Blurring the Line Between Pregnancy and Non-Pregnancy

[Wowbagger]

This is the sequel to my previous thread about Life and Death ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140404 ).

Now, it is time to blur the line between "pregnancy" and "non-pregnancy".

I have been reminded, a few times now, about how pregancy is being modeled as a tumor, by researchers. (So, when does the tumor end, and the baby begin?) References to that would be nice.

Would someone with a dermoid tumor be modeled as "pregnant", in any serious studies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermoid_cyst

What other ways can be blur this line?

What happens when only part of a sperm fertilizes an egg?

What if a fertilized egg does not attach to the uterus properly, and is naturally aborted?

What if the fertilized egg fails to develop into an embryo, but into... something else (God knows what)?

What if we develop the technology to coax any cells into becoming fully viable embryos?

[skeptigirl]

Interesting line of discussion but the problem isn't whether or not a cell is alive, or where it is growing. The question here is whether the 'life' has the potential to split off from the host and continue an independent existence.

And actually, a tumor which did just that has become a contagious cancer spreading and even threatening the species of Tasmanian Devils.

Devil Facial Tumour Disease (http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LBUN-5QF86G?open)

[skeptigirl]

Then there is a teratoma. (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/281850-overview) In that case the same cells that might have grown a life, grew into a tumor instead.

[The Atheist]

Now, it is time to blur the line between "pregnancy" and "non-pregnancy".

I don't see the problem.

Pregnant = fertilised egg attaching itself to the uterine wall - or fallopian tube, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. No attachment, no pregnancy, because all you have is a fertilised egg, which like a sperm and an unfertilised egg, is only a potential pregnancy.

I have been reminded, a few times now, about how pregancy is being modeled as a tumor, by researchers. (So, when does the tumor end, and the baby begin?) References to that would be nice.

Surely that's just trying to answer anti-abortionists? Whether the embryo is "alive" or not is a different discussion*, but even with a stillborn baby, the woman is pregnant until the dead foetus is delivered.

What happens when only part of a sperm fertilizes an egg?

It gets flushed down the toilet. I don't know whether it's possible - I would expect not.

What if a fertilized egg does not attach to the uterus properly, and is naturally aborted?

Same flush; happens all the time.

What if the fertilized egg fails to develop into an embryo, but into... something else (God knows what)?

A puppy? Whatever it is, if it attaches successfully to the uterus, it's a pregnancy. I saw a News of the World once where a chick had given birth to a fish.

What if we develop the technology to coax any cells into becoming fully viable embryos?

Then the woman will be pregnant once the embryo attaches to the uterus.

*I'd happily class the embryo as alive once it starts dividing. If it's good enough for an amoeba, it's good enough for an embryo!

[Professor Yaffle]

For the first two weeks of pregnancy, there is no fertilised egg inside you and you could even be a virgin.

[Dr. Imago]

You really want to have your mind blown?

Google hydatidiform mole.

~Dr. Imago

[Wowbagger]

I don't see the problem. Read the more fascinating contributions given, in this thread so far, then.

Most people naturally have a very distinct line, in their mind, between these two states. Few people appreciate the intricate blurriness of all the nitty-gritty details.

I hypothesize that, if more people were informed about this type of stuff, it would go a long way towards general respect for scientific education.

[The Atheist]

Read the more fascinating contributions given, in this thread so far, then.

Read 'em - they don't seem to have much to do with pregnancy at all.

Neither the hydatidform mole nor the teratoma are a pregnancy - they are both similar, but neither contains a viable embryo.

Most people naturally have a very distinct line, in their mind, between these two states. Few people appreciate the intricate blurriness of all the nitty-gritty details.

Which blurriness do you mean? I've seen none yet.

I hypothesize that, if more people were informed about this type of stuff, it would go a long way towards general respect for scientific education.

Informing people about uterine tumours will encourage respect for scientific education? How do you propose to back that up?

Some bloke on the internet trying to claim tumours are pregnancies is just the kind of thing which is likely to help, I presume?

[skeptigirl]

You really want to have your mind blown?

Google hydatidiform mole.

~Dr. ImagoI was going to mention that one but it is a tumor of placental tissue, not fetal tissue. Still, it's a tumor.

[Professor Yaffle]

I was going to mention that one but it is a tumor of placental tissue, not fetal tissue. Still, it's a tumor.


A hydatiform mole is one condition in a range of problems known as trophoblastic disease, where a pregnancy doesn’t grow as it should. It’s also often called a molar pregnancy.
There are two different types of molar pregnancy, which differ in how they form and how they need to be treated.
In a normal pregnancy genetic material from both the mother and the father combine at fertilization to form the new life. But in a molar pregnancy this process goes wrong. In what is known as a complete molar pregnancy, the maternal chromosomes are lost (either at the time of conception or earlier while the egg was forming in the ovary) and there is only genetic material from the father in the cells that develop. In a partial molar pregnancy, there is a set of maternal chromosomes but also two sets of chromosomes from the father (ie double the normal paternal genetic material).
Complete molar pregnancies develop as a mass of rapidly growing cells but without a foetus – it cannot therefore develop into a baby. It used to be described as looking rather like a huge bunch of grapes, but these days most cases are identified on ultrasound and treated long before they reach this stage. In a partial molar pregnancy a foetus may initially develop but because of the imbalance in genetic material from both the father and the mother, the foetus is always abnormal and can not survive beyond the first 3 months of the pregnancy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/hydatidiformmole1.shtml

[Wowbagger]

Neither the hydatidform mole nor the teratoma are a pregnancy - they are both similar, but neither contains a viable embryo. You can define pregnancy as requiring a viable embryo, if you want to. Fine.

