Embryos

[Dom]

When Molly Gibson was born in October of this year, it was 27 years in the making.
Her embryo was frozen in October 1992, and stayed that way until February 2020, when Tina and Ben Gibson of Tennessee adopted it.
Molly is believed to have set a new record for the longest-frozen embryo to have resulted in a birth, breaking a record set by her older sister, Emma.
"We're over the moon," Ms Gibson said. "I still get choked up."
"If you would have asked me five years ago if I would have not just one girl, but two, I would have said you were crazy," she said.
The family struggled with infertility for nearly five years before Ms Gibson's parents saw a story about embryo adoption on a local news station.

"That's the only reason that we share our story. If my parents hadn't seen this on the news then we wouldn't be here," Ms Gibson, 29, said. "I feel like it should come full-circle."
Ms Gibson, an elementary school teacher and her husband, a 36-year-old cyber security analyst, connected with the National Embryo Donation Center (NEDC), a Christian non-profit in Knoxville that stores frozen embryos that in vitro fertilisation patients decided not to use and chose to donate instead.
Families like the Gibsons can then adopt one of the unused embryos and give birth to a child that is not genetically related to them. There are an estimated one million frozen human embryos stored in the US right now, according to the NEDC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, let's just assume (Yes, I know, but we need to for the sake of argument) that life starts at conception. So, the embryos above were people kept in limbo for 27 years. Even the Catholic church scrapped Limbo. Is it not cruel and unusual punishment to keep a person in limbo for all this time? Or any amount of time? 

The "person" can't move, can't even breathe, is cold as ice. We have a million of them in the US today, people turned into zombies, on purpose.

What happened to the sanctity of all life? If these embryos are people, a great injustice is being done.

[Vera]

I can somewhat - intellectually - understand the need for your own child and why some would go to borderline predatory lengths (yes, I do mean surrogate pregnancies) to see their precious genes preserved for posterity... but this? Why not just adopt a baby? And yeah, I know, hormones and bonding to the child but this is just... disturbing on so many levels. And how long do they keep those embryos (not to mention why!)? When does an embryo expire?

I also came across this:

One of the strangest outcomes of the ongoing debate over embryonic stem-cell research is the government’s use of taxpayer money to support a little-known private organization called Snowflakes. Devoted to encouraging couples to “adopt” human embryos, Snowflakes has received over $1 million from the Bush administration and Congress.

While helping people have babies is ethically commendable, there is something very strange about extending the use of the term “adoption” to embryos. Children get adopted, but ... embryos?

And it is even stranger that the federal government is buying into this way of thinking.

So where do all these embryos that supposedly need adopting come from in the first place?

When couples seek treatment for infertility, they often wind up using in-vitro fertilization, or IVF. This is a procedure in which embryos are created outside the body in a laboratory dish and are then implanted back into the woman’s body where, ideally, they grow to full term.

It works like this: The woman takes fertility drugs that cause her to produce far more eggs than the one she normally would release during her monthly cycle. These eggs are then surgically removed from her ovaries and fertilized in a dish with either her husband’s or a donor’s sperm.

Often many embryos are created through this process. But since multiple-pregnancies — quadruplets, quintuplets, septuplets and the like — produce premature and often unhealthy babies, doctors will only put two or three embryos back into the woman’s body to try and help her become pregnant.

The clinic chooses to implant the embryos that look the healthiest and asks the couple if they want to freeze the rest. The couple also has the option of having the remaining embryos destroyed, donated to other couples, or donated for embryonic stem-cell research.

'Pre-born children waiting'
This is where Snowflakes saw a need — and a chance to score some moral points in the debate over stem-cell research.

Snowflakes is run by the Nightlight Christian Adoption agency in Fullerton, Calif. The group has no medical background. They simply believe that every embryo is a baby from the minute it exists in a laboratory dish.

The Snowflakes program deliberately uses the language of adoption to make that point clear. They created a service that matches couples who have leftover embryos with other infertile couples trying to have babies. To quote from their “By some estimates, there are over 100,000 frozen embryos in cryo-banks throughout the United States. Pre-born children waiting — waiting.”

Actually Snowflakes’ estimate of 100,000 embryos is probably very low. Most experts think there are as many as 400,000 embryos frozen in storage in the United States. As of just over a year ago, the Snowflakes program had received about 750 of them and had matched 70 donor couples with 48 other couples seeking to have children. Sixteen babies had been born.

What's the big deal?
So what’s the big deal about a religious group that believes all embryos are children and is trying to find them “adoptive” parents among infertile couples using IVF? Well, actually there is a lot that is wrong.

