Slashdot Mirror
A High-Res 3D Video of the Embryonic Heartbeat
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the University of Houston, TX, adapted an imaging technique called optical coherence tomography to capture 3D video of the mammalian heart as it forms. They used the method to image a mouse embryo just 8.5 days past conception and about a day after it starts to form. In the remarkable video a normal heartbeat is visible. Normally optical coherence tomography is used for clinical imaging of the retina. Having such a high-resolution, non-invasive way to image the developing heart could perhaps help doctors treat congenital heart disorders in human babies."
BOOM?
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
This is a grainy 2D film, not a high res 3D film!
A mouse at 8.5 days out of a 19-21 day gestational cycle is about equal to a human at 3-4 months (out of 9 months). I'm not sure but I doubt physicians would be willing to operate on an unborn 3-4 month (12-16 week) old human. However there seems to be a presumption that one would want to invest such time and expense in that potential individual to repair such a congenital defect when it is accepted (at least by my myself) that it might be better to simply abort such a potentially problem prone potential individual and start over.
It is worth noting that 60-70% of conceptions end in "natural" terminations (presumably due to a self-error detection and correction process). Most likely heart defects may make it past or around such self-regulatory screening processes.
And yes, for the anti-abortion readers, I'm a cold heartless SOB who will take any "MOD -" points and stick them in the cookie jar on my desk -- and -- FYI, you most probably have no idea what is coming and I am simply going to sit back behind my cookie jar and chuckle when it gets here. For the people who don't know what this really means there are tools that might help called Google and Wikipedia.
It looks like the technology isn't capable of imaging anything too deeply embedded in tissue which is why it worked on a mouse but is unlikely to work in humans.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
You can get arbitrarily good images of fixed (dead) embryos, but live imaging using any method is damn tough, and live 3D imaging at this resolution is, as far as I know, unprecedented. Motion makes it nearly impossible to do MR or CT 3D imaging. You can gate against the cardiac cycle to image a single animal, but nobody can yet gate against a fetal heartbeat in a mouse. I'm not even sure if that would be enough, because the maternal heartbeat contributes significant motion, too.
One of our doctoral students did a 3D atlas of the embryonic mouse using MR microscopy. These were fixed specimens, but they're isotropic (the same spatial resolution in all three dimensions), and nobody's come close to matching our resolution as far as I know. Part of her work was looking at cardiac septal defects, which you pretty much have to study in embryos, because they aren't compatible with live birth.
One drawback of OCT is that it fails if you have to go through much tissue. Mice are tiny enough to make this work possible, but I don't think there's any way you could do it in humans, short of inserting a source/detector into the uterus, which kind of spoils the whole "non-invasive" feature.
and 3d has nothing to do with it
Feel free to steal my sig. It's apropos.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
I can think of quite a few more problems — such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography. Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.
But hey, nothing like getting an "insightful" moderation for your off-topic frosty piss, is there?
Have you ever seen such language in an ad? Do you really think, no people with clean English think of embryos as humans?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And yes, for the anti-abortion readers
Oh, the great irony of politics is that Darwin is firmly on the right wing side. In the end, the earth belongs to those who have the most babies, and, all those things you advocate, undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes. A quick spin of the globe shows that religious societies are the ones producing the most children - and secular societies the least. You can condemn Islam's male domination, or the quaint traditions of American Christianity, but, the fact is, they are the ones having the babies while secular people are not.
So sure, please, believe it: marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant, its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives, believe all of it. If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked, we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly, simply by out-breeding it. But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution, and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.
This is my sig.
It is funny that your post is modded as insightful. I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for.
This is just a screening process. So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted. It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live.
Yet somehow you pre-emptively blame people who are opposed to abortion (because you imagine that it is they who will use this technology).
...think of embryos as humans?
No, they are embryos. They don't become human until they're around 18 years old. Until then, we should be allowed to terminate them. With a note from their mother, of course.
