"david" <gringo98@aol.com> wrote in message
news:279983a8.0406170700.6f8a236b@posting.google.com...

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:<car3mn$9tc$1@titan.btinternet.com>...

You said yourself that you wouldn't regard hydatidiform moles as human
beings: they are zygotes which don't develop correctly.

They are not zygotes.

When they arise from a fertilized egg, they are zygotes. They may even
develop to the embryonic state for a few days.

That's like saying breast cancer is a breast.

It is. Actually there are many different types of breast cancer, but they
all consist of breast tissue that develops from a cell that forgot its
instructions on how to die (read about "apoptosis" sometime).

At this point, we're only discussing whether fertilised eggs are human
beings, not the rights or wrongs of elective abortion. That you can ask

the

question again, having admitted that hydatidiform moles are not human
beings, rather points to the fact that you're not going to accept any
evidence that doesn't agree with what you want to be true.

The fact that you can't answer the question shows that you have no
answer. Zygotes are human beings - hydatiform moles are not. These
are basic scientific facts.

Zygotes are not human beings, although that is not scientific fact any more
than whether brain-dead individuals are corpses or not. As the current Pope
has said, the *fact* of death is simply "the separation of the
life-principle (or soul) from the corporal reality of the person", something
no scientific method can identify. But this "total disintegration of the
unitary and integrated whole that is the personal self" is inevitably
followed by "certain biological signs which medicine has learnt to recognise
with increasing precision." For the Pope, whole-brain death is as good as
putrefaction and decay in deciding whether the personal self is gone.
(http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2001_August/Organ_Predation.htm)

By no means is there agreement among ethicists on this uncritical acceptance
of the death definitions that western societies have arrived at over the
last 30 years, however, as you will see if you look at the website above.
The same is true of when life (the existence of a personal self) begins.
It's not a question of scientific fact in either case, because scientists do
not agree.

So you're not even reading what I post? I have read your previous

posts,

and the quotes that you supplied are largely just assertions, taking no
account of anomalies.

They are from textbooks and experts in the field - please - you have
nothing.

They're personal opinions, just as is the Pope's idea of when we can say
someone is dead. Some medical experts, like Alan Shewmon of UCLA, a
pediatric neurologist, disagree with him too. Dr. Shewmon says that if
people with injuries high in their spinal cords, like Christopher Reeve, are
still persons, then so are the brain dead. He believes that the current
western definition of death and the *ending* of personhood, accepted
uncritically by the mainstream pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia
movement, is "incoherent" and illogical, arbitrary and flawed. The argument
for brain death, Shewmon writes, says that "the brain confers integrative
unity upon the body, which would otherwise constitute a mere conglomeration
of cells and tissues." In other words, the brain-death argument says that
the brain is the critical center, while the rest of the body consists merely
of organs, tissues and cells responding to it.

But, Shewmon points out, the medical literature on intensive care for
brain-dead (BD) organ donors and high spinal-cord-injury (SCI) victims shows
that two conditions are virtually identical *as far as the body goes*.
"If SCI victims are alive at the level of the 'organism as a whole',"
Shewmon writes, "then so must be BD patients (the only significant
difference being consciousness)."
(http://www.szp.swets.nl/szp/journals/jm265457.htm for abstract,
http://rockethics.psu.edu/bioethics/major_issues/death/article.asp?page=01_05_00
for more quotes)

Dr. Shewmon and other opponents of brain death say that the brain-dead are
still in the process of dying, not yet dead - that they are living persons
entitled to care and protection. In practice, what this means is that no
organ necessary for life should ever be taken from a brain-dead donor.
Rather, the individual must be given whatever care is needed until his heart
and lungs also shut down. That's HIS opinion. Other neurologists and
medical experts disagree, as does the law.

