Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Blurring the Line Between Pregnancy and Non-Pregnancy - JREF Forum
This is the sequel to my previous thread about Life and Death ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140404 ).
Now, it is time to blur the line between "pregnancy" and "non-pregnancy".
I have been reminded, a few times now, about how pregancy is being modeled as a tumor, by researchers.
(So, when does the tumor end, and the baby begin?) References to that would be nice.
Would someone with a dermoid tumor be modeled as "pregnant", in any serious studies?
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermoid_cyst
What other ways can be blur this line?
What happens when only part of a sperm fertilizes an egg?
What if a fertilized egg does not attach to the uterus properly, and is naturally aborted?
What if the fertilized egg fails to develop into an embryo, but into...
Something else (God knows what)?
What if we develop the technology to coax any cells into becoming fully viable embryos?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Interesting line of discussion but the problem isn't whether or not a cell is alive, or where it is growing.
The question here is whether the 'life' has the potential to split off from the host and continue an independent existence.
And actually, a tumor which did just that has become a contagious cancer spreading and even threatening the species of Tasmanian Devils.
Devil Facial Tumour Disease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then there is a teratoma.
In that case the same cells that might have grown a life, grew into a tumor instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Wowbagger Now, it is time to blur the line between "pregnancy" and "non-pregnancy".
I don't see the problem.
Pregnant = fertilised egg attaching itself to the uterine wall - or fallopian tube, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.
No attachment, no pregnancy, because all you have is a fertilised egg, which like a sperm and an unfertilised egg, is only a potential pregnancy.
Originally Posted by Wowbagger I have been reminded, a few times now, about how pregancy is being modeled as a tumor, by researchers.
(So, when does the tumor end, and the baby begin?) References to that would be nice.
Surely that's just trying to answer anti-abortionists?
Whether the embryo is "alive" or not is a different discussion*, but even with a stillborn baby, the woman is pregnant until the dead foetus is delivered.
Originally Posted by Wowbagger What happens when only part of a sperm fertilizes an egg?
It gets flushed down the toilet.
I don't know whether it's possible - I would expect not.
Originally Posted by Wowbagger What if a fertilized egg does not attach to the uterus properly, and is naturally aborted?
Same flush; happens all the time.
Originally Posted by Wowbagger What if the fertilized egg fails to develop into an embryo, but into...
Something else (God knows what)?
A puppy? Whatever it is, if it attaches successfully to the uterus, it's a pregnancy.
I saw a News of the World once where a chick had given birth to a fish.
Originally Posted by Wowbagger What if we develop the technology to coax any cells into becoming fully viable embryos?
Then the woman will be pregnant once the embryo attaches to the uterus.
*I'd happily class the embryo as alive once it starts dividing.
If it's good enough for an amoeba, it's good enough for an embryo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the first two weeks of pregnancy, there is no fertilised egg inside you and you could even be a virgin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You really want to have your mind blown?
Google hydatidiform mole.
~Dr.
Imago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by The Atheist I don't see the problem.
Read the more fascinating contributions given, in this thread so far, then.
Most people naturally have a very distinct line, in their mind, between these two states.
Few people appreciate the intricate blurriness of all the nitty-gritty details.
I hypothesize that, if more people were informed about this type of stuff, it would go a long way towards general respect for scientific education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Wowbagger Read the more fascinating contributions given, in this thread so far, then.
Read 'em - they don't seem to have much to do with pregnancy at all.
Neither the hydatidform mole nor the teratoma are a pregnancy - they are both similar, but neither contains a viable embryo.
Originally Posted by Wowbagger Most people naturally have a very distinct line, in their mind, between these two states.
Few people appreciate the intricate blurriness of all the nitty-gritty details.
Which blurriness do you mean?
I've seen none yet.
Originally Posted by Wowbagger I hypothesize that, if more people were informed about this type of stuff, it would go a long way towards general respect for scientific education.
Informing people about uterine tumours will encourage respect for scientific education?
How do you propose to back that up?
Some bloke on the internet trying to claim tumours are pregnancies is just the kind of thing which is likely to help, I presume?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Dr.
Imago You really want to have your mind blown?
Google hydatidiform mole.
~Dr.
Imago I was going to mention that one but it is a tumor of placental tissue, not fetal tissue.
Still, it's a tumor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by skeptigirl I was going to mention that one but it is a tumor of placental tissue, not fetal tissue.
Still, it's a tumor.
Quote: : A hydatiform mole is one condition in a range of problems known as trophoblastic disease, where a pregnancy doesnt grow as it should.
Its also often called a molar pregnancy.
There are two different types of molar pregnancy, which differ in how they form and how they need to be treated.
In a normal pregnancy genetic material from both the mother and the father combine at fertilization to form the new life.
But in a molar pregnancy this process goes wrong.
In what is known as a complete molar pregnancy, the maternal chromosomes are lost (either at the time of conception or earlier while the egg was forming in the ovary) and there is only genetic material from the father in the cells that develop.
In a partial molar pregnancy, there is a set of maternal chromosomes but also two sets of chromosomes from the father (ie double the normal paternal genetic material).
Complete molar pregnancies develop as a mass of rapidly growing cells but without a foetus it cannot therefore develop into a baby.
It used to be described as looking rather like a huge bunch of grapes, but these days most cases are identified on ultrasound and treated long before they reach this stage.
In a partial molar pregnancy a foetus may initially develop but because of the imbalance in genetic material from both the father and the mother, the foetus is always abnormal and can not survive beyond the first 3 months of the pregnancy.
Http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditio...ormmole1.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|