Is a fetus a blob of tissue?

[qwwqqe]

yah its a blob of tissue..

[xj2yzz]

Where is the men in all this?this isn't immaculate conception,now.

[DeimosSaturn]

A baby/fetus/embryo is a person. A mother is a person. The baby is forcing the mother to carry it against the mother's will. The baby's rights end where the mother's rights begin. The mother has a right to not carry another person inside her. End of discussion. Abortion is always justified in all scenarios.

[BigBlueWave]

The right to life is the most important right. A mother has an obligation to take care of her child. The baby doesn't "force' her to do anything.

No one has the right to kill an innocent human being. That is the first and most fundamental right.

[DeimosSaturn]

Actually, bigbluewave, Habeas Corpus takes precedence over the right to live. Life isn't worth living without liberty. Hence the phrase "Liberty or Death". Would you rather live in an Orwellian Prison State like North Korea or die being shot to death trying to make a run for the South Korean border?

[Diannakw]

uh, sorry, a baby/fetus/embryo/zygoat/blast­ocyst is NOT a child/person. it is a POTENTIAL person. ( just like an acorn is a potential oak tree )

[BigBlueWave]

an unborn child is a human being. Not a potential human being. An actual one. The acorn is not an oak tree because there is no germination. It is not an organism. An unborn child is an organism of the species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being, and offspring to boot. Therefore a child.

[Diannakw]

@BigBlueWave

Anti-choicers are barely willing to even acknowledge this opposing position, let alone address it in any rational way.

there is a wide divergence of opinion on the degree of "human beingness" of the fetus

however, There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim. That's why we should give the benefit of the doubt to women and let them decide - because women are indisputable human beings and persons with rights.

[BigBlueWave]

No, it is a scientific fact that a fetus is a human being. A fetus is an organism. Of what species? Homo sapiens. Ergo, a human being. I just presented scientific proof. You can't refute any of those points. You give benefit of the doubt to the being who may be killed, otherwise you may be killing a human being; that's worse than an unwanted pregnancy.

[BigBlueWave]

And by the way, sometimes an opposing position is wrong and shouldn't be respected. Do you respect white supremacists? No. Because they are objectively wrong about races. People who do not acknowledge fetuses as a human being are PROVABLY wrong.

[Diannakw]

@BigBlueWave

provable? huh ...so what and where is this credible proof? because either they forgot to show it to the supreme court, or its just not that convincing...

[BigBlueWave]

Again, another fallacy. The proof is there. A fetus is an organism. Check. An organism is of the same species as its parents. A fetus that has human parents is therefore a human being. Abortionists know they're killing. Why do you suppose there's a procedure called "feticide"?

[Diannakw]

@BigBlueWave

**Why do you suppose there's a procedure called "feticide"? **

uh, because thats what anti-choicers like to call abortion, thinking theyre being clever?

lots of things are organisms, but not human. whats your point?

**Many people see it as a bad decision, independent of their stance on abortion. **

and just as many (actually more) see it as a good decision, as freedom.  again, where is the argument? yes people disagree. if u think its wrong, DONT GET ONE. ta-da!

[BigBlueWave]

Roe V. Wade was argued on all kinds of inaccuracies. Many people see it as a bad decision, independent of their stance on abortion.

[DonExodus2]

This is a strawman- no one of any sophistication would tell you a fetus is a blob of tissue. An embryo is, however.

[BigBlueWave]

No it's not. An embryo is not a "blob". It's not an amorphous mass without organization or function.

[Diannakw]

@BigBlueWave

anti-choicers make no effort to reach beyond their own subjective viewpoint to empathize with human beings whose beliefs differ from their own. Unfortunately, this inability to empathize is what breeds intolerance, hate crimes, and war. theyre so dogmatically convinced that fetuses are persons that theyre unable to comprehend that others might legitimately think theyre not.

[BigBlueWave]

Dianna, poor-choicers are so dogmatically convinced that a fetus is not a human being and so unable to empathize with him that it has resulted in the deaths of 50 million human beings, a death toll far greater than any war in the last 40 years. You are committing an ad hominem fallacy and appear not to be able to argue. Abortion kills a human being. That's not subjective, that's a fact.