FTFY
FTFY
Given that foetuses are already routinely screened for cardiovascular abnormalities, with the intention of repairing them as soon as practical, I'd say that you are either ignorant or paranoid.
This paper:
...
The most common fetal anomalies encountered in abortion counseling include most **fetal cardiac anomalies**; trisomy 21; open and closed neural tube defects; limb, face, or cleft abnormalities; esophageal
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview
states: Fetal indications for abortion
From the camera manufacturers' site:
In other words, if you hok up a RED ONE camera to a laprascope, the very best you'll see in real time is 1280x720p, which is pretty crappy - even consumer-grade camcorders can do that.
Call us back in a decade when they really can do 4k surgery.
This story got it so wrong (so what else is new) ...
I'm sorry but how does "3d has nothing to do with it" mean anything. The title of the story is that it is in 3d, so I'd say it's pretty relevant no matter how you cut it.
Yes, it's far better to let them come to term and die within hours of birth so some fucking crackhead has time to throw water and weep Jesusy words on them so that they won't go to baby hell where their merciful creator sets them up to go from the moment the torpedos fire.
if I could mod you down I would. 'baby hell' wtf is that?
... but this is stereo(-2D), not (volumetric) 3D. Despite the layman definition.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I'm no expert so, please don't take my word for it but...
Don't mice have a gestation of around 21 days like Hamsters?
I mean, "just 8.5" days sounds spectacular but, scaled to the 21 days they usually take to be born, I'd say it's quite long.
I have no idea how hard it is to film a human embryo at around 3.5~4 months, though. Nor if it's at all related to the scale in time.
The only real problem(beyond the usual high start up costs of new technology) will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads. "Oh Noes!, Lookat the wittle heart..."
Yes. Showing people biological facts with new technology. How terrible pro-lifers must be.
Until Pope Palpatine revised things, 'Baby hell' was "Limbo".
I never understood the "pro-life" (actually more like anti-health) movement. A fetus is nothing special. Because a human is nothing special. It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special. We're not. Life in itself is nothing special. It's just a state of the machine of the class "lifeform". You can make a new fetus in what? Weeks? And this time a healthy one. One that is more likely to create healthy offspring. Or even offspring at all.
The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
A fetus is nothing special. Because a human is nothing special. It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special. We're not. Life in itself is nothing special.
I see human life as special. This may be because I am human and therefore extremely subjective.
I am sure that when an alien race lands on earth they will be a lot more objective than us.
And that is why atheists are the least liked group on the religious spectrum. People don't think of the wonder and beauty and magnificence that people like Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins see in life, or the value that must be placed on all human life because it only comes once, despite the fact that we're all just blobs of carbon based machines and no special soul has ever been discovered. No, they instead think of nihilistic twats like the parent. Sad.
This kind of evidence hopefully makes it clearer that the beat you are seeing is a human being and the only thing that separates it from a newborn is time and food. The baby's hair color, eye color, etc... are already there, they just haven't had enough time to be expressed.
If you don't think the first thing people think about when they see a headline with the words "human embryo" is the abortion debate, then you must not live in the middle of the US.
Right now, in any town between the Adirondacks and the Rockies, you can find people with poster-sized photos of bloody fetuses standing around in front of Womens' Health Clinics waiting to show their compassion by hassling young women trying to get a pap smear. And those are the ones not busy cutting crosses into their wadcutters hoping to get a shot at the doctor who would perform that pap smear.
This is a Christian Country after all.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You haven't met any evangelicals, have you?
You are welcome on my lawn.
You see this is shows how ignorant you are. If you make an argument at least
a) have respect for the other side (not calling a priest a crack head). You may not agree with them and that is your choice, but posting that only makes you stupid
b) Understand the other side. All human babies (including fetuses) go to Heaven (or what we call heaven (you know the crack heads)) because God is a merciful one. He knows that they had no chance to know the truth and therefore have not sinned (you need to have knowledge and freedom (this is in varying degrees.))
anyways the baby will go to heaven. Also you may say that my God is not merciful because he sends people to Hell. No he does not, they choose to go to Hell and he allows them to choose, they could have gone to Heaven they chose not to. So he lets them go to Hell, why would he want them too he is separating his creations. Basically he gave you and me free will and will not interfere with that.
Unfortunately they can't yet test for "belief in angry invisible man in the sky", or that'd be a nice addition to the list.
So wait I can kill you? Ok, I mean after all your nothing special. Wait you mean your not perfect in every way... lets just kill you, I mean we can just make more. Oh you have mental issues, lets just kill you. Oh your paralyzed lets kill you. Heck if we kill people with problems we wouldn't have so many great people, like Steven Hawking, not every person is smart or athletic but that doesn't mean we should kill them.
Unless this video comes with some 3D glasses and I missed out on them, this is 2D. The image has height and width, but I can't rotate it around to see the heartbeat from the side or the back or the top or the bottom.
As evidenced by the overwhelming number of five abortion doctors killed since 1993!
Actually, I think, parents (not "we" — only the parents) should have the life-and-death control over their offspring forever — as was the case in the Roman Empire. ("Parental abuse" may remain wrong, but should not be illegal.)
But my point was different from and not even related to the strawman you knocked down — I do not think, the fellow Americans, who view embryos as humans fully deserving of the society's protection, as unable to express their point using well-articulated (even if still wrong) arguments and in clean English.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Nah, they can use an laparoscope or something similar to place the sensors inside the vaginal womb and image though the placenta more directly. If they can't do it now, that's the next logical approach. Anyways, it will likely be used on artificial inseminated eggs first so there wouldn't be any need for a host carrier outside of removing a few eggs to get the anti abortion images.
People do think of that, and these people are wrong. That was the point of my response...
As evidenced by, what, a whopping five abortion-providers killed since 1993? Although each death is one too many, you are still overly concerned with this particular injustice.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
There are many medical imaging applications which could improve diagnosis without subjecting patients to ionizing radiation, yet very little if any R&D dollars are invested to productize them given that all the major medical imaging vendors are heavily invested in 'big iron' solutions such as CT and digital XRay. As long the current ecosystem is in place these companies will push their multimillion dollar imaging systems while throwing in Ultrasound and laproscopy systems merely to sweeten the deal. This is one area where eastern countries are way ahead of the west in that care providers seek imaging solutions based on utility, not on the reimbursement rates per procedure.
Evangelical atheist or evangelical Christians. Both are known to exist and I would say the first clearly is worse then the later. At least with evangelical Christians, they believe they are doing you good. With evangelical atheist, they are just trying to troll and be an ass.
Forget your high-definition 3-D tomography machine.
Help me find my keys and we'll drive out of here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I want to build a pyramid. Does anyone here have any Jews for sale?
Oy vey. Just hire some Mexicans, you schmuck.
By imposing your view (baby WILL go to heaven), you disrespect is belief. Not everyone think heaven exist.
TFA has a Low res grainy 2D video, and the author readily admits: "Though it looks grainy, this and other video of the developing heart made by the Houston group are some of the best ever taken."
I think, and probably, it is very impressive to make a videothe beating hart of a tiny mouse embryo, even if it is grainy and 2D.
BUT WHERE THE HELL is the H.D. 3D video announced in the headline?
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
I can think of quite a few more problems — such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography. Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.
There is some evidence that ultrasound might disturb brain cells. Of course, they left the ultrasound on the pregnant mouse for half an hour, as I understand it a lot longer than a normal ultrasound session, and it wasn't a profound effect, the brain layers were largely undisturbed. No idea though how much of an effect on brain function that would cause.
I guess this technique uses light instead of sound though? Anyone know what the intensity of the light they're shining in would be? The heart initially forms before the retina does, but if they're using this to diagnose later developmental problems in the late term, and -if- this is a lot of light, I'd worry about frying photoreceptors.
