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."

Comments

Re:I don't think so...

[Tomfrh]

You forgot rape

For real. It is a scientific fact that rape babies are devil spawn. As such they must be terminated with extreme prejudice. Anyone who doesn't believe this needs to watch the Nightmare on Elm Street series. This documents fully the dangers that can arise when rape babies are allowed to come to term.

Re:Cool tech.

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:Cool tech.

[Hurricane78]

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.

Re:Cool tech.

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:I don't think so...

[gillbates]

There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form.

Actually, there's quite a bit more, and here are some just off the top of my head:

• Humans appreciate beauty, and build things for that purpose alone.
• Humans are capable of self control. (Though, admittedly, liberals - while seemingly human - do not seem to understand the concept of self control. They believe it is impossible for teenagers to abstain from sex, for bums to refrain from alcohol, etc...)
• Humans are capable of selfless service.
• Humans are capable of love.
• Humans have a soul.

But on to the crux of the argument: If a human does not possess rights - specifically, the right to live - simply because they are human, created by God, then no human has any rights at all.

Any other theory of the rights of man can be easily extended to deny *certain people* their rights based on completely arbitrary characteristics. You said, "How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?". Let's run with that, shall we:

1. First, let's define humanity in our own particular way, to exclude the groups we want to oppress:
   • White skin is a basic characteristic of humanity.
   • Being male is a basic characteristic of humanity.
   • Being "civilised" is a basic characteristic of humanity.
   • Being Aryan is a basic characteristic of humanity.
2. Then, take these definitions, and get the public to agree with them:
   • Blacks are "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
   • What right does a woman have to vote?
   • The Indian [was thought] as less than human and worthy only of extermination.
   • It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews.
3. Profit!

The notion that a person isn't human because of some arbitrary factor or fine-sounding theory of what-it-means-to-be-human is that these judgments always pave the way for oppression and atrocities whenever there arises social stressors.

Now, these are not hypothetical examples. They actually happened, because someone thought they "Just Knew" their pet theory of what-it-means-to-be-human was correct. And they applied that theory to those "other people" and made fine sounding arguments justifying what were ultimately very oppressive practices.

To make a more salient point, I'd like you to prove, using your definition of what it means to be human, that:

1. pre-Civil War era Blacks are human. Remember, most can barely speak English, can't read, and would have a difficult time demonstrating what White people of the time would consider intelligence.*
2. That women of the same time period are human.
3. That Native Americans are human. They don't even speak English, can't handle liquor*, and can't/don't build dwellings a white man would consider adequate.
4. That Jews are human.

I think you will have a hard time with at least two of the above, and determined devil's advocate could convincingly argue a third and possibly a forth against your definition. If, OTOH, we argue that a person is a human because they are constructed of and by human DNA, we have no problem at all with the above questions.

* - Yes, you have to take into account the prejudices of the time and the notion of intelligence at this time was not well-developed.

Re:I don't think so...

[kanweg]

Yes, but despite all the technological advancements made by humans that will save such a child, god is still necessary. To take the credit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

Bert

Re:I don't think so...

[gerf]

There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form.

Yeah, humans have souls from the moment of conception, whereas animals do not.

Re:I don't think so...

[Totenglocke]

I really don't care if low lifes kill their kids (because it means eventually you'll snuff yourselves out and then we can get on with making the world a better place once all the excuse-making collectivists are gone). However, trying to claim that killing babies is a rational alternative to using your brain before spreading your legs is pathetic. Just remember the bumper sticker - "the people who are for abortion are only alive because their mother was against it".