[Diannakw]

@BigBlueWave

mass vs. blob ...hm.

[Spiritualseeker2007]

Tell people who have been trying for years to have a baby that its a blob of tissue and im sure you would get a blob of tissue right in your face .

good video and good on you for posting this you are making people aware of what they dont know

[Curtis006]

The problem with this video is that those pictures do look like a blob of tissue.

[BigBlueWave]

LOL. Very perceptive. :D

[HurricaneHeidi]

So many "grey areas"... so little time..... Ashmarie88 says: "personhood isn't dependent upon sentience". This was the issue in the Terry Schiavo controversy: A non-sentient, adult human being who was kept alive on life support equipment was allowed to slowly starve and dehydrate to death after removal of life support because sentient human beings in the legal and religious systems of this nation could not bring themselves to authorize euthanizing her instead.

[HurricaneHeidi]

They said she wasn't "suffering" because she was not "sentient"... so they reassured themselves that Terry felt absolutely nothing and was aware of absolutely nothing as she slowly dehydrated and wasted away. Dehydration is a HIDEOUS death. Read about it.

[HurricaneHeidi]

So Terry Schiavo was considered a non-sentient being, and was allowed to slowly perish due to lack of life support. I submit that a pregnant woman = "life support" and that an undeveloped xygote AKA conceptus is also non-sentient. An early abortion, then, is the intentional removal of life support from a non-sentient being.

[HurricaneHeidi]

Next, I would point out that the trashing of hundreds of thousands of unused xygotes at infertility clinics is the decision NOT to provide life-support to non-sentient beings.

[steam0001]

Terry Schiavo was murdered. She was awake, brain alive, and responsive to people. Then they decided her life had no value and slowly and painfully dehydrated and starved her to death.

Using the scientific method, after conception, baring incident or outside interference, 9 months later a baby is born. There fore life begins at conception!

[HurricaneHeidi]

There was a huge difference of opinion as to whether or not Terry Schiavo was at all conscious of her own existence. But there is no question that an early first-term xygote is unaware of it's existence and is incapable of experiencing pain. The Schiavo situation was a debacle - showcasing the horror of being unable to offer the option of merciful euthanasia instead of slow starvation and dehydration.

[HurricaneHeidi]

Personally, I do believe that a pregnant woman should make up her mind before the third month of pregnancy... before the fetus begins to look human, as in the 10-week old fetus shown in this video.

[exactspace]

yeah pretty simple...but i've never heard anyone say that before

[BigBlueWave]

Some still do. You'd be surprised how many educated people trot out that one.

[annabelwell]

Realvek, sentience is a hallmark of personhood. Of course there are tragic exceptions, which should be treated as such, of full-term babies who are non-sentient. But if personhood is dependent on sentience, and sentience is dependent on development, then early abortions can be argued as ethically acceptable -certainly not murderous.

[realvek]

Well, I consider anyone to become into being from the point of conception. Now if they aren't actually "sentinent" as of yet, they are still human individuals who have begun development. There is a clear difference between electing to consciously end that human life versus it ending for other reasons.

[ashmarie88]

Personhood isn't dependent on sentience.

Person = human being, human body, a being with human DNA.

By denying personhood, you're denying they're even living human beings.

[meredumais]

Believe me, BigBlueWave, I've talked to Catholics. I've also worked in IVF/biology labs, and I can assure you that what I worked with was not 'people', but rather 'potential people'-if they were lucky. Most did not make it past a few cell divisions. Were those treated as deaths by the hopeful parents? No way. Big disappointments, but not deaths.

BIG difference between talking about something and working with it before your eyes (under a microscope.)

[BigBlueWave]

You said you've talked to Catholic. Have you talked to PRACTICING and ORTHODOX Catholic?

I read a book on the sociology of IVF called 'the elusive embryo'. Many parents treated their embryos as children once they were implanted.

There are lots of people who've worked in biology labs who think the zygote/blastocyst etc is a person. Just take Dr. Jerome LeJeune.

In a lab, it's easy to dehumanize anything. Just think of the way the Nazis dehumanized the Jews in the lab.

[annabelwell]

Naming one doctor does not bolster your case, BBW. There are many more who believe the conceptus is not a person.

