Woman, 26, gives birth to baby who spent 24 years as frozen embryo

Woman, 26, gives birth to baby who spent 24 years as frozen embryo

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) – An East Tennessee woman delivered the longest-frozen embryo to successfully come to birth, according to the University of Tennessee Preston Medical Library.

The National Embryo Donation Center (NEDC) says baby Emma Wren was born Nov. 25 to Benjamin and Tina Gibson.

Emma was cryopreserved in 1992 before being transferred to Tina’s uterus earlier this year through frozen embryo transfer. Emma was conceived around eighteen months after Tina, 26, was born.

Woman, 26, gives birth to baby who spent 24 years as frozen embryo - Source
Also see,
Baby born 'aged 25' sets new record for longest embryo to be born after being frozen in 1992


I'm surprise this hasn't been shared yet. What a fantastic breakthrough and great miracle for the family as well as the many others utilizing this technology.

While the baby was born healthy, also that the cryopreservation techniques give a 100 percent survival rate for the embryos, etc., I'm sure there are concerns to be had, from religious and spiritual wise, to any future implication concerns?

Thoughts?

The kid does look pretty old.

I wonder how an embryo can be froze without being blown up by the freezing process? Most bacteria go to little spores when froze, all those that don't, and all worms die from freezing. Worm eggs sometimes can survive, but they are not nearly like a human embryo. It just seems to me that freezing embryos should not work.

So why is it a life when it's frozen in a laboratory somewhere, but otherwise it's considered little more than a tumor?

A nuisance.

But this all cool and stuff cuz like science and everything. F# your babies.

Except when they get sciency.

a reply to: dreamingawake

super cool but why is this baby special?

The center’s embryo adoption program has led to around 700 pregnancies. The center works to protect the lives of frozen embryos.

en.wikipedia.org...

One of the most important early theoreticians of cryopreservation was James Lovelock (born 1919) known for Gaia theory. He suggested that damage to red blood cells during freezing was due to osmotic stress. During the early 1950s, Lovelock had also suggested that increasing salt concentrations in a cell as it dehydrates to lose water to the external ice might cause damage to the cell.[4] Cryopreservation of tissue during recent times began with the freezing of fowl sperm, which during 1957 was cryopreserved by a team of scientists in the UK directed by Christopher Polge.[5] The process was applied to humans during the 1950s with pregnancies obtained after insemination of frozen sperm.

damn.
i didnt realize this # went back so far

a reply to: TinySickTears

Because they are frozen for over 2 decades before being implanted.

They get an A for accomplishment, and a F in ethics.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: TinySickTears

Because they are frozen for over 2 decades before being implanted.

They get an A for accomplishment, and a F in ethics.

cool.
i really didnt know why this one was a big deal.

the article from wiki said # preserved this way can be frozen indefinitely.

why the F in ethics?

what problem do you have in this?

originally posted by: NthOther
So why is it a life when it's frozen in a laboratory somewhere, but otherwise it's considered little more than a tumor?

A nuisance.

But this all cool and stuff cuz like science and everything. F# your babies.

Except when they get sciency.

can you elaborite?
i read the article a few times and it mentioned the frozen embryo multiple times. i didnt see frozen life mentioned.

en.wikipedia.org...

An embryo is an early stage of development of a multicellular diploid eukaryotic organism. In general, in organisms that reproduce sexually, an embryo develops from a zygote, the single cell resulting from the fertilization of the female egg cell by the male sperm cell.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Same problems I usually have with modern science.

Improper use of it.

It's one thing for a woman to freeze embryos before a hysterectomy.

This is entirely different.

They have no idea what the long term psychological, and health effects are.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Brave New World shows something similar to this. Sooner or later, humans will be growth in incubation pods.

a reply to: neo96

cool.
im asking cause im curious so dont get testy please. dont care to try and debate it i just want to know

who gets to decide what is proper?

a reply to: TinySickTears

Same people that says it doesn't do any harm turning men in to women and vice versa.

originally posted by: neo96

They have no idea what the long term psychological, and health effects are.

Well, they'll finally have the opportunity to find out, now won't they? It seems ethically questionable to freeze for that long, but somebody's got to do it and have the kids, or we'll never have an answer.
I'd rather have an answer, it shapes whether or not long-term cryo-storage is indisputably safe to continue doing.

a reply to: Nyiah

the question of long term effects can be applied to everything.
any new medicine....
we see it all the time

10 years after everyone on the planet was on vioxx it was class action times cause their kidneys were leaking out of their ears or some #.
at some point science/medicine has to move forward or we would never advance.

things may go wrong at some point but then we will find the limitations.
its kind of a must

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: dreamingawake

Brave New World shows something similar to this. Sooner or later, humans will be growth in incubation pods.

They're working on that artificial womb, lambs have successfully grown in them already. If it'd been accomplished a decade ago, I'd have absolutely considered that over natural pregnancy. Wasn't the worse thing in the world, but I'd certainly have opted for #2 via another manner, had we had the option. It's going to end up being the budget-friendly option to surrogacy, you watch. That gets insanely expensive depending on the contract stipulations.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes, it is a must. You can't go around existence wondering about an unknown for all eternity, we'll eventually take that step & answer our own questions.

a reply to: Nyiah

bio bag ftw

This definitely raises some interesting philosophical questions.

For starters... how old is this baby? Can we say that she is 25 because of when she was conceived? Of course not, but we certainly can't deny that she has existed for 25 years.

Also, with a 100% success rate, how can we refer to these embryos as "possible" people?

a reply to: Nyiah

The problem it can be abused by totalitarian governments. In Brave New World, in order to make them more loyal to the state, the World State raised humans in incubation pods to lessen the chances of rebellion and make them see the state as their parent.

originally posted by: Bone75
This definitely raises some interesting philosophical questions.

For starters... how old is this baby? Can we say that she is 25 because of when she was conceived? Of course not, but we certainly can't deny that she has existed for 25 years.

Also, with a 100% success rate, how can we refer to these embryos as "possible" people?

why is age a question?
when a baby is born we start counting age correct?
do women add 9 months to the date of birth?
what about premies?