Fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks, study says

[geauxtohell]

A human egg fertilized by a human sperm can only produce one thing . . . . a 100% human, each and every time.

Developmental stages don't make this unique individual 'more' or 'less' human.

Every hear of a partial and complete mole?

Google it. Your assertion is not correct.

What is a molar pregnancy?

A molar pregnancy happens when tissue that normally becomes a fetus instead becomes a growth, called a mole, in your uterus. Even though it is not an embryo, a mole triggers symptoms of pregnancy.

* Complete molar pregnancy. An egg with no genetic information is fertilized by a sperm. The sperm grows on its own, but it can only become a lump of tissue. It cannot become a fetus. As this tissue grows, it looks a bit like a cluster of grapes. This cluster of tissue is called a mole, and it can fill the uterus.

* Partial molar pregnancy. An egg is fertilized by two sperm. Normally this creates twins. But in a partial molar pregnancy, something goes wrong. The placenta grows into a mole instead. Any fetal tissue that forms is likely to have severe defects.

Molar Pregnancy Overview: Types, Causes, Risks, Symptoms, and Treatment

Moles appear to be a mutation of sorts, something gone awry. If left unattended what will be the result? A complete mole contains no genetic information and can only become a lump of tissue. A partial mole does not develop a placenta and any fetal tissue will have defects. Can this fetal tissue grow and develop without a placenta or will it develop to a certain point then die? If it can survive and continue to grow till term (is that possible without a proper placenta?) then it is the same as a non-partial mole pregnancy, yes? Still 100% human. The developmental stages may differ and it may have severe defects, but it is still 100% human. Unless you believe that because of the defects it is 'less human'?

You are mistaken.

A mole is formed when two sperm from the father (46 XX or 46 YY) fertilize an empty egg (a complete mole) or when two sperm from the father fertilize a viable egg (69 XXY or 69 XY) (this is a partial mole that contains parts of a fetus). It certainly contains genetic material. If it didn't, now growth would happen. If left unattended, moles are high risk for conversion to cancer and never produce a viable human being and are always removed via D&C.

Both also contain rudimentary placentas. The risk of cancer is really from the cells that make up the placenta.

So the fusion of sperm and egg certainly doesn't result in anything that we would recognize as "human". In fact, it is more dangerous to carry a mole than to D&C.

Yet, I don't hear anyone in the streets protesting the removal of a mole. Why not? By your standards, sperm has met egg and tissue is forming. So perhaps we can agree that the term "viability" has meaning in this debate?

This is why the term "viability" goes beyond the silly semantics games that the anti-abortion crowd and why some of us are bewildered by the way people become hung up on certain facets of the issue and not others.

 

[Ravi]

Every hear of a partial and complete mole?

Google it. Your assertion is not correct.

What is a molar pregnancy?

A molar pregnancy happens when tissue that normally becomes a fetus instead becomes a growth, called a mole, in your uterus. Even though it is not an embryo, a mole triggers symptoms of pregnancy.

* Complete molar pregnancy. An egg with no genetic information is fertilized by a sperm. The sperm grows on its own, but it can only become a lump of tissue. It cannot become a fetus. As this tissue grows, it looks a bit like a cluster of grapes. This cluster of tissue is called a mole, and it can fill the uterus.

* Partial molar pregnancy. An egg is fertilized by two sperm. Normally this creates twins. But in a partial molar pregnancy, something goes wrong. The placenta grows into a mole instead. Any fetal tissue that forms is likely to have severe defects.

Molar Pregnancy Overview: Types, Causes, Risks, Symptoms, and Treatment

Moles appear to be a mutation of sorts, something gone awry. If left unattended what will be the result? A complete mole contains no genetic information and can only become a lump of tissue. A partial mole does not develop a placenta and any fetal tissue will have defects. Can this fetal tissue grow and develop without a placenta or will it develop to a certain point then die? If it can survive and continue to grow till term (is that possible without a proper placenta?) then it is the same as a non-partial mole pregnancy, yes? Still 100% human. The developmental stages may differ and it may have severe defects, but it is still 100% human. Unless you believe that because of the defects it is 'less human'?