And you just hurt your own argument-'once they were implanted.' Implantation is not only elusive to pinpoint, but does not even take place in 50-75% of fertilized eggs. So how can life begin at conception, if implantation is 7-12 days later, and usually does not happen anyway? (Chemical pregnancy.)

[realvek]

Many more doctors? Is that a statistic?

Implantation does not always take place, but who says that you should take it upon yourself to prevent an individual from implanting?

You're doubting that zygotes are alive?

[annabelwell]

I guess you don't understand the difference between 'life'-which encompasses so very much -and personhood worthy of legal protection.

No, I cannot see a zygote as a plaintiff or defendant in a court of law. It is not yet a person, alive or not.

[annabelwell]

BTW, I was just responding to realvek there.

[BigBlueWave]

I keenly understand the difference between "human being" and "person". That distinction has been used time and again to oppress those human beings to whom the majority does not want to accord legal rights.

The unborn have been plaintiffs in courts of law, including just recently in Ireland, where an unborn child was granted a lawyer to represent his interests.

[realvek]

I cannot see any murdered individual as a plaintiff or a defendent, the defendent is always the killer and it's versus the people.

You said that a zygote isn't alive, that's what I was countering.

You only believe that it's not a person because it is not recognized under law and consider it an inconvenience. It wouldn't be the first human being in history to not be recognized under law as a person.

[smottens]

That parents treat the death of their embryos as disappointments, but not deaths, says more about those parents (and their state of knowledge), than it does about the embryos. Parents are often not aware of pregnancy until the end of the embryo phase - before there's been time to build an emotional attachment, in many cases. If a homeless person on the street has no social attachments, it doesn't mean that he's not a person. Same thing with the embryo.

[annabelwell]

Apples and oranges, smotens. Homeless people have established personhod, which carries with it the ability to think and interact with others. A pregnant woman cannot establish a bilateral relationship with a non-sentient embryo.

Are you sugggesting they should have funerals from those embryos?

Have you had miscarriages and given birth to live children as I have? You are terribly judgmental towards parents. A true pro-lifer.

[realvek]

Smotten is judgemental towards parents for saying that they are often not aware of pregancy until the end of the embryo phase? I don't see how this is terribly judgemental, but quite factual. In the case of many unplanned pregnancies, the parents aren't aware.

Some would hold funerals for these HUMAN embryos, some would just shrug and move on. Some would carry a child till birth, others will pull limbs off of unborn babies as though it's a fly.

[annabelwell]

BTW, realvek, I have spent a lot of time in Canada, and you are the first- from any province - who is not pro-choice. Age has a lot to do with it, I believe. I honestly do. You are very, very young - if your channel is truthful. That's not an insult, just a fact. I'd be interested to see your position on this in 20 years.

[annabelwell]

Realvek, I meant you are the first Canadian I've ever MET who is anti-choice.

[realvek]

Well, I know plenty of pro-life Canadians. If it is true what you say, I am pleased to make your aquaintance.

p.s. I'd prefer if you don't call me anti-choice, unless you'd like me to call you anti-life.

[smottens]

Realvek, by this comment you remind me of the story of the left-leaning New Yorker who was flabbergasted that Reagan could have won the election, because she didn't know a single person who voted for him (when he carried 49/50 states. It says more about the company you keep than anything. There are lots of pro-life Canadians - you can trust me on this one.

[dreams678]

iam canadian iam pro-life

[smottens]

You're a little touchy, Anna. All I said was that it's understandable that often parents haven't formed emotional/social attachment due to the short duration of the pregnancy. I am a parent (5 times over, moreover - waiting for #6 right now). I'm saying that social attachments (or lack thereof) shouldn't determine whether the law protects us.

[smottens]

The fact that the embryonic stage doesn't look like later stages again says more about us than it does about the embryo. It is foolish for us to take one stage of human life and say that all other human life should be judged by its stage of development. Whenever we dehumanize one group of humans, it becomes easier to do things to them that would otherwise be unspeakable.

[meredumais]

More typos:

connections

Developed

sentience is the ability to feel. It may be suspended temporarily, as during sleep or, more pertinently, a coma or surgery, but the presumption is that it will return because it is already established. In an early fetus, IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED YET. BIG difference.

