Pro-Life/Pro-Choice: A dilemna no more

Whether you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice, have you ever wonder "what if I could be both." Have you ever wonder "How could I defend a woman's right to her own body without killing a baby?" or "How do I defend a baby without denying the woman's right to her body?"

The solution is cryogenic freezing. If a couple decided that they can't handle a new child in their lives, instead of destroying the fetus, they'll cryogenically freeze it until a time when they're ready for the child. They'll sign a form indicating whether the baby is approved for adoption or if they'll come back later for him/her.

When the time is right for a future mother to accept the baby, the doctor would reconnect the life support, and the gestation continues. This would allow women to take control of their lives again without having to destroy a life. Now you can be both pro-life and pro-choice without having to make stupid comments like "Yea, I'm pro-choice. It's the choice of the woman not to be a slut and don't have sex."

Note: I may not have included all the possible options for the poll, but that's not the most important part. The most important part is the thread and the idea itself, not how good of a thesaurus we are.

Well, people are usually considered dead when their cardiac and brain activity ceases. When you freeze an embryo and stopping all of its cellular functions, you are technically killing it. Someone or something cryogenically frozen isn't "alive", since it doesn't exhibit any of the characteristics of a living being. Which makes me wonder...............

According to religious believers, people go to the afterlife after they die. If someone's cryogenically frozen, they are for all purposes dead. For example, if a caveman were buried in a huge avalanche and were quick-frozen for thousands of years, he'd be dead for all intents and purposes.

That means, if we get cryogenic technologies working, we can test scientifically whether or not an afterlife exists! Freeze someone, and then they die. Revive them later, and then simply ask them if they ever experienced an afterlife. It'd be the end of any and all religious questions.

I love how this poll is so unbias

Why isn't there a no choice?

Seth the Dark said:

Why isn't there a no choice?

Click to expand...

That's included in "others." But why would you be no-choice if you can be pro-choice?

How about pro-life? I think this poll is very biased.

You can be both.

Great poll!
I doubt this is possible today, but sooner or later it will hopefully be doable. Then the whole abortion problem is solved.

Jeff Yu said:

That means, if we get cryogenic technologies working, we can test scientifically whether or not an afterlife exists! Freeze someone, and then they die. Revive them later, and then simply ask them if they ever experienced an afterlife. It'd be the end of any and all religious questions.

Click to expand...

This experiment has already been done once. Some doctors killed a woman to do brain surgery on her and revived her afterwards. Then a different doctor asked if she experienced an afterlife and she gave a remarkably accurate description. Obviously it is impossible to test if what happened on the other side was real or fantasy, but her observations from her out of body experience was found to be very accurate.

Pikachu said:

Great poll!
I doubt this is possible today, but sooner or later it will hopefully be doable. Then the whole abortion problem is solved.


This experiment has already been done once. Some doctors killed a woman to do brain surgery on her and revived her afterwards. Then a different doctor asked if she experienced an afterlife and she gave a remarkably accurate description. Obviously it is impossible to test if what happened on the other side was real or fantasy, but her observations from her out of body experience was found to be very accurate.

Click to expand...

Q How long was the women "dead" for ? A brain without Oxygen begins to die from lack of oxygenated blood after 3 minutes. (3/3/3 Rule)

It's impossible to freeze an embryo and revive it later. I highly doubt it will be possible in the future, especially since we don't know what the right conditions are to freeze the embryos.
But I do think it's a great idea: people who want an abortion can have it and freeze the embryo and never revive it. The pro-lifers will shut up because in their hypocritical mind the embryo isn't killed for ever.
This is a win-win situation.

Yeah, right. We'd end up with a bunch of overstuffed freezers full of unwanted embreyos, and the people storing them would just keep making more. Are you proposing that there be any limit to the number of kidsicles a single couple can store?

This system lends itself to all the same abuses that abortion does.

The only benefit I see is that a rape victim could have the rapist's child removed, and a fertility-challenged couple could apply for use of it. But how often would that happen? No, they'd just be stacked up like cordwood in the freezer, until someone got tired of paying the electric bill and hit the defrost button.

FriendlyFire said:

Q How long was the women "dead" for ? A brain without Oxygen begins to die from lack of oxygenated blood after 3 minutes. (3/3/3 Rule)

Click to expand...

Try this link: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

This is completely different, you can't compare freezing with cooling:
When something is frozen ice-christals form which destroy the cells.
When you cool a body down the function will stop but by slowly bringing it back to it's normal temperature you can 'revive' it. This is well known since people that have fallen through ice and have been under water for 20-30 minutes are known to have been revived in some cases.

What if the woman never wants the baby?

The embryo won't be thawed.

Woman happy because she won't have the baby.
Pro-lifers happy because there was no real abortion.

Like I said before: it's a win-win situation and I'm beginning to like the idea after all.

FL2 said:

Yeah, right. We'd end up with a bunch of overstuffed freezers full of unwanted embreyos, and the people storing them would just keep making more. Are you proposing that there be any limit to the number of kidsicles a single couple can store?

Click to expand...

It's possible that we impose a limit. But that's not a big deal. It's not like a woman's going to keep going in for an abortion. It's cheaper to be cautious. But just in case that caution fail, she knows she can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

~Corsair#01~ said:

What if the woman never wants the baby?

Click to expand...

Then the baby could be put up for "adoption."

Good poll- although it gives the impression you're "anti-choice".

I can't quite see how it would work though, what, you take out an 8 week foetus, and then put it back in at some point in the future? Somehow I don't think that is scientifically possible.

Best. Poll. Ever.

This is one more reason for USA to sign Kioto's, because if we run out of ice worldwide,
due to the incredible misusage of energie-
well, where to store all those cryo-babies?
Let's install another 100000000 nuclear-plants?

Although we all know if the pop is unhappy they explode very fast?

BTW is it true that 5% of the ppl worldwide consume 25% of energie worldwide? (and if so, who?)

Engeneers are busy to develope the 3l car. What are you busy with?

Guys, bury your 'Hummers', sign Kioto and drive reasonable cars- please!

As long as there still a tiny glimps of hope

But back to topic-
this is nonsense- it will not change a single fate. Freeze them forever and stay beliving they are not dead- it will not change anything.
And I vote:
I love how this vote is so unbias....

Jeff Yu said:

According to religious believers, people go to the afterlife after they die. If someone's cryogenically frozen, they are for all purposes dead. For example, if a caveman were buried in a huge avalanche and were quick-frozen for thousands of years, he'd be dead for all intents and purposes.

Click to expand...

But they wouldn't be dead, not really. I would say their in stasis, neither truly dead or truly alive. I wouldn't have a problem with cryogenic stasis, and I don't think many people would.

As long as it can be done without any harm whatsoever being done to the child, then it sounds like an ok idea to me.