what is the roman catholic churches view on frozen embryos?
440593
Catholics and many other Christians have celebrated Annunciation on March 25 (nine months before Christmas) for centuries. This is when the Blessed Virgin Mary said yes to God and Jesus was conceived.\n\nRespect for unborn human life is not something new.\n\nCatholics believe that a human is created at the time of conception. All human life is sacred and should be respected. Humans should not be frozen. Also most of these frozen humans will be killed instead of being brought to full term and born.
471348
If you go to the religious type of pro-life websites, they will say YES.  I think it is their way of playing on your fears.  Here is what I found:\n\nA medical estimate of the rates of infertility:\n NetDoctor is a British medical web site which has a team of doctors offering medical information to the general public. Dr. Hilary Jones stated: \n\n"...abortion will not affect her future fertility. There remains a false perception that a therapeutic abortion, as it is called, can be harmful to health, but this is in fact is not the case. In times gone by before therapeutic abortions were legal, operations were performed outside the law by backstreet abortionists using unsterilised equipment and dangerous techniques." \n\n"Complications were common after such procedures ranging from pelvic infection to infertility and even death on many occasions. However this is no longer the case. Remember too that the anti-abortionists sometimes used to deliberately frighten women by saying that they might never be able to have a baby again in order to discourage them from having an abortion. These people may have been genuine in their ethical convictions, but they were less than truthful or properly researched about the medical facts."\n\n"Now the operation is carried out under general anaesthesia in sterile hospital environments by sympathetic staff in controlled and regulated fashion. The procedure does not damage the cervix or the rest of the womb, and provided no post-operative infection takes place, as it very seldom does, there is no reason why your girlfriend's fertility should be affected." 4\n\n BabyCenter offers a similar Q&A service. Robert Jansen, a clinical professor of reproductive medicine at the University of Sydney in Australia, was asjed: "Does a past abortion (or more than one) affect my chances of getting pregnant?" He replied: \n\n"Probably not. However, in rare cases, multiple dilations and curettages (the cleaning out of the uterus, also known as a D&C) can cause some scarring at the top of the cervix or inside the uterus. A procedure called hysteroscopy (when a small camera is placed through your cervix into your uterine cavity) can be used to check for this problem and can usually repair the scar tissue at the same time." \n\n"But even if that's not the case for you, you should know that any procedure that dilates the cervix (a necessary step during most abortions) can weaken it. So if you've had more than one abortion and you get pregnant again later on, you may find that you have what's known as an incompetent cervix — a cervix that starts dilating prematurely. This can sometimes be treated with a stitch to keep the cervix closed, called a cerclage." 5\n\n A scientific review article in the International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies concluded that legal induced abortions have almost no chance of infertility when done in the first or second trimester. 6  http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_infe.htm\n\nYou can go to this site for more detailed info.
773925
Cryopreservation is the method in which fertilized eggs (as well as many other cell types) are frozen. The cells are usually suspended in a 10% dimethyl sulfoxide and 90% fetal bovine serum solution and frozen down in a cryo tank containing liquid nitrogen. The liquid nitrogen is a great method for preserving cells and eggs because its immensely cold temerature prevents the cells from dividing further and from "aging" in a sense.
75104
Orthodox Judaism teaches that abortion is wrong in all cases except for where the mother's life is threatened.  Less orthodox Jews often cite the teaching of Judaism that life does not begin until birth to defend abortion.  But please notice that Orthodox Jews also have the tradition that life begins at birth, and are STILL against abortion except in the one case I mentioned.\n\nHinduism is a vast religion, with no "Church" or organization to declare the ultimate authority for all Hindus.  So you will find Hindus with varying beliefs.  However, it is fundamental to almost all Hindus that life is sacred -- all life.  Ahimsa means non-violence, and this extends to all life, and this is why most Hindus try to be vegetarians.  So naturally, they would be against abortion.  Having said that, it is ironic that in India, there are many women who have abortions, because they can't afford to have a girl.  So if the ultrasound shows that the child is female, they will often abort her.  This is because the female's family is expected to pay for the wedding, and this is a hardship on poor families.  I find this very unfortunate.\n\nI have not heard anything specifically about Buddhism and their views of abortion, but I assume they would be against it, because Buddhism, like Hinduism, promotes Ahimsa - non-violence.  \n\nI have not heard the Islamic view of the matter.
