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."
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.
I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder. 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. All of this talk of trimesters and trigger points like the first heart beat in development are not reflected by biological development, rather they are simple terms we use for convenience.
I don't even understand why people feel there is a need for abortion. There are condoms and pills, plan B/morning after pill, and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant. What purpose does abortion serve?
You forgot rape... And endangerment of the mother's life. Not every unwanted pregnancy can be prevented nor safely carried to term. I don't think anyone has the moral authority to force a woman to die as a consequence of trying to bring a dangerous pregnancy to term. Nor do I believe that unwanted pregnancies are solely the fault of the mother.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Because with all those options to not get pregnant, accidents still happen. I'm not going to even touch the issue of health reasons, rape, etc.
Gone!
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
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.
Emergency contraception is only 75-89% effective. That still leaves a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Statistically, rape is a minority case, so in the vast majority of cases, they are correct. I mean, whether or not the behavior was moral of course can be debated, but the point is it was still the parents' conscious willing decisions.
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.
Since you think abortion is murder because the fetus has a nervous system, you must consider killing anything else with a nervous system -- including worms and insects -- to be morally equivalent to the killing of a human. Is that a stance you're willing to take, or would you like to adjust your criteria?
Maybe you should find a more compelling reason to call something "murder".
A "nervous system" is utterly irrelevent -- we kill millions of living things with nervous systems daily, and whatever else that may be, we do not consider it to be murder. The hamburger you had for lunch came from an animal that had a nervous system, and one quite a bit more advanced than any week-old fetus anyway.
Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human. There is one, and only one thing that humans have that no other animal has. How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Individual rights aren't directly linked to genetics. Otherwise it would be perfectly moral to kill a sapient alien. He's not trying to say fetuses aren't human in a biological sense, but rather that mere human DNA doesn't necessarily confer individual rights.
Again, they're biologically human. But morally, a person who suffers irreversible brain death is no longer sapient, so our laws (correctly) allow families to "pull the plug." This is the most extreme case, of course, and it's common for this position to be used as a strawman position: "Pro-choice means that anyone with an IQ below X should be killed!"
This couldn't be farther from reality. Most people recognize the need for shades of grey. For instance:
People with alzheimers shouldn't be given driver's licenses, nor should they have access to firearms or heavy machinery. Very young children don't have the right to vote or enter contracts. But only a lunatic would say that they have the same rights as a brain-dead vegetable. Shades of grey are necessary.
For a very good reason; dogs don't ever progress past that point. Humans do.
All moral decisions seem arbitrary to me, in the sense that they can't be falsified. But I also arbitrarily think that all sapient beings have the right to life. This includes all humans except for those without the capacity for sapience (e.g. fetuses prior to the development of a "reasonably" complicated brain, and people who have suffered irreversible brain death.) It also includes sapient aliens, genuine artificial intelligences, and possibly cetaceans, cephalapods, and some of the other great apes.
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.
Because people are fundamentally herd animals, and fear anyone who's different. This prejudice affects everyone, even the people who wrote those "holy books."
Neither will single people, couples who can't have kids, or couples who choose not to conceive. But they're not all sinners because of their choices (depending on the religion in question and the method of contraception.) Also, homosexuals can have children through surrogates and should certainly be able to adopt children.
Because God creates people with homosexual tendencies (even though He wants us to all have children) just to watch them squirm. If they manage to suppress the desires He gave them, they don't burn for all eternity. Hey, this sounds plausible and reasonable. Where do I sign up?
The first time I met a Christian, it was immediately apparent to me that they were undergoing an epic internal struggle, the least of which concerned their theology. 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.
I'm just kidding. I don't really believe that. But it was silly of me to justify a position with such a subjective anecdote, wasn't it? Maybe calling homosexual desires "afflictions" makes you tend to see more of an internal struggle than can be traced back to the fact that gays live in a world that hates and harms them for no good reason?
Maybe it's very clear to you how that conclusion follows from witnessing an unexpected death. And maybe all the atheists in the world just haven't seen anyone die unexpectedly. (I wonder what the odds of this are?)
Or maybe grief affects everyone differently, and doesn't imply anything about any deity.
You simply have to trust them. I prefer to think for myself.