Are you finally getting the point? This is not science. This is OPINION,
and opinions differ. It is the same for when the life of a person, a human
being, begins. We can all point to a place where nobody disagrees, say a
two-year-old, and we can all point to places where there is a huge amount of
disagreement as well (gametes? zygotes? embryos? fetuses? viable fetuses?
newborns?). Science can't give the answer any more that it can tell us
whether someone is dead. It can only give us information that *we decide to
use* to say that someone is dead, or isn't, or decide to use to say that
someone has not yet come into being. And by "we" I mean the law, the social
consensus, customs, religious belief, whatever.

No argument - that is how human beings begin, if all goes well, but it's
also the beginning of many other things, which never could become human
beings.

What kind of organism is the zygote?

It isn't one. Again, science cannot tell us what an organism is, but
scientists have generally agreed on a definition: "An individual constituted
to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function
but mutually dependent : a living being." (Merriam-Webster's Medical
Dictionary on line)

What are "the activities of life"?

Biologically, for mammals, they are the ability to sustain homeostasis ("the
ability of an organism to maintain a constant internal environment (i.e.
body temperature, fluid content, etc.) though regulatory mechanisms that
compensate for a changing external environment"): to breathe, to take in
food and excrete waste, to maintain body temperature, to maintain blood pH,
and so forth depending on the characteristics of the species and the
environment.

Embryos and fetuses are not capable of carrying on life's activities by
means of their own organs, nor of sustaining organism-level homeostasis.
They may not even have certain vital organs and yet come to full-term live
birth (for instance, a fetus that develops without kidneys can survive with
ease in a woman's womb because "the maternal organism" has kidneys that are
functioning for both herself and her fetus, but it will invariably die
shortly after birth, if it's not among the large percentage that are
stillborn).

Embnryos and fetuses are not organisms yet, and may never be. They are part
of another organism: a woman's body which is in process of creating
offspring. Reproduction, after all, is the process by which one animal or
plant divides itself, or part of itself, to become two (or more). In
mammals, this process is complete at live birth. But that's just opinion
too, of course. General opinion, informed opinion, but opinion
nevertheless.

Do you seriously think that a zygote which never implants is a

fully-formed

albeit microscopic human being with all its organs present?

What kind of strawman argument is that? Of course a one-cell human
being doesn't have all its organs present.

Human beings are mammalian organisms. They have organs such as skin,
kidneys, lungs, hearts, brains, livers, etc. They can't live without them.
Why do you think victims of severe burns die even though it may be days
after they are rescued from a fire? (Hint: skin is an essential organ for
mammalian homeostasis, aka survival.)

And
yes, zygotes and embryos are human beings - that's a scientific fact
regardless of whether you accept it or not.

Nope, sorry. You can repeat it all you like, but it doesn't make it
"scientific fact" any more than the Pope agreeing with some neurologists
makes brain-dead individuals *not* human beings any longer, or Dr. Shewmon
agreeing with others means that they *are* human beings still. Scientific
facts simply allow us to argue our personal opinions. Your lack of
scientific information makes your argument exceptionally weak, since you
keep getting surprised by facts.

And please stop quoting that 1981 congressional committee's testimony.
Given that no one who would have disagreed was allowed to testify, it's
hardly surprising that everyone agreed with the anti-abortion
congresscritters. That's how congressional committee testimony works - you
want a certain result and you invite people who already agree with that
result to testify.

Here is the quote from the site "Lack of successful implantation
accounts for 75% of lost conceptions." - Did you think I would check?
So it's 45% now - what happened to the 75%.

From that link: "Data from preimplantation genetic studies demonstrate that,
while the frequency of chromosomal abnormalities increases with advancing
maternal age, the overall percentage of chromosomal abnormalities among
preimplantation embryos is around 60%. Among the 40% of embryos that are
karyotypically normal, only half or less implant."

"Half or less" of 40 percent is 20 percent, or less. Meaning that while
only 40 percent of embryos are chromosomally viable to begin with, only half
(or less) of them succeed in implanting. That's 80 percent, or more, of
fertilized eggs not implanting. You have trouble with math, don't you?
Sometimes I do too.

