "creepy" about these baby models. They are no different from baby dolls that little girls have played with for millennia. The use of a pejorative adjective concerning them may arise from feelings of guilt (personal association with past abortions). I will pray for all of you.

I love the fact that you are showing these models of pre-born babies. Some of us have been using these for over twenty years -- outside abortion mills -- to help convince girls and women why they should not go inside and hire a hit-man to slaughter their little ones. Two or three commenters, above, who may not yet have come bo terms with the fact that the pre-born are persons just like the rest of us -- and innocent and defenseless -- use the term, "fetus," to avoid the word, "baby." How sad! They don't know that "fetus" is Latin for "offspring," so a human fetus is a human baby!

"The Cat Who Wears Contacts ... Ernest is a 15-year-old cat who lives at a shelter in Godshill on the Isle of Wight."

Both in the title of this thread and in its first sentence, the pronoun, "who," is used. [Look up and read again.] The pronoun, "that," should have been used instead of "who" -- for two reasons:

1. The context calls for the word that is used to start a "restrictive clause." The proper word is "that."

2. Even if the context had called for the kind of word that is used to start a "non-restrictive clause," "who" would have been the wrong choice. The proper word would have been, "which." The word, "who," is used only to refer to PERSONS (i.e., divine, angelic, or human beings). The word, "who," is NOT used to refer to impersonal things (such as cats).

Nowadays, some people with an ill-trained ability to perceive facts wrongly consider some things (such as plants and animals) to be persons, so they mistakenly use personal pronouns, such as "he" or "she" (instead of "it") and "who" (instead of "which").

"In fact, it dates to at least the 6th century C.E., to an Irish-born bishop named St. Elvis."

Uh, no -- not "C.E.." You should have written, "6th Century A.D.." We are not politically correct pagans, especially not when talking about a Catholic bishop like Saint Elvis! For the ignorant, "A.D." stands for "Anno Domini" -- Latin for "in the year of the Lord" (i.e., since the birth of Jesus Christ).

I got 100% right, although I have to admit that I guessed on one of them.

Correction. #3, above, was supposed to read as follows:

3. All but one of the ten top-selling newspapers, including the #1 (USA Today).

[The only one that is not dominated by liberals is the Wall Street Journal -- and then only the editorial page.]

Polls taken in the 1990s revealed that the following were (and still are) all dominated by liberals -- i.e., that 85% of the owners, producers, editors, directors, writers, reporters, and anchors were left-wingers:

1. The big three (dinosaur) broadcast TV networks -- NBC, ABC, CBS -- plus PBS.

2. Almost all of the cable news networks -- i.e., CNBC, MSNBC, CNN.

3. All but one of the two ten-selling newspapers, including the #1 (USA Today).

Because of the above dominance of so much of the media by the ultra-left-wing propaganda machine -- which hides so much of the truth and often replaces it with errors and half-truths -- the photo-message on the truck is so very accurate.

About 90% of Americans were GUNG-HO about the War on Terror late in 2001, but the unpatriotic 10% (so strongly represented in the media) have succeeded in bamboozling about half the nation over the course of seven years.

For over five years, the gutless liberal politicians and their willing accomplices in the media have pounded citizens non-stop with a message of error and despair, making them lose patience and heart. Had the media been so treasonous in the 1940s as they have been since 2003, World War II would have been lost to Germany and Japan.

If even HALF of the media were conservative (instead of just 15%) -- thus providing a proper balance and full exposure of the truth -- America would be vastly better than it is now. The great majority of the people would still be gung-ho against the enemy (islamofascism), with confidence instead of whining and hand-wringing ... the liberal corruption (resulting in the current economic crises) would have been extirpated long ago ... Congress would not have been ruined in 2004 and 2006 (by a liberal take-over) ... the election of McCain/Palin would be a sure thing, resulting in TREMENDOUS national progress through co-operation with a conservative Congress ... etc., etc., etc..

Now, it will be only by a total miracle that America will avoid the total self-destruction that would be brought on by the election of Obama/Biden and another radically pro-death Congress, plus the resumption of the Clintonian destruction of the Courts.

Oh, isn't that just sweet! Here comes "Big Brother" to censor (or delete) what I wrote, because He doesn't want the whole truth to be known. Just pathetic and truly demonic!

The sheer ignorance of so many of the commenters above is truly astonishing -- and worrying, since they have (or will have) the right to vote. The following are FACTS and not opinions:

1. An human embryo is a human being, a person with exactly the same inalienable rights (including the right to life) as any commenter who posted above. This is true from conception (which is correctly defined as the completion of fertilization of an ovum by a sperm -- not as the implantation of an embryo in a woman's uterus). A human embryo is not not a member of a lower "caste" of person, subject to nazi-like manipulation.

2. No one can experiment on any human being without his/her expressed consent.

3. No human being can give consent to an experiment that will surely kill him/herself or another.

4. Embryonic stem cell research kills an innocent, defenseless embryonic human being (who has not, cannot, and may not give consent for it), and it is thus unjustifiable homicide.

5. There is no such thing as a "spare" human embryo, just as there is no such thing as a "spare" infant, toddler, teenager, adult, or oldster. Each embryo has the right to a full life, not to being slaughtered. We must all reject the long-ago discredited, anti-human philosophical school called "Utilitarianism," wherein one human being can be USED (actually ABUSED) for the seeming benefit of another or of society.

6. Each human embryo has the right to be born to a married mother and father who have brought the embryo into existence only through normal intercourse.

7. While married men and women may not be deprived by the state of their right to intercourse or to engender as many children as they can responsibly rear, they do not have a right to bring about the conception of a child by any scientifically possible means (e.g., IVF). The state can give them a freedom/liberty, but not a right, since rights come only from the Creator (as the Declaration of Independence tells us).

8. Practically speaking -- even if embryonic stem cell research were ethical (i.e., non-murderous) -- people need to know that it has TOTALLY failed anyway, for years and years, and (I hope) may always fail.

9. By contrast, all other forms of stem cell research -- which are NOT murderous and NOT unethical -- for example, mature stem cell research involving cells taken from born humans, their placentas, or their umbilical cords -- have resulted in the curing of an ever-increasing number of disorders/paralyses/etc. (more than 70 at this point).

10. 90% of the media, being godless, ultra-left-wing, pro-death ideologues hide points 8 and 9 from the public, in order to push for more and more murderous, utilitarian, embryonic stem cell research.

Dear God in heaven, please help the readers of Neatorama to LEARN facts and to respect human life.