who's being truthful??? this is from mydr.com (my doctor dot com). According to this, your baby had limbs by week 8...and buds well before that. If what you're telling me is true, you really ought to check that out. http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=3598 First month After the egg has been fertilised by the sperm, it starts to divide into more cells. This happens all the time it is carried along the Fallopian tube to the uterus. By the time it reaches the uterus the fertilised egg has become a cluster of cells which float in the uterine cavity until it embeds in the wall of the uterus. This implantation in the wall of the uterus is when conception is complete. This is roughly 4 weeks after day one of the last menstrual period if you have a 28-day cycle. Second month At 5 weeks the embryo is the size of a grain of rice (about 2 mm long) and would be visible to the naked eye. It has the beginnings of a brain with 2 lobes and its spinal cord is starting to form. At 6 weeks of ‘pregnancy’ (3-4 weeks after fertilisation) the embryo has a head with simple eyes and ears. Its heart has 2 chambers and is beating. Small buds are present that will form arms and legs later. The beginnings of the spine can be seen and the lower part of the body looks like a tail. At 7 weeks, the limb buds have grown into arms and legs. Nostrils can be seen on the embryo’s face. The heart now has 4 chambers. At 8 weeks, the eyes and ears are growing, and your baby is about 2 cm long from crown to rump. The head is out of proportion with the body and the face is developing. The brain and the blood vessels in the head can be seen through the thin skin. The bones in the arms and legs start to harden and elbows and knees become apparent. Fingers and toes can also be seen. Third month What is known as the embryonic period finishes at the end of week 8 and the fetal period begins. This period sees rapid growth of the fetus, and the further development of the organs and tissues that were formed in the embryonic period. At week 9 the head is almost half the crown to rump length of the fetus. Then the body grows substantially in length until by week 12, the head is more in proportion. By the time you are 12 weeks’ ‘pregnant’, your baby is just over 5 cm long from crown to rump. Its body is fully formed, including ears, toes and fingers complete with fingernails. The external genitals appeared in week 9, and now, by week 12, have fully differentiated into male or female genitals. By week 12 the eyes have moved to the front of the face and the eyelids remain closed together.
It is good to see that the pro abortion crowd will simply make up "evidence" to use. thanks for the help with that one, andy. of course, i never imagined you'd lie about the development of your own child.
She wasn't dependant on the mother's body, she could have been birthed much earlier. I would NEVER say that a woman can't grieve for a miscarried fetus, especially if it happend late in the term. I did say that people move on from such events, but I guess I should have specified that this can take different amounts of time for each person. Of course your friend is still upset she lost hers in April, that was 2 months ago. Eventually, she will finish mourning the loss and will go on. Remember, she is mourning the future tense, the baby she was expecting to bear in July or so. A woman who has an abortion does not have that kind of attachment to her fetus.
I SAW the ultrasound of the fetus in my wife's womb. No face, no ears, no arms, and no legs. There may have been nubs, but they were not apparent on the ultrasound.
mydr.com is not influenced by abortion politics, as best i can tell. it's a website for general medical information.
Even if we accept your timeline, the fetus cannot survive outside the mother, so it has not become a life yet. I also do not believe that the soul enters the body until the brain is developed more fully.
more assumptions. as for surviving outside of the mother's body...haven't we already gone round and round over that?
In response to giddyup's post that his brother and wife celebrate the rememberance the loss of their unborn child you wrote: "OK, but most people are reasonable." This is a cruel, cruel thing to say. People grieve and mourn in their own way. It is NOT unreasonable to remember a lost 'mass of cells'. If my wife and I were unfortunate enough to conceive a child only to lose it (even after 1 month), I would carry that loss with me the rest of my life and that is NOT "unreasonable". Again, I say, that we don't have scientific concensus as to when life actually begins, but we do know for a fact that that 'mass of cells' WILL become a real human being provided it is not miscarried or stillborn. Ratinonalize this, we have laws that protect the egg of a condor, but we don't have laws to protect a fetus.
<b>andymoon</b>; I don't know you well, but I tell you this: the only thing I admire about you is your tenacity! I look forward to the day when you can see the inconsistencies in your own argument... and reverse your position. I don't even give one moment's thought to a woman's right to choose... not when there is an innocent child's life hanging in the balance.
andymoon Answer this. Assume a woman is pregnant. At one month she is in an accident that is the fault of a drunken driver. She miscarries, but is otherwise uninjured. Should the drunk driver be charged with some form of manslaughter? What about at 3 months pregnant? 6 months? 7 months? 8 months? 9 months?
