Abortion.

[inked]

Nurv,

You really need to get with embryology! The mother is not operating any of the zygote's, embryo's, or fetus' organs at any time during pregnancy.

egg + sperm = zygote

zygote multiplies to blastocyst and implants in the endometrium

blastocyst multiplies to form membranes (amnion and chorion) and embryo

embryo undergoes organogenesis (organ development) to form fetus

fetus (lucky enough to escape the currette or suction catheter) is "baby"

So, the mother provides a supportive environment but doesn't operate "baby"

Baby = zygote + Oxygen + nutrients + time

That's the Cliff Notes version, of course.

[Nurvingiel]

Welcome back Inked!

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv,

You really need to get with embryology! The mother is not operating any of the zygote's, embryo's, or fetus' organs at any time during pregnancy.

Oh. Correction to follow.

It's nice to have a doctor in this thread, because now I can ask you a zillion questions. (Unless you have some real patients to attend to. )

Originally Posted by inked

egg + sperm = zygote

Zygotes have come up in this thread.

Originally Posted by inked

zygote multiplies to blastocyst and implants in the endometrium

What's the endometrium? The lining of the womb?

Originally Posted by inked

blastocyst multiplies to form membranes (amnion and chorion) and embryo

embryo undergoes organogenesis (organ development) to form fetus

This takes eight weeks, right?

Originally Posted by inked

fetus (lucky enough to escape the currette or suction catheter) is "baby"

LOL.

Originally Posted by inked

So, the mother provides a supportive environment but doesn't operate "baby"

I probably misworded my post when I said "operates", but now I have questions.

1. How does the foetus get oxygen?
2. The mother provides the necessary (pickle and ice-cream infused) nutrients through the blood stream, right? Does this mean the foetus has the same blood as the mother?

Originally Posted by inked

Baby = zygote + Oxygen + nutrients + time

That's the Cliff Notes version, of course.

I love your Cliff Notes. Too bad you weren't in my cell biology class.

[Spock]

The Moot will confir no degree in biology nor pre-natal care or any field of a medical nature.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's the endometrium? The lining of the womb?

1. How does the foetus get oxygen?
2. The mother provides the necessary (pickle and ice-cream infused) nutrients through the blood stream, right? Does this mean the foetus has the same blood as the mother?

yes endometrium is the lining of the uterus. The fetus and mother do not share blood. it doesn't mix while in utero. as far as the oxygen supply...it's kinda complicated but the umbilical cord plays a crucial role in it as the lungs do not function until the fetus is born (and even then there are problems if they are not fully developed as they are the last organ to fully develop). this is why it is so important for mothers not to smoke during pregnancy b/c it deprives the fetus of oxygen since it deprives the mother herself of oxygen.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But the word you used wasn't "dangerous" but "wrong".

"Wrong" would work as well. Remember, I'm a pragmatist: dangerous for society = wrong.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And do you know from intense in-depth study of laws in the history of this country, or from opinion based on a few isolated examples?

Opinion based on a lot of cases.

Laws are relative things. As I explained earlier, even the murder of innocents, while not desired, is accepted in certain situations for what is perceived as a greater good (i.e. wartime).

Laws which are generally agreed upon work well. Laws which many people disagree with don't work that well.

The "why" is simple. If you agree with a law, you would probably follow it whether it was a law or not. If you disagree with a law, you might follow it anyway because it is a law, or you might decide that it is so inane that you will ignore it.

And if you pass a law that a large portion of the population disagree with, you will have real trouble. Some examples of laws that failed because so many disagreed with them: prohabition, voting laws against women, interracial marriage laws, many of the laws passed to promote equal opportunity (quotas, student bussing, etc.).

I think very few pro-lifers think about the consequences of making abortion illegal. This would make abortion pre-meditated murder. Are we willing to give a 16-year-old the death penalty for deciding to abort? What would be the public reaction when the jails began to fill up? Or would we just make it like a speeding ticket? A few hundred dollars if caught in an illegal abortion.

Add to that what I mentioned earlier, actually providing for these kids, and mothers, we claim to care so much about but forget the second they leave their mother's womb.

I just had my fourth child. I have full health insurance through my job (blue cross/blue shield). Last week I got a bill for $500.00. I found out that there is now a $500.00 deductible for each and every inpatient visit, which my wife's delivery was. My wife's friend had to go in twice while pregnant for overnight monitoring in addition to her delivery, so she ended up owing $1,500.00.

Neither of these would have made us choose to abort, but I have to imagine those costs could be a pretty big hit on many people's income, and I'm not just talking about the poor. $1,500.00 is a big bill even for a middle class family.

