Frozen Embryos

Frozen embryos. Sounds like an item that one would find in the frozen food section in the grocery store.

"Hey, Gus, grab some pizza, beer, some peanuts, and pick up a box of frozen embryos. The game's almost starting."

Well, this seems to be a big advantage, especially regarding how babies were sold formerly:

Of the frozen embryos, what percent after thawing, will actually give rise to a developing baby?

Re: Frozen Embryos


I suppose it might be for some.

Unfortunately, it might also be an easy choice for some: throw them away

It's hard to imagine a couple so bound and determined to procreate that they go through this process, only to cast aside the surplus.

Some will, no doubt, take the position that it's entirely up to the couple, and legally I guess it is. The question, of course, is, should it be?

What seems tragic to me is that the almost casual destruction of human life has become so elemental to the cause of female equality. Doesn't that seem perverse?

I understand why feminists insist that women must have control over their bodies, but I just can't square it when that control involves the destruction of budding life.

The argument that a fetus (at least at some point) is not human life, seems to me to be desperate denial.

The politics of the issue seems corrupting.

Sorry, finn; I am one who believes these frozen embrios are not yet developed enough to be human life. Therefore, they ought to be treated as property, until and if they are implanted and allowed to grow.

Miller I believe it is in the vicinity of 33% according to a CDC chart I once viewed. Of course this is dependent on mother's age along along with many other factors.

Since the fact that scientifically it has not been determined when human life begins, many clinics consider the frozen embryos as property to the parents and they must sign over what they want to do with them.

In the article I read, Finn, for one couple it was especally hard for the very reason you stated to throw them away. It was also equally hard for them to donate them and think that some one else was raising their child(ren). That is why they decided on donating for research.

As far as the embryos are concerned, donating them to research is no different than throwing them away. I don't see how other people raising their "children" could be worse.

No need to apologize to me edgar.

I just wonder if you would feel the same if the issue wasn't wrapped up in the politics of womens' rights? Perhaps, but perhaps not. We'll probably never know for sure.

Since I am not politically into women's rights, that was never a consideration for me. I am more of a "human rights" advocate.

If I didn't need the embryos, I would be pleased to offer them to a couple who wanted to have a child. A few more people in the world with my DNA would be a pretty good thing! :wink:

Unless I could pick the couple to raise my children, I would probably donate them for stem cell research. But it's a choice I will never have to make.

Finn, fertilized eggs are pre-embryos, not fetuses. It is an embryo when the ball of cells implants into the uterine wall several days after conception, and a fetus after 12 weeks of growth. Fertilized eggs are just cells, like billions of other human cells destroyed by our bodies each day.

I looked up some statistics on IVF. Up to 24 eggs may be extracted, fertilized, and incubated. They are graded and 2 to 4 of the healthiest-looking ones are implanted. The rest may be frozen for a future attempt or disposed of. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of surplus eggs are produced.

Most of the implanted eggs fail to grow into babies. Of course, 2/3 of the naturally conceived ones also fail to grow into babies and are unceremoniously flushed from the system, often without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.

Millions of fertilized eggs die of natural causes each year in the US alone, and unprotected sex is far more likely to result in the death of an embryo than the birth of a baby.

If the deaths of fertilized eggs bother you, the only solution seems to be celibacy.

Well, Finn, it is because everyone is different. Any of the choices were difficult for this couple.

This is from the article describing how one of the parents felt about giving the embryos for adoption…" offering the embryos for adoption -- is surrounded by difficult legal questions in Massachusetts, and felt impossible to Dooley to pursue. "I was looking at my children and thinking, `that is like giving you away to a stranger,' " she said."

And why she choose to donate to research… "The vast majority of the country's excess embryos are discarded: removed from their freezer, dropped into an orange biohazard bag with the day's used pipettes and Petri dishes, and thrown out with the day's medical waste. For Marie Dooley, that was never an option with her embryos. She thought of all the work that went into creating them -- her own ups and downs, the "humiliation" of her husband going into a room with adult magazines, even the hours her father spent waiting for her in the parking lot for clinic visits. "It just seemed like such a waste to throw them away," Dooley said…….
A year after getting the letter from Boston IVF, Dooley says she feels happy with her decision. Dooley voted for President Bush in the last election, and she plans on voting for him again, despite his opposition to the work Melton is doing. The embryos don't have a heartbeat, she says, and deciding what to do with them was an intensely personal choice.
As she has watched the political battle over stem cell research unfold, she has sometimes thought of sending the president pictures of her family.
"Science gave me a gift," she said, as her children circled around the dining room table. "I felt I should give back."

For the entire article which has lots of interesting information about the above and about what stem research is about see:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/04/after_2_children_via_ivf_pair_faced_stem_cell_issue/

"Everyone is different" then could explain away any action.

But as far as this couple goes, my bafflement centers on logic, not morality.

If discarding the embryos is like throwing children away, and donating them to infertile couples seems like giving children away, why doesn't giving them to research seem like giving children to scientists for experiments?

Yes, everyone is different, but sometimes the difference has to do with simple common sense.

I'm having trouble understanding how advocacy of human rights could steer you towards considering an embryo non-human. What impact does the question have on human rights?

Thank you for the biology lesson Terry. I strayed so way off point with the fetus comment that it's a good thing Prof Terry was there to pull me in.



Of course. And, of course, millions of people die each day of natural causes, but it's pretty tough to connect their deaths to a concious choice by those in whose care they resided.



Yes, and taken to it's logical extension that brilliant suggestion would also eventually alleviate any concern for anyone dying.

The same way it could be impacted by women's rights, which you asserted, Finn.

You are looking at the embryos as already being children, where the couple is looking at them as the potential to be children. That is what I mean by everyone is different. Not their logic.

Finn you misunderstand what the couple was talking about - throwing the embryos went beyond the idea of throwing children away. It was all they personally went through, all their ups and downs, not the thought of throwing a child away, but all the work and emotions they went through to produce these embryos. She never stated once that it was like throwing children away, but just that it seemed like a waste.

As far as donating to another couple, in this situation the embryos have a good chance of becoming children. When donating for research, they do not grow into children. That is where the difference is between your thoughts (that embryos are children) and the couples (that embryos have the potential to be children).

I notice the tone of this post was very final. So obviously you believe that your opinion is the only correct one. EVERYONE ELSE is wrong?

I think the right choice would be to use the embryos for stem cell research, should they qualify. If not, sure, give them to a needy couple. As far as completely idiotic Catholic guilt goes, isn't one of the prime tenets of this stupid religion to perpetuate life without enjoying sex? How could this godly quest be better fulfilled than by donating an embryo...