Date sent: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 21:11:50 -0800
From: Doug Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Cryopreserving the unborn
Send reply to: email@example.com
> Technotranscendence wrote:
> > I believe cryonics might work -- from suspension to revival -- now with
> > fetuses.
> You are mistaken.
> Frozen embryos have been successfully propagated only if smaller than the
> blastocyst stage, far from being a fetus, it is an undifferentiated blob of
> cells. Best results are obtained with even younger embryos- see
> "Embryos can be frozen at the pronuclear stage (one cell), or at any
> stage after
> that up to and including the blastocyst stage (5-7 days after
> Different cryoprotectants are used for different stages of embryo
> Embryo survival rates after thawing and pregnancy rates in most IVF
> are highest for embryos that were frozen at the pronuclear stage, or at
> 2-cell to 4-cell stage."
> > I don't see how, if this is so, most pro-Lifers wouldn't, at least, think of it
> > as an alternative to abortion without suspension.
> But it just ain't so, and the prospects for making it so are not good.
> Raising this issue with anti-abortion activists will encourage them to
> oppose cryonics as well. This would be counterproductive.
Howzabout hemopreserving the undead? ;~)
> Doug Jones
> Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:20 MDT