Parents Welcome Twins From Embryos Frozen 30 Years Ago (cnn.com) 61
An anonymous reader shares a report: In April 1992, Vanessa Williams' "Save the Best for Last" topped the Billboard 100, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton was running for the White House, "Who's the Boss?" aired its final episode, and the babies born to Rachel and Philip Ridgeway a couple of weeks ago were frozen as embryos. Born on October 31, Lydia and Timothy Ridgeway were born from what may be the longest-frozen embryos to ever result in a live birth, according to the National Embryo Donation Center. The previous known record holder was Molly Gibson, born in 2020 from an embryo that had been frozen for nearly 27 years. Molly took the record from her sister Emma, who was born from an embryo that had been frozen for 24 years. It's possible an older frozen embryo may have been used; although the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks success rates and data around reproductive technologies, it does not track how long embryos have been frozen. But there's no evidence of an older embryo resulting in a live birth.
"There is something mind-boggling about it," Philip Ridgeway said as he and his wife cradled their newborns in their laps at their home outside Portland, Oregon. "I was 5 years old when God gave life to Lydia and Timothy, and he's been preserving that life ever since. In a sense, they're our oldest children, even though they're our smallest children," Ridgeway added. The Ridgeways have four other children, ages 8, 6, 3 and almost 2, none conceived via IVF or donors. The embryos were created for an anonymous married couple using in-vitro fertilization. The husband was in his early 50s, and they used a 34-year-old egg donor. The embryos were frozen on April 22, 1992.
"There is something mind-boggling about it," Philip Ridgeway said as he and his wife cradled their newborns in their laps at their home outside Portland, Oregon. "I was 5 years old when God gave life to Lydia and Timothy, and he's been preserving that life ever since. In a sense, they're our oldest children, even though they're our smallest children," Ridgeway added. The Ridgeways have four other children, ages 8, 6, 3 and almost 2, none conceived via IVF or donors. The embryos were created for an anonymous married couple using in-vitro fertilization. The husband was in his early 50s, and they used a 34-year-old egg donor. The embryos were frozen on April 22, 1992.
This gives me hope (Score:5, Funny)
If they can safely thaw out and cook a human being after 30 years they've got to be able to figure out how to make a frozen pizza come out right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Get a pizza stone.
Re: (Score:2)
Preheat the oven, use the center rack.
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
I was 5 years old when God gave life to Lydia and Timothy, and he's been preserving that life ever since
No. Scientist and doctors have been doing that. And you would not have had these children without science and medicine. Just like when people say babies are viable at 20 weeks or whatever, that's only because of the science behind incubators and modern medicine. Stop attributing shit that science provides you to some make-believe guy in the sky that makes you feel less scared about the uncaring reality of the universe we live in.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, but God still gave rock and roll to you, gave rock and rock to you
Put it in the soul of everyone...
Except for kids conceived in April of '92. All they got was Vanessa Williams.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Interesting)
some make-believe guy in the sky that makes you feel less scared about the uncaring reality of the universe we live in.
I actually feel a lot more comfortable in an uncaring universe than I would in one ruled by a capricious deity who makes the worst human tyrants seem warm and fuzzy by comparison.
Re: Ugh (Score:2)
That's not quite true (ok, I'm with you on the science but), but really, the parents have 4 other children, conceived without IVF or surrogates, so while 'technically' they wouldn't have *these* babies, they could have likely had more children without 'science'.
Curious about why the original donors abandoned the embryo's, I guess these parents effectively (technically?) adopted these 'children', sort of - I mean it's not their egg or sperm in there, it's just something the scientists pulled out of the back
I just don't get it.... (Score:2)
The husband was in his 50's.... Why does anyone want to start a new family at that age? This guy is going to be in his early 70's before his kid even turns 21.
"Hey Nancy.... brought your grandpa with you shopping?" "No, that's my dad!"
I mean, I'm 51 and my kid turns 21 in about 5 more months. She already moved out on her own about 1 1/2 years ago. Had some issues with her b/f and I offered to let her move back in with me now so she can get a new job, get some stuff together in her life she needs to do,
Re: I just don't get it.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's how long he had to work to be able to afford them.
Re: I just don't get it.... (Score:2)
The embryos aren't theirs, they were abandoned sometime over the last 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The husband was in his 50's.... Why does anyone want to start a new family at that age? This guy is going to be in his early 70's before his kid even turns 21.
"Hey Nancy.... brought your grandpa with you shopping?" "No, that's my dad!"
I mean, I'm 51 and my kid turns 21 in about 5 more months. She already moved out on her own about 1 1/2 years ago. Had some issues with her b/f and I offered to let her move back in with me now so she can get a new job, get some stuff together in her life she needs to do, etc. But the thought of this being when I had a new baby to start taking care of? No way!
I had my last when I was 46. She's great.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I have a coworker who decided to have a second family in his late 40s and early 50s after his first marriage fell apart.
Dude just welcomed his 4th kid into the world at 53, the 2nd with wife #2. That kid will be graduating college when he's just about 75. Is he co-signing student loans for the kid?
I just don't know what must be wrong with your brain to think that having a college kid when you're in your 70s is a good idea.
In-vitro gametogenesis (Score:4, Interesting)
Hold on to your hats, IVG is coming in the next decade or two. IVG (in-vitro gametogenesis), will allow any cell (such as a skin cell) from a person, to be turned into an egg or sperm cell -- regardless of their gender. It is done by reverting a skin cell to a totipotent stem cell and then pushing it forwards to become a gamete cell (sperm or egg). To be clear, it means you can produce sperm from a woman's cells, or even egg cells from a man's. That means old, post-menopausal, women can have their own biological kids. It means gay men can have their own biological kids. What would right-wing religious nutcases have to say about that? It's worth doing, if only to troll religious idiots.