You are mistaken.

A mole is formed when two sperm from the father (46 XX or 46 YY) fertilize an empty egg (a complete mole) or when two sperm from the father fertilize a viable egg (69 XXY or 69 XY) (this is a partial mole that contains parts of a fetus). It certainly contains genetic material. If it didn't, now growth would happen. If left unattended, moles are high risk for conversion to cancer and never produce a viable human being and are always removed via D&C.

Both also contain rudimentary placentas. The risk of cancer is really from the cells that make up the placenta.

So the fusion of sperm and egg certainly doesn't result in anything that we would recognize as "human". In fact, it is more dangerous to carry a mole than to D&C.

Yet, I don't hear anyone in the streets protesting the removal of a mole. Why not? By your standards, sperm has met egg and tissue is forming. So perhaps we can agree that the term "viability" has meaning in this debate?

This is why the term "viability" goes beyond the silly semantics games that the anti-abortion crowd and why some of us are bewildered by the way people become hung up on certain facets of the issue and not others.

Wow...I did not know any of that. Thanks for the info.

Save the Moles!!!

 

[ConHog]

Molar Pregnancy Overview: Types, Causes, Risks, Symptoms, and Treatment

Moles appear to be a mutation of sorts, something gone awry. If left unattended what will be the result? A complete mole contains no genetic information and can only become a lump of tissue. A partial mole does not develop a placenta and any fetal tissue will have defects. Can this fetal tissue grow and develop without a placenta or will it develop to a certain point then die? If it can survive and continue to grow till term (is that possible without a proper placenta?) then it is the same as a non-partial mole pregnancy, yes? Still 100% human. The developmental stages may differ and it may have severe defects, but it is still 100% human. Unless you believe that because of the defects it is 'less human'?

You are mistaken.

A mole is formed when two sperm from the father (46 XX or 46 YY) fertilize an empty egg (a complete mole) or when two sperm from the father fertilize a viable egg (69 XXY or 69 XY) (this is a partial mole that contains parts of a fetus). It certainly contains genetic material. If it didn't, now growth would happen. If left unattended, moles are high risk for conversion to cancer and never produce a viable human being and are always removed via D&C.

Both also contain rudimentary placentas. The risk of cancer is really from the cells that make up the placenta.

So the fusion of sperm and egg certainly doesn't result in anything that we would recognize as "human". In fact, it is more dangerous to carry a mole than to D&C.

Yet, I don't hear anyone in the streets protesting the removal of a mole. Why not? By your standards, sperm has met egg and tissue is forming. So perhaps we can agree that the term "viability" has meaning in this debate?

This is why the term "viability" goes beyond the silly semantics games that the anti-abortion crowd and why some of us are bewildered by the way people become hung up on certain facets of the issue and not others.

Wow...I did not know any of that. Thanks for the info.

Save the Moles!!!

You're a mole.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Every hear of a partial and complete mole?

Google it. Your assertion is not correct.

What is a molar pregnancy?

A molar pregnancy happens when tissue that normally becomes a fetus instead becomes a growth, called a mole, in your uterus. Even though it is not an embryo, a mole triggers symptoms of pregnancy.

* Complete molar pregnancy. An egg with no genetic information is fertilized by a sperm. The sperm grows on its own, but it can only become a lump of tissue. It cannot become a fetus. As this tissue grows, it looks a bit like a cluster of grapes. This cluster of tissue is called a mole, and it can fill the uterus.

* Partial molar pregnancy. An egg is fertilized by two sperm. Normally this creates twins. But in a partial molar pregnancy, something goes wrong. The placenta grows into a mole instead. Any fetal tissue that forms is likely to have severe defects.