It’s great that 16 babies were born last year through the Snowflakes program. That makes it seem as if 16 couples had children who might otherwise have not. But that is not really the case. Nearly all infertility clinics offer couples the option of donating their leftover embryos to other couples. All that Snowflakes has done is brought the rhetoric of adoption into the process.

You might also get the impression that Snowflakes is creating an opportunity for infertile couples to access the 100,000 to 400,000 frozen embryos out there. But that is not really the case either. If you are infertile and are trying to have a baby, your best bet is not to use a frozen embryo made by a couple who had themselves been going through infertility treatment and whose embryos were not used because they did not look healthy enough.

Despite Snowflakes’ rhetoric, most frozen embryos are not healthy enough to ever become babies. The chance they will grow to full term is about one in 10 for those frozen less than five years, and even less for those that have been frozen longer. This is why so few couples have taken Snowflakes up on its idea of “adopting” frozen embryos.

Moreover, using terms like “adoption” encourages people to believe that frozen embryos are the equivalent of children. But they are not the same. In fact, infertile couples who want children can frequently make embryos but they cannot make embryos that become fetuses or babies.

The older a woman gets, the less likely her embryos are to become babies. For women over 45, the chance of her embryo becoming a baby is almost zero. The inability to make embryos that become babies is why couples turn to donor eggs or donor sperm. Almost no one who is going to spend $10,000 per try to use IVF is going to want to try it with another infertile couple’s frozen embryo whose chances of properly developing grow less with every year it is frozen.

A government sham
The Bush administration and Congress know all these facts, but have nevertheless poured more than $1 million of taxpayer money into the Snowflakes program and others aimed at facilitating “embryo adoption.”

This is a nice way to score points with those who advocate the view that embryos are actual babies and should not be used for research purposes. But it is not the best way to help couples who want to have actual babies.

One million dollars would be far better spent matching fertile couples willing to make embryos with infertile couples, rather than trying to get them to use unhealthy frozen ones.

One million dollars could also help defray the staggering costs of IVF, which only middle- and upper-class couples can currently afford.

But when the money is spent on programs like Snowflakes, the only explanation is ideology not medicine.

[Dom]

This all opens up a huge can of worms for the pro-lifers. A huge can of worms.

[Szuchow]

This all opens up a huge can of worms for the pro-lifers. A huge can of worms.

What can of worms? Forced birthers are just bunch of ignorant, deluded fascists wanting more kids for vaterland and/or subhuman trash wanting to strip rights from women (for variety of reasons). Shit stains like them would vote for Hitler himself if he would promised ending legal abortion.

[Dom]

This all opens up a huge can of worms for the pro-lifers. A huge can of worms.

What can of worms? Forced birthers are just bunch of ignorant, deluded fascists wanting more kids for vaterland and/or subhuman trash wanting to strip rights from women (for variety of reasons). Shit stains like them would vote for Hitler himself if he would promised ending legal abortion.

Obviously, but not what I am talking about.

If they think that embryos are people, then storing them on ice is inhumane and anti-life. You can't have it both ways.

That would mean no more embryos stored, no way for barren people to have their own genetic babies, etc. There is a huge industry around creating and storing embryos.

[Szuchow]

What can of worms? Forced birthers are just bunch of ignorant, deluded fascists wanting more kids for vaterland and/or subhuman trash wanting to strip rights from women (for variety of reasons). Shit stains like them would vote for Hitler himself if he would promised ending legal abortion.

Obviously, but not what I am talking about.

If they think that embryos are people, then storing them on ice is inhumane and anti-life. You can't have it both ways.

If witch doctors and cult leaders will say otherwise sheep will be marching in lockstep with whatever nonsense that resonates in empty heads of theirs.

That would mean no more embryos stored, no way for barren people to have their own genetic babies, etc. There is a huge industry around creating and storing embryos.

Pro forced birthers may speak some shit about embryos but I doubt that they really care one way or another. It is women they want to deprive of rights.

[julep]

What can of worms? Forced birthers are just bunch of ignorant, deluded fascists wanting more kids for vaterland and/or subhuman trash wanting to strip rights from women (for variety of reasons). Shit stains like them would vote for Hitler himself if he would promised ending legal abortion.

Obviously, but not what I am talking about.

If they think that embryos are people, then storing them on ice is inhumane and anti-life. You can't have it both ways.

That would mean no more embryos stored, no way for barren people to have their own genetic babies, etc. There is a huge industry around creating and storing embryos.