Why don't you admit you
didn't read your source clearly or were trying to pass on false
information?

Bwahahahaha. Unintended humor is always the very best kind.

You're again closing your mind to the evidence I've given of the great
number of zygotes and embryos which can never develop into human beings.

You again assume that zygotes and embryos aren't human beings instead
of proving it - they might never develop into born or adult human
beings but that doesn't mean they aren't human beings now.

Do you believe that the 60 percent of embryos which are so chromosomally
screwed up they die within a few days of fertilization, without even
implanting according to June's source, are "human beings"? See, this is why
your argument doesn't make sense. Human beings have certain qualities,
among which is having more than one cell and another of which is having
chromosomes that are normal enough to allow them to develop into something
that can survive not just inside a woman's womb but outside it for at least
a while.

Because I have - see below. Textbooks and scientists aren't generally
concerned with success rates of pregnancies, unless they're working in

the

fertility/infertility field.

Some scientists do study implantation rates - there are studies in
scientific journals - I've never seen one that said 75%.

Here you go: "Implantation rates were higher in African American than in
white women (35% vs. 23%, respectively)." Fertil Steril. 2001
Jul;76(1):80-4. First entry I clicked on (in a PubMed search).

Here's another: "Implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were 15.6% and
39.6% versus 15.1% and 43.4% in aspirin treated and untreated groups,
respectively." J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000 Nov;17(10):586-90.

Here's another: "When comparing day 2 transfers between 4-cell embryos, it
was found that unevenly cleaved embryos had significantly lower implantation
(23.9 and 36.4%) and pregnancy rates (37.6 and 52.9%) compared with evenly
cleaved embryos." Hum Reprod. 2001 Feb;16(2):313-8.

Now, if you knew more "scientific facts" you could argue that it's no use
looking at implantation rates among infertile women undergoing IVF, because
they are more likely to be white and older than most women who conceive.
But that doesn't explain why the same implantation rates hold true for ICSI,
which means intracytoplasmic sperm injection, which means that the woman may
not be infertile at all: 'The aetiology of azoospermia can be grossly
divided into obstructive and non-obstructive causes. Although in both cases
testicular spermatozoa can be used to treat male fertility, it is not well
established whether success rates following intracytoplasmic sperm injection
(ICSI) are comparable. Therefore, a retrospective analysis of fertilization,
pregnancy and embryo implantation rates was performed following ICSI with
testicular spermatozoa in obstructive or non-obstructive azoospermia...
Embryo implantation rates were not different between the obstructive (19.6%)
and non-obstructive groups (25.8%), and were lowest in cases of germ cell
hypoplasia (15.8%)." Hum Reprod. 2000 Jun;15(6):1383-8. But, still, some
of the women may be white, older, subfertile and/or infertile as well. Wait
a minute, though - how did they detect implantation rates? Well, in most of
these studies they did it by measuring blood levels of hCG. But wait a
minute - most of these women probably got an hCG booster as part of the
infertility treatment. Which means that true implantation rates could be
even worse.

Or you could bring this in to take care of the age factor: "An overall
implantation rate of 23.3% (1328/5691) was found. The implantation rate as a
function of age decreased in a nonlinear fashion. Implantation remained
constant until the age of 35 and then decreased in a significantly, linear
fashion by 2.77% per year (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.975). A formula to predict
implantation rates for a given age was developed: Implantation rate
= -119.352 + (9.985 x Age - (0.164 x Age2))." J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000
Jul;17(6):303-6.

I'm sure you can do that math and figure out what implantation rates for a
22-year-old undergoing IVF would be.

