Next Honor Harrington?

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:10:14 -0600, Stephen Cooper
<nupreacher.TakeThisOut@mailinator.com> wrote:

>Michael Bruner wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 13:27:10 -0600, Stephen Cooper
>> <nupreacher.TakeThisOut@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <npE4c.1626$F91.1257@lakeread05>,
>>>> Stephen Cooper <nupreacher.TakeThisOut@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You believe that pregancy begins at conception because you believe
>>>>>>that life begins at conception, but why do you believe that life
>>>>>>begins at conception?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it's true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's circular reasoning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If there was no life in the fertilized cell, it would grow at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I assume you mean "it would not grow at all." But that doesn't answer
>>>>the question. Do not the sperm and egg have life?
>>>>
>>>>Further, as others have pointed out, what about in vitro fertilization?
>>>>What about spontaneous abortions? What about miscarriages? What about
>>>>fertilized eggs that do not implant?
>>>
>>>And don't forget something called an ectopic pregnancy. That's where it
>>>doesn't implant, but it stays in the fallopian tube.
>>
>>
>> Or if you want to be real interesting, there's at least one extremely
>> rare form of cancer I've heard of where a fertilized egg turns into
>> malignant cells (gestational trophoblastic cancer, IIRC). Where does
>> THAT fit in?
>
>Actually, there is only one form of that disease that has to do with the
>egg. It is called a hydatidiform mole. the mole can either be partial
>or complete. A complete mole has no fetal tissue.

Well, double-checked at www.cancer.gov and www.cancernetwork.com and
apparently hydatidiform mole is the benign version, with
choriocarcinoma being the malignant version. As far as I can tell it
apparently arises from conception being screwed up; the partial vs.
complete business you refer to seems to be a question of whether or
not there was any genetic material in the egg in question during
conception, so the cancer either has DNA from one parent or is a
screwed-up bi-parental. *shrug* I suppose it's a question of
definition whether you want to call it "conception"; certainly it'd
never develop into a child. But I don't know what you mean by "only
one form of the disease has to do with the egg"; by definition if it's
"trophoblastic" it requires the union of an egg and sperm to form
trophoblasts, abeit a rather %$^#ed up union. Are you refering to how
trophoblastic cells normally work to attach the embryo proper to the
uterine wall? I suppose it's not technically an "embryo" invading so
much as the tissue the embryo normally generates to attach itself
going carcinogenic.

(Speaking of embryo tissue invading, here's a fun fact; embryonic stem
cells can actually break off from the embryo, travel into the mother,
and form normal tissue, as evidenced by the discovery of cells with a
XY phenotype in mothers who've given birth to sons. My memory might be
playing tricks on me, but I thought there was some evidence that
mothers tended to be healthier in certain respects that was tied to
this discovery. Apparently nature might have its own version of stem
cell therapy! ).

--
Michael Bruner
mbruner18.TakeThisOut@comcast.net

Fear the Claw

"Yes, I am a servant of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial."
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington?