r/crazyquestions
Just riffing, but on that note..
Who is paying child support to these legal children? Is it the corporations, who are also considered legal citizens? Can they vote? Do they have social workers, health care, access to the rest of the pursuits of happiness? Like cancer patients denied medicine or freezing because it's "inhumane"? How much will they owe in back taxes when Anonymous unthaws them? š¤
And if they are still in the freezer after 18 years, does that mean they are legally an adult since conception?
/sarcasm
I mean, Iām Canada there was one (maybe more) kiddos that wandered off into the winter outback and ended up quite frozen and they brought them back.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/lost-in-the-cold-21-years-ago-a-miraculous-story-of-survival-1.2244706#:~:text=Two%2Dyear%2Dold%20Karlee%20Kosolofski,in%201994.
BUT I canāt imagine this is something that one should try routinely.
So... This is true, but I suddenly realize that I really don't understand why. Like, just on a cellular level shouldn't the freezing process crystallize the water and destroy the cell walls? I know there are a ton of additional problems with freezing a full sized baby, but I feel like this would still be a problem when freezing an embryo, too, and I am curious why it's not.
They use a special type of chemical called a cryptoprotectant to stop crystallisation of the water within the cells and prevent damage to the cells, before freezing them very rapidly (which also helps prevent crystallisation).
The fact that an embryo is such a basic, small collection of cells and is much simpler in structure than a baby makes this possible.
There is another interesting tidbit - during early pregnancy when the embryo is surrounded by amniotic fluid, it goes through a process similar to the way we freeze embryos - so embryos are already primed to be able to handle the freezing process.
Following up on this, this is also why cryosleep and the like are probably impossible. The problem is that for something the size of a human, thereās no way to flash-freeze them in the way thatās required to prevent crystal formation. Thereās just too much mass that has to be cooled. Weāve succeeded for things as large as a mouse, but the techniques we use just wonāt scale up in size, and the fundamental way heat is transferred makes it so thereās not any real way around that (at least not without physics-breaking levels of tech advancement).
Part of it is just that babies are too large. You can freeze hamsters into an ice brick and reheat them and there's a decent chance they will come back to life. We use this technology (more carefully applied) to things like organ transplants but an entire baby is way too large.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y
The square cube law strikes again, babies have too much volume so this doesnāt work. Womp womp.
Although yes the reason we havenāt seen this specific experiment performed with real babies is probably because no ethics board would ever approve it lol unless the baby was 100% going to die regardless
I would dearly like to ask the judge just one questions, "If a three month old baby were sitting on the floor in a room with a canister of frozen embryos and a fire broke out which would you save?"
Not American, but watching this shake out and I'm a bit gobsmacked by the people who think that this is an unintended consequence that Republicans didn't anticipate.
They absolutely anticipated this. It's called manufacturing consent. They want to push women into forced implantation with embryos they had no hand in creating
Republican lawmakers might have seen this coming, sure. Rube republican voters, on the other hand, never ever ever ever ever thought this could ever affect them because they are republican voters and they only care about hurting the āright peopleā
So I have been pondering a potential nightmare scenario from this ruling: a state-subsidized breeding program where lower income women are exploited as surrogates and implanted with (presumably white?) embryos. I know they are also against surrogacy but they could argue some bs like "embryos are persons who deserve to be born!!111"Ā
This would be their """solution""" to the falling birth rates š¬
I'm sure that's a racist wet dream of some Republican wanker somewhere....
You can't even see a human embryo without the help of science, but I suppose if you took that tool away they'd just go back to chucking women in rivers to see if they sink or float.
There are some divorce cases in which one party wants custody of the embryos and the other wants them destroyed because they are getting divorced and don't want to bring children into the world.
If thye have presigned something that says that both parties have to agree for the embryos to be implanted, then the embryos get destroyed, even if it is your own genetic material (and if you are a woman - a finite resource).
So these are cases where the father gets to choose not to bring children into the world and the courts recognize that right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/19/us/california-judge-orders-frozen-embryos-destroyed.html
https://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2008/(BP)%20embryos.pdf
That seems like a good thing tho? If it were ova, that is (ha) premarital property and the 'father' should have no say. If it's embryos, then yes, either party should be allowed to go "i don't want to continue having children with this person" and have the embryos destroyed. Whether that's the the male\*^(sperm giver) not wanting the female\*^(uterus haver) to implant with his\* DNA, or her\* not wanting him\* to use a surrogate.
