- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Frozen embryo from 1994 born as world’s oldest baby
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:10 pm
LINK

quote:
A baby boy born over the weekend holds the new record for the “oldest baby.” Thaddeus Daniel Pierce, who arrived on July 26, developed from an embryo that had been in storage for 30 and a half years.
“We had a rough birth but we are both doing well now,” says Lindsey Pierce, his mother. “He is so chill. We are in awe that we have this precious baby!”
Lindsey and her husband, Tim Pierce, who live in London, Ohio, “adopted” the embryo from a woman who had it created in 1994. She says her family and church family think “it’s like something from a sci-fi movie.”
“The baby has a 30-year-old sister,” she adds. Tim was a toddler when the embryos were first created.
“It’s been pretty surreal,” says Linda Archerd, 62, who donated the embryo. “It’s hard to even believe.”
Three little hopes
The story starts back in the early 1990s. Archerd had been trying—and failing—to get pregnant for six years. She and her husband decided to try IVF, a fairly new technology at the time. “People were [unfamiliar] with it,” says Archerd. “A lot of people were like, what are you doing?”
They did it anyway, and in May 1994, they managed to create four embryos. One of them was transferred to Linda’s uterus. It resulted in a healthy baby girl. “I was so blessed to have a baby,” Archerd says. The remaining three embryos were cryopreserved and kept in a storage tank.
That was 31 years ago. The healthy baby girl is now a 30-year-old woman who has her own 10-year-old daughter. But the other three embryos remained frozen in time.
Archerd originally planned to use the embryos herself. “I always wanted another baby desperately,” she says. “I called them my three little hopes.” Her then husband felt differently, she says. Archerd went on to divorce him, but she won custody of the embryos and kept them in storage, still hopeful she might use them one day, perhaps with another partner.
That meant paying annual storage fees, which increased over time and ended up costing Archerd around a thousand dollars a year, she says. To her, it was worth it. “I always thought it was the right thing to do,” she says.
Things changed when she started going through menopause, she says. She considered her options. She didn’t want to discard the embryos or donate them for research. And she didn’t want to donate them to another family anonymously—she wanted to meet the parents and any resulting babies. “It’s my DNA; it came from me … and [it’s] my daughter’s sibling,” she says.
Then she found out about embryo “adoption.” This is a type of embryo donation in which both donors and recipients have a say in whom they “place” their embryos with or “adopt” them from. It is overseen by agencies—usually explicitly religious ones—that believe an embryo is morally equivalent to a born human. Archerd is Christian.
There are several agencies that offer these adoption services in the US, but not all of them accept embryos that have been stored for a very long time. That’s partly because those embryos will have been frozen and stored in unfamiliar, old-fashioned ways, and partly because old embryos are thought to be less likely to survive thawing and transfer to successfully develop into a baby.
“So many places wouldn’t even take my information,” says Archerd. Then she came across the Snowflakes program run by the Nightlight Christian Adoptions agency. The agency was willing to accept her embryos, but it needed Archerd’s medical records from the time the embryos had been created, as well as the embryos’ lab records.
So Archerd called the fertility doctor who had treated her decades before. “I still remembered his phone number by heart,” she says. That doctor, now in his 70s, is still practicing at a clinic in Oregon. He dug Archerd’s records out from his basement, she says. “Some of [them] were handwritten,” she adds. Her embryos entered Nightlight’s “matching pool” in 2022.

Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:23 pm to hawgfaninc
So the article implies age started at fertilization not birth……
Interesting….
Interesting….
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:25 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
So the article implies age started at fertilization not birth……
Interesting….
Seems like an overlooked inconvenient truth by the MIT Tech author
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:25 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
The remaining three embryos were cryopreserved
quote:well, no shite
“He is so chill.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:26 pm to cbree88
quote:
Strange
The strange part is that the biological parents for whatever reason did not attempt to give birth to their child and waited 30 years before bringing this child into this world via adoption. I'm sure they had their reasons.
If you've gone through the IVF process then you know the freezing of embryos is common. In some states the law will not allow Dr's to discard or destroy viable embryos. Therefore, the parents are required to freeze the embryos and pay storage on for the embryos until the family is ready to attempt yo have another child. As part of the process you have to basically set up custody of the embryos in the event of a divorce or untimely death of the mother. Unfortunately, the embryos have 65% chance of surviving the thaw cycle.
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:32 pm to hawgfaninc
I wish our species had as much interest in managing our population as we do in finding ways to have more babies.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:33 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
world’s oldest baby
isn't its mom the LSU wbb corch?
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:47 pm to armytiger96
quote:
The strange part is that the biological parents for whatever reason did not attempt to give birth to their child and waited 30 years before bringing this child into this world via adoption. I'm sure they had their reasons.
They never read the whole post.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:49 pm to Kentucker
quote:
I wish our species had as much interest in managing our population as we do in finding ways to have more babies.
We need more people, not less. The problem is WHO is having the babies.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:05 pm to hawgfaninc
Saw the teaser on the local news.
Here I was thinking it was cooking way past its due date.
Here I was thinking it was cooking way past its due date.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:10 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
Archerd originally planned to use the embryos herself. “I always wanted another baby desperately,” she says. “I called them my three little hopes.” Her then husband felt differently, she says. Archerd went on to divorce him, but she won custody of the embryos and kept them in storage, still hopeful she might use them one day, perhaps with another partner.
What in the actual frick.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:11 pm to hawgfaninc
That little shite needs to stop freeloading and get a damn job!
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:14 pm to hawgfaninc
I actually find this interesting and wonder if complications would come up in this persons life from being an old embryo.
Or maybe old embryos you get less autistics since everyone under 30 seems to be on the spectrum.
Or maybe old embryos you get less autistics since everyone under 30 seems to be on the spectrum.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:16 pm to Kentucker
quote:
I wish our species had as much interest in managing our population
Aren’t birth rates actually down?
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:18 pm to hawgfaninc
The kid is gonna be cute as a button.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:18 pm to LegendInMyMind
Wrong sex for Belichick.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:37 pm to Havoc
quote:
They never read the whole post
Yeah I went back and read the article after I posted and decided to not edit my post b/c I still figured my response was relevant.
Popular
Back to top


22