Saying, "outlaw abortion" and the rest will just work itself out is like saying "outlaw murder" and then not even bothering to employ police. It's irresponsible.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I just had my fourth child. I have full health insurance through my job (blue cross/blue shield). Last week I got a bill for $500.00. I found out that there is now a $500.00 deductible for each and every inpatient visit, which my wife's delivery was. My wife's friend had to go in twice while pregnant for overnight monitoring in addition to her delivery, so she ended up owing $1,500.00.

Neither of these would have made us choose to abort, but I have to imagine those costs could be a pretty big hit on many people's income, and I'm not just talking about the poor. $1,500.00 is a big bill even for a middle class family.

Saying, "outlaw abortion" and the rest will just work itself out is like saying "outlaw murder" and then not even bothering to employ police. It's irresponsible.

poorer individuals can get on medicaid. then they only have to pay like $35 a month for it. there is medicaid for pregnant women and the amount you have to make to qualify for it is actually reasonable.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

poorer individuals can get on medicaid. then they only have to pay like $35 a month for it. there is medicaid for pregnant women and the amount you have to make to qualify for it is actually reasonable.

The US does do many things in this regard, but it is far from comprehensive and there are lines drawn where you are either considered poor or not poor. As I said, $1,500 is a big bill even for a middle class family, and even $35 a month is difficult for some.

If we really want to encourage people to make the choice not to abort (whether it remains legal or not), we must do everything we can to change the environment that leads people to see it as a more positive choice.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The US does do many things in this regard, but it is far from comprehensive and there are lines drawn where you are either considered poor or not poor. As I said, $1,500 is a big bill even for a middle class family, and even $35 a month is difficult for some.

oh I agree, the medical bills were ridiculous when I was pregnant. I'm not sure how much a person has to pay for medicaid, but I think it is divided into how much you make with the poorest having to pay nothing then.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Welcome back Inked!
Oh. Correction to follow.

It's nice to have a doctor in this thread, because now I can ask you a zillion questions. (Unless you have some real patients to attend to. )

Zygotes have come up in this thread.

What's the endometrium? The lining of the womb?

This takes eight weeks, right?

LOL.

I probably misworded my post when I said "operates", but now I have questions.

1. How does the foetus get oxygen?
2. The mother provides the necessary (pickle and ice-cream infused) nutrients through the blood stream, right? Does this mean the foetus has the same blood as the mother?


I love your Cliff Notes. Too bad you weren't in my cell biology class.

The lining of the womb is the endometrium. This is shed during menses if no pregnancy occurs each month. If the correct hormonal signals are sent by the PGcy, the endometrium is retained and serves as the medium into which the chorionic villi implant and develop ito the placenta or afterbirth.

Organogenesis takes place from day 15 to day 60 of the embryo. This is about 8 weeks of development in the process. Remember that no embryo can be present before fertilization since that requires release of the egg. Ovulation takes about 2 weeks from the first day of the last menses. So, the organogenetic period is from 4 weeks (missed menses) to 12 weeks (8 weeks of development later). The reason for the confusion in dating is that menses are the single most clinically reliable datum from which to date a PGcy in most of the world, but when compared to sonographic dating is only correct about 80 % of the time.

Embryonic and fetal oxygenation occur by transfusion of the O2 from the mother's tissues and red blood cells to the embryonic and fetal environment. Initially this is a passive transfusion process, but once the fetal blood cells and heart begin function it is more than passive. Fetal hemoglobin is able to bind tighter to O2 than maternal hemoglobin so there is a predilection for the O2 to move into the embryonic/fetal circulation. The chorionic villi/placenta interpenetrate the endometrium to maximize the surface area available for diffusion of O2 and nutrients across the thin membranes that allow the diffusion to occur without the co-mingling of the blood of the infant and the mother.

Mother and baby may share the same blood type (A, B, AB, O) and rhesus factor (rH - status) or they may not. That's a genetically determined reality for the explanation of which I ask that you recall your High School biology. If the types differ in the major blood groups, mothers' antibodies may attack the fetal blood cells. The classic example is rH incompatability where the mother must be rH-NEGATIVE and the embryo/fetus rH-POSITIVE. If some of the infant bllod cells leak into the maternal circulation, they are regarded as "foreign" by the immune system (which of course they are, they come from a different individual). The immune system produces first, IgM antibodies which are too big to cross the placental membrane barrier pores, but then, secondly, develops IgG antibodies which are small enough to cross the placental barrier. The IgG antibodies then bind to the infant blood cells and cause them to lyse. This results in anemia of the infant in utero. The consequences range from serious anemia and brain damage to death in the infant (if untreated). First pregnancies may not be affected due to the timing of the leak, but if it occurs early enough, they can be. It takes about three months to move from IgM to IgG production. The real problem comes in a subsequent pregnancy when the massive production of IgG occurs by the anamnestic response to a minute exposure to the fetal blood. This process can be circumvented by the use of exogenous IgG injections to remove the fetal cells before they induce antibodies in the mother who is rH-negative. This disease process is called rH disease, hemolytic disease of the newborn, erythroblastosis fetalis, or hydrops fetalis - depending on the degree. It once affected 9-10% of pregnancies and was a major cause of illness and death.

