Conception

We're getting over my head, and that isn't hard to do.

I think there is more than one type of molar pregnancy. A "complete mole" is entirely from the father (the "empty egg" you mentioned), and there are "triploid moles" which carry half (actually 1/4) of the mother's genes, and they can be exceptionally disturbing to see. They sometimes have hair and teeth, but are in no way human.

A tubal pregnancy is indeed a pregnancy. There is no other word for it. The only point I was making is that there is absolutely no way a tubal pregnancy will ever become a one-day old infant. A tubal pregnancy is a zygote/embryo, but is doomed never to reach the fetus stage.

Is a tubal any less "alive" than a 10-year-old? The tubal never had a chance to become 10y/o. Beyond that I think we would just be debating semantics.

 

If anyone is wondering why molar pregnancies are not viable, I have a thread in the top secret Science forum about that.

Undoubtedly a complete mole does not involve a embryo at all and thus is not human. With a partial mole it's questionable--I don't know if a soul is involved or not. Either way I don't think that there's anything wrong with a D&C to evacuate the uterus. Molar pregnancies pose a health threat to the mother and are absolutely inviable, usually dying in the first trimester.

Fetus in fetu is a very interesting case. These occur when an embryo (not sure at what stage, probably still blastoma?) envelops its twin. The enveloped twin continues to grow very slowly, but is abnormally developed. These are very rare and sometimes difficult to distinguish from a fetiform teratoma, which is a form of tumor that can appear very fetus-like, with hair, teeth, and malformed limbs.

Another interesting situation is mosaicism. This occurs when two embryos merge (probably again at the blastoma stage, not sure). The embryo that results has a mixture of cells from both embryos. This can result in some interesting cases, such as the one where a 46XY woman with 46XX reproductive organs who successfully carried a pregnancy to term.

So what happened? Were there originally two souls and one died? Which is the survivor, the one that leaves more tissue? The one that gets the brain? Maybe the two souls combined into one soul? Maybe the soul is not present at conception but develops afterward? Hard to say!

 

It's not a biblical doctrine. It is, however, common sense reasoning when considering the practical evidence. I have no problem viocing my opinion that life beginst at conception. But if I said that this was what scripture said, I'd be dishonest, not to mention, a bad witness.

 

We're getting over my head, and that isn't hard to do.

I think there is more than one type of molar pregnancy. A "complete mole" is entirely from the father (the "empty egg" you mentioned), and there are "triploid moles" which carry half (actually 1/4) of the mother's genes, and they can be exceptionally disturbing to see. They sometimes have hair and teeth, but are in no way human.

A tubal pregnancy is indeed a pregnancy. There is no other word for it. The only point I was making is that there is absolutely no way a tubal pregnancy will ever become a one-day old infant. A tubal pregnancy is a zygote/embryo, but is doomed never to reach the fetus stage.

Is a tubal any less "alive" than a 10-year-old? The tubal never had a chance to become 10y/o. Beyond that I think we would just be debating semantics. </font>[/QUOTE]Where are you getting your information about molar pregnancies? What follows is taken from the website - http://www.obgyn.net/women/articles/molarpreg_dah.htm
and is by D. Ashley Hill, MD. Associate Director - Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology:

"Types of Molar Pregnancy
There are two types of molar pregnancy, complete and partial. Complete molar pregnancies have only placental parts ( there is no baby ), and form when the sperm fertilizes an empty egg . Because the egg is empty, no baby is formed . The placenta grows and produces the pregnancy hormone, called HCG, so the patient thinks she is pregnant. Unfortunately, an ultrasound (sometimes called a sonogram) will show that there is no baby, only placenta. A partial mole occurs when 2 sperm fertilize an egg . Instead of forming twins, something goes wrong, leading to a pregnancy with an abnormal fetus and an abnormal placenta. The baby has too many chromosomes and almost always dies in the uterus."

You said, "there are 'triploid moles'...They sometimes have hair and teeth, but are in no way human."