You know, I have to question how much research you have done when every
study I found in a five-second search that showed less than 25 percent
implantation rates (i.e. greater than 75 percent failure to implant) in at
least some groups. For example, one was in African-American women, who were
more likely to have "tubal factor" as the reason for their infertility, and
more likely to have a child already (in both groups the women were aged 40
or less. "Pregnancy rates were 71% in African Americans and 48% in whites.
After adjustment for tubal factor, BMI, and parity, the odds ratio for
pregnancy in African American women versus white women increased from 2.6 to
3.3... This is the first study to demonstrate a significantly higher
clinical pregnancy rate in African American women as compared to white women
undergoing ART."

Wait - is that the problem? Perhaps your ignorance of "scientific facts"
has led you to confuse implantation rates with pregnancy rates? Because,
no. Clinical pregnancy occurs (or doesn't) *after* implantation. In other
words, even after implantation is detected (also known as chemical
pregnancy) that doesn't mean a clinical pregnancy (i.e. other signs of
pregnancy are present besides an elevated blood serum hCG level) has
occurred.

Here is a very basic site, at somewhat higher knowledge attainment than you
have, but you should be able to understand most of it:
http://www.haveababy.com/why/howsuccess.asp

Becoming a human being is a process, not a one-off occurrence.

Process? According to you. Not according to science. Please provide
some references to back up your statements.

From:

http://www.aans.org/education/journal/neurosurgical/feb04/16-2-1.pdf

'One overriding principle governing embryonic assembly is the process of
embryonic induction, whereby a particular group of embryonic cells

controls

the developmental fate of an adjacent group of cells.'

Look, it says 'process' ... and that's science.

Is that supposed to be evidence that "becoming a human being is a
process?" Are you serious? That doesn't prove your assumption at
all. It merely says that embryo goes through a process of developing.

Or doesn't, you stupid person. Do you have the slightest clue what June is
talking about and what this sentence is saying? What do you think they mean
when they say "a particular group of embryonic cells controls the
developmental fate of an adjacent group of cells" during "embryonic
assembly"? (Hint: they're talking about very early embryos.)

Guess what? Girls in puberty go thru the process of developing
sexually. What a joke.

So why do you keep making these stupid statements as if they were
counterarguments?

You obviously have no evidence for your
statement that becoming a human being is a process.

What if the process of embryonic assembly goes horribly awry and something
like an acardiac amorphus develops? Did you look at the picture that I gave
you a link for? Is that a human being? If it isn't, something went wrong
in the PROCESS that was trying to make a fertilized egg into a human being.
If it is, then you are a total fruitcake and there's no use trying to have
any kind of discussion with you, let alone one that includes any scientific
facts. If you were arguing that a late-term fetus is a human being you'd
have better luck, but to argue that a zygote is one is just ignorant and
idiotic.

[Further evidence of stupidity deleted. You should be embarrassed to post
without first reading what you are responding to and then what you are
quoting to back up your response, especially when it confirms what the
person you are responding to is arguing to begin with.

For instance, June says "No doctor will give general anaesthetics for the
many hours or even days that a woman is in labour - it would almost
certainly kill the foetus and probably kill them both." You then quote, in
what you appear to think is a refutation of this statement, one Dr. Ellison,
who writes "I am deeply concerned, moreover, that the widespread publicity
given to Dr. McMahon's testimony may cause pregnant women to delay necessary
and perhaps life-saving medical procedures, totally unrelated to the
birthing process..."

-- Get that? "totally unrelated to the birthing process" as compared to
June's "No doctor will give general anesthesia for.... labour", i.e. "the
birthing process"

"[M]any pregnant women-- currently totally over 50,000 each year in this
country-- are safely anesthetized without ill effects to mother or fetus"

-- Do you even know how many labors, that is to say "birthing processes"
there are in this country (the US) each year? No, don't Google first. Do
you know without having to look it up? Dr. Ellison is talking about
medically urgent, often lifesaving surgeries women undergo in the second or
third trimester that are TOTALLY UNRELATED TO LABOR. Most surgeries do not
keep people under general anesthesia for the duration of a typical labor,
and when they do the outcome is frequently fatal, often because of that much
anesthesia. This is why women are not given general anesthesia during their
entire labor any more, because modern anesthesia is not like ether or
scopolamine - it is way too effective and lethal compared to obsolete
methods.

