Embryos

[miko2d]

I thought I would provide you with an fresh non-political topic and maybe gain valuable insight from the audience... What? In can happen!

1. The complete genetic makeup of a newborn baby and usually over the 99.9% of its nature are determined at the time of conception.  (Sure, even the identical twins can grow somewhat different after birth but that is not relevant to that question specific to newborns).
 I believe common sence and religious dogma agree with me that animal life - at least in biological sense (not necessarily personality or legal status) - begins at conception, even if it cannot sustain itself independently for a while.

 When a family creates a batch of embryos and freezes them and then one at a time thaws them out, implants them and gives birth to the resulting babies, they would be of different legal ages and of different biologic maturities and of different "mileage" on their biologic "odometers" but in reality of the same chronological age as living beings.
 Much like if persons were temporarily frozen or experienced unequal relativistic time-dialtion effects after being born.

 As such, does it make sense to treat them as having no priority over each other in the matters where the order of birth customarily held precedence - like seniority, primogeniture, etc?

 Of course primogeniture is considered by definition as "first-born", but  really it comes from latin "primo" - at first (from "primus" - first) and "genitura" - birth, but more likely - or in any case through it from "genitus" which is past participle of "gignere" - to beget, to conceive. So "primogeniture" is really "first-conceived".

 That invites all kinds of curious cultural implications like change of customs in a clan-based society to select a primary heir that was not the first born but the most capable, etc.


2. While we are at it, a personal question (not really that personal in an anonymous forum anyway) - how many people out there took an opportunity of the technology that have recently became affordable to criogenically preserve frozen embryos?

 P.S. I already know that some people would answer "yes" and some "no" on each of those, but what I'd really like is to hear your thoughts on those subjects.

 miko

[midnight Target]

No

[Saurdaukar]

Yes.

[midnight Target]

Maybe

[funkedup]

These people freezing embryos should be shot.  They should adopt.  If your junk doesn't work, tough ****.  There are plenty of kids already born who need parents.  Help them out.

[Saurdaukar]

Funked, you were supposed to say "perhaps."  

[miko2d]

funkedup: These people freezing embryos should be shot.  They should adopt.  If your junk doesn't work, tough ****.  There are plenty of kids already born who need parents.  Help them out.

 Sorry, I do not follow you, Funkedup - we are apparently talking about different things. I'll ask clarificaton point by point. Note that I am not arguing - yet - just trying to understand how what you sad relates to what I posted.

They should adopt. If your junk doesn't work, tough ****.

 People who freeze embryos obviously have no problem conceiving their own biological children. Why should their choice be limited to adoption under threat of death?

 Also, do you object to freezing embryos or to creating embryos altogether outside of the natural process or just outside of uterus - in vitro - or any assisted procreation (artificial fertilisation of an egg inside a woman's reproductive system or stimulating ovaries).

 Or do you object to assisted procreation by people who are not healthy?
 That may be a good point even though it's private expence unlike public spending on life support for unproductive elderly and sick or subcidised procreation of the underclass.

 Besides, sometimes a woman can be unable to conceive due to a minor problem - like a tube blockage due to scarring after an imperfectly performed appendectomy, etc.

There are plenty of kids already born who need parents.

 Apparently you know very little on how difficult, expensive and nerve-wracking it is to adopt a child in america - despite tens of thousands languishing in orphanages and foster care.
 I can refer you to multiple exposes - particularly recently on ABC News - check their website, on how the bureaucratic system that gets paid per child in the system - and thus has every incentive to increase their number - prevents thousands of willing families from adopting under various excuses.
 Personally, I know it first hand because my wife's cousin family went through it and failed. They were lucky to make a private arrangement with a young lady (found privately by a friend) from adoption-friendly state (72-hour "change your mind rule for the biological mother" rather than 90 days like in NY) who decided she was not ready for the upcoming baby and gave her up. A wonderfull baby - 2 1/2 years now.
 Most aspiring adopters give up or find it easier to undergo risk and expence of adopting a child from Romania or China.

 Some people do not perceive an adopted and biological childern as the same thing and like to have biological children even if they also adopt children.

 Anyway, that's all besides the point of my topic.

 Perfectly healthy people often have very good reasons for creating and storing embryos. Do you object to that? If so, why?

 For a particular situation involving a healthy couple, freezing embryos is just separating the moment of conception from the moment of birth.
 Basically, getting an extra degree of freedom in time/risk just like getting paid with money rather than in kind or using a VCR or getting paid in advance or buying insurance or wearing a body armor allows one some freedom in planning one's life. No more.

 miko

[myelo]

1. No.

While the embryos are frozen they aren’t growing – which is the point of freezing them in the first place.  So, from a biologic perspective they aren’t aging. So it makes sense to consider their age the same way at for other people – starting from when they are born, not from when they are conceived.

2. Yes.

Oh yea, you want my thoughts... Well the first thing to come to mind is I don’t want someone on a BBS giving me advice on how to run my family.

[miko2d]

myelo: 1. No.

While the embryos are frozen they aren’t growing – which is the point of freezing them in the first place.  So, from a biologic perspective they aren’t aging.

 Biologic perspective does not seem to make much more sense in determining chronological matters than conception because by the time the question matters, the more recently born may not necessarily be less mature, less capable, less fertile or even less physically worn.

2. Yes. Oh yea, you want my thoughts... Well the first thing to come to mind is I don’t want someone on a BBS giving me advice on how to run my family.

  On the other hand, some people may appreciate your advice by learning what reasons you may think justify the trouble and expence of doing so.

 miko

[funkedup]

Miko I object to any form of assisted procreation.  I don't really want to shoot them though.  I was just doing my Ed Anger imitation.  
You make good points though.  

[Airhead]

I'll bet Funkedup was an ugly embryo.

[funkedup]

How dare you!

[miko2d]

funkedup: Miko I object to any form of assisted procreation.  I don't really want to shoot them though.

 OK. It would be nice to hear the reasons for your opinion. Are they religious?

 Let me run a scenario by you.

 You have a perfectly healthy young couple that may wish to have a cetrain number of children and maybe even have some already.
 The guy has to serve his country in the military. There is a real chance that he may die or incur infertility from a wound, chemical exposure or army-administered vaccine (like few hundred of our soldiers suffered recently).

 Even in the worst case of his valiant death his widow can fulfill their wishes and have those child(ren) - financial matters can be as easily arranged via his insurance, etc.
 Otherwise she may have to forgo that pleasure and certainly leave the dead hero's last wishes unfulfilled - also denying him any stake in the future he allegedely died for.

 So basically I am talking about the role of frozen embryos as an ultmate LIFE insurance - among other good reasons.
 I would certainly feel much better knowing that if my wife or I died or suffered infertility or inability to carry, we would be able to have our children and full siblings to our son.

 miko

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by funkedup
Miko I object to any form of assisted procreation.  

So....

A guy has a heart attack, he is saved at the hospital, and 2 years later conceives a child.

Assisted procreation?

What if he had a blockage of the vas deferens and surgery allowed him to conceive a baby?

Assisted procreation?

His wife has a blockage of the fallopian tube, surgery opens the tube, she conceives a baby.

Assisted procreation?

or what if surgery can't open the tube, but we can harvest one of her eggs, combine it with one of his sperm.. conceiving a baby.

Where would you draw the line? and Why?

[Eagler]

mikos ego at it again ...

you go clone king