I haven't conclusively figured out where to put the boundaries for individual rights. Anyone who thinks these issues are simple is either naive or a genius on a level I'll never be able to reach. Morality in the real world is messy and arbitrary for everyone who hasn't locked himself into a moral system prescribed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
Morality hinges on human experience. It is not a mathematical problem, and approaching it as if it were only overcomplicates an otherwise, often simple, problem.
Most of Judeo-Christian morality can be deduced by simply paying attention to the plight of others. What is seemingly arbitrary is often the result of our collective experience.
As an example, I'll use homosexuality. According to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, it's wrong. But why?
I honestly didn't know the answer. Why would God care if someone found sexual pleasure in a unique way? He wants us to be happy, right?
I didn't find out until after I had married and had a child. I remember an experience, my son and I in the kitchen, eating breakfast. He spontaneously bursts out, "Daddy and me! Daddy and me! Daddy and me!". In that moment I looked at a person who was a part of the same flesh and blood as my wife and I and it filled me with indescribable joy. I had *no idea* being a father could be so rewarding.
But most homosexuals will never experience this joy, let alone know it exists. Sure, I could describe it a million times, but I remember what it was like when I was single. I really couldn't grasp sex as anything more than an intensely physical pleasure, and the sarcastic rejoinder, "yeah, better than sex" made sense to me. Now it just sounds stupid, as if the person saying it is trying to tell the world how immature and petty they really are. But in having children I discovered that God wants us not merely to enjoy sex, but to have the whole package - marriage and children as well!
And yet, you will find people who have never had children despise the notion of having them. They simply cannot understand - as I did not, prior to having children - the joy of having children. In a similar manner, someone afflicted with homosexual desires, often simply can't understand why they would resist temptation. The first time I met a homosexual, it was immediately apparent to me that they were undergoing an epic internal struggle, the least of which concerned their sexuality. Yet, to them, this condition has persisted for so long it felt "normal" And without the ability to defer judgment to another's experience, they saw no reason to change. Without any understanding that things could be better, they thought of my position as merely trying to take away what little happiness they did posses. (As if I woke up in the morning and said, "Who can I hate today!?")
Most objections to Judeo-Christian morality are rooted in two causes:
The first is almost never philosophical. The second is almost invariably philosophical, but dwells on matters in which the philosopher has no actual experience. Having actually seen someone die unexpectedly, it is very clear to me that all human life is valued by God. Until that happened, the abortion issue for me had been largely a philosophical exercise. It wasn't until I witnessed the death of a human being that my mind changed dramatically. But I realize that most reading this have not had that experience.
In fact, most of us will never have all of the experiences which shaped the Torah or the Bible. We simply have to trust that these tenets of morality were written down and copied throughout the ages because enough people recognized the value and truth in them. But how can we as a society trust the experience of others, when we are so arrogant that we think we already know everything?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It is funny that your post is modded as insightful. I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for.
This is just a screening process. So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted. It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live.
Yes, this is technology that can be used for something some people don't like. That makes it bad.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to use this computer and this internet to hack into a bank and steal someone's life savings, then I'll go to a lab and make a killer virus and clone some serial killers. Then probably come back home and use my stolen money to buy some child porn and upload it with the previously used internet. Then I might take a nap... an EVIL nap.
Yes. Showing people biological facts with new technology. How terrible pro-lifers must be.
Anti-abortion ads are pretty short on actual biological facts and long on pathos and shock value. -Some- pro-lifers are terrible because they clearly get off on using facts to make desperate people feel worse about themselves, and feeling self-righteous.
Some, not most. It's easy to get annoyed with a whole movement based on a fringe asshole minority.
Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother? On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant. In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.
Fetal and maternal circulation are independent and separated by the chorion. The ectoderm also gives rise to the epidermis, and nobody thinks that's special. Neurulation begins around day 19 with the formation of the neural plate. It takes months for this to develop into a distinctively human nervous system.
a new round of weepy pro-life ads
FTFY
FOAD
have respect for the other side
He has no responsibility to show any respect for people who spend their lives chasing fairy tales.
