Adopting surplus embryos from their frozen limbo

Our Sunday Visitor ^ | 11/19/2000 | Ann Carey

[Skooz]

Logical errors eloquently expressed are still logical errors.

But, that isn't fair. Logical error is the entire foundation and framework of the "pro-choice" belief system.

Remove the logical errors, and they have nothing to say.

[curiosity]

It is, however, contrary to natural law to place an embryo into a woman who is not the real mother. Becoming pregnant and giving birth other than through the natural process of lovemaking is wrong.

Whether such an action is always contary to natural law is debatable. The magisterium has not yet spoken on this matter.

And it is certainly wrong for Catholics to participate in unnatural ways of creating and giving birth to human beings.

The first part of your sentence, that it is wrong to create human beings in unnantural ways, is true beyond doubt. However, new human beings have already been created. Why is it wrong for a woman to adopt an already-existing human being and nuture him or her in her womb? Certainly, it is not wrong for a woman to nuture a child not her own with her breasts. Why is it wrong for her to use her womb?

[MHGinTN]

"These frozen embryos are not babies. They're microscopic. Viewed under a microscope, they do not in any way resemble miniature babies. These are masses of undifferentiated cells." You're wrong, but I don't suppose you're open to learn more ... comfy in your limited knowledge, making incorrect assertions that fit your agenda?

It might come as a surprise to you, but the newly conceived LIFE begins cell differentiation with the second cell division. The newly conceived LIFE differentiates the cells targeted for building his or her (and yes, even at a dozen cells, the sex can be identified) placenta and umbilicus. That is a far cry from the assertion that these stored embryo-aged humans are 'undifferentiated cells'.

Here's a free manuscript to help with the background information on stem cells and cloning.