Quite a few pro-life people are anti-IVF and want to prevent anyone from using this method. Others don't seem to recognize the cognitive dissonance.

[Bucky Ball]

So, let's just assume (Yes, I know, but we need to for the sake of argument) that life starts at conception. So, the embryos above were people kept in limbo for 27 years. Even the Catholic church scrapped Limbo. Is it not cruel and unusual punishment to keep a person in limbo for all this time? Or any amount of time?

The "person" can't move, can't even breathe, is cold as ice. We have a million of them in the US today, people turned into zombies, on purpose.

What happened to the sanctity of all life? If these embryos are people, a great injustice is being done.

No, it's not cruel. Is it not more "pro-life" to give them lives now, than never at all ? That is the actual question.
"Conception" is a long complex process, and is not defined. (The chairpersons of the world's academic OBGYN departments could not agree on what "conception" even actually even means).

I assume this quote is from some ignorant pro-lifer. A couple or few non-implanted cells have no neural system, therefore are not "cold", nor are cells with no brains and hearts "human people", and no more people than more fully developed cells on your arm "people" ... which slough off, and no one cares about them. Of course they can't breathe, they have no lungs. Frozen embryos are "potential" people. Too bad these ignoramuses never studied the theology of their own cults, in which Aquinas taught them about "potential vs actual".... to say nothing about the science of Embryology.

From something I previously posted :
Conception .... is it
a. sperm approaches egg ? The first sperm cell is not the cell that joins and multiplies with the oocyte, ... it prepares the way for another cell.
b. 1st electron of sperm cell enters electron cloud of egg cell ?
c. sperm contacts egg wall ?
d. sperm 1/2 way into egg ?
e. sperm entirely in egg ?
f. DNA of sperm contacts DNA of egg ?
g. DNA replication begins ?
h. DNA replication 0.567534521897 % complete ?
i. 1st DNA replication complete, (poof..soul enters) ?
j. 2nd DNA completes ?
k. zygote forms ?
l. zygote multiplies ?
m. zygote begins to travel ?
l. zygote approaches endometrial wall ?
m. zygote touches endometrial wall ?
n. zygote implants in endometrial wall ?

The paradigm is simply outdated. There is no "moment" of conception.

[Vorpal]

I think this is an excellent topic. It seems clear to me that an embryo should be considered an intermediary for life. This means it is not equal to a human life, but it is more valuable than property or an inert biological specimen that does not have its unique qualities.

Practically speaking what does this mean? It means if someone destroys an embryo who has no right to do so there should be a very stiff penalty. It isn't murder of course but it's something above and beyond theft or intermetaling with property.

The biological relatives of the embryo of course have the greatest say. Now I'm not even sure what we do if someone wants to sell an embryo.

[Bucky Ball]

The cells on your arm are actual human life, and far more complex than an embryo.
Stem cells harvested from many sites can be considered an intermediary form.
Nothing about this subject is clear, if you actually know some science.

[Vorpal]

The cells on your arm are actual human life, and far more complex than an embryo.
Stem cells harvested from many sites can be considered an intermediary form.
Nothing about this subject is clear, if you actually know some science.

When we can situate some cells from my arm in a womb and then a life will grow I will give that a lot of weight. Until then not so much.

[Vorpal]

[Vorpal]

@Dom

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to post 5:

I think that is an overly literal interpretation. A bouncing baby under certain circumstances can suffer great falls and low temperatures better than older humans.  The trappings of human limits might not be the best way to define what actually constitutes a human being.

[Bucky Ball]

The cells on your arm are actual human life, and far more complex than an embryo.
Stem cells harvested from many sites can be considered an intermediary form.
Nothing about this subject is clear, if you actually know some science.

When we can situate some cells from my arm in a womb and then a life will grow I will give that a lot of weight. Until then not so much.

Then your original statements make no sense.
You said a frozen embryo is an intermediate form of, (and not even) human life.
ACTUAL human life, cells on your arm, you apparently value less than non-human life.
Why is that ? Stem cells in labs right now are producing more life.
Your "weighting" system has no logic, and is not thought through.
Apparently what you value is "potential" human life. How close to the actual does your potential have to be, to be valued ?
Why are you not right now attempting to make babies, if potential is what you value ? Why are you wasting trillions of potential babies ?

[Cavebear]

The solution to "opening a can of worms is to get a bigger can".

But to the point... A blastosphere or embryo is not a functioning living creature. It is a potentiality of one (like a seed may become a tree). They are discarded by female bodies often and even without consequence. Saying that conception is the beginning of life is true only if the biological process continues to some degree of fruition.