Re: (Score:1)
What would right-wing religious nutcases have to say about that?
They'll be too busy laughing at you, as none of that shit is ever going to happen. Just as the whole fetal stem-cell craze was largely a bust, this will end up the same way. You are never, ever going to turn a human skin cell, or any other kind of cell, into a healthy, functioning sperm or egg. And even if you COULD, what you're proposing... a sperm from a person fertilizing an egg from that same person... is basically the ultimate form of incest, which would surely result in turbocharged genetic damage.
It's worth doing, if only to troll religious idiots.
So
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In-vitro gametogenesis (Score:2)
Yes, he was:
To be clear, it means you can produce sperm from a woman's cells, or even egg cells from a man's. That means old, post-menopausal, women can have their own biological kids. It means gay men can have their own biological kids
When he wrote "have their own biological kids" what do you think he means?
What would right-wing religious nutcases have to say about that? It's worth doing, if only to troll religious idiots.
Oh, you're a childish fool, got it.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no reason to assume that the phrase "their own biological kids" must necessarily mean "only exclusively their own biological kids, without any partner as the other parent." In fact, the reference to homosexual individuals, specifically, implies otherwise: he was obviously imagining people having biological kids with a same-sex partner.
He's still a raving lunatic, but he was not talking about what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, incest is not being proposed you dumbass. I never said from the SAME person, that would be sick. You must have imagined it due to some repressed fantasy of yours. Anyway, thinking about it, it is no different than cloning .. and cloning has never been considered incest. What I was saying is that two unrelated males will have a kid using IVG technology, keep believing it can't be done. But we both have to agree that if it IS attained, it is God's will. Because God could easily have put in some physics sh
Re: (Score:2)
But we both have to agree that if it IS attained, it is God's will. Because God could easily have put in some physics shit to prevent it.
That doesn't make any sense at all. By that same idiotic "reasoning", nothing that happens could be against God's will. Do you even think about your nonsense for a second before posting?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, many religious people would tell you everything is God's will. Anyway, either my reasoning is idiotic, or God cannot exist because he'd have to be idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's obvious that it's your "reasoning" that's idiotic:
God cannot exist because he'd have to be idiotic.
This is somehow even less coherent than the last thing. You're really, really, bad at this.
Re: (Score:2)
Isaiah 45:7
Re: (Score:2)
Because all religious people are Christians who believe in a literal and inerrant bible... I expected a lot better out of you.
Re: (Score:3)
No, most Christians don't believe shit. They say they do, but the way they treat the poor makes it clear they didn't pay any attention to Christ at all.
Re: In-vitro gametogenesis (Score:2)
Explain this then:
To be clear, it means you can produce sperm from a woman's cells, or even egg cells from a man's. That means old, post-menopausal, women can have their own biological kids. It means gay men can have their own biological kids
When you wrote "have their own biological kids" what did you mean?
Their own implies no one else, aka 'all by themselves'
Re: (Score:2)
I meant old couples or lesbian/gay couples. Though what you suggest is possible too (and should probably be illegal if it already isn't), it really wasn't something that crossed my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not suggesting a sperm and egg from the same person, but I can understand your confusion. Like most of us, it's hard to see his username and not think "go fuck yourself".
Re: (Score:2)
It will also allow a woman who lost her ovaries to have a child to have a child with a man or a man with no sperm to have a child with a woman. So it will be developed. Of course, it is already in process with animals. That is a big market. Once developed for humans for any reason, it will allow all of those other cases. Just the way things work. If some state then bans it, go to another.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Generational Psychology (Score:2)
It might be interesting to see whether these kids end up exhibiting more traits of Millennials or of Gen Alpha. And yes, I realize that that is about is scientific as horoscopes, which is why I said interesting and not insightful. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe stop pumping out babies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why? (Score:2)
While I understand the scientific interest, it sounds to me they are taking useless risks and wouldn't want it for my kids.
Are we missing frozen embryos that bad? Don't we have enough frozen in the last 10 years? Aren't a big part of them going to the trash anyways? Why pick the oldest ones?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So if you affix a cybernetic blood oxygenator at the fetal stage and maintain that even after birth, it won't be a person? Blind adherence to scripture sure results in some logical quandaries.
So if life begins at conception.... (Score:5, Funny)
.... the parents can legally give them whiskey to make them go to sleep!
Re: (Score:2)
If life begins at conception and a state bans aborting a fetus older than some age, I guess all IVF embryos are considered to have been conceived and can never be thrown away if they pass the state's abortion age. The legal definition of conception does not include implantation. So they'll have to keep them till implantation regardless of cost. To dispose of them prior would put a medical professional in prison in some of these states.
Re: (Score:2)
Child abuse is now off the table.
Retirement age is going to be just after college.
Getting the Fields Medal just got much harder for them.
Sorry, the ball pit is for children 7 any younger... it's not for 30 year olds.
Poor kid is going to be hit with Megan's law if there is a disgruntled parent.
Prosecuted as an adult, "he's over 40 your honor".
Though probably eligible for a Geriatric early release while still healthy enough to enjoy it.
I figure this
Creepy Christians; Space Ships (Score:2)
On the one hand, these are creepy Christians who, if you bothered to scratch the surface on them, would undoubtedly hold a variety of truly reprehensible beliefs.
On the other hand, this means that genetic colonists for a potential space colony would possibly be a viable way to avoid genetic bottleneck.
Song reference (Score:2)
"We're just a couple of frozen embryos!" [youtube.com]