Life Begins At Conception...Thirteen Years Ago.

[hardheadjarhead]

An interesting story about an embryo frozen thirteen years ago...and then born five months ago:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/05/MNGEQDJ4AE1.DTL&feed=rss.news


The infant has two fraternal siblings who were conceived at the same time. The two are now thirteen years old. Technically all three are triplets.

Had they been identical twins, would this situation be any different than cloning?

Is this girl five months old, or thirteen years old? Granted we traditionally don't count gestation in regards to counting birthday cake candles...but a part of me wonders if she shouldn't be allowed to join the military, pay taxes, drive a car and own property five years from now. If life begins at conception, then the girl is thirteen. Correct?



Regards,


Steve

 

[Sam]

weird thought...

I mean... she's 13 but...not really.

she's been alive but she's had no experiences... so no, she shouldnt be allowed to do those things.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Interesting question.

If life begins at conception, in 5 years she'll:
- Be able to vote
- Be "legal"
- Join the bodys thrown into the grist mill of war.

In 6 years she'll be able to drink in many states/provinces

If it begins at "Birth", then it's different.

Interesting question indeed.

 

[arnisador]

Interesting question. Obviously, we know what age she 'really' is...but it'll screw up some people's definitions for sure!

 

[shesulsa]

Yes, this is intriguing.

Compare with preemies; Infants born, say, five weeks early are not expected to reach 6 month milestones at their birth age of six months, but rather their developmental age of six months (i.e. the date they were due plus six months).

But how do you categorize the specific "dilemma" (if there is one) of the age of frozen embryos? Is it a moral issue? An age issue? A biological issue? Has this been raised before?

Good topic, Steve!

 

[Marginal]

But how do you categorize the specific "dilemma" (if there is one) of the age of frozen embryos? Is it a moral issue? An age issue? A biological issue? Has this been raised before?

Could be an uncomfortable point of contention in the abortion debate. "Life begins at conception!"

"Oh? So how old are those 'snowflake' kids?"

 

[sgtmac_46]

There's no real paradox in this discussion. We are actually confusing concepts and entering in to a semantical debate as though it has any real impact on the real world.

Age, of course, has always been determined by counting forward from birth. The age of a premature child born alive is considered by counting forward it's age at it's birth, despite that birth having occurred earlier than most children.

That is a different concept from whether or not the child is alive prior to birth.

There is nothing at all inherently contradictory in the simultaneous holding of the ideas that A) The age of a child is figured by counting forward from the point of birth and B) The child is considered alive at conception. Those concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Age is merely a measure of the period of time a child has interacted with the larger world outside of the womb. In reality, this question does not alter than in any meaningful way.

 

[MisterMike]

That's right, otherwise we'd all be able to vote at the age of 17 years and 3 months, if we get to count the 9 months in the womb - or in this case, we'd be counting the months/years in a refrigerator. Don't make sense.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

<chuckling...>

Hey...to whoever anonymously wrote "Nice. Thanks for contributing," you gave me a "reddie." Either your sarcasm is lost on me or you hit the wrong button. If it was intentional, was it because it raised some uncomfortable questions? How about answering the questions and THEN giving me a "reddie?"

In any case, this situation apparently is a first...but one we could have anticipated. I see problems arising from fertilization and implantation of this sort:

-There are currently thousands of fertilized embryos that are frozen awaiting implantation. If the parents decide they don't want the extras, they're typically discarded.

-Unwanted fertilized embryos could be (it is often argued) used for stem cell research. The notion of "abortion farms" arising for that purpose is technically incorrect, as none of the embryos used is ever aborted. For that you'd need implantation. That said, this brings up the problem of viability. By the standard set by this girl, potentially all of those embryos could be developed fully. Realistically, many aren't viable even after implantation, as the failure rate for pregnancy of this sorts is high.

-This girl is healthy. Other embryos might not develop so well after so many years frozen. I suspect those will never be viable, and likely not result in a damaged child. If it is found that freezing an embryo past a certain time increases its chances of spontaneously aborting (or not implanting), or damaging the child in some other fashion, should we consider this extended freezing a form of child endangerment?

-Should we consider a high failure rate for implantation in this manner a form of child endangerment?

-If parents decide they don't want further children, should the state take charge of the embryos and give them to those who want children, but can't naturally have them? The argument here would be for the sanctity of the life of the embryos (in this girl's case, a two cell zygote). The results would be akin to adoption, but require the state forcefull removal of custody of the embryos from the parents.

-It would be impractical for the state to require that all harvested embryos be brought to term and then raised by the generating couple. Literally dozens of embryos are made for this purpose, and no one family of average means could support a clan of this size. Further, state law requiring this would be mandating that the couple have children. This then raises the question...again...

What do we do with the embryos?

If not used for research, discarded, or brought to term...do we keep them frozen forever?



Regards,


Steve