943624
I think embryonic stem cell research is wrong.  I am a Christian, have been all my life, and I don't like being stereo-typed because of my religious 'convictions.'  Advocates argue that Christians are against embryonic stem cell research because they, we, think when we die we will have to answer for it.  NEWS FLASH!  I have accepted Christ, I am going to Heaven when I die, and here is the kicker......I won't have to answer for THEIR transgressions!  I think embryonic stem cell is wrong because life does begin at conception.  The argument that it doesn't is just a way for those who end life to feel better about themselves.  You shouldn't be able to harvest humans like potatoes for the sake of research.  Any way you look at it, it's wrong.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  I have a hard time figuring their reasoning.  What it boils down to is that they want to kill babies to cure old people.  End new life to save one that's already been lived.  For what?  To add another 10-15 years to a persons life?  Why?  Like you said, embryonic stem cell research has yielded no results, however, adult stem cell research has been the most promising so far.  I don't have an argument with these practices.  I don't even have an argument with using aborted embryos for research.  I don't believe in abortion, but the US Supreme Court says it is the right of a woman to decide.  If she decides to end her pregnancy, then I believe the embryo can be used for research.  Is this not a good enough compromise?  I have had a great grandmother die from one of those diseases stem cell research promises to cure.  I watched her suffer, held her hand as she passed, but I would never have signed anything that would have her better if I had to kill a baby.  So many people out there would love to be parents, but they can't because of medical or financial limitations.  Democrats want us to sign on for funded programs that allow babies to be killed for research to cure illnesses and diseases.  I don't see any of these people pushing for a federally funded program to help barren women conceive the children they so desparately want.  Are they really trying to help people?
770183
didn't see the supermodels question, but i get what you mean.  i believe it's called a condition of "diarrhea of the mouth," translated into words on the screen.  just going off without knowing what they're talking about is the absolute trend here.  most days i don't let it get to me, but i have my days where i'm in total bee-yatch mode and try to correct every error i see.  it's a waste of time and energy to do so, since all you get are immature responses generated more for a laugh from the group around the computer, rather than providing a well-thought-out and logical response to the question.  i get the differences between the two groups, conservative and liberal, as a generality.  get this, ... i'm a baptized, non-practicing catholic who firmly believes that abortion is murder, yet, i'm logical enough to realize that it's ultimately the parents' choice regarding abortion/adoption, etc.  thanks for the soap box.  hope you get some satisfying answers here.  blessed be!
312353
The Catholic Church teaches against embryonic stem cell research because it necessitates the death of human embryos, and the Church opposes all destruction of life.
413933
Of course.  The Bible is silent on abortion, despite what the "Thou shalt not kill" fanatics have to say.  The trouble is, no one really knows--in the Christian way of looking at things--when the soul enters the body.  Is it at conception?  A month later?  Nine months?  When the baby leaves its mothers body?  Different people have different opinions about the issue and I would think that a person of conscience could easily be a Christian and think abortion should be legal (which is the key issue for our culture), whether the idea of the procedure thrills them or not.  That's where I place myself.\n\nThat said, I think Christians should be wary of cultural features that do not honor life, and abortion is certainly callous about life.  However, Christians should also be wary of cultural features that take away the rights of individuals to make decisions about their own health and freedom.  For many people, abortion might not be deadly, but it certainly could take years off their life (diabetics, for instance).  That's why, whether moral or not, the government has no business making abortion illegal.
268488
The catholic church belives that in order to reach salvation you must not only have faith in god but also recive the sacraments. Its a requirement! so its really not a choice for them.  I on the other hand find it to be ridiculus and a major distraction from what jesus was all about.  They orginated much much later after the death of christ... you would of thought he would have mentioned them if they were that important.
130308
The embryo's are the property of the couple that gave the egg and sperm to create the embryos.\n\nEach year I have to sign a statement that tells the facility that stores my remaining embryos what I want to do with them.  Store them, destroy them, donate them.  \n\nI had to do the same for the embryos that weren't of good enough quality to keep.
1003518
First question. If you mean sexual interciurse then of course, IVF (AI) etc\nBut as this is biology then ill assume you mean syngamy between gamets. \nIn which case the option is cloning which is not established as viable in humans yet (Korean research is under fraud investigation so its validity unclear at present) but is not permitted in most countries anyway.\n\nAs to the second question:- NO\nAsides one alleged and unlikely case (the virgin birth of mary yielding jesus christ which if it was true (unlikely) was a dead end as it was a male), parthenogensis (asexual reproduction) has never been reported in humans. Morever it is very unlikely to be viable or to occur due to imprinting etc.