"In my medical judgment, it would be necessary-- in order to achieve
'neurological demise' of the fetus in a 'partial birth' abortion-- to
anesthetize the mother to such a degree as to place her own health in
serious jeopardy."

-- Which modern general anesthesia for many hours will do, duh. Thanks for
confirming June's statement, which again was: "No doctor will give general
anesthesia for the many hours or even days that a woman is in labour - it
would almost certainly kill the foetus and probably kill them both."

Here, again, is a simplified website that should be at your comprehension
level: http://www.vh.org/adult/patient/obgyn/analgesiainlabor/
"General Anesthesia
In some cases, it may be better for the mother to be asleep during the birth
and a general anesthesia is used. These include an emergency cesarean, a
planned cesarean or a difficult vaginal birth. The delivery must occur
quickly because these types of anesthetics can cross the placenta to the
baby and may depress breathing in the baby for a short while."

This will probably be too hard for you but for the benefit of others, here
are some hard data:
http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anesthesia/obanesthesia/index.html

Finally, let's hear from that old standby, Williams Obstetrics: "GENERAL
ANESTHESIA: Without exception, all anesthetic agents that depress the
maternal central nervous system cross the placenta and depress the fetal
central nervous system. Another constant hazard with any general anesthetic
is aspiration of gastric contents and particulate matter that will obstruct
airways (of the woman in labor --M) and ultimately may lead to penumonitis,
pulmonary edema, and death... Inhalation Anesthesia: Gas Anesthetics:
Nitrous oxide is the only anesthetic gas in current use for intrapartum
obstetrical analgesia in the United States. This agent produces analgesia
and altered consciousnesss, but by itself does not provide true anesthesia.
(However) self-administered nitrous oxide in a 50 percent mixture with 50
percent oxygen can provide excellent pain relief during the second stage of
labor (Thus, not for the entire duration of labor - M). Volatile
Anesthetics: In doses that provide analgesia, volatile anesthetics are
likely to cause unconsciousness and there is potential for aspiration...
Halogenated hydrocarbons are used to supplement nitrous oxide during
maintenance of general anesthesia. They cross the placenta readily and are
capable of producing narcosis in the fetus. Their use should be restricted
to very uncommon situations... Sufficient data have accured to cause
concerns for the welfare of the embryo and fetus of pregnant women who have
to work in operating rooms where they are chronically exposed to anesthetic
gases. In some reports, the spontaneous abortion rate of female workers
exposed was about twice that for unexposed personnel... Balanced General
Anesthesia: Nitrous oxide and oxygen... (plus) one of the halogenated agents
(in small quantity for as short a time as possible). Intravenous Drugs
During Anesthesia: Thiopental...poor analgesic agent...administration of
sufficient drug given alone to maintain anesthesia may cause appreciable
newborn depression (of central nervous system and respiration, resulting in
low Apgar scores, not sadness - M)....Thus...it is given along with a muscle
relaxant plus nitrous oxide plus oxygen.... When the time from induction of
anesthesia to delivery is prolonged appreciably, there is an increased
likelihood of neonatal depression... Ketamine: Occasionally used in low
doses... Useful in women with acute hemorrhage, unlike thiopental...Usually
causes a rise in blood pressure and thus should be avoided in women already
hypertensive. Unpleasant delirium and hallucinations are commonly induced
by this agent. When given in high doses, ketamine may cause respiratory
depression and hypertonus (Look it up - M) sufficient to impair efforts at
newborn ventilation." From pages 379 and 380, 1997 (20th) edition. And
that's all W.O. has to say about general anesthesia, confirming June's
statements and mine too.]