My family does not have a yearly remembrance for my brother, and he was killed when he was 16. I consider us to be reasonable and all of us went through our grieving period before we moved on with our lives. I, personally, think that having a yearly event to grieve for a miscarried fetus is over the top, but you are right, I have no place to say anything about their grieving process. The egg of a condor (if fertilized) will become a condor even without the presence of the mother. Without a concensus on where "life" begins, the government would be irresponsible in banning a medical procedure that should be overseen by licensed medical practitioners, not criminals.
Thank you! This is not even my issue (see the Children addicted to drugs thread). And I look forward to the day when you make decisions regarding your life and family and leave others' lives, decisions, and family planning to them. Unfortunately, I do not think you will wake up and see the big picture until you have left this Earth and face God. No, I am not saying you will be punished for your opinions (unless at some point you do something like bomb an abortion clinic, but you don't sound like one of those). Y'all need to step back and look at the role that government should play when it comes to things like medical procedures. EVERY medical procedure needs to be supervised by licensed medical personnel in sanitary conditions. You want the bad old days of back alley abortions, women going to jail, and no reduction in abortion rates (which is what happened before when abortion was banned). I am a realist who wants a responsible government that gives every (living, breathing) person their right to privacy, to pursue happiness the way they see fit, and the right to choose what happens in their bodies.
No, but I think that it would be reasonable to pass a law that punishes someone for causing a miscarriage through their negligent or knowing action. This would be punishing the person for the injury to the mother (the loss of a potential child) based on their action.
So, in your opinion, it is perfectly reasonable for a government to protect the egg of an unborn bird because it could "come to term" without its mother being present, but it is not unreasonable for a government to NOT protect a 'mass of cells' that we know for a scientific fact would also come to term as a human life (providing a miscarriage doesn't occur) because it needs a 'host'? If that is truly your opinion, then I take it that you value the potential life of a bird more so that the potential life of a human because a woman should have the right to terminate that life up to some arbitary point that you decide it is viable outside the womb. Hypothetically speaking, in your opinion, if you could be absolutely assured that women would not go to a 'criminal' (your word) to get an abortion if they were banned, would you be for banning abortions? I am asking that question due to your comment above.
So you are against the laws that are currently on the books that allow some states to charge a person with manslaughter when an unborn child is killed due to their "negligent or knowing action"? In other words, if the mother was killed as well, there should only be one count of manslaughter (the mother's)? Taking this further, if it was your unborn child at 9 months that was the victim of this accident (heaven forbid) you would be satisfied (for lack of a better word) if the drunk driver was not directly punished for the death of the unborn child?
I appreciate that you are granting me a power you don't even reserve for yourself. You excluded yourself from influencing your wife's decision about possible abortions.... yet you grant that authority to me. I would protect my children better than that.
No, it is not inherently more valuable, it is just that the condor does not have to host the egg. Since the woman has to host the fetus, her will and opinion HAS to enter into the argument. Why is the woman's opinion moot simply because some mass of cells COULD become a child? This is why a responsible government HAS to allow abortion. The woman has a choice and one way or another, if she doesn't want a child, she can find a way to abort or miscarry it. Government needs to make sure that this is carried out in a responsible way. I can't answer that because poor women WOULD go to criminals for abortions (proven FACT based on history). Middle and upper class folks could go to Canada or Mexico, but poor women would not have the means for it. Even if you COULD make such a guarantee, the woman still has the right to choose. Now, as discussed earlier, if the choice was CHANGED, I could support it. e.g. If the woman could choose to give the fetus up to the government to bring to term in an incubation chamber or to be implanted in another woman, then banning abortion might be a valid choice.
What? You did not make a whit of sense here! I said that you should influence YOUR life and your family's growth and development. I would not try to influence my wife in a decision to terminate unless she ASKED for my opinion (which I think she would, but I still could not EXPECT it).
Other than a miscarriage, when will the 'mass of cells' NOT become a child? In my opinon, the woman's opinion should be moot because in the vast majority of abortions, she (along with the man) CHOSE to participate in an act which could produce a child, regardless of precautions taken.