From what I have read, a "triploid mole" is the most common type of partial molar pregnancy. Not all babies that are the result of this type of pregnancy die in uterus (although most die by the first or second trimester). The ones that are born usually die within a few hours from what I have read. It is true that these babies are usually abnormal and deformed in some way, but how does that make them any less human? Many people are born with disabilities and deformities of some kind and live full lives. Are they any less human?

You said, "Is a tubal any less 'alive' than a 10-year-old? The tubal never had a chance to become 10y/o."

First of all, it is not a "tubal". It is a baby. You said, "The only point I was making is that there is absolutely no way a tubal pregnancy will ever become a one-day old infant."

To this I would have to say...what is the point? Are you trying to say that because the baby does not have a chance to be born and be a "one-day old infant" that it is somehow not a living human being? Does "level of development" or the "potential level of development" determine if a life is present or not? I have a step-sister that has a son that has a rare disorder that will not allow him to live much longer. What he has is 100% fatal (without a miracle). He will most likely not live beyond 8 - 10 years old. Does this make him somehow less human because he will never develop into a 18-year-old adult? If you try to say that this situation is different because he has already been born, then you would be saying that an unborn baby is somehow less than human.

By everything I have read about this, there is no reason to think that babies that are the result of partial molar pregancies are somehow not alive. As for complete molar pregnancies, this always involves an "empty egg" which means there was never a baby to begin with.

 

Umm, that would be blastocyst. My brain is in sleep mode waiting for dinner.

 

The question wasn't about pregnancies, so, imo, that topic is irrelevant. The question was whether life beginning at concreption is a biblical mandate.

I know where you're going with that line of thinking. You're thinking that, if it's defined as being a separate human life, how can terminating these pregnancies be justified? My response is that these pregnancies adversely affect the life and health of the mother, and as such, it's permissible (though not required) for a mother to terminate these pregnancies. I would always add that tough decisions like those should involve the input of the hubby and the prayerful contemplation by both. I don't wish that type of burden on any parents.

 

Good grief, folks! All this? Hasn't God sorted this all out for you by now? I mean, since you were saved and sanctified?

 

What? Have you received a personal communication from God regarding the exact time of ensoulment and fates of the respective souls in a twin pregnancy which mergest to give a mosaic fetus??

 

Grrrrr! I'm trying to make a point by point answer to "dntccc", but I keep getting
that "Forbidden" error.

I'm getting my information on molar pregnancies from memories of college classes circa 1992.

A complete molar pregnancy is entirely paternal. I agree and no one here has challenged that. A triploid and partial mole are the same thing IIRC. I did, however, read your link and had no idea that a partial mole resulted from a "dispermatic" ovum. I thought this was impossible im mammals. (shows what I know) You seemed to imply that some partial moles are carried to term, but die "soon after" and are "usually abnormal". Well, no, they are always abnormal. What is the chromosome sequence for a dispermatic mole? XXYXY?
Humans are either XX or XY. They CAN be XXX or XYY without (necessarily) any ill-effect. Any combination beyond that is a death sentence; so then are they actually human?

I made the remark to "Gina L." earlier about arguing semantics and you helped make my point. "First of all, it is not a 'tubal' it is a baby." When it comes down to brass tacks, that is semantics. They can lock us in a room for 124 days and we can scream at each other about "baby" vs. "tubal", but no progress would be made.

Last, and for the third time, I will try to restate my original point succinctly:

I was responding to a post that seemd to say (basically) human egg + human sperm = human being. The poster also went on to say that egg + sperm will make an infant in 9 months, and in the case of tubal pregnancies we see that this simply isn't true 100% of the time. My point is that it just simply isn't that black and white. (triploid moles, for instance)

 

I've been getting the error too. I had a moderately long post about this that I had to discard because I couldn't get it to go. *crosses fingers*

It isn't really the problem that partial moles are XXX or XYY. People have been born who have the usual complement of autosomal chromosomes and an unusual number of sex chromosomes. The problem is that partial moles have an extra copy of every chromosome. Human beings are diploid creatures, triploidy is not compatible with life. This is why we can suppose that a partial mole might not receive a soul while a baby with Down's syndrome is assumed invariably to have a soul.