Molar Pregnancy Overview: Types, Causes, Risks, Symptoms, and Treatment

Moles appear to be a mutation of sorts, something gone awry. If left unattended what will be the result? A complete mole contains no genetic information and can only become a lump of tissue. A partial mole does not develop a placenta and any fetal tissue will have defects. Can this fetal tissue grow and develop without a placenta or will it develop to a certain point then die? If it can survive and continue to grow till term (is that possible without a proper placenta?) then it is the same as a non-partial mole pregnancy, yes? Still 100% human. The developmental stages may differ and it may have severe defects, but it is still 100% human. Unless you believe that because of the defects it is 'less human'?

You are mistaken.

A mole is formed when two sperm from the father (46 XX or 46 YY) fertilize an empty egg (a complete mole) or when two sperm from the father fertilize a viable egg (69 XXY or 69 XY) (this is a partial mole that contains parts of a fetus). It certainly contains genetic material. If it didn't, now growth would happen. If left unattended, moles are high risk for conversion to cancer and never produce a viable human being and are always removed via D&C.

Both also contain rudimentary placentas. The risk of cancer is really from the cells that make up the placenta.

So the fusion of sperm and egg certainly doesn't result in anything that we would recognize as "human". In fact, it is more dangerous to carry a mole than to D&C.

Yet, I don't hear anyone in the streets protesting the removal of a mole. Why not? By your standards, sperm has met egg and tissue is forming. So perhaps we can agree that the term "viability" has meaning in this debate?

This is why the term "viability" goes beyond the silly semantics games that the anti-abortion crowd and why some of us are bewildered by the way people become hung up on certain facets of the issue and not others.

A complete mole is not fully human as it only has genetic material from the sperm.

A partial mole is fully human as it has genetic material from both sperm and egg.

A partial-mole pregnancy can never produce a viable human being? Hmmmm . . ..

We report a case of partial molar placenta in which a live female baby was delivered at 32 weeks gestation by a 30-year-old woman. At the 18th week, ultrasonographic examination revealed a normal fetus with a huge, multicystic placenta. Chromosomal evaluation by amniocentesis revealed a normal female karyotype (46,XX), and serial biometric measurement of the fetus showed normal growth during pregnancy. There were no obstetric complications until the 32nd gestational week when preterm rupture of the membranes occurred. The electronic fetal heart beat tracing showed a repeated sinusoid pattern and late deceleration after admission. The patient underwent emergency Caesarean section and delivered a 1551-g, anaemic female baby with an Apgar score of 1, 4 and 6 at 1, 5 and 10 min, respectively. The baby recovered within 2 weeks after respiratory support and transfusion of packed red blood cells. Although anaemia is one of the risk factors that jeopardize the fetus in the case of partial molar pregnancy, termination is not indicated when the fetus is normal and no complications have occurred.

Delivery of a severely anaemic fetus after partial molar pregnancy: clinical and ultrasonographic findings -- Hsieh et al. 14 (4): 1122 -- Human Reproduction

As to viability . . . do you not see a difference between a non-viable partial-mole fetus (multiple malformations and severe intrauterine fetal growth retardation - it cannot live) vs. a fetus that is not viable because it was removed from its environment prematurely?

 

[geauxtohell]

A complete mole is not fully human as it only has genetic material from the sperm.

But it has genetic material. So now the standard for "100% human" is DNA from mother and father?

A partial mole is fully human as it has genetic material from both sperm and egg.

And partial moles don't produce viable human beings and are removed via D&C. Why don't you guys get your knickers in a twist over that?

A partial-mole pregnancy can never produce a viable human being? Hmmmm . . ..

The exception and not the rule. In fact, the vary rare exception (from your paper):

Excluding cases of multiple conception with molar pregnancy and coexisting fetuses, partial molar pregnancy in which a live fetus is carried to term is very rare. Partial hydatidiform moles coexisting with fetal tissue or an anomalous fetus generally result from dispermy and have a triploid karyotype in the majority of cases (Szulman and Surti, 1978aGo,bGo; Ohama et al., 1986Go). Fetuses with triploidy cannot survive after birth because of multiple malformations and severe intrauterine fetal growth retardation.