All human babies (including fetuses)
Can you vouch for every sect of your faith? What about original sin? What ever happened to heathens? You cannot make such all-encompassing claims when there have been literally millions killed throughout history just for not having a "chance to know the truth."
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
He's right, though. The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true. It would foolish not to admit that.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
"The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary. "
It's not arbitrary, it's an consequence of the fact that we're human, and the simple that fact that humans that don't value human life either kill themselves or are psychopaths on which a functioning society cannot be based.
Attributing value to human life is probably the LEAST arbitrary thing in human civilization.
You didn't really tell me why it isn't arbitrary. In fact, by saying (let me paraphrase) "We value human life because we're human" you are basically agreeing that we arbitrarily attribute value to human life because we just happen to be humans.
Let me provide an example. Does a rock consider human life valuable? Well, this is obviously a silly question, because a rock cannot think. And yet, a rock is still subject to all the laws of physics. Because the laws of physics are not arbitrary.
It is a credible argument that the laws of a society may not be considered arbitrary because they are intended to protect said society. But as the necessity to protect that society is the basis of those laws, and that desire was arbitrarily defined, all of the laws based on that axiom are subsequently arbitrary.
I'm not saying that we should go rape and pillage just for fun, that wouldn't work out so well. I think we should follow the laws. I arbitrarily agree that human life has value. It's still an arbitrary determination.
Basically, if a rock is not subject to the same rules as you, then those rules are arbitrary.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
t me provide an example. Does a rock consider human life valuable? Well, this is obviously a silly question, because a rock cannot think. And yet, a rock is still subject to all the laws of physics. Because the laws of physics are not arbitrary.
WHAT ON EARTH DOES THIS MEAN?
I know the southpark chewbacca defense joke is old hat, but seriously, did I just read this?
A rock does not attribute value to human life. A rock is subject to the laws of physics. Therefore, the laws of physics are not arbitrary. Therefore human life is arbitrary.
I'm not sure how that works our logically. If any can figure it out, kindly let me know...
And of course nobody would think of modding you down simply because they disagree with what you think... not here on Slashdot. They're way too open minded and tolerant of all views to let a difference of opinion distract them from modding down the truely malicious posts.
As someone who has lost a child to one of the worst heart defects out there (Hypoplastic left heart) I consider this to be wonderful. I am hoping that HLHS will be truly curable in 10 or 15 years. Now it is sort of curable for many, but not all. Forgive me for being negative after losing a child.
As a pro-lifer, please stop the flame war. You are making us look stupid. While I do not believe in abortion, there are cases it is understable, such as in the most hopeless cases of HLHS. My son died so quickly that it does not seem any surgery could have fixed it. Nobody is truly pro-abortion. We only differ on when abortion is acceptable.
He has no responsibility to show any respect for people who spend their lives chasing fairy tales.
You're not helping your case for being open-minded, or even right, with statements like that. Neither "side" of this argument has been able to prove their belief beyond a shadow of a doubt, or there wouldn't be billions on each side. Bashing isn't going to do you any good.
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
"The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true. It would foolish not to admit that."
Somehow I think you'd change your tune pretty quickly if you felt the blade of my knife sliding into your heart, or saw me doing so to a loved one of yours. It would be foolish not to admit that.
Limbo isn't a place of suffering in Catholic dogma. In fact, it's a place of peace and contentment. It's just not as good as being in Heaven with God. It's Purgatory that's "Hell Lite" (for lack of a better term). In Purgatory, you work off your sin through suffering, in order to get to Heaven. The concept of Purgatory lead to the concept of indulgences, which lead to Martin Luther's 95 Theses, and thus to the Protestant Reformation. So all in all, Purgatory solved a problem for the Church (insofar as it allowed soldiers to engage in brutal combat but still get a shot at salvation if they died), but caused a much larger problem in that it was ripe for abuse.
Oops! I accidentally fell into this naked chick... Over and over and over...
But how many unsuccessful attempts have there been?
(No, seriously, I have no idea and am curious.)
