From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Jan 16 2000 - 22:58:05 MST
Date sent: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 21:11:50 -0800
From: Doug Jones <random@qnet.com>
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: Cryopreserving the unborn
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.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
> http://www.advancedfertility.com/cryo.htm
>
> "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
> fertilization).
>
> Different cryoprotectants are used for different stages of embryo
> development.
>
> Embryo survival rates after thawing and pregnancy rates in most IVF
> programs
> are highest for embryos that were frozen at the pronuclear stage, or at
> the
> 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
> http://www.xcor-aerospace.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:17 MST