In the claim that ssomething that lacks the structures that defines a fetus is somehow called a fetus.Felicity said:Where's the lie steen
And I don't care, it still doesn't meet the requirement for being a fetus.most of this thread is other's words.
steen said: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.
Felicity said:No steen....it's not that it doesn't fit the definition of "fetus," it doesn't fit YOUR definition of fetus.
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.Caine said:Whats YOUR description of a fetus then? Hrm?
Obviously not, as you see a fetus in the partial mole while I don't.Felicity said:Well....probably the same as steen's....
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.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.
And yes, that still is incredibly stupid.I say it is a human, albeit with severe deformities.
Nope. Why do you need to lie about my posts?Steen denies it is anything.
Which Aslo means that you claim the complete hydatidiform mole to be a human life. After all, it is the result of conception.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.
Another false claim, as they do never have the structures necessary for them to be fetuses.Nonetheless, some partial moles develop beyond that stage and do in fact reach the fetal stage of development.
There isn't a "baby" unitl aftre birth. You are again back to the spewing of deceptive, revisionist linguistic, prolife hyperbole.Here is a picture. You can clearly SEE the baby! (Caution: it's not pretty...)
A quote from that site:
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?
steen said:A quote from that site:
" No embryo formation "
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.
Quote:
there is never a developing embryo to begin with.
Quote:
The fetus is what originates upon the maturity of the embryo per the laying down the foundation of organ structures
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.
Quote:
Actually, the elements going into the formation of the zygote are alive themselves. So your claim is still false.
Quote:
fetal tissue is what developes at the end of the embryonic stage per the laying down of all major organ systems.
Quote:
Why? They are not making false claims about embryos.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Which Aslo means that you claim the complete hydatidiform mole to be a human life. After all, it is the result of conception.
Quote:
A quote from that site:
" No embryo formation "
Without an embryo formation, it is not possible to form a fetus.
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.
So is that a partial mole...or a complete mole...(ethereal...I know yours is a "common" mole :lol: )steen said:Try "hydatidiform mole." Wanna see one:
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PLACHTML/PLAC062.html
steen said: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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?