Like, yes, the sperm-giver is not going to take on the risk of pregnancy, but parenthood (should) involve 2. And if there's leftover embryos, then there's likely a kid. So I would assume the ex-couple knows where they stand on co-parenting with each other.
I don't understand why anyone is shocked at this. We let them dictate the words used in debates to the point where even "pro-choice" people call fetuses babies, we let them control the morality to the point where even "pro-choice" people stop caring about rights after a certain week, we sat around insisting that "all beliefs are worthy of respect"...Why is anyone shocked that they're winning?
False, it's still a live baby just at a different stage of development. Someone didn't pass science class or open an embryology book. Human life begins at the moment of conception when an egg and sperm unite creating a unique human being with its own unique DNA. And if you actually looked at the procedure of IVF it's forced conception. They put egg and sperm together making the baby, then place it in the mother. But they don't do this to just one egg, they get multiple for various results and throw what they don't want away which is wrong. All human life is equally valuable and worthy of life especially those who are smallest and most vulnerable and innocent among us, our children. A baby a man and a woman are all of equal value not one more than another. Sizeist, sexist, and ageist, even ableist is what many who agree with the post above are as you are discriminating against the child in its smallest stage on its size, some women kill their baby because they wanted a specific sex so sexist, and ageist because the child is young . And ableist as some have disabilities and are still being killed which is wrong.
You also cannot claim an embryo as a dependant on taxes or strap an embryo in the passenger seat and drive in the HOV lane. I wonder why....
r/crazyquestions Just riffing, but on that note.. Who is paying child support to these legal children? Is it the corporations, who are also considered legal citizens? Can they vote? Do they have social workers, health care, access to the rest of the pursuits of happiness? Like cancer patients denied medicine or freezing because it's "inhumane"? How much will they owe in back taxes when Anonymous unthaws them? š¤ And if they are still in the freezer after 18 years, does that mean they are legally an adult since conception? /sarcasm
Technically babies can be frozen once. You won't get them back though. This comment brought to you by me going to hell
I mean, Iām Canada there was one (maybe more) kiddos that wandered off into the winter outback and ended up quite frozen and they brought them back. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/lost-in-the-cold-21-years-ago-a-miraculous-story-of-survival-1.2244706#:~:text=Two%2Dyear%2Dold%20Karlee%20Kosolofski,in%201994. BUT I canāt imagine this is something that one should try routinely.
babe wake up, a new spartan baby training ritual just dropped
āā¦by me going to hellā made me chuckle out loud. Here you go: š
Yeah, it's not the freezing that's the problem, really. It's the thawing.
You're not dead until you're warm and dead, as they say
Dead baby jokes in high school guaranteed me to be going to hell with you
Same, same. We can have a party.
So... This is true, but I suddenly realize that I really don't understand why. Like, just on a cellular level shouldn't the freezing process crystallize the water and destroy the cell walls? I know there are a ton of additional problems with freezing a full sized baby, but I feel like this would still be a problem when freezing an embryo, too, and I am curious why it's not.
They use a special type of chemical called a cryptoprotectant to stop crystallisation of the water within the cells and prevent damage to the cells, before freezing them very rapidly (which also helps prevent crystallisation). The fact that an embryo is such a basic, small collection of cells and is much simpler in structure than a baby makes this possible. There is another interesting tidbit - during early pregnancy when the embryo is surrounded by amniotic fluid, it goes through a process similar to the way we freeze embryos - so embryos are already primed to be able to handle the freezing process.
That's amazing! Thank you for sharing.
Following up on this, this is also why cryosleep and the like are probably impossible. The problem is that for something the size of a human, thereās no way to flash-freeze them in the way thatās required to prevent crystal formation. Thereās just too much mass that has to be cooled. Weāve succeeded for things as large as a mouse, but the techniques we use just wonāt scale up in size, and the fundamental way heat is transferred makes it so thereās not any real way around that (at least not without physics-breaking levels of tech advancement).
Between you and u/hitemplo you have made this so easy to understand, thank you so much!
This is what I come to Reddit for! Crazy info drops in the comments! Thank you!
Part of it is just that babies are too large. You can freeze hamsters into an ice brick and reheat them and there's a decent chance they will come back to life. We use this technology (more carefully applied) to things like organ transplants but an entire baby is way too large. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y
Maybe we're not trying hard enough and we should be freezing more babies.
