Bible Discussion: Bruce Forest's List Of Changes That Occur At BIRTH

Bruce Forest's List Of Changes That Occur At BIRTH
Posts: 7

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Craig Chilton
2003-12-07 13:56:03 EST

The IMMEDIATE Changes that Occur at BIRTH are
Nothing Short of Phenomenal !

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

"There are enormous changes in a fetus at birth, and frankly,
it looks a little ignorant to say there are no discernible changes
at birth" [as some have claimed].

"Birth involves far more immediate, dramatic physiological
change in the fetus than merely where the nutrients and oxygen
come from. These profound changes are a reason that I consider
birth to be an 'initiation' to air-breathing 'personhood.'

"For example, the most obvious change is that the newborn
receives oxygen from the environment. Do you have any idea of
the massive changes necessary to accomplish this? Let me just
address circulation a bit, and leave the even more profound
respiratory and digestive changes for another time... I think you'll
regard birth as even more miraculous when you understand what
an amazing physiological event it is, and what awesome changes
happen at that moment!

"At birth, two major events happen that radically alter fetal
hemodynamics; (1) ligation of the umbilical cord causes a huge,
though transient rise in arterial pressure, and (2) a rise in plasma
C02 and fall in blood P02 help to initiate regular breathing.

"With the first few breaths, the intrathoracic (internal chest
cavity) pressure remains low; after distention of the airways,
assuming sufficient surfactant, the pressure quickly rises to that
of an adult... (-7 to -8 mmHg). Pressure in the pulmonary artery
falls by 50%, but pressure in the atrium immediately doubles or
even triples.

"In the fetus, the high resistance of the pulmonary bed (the
capillaries that exchange oxygen in the working lung) causes
most of the deoxygenated blood in the pulmonary artery to rush
into the descending aorta via a vessel present only in the fetus
called the ductus arteriosus. At birth, the first expansion of the
lungs forces all the blood in the right ventricle into the pulmonary
artery for the first time. Furthermore, increased systemic arterial
pressure actually reverses the flow through the ductus arteri-
osus! Now, neonatal blood flows from the high-pressure aorta
to the low pressure pulmonary artery.

"The massive increase in the left atrial pressure would,
before birth, result in a fatal backflow of blood into the right
heart through the patent (open) foramen ovale. (An oval opening
in the atrial septum that we all have before birth.) However, (and
this is SO cool...) the anatomical configuration of the foramen is
such that a valvelike fold in the left atrial wall automatically
closes the foramen (hopefully) on the first pulse of reversed
blood. That always amazes me.

"The neonatal circulation changes at birth complete with
closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale, but some
minor adjustments continue for 1-2 months, until the adult phase
begins.

"Fetal circulatory adaptions that disappear at birth....

Umbilical vein... Carries oxygenated blood from placenta to fetus

Ductus venosus... Conducts about half the blood from the
umbilical vein directly to the inferior vena cava, thus bypassing
the liver

Foramen Ovale... Conveys large proportion of blood entering
the right atrium from the inferior vena cava, through the atrial
septum and into the left atrium, thus bypassing the lungs

Ductus Arteriosus...Conducts some blood from the pulmonary
artery to the aorta, thus bypassing the lungs

Umbilical arteries... Carry blood from the internal iliac arteries
to the placenta for reoxygenation

Immediately following birth, the umbilical vessels constrict. The
arteries close first, and if the umbilical cord is not clamped or
severed for a minute or so, blood continues to flow from the
placenta to the newborn through the umbilical vein, adding to
the newborn's blood volume.

The proximal portions of the umbilical arteries persist in the adult
as the superior vesical arteries that supply blood to the urinary
bladder. The more distal portions become solid cords (lateral
umbilical ligaments.) The umbilical vein becomes the cordlike
ligamentum teres that extends from the umbilicus to the liver
in an adult. Similarly, the ductus venosus constricts shortly after
birth and is represented in the adult as a fibrous cord (ligamen-
tum venosum), which is superficially embedded in the wall of
the liver.

So, to summarize, the hemodynamics of the immediate
newborn and term fetus differ in these major ways, and many
more minor ones... ALL abruptly changing at the moment of
birth:

(1) arterial and venous blood no longer mix in the atria;

(2) the vena cava now carries only deoxygenated blood
into the right atrium, where it goes into the right
ventricle, and then is pumped to the pulmonary arteries,
and finally to the pulmonary capillary bed , and ;

(3) the aorta now carries only oxygenated blood from the
left heart via the pulmonary veins for distribution to the
rest of the body. The 'pipework' is still mostly there, but
what enormous changes have taken place in a few
short seconds!

So, I'd appreciate if you didn't say that the immediate newborn
and term fetus are almost identical, because they just aren't. The
digestive changes alone would be ten times the length of this very
basic circulatory primer, and the respiratory chemistry changes at
the instant of birth could fill a book.

-- Bruce Forest <bforest@interramp.com> on 09-05-1996.

* ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
FOOTNOTE, by Craig Chilton ---

There is NOTHING in the Bible (or anywhere else that I know
of) that documents any sort of "specialness" to the simple, mechan-
ical act of sperm and ova merging (i.e., fertilization. Yet, for their
own arcane reasons, Anti-Choicers desperately cling to THAT
POINT from which to "defend" entities of the human reproductive
process. Which is both strange and hypocritical, considering the
fact that all the DNA that is found in those last 3 stages was
ALREADY present in the first two, when summed. AND... Stage
One of the reproductive process (sperm and ova) is comprised of
entities which, JUST like the later stages, are human, alive, and
POTENTIAL people. To be sure, SOME physiological changes
occur at the merging of sperm and ova to form a zygote, but those
PALE by coparison to the PROFOUND changes that occur at
BIRTH.

All things considered, it really is no wonder that the Bible
clearly accords personhood at BIRTH, and never defends the
non-sentient POTENTIAL people of the reproductive process.
And never once says so much as one word against abortion.

-- Craig Chilton xanadu222@mchsi.com

Killing My Daughter
2003-12-08 01:03:15 EST
Apropos of nothing at all, right Craig?

Physiological changes occur throughout development. Why focus on these? Is
it because the word "profound" is used? Is it
P R O F O U N D!!!!!, Craig.

Are you saying that the newborn sperm doesn't experience any changes? That
can't be, can it. I mean, according to you and the "facts," the newborn
sperm is the "just the same" as all the other entities, yes? And all the
other entities experience change, yes? What about the changes associated
with meeting the egg? Certainly you can lay out someone else's detailed
description of the changes a newborn sperm experiences upon meeting the egg,
yes.

Hold it, Craig. Slow down. Lemme guess. You're going to tell me that
those changes occur after the sperm's birth, aren't you. Yep. I know your
desperate, grasping ways, and I called it, didn't I. You're going to try to
tell me that the birth of the sperm is an end in itself (which goes against
the sperm-is-fetus logic you so often spew out of the other side of your
ill-wired brain). But hold it again, Craig; I'm afraid you're going to have
to pull out the ol' stop watch.

Is the fetus experiencing all the changes the very microsecond s/he emerges
from the womb, or might there be some perhaps infinitesimal period of time
that takes place, the same or similar amount of time it might take a sperm
to find an egg, for example? Is "birth," per se, the responsible agent in
these changes, or might the changes be thought of as a continuation of
development started with the birth of the sperm? or some or one of the
other births we've discussed. Give me the "facts," Craig, the universally
accepted, irrefutable "facts."

Oh. And what about the changes experienced by those sperm which die?
Certainly we can write volumes on those changes, yes? (Just curious: are
you still whacking your sperm with your shoe? You do realize that, left
alone, they don't have a very long life span, yes?)

(I wonder if you're getting a sense of the difference between "fact" and
description.)

No matter. For you, anyone who more "trivializes" the "reproductive entity"
at one point during the "process" rather than at another is an idiotic,
moronic, lying, bigoted, hateful, moronic, lying, idiotic, moronic, lying,
bigoted, hateful, moronic, lying, bigoted, hateful, moronic, lying, hateful,
moronic, lying, idiotic, moronic, lying, bigoted, hateful, moronic, lying,
idiotic, moronic, lying, bigoted, hateful, moronic, lying, bigoted, hateful,
moronic, lying, hateful, moronic, lying....And I'm afraid you've done that,
Craig; you've more trivialized the sperm than the fetus, even though you'll
never, never, never, never admit it.

The fetus is capable of handling the changes you were read to about long
before birth; its emergence from the womb has nothing to do with it. The
sperm, too, is equipped to handle the changes associated with meeting the
egg; its emergence having nothing to with it either. The only difference,
maybe, is the degree of P R O F U N D I T Y of the changes themselves. And
by your insistence that the fetus be protected after its birth, you, by
logical extension, are obviously more impressed with the profundity of its
capacity for change, both at and prior to birth (since, again, it can
obviously handle the changes at several points before birth), than you are
impressed with the profundity of the capacity of the sperm to change, all of
which, depending, of course, on direction of the spin of your neck, makes
that poor ol' sperm the black sheep in your "reproductive process entity"
family. (It is the changes that impress you, yes Craig? If not, if the
moment of their occurrence is what does it for you, then...well, obviously
you're picking your moment to fit your thinking, in which case we will have
been as well to leave it with your "as factual as" "ACTUAL" drivel: "da
burf a da fetus is da only burf 'cus I sed so.")

I know that you think you've pulled and found the rabbit. I know you think
you've nailed down an irrefutable "fact" of distinction between the birth of
a sperm and that of the fetus. You haven't. You have to be able to
"proveably" demonstrate that the sperm experiences absolutely no change, and
you have to prove that the emergence of the fetus is the responsible agent
of the changes described to you. Too, if these changes are in some way
uniquely meaningful, you have to explain why your interest in them ignites
after birth but not before, when the "reproductive process entity" is
equally able to handle them. You can't do any of this.


