| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
02 Aug 2003 10:02:26 AM |
| Object: |
One Doctor's Observation |
"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured
tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I
believed to be the smallest human being ever seen.
The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within
the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely
vigorously in the amnionic fluid, while attached to
the wall by the umbilical cord. The tiny human was
perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers,
feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards
to the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins
were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby
was extremely alive and did not look at all like
the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have
seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human
immediately lost its life and took on what is
accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this
stage, blunt extremities, etc."
- Paul E. Rockwell, M.D.
http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html
.
|
|
| User: "Me" |
|
| Title: Re: One Doctor's Observation |
02 Aug 2003 06:16:59 PM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0308020702.3ea5bdde@posting.google.com>,
(Papa Jack) wrote:
"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured
tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I
believed to be the smallest human being ever seen.
The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within
the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely
vigorously in the amnionic fluid, while attached to
the wall by the umbilical cord. The tiny human was
perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers,
feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards
to the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins
were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby
was extremely alive and did not look at all like
the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have
seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human
immediately lost its life and took on what is
accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this
stage, blunt extremities, etc."
So? One person's opinion. Even doctors are entitled to their opinion and
it does not make it any more right or wrong than my opinion. A degree in
medicine is not what qualifies a person to decide of something is human,
at least not that one person.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan C. Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: One Doctor's Observation |
03 Aug 2003 10:08:40 AM |
|
|
On 2 Aug 2003 08:02:26 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured
tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I
believed to be the smallest human being ever seen.
The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within
the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely
vigorously in the amnionic fluid, while attached to
the wall by the umbilical cord. The tiny human was
perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers,
feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards
to the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins
were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby
was extremely alive and did not look at all like
the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have
seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human
immediately lost its life and took on what is
accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this
stage, blunt extremities, etc."
- Paul E. Rockwell, M.D.
http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html
Something interesting no one has pointed out: this embryo, according
to Dr Rockwell, was at an advanced state of development -- far more so
than has ever (to my knowledge) been observed at this stage. At "two
months", he says, it had "long, tapering fingers, feet and toes" in
which "delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the
fingers". Only when it was dead did it "immediately" take on the
"appearance of an embryo at this stage, blunt extremities, etc."
How are we to interpret this? Does Dr. Rockwell mean to suggest that
this was an anomalous case, an embryo which looked far more developed
than its stated age? Or does he wish us to infer that *all* embryos
at two months "really" have "long, tapering fingers, feet and toes"
(which can clearly be seen although the entire embryo is less than
half an inch long) and are capable of "swimming extremely vigorously
in the amnionic {sic} fluid", but mysteriously revert to the
appearance of an earlier stage of development as soon as anyone other
than Dr. Rockwell looks at them? (It is to be noted that Dr. Rockwell
appears to be the only person who has ever observed an eight-week
embryo that appeared so developed.)
I can see only three possibilities:
1) This case is an anomaly, and does not reflect the normal state of
development of an eight-week embryo.
2) This case is *not* an anomaly, eight-week embryos really are far
more developed than has ever been observed or reported, and Dr.
Rockwell is the only one who has ever noticed.
3) The account as given above does not reflect an accurate report of
any medical incident.
Does anyone see any other possibilities?
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
--
=============== Remove what you find annoying in my address ==============
"Gadfly is what they call you when you are no longer | Seditious libel
dangerous. I much prefer troublemaker, malcontent, | for fun and
desperado." -- Harlan Ellison | profit
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: One Doctor's Observation |
04 Aug 2003 12:41:17 PM |
|
|
"Susan C. Mitchell" <susancm@earthlink.annoyance.net> wrote in message
news:e79qiv4poq78b0mlu9t4puohgvlsf0t9pj@4ax.com...
Does anyone see any other possibilities?
4: Dr. Rockwell has some very strange fantasies or hallucinations. One
hopes he is no longer practicing medicine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: One Doctor's Observation |
04 Aug 2003 08:00:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:41:17 GMT, "M is for Malapert"
<minxs@sonic.net> wrote:
"Susan C. Mitchell" <susancm@earthlink.annoyance.net> wrote in message
news:e79qiv4poq78b0mlu9t4puohgvlsf0t9pj@4ax.com...
Does anyone see any other possibilities?
