Maybe I’m out-of-touch, but I’ve just noticed this neologism on the Web, being used for what are more commonly called “frozen embryos” or “pre-implanted embryos,” in the context of in vitro fertilization.  Are the users of the new term trying to persuade us these aren’t actually embryos anymore?

I thought “pre-embryos” were sperm and ova!  Even actual science still calls “fertilized ova” or “zygotes” embryos, and their science embryology.

Maybe I’m out-of-touch again, but I’m starting to seriously wonder about the reliability of these people, some of them alleged scientists!  First there was the Korean guy who deliberately falsified research data, then the Boston guy with the for-profit corporation and misleading news releases and statements; now this.

And some people complain about religion?!!!

I’m not certain an o/Orthodox approach to these things needs to rely on scientists anyway.  Science is always changing, and is supposed to be always uncertain, “open-minded.”  But the ‘temptation’ to see if maybe they’ve got something ‘this time’ is hard to resist.  ‘Benefit of the doubt,’ you know….

But who “was always the Father of Lies”?!?!?!

House cloning vote

Lemme get this straight: Last week “pro-choice” U.S. House Democrats voted to “ban reproductive cloning,” and “pro-life” Republicans voted against “banning reproductive cloning”?

It’s taken me this long to realize what the “National Right to Life Committee” meant when it said the bill – which may be resurrected (no pun intended) – didn’t actually ban “cloning.”  It banned implanting a cloned embryo in someone’s uterus.  But ISTM it also attempted to ban cloning with the intent of implantation.  It failed to ban other types or intents of cloning.  But wouldn’t this have been a step in the correct direction?

What *I* don’t get is why the “reproductive freedom” Democrats proposed this.  Go figure.