660173
"2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. \n\nMy frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. " ( St. Charles Borromeo)<1> \n\nMy opinion is that it is murder.  I have a strange feeling that God created us at creation.  When God spoke to Abraham about his decendents being "Countless as the Stars"  is when God announced all life arrivals (the moment of conception).\n\nPlus, it seems that babies have imaginations.  When parents are in the 9 month waiting period, they do little stuff like play classical music and talk to the baby in the womb.  Many of the baby resurch does indicate that this can help the baby grow smarter and more social.  Now, baby research is indicating that a baby can be taught to 'Eat right' in the womb.  \n\nSadly, many abortions happen because the man, woman, or both do not take time to understand life.  It is all about their own 'Self-enjoyment'.  Many times, the woman wants the child, but is bullyed into an abortion when she realizes that the man does not love her the way she imagined him to love her.  This realization comes when he puts his fist through a wall, or starts cusing saying, "How dare you ruin my life" (again selfishness).  Even sadder is when a woman is rapped and has an abortion.  This fear drives her to an action she does not understand and typically the baby of a rape incident is the saving force for the woman many years down the line.\n\nIn short, my opinion of abortion is that it's killing the imagination of a fellow human being who is helpless and cannot protect themselves.  It is a waste!!!
1100441
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0052.html
296933
It's a way for them to extend religion into government.  Most denominations of Christianity, but especially Catholicism, do not allow ANY type of birth control, but especially not abortion.  The belief is that if you are going to have sex, God will make you have a baby if He wants you to have one.\n\nThey're brining it to make sure that no one can "play God" by killing a baby.\n\nThe saddest part is though, they want to make it so that abortion is only legal if the mother's life is in danger, not if she is pregnant from rape or incest.  I think that a girl who was raped or impregnated by incest does have her life in danger though, many commit suicide.  No women should EVER be asked to bring her attacker's baby into the world.  She'll walk around and get the stigma that she's a little slut, and that is just who the Conservatives believe that she is, so she gets more pain and humiliation on top of what she suffers already.\n\nIt's sad, isn't it?\n\nAnd no, it's not the baby's fault, but would you rather be hated and scorned or never born?
235504
My religious viewpoint is agnostic.\n\nI don't see any human reproductive technology as being evil, though it can certainly be abused.\n\nThe most important issue to me that the children that result from the technology must be viewed AS REAL CHILDREN and raised by a real family as a real member of that family.\n\nGiven that - all is well.
534050
Where to begin...the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Patriarch of Rome has universal authority while the Orthodox Church teaches that no bishop has authority outside his diocese.\nThe Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds in essence from both the Father and the Son and illegitimately changed the creed, while the Orthodox Church teaches that God the Father is the essential source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.\nThe Roman Catholic Church teaches that we bear the actual guilt for the disobedience of Adam and Ever whereas the Orthodox Church teaches that we suffer the consequences of their disobedience but are ourselves not culpable for it.\nBecause of the RC's teachings on original sin they have made up the doctrine of the immaculate conception, which is not the same thing as the virgin birth, whereby she was born free of the guilt of original sin, or is somehow different than other humans to explain how Mary could be able to give birth to God. Of course they wouldn't need to make the Virgin Mary free of the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience if they hadn't construed it the way they had in the first place.\nThe Roman Catholic Church requires preistly celibacy whereas the Orthodox Church allows married priests, only bishops and monks are required to be celibate.\nThe differences go  on and on, these are just some of the essential ones.\nBy the way the difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Catholic Church is that the Ukrainian Catholic Church uses the liturgy of the Orthodox Church and has married priests while still being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and accepting the authority of the Pope. It is an Eastern Rite, or Uniate, church.\nIf you have more questions feel free to ask me. I am Orthodox.
957884
Very thought provoking question! I am suprised that the responses you have received so far have been either negative or incomplete. It does pose a serious problem for conservative minded people. If the creation of a "Frankenstein" embryo by the hands of man is a religious abomination as you postulate, then supporting its existance is an equal abomination. But then comes the right to life issue. So far the responses seem to have been "well, too late to do anything about it". I think those responses are cop outs.\n\nI think that, should God make available to man the technology to perform such acts, then God must want us to be capable of doing it, otherwise he would prevent it.  Interestingly, it calls into question fundamental religious beliefs of whether or not this might be a "test" by God...\n\nI really dont have an off the cuff answer. This has provoked a lot of questions in my mind, and I have to sit back and think about it carefully for awhile. Thanks for the great question.