X-Message-Number: 8738 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:09:53 -0500 From: Paul Wakfer <> Subject: sci.cryonics Re: Is this idea worth anything? Norman Doering wrote: >While reading Tom Matthews post on "Re: Are eggs more difficult >than embryos to freeze?" in news: >I had a rather, IMHO, neat idea on where the cryonics community >might get funds for cryonic research and solve a political >conflict with a compromise all at the same time. I don't know if >anyone else has thought of this before or not, or even if there is >a flaw in the idea. So, I'm putting it out here to see what kind >of comments it generates. > >If embryos can be frozen could they be frozen after abortions? >I think the catholics and conservative Christians might be (or >should be if they're honest about their values -- something I have >doubts about when it comes to the upper echelon of political >players and money men in their ranks) interested in funding >research into freezing fetuses for longer periods and at later >stages in pregancy and doing the operation and storage as >economically as possible because then they can offer this service >as an effective alternative standard abortion practices that kill >the fetus. The women who use the service wouldn't have to agonize >over the choice so much because they know they're not ready to >bring a child up -- they'd be able to reverse their decision when >they are ready and reclaim their child at a later date if they >wanted to, or let it sit in storage until they lose the right, >perhaps only after death, to an adoption scheme. I'm sure most >women seeking abortions would jump at that alternative if it could >be offered regardless of any laws pro or con on abortion -- bingo, >its not a divisive issue any longer once the choice is possible. >The church probably has a lot more money to throw into such >research than the cryonics community. > >The side effect of this kind of research would be that we'd learn >a lot more about freezing, storing and re-animating larger complex >life forms, fetuses at various stages of development, that could >spill over into how we should properly freeze and reanimate >cryonics patients. Shouldn't a very late term fetus be as >difficult a problem as a cryonics patient? > >I think, in my more cynical moments, that the right to life >movement is really a ploy for political power for the church >hiearchy -- but I doubt if that matters because it's obviously not >so at the grass roots level. I think if this idea were spread >around at the grass roots level the churchs that preach this right >to life message would almost have to look into cryonics research >on animal fetuses in various stages of development or be branded >hypocrits more interested in gaining political power than in >saving the lives they claim they want to save. >Tom Matthews <> wrote: >> I believe that this is because embryos are frozen at the 8-16 >> cell stage. >This sounds like it might be too early for most abortions. >> However, each cell is still equipotent. Therefore, if a few >> cells do not survive the cryopreservation, rewarming, and >> implantation, it does not matter. The resulting baby will be >> "none the worse for wear". >When does the differentiation of the cells happen? Does anyone >know what kind of possibilities might be near term on this kind of >freezing? >> I don't know what the largest is but I believe the standard is 8 >> - 16 cells. Dimensions are in micrometers not millimeters. By >> one month all of the different parts of the body, including >> organs are 'blocked out'. The foetus is by then enormously >> complex, consisting of millions of cells, even though its length >> is still only a few millimeters and its weight well under a >> gram. It would be a major feat to reversibly cryopreserve a >> foetus even at one month of age. >But, could it be done, in probabality, if enough research money >were put behind the task? >>> Are human embryos always frozen immediately after >>> fertilization or are they allowed to grow some? > >> They are allowed to divide to the 8-16 cell stage. I don't know >> how long that takes. Just minutes to a few hours, I would guess. >> >> --Tom >That's obviously not good enough for intercepting abortions, but >is their a probability of research changing that? >If you think this is a good idea, please spread it around, someone >may act on it. First, I wish to commend you on a brilliant idea which you have worked out the ramifications of and the possibilities for, very well. It certainly *is* a neat idea. However, it was already thought of and tried out more than two years ago. In 1995, a Nevada corporation called Cryogenic Solutions was formed by a Texan named Howard Turney with just that purpose in mind. His stated purpose was to solve the abortion problem, prevent doctors from being shot by pro-lifers, save countless women enormous trauma, and make a lot of money doing so. I happen to know all about it because, early on, they contracted with CryoSpan, Inc. to be their long-term storage provider. I provided them with a lot of cryonics-type documentation, anatomical donation forms, releases, etc. and signed a contract with them, also consulting with them on the organization and the logistics of the process. The company still exists operating under the name biogenix and is working on trying to length telomeres for anti-aging purposes. At their web site http://www.biogenix.com they explain how the company started and why they gave up on the "frozen fetus" business. In a nut shell, the reasons were: 1) The doctors and clinics didn't wish to be involved in the exra work required for the procedure and wouldn't tell their clients of the option. 2) The pro-choice people were scared that if the foetus could be removed and cryopreserved undamaged that the courts would rule that it was a human life and outlaw abortion. 3) The pro-life people weren't as interested in giving the foetus a chance to be born later as they were in making the women feel guilty for both the abortion and having had sex in the first place. They were also concerned that this would make the abortion choice much "easier" for women and many who chose to bear the child, no longer would. 4) Removing the foetus undamaged required a R&D effort and doctor/researcher cooperation which no one seemed to want to do. 5) cryopreserving such a complex piece of tissue even at the small size of a 2-3 month old foetus was going to take a major cryobiological R&D effort almost tantamount to human suspended animation. I would also like to point out that this cryopreservation solution will likely become available during the research to perfect human suspended animation which the the Prometheus is just beginning to initiate. The cryopreservation of undamaged aborted fetuses to save their "lives" could well be one of our applications. -- Paul -- Paul Wakfer email: Voice/Fax:909-481-9620 Page:800-805-2870 HELP TO ACHIEVE - PERFECTED SUSPENDED ANIMATION WITHIN 20 YEARS! Check out the Prometheus Project web site at URL: http://www.prometheus-project.org/prometheus/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8738