[meredumais]

Sorry. Typing fast, as I have to care for my BORN children: SELF-AWARENESS.

Still no answer: WHERE ARE ALL THE FUNERALS? I will not post anything else on abortion until someone gives me a reasonable answer. No one ever does. Ever.

[realvek]

People don't hold funerals for those who die yet their deaths go on unknown. People do hold funerals, or memorials for misscarried babies, when they know it happened. All that set aside though, you're agruing for the right to consciously take away the life of another. When people get sick, sometimes they die, it's unfortunate, yet it happens. The same thing happens to the unborn, and early on, at high frequencies. You're arguing that we willingly take their lives.

[BigBlueWave]

I believe that a zygote is a person equal to adults. It's not a potential life. Life can be one-celled. It's a biological fact. You mustn't be talking to the right pro-lifers. Try some staunch Catholics.

[meredumais]

Also, pro-lifers, do you believe that at the moment of conception, the conceptus has full personhood? If so, since 50-75% of fertilized eggs don't implant and die, should we have funerals for most of 'humanity' on a daily basis? No one has EVER answered this question for me. Ever. I see what a one-day conception looks like. It IS a clump of cells. Only a few...and if it doesn't die (which it often does), it continues dividing. In the beginning, it is POSSIBLE, POTENTIAL life.

[realvek]

For someone who works/worked in an IVF lab, you sure have a distorted concept of what "life" is. Do they really hire people with no biological education in those places?

[annabelwell]

Realvek, you clearly know nothing about ;those laces'. Have you watched an IVF procedure? Have you seen the magnified photos of what is present one, two, and three days after fertilization? Can you, in all honesty, say those are fully developed 'people'? If so, I have nothing more to add.

[realvek]

I'm quite familiar with the stages of cleavage and gastrulation in different species of sexually reproducing animals. I never claimed that they were fully developed. In fact, when a baby is born at 9 months, it's really 3 months pre-mature, you can blame that on our large skulls, a human cannot be born any later. Just compare us to other mammals functionality at birth. My point is that development isn't a factor in determining individuality, only dependence.

[smottens]

It's foolish to speak of 'potential life' - such a thing doesn't exist. Either something is alive or it isn't (although I'm not trying to settle the 'is a virus alive?' debate here). Pro-lifers instead like to say that it's a life with potential.

[annabelwell]

No, smottens, there's life, and then there's life with the added facet of personhood-worthy of legal protections.

[smottens]

Anna - nobody claimed the zygote was a fully developed human being. We assert that full human development shouldn't be necessary to be protected like any other human being. "Personhood" is an ambiguous term that has been used historically to keep blacks, and women, and now the unborn from the legal protections that human beings deserve. It's curious that in these three situations the 'pro-choice' side argued against 'personhood' in each case.

[BigBlueWave]

Thanks. I appreciate it.

[SayuriStar]

Thank you so much. Pro-life!  I've have had some bad tomes and good time sin my 11 year old life, but even though there are bad times, it would be better than death!

[Oktober13th]

I wonder what these "some people" would say about someone else "chooooosing" to end their OWN wretched existance?

[JMcH]

Great job, Suzanne!

[dbaseII]

Awesome video!!!

[ashmarie88]

Kind of beats the whole "fetus is just tissue" myth eh? Good video.

[meredumais]

Fetus is not just tissue, but fetus is not sentient until 28 weeks. So it can be validly argued that it is not a person if a person has to be self-aware and sensitive to pain to qualify.

What about morning-after contraception? I've worked in IVF labs. Trust me, what is eliminated in that case is so microscopic that it isn't even tissue YET.

[ashmarie88]

Actually, the child isn't sentient until 20 weeks, the same time it can start to feel pain thru-out its entire body and when it can survive outside of the womb with help.

Altho, sentience doesn't matter. When I am sleeping, in a deep sleep, I'm not sentient at the time. Does that mean it'd be OKAY for someone to kill me in my sleep, just because I'm not aware of my surroundings then? Or a born baby that's sleeping and not aware of anything.