Biology is imperfect, and often fails in its evolutionary imperative of passing on genes. It is unbelievably tricky sometimes. As a male, I can barely conceive (no pun intended) how complicated it all is. All I have to do is send 40-900 million sperm off to try their best. And usually, none succeed at their evolutionary mission. Talk about bad odds!

So, one succeeds and joins an ova. It doesn't mean anything will come of that. So, further, lets say a fertilized ovam results. What is time to a fertilized frozen ovum? If nothing happens to divide the cells, time doesn't exist. If the process of cell division is halted, time fails to exist. If it is stopped forever, it isn't aware of it in any sense.

It only matters if some process continues.

I fully admit that I an being totally biological about this. But biology is really what is being discussed. The maunderings of theists do not really engage the subject. Their beliefs are more about some human-created article of thought than any true biological fact.

Getting off my soapbox now...

[rocinantexyz]

Then your original statements make no sense...
Why are you not right now attempting to make babies, if potential is what you value ? Why are you wasting trillions of potential babies ?

Because they are trolling; that is why.

[rocinantexyz]

From something I previously posted :
Conception .... is it
a. sperm approaches egg ? The first sperm cell is not the cell that joins and multiplies with the oocyte, ... it prepares the way for another cell.
b. 1st electron of sperm cell enters electron cloud of egg cell ?
c. sperm contacts egg wall ?
d. sperm 1/2 way into egg ?
e. sperm entirely in egg ?
f. DNA of sperm contacts DNA of egg ?
g. DNA replication begins ?
h. DNA replication 0.567534521897 % complete ?
...

-
I've asked several pro-lifers a question similar to yours (not near as many steps/details as you provided but I gave them a few). I phrased it something like: if we plan to kill all the cells involved, after which specific step would that act be a murder? I've never gotten an answer.

[Vorpal]

When we can situate some cells from my arm in a womb and then a life will grow I will give that a lot of weight. Until then not so much.

Then your original statements make no sense.
You said a frozen embryo is an intermediate form of, (and not even) human life.  

No, I said it was an intermediary between life.  That's between parents and actual offspring.

ACTUAL human life, cells on your arm, you apparently value less than non-human life.

Both are actual human cells.  Blastomers are a precursers to life more complete than egg or sperm alone.

Why is that ? Stem cells in labs right now are producing more life.  

Do they have all they need to produce a new human being minus location?

Your "weighting" system has no logic, and is not thought through.
Apparently what you value is "potential" human life. How close to the actual does your potential have to be, to be valued ?
Why are you not right now attempting to make babies, if potential is what you value ? Why are you wasting trillions of potential babies ?

You simply disagree.   I am being entirely logical.  I can differentiate an actual potential human being and an abstract potential human being.  You are having trouble doing so.

[Cavebear]

From something I previously posted :
Conception .... is it
a. sperm approaches egg ? The first sperm cell is not the cell that joins and multiplies with the oocyte, ... it prepares the way for another cell.
b. 1st electron of sperm cell enters electron cloud of egg cell ?
c. sperm contacts egg wall ?
d. sperm 1/2 way into egg ?
e. sperm entirely in egg ?
f. DNA of sperm contacts DNA of egg ?
g. DNA replication begins ?
h. DNA replication 0.567534521897 % complete ?
...

-
I've asked several pro-lifers a question similar to yours (not near as many steps/details as you provided but I gave them a few). I phrased it something like: if we plan to kill all the cells involved, after which specific step would that act be a murder? I've never gotten an answer.

I think there are some actions that cannot be defined easily. You can define by equations when a block of stone has reached a tipping point, but you can't define biological events so easily. We are still trying to define when a person is truly dead (because restorative procedures advance) and equally when life begins. There are various rational ways to define it.

I prefer to think it matters when an organism can sense itself, which is rather late. But even a bacteria seems to react to outside threats to its existence so that doesn't really help much. When does "react" become "self-awareness"? You can't very well ask an embryo "hello, are you there yet"? Most one year olds can't answer that either.

It is more an ethical and medical question. What is best for the sense and health of the mother seems the best decision point. What is right for the the mother is about all we can go on.

The religious argument about "life" does not concern me. Most religions involve "souls" in this question and I don't think those exist. And there seems to be something in many religions that suggests "more people, more glory to the god". That is not my concern.

So it has to be more of a human social decision.

[Minimalist]

I think an embryo becomes human when it gets a job and moves out of Daddy's basement.

That seems to happen around age 35.

[airportkid]

That seems to happen around age 35 65 (in parts of CA)