At any rate, I didn't know this so thanks for the info. Since the fetus was diploid and not triploid, I am curious if this wasn't a twin superimposed on a partial molar pregnancy.

As to viability . . . do you not see a difference between a non-viable partial-mole fetus (multiple malformations and severe intrauterine fetal growth retardation - it cannot live) vs. a fetus that is not viable because it was removed from its environment prematurely?

Of course I do. I am not the one that refuses to acknowledge the concept of viability.

That would be the anti-abortion crowd.

 

[Immanuel]

Moles?

Here I thought we were talking about stupid little varmints that tear up the yard.

Learn something new every day.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

A complete mole is not fully human as it only has genetic material from the sperm.

But it has genetic material. So now the standard for "100% human" is DNA from mother and father?

A partial mole is fully human as it has genetic material from both sperm and egg.

And partial moles don't produce viable human beings and are removed via D&C. Why don't you guys get your knickers in a twist over that?



The exception and not the rule. In fact, the vary rare exception (from your paper):

Excluding cases of multiple conception with molar pregnancy and coexisting fetuses, partial molar pregnancy in which a live fetus is carried to term is very rare. Partial hydatidiform moles coexisting with fetal tissue or an anomalous fetus generally result from dispermy and have a triploid karyotype in the majority of cases (Szulman and Surti, 1978aGo,bGo; Ohama et al., 1986Go). Fetuses with triploidy cannot survive after birth because of multiple malformations and severe intrauterine fetal growth retardation.

At any rate, I didn't know this so thanks for the info. Since the fetus was diploid and not triploid, I am curious if this wasn't a twin superimposed on a partial molar pregnancy.

As to viability . . . do you not see a difference between a non-viable partial-mole fetus (multiple malformations and severe intrauterine fetal growth retardation - it cannot live) vs. a fetus that is not viable because it was removed from its environment prematurely?

Of course I do. I am not the one that refuses to acknowledge the concept of viability.

That would be the anti-abortion crowd.

Re: the bolded, above . . . . an empty egg fertilized by sperm doesn't produce an embryo, therefore isn't a human being and cannot develop into one. An egg - and now that I know about moles, a complete (or would that be a full?) egg - fertilized by a sperm equals a human being.

It seems that complete and partial mole pregnancies in general are certainly the exception to the rule.

In the case where a partial mole cannot completely develop due to multiple malformations and severe intrauterine fetal growth retardation, in other words it cannot live because it doesn't have the necessary parts to live, I see this much as I see an ectopic pregnancy. There is no other option other than removing the fetus, even though the fetus is a person.

For you, abortion is ok until the fetus is viable outside the womb? Do you believe that viability is the point at which the fetus 'becomes a person'?

 

[geauxtohell]

Re: the bolded, above . . . . an empty egg fertilized by sperm doesn't produce an embryo, therefore isn't a human being and cannot develop into one. An egg - and now that I know about moles, a complete (or would that be a full?) egg - fertilized by a sperm equals a human being.

Under normal circumstances, a haploid sperm meets a haploid egg to make a diploid (46 XX or XY) zygote. Complete moles are when two sperm fertilize an empty egg. Partial moles are when two sperm fertilize a haploid egg.

I basically go by the definitions. Zygote to blastocyst to fetus, etc. I don't really buy that a fetus is a human being. I certainly accept that it will become a human being under normal circumstances. However, this gets into a debate over semantics which I generally try to avoid (because it basically comes down to opinion).

It seems that complete and partial mole pregnancies in general are certainly the exception to the rule.

They are rare, but not that rare (around 1/1000 conceptions in the U.S.)

