The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > If it was an option would you cryogenically freeze an unborn baby?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-17-2009, 09:17 PM
Elizadolots's Avatar
Elizadolots Elizadolots is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,466
Default

No, why? Other babies will be available when you decide you are ready to raise them...or, maybe, you could just create one from scratch at that time....Babies aren't hard to come by, why invoke unproven science to preserve something on the off chance you'll decide later that you want it?

Put it up for "fetal adoption" if you just have to do something...there are women ready and willing to try to bring that zygote to term.
__________________


Thanks to Ron Salon for the signature banner!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-17-2009, 10:20 PM
MonsieurHood's Avatar
MonsieurHood MonsieurHood is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stfanboy View Post
Here is a answer. DON'T HAVE SEX

It is possible you know. But it isn't easy, or pleasant. Not physically, not emotionally, not mentally. There are those who have refrained and abstained from puberty until death. But they are truly the few and far between. They're not weirdos, they're not strange, they're not monsters.
They're just people who know what's best for themselves and the rest of humanity. In other words, they're better off just not going there. But loneliness can be an awful, terrible thing as well. It can tear out your heart and sorely try your soul, until the only friend you have left, is discipline. It is not a road for the faint of heart to take. In the grand game of life, we all must learn to play the hand we are delt. The lucky ones get a Royal Flush, or four Aces. Some of us are lucky enough to draw a straight, or a flush. Most of us get three of a kind, or two pair. Some only get a pair of dueces. Then there are the not so lucky ones, the ones who only get a hand full of Jokers, and the only lucky and hopeful thing for them, is that Jokers are wild.
__________________
"One of the many, the proud, the friends of Zardoz".

Last edited by MonsieurHood : 04-17-2009 at 10:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-18-2009, 04:48 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjopbj View Post
.... I don't think the idea of freezing a baby is any superior to the idea of aborting it. Both are monsterous...
Well, the primary argument against abortion is that it ends a life. Using that same argument it would NOT apply to freezing. You may find them both monstrous but they are obviously NOT the same. One provides an alternative to death and the other is certain death.

What I find funny is that many people keep equating today's technology and practices to future technological developments. Why would you assume animal testing was used in order to develop this technology? I think it is very likely that some animal testing would be performed, but I can't be certain that computer models or other such simulations are NOT available in the future that may provide just as accurate testing.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-18-2009, 04:56 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
But what a slippery slope..... let's say a bunch of people DID store their embryos. Then those people all died in a volcano eruption or something. What happens to the embryos then? Does the government or a private corporation own them? I can't see that having a happy ending for anyone, unless you're the government with a whole bunch of Secret Super Soldiers.
Great question!! I think I have answer and you may NOT like it. In this possible future where freezing of one's unwanted embryo is possible, it is very likely abortion would also be available and legal. If a young woman found herself pregnant and decided to freeze rather than abort, she could give birth at a later time. If that same woman were to die before "thawing" and giving birth, then I believe the likely outcome would be the institution that has the embryo or the government would become "guardians". I don't think raising these "orphans" to be super soldiers is very likely. Rather I think it would be more likely the embryos would be saved for a given amount of time in order to give other woman an opportunity to bring them to term. This would be a form of adoption. Unfortunately I do see the situation arising where there would be more embryos frozen than ever could be possibly adopted. At that point "aborting" the embryo would be the most likely outcome. That puts us right back to where we started. The embryo would more than likely have been aborted in the first place if it weren't for the freezing alternative. I see the alternative as an imperfect solution that would fail at times.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-18-2009, 05:02 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

I am sure that when people first heard about Caesarian sections, they were horrified, so I fail to see why such a fictional future technology, if it works, is supposed to be such a terrible thing.
I don't understand why people are too dumb to contracept, especially in times of HIV and STDs. But this fictional technology would indeed be preferrable to abortions or dead babies in the fridge (no pun intended).

The only minor problem I'd have with this technology is that your genetic material of today is used while the child will only come into full existence years or decaded later. You change and so does your the information saved in your genes, so there is some kind of lag between the parents and the child. You basically raise the child which was conceived by the person you was, let's say 15 years ago, so there is some kind of odd lag.

To make this a bit more pointed, just imagine the baby has been conceived when you were 16, you freeze it, and when you are 46, the child will be borne. It's basically not your child but the child of the immature teenager you have been 30 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-18-2009, 01:37 PM
FanWriter45's Avatar
FanWriter45 FanWriter45 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Conway, Arkansas. It's a nice little town with three Universities in it, and surrounded by woods.
Posts: 3,051
Default

Um... well, yeah... but that child is still genetically the product of you and your partner. Thus, it is your kid. The only difference being that by having the child later in life, you will be in a better, more mature position to care for it. (probably)

Suppose you were a couple, and your male partner has a high risk occupation, or maybe some genetic illnesses that could lead to his dying prematurely... This could offer an opportunity to have an "insureance policy" of a pre-fertilized zygote, should he be die before you are both ready to actually become parents. Much in the same way many military couples do by freezing sperm samples now... except, with the zygote, you get a better chance of controlling the pregancy, and screening for any problems before implantation.
__________________
Number Two: Conform, Number Six! Conform!

Number Six: I will not be stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! I am a person.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-18-2009, 02:01 PM
cjopbj cjopbj is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 581
Default

Question: What happens to the fetuses that nobody wants? Would they become subject of experimentation ala embryonic stemcells of today? I suppose they could be harvested for body parts. Maybe used for blood transfusions. In parts of the world they believe that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. Since 14 year old virgins are hard to come by, infant rape is seen a more effective option. Imagine what a fetus could do!!

More fodder for that horror novel.... Regarding it as an effective alternative to abortion, there are worse things in this world than death, my friend.
__________________
Happiness, at least, Sir.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-18-2009, 07:10 PM
sraviik's Avatar
sraviik sraviik is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: COOKIES
Posts: 413
Default

they would be added to the zygote ark of course...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-19-2009, 12:43 PM
cjopbj cjopbj is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sraviik View Post
they would be added to the zygote ark of course...

So, what if the committee that decided who gets passage on the ark determined that people with a certain genetic make up, say an inherited tendency towards mental illness for instance, weren't going to be allowed on the ark. Or maybe they could have 4 arks that are tracked like courses for kids in high school - honors, advanced, standard, and remedial.

Is anybody writing all these good ideas down? What fab dialogue you're getting here!
__________________
Happiness, at least, Sir.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.