FYI: Hydatidiform Moles

[steen]

Where's the lie steen

In the claim that ssomething that lacks the structures that defines a fetus is somehow called a fetus.

most of this thread is other's words.

And I don't care, it still doesn't meet the requirement for being a fetus.

 

[Felicity]

In the claim that ssomething that lacks the structures that defines a fetus is somehow called a fetus.
And I don't care, it still doesn't meet the requirement for being a fetus.

No steen....it's not that it doesn't fit the definition of "fetus," it doesn't fit YOUR definition of fetus.

 

[Caine]

No steen....it's not that it doesn't fit the definition of "fetus," it doesn't fit YOUR definition of fetus.

Whats YOUR description of a fetus then? Hrm?

 

[Felicity]

Whats YOUR description of a fetus then? Hrm?

Well....probably the same as steen's....except that he seems to indicate that in the case of a partial mole, which developes from the placental portion of the conceptus somehow negates the "fetal" status of the developing "thing" in the mother's womb. I say it is a human, albeit with severe deformities. Steen denies it is anything.

My contention is that human life begins at conception--so, even if the fertilized ovum never develops past the zygote stage, it was a human that died. Nonetheless, some partial moles develop beyond that stage and do in fact reach the fetal stage of development.

Here is a picture. You can clearly SEE the baby! (Caution: it's not pretty...)
http://radiology.uchc.edu/eAtlas/GYN/152.htm
http://radiology.uchc.edu/eAtlas/GYN/152b.htm

 

[steen]

Well....probably the same as steen's....

Obviously not, as you see a fetus in the partial mole while I don't.

A fetus is the CONSINUATION of development after the embryonic stage, per the actual depositiong of the foundations of all major organ systems in the embryo. THAT is what makes it a fetus. So until you can show the foundation of all major organ systems in the partial mole, the claim of the partial mole fetus is simply ignorant nonsense.

except that he seems to indicate that in the case of a partial mole, which developes from the placental portion of the conceptus somehow negates the "fetal" status of the developing "thing" in the mother's womb.

Nope, you have not read carefully enough. It is negated by not having the structures necessary for it to fit the definition of a fetus.

I say it is a human, albeit with severe deformities.

And yes, that still is incredibly stupid.

Steen denies it is anything.

Nope. Why do you need to lie about my posts?

My contention is that human life begins at conception--so, even if the fertilized ovum never develops past the zygote stage, it was a human that died.

Which Aslo means that you claim the complete hydatidiform mole to be a human life. After all, it is the result of conception.

Nonetheless, some partial moles develop beyond that stage and do in fact reach the fetal stage of development.

Another false claim, as they do never have the structures necessary for them to be fetuses.

Here is a picture. You can clearly SEE the baby! (Caution: it's not pretty...)

There isn't a "baby" unitl aftre birth. You are again back to the spewing of deceptive, revisionist linguistic, prolife hyperbole.

http://radiology.uchc.edu/eAtlas/GYN/152.htm

A quote from that site:
" No embryo formation "
Without an embryo formation, it is not possible to form a fetus.

http://radiology.uchc.edu/eAtlas/GYN/152b.htm

I am still not seeing the documentation there of all the major organ systems having been laid down. Could you direct me to the evidence of this process?

 

[Felicity]

A quote from that site:
" No embryo formation "

The lengths you are going to to avoid having to admit you are wrong--or just shut up--is AMAZING! That is in the description for moles in general--note that "partial mole" is clarified. Haven't you asked your doctor friends about what they think--or are you too embarrassed?

Human life begins at CONCEPTION. There is CONCEPTION of human life in a partial molar pregnancy. Your bias against extremely deformed human beings is YOUR problem.

http://www.goshen.edu/bio/dvert/references.html#hydatidiform
Partial hydatidiform moles are triploid, with a double dose of paternal chromosomes, and show partial development of an embryo
In contrast to the complete hydatidiform mole, some evidence of embryonic development is usually found in partial hydatiform moles. Even if no embryo remnant can be found at the time the mole aborts or is delivered, the presence of typical nucleated embryonic erythroblasts in the molar villi indicates that an embryo was present. On rare occasions, an abnormal fetus is delivered. The swollen villi that are the hallmark of a complete mole are present only in patches, and the clinical symptoms that indicate a molar pregnancy---hypertension, edema, and vaginal bleeding---are usually milder and slower to develop than in the case of complete moles. Spontaneous abortion usually does not occur until the second trimester (4 to 6 months).
Studies have shown that these moles result from the insemination of an oocyte containing a female pronucleus by two spermatozoa or possibly by a single abnormal diploid sperm.

CliniWeb
Familyinternet
Alexis and Michelle Bensky

Source: The Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 16,1994. Volume 271
(p498L)
Title: Rapid diagnosis and classification of hydatidiform moles with polymerase
chain reaction.
Author: Rosemary A. Fisher and Edward S. Newlands
Summary: This article details the study of the polymerase chain reaction as a detection method for the hydatidiform mole. Through this study they proved that indeed the polymerase chain reaction was a rapid way to detect and categorize this developmental disorder.

 

[Felicity]

Just thought I'd keep this thread up to date with relevant exchanges from another thread....



The odyssey and evolution of steen’s mole argument....

Quote:
there is never a developing embryo to begin with.

Not so...what would you call a statement such as this? I can PROVE it’s false. I assume you are simply mistaken, but you would call a statement such as yours above A LIE (and probably write it in big red letters, to boot!).

