On Sunday, January 16, 2000 7:14 AM E. Shaun Russell firstname.lastname@example.org
> >I don't know if anyone has thought of this before, but how about getting
> >Right to Life individuals to support abortion by cryopreserving aborted
> >fetuses? Surely, cryopreserving them would be cheaper. If we can get
> >to fund this sort of thing, it would be a way to both spread cryonics and
> >defuse a very deep conflict in Western societies.
> Interesting idea, but it would cost an extremely high amount of money per
> fetus (especially considering that most aborted fetuses are unwanted in
> first place),
I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong here, it would be cheaper and
technically less difficult to cryopreserved a fetus. The earlier in the
process of development, the less difficult also. Why would I be stupid
enough to believe this? A fetus would take less material, a smaller dewars
container (several could probably be stored in the space of one adult head
depending on young they are). It would be easier to stabilize (smaller size
is easier to cool at an even rate, no?). Human ova are already "frozen"
(right?). I'm not sure if any human larger and more developed than that has
been frozen and revived. (Anyone know?) I assume damage at this level will
be easier to repair. Depending on the age of the fetus, there will be less
overall differentiation in structure, so less chance for damages.
> and would still leave the problem of who would eventually
> reanimate and raise the child.
I don't have an answer for this, though if Right to Life people want to save
the unborn, there might lie the pool of potential foster parents. I'm only
speculating here, but maybe one could make it part of the cryosuspension
contract. Or maybe people might just do it because they want to feel good
("Hey, we saved another unborn child from death!":) and not worry about the
> Chances are, when the technology to revive
> suspended clients arrives, we will already have the ability to overcome
> many of the genetic defects that prevent would-be parents from having a
> 'natural' birth (i.e.: progeny with their own gene selection), and
> of such aborted fetuses would be unnecessary. Still, your idea has some
> seeds of possibility in other areas. Eventually the price of cryonics
> be driven down once more people begin to sign up; I foresee that cryonics
> may be an option for wealthier parents of babies born (or fetuses
> developing) with severe birth defects. It would at least give the parents
> the peace of mind that a cure could arrive at any moment. I suppose we'll
> find out soon enough.
Though I think, in the next decade or longer, this will occur, I was
thinking about doing this now. It would not be for wealthy parents but for
people who might not want to abort yet don't want a child now. It might
also be a way to get Right to Life groups to fund cryonics NOW* -- not when
the price of cryonics decreases in the next <insert time frame you like
here>; has the price gone down during the past few decades!?!:) -- and this
is all history.
Sooner or later,
* meaning today or by next Friday.:)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:18 MDT