X-Message-Number: 13112 From: Daniel Ust <> Subject: Re: 13108, 13110, and 13111: Cryopreserving fetuses Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:33:39 -0500 In #13108 Paul Wakfer wrote: >This is discussed at my website http://morelife.org That is good to see. >I have been working on this on and off for over 4 years (mostly off for the last 2 >years) >CryoSpan, Inc even entered into a contract with Cryogenic Solutions of Texas to be >the repository of such aborted fetuses (they were going to be the public interface >for promotion and marketing) but it all fell through and they never went ahead with >it. CryoSpan also atempted to become the repository of all the embryos which have >been created by in-vitro fertilization and are no longer wanted. Why did it fall through? I can understand various fears, but I still think it should be explored. Perhaps by creating an organization that only does this sort of preservation, the other cryonics groups can distance themselves from it - if they have legal or security concerns. Some might say this defeats the whole purpose of using this as a means to fund regular cryonics (for the born), but I think if a fetus preservation organization existed and was financially viable, it would be a market for 21CM's and other organization's research, goods, and services. It might also make cryopreserving the born more mainstream. >Wrt funding, I believe there might even be a possibility of getting the Catholic >Church to fund such an endeavor. One can try. I plan to talk about this to pro-Lifers to see what they think. And I do mean the more reasonable ones, such as members of Libertarians for Life. >I am planning to again pursue the possibility of this business (and its enormous >potential for the promotion of the ideas of cryonics), later this year, and I >welcome anyone who wishes to join together to do this. >I will try to find time to summarize all the pros and cons, obstacles and potential >solutions, but I would rather do this to a select group of people who are >pro-actively interested in effecting this rather than to a bunch on potentially >nit-picking dilettantes. I'm interested, though the only things I can offer for now are my words and connections. I don't plan on quitting my day job to take this idea on the road, though I do plan to discuss it with many _sober_ pro-Lifers to feel out potential supporters. I can help a little with planning and perhaps trying to put together a FAQ or something along those lines. You can contact me directly, if you wish. >Please also add this to the extropian thread. >I used to be on that list, but I just don't have time for it currently. My original post already sparked a sizeable debate there. I will also send your post to that list. >Thanks for bringing up this very important idea. Thanks to you and others for taking the time to respond to it. In Message #13110 david pizer wrote: >I proposed this 14 years ago in 1986. The Immortalist ran my article in >June called FREEZE ABORTED BABIES. I also included it in a book of poems >and short articles I self published called GOODBY DOUBTER (page 20). I >also proposed that the Venturist Organization do something in this area. It's not the first time when I thought I had a brilliant idea ahead of the pack and found myself actually travelling old worn trails.:) >There never was any meaningful response to the idea. My audience was >strictly cryoncists who are worried about saving themselves (That is a >pretty big challange on its own in these early days of cryonics). At the >end of the article I asked if anyone wanted to help persue the idea and try >to take it to a non-cryoncs audience (like Right-To-Life-ers, or hospitals >or abortion clinics). I think you've just mentioned the flaw in your strategy. By mentioning it only to people who were not going to take it all that seriously, it was bound to not get support. The people who I think would be most likely to support it are those who think it will solve a problem for them, namely pro-Lifers who believe that this is better than aborting fetuses and destroying them completely. If they support it, then the rest of the cryonics community might come along if this becomes a source of funding for cryonics research and helps to market cryonics outside its current following. Of course, it remains to see if this will happen. >I still think it is a very good idea to try to save these aborted people. >If you manage to get several more interested person who are willing to >contribute some money and labor let me know and I will help out. However, >I still think we are thinking too far ahead of the rest of the world. If >you don't get any support either, try me back in another 14 years, when we >might be able to get more help from the rest of the world. Thanks for the offer. I plan to explore the idea further, but, as I wrote above, I don't plan on investing all my spare time in this. I will, however, try to connect such people as I find who are seriously interested. I'll keep you in mind. Message #13111 Robert Ettinger wrote: >1. It would be seen by some as encouraging abortion, and arouse active >opposition not only against the practice but against cryonics generally. (It >might also arouse more sympathy in some quarters, but that would be less >important.) I see that as a problem for some pro-Lifers, but not all. I don't think the pro-Life movement is that monolithic. I think it might appeal to some of them, but, of course, not all of them. However, all we need do is get enough to be self-sustaining. As I mention above, if the fear is physical security, having separate organizations do this might be best. This way, the extant cryonics organizations can distance themselves _physically_ from ones that focus on this type of cryopreservation. Also, on another list (Stormwatch), someone actually thought this might have opposite effect. He thought that some in the Right to Life movement might use this to eventually outlaw abortions without cryopreservation. Then the only legal options would be abortion with preservation or continuing the pregnancy. (I don't buy this, but that some might believe this is telling here. It seems to support my contention that some pro-Lifers would support cryopreservation of aborted fetuses.) >2. "Right to life" people are unlikely to become more sympathetic, partly for >the reason mentioned above, and partly because, for many of them, the issue >is not really "right to life" but opposition to interference with "nature." >Some of the churches oppose freezing sperm, eggs, or embryos, even though >this tends to save or increase life. See above. I believe you are right for many "Right to life" people but not all. On this very list, we have Paul Wakfer who seems to be, if my reading of his web page is correct, pro-Life. At least, his web page supports that position. Yet he's for cryopreserving fetuses. Now, if there are enough of that opinion, then it won't matter if the rest disagree. That might be enough to make it happen. >3. Although it is cheap to store a small piece of tissue, it would not be >cheap to deal with the prospective clients; and those clients would tend to >be unstable and unreliable people. A large investment of time and effort in >each potential client would be required, and those turned down might complain >loudly. Lawsuits are guaranteed, with guaranteed losses in some jurisdictions. I'm not sure about this. I suppose you're right and this might not be as simple as merely perfusing abortions then storing and collecting a check. But I don't think these problems are insurmountable. I also believe, as I mention above, setting up separate organizations might create a legal firewall. >Sad, but best forget it. Let's keep on trying to save ourselves and the >people we know. My hope is that if this is possible, it would help to increase support for saving "ourselves and the people we know." Long lives to each of you! Daniel Ust http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13112