What happens to test tube embryos that are never implanted into a womb? Does anyone know or care?

The answer is that very little of the people who care about the sacrifice of children for false healing through embryonic research also care about the children that die as a sacrifice to other children in In Vitro Fertalization.

The reason for this? The first and most common reason is lack of knowledge. Very few people actualy know the In Vitro Fertalization kills more children than it "creates."

The second, still prominent, reason is hypocrisy. Many pro-lifers fail to apply that same standards that have towards surgical abortion to all life. We can see this in numerous ways, and on of them is the common stance on In Vitro.

Pro-lifers, it's time to stop.

Some are maintained some are destroyed, some are adopted, and I believe that some are donated to research but I'm not sure. its an ethical dilemma that is faced by the people who use IVF. I don't envy them they cost and pain of the procedures or the difficult decisions they have to make when they have the number of children they are going to have. Many have a hard time making the decision as to what to do with the ones that are left.

As a single woman over 40 with no children I would hope that the families would allow the embryos to be adopted or donated just as a person would do if a person was on life support and not going to recover. Allow that life to make a difference.

Well, I wasn't aware they just threw them out. They should consider adopting them out. There are families that would love a child. Better then killing them.

I think they could be used to help rather than be killed. Maybe for research or like I said I know that some couples would do anything to have a child and why not have an option open to adopt an embryo? It doesnt make sense to just dispose of a life in such away. People do anything to try and have a child to the point of having these embryos then why not help others out who may not even have that option.

Over all, The laws in "developed" countries have an underdeveloped ethical understanding for reproductive issues. That lack of understanding results, in large part, from the overvaluation of convenience.

I care about what happens to the HUMAN embryo, for I recognize his/her humanity. Developing human beings are still human beings. We are all in the process of developing throughout our lives, regardless of our age. Human embryonic cryopreservation is interesting because it is about the only thing that can apparently stop human development without completely destroying the embryo. This cryopreservation is ageistic because it works against the growth process of human life. What rights do "frozen" human beings have? I think they have the developmental right for the progression of their lives.

However, many persons dehumanize the unborn and have no care for issues such as embryonic cryopreservation and the subsequent disposal of the "unnecessary" unborn. Those ageists ignore that the age at which human beings inherently merit respect is at conception, and that actual human development occurs before birth, not only after. Take abortion as another example. Terribly, too many persons unjustly just do not care. It is politically and reproductively inconvenient for them to care.

In some countries unclaimed embyos are used in stem cell research. The last article I read said that the US and Canada are falling very behind in this area of research because they are having trouble getting approval from the government to do the same.

In response to several of the answers, the problem with allowing other couples to adopt those embryos is that most couples do not have fertility issues on both sides. Its very rare that neither the husband or the wife are both unable to participate in reproduction. I'm sure there would be a few isolated couples that might be interested in adopting one of these embryos, but the demand could hardly meet the supply. There might be some lesbian couples who would be interested in this, but oh my god, that would be even more wrong ... right? *sarcasm*

Allowing stem cell research on the "leftovers" from IVF would be a great way to give these children a purpose instead of simply disposing of them. It would solve both problems -- researchers would have access to pluri-potent stem cells, and no life would be created for the sole purpose of being destroyed. I can't understand the problem.

this is a form of an ethics dilemma since life is involve, morality is basis of argument against for it. However, whether these "embryos" are considered humans or not, the potentiality of these embryos is the main concerns for many.

I think I am getting into this question late... but what the heck.

I was under the assumption that these embryos were considered to be the "property" of the parents and that they, and only they, could choose to destroy them, donate them to another potential candidate or use them.

In any way... the "owners" can choose to have them destroyed I think...

Some are kept frozen at the expense of the biological parents and adopted! the organizaion is called SnowFlakes.

Actually, there's at least one organization out there that 'adopts' them to implant in women - kinda like a sperm donor, but it's not related at all to you.

But yes, the VAST majority are disposed of, even though they could potentially save lives.

It reminds me of the restrictions we used to have on disecting bodies of dead people. Anatomical science was forbidden for hundreds of years - imagine how much faster we could have had modern medicine if doctors were allowed to even look inside a dead body. The bodies, like the blastocysts, were simply being disposed of. What a waste.