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I never understood the "pro-life" (actually more like anti-health) movement. A fetus is nothing special. Because a human is nothing special. It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special. We're not. Life in itself is nothing special. It's just a state of the machine of the class "lifeform". You can make a new fetus in what? Weeks? And this time a healthy one. One that is more likely to create healthy offspring. Or even offspring at all.
The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.
There are at least two problems with this line of thinking:
1) It reduces human beings to the level of disposable widgets. While it's true that there's nothing special about the human species on a biological level, actually behaving that way leads to some very dark places.
2) I can't speak for everyone, but I consider my life pretty damn special, and I would take particular, violent exception to anyone who intended to treat it as trivially expendable.
If you want to talk about it on an evolutionary level, the way you get biological diversity is to not kill off your offspring. Sure, badly deformed offspring probably wouldn't live to reproduce anyway, but the current abortion climate goes well beyond that, into eliminating healthy offspring. (Last time I checked, being poor or underprivileged was not a congenital birth defect. And I should know, since I have such a birth defect.)
If the issue is really babies being born to drug-addicted mothers, or being born into abusive homes, how about treating drug addiction and improving child welfare services? Wouldn't that work out just a tad better than allowing the hellish conditions to persist and just endeavoring to make sure that children were never born into them? After all, you can't force an unfit mother to have an abortion any more than you can force someone to be a good parent.
As to the article itself: I think the technology will be used for both treatment and abortions. Some couples will go in one direction, some will go in the other. It's the same with most pre-natal screening. The technology, broadly speaking, allows the couple to make an informed decision about what they want to do. Their actual decision could go either way.
This is a game of definitions. I believe you are misusing the word "arbitrary": I think you are using it where you should more properly be using the word "subjective".
The laws of physics are objective.
The value of human life is subjective.
The definition of the meter is arbitrary.
Society's desire to protect itself is not "arbitrary" - it's a necessity for a long-lasting society, and therefore not arbitrary, based on the the basic human desire for survival (which again is not arbitrary, but a fundamental part of our genetic makeup).
Something is arbitrary only if the same people having the same concerns could reach a completely different solution. (e.g. should we use the symbol "+" or "-" to signify addition? That's arbitrary)
If however the conclusions are inexorably bound to the concerns (in order to protect human society we must value human life), then they're not arbitary. They may be *subjective*.
Would you prefer that I said he had no responsibility to show respect to anyone? That would be a less confrontational way to say it. To be honest, though, I really wasn't trying to be open minded.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.
The problem in the West is not that women can't have babies, it's that they choose not to.
Obviously, in countries where women are unlucky enough not to have that choice, babies appear with more frequency.
I like it.
Any definition of value associated with human life is entirely subjective based on people arbitrarily choosing to follow their instinct of self-preservation?
Of course, this hinges on people having the free will to make that choice. Without that, subjective value judgments become a matter of chemistry, and the point is moot.
Yes. It is better to use more exact language. Thank you =].
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
"Arbitrary" may have been a poor word choice. As Aris Katsaris has pointed out, "subjective" might be a better term to use.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
It's not arbitrary, it's an consequence of the fact that we're human, and the simple that fact that humans that don't value human life either kill themselves or are psychopaths on which a functioning society cannot be based.
Is the measure of "valuing human life" such that anyone who has an abortion is, by definition, either suicidal or a psychopath ?
If you truly are interested, then do your own research. The point being made by abortion-opponents (a majority in this country, BTW), is that they are being unfairly vilified. Whereas terrorist acts by fanatics of other religion(s) (and they too have plenty of little-reported failures) are immediately followed by calls to not consider all adherents of the religion terrorists, the anti-abortion Christians are never defended in this manner. Worse — as this very thread has shown — they are being openly accused of sharing each terrorist's views and thus their guilt.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm pretty sure that most people who had abortions valued their own human lives -- and as such valued human life in general (if not always in the specific case of a foetus).
Or, as Planned Parenthood would say -muscular contractions in non-viable, pre-human flesh packets?