h a l f b a k e r yRIFHMAO
(Rolling in flour, halfbaking my ass off)
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Freezebortion
Freeze aborted embryos cryogenically and implant at a later date. | |
Basically there is a lot of controversy surrouding whether or not aborting babies counts as murder. Instead of bickering back and forth about this forever, why not solve the problem. Simply cryogenically freeze all aborted embryos until the technology becomes available that they can be thawed and implanted
into new mothers (or perhaps the same mother, just at a more convenient time).
Simply because we do not have the technology now to revive the frozen little spuds doesn't mean that we need to wait until we become technologically advanced enough to do so. As long as the human race does not completely annahilate itself, and as long as these little guys are kept on ice, eventually we will develop the technology to both bring them back to life AND fix any chromosome damage a 100+ year long deep freeze causes.
Money and energy spent currently on pro-choice and anti-abortion rallys, fighting court battles, etc can be better put to use in searching out and developing the technology needed to bring the sleeping embryos to life.
A happy solution for everyone, right?
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I thought first this was an echo of the Beanie babe taxidermy idea. |
|
| |
Not bad. I wonder if the prolifers would be willing to fund it, though. That would be the real test. |
|
| |
I disagree with the idea too. The same logic (rights over another human life) that prevents me from supporting the killing of fetuses also prevents me from supporting freezing them for indeterminate amounts of time. |
|
| |
(Not looking for a life vs. choice argument. Believe what you want.) |
|
| |
This would be an excuse for getting legislation to go about fixing the 'other' chromosome damage problem. |
|
| |
I'll make an HB prediction -- maybe I should put it on longbets.org -- that abortion will not be an issue in 25 years -- the debate will shift to cloning and other human genmod. |
|
| |
Oh, it might yet be an issue, though. Particularly if a recall is issued on a modified fetus. |
|
| |
na, they'll just issue an update in the form of a genmod apple and give you 10% of the profits she'll earn while going to kindergarden and simultaneously controlling Asian financial markets -- no wait, that's another thread. |
|
| |
Zanzibar, I mean the act itself and not only the pro/pro debate. |
|
| |
[marked–for–deletion] Advocacy. Magic. WIBINI. |
|
| |
I disagree with the mfd and I am not going to delete this idea. Please get rid of the mfd. |
|
| |
[gnovos]: If you ever come back and read this, please feel free to delete the mfd anno, above. You have a moderator's permission (mine). |
|
| |
Many abortions are performed on women unable to care for a child financially. This process will likely cost a good amount of money. |
|
| |
This would be suitable to the more well off people (middle to upper class) who do want children, just not yet. |
|
| |
I can't really agree with the [mfd]magic, as a similar process is already used to preserve embryos of endangered species. |
|
| |
I can't see a technical reason that this wouldn't work, but I do see a nasty ethical one; here's a scenario: |
|
| |
Wealthy parents know what traits they can contribute to a child, and what they want in a child (say, for example, they want a green-eyed blond male child - because green eyed blond male babies are in style now - and they know that they possess the genetics to make it possible). They could conceivably have several pregnancies and cryo-abortions until one happens to meet with their "requirements". At this point, the fetus would be re-implanted and allowed to go full-term. |
|
| |
How many fetuses would end up in permanent cold storage due to this? |
|
| |
While I'm not an active pro-lifer, I have to give this a fishbone for presenting the possibility of designer children. |
|
| |
//A happy solution for everyone, right?// |
|
| |
Actually I don't see how either side would go for this. The pro choicers would say that this defines fetuses as humans which is a step towards making it illegal to peform an abortion after the fetus has implanted. The pro lifers probably wouldn't like the idea of indefinite freezing and would still need their funds for rallys trying to prevent all the other abortions that this idea doesn't address. |
|
| |
screw the baby stockpiling. We should just sell them in miniature cryo-freezers and make them coffee table ornaments. |
|
| |
I don't think cryogenic freezing is even perfected...we're only halfway there. We can freeze the people fine, it's the whole 'waking up' deal that's a problem.