I hadn't read anything about partial moles ever living to birth, so I looked it up. Some reported instances are likely a twin pregnancy--normal baby and a complete mole. The only verified case I found was an unusual variant. Most partial moles have 46 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. The one I read about that was born alive had 46 from the mother and 23 from the father. I suppose this is another example of how gene imprinting is critical, although I don't see the exact mechanism behind it.

A ectopic pregnancy is different because it is an essentially normal embryo. If it could be removed and implanted in an appropriate area it would develop normally. Unfortunately there is no way to do this and ectopic pregnancies almost always end in the death of the embryo.

There is one rare case in which an ectopic pregnancy may go to term. If the zygote manages to travel out the wrong end of the Fallopian tube into the abdomen it can implant on the abdomen wall. It took some looking but I found a description of this.

"Full-term viable abdominal pregnancy: a case report and review." Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2003, 268, 340-342.

 

(Looking around for copy of The Stand)

There is a character named "Flagg" in that, don't know if it's "James" though. Isn't there also a guy called "The Trashcan Man"?

I do get your point. Read Johnv's post to me on the previous page; None of my posts actually addressed the OP and its question about The Bible's stance.

I will say that I have learned more today about "non-standard" pregnancies than I have in the previous 10 years.

Good Night all,
-JF

 

There is a character named "Flagg" in that, don't know if it's "James" though.

No, it's Randall. I think James Flagg would be his slightly less evil cousin.

 

It is definately possible to develop more than one idea about the beginnings of the human soul that are consistent with scriptures. Part of the answer will come from what we believe a soul to be. Is the soul an extra bit of something miraculously added to the human being, or is the soul actually the living human being itself, in its ability to be conscious and aware?

 

ittutt,

I don't think I get you at all, but please stop calling my babies worms.

 

Deacon,

I think you made a fair objection, although you were asked to write out statments on social issues as well. I don't think it would be a problem for a church to include BOTH statements which you mentioned in your earlier post.....

Deal with how God sees LIFE Biblically, as well as what your church's particular social stand will be in response to the principle you find in the Bible.

Does that make sense?

 

Jacob was a worm!
I don't think it's always negative.

 

I said "usually abnormal" because I did not want to make an absolute statement about this since what I know only comes from what I have read. I guess I should have said "usually or possibly always abnormal since I am limited in what I know about this".

You said, "Any combination beyond that is a death sentence; so then are they actually human?" If it is not "human" then what would you consider it? Again, just because a baby is going to die, does that make the baby any less human? Was the question you were asking actually this, "...so then do they actually have a soul?" (I am just trying to understand what you mean.)

I know that we will probably never know (at least this side of heaven) with absolute certainty when a human receives his soul (if the soul is considered the non-physical part of a person that is eternal). I will say that given a "normal pregnancy" (with me defining "abnormal" as a chromosomal abnormality that would prove 100% fatal) there is no reason to think otherwise than that a soul is present at conception. As far as a situation where there is some kind of chromosomal abnormality as has been discussed that would always be fatal...I am not sure. I could see in this situation where a soul could still be present, especially in a situation where a baby that is the result of a partial molar pregnancy is born alive and dies shortly thereafter. Since the baby was alive, I would think that this would be a very strong argument of the baby having a soul. Otherwise we would have to consider the possibility of "soulless humans" (I am not trying to start a discussion on the long-age earth belief that involves the belief that pre-adamic soulless humans did exist). To continue with this line of reasoning, if one, such as myself, believes that if a baby is growing inside the mother (I do not want to say "uterus" since there are ectopic pregnancies) then it is alive, then it could be argued that that would mean that a soul is present then as well. The only reason I could see for a baby, in situations of partial molar pregnancies, not to have a soul would be if God chose not to "put" the soul in the baby knowing beforehand that the baby was not going to survive to be born. However, if this option is considered, then the dangerous argument could be put forth by pro-choice advocates that God could do this same thing with babies that are aborted concluding that there would, in such case, be no life taken.