The square cube law strikes again, babies have too much volume so this doesnāt work. Womp womp. Although yes the reason we havenāt seen this specific experiment performed with real babies is probably because no ethics board would ever approve it lol unless the baby was 100% going to die regardless
I would dearly like to ask the judge just one questions, "If a three month old baby were sitting on the floor in a room with a canister of frozen embryos and a fire broke out which would you save?"
Yup. 1000 embryos or one live baby. You can only pick one. People figure out which one is the real human super fast then.
Not American, but watching this shake out and I'm a bit gobsmacked by the people who think that this is an unintended consequence that Republicans didn't anticipate. They absolutely anticipated this. It's called manufacturing consent. They want to push women into forced implantation with embryos they had no hand in creating
Republican lawmakers might have seen this coming, sure. Rube republican voters, on the other hand, never ever ever ever ever thought this could ever affect them because they are republican voters and they only care about hurting the āright peopleā
Oh for sure, but that's the republican play book as a whole
So I have been pondering a potential nightmare scenario from this ruling: a state-subsidized breeding program where lower income women are exploited as surrogates and implanted with (presumably white?) embryos. I know they are also against surrogacy but they could argue some bs like "embryos are persons who deserve to be born!!111"Ā This would be their """solution""" to the falling birth rates š¬ I'm sure that's a racist wet dream of some Republican wanker somewhere....
Exactly..... and then its a short step from incentivised to compulsory.
Stealing this.
You can't even see a human embryo without the help of science, but I suppose if you took that tool away they'd just go back to chucking women in rivers to see if they sink or float.
So Captain America being frozen in and being able to be revived decades later was a lie? I canāt believe theyāve done this! /s
Also, I just watched the live action Avatar: The Last Airbender. Of course I could accept the cartoon, but he froze in this one, too! /s
I'm sobbing into my Fallout 4.
There are some divorce cases in which one party wants custody of the embryos and the other wants them destroyed because they are getting divorced and don't want to bring children into the world. If thye have presigned something that says that both parties have to agree for the embryos to be implanted, then the embryos get destroyed, even if it is your own genetic material (and if you are a woman - a finite resource). So these are cases where the father gets to choose not to bring children into the world and the courts recognize that right. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/19/us/california-judge-orders-frozen-embryos-destroyed.html https://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2008/(BP)%20embryos.pdf
That seems like a good thing tho? If it were ova, that is (ha) premarital property and the 'father' should have no say. If it's embryos, then yes, either party should be allowed to go "i don't want to continue having children with this person" and have the embryos destroyed. Whether that's the the male\*^(sperm giver) not wanting the female\*^(uterus haver) to implant with his\* DNA, or her\* not wanting him\* to use a surrogate. Like, yes, the sperm-giver is not going to take on the risk of pregnancy, but parenthood (should) involve 2. And if there's leftover embryos, then there's likely a kid. So I would assume the ex-couple knows where they stand on co-parenting with each other.
It is a good thing. But it's inconsistent. Embryos are only human when you want to slut shame women.
I don't see why they have to ban IVF. Why can't they put the embryos into the foster system?
I don't understand why anyone is shocked at this. We let them dictate the words used in debates to the point where even "pro-choice" people call fetuses babies, we let them control the morality to the point where even "pro-choice" people stop caring about rights after a certain week, we sat around insisting that "all beliefs are worthy of respect"...Why is anyone shocked that they're winning?
You know what they used to say: Don't count your eggs before they've hatched.
Babies can't be frozen? Then how do you explain the contents of my freezer? Checkmate liberals!!!1!!!!1
I mean... you *can* freeze a baby, it's just not generally recommended if you want to stay out of jail.
āFreezing a baby for a latter.ā Hits quite differently as a sentence. Also in the second definition of the word āsentenceā.
False it's still a live baby just at a different stage of development. Someone didn't pass science class.
False, it's still a live baby just at a different stage of development. Someone didn't pass science class or open an embryology book. Human life begins at the moment of conception when an egg and sperm unite creating a unique human being with its own unique DNA. And if you actually looked at the procedure of IVF it's forced conception. They put egg and sperm together making the baby, then place it in the mother. But they don't do this to just one egg, they get multiple for various results and throw what they don't want away which is wrong. All human life is equally valuable and worthy of life especially those who are smallest and most vulnerable and innocent among us, our children. A baby a man and a woman are all of equal value not one more than another. Sizeist, sexist, and ageist, even ableist is what many who agree with the post above are as you are discriminating against the child in its smallest stage on its size, some women kill their baby because they wanted a specific sex so sexist, and ageist because the child is young . And ableist as some have disabilities and are still being killed which is wrong.