Even if no embryo remnant can be found at the time the mole aborts or is delivered, the presence of typical nucleated embryonic erythroblasts in the molar villi indicates that an embryo was present. On rare occasions, an abnormal fetus is delivered. Source: The Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 16,1994. Volume 271 (p498L) http://www.goshen.edu/bio/dvert/refe...l#hydatidiform

Quote:
The fetus is what originates upon the maturity of the embryo per the laying down the foundation of organ structures

Okay....and....???

Quote:
And again, as the structures never even undergo a proper folding, it really isn't ever a blastocyst, let alone an embryo or a fetus.

Oh,....but that’s not so is it, steen. Again, does that make you a LIAR? Or merely mistaken?

Quote:
Actually, the elements going into the formation of the zygote are alive themselves. So your claim is still false.

Red herring...(and piteously transparent at that!). You darn well know we are talking about “individual human life”—you verbal gyrations notwithstanding.

Quote:
fetal tissue is what developes at the end of the embryonic stage per the laying down of all major organ systems.

Would you care to speculate as to why reference after reputable reference I supplied in that thread refer to “fetal” structures? The whole medical world is wrong but YOU? I doubt it.

Quote:
Why? They are not making false claims about embryos.

Oh....so you changed your mind about the presence of embryos? Is that an admission of your error?

Quote:
It points out that cells with NORMAL genetic material, such as that after a miscarriage, or per remaining placental tissue after birth can develop into a fetus.

(I think you meant “can develop into a MOLE”)

Quote:
A fetus is a very specific entity with all the major organ system foundations laid down. Such structures are not uniformly laid down in either a partial, nor a complete hydatidiform mole.

So, why are all these sources “lying” steen? What’s the agenda???



Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
most of this thread is other's words.

And I don't care, it still doesn't meet the requirement for being a fetus.

“I don’t care” says it all...

The fact is, all you care about is preserving your narcissistic mirage. You’re in the psych field....does the description of the Narcissist feel like you’re reading your autobiography?

Quote:
A fetus is the CONSINUATION of development after the embryonic stage, per the actual depositiong of the foundations of all major organ systems in the embryo. THAT is what makes it a fetus.

Do you mean conTinuation? So you mean development occurs on a fashion where one developmental stage follows another? Like after the fetal stage comes the neonate stage, then infant, toddler, etc...? Yes...I agree then...

Quote:
Which Aslo means that you claim the complete hydatidiform mole to be a human life. After all, it is the result of conception.

And as your sig. line notes—I said a partial mole because it is a unique individual. Talk about revisionist linguistics—SPIN, baby, SPIN....

Quote:
A quote from that site:
" No embryo formation "
Without an embryo formation, it is not possible to form a fetus.

Back to that eh....well...that is so for a complete mole...BUT NOT for a partial mole and you KNOW it despite all your denial!

 

[Felicity]

......:cheers: .......
*bump* for the benefit of our friend steen.....

 

[Ethereal]

None of you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Allow me to explain...

Moles are members of the family (Talpidae) of mammals in the order Insectivora that live underground, burrowing holes. Some species are aquatic or semi-aquatic. They have cylindrical bodies covered in fur with small or covered eyes; the ears are generally not visible. They feed on small invertebrate animals living under ground. Moles can be found in North America, Europe and Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(animal)

Case closed!

 

[steen]

Try "hydatidiform mole." Wanna see one:
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PLACHTML/PLAC062.html

 

[Ethereal]

Wow. Thank you for clearing that up, steen. I couldn't have done it without you...

 

[Felicity]

Try "hydatidiform mole." Wanna see one:
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PLACHTML/PLAC062.html

So is that a partial mole...or a complete mole...(ethereal...I know yours is a "common" mole :lol: )

Remeber, steen...I already linked to PARTIAL mole pics....
http://radiology.uchc.edu/eAtlas/GYN/152.htm
http://radiology.uchc.edu/eAtlas/GYN/152b.htm


...but even so...even if the baby wasn't able to be CLEARLY seen...in a mass that is a partial mole--there once was an INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE there...:roll:

 

[Felicity]

bump...


He mentioned the moles again...:roll:

 

[Felicity]

and mentioned again... :2bump:

 

[Felicity]

Sorry...another bump is necessary... :shock:

 

[Felicity]

Steen is really on a "twist the pro-life words and give only partial responses so as to be enigmatic and purposefully confusing" roll these days....

But they can not state the DNA came from an individual, a "being." DNA makes no such determination. They can not tell the DNA from a hydatidiform mole apart from any "regular" DNA

Huh? It is not my fault that you seem utterly ignorant of the point I am raising

Really? They would say that? How would they know it was "mutated" DNA? Would it show up differently than "regular" DNA? I would be VERY curious as to how you would determine the mutational aspect

If they read a code ACCGCA, and one as ACGGCA, how would they know which is mutated? Your claim is ignorant and bogus.[/COLOR]

Well, that is a rather absolutist claim. Please show how they can distinguish between a hydatidiform mole and a "normal" fetus.

No? Perhaps you shouldn't spout nonsense about stuff you are clueless about

And how would you know it was not a twin?

Yes, a claim of the DNA showing individuality. This would also be true for a hydatidiform mole.

And this ALSO would be true for a hydatidiform mole DNA

And again, the hydatidiform mole also would hold unique DNA.

And that DNA is similar to the DNA in the hydatidiform mole as well.

So in EVERY case, when there has been claims of individuality and DNA demonstrating uniqueness, life, personhood or whatever the pro-life argument about DNA is that day, the same argument would apply to the hydatidiform mole per the pro-lifer. That is my point, that the pro-life claims regarding what DNA shows is utterly bogus and ignorant
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=238063#post238063

I ignored it for a while but he keeps pushing the "mole" stance and isn't being honest about it...so here we bump again....