Kudos to Arien the Maia for the foregoing:
"yes endometrium is the lining of the uterus. The fetus and mother do not share blood. it doesn't mix while in utero. as far as the oxygen supply...it's kinda complicated but the umbilical cord plays a crucial role in it as the lungs do not function until the fetus is born (and even then there are problems if they are not fully developed as they are the last organ to fully develop). this is why it is so important for mothers not to smoke during pregnancy b/c it deprives the fetus of oxygen since it deprives the mother herself of oxygen."

But if I may expound on the placenta and umbilical cord and fetal blood...
Blood flow through the maternal circulation is changed by pregnancy so as to facilitate blood flow to the uterus and hence the placenta. Alterations in maternal blood pressure can affect the flow and thence the baby. Too little and the flow can't provide enough O2 and nutrients, but too high can damage the placenta and even blow it off the wall of the womb! Strokes in the placenta ("infarctions) have the same net effect of reducing the flow and the surface area thus the O2 and nutrients. Cigarettes have the effect of increasing the flow by vasoconstriction while increasing the pressure and can lead to infarction or abruption (partial separation of the placenta from the endometrium). Neither are good for the baby.

The umbilical cord connects the placenta to the infant. It can become tangled or knotted and restrict flow or stop it. It can develop hematomas or tumors to reduce flow or stop it. In can entangle the baby's extremities or become compressed and do the same. But the placenta, the cord, and the baby all come from the zygote. Mom is the space capsule, so to speak, but she is not the astronaut.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by inked

Kudos to Arien the Maia for the foregoing:
"yes endometrium is the lining of the uterus. The fetus and mother do not share blood. it doesn't mix while in utero. as far as the oxygen supply...it's kinda complicated but the umbilical cord plays a crucial role in it as the lungs do not function until the fetus is born (and even then there are problems if they are not fully developed as they are the last organ to fully develop). this is why it is so important for mothers not to smoke during pregnancy b/c it deprives the fetus of oxygen since it deprives the mother herself of oxygen."

But if I may expound on the placenta and umbilical cord and fetal blood...
Blood flow through the maternal circulation is changed by pregnancy so as to facilitate blood flow to the uterus and hence the placenta. Alterations in maternal blood pressure can affect the flow and thence the baby. Too little and the flow can't provide enough O2 and nutrients, but too high can damage the placenta and even blow it off the wall of the womb! Strokes in the placenta ("infarctions) have the same net effect of reducing the flow and the surface area thus the O2 and nutrients. Cigarettes have the effect of increasing the flow by vasoconstriction while increasing the pressure and can lead to infarction or abruption (partial separation of the placenta from the endometrium). Neither are good for the baby.

The umbilical cord connects the placenta to the infant. It can become tangled or knotted and restrict flow or stop it. It can develop hematomas or tumors to reduce flow or stop it. In can entangle the baby's extremities or become compressed and do the same. But the placenta, the cord, and the baby all come from the zygote. Mom is the space capsule, so to speak, but she is not the astronaut.

no prob. I really did pay attention in my anatomy classes this summer! lol but I was too lazy to go get my notes and expand on my explanation so thanks for doing so!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Because the joey can't survive outside the pouch any better than a baby who is not fed by a parent.

But the point is, the baby can survive with parental care, but I'm pretty sure the joey couldn't survive out of the pouch, even with care.

I feel the usefulness of the joey comparison has exhausted itself.

I don't, but all right.

Conjoined twins are far from being a two-headed person. Depending on the level of conjoined-ness, they could share a lung or a kidney, and maybe another organ.

Doing what now? And what are their husbands doing?!

Visiting Jean Paul Sartre to find out whether his novel is an allegory for man's search for commitment.

Is a sperm half a person then? Or an egg?

I certainly wouldn't say so. Is milk half of chocolate milk, and the cocoa the other half? When two things join to make a third, I think it can rarely be said that either is half of the third. Indeed, often the whole is more than the sum of the parts, as in the above example. And any who debate that will be burnt at the stake for blaspheming chocolate milk.

... which I would totally watch.

The Killer Liver... FROM OUTER SPACE!!!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But the point is, the baby can survive with parental care, but I'm pretty sure the joey couldn't survive out of the pouch, even with care.