But, to someone studying the nitty-gritty details of embryological development and/or tumor growth, those easy differences seem less significant.

Informing people about uterine tumours will encourage respect for scientific education? How do you propose to back that up? We are living in a world where new forms of bio-technological capabilities are emerging: stem-cell research is already well underway, cloning and gene therapies are not too far off, etc.

The more people know about biological development, the more informed their decisions regarding these technologies will be. And, that will make a huge difference in public policy.

Would you rather have everyone be completely ignorant of all these details, and then make gut-reaction decisions based on that?! This is the future of medical research we are dealing with.

(I hope you are playing Devil's Advocate, by the way. I don't mind the challenge, if you are.)

[The Atheist]

You can define pregnancy as requiring a viable embryo, if you want to. Fine.

Well, it's been defined that way for several hundred years, so I'm continuing on with the tradition.

But, to someone studying the nitty-gritty details of embryological development and/or tumor growth, those easy differences seem less significant.

It's terminology, not medicine.

We are living in a world where new forms of bio-technological capabilities are emerging: stem-cell research is already well underway, cloning and gene therapies are not too far off, etc.

The more people know about biological development, the more informed their decisions regarding these technologies will be. And, that will make a huge difference in public policy.

Would you rather have everyone be completely ignorant of all these details, and then make gut-reaction decisions based on that?! This is the future of medical research we are dealing with.

(I hope you are playing Devil's Advocate, by the way. I don't mind the challenge, if you are.)

I agree with everything you've written here, but I think you're obscuring the science by connecting it to "pregnancy". It's just the type of language which encourages people to give knee-jerk reactions. If they're tumours - which they are - call them tumours and let the emotion stay out of the subject.

[Wowbagger]

I think you're obscuring the science by connecting it to "pregnancy". It wasn't my choice. I only brought it up, here, because somone else brought it up somewhere else. And, I figured this would be a good spot to get some answers.

I agree that issues surrounding pregnancy carry a lot of emotional baggage. But, when people only see black and white, and even insist that their's is the ONLY valid scientific way to see things, you gotta do what you gotta do.

[Miss_Kitt]

For the first two weeks of pregnancy, there is no fertilised egg inside you and you could even be a virgin.

Er, uh?? This makes no sense to me, and I've done all the hyperactive reading of pregnancy literature that expectant moms (or hoping to be expectant women) do. I would agree that the rule-of-thumb for dating pregnancies is based upon the date of the last menstrual period--but I doubt anyone seriously considers that "pregnant".

I would think the term only applies once you have a fertilized egg implanted. The preparation of the uterine wall, the release of the ovum, and even the injection of sperm can all occur without any subsequent pregnancy; even a fertilized egg that does not implant does not trigger any changes in the woman's body.

Please explain??

Thanks, Miss Kitt

[Professor Yaffle]

Er, uh?? This makes no sense to me, and I've done all the hyperactive reading of pregnancy literature that expectant moms (or hoping to be expectant women) do. I would agree that the rule-of-thumb for dating pregnancies is based upon the date of the last menstrual period--but I doubt anyone seriously considers that "pregnant".

I would think the term only applies once you have a fertilized egg implanted. The preparation of the uterine wall, the release of the ovum, and even the injection of sperm can all occur without any subsequent pregnancy; even a fertilized egg that does not implant does not trigger any changes in the woman's body.

Please explain??

Thanks, Miss Kitt

I was just making a flippant remark about how medical professionals measure pregnancy. It always seemed bizarre to me that you could have had sex for the very first time 2 weeks ago and have just got a positive pregnancy test, but at that point you would be officially 4 weeks pregnant.

[mazyloron]

I was just making a flippant remark about how medical professionals measure pregnancy. It always seemed bizarre to me that you could have had sex for the very first time 2 weeks ago and have just got a positive pregnancy test, but at that point you would be officially 4 weeks pregnant.

"No, honey, that was my first time* I swear!"

*...except that one night I got really drunk in the locker room with the football team, about two weeks before you and I hooked up.

That, or immaculate conception...

As a male who is neither anyone's father, nor a doctor, I guess I wouldn't know how they figure those things out. Is that really how they do it? That seems a bit silly. I mean, I could see if you can't narrow it down to WHICH particular...dalliance...it was, as there were too many to keep straight since your last cycle. But otherwise, this doesn't seem like the best method.

Back to the subject, though...

A fertilized egg that never implants would not be a pregnancy so much as a potential one that failed. but I could see an argument being made either way on that one. I fall on the "it's not a pregnancy yet" side of that argument, but I'm not stuck on it.

If it develops into something else, well, congratulations! You're now the proud parent of a baby...something. :eek: Mutant? I don't know. If a human gave birth to a not-human, that would be unusual.

And, lastly, if we can turn any cell into an embryo, then we'll be knee-deep in clones. Which could be cool, or very not cool. Depends.