[meredumais]

You are absolutely sentient when sleeping. If I stabbed you in your sleep, you'd feel it, because you have fully developed cerebral cortices (presumably) and intact neural connections that can send pain signals to your brain.

Oh, and these structures are not fully developed in a fetus until 28 weeks. Look it up in an embryology textbook.

[ashmarie88]

Sentient means "conscious". In a deep sleep, I am not conscious.

And yes, the structures ARE developed before 28 weeks. In fact, while the baby cannot feel pain until 17-20 weeks, the nerves and nervous system begins to develop shortly before 7 weeks.

I have read many biology books and many fetal development resources - I love both, and study both.

[meredumais]

No, sentience is understood in the world of science as 'able to feel.' Which you ARE in your sleep.

You just screwed up your own argument. Exactly. The nervous system BEGINS TO DEVELOP EARLY.

Are neurons myelinated? No.

Are there conections between neurons via synapses? No.

Are cerebral cortices eveloped enough to feel or think? No.

It's a VERY GRADUAL PROCESS.

[smottens]

I agree with your statement that it's a very gradual process. In fact, the most distinctive moment in our existence is when the sperm and the ovum join. Everything after that is one continuum of development and growth - precisely why pro-lifers see it overly arbitrary to pick any other stage as the point at which we begin endowing the unborn with the same rights as other human beings.

[ashmarie88]

Sentient means "conscious". In a deep sleep, I am not conscious.

And yes, the structures ARE developed before 28 weeks. In fact, while the baby cannot feel pain until 17-20 weeks, the nerves and nervous system begins to develop shortly before 7 weeks.

I have read many biology books and many fetal development resources - I love both, and study both.

[ashmarie88]

Also, I'm 100% for plan b and birth control. I don't believe those cause abortions like most pro-lifers do.

[meredumais]

Plan B meaning Morning After pills? In that case, you are POSSIBLY destroying the most rudimentary fertilized egg, which may or may not have gone on to keep undergoing cell division and implant. So in your view, full personhood does not begin at conception. I agree.

[ashmarie88]

I don't believe the pill prevents anything except for pregnancy, therefore not killing anything.

I do believe personhood begins at conception.

[meredumais]

That's your right to believe that. However, you must concede that the majority of humanity dies before it feels or thinks anything, or even remotely resembles a human. Most conceptions end in what are known as 'chemical pregnancies' that never implant.

I'll ask again: where are all the funerals?

[BigBlueWave]

Since we don't know about them, we can't have funerals. Plus there's no body to bury. However, I was pregnant for nine days, had a miscarriage and had a memorial mass for my unborn child. My priest was glad to do it.

[realvek]

I believe one of the main points here is that there is a difference between inducing an abortion yourself versus the natural course where pregnancy may or may not occur. In the first instance, you make the decision yourself to prevent a human individual in its most undeveloped form to continue to exist.

[smottens]

Ashmarie, I appreciate your pro-life views, but you're going to have to choose here between supporting hormonal birth control and believing that personhood begins at conception. The pill (in fact, all hormonal contraception) can act in three ways: 1) by preventing ovulation, 2) by making it difficult for the sperm to reach the ovum, and 3) by preventing the zygote from implanting in the wall of the uterus. Hormonal contraception causes early abortions, at least some of the time.

[ashmarie88]

And one more thing I meant to point out - Many born people cannot feel pain because of some genetic mistake that was made at conception when dna was created. Would it be OKAY to murder them because they cannot feel pain? Are they not people because they can't feel anything?

And just one more thing - A person is a person. No human being can be a non-person. A non-person cannot magically transform into a person right away at one point.

It's about biology!

[meredumais]

Yeah, it is about biology. It's a gradated proces of development that, if uninterrupted, may result in a baby, a blighted onvum, an ectopic pregnancy, a molar pregnancy (cancer), a dead embryo due to genetic causes, and a number of other things. Nature is capricious. That's why no one can state with certainty when human life begins inside the uterus, no matter how much they fight it out.

[ashmarie88]

Sex and conception can result in a baby, correct - So, if you don't want a baby, either don't have sex, get some better birth control, or get sterilized.

And LIFE begins at conception, are you choicers still denying that? Life begins at conception because that's when LIVING cells start to multiply and divide, and start developing more. Life is life, life cannot be dead.