The reason I feel the usefulness of the joey debate has exhausted itself is because human mother's don't have a pouch-like support mechanism for newborn infants. So, how can we really compare the state of development and whether or not this means the newbord is part of the mother's body or not when we don't have the same stages of development?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Visiting Jean Paul Sartre to find out whether his novel is an allegory for man's search for commitment.

I forget what we were talking about, but that was cool anyway.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I certainly wouldn't say so. Is milk half of chocolate milk, and the cocoa the other half? When two things join to make a third, I think it can rarely be said that either is half of the third. Indeed, often the whole is more than the sum of the parts, as in the above example. And any who debate that will be burnt at the stake for blaspheming chocolate milk.

I agree that the whole is often more than a sum of its parts.

I now offer thee a Holy Carton of Chocolate Milk, with a Blessed Straw of Sipping.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The Killer Liver... FROM OUTER SPACE!!!

Should we be concerned about how much we joke in this thread?

... nah...

Also: Killer Liver from Outer Space art forthcoming.

Inked, I did start reading your post, but... well, I didn't pay as much attention in Biology as Arien did. Also, I never took human anatomy. Maybe that helps.

Do you feel like Cliff Noting again? Because that was awesome last time. Besides, you know how lazy I am about reading scientific articles and studies.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvi

The reason I feel the usefulness of the joey debate has exhausted itself is because human mother's don't have a pouch-like support mechanism for newborn infants. So, how can we really compare the state of development and whether or not this means the newbord is part of the mother's body or not when we don't have the same stages of development?

What I'm trying to do is nail down exactly what it is that is considered to reduce the infant to essentially the rank of a pancreas. Clearly, it's not needing the enclosed space, nor deriving full sustenance from the mother, as these are true of the joey as well. So what is it?

Originally Posted by Nurv

I forget what we were talking about, but that was cool anyway.

Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion epic voyage (interrupting Njorl's Saga) for answers from Sartre; see Monty Python's Flying Circus, Season 3.

I now offer thee a Holy Carton of Chocolate Milk, with a Blessed Straw of Sipping.

Awed by the magnificence, and even the absurdity of this great occasion, I accept.

Should we be concerned about how much we joke in this thread?

... nah...

Once again, I concur.

*more champagne*

[inked]

GW, Nurv has a short attention span at times. See her response to me above.

She has difficulty with anything other than Cliff Notes and sometimes those, too.

May I be of assistance?

Sperm + egg = zygote
translation: Nurv's dad's DNA + Nurv's mom's DNA = zygoteNURV

zygote + O2 + nutrition + time = baby
translation: ZygoteNURV + oxygen + nutrition + time = babyNURV

babyNURV + O2 + nutrition + time = NURVtoday

I hope that this has been useful.

NOW, at what point was NURV NURV? NURV?

[hectorberlioz]

Everytime I think I've made a good point, my post is overlooked...*grumbles*...

[Nurvingiel]

I'm sorry Hector, I didn't mean to ignore your post. (I would address it now, but I'm going to apply my incredibly miniscule attention span to a forest policy paper.)

Inked, don't you take that tone with me young man! Short attention span indeed! What I really have is a low tolerance for syllabic-intense, needlessly technical posts.

EDIT: Ah, what the heck. It's almost bedtime, I'll finish the paper tomorrow.

Hector, were you referring to this post?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

What about all the geniuses we might have killed? And "Horrendous existence" really depends on who aborted. I heard somewhere that there was a poll that indicated that the majority of abortions were for superficial reasons...

I DO NOT BACK THAT UP, I have not seen the poll nor found it. But there are other reasons for aborting a child than just "horrendous existence".

If you want to talk about such a poll (on reasons for abortion), you would have to find it. I think it would be fairly difficult to conduct a study on this, because people might be very hesitant to say why they were having one.

[hectorberlioz]

No no, it's further back...but never mind. Thanks though

[brownjenkins]

So conservative South Dakota rejects an abortion ban.

Story

It seems to me that this basically means that abortion, in some form or another, is here to stay in America.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So conservative South Dakota rejects an abortion ban.

Story

It seems to me that this basically means that abortion, in some form or another, is here to stay in America.

Yeah probably so, the problem is its been going on for 30 years and people are totally numb to it all. Change is very unlikely especially with Dem majority congress.

[hectorberlioz]

Now BJ, let's not omit that "...in the case of incest, rape etc..." was part of the language of the Amendment. I think that says something about the voters standing on more specific grounds than just "pro, con".


I think the dems finally found that Lost City of Voters that William Galston talks about in his famous 1989 essay "Politics of Evasion: Democrats and the Presidency"

I certainly have noticed a campus effort to "encourage people to vote"....fine and good, but I'd make sure to add that voters should know not just names but the issues...I encourage voting, but I don't encourage Stupid Voting.