We have enough people on this planet as it is. Also, how would you like it if you found out you were actually born 75 years ago, it's just that you were unloved and unwanted, so they just threw you in the back of the freezer? |
|
| |
This idea, as stunningly simple as it is, has drawn so little debate that I'd say it scores ... |
|
| |
It even addresses the woman's right to be pregnant if she chooses with a non-viable fœtus, because when the embryo is removed she can choose to be left with enough proliferative cells to maintain her pseudo-pregnant state; hence, here is a double edged sword to bare at the pro-argument right: No abortion (faith in science) and nine or more months of contraception (trust in god). |
|
| |
//No abortion (faith in science) and nine or more months of contraception (trust in god)// |
|
| |
Funny, right now it seems no abortion (faith in God) and nine or more months of contraception (trust in science) makes a whole lot more sense. |
|
| |
I had a similar idea a long time ago (just reimplant aborted foetuses). I was quite taken with it until my Mother (a Doctor) pointed out that during abortion the foetus is severely damaged and no longer viable. |
|
| |
This idea sort of reminds me of those weird sci-fi books about the future with clones/cameras/implanted computer chips/genetic /"designer babies"/ and that scares me enough to want to move to the north pole where there's no people around for a zillion miles. |
|
| |
i agree that this idea currently isn't viable, but look at it this way how careful are when handling something that you are about to dispose of? as currently the point of abortion is to remove the fetus, the fetus is in effect the garbage. |
|
| |
Under the system proposed here the fetus is being removed for storage all that may be require is a change in methodology by the surgeons. |
|
| |
Well, perhaps, but I think the problem is not so much with the embryo itself, but the placenta, which is very integrated with the womb lining. If I remember my developmental biology correctly, it sort of invades the surface. So it gets torn to shreds on removal. |
|
| |
Oh goodie, now we're getting down to the heart of the arguement. If only the placenta is damaged, then we in theory are still saving the part that can turn into a human (the embryo) assuming we can create a system to properly nourish this embryo. |
|
| |
This brings us to what pro-life advocates really want to save. The arguement against abortion is that you are throwing out what could be a unique human life. In this case, why save the fetus at all? Seems to me that just saving the DNA should satisfy all, and wait for cloning. |
|
| |
actually, hence my earlier point -- with the level of control over reproduction likely to be available shortly, it doesn't seem likely that the abortion issue will stay a real issue for long. |
|
| |
tc it may supprise you but abortion isn't an issue in the UK atleast not a big one, with the exception of the reinvestigation of a l;ate abortion supossedly because the baby had a cleft pallete |
|
| |
weird!!! but, kinda a good idea... |
|
| |
I just thought of this idea independently and was going to post it as "pregnancy suspension" or "postponement". I know they routinely freeze extra embryos in liquid nitrogen when they do artificial insemination in humans and cloning in animals, and they are perfectly revivable, though I think that is at a certain early stage of development only. Finding it at that point might be difficult, as it might only be a few cells. (Freezing larger organisms is much harder, due to ice crystals and large-scale fractures, though there are supposed technologies in the cryonics field that freeze larger organisms as a glass, preventing the ice crystals.) I am not certain of the technology details, but I know it exists in part, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible in at least limited cases. It's certainly not magic. |
|
| |
I know at least some of the pro-lifers (I used to be one) would see it as a wonderful compromise that would prevent "murder" while still allowing young girls to live their "young" lives. |
|
| |
//The same logic (rights over another human life) that prevents me from supporting the killing of fetuses also prevents me from supporting freezing them for indeterminate amounts of time.// |
|
| |
Or knowingly creating a life that will only know suffering? What about postponing a birth until a future where technology can fix a flaw that will allow a person to live an entire full life, instead of a few minutes of suffering? |
|
| |
//with the level of control over reproduction likely to be available shortly, it doesn't seem likely that the abortion issue will stay a real issue for long.// |
|
| |
I mostly agree, but remember that some of them even believe forms of contraception to be murder. |
|
| |
//It's not, in quite a lot of countries.// |
|
| |