[meredumais]

LIFE can be anything organic, from a tree to an octogenarian. Is it human? Yes. Is it alive? Yes. Is it a person? No, because there is no selfaareness, not to mention ability to survive independently. It is developING, not developED.

Abortion will always exist, usually be performed early, period. You'd better just get used to it. It has existed since the beginning of recorded time.

[smottens]

Why is self-awareness a defining characteristic?

My 20 month old baby is developing life, should we be allowed to kill her too? Not only that, but she's dependent on us to survive - my, what a burden she is.

That abortion will always exist, I don't doubt (although I hope otherwise). I suspect you wouldn't use that chain of logic in regards to rape, though, would you? Should we just get used to it too?

[meredumais]

We are all developing life. Developing, SENTIENT, SELF-AWARE life. A conceptus is NOT.

Yeah, we have to get used to rape, and murder, and all kinds of morally reprehensible things. In my view, and in those of THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS (thanks, Annabel!), early, pre-sentient abortion is not morally reprehensible.

I, too, have children and had a miscarriage. Have you had one, Sm.? Did you have a funeral?

[BigBlueWave]

Not all individuals who are born are sentient or self-aware. That's the thing!

The Majority of Americans oppose legal abortion except in the case of rape, incest and serious medical issue.

I've had a miscarriage and had a memorial mass for my unborn child who was 23 days when I miscarried.

[annabelwell]

The majority of Americans are pro-choice with respect to the first trimester, and support later abortions in the case of medical tragedies such as genetic defects. I can send you many legitimate and objective sources on this.

You are in the tiny minority of people who memorialize an early pregnancy loss. Nearly every woman I know has had at least one miscarriage, and most are sad when it happens, but I've certainly never seen anything approaching a funeral.

[annabelwell]

If you go to surveyusadotcom, and enter in abortion, you'll see pro-choice vs. pro-life by state based on the last presidential election. 38% of Americans identify as Pro-Life,56% identify as Pro-choice. Even Fox News Online admits that most Americans are pro-choice.

[annabelwell]

From a CENTRIST blog, The Independent Nation: Sixty-four percent of Americans agree that the decision to have an abortion should be between "a woman, her doctor, her family, her conscience and her God" (Luntz Research Companies, August 2003). As the Gallup Organization explains,reflecting on decades of data: "In part because Americans support the idea of individual choice, they do not want to ban abortion."

[annabelwell]

Last I checked, we live in a country that espouses the concept of religious/philosophical freedom. If you are Catholic (or not)and think life begins at conception, don't have an abortion. If you harbor a different belief system and experience an unintended pregnancy, you should be able to have a legal abortion without harassment if you so opt. That's the essence of CHOICE. No 'side'or 'expert' can prove when PERSONHOOD begins, so the issue should be left alone as it is in Europe.

[smottens]

No, we haven't miscarried - but we have several friends/relatives who have, and have sought different types of rituals to get through it.

You may think self-awareness is essential, but a lot of people would think otherwise. My point on the other is that we continue to legislate against rape, etc, and try to discourage it. Abortion should be treated the same way.

[BigBlueWave]

Human rights are believed to be intrinsic to humanity, according to Western tradition, because all human beings, partaking of the same nature, need these rights to fulfill their potential. All unborn need to be protected from being killed so that they can go on and have a meaningful life.

[realvek]

You cannot state where life begins because life technically never "begins", rather a new individual forms from pre-existing life. Livng organisms come from other living organisms. There is no point where it is not alive, only a point where a new biological individual of the given species is formed. This individual could be a zygote floating in water or a human zygote in a fallopian tube.

[meredumais]

This video appeals to emotions, not reason. First of all, the 'youngest' embryo is around five weeks. What about prior to that? I have worked with fertilized eggs, and I can ASSURE you they are unrecognizable 'blobs' until close to that earliest picture (which has been grossly distorted in scale, of course.)

[realvek]

If you want to call it a blob of tissue, in fact, that's really what we all are, from a biological prospective. But that's right, there is a point when all of us could, from a qualitative viewpoint, could be referred to as a blob of tissue. Each and every one of us was once a blob.