4: Dr. Rockwell has some very strange fantasies or hallucinations. One
hopes he is no longer practicing medicine.
Given that he is apparently an anesthesiologist (and, since he was
staring into the incision instead of tending to business, an
incompetent one), perhaps he mistakenly administered nitrous oxide to
himself.
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: One Doctor's Observation |
07 Aug 2003 03:49:22 PM |
|
|
Papa Jack wrote:
"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured
tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I
believed to be the smallest human being ever seen.
The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within
the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely
vigorously in the amnionic fluid, while attached to
the wall by the umbilical cord. The tiny human was
perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers,
feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards
to the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins
were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby
was extremely alive and did not look at all like
the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have
seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human
immediately lost its life and took on what is
accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this
stage, blunt extremities, etc."
- Paul E. Rockwell, M.D.
There are several obvious lies in this "narrative." (Go to
visembryo.com if you want to check the facts.) The most obvious lie
being the notion of a "tiny human" being "perfectly formed" at two
months gestational age. Or that this doctor would be able to tell
that the "tiny human" was a male (since visible sex organs don't
emerge until well after two months.)
But the most ridiculous? That this "tiny human" looked like a
perfectly formed human baby until it "died" and then it took on the
appearance of a normal embryo at two months. Now *that's* miraculous!
(Or did this "perfectly formed human" exist only in his imagination,
the way they always do?)
Nice try, Pop. Good story, but maybe you should check the facts next
time. It'll give your fiction a certain realism so many writers aim
for but so often fail to produce.
elizabeth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: One Doctor's Observation |
02 Aug 2003 12:02:04 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured
tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I
believed to be the smallest human being ever seen.
The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within
Notice the utter and complete disregard for women that is typical of
the anti-choice zealot. In there fanatical devition to the fetus they
are blind to all the people involved. The woman who is actually
pregnant is never mentioned. Her wishes are never given a moment's
consideration.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: One Doctor's Observation |
03 Aug 2003 07:39:12 PM |
|
|
Spartakus <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote:
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote...
"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured
tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I
believed to be the smallest human being ever seen.
The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within
the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely
[...]
There are at least two serious technical gaffes in Rockwell's
narrative - he describes the condition being treated as a "ruptured
tubal pregnancy". Well, if it was ruptured, the amniotic sac wouldn't
be intact, and there wouldn't be anything for the embryo to swim in.
More tellingly, the Rockwell text describes the embryo as *male*, yet
the genital organs do not begin developing until the 14th week.
There is also the odd claim that it was swimming even though it was
unable to breath and had been deprived of oxygen for a good many
seconds.
In other words, this story (very popular on right-to-lie web sites) is
BS.
Ya think?
Malapert sealed the deal when she posted a link to a picture of
what a ruptured tubal pregnancy *really* looks like:
http://home.cfl.rr.com/dahmd/rupturedectopic.htm
Btw, the original source of this story is Dr. Jack Willke, who claims
that a Dr. P.E. Rockwell sent him a letter containing the quoted text.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan C. Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: One Doctor's Observation |
05 Aug 2003 09:57:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:39:12 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Spartakus <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote:
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote...
"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured
tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I
believed to be the smallest human being ever seen.
The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within
the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely
[...]
There are at least two serious technical gaffes in Rockwell's
narrative - he describes the condition being treated as a "ruptured
tubal pregnancy". Well, if it was ruptured, the amniotic sac wouldn't
be intact, and there wouldn't be anything for the embryo to swim in.
More tellingly, the Rockwell text describes the embryo as *male*, yet
the genital organs do not begin developing until the 14th week.
There is also the odd claim that it was swimming even though it was
unable to breath and had been deprived of oxygen for a good many
seconds.
Hey, the last time I remember seeing this story on talk.abortion
<I8ucnUASjtVbuXOgXTWcow@comcast.com>, it was in company with some even
more entertaining anecdotes. I particularly liked the one about a
pelvic exam getting a bubble of air into a pregnant woman's uterus,
and the resultant fetal crying keeping the woman and her husband
awake.
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
--
=============== Remove what you find annoying in my address ==============
"Gadfly is what they call you when you are no longer | Seditious libel
dangerous. I much prefer troublemaker, malcontent, | for fun and
desperado." -- Harlan Ellison | profit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