In the case where a partial mole cannot completely develop due to multiple malformations and severe intrauterine fetal growth retardation, in other words it cannot live because it doesn't have the necessary parts to live, I see this much as I see an ectopic pregnancy. There is no other option other than removing the fetus, even though the fetus is a person.

I generally agree.

For you, abortion is ok until the fetus is viable outside the womb? Do you believe that viability is the point at which the fetus 'becomes a person'?

I believe viability is when the fetus can survive out the womb. I don't really know when there is a definite period when a fetus "becomes a person". As far as viability, I know it's variable, but I generally think that is somewhere around 29 weeks.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I basically go by the definitions. Zygote to blastocyst to fetus, etc. I don't really buy that a fetus is a human being. I certainly accept that it will become a human being under normal circumstances. However, this gets into a debate over semantics which I generally try to avoid (because it basically comes down to opinion).

What do you believe a fetus is, if not a human being? Just curious.

It is human and cannot be anything but human (as it was created by humans), and it is a being, as it exists and it is life.

 

[geauxtohell]

I basically go by the definitions. Zygote to blastocyst to fetus, etc. I don't really buy that a fetus is a human being. I certainly accept that it will become a human being under normal circumstances. However, this gets into a debate over semantics which I generally try to avoid (because it basically comes down to opinion).

What do you believe a fetus is, if not a human being? Just curious.

It is human and cannot be anything but human (as it was created by humans), and it is a being, as it exists and it is life.

It's a fetus. A human fetus, but a fetus none-the-less. I don't deem it as "sub-human", I just don't see it as the same as a "human being" that has finished all the gestational development stages.

 

[JBeukema]

So basically, gth, you recognize it as human but don't view it as a person?

 

[manu1959]

If the people were allowed to vote on the legality of later term abortion, they would vote in favor of making it a woman's personal choice. But it will never be voted on, nor should it. It is an inalienable right.

Demonstrate that there is an inalienable to right to end the life of another human being. Also, please define 'later term'.

It is an inalienable right to eject any body from yours which you do not want in yours. Forced birth is another form of rape.

guess you should have rejected that dueds penis huh....

wait for it here comes the rape argument switcharoo....

 

[manu1959]

I basically go by the definitions. Zygote to blastocyst to fetus, etc. I don't really buy that a fetus is a human being. I certainly accept that it will become a human being under normal circumstances. However, this gets into a debate over semantics which I generally try to avoid (because it basically comes down to opinion).

What do you believe a fetus is, if not a human being? Just curious.

It is human and cannot be anything but human (as it was created by humans), and it is a being, as it exists and it is life.

It's a fetus. A human fetus, but a fetus none-the-less. I don't deem it as "sub-human", I just don't see it as the same as a "human being" that has finished all the gestational development stages.

at least for the first 24 weeks anyway....

 

[Nonelitist]

He obviously knows it is a human, but to appease his guilty conscience, he makes excuses for his reasoning that it can be killed.
He can't explain it.. it just is.

 

[strollingbones]

well let me toss this out...what reason is there for a late term abortion? you can do a c section in how many minutes...what is so threatening to a woman's life? if she is in that weak a condition isnt the abortion just as hard as the c section.....i have never found a good reason for an abortion that late?

can someone educate me on the reasons a late term abortion is needed?

 

[strollingbones]

okay and let me ask this.....if you allow that its okay cause the fetus cant feel pain....is it okay to kick a parapeligc....(sp)

 

[JBeukema]

Stone fetus...

 

[JBeukema]

okay and let me ask this.....if you allow that its okay cause the fetus cant feel pain....is it okay to kick a parapeligc....(sp)

I've not seen anyone make that argument

 

[Sarah G]

I would think the unformed cells cannot feel pain but if they begin to feel it at 24 weeks what about the bullshit docs have been feeding us about newborn boys not being able to feel it when they're circumsized.

 

[strollingbones]

o start your own thread on that lol