I notice you continue to champion the Christian Bible. Do you feel the need
to steer away from the legal aspects of this debate because the constitution
says nothing about abortion either? Never mind. You're too weird to waste
anymore time on.


And you lose.



"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3fee7609.46987870@netnews.mchsi.com...
>
> The IMMEDIATE Changes that Occur at BIRTH are
> Nothing Short of Phenomenal !
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>
> "There are enormous changes in a fetus at birth, and frankly,
> it looks a little ignorant to say there are no discernible changes
> at birth" [as some have claimed].
>
> "Birth involves far more immediate, dramatic physiological
> change in the fetus than merely where the nutrients and oxygen
> come from. These profound changes are a reason that I consider
> birth to be an 'initiation' to air-breathing 'personhood.'
>
> "For example, the most obvious change is that the newborn
> receives oxygen from the environment. Do you have any idea of
> the massive changes necessary to accomplish this? Let me just
> address circulation a bit, and leave the even more profound
> respiratory and digestive changes for another time... I think you'll
> regard birth as even more miraculous when you understand what
> an amazing physiological event it is, and what awesome changes
> happen at that moment!
>
> "At birth, two major events happen that radically alter fetal
> hemodynamics; (1) ligation of the umbilical cord causes a huge,
> though transient rise in arterial pressure, and (2) a rise in plasma
> C02 and fall in blood P02 help to initiate regular breathing.
>
> "With the first few breaths, the intrathoracic (internal chest
> cavity) pressure remains low; after distention of the airways,
> assuming sufficient surfactant, the pressure quickly rises to that
> of an adult... (-7 to -8 mmHg). Pressure in the pulmonary artery
> falls by 50%, but pressure in the atrium immediately doubles or
> even triples.
>
> "In the fetus, the high resistance of the pulmonary bed (the
> capillaries that exchange oxygen in the working lung) causes
> most of the deoxygenated blood in the pulmonary artery to rush
> into the descending aorta via a vessel present only in the fetus
> called the ductus arteriosus. At birth, the first expansion of the
> lungs forces all the blood in the right ventricle into the pulmonary
> artery for the first time. Furthermore, increased systemic arterial
> pressure actually reverses the flow through the ductus arteri-
> osus! Now, neonatal blood flows from the high-pressure aorta
> to the low pressure pulmonary artery.
>
> "The massive increase in the left atrial pressure would,
> before birth, result in a fatal backflow of blood into the right
> heart through the patent (open) foramen ovale. (An oval opening
> in the atrial septum that we all have before birth.) However, (and
> this is SO cool...) the anatomical configuration of the foramen is
> such that a valvelike fold in the left atrial wall automatically
> closes the foramen (hopefully) on the first pulse of reversed
> blood. That always amazes me.
>
> "The neonatal circulation changes at birth complete with
> closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale, but some
> minor adjustments continue for 1-2 months, until the adult phase
> begins.
>
> "Fetal circulatory adaptions that disappear at birth....
>
> Umbilical vein... Carries oxygenated blood from placenta to fetus
>
> Ductus venosus... Conducts about half the blood from the
> umbilical vein directly to the inferior vena cava, thus bypassing
> the liver
>
> Foramen Ovale... Conveys large proportion of blood entering
> the right atrium from the inferior vena cava, through the atrial
> septum and into the left atrium, thus bypassing the lungs
>
> Ductus Arteriosus...Conducts some blood from the pulmonary
> artery to the aorta, thus bypassing the lungs
>
> Umbilical arteries... Carry blood from the internal iliac arteries
> to the placenta for reoxygenation
>
> Immediately following birth, the umbilical vessels constrict. The
> arteries close first, and if the umbilical cord is not clamped or
> severed for a minute or so, blood continues to flow from the
> placenta to the newborn through the umbilical vein, adding to
> the newborn's blood volume.
>
> The proximal portions of the umbilical arteries persist in the adult
> as the superior vesical arteries that supply blood to the urinary
> bladder. The more distal portions become solid cords (lateral
> umbilical ligaments.) The umbilical vein becomes the cordlike
> ligamentum teres that extends from the umbilicus to the liver
> in an adult. Similarly, the ductus venosus constricts shortly after
> birth and is represented in the adult as a fibrous cord (ligamen-
> tum venosum), which is superficially embedded in the wall of
> the liver.
>
> So, to summarize, the hemodynamics of the immediate
> newborn and term fetus differ in these major ways, and many
> more minor ones... ALL abruptly changing at the moment of
> birth:
>
> (1) arterial and venous blood no longer mix in the atria;
>
> (2) the vena cava now carries only deoxygenated blood
> into the right atrium, where it goes into the right
> ventricle, and then is pumped to the pulmonary arteries,
> and finally to the pulmonary capillary bed , and ;
>
> (3) the aorta now carries only oxygenated blood from the
> left heart via the pulmonary veins for distribution to the
> rest of the body. The 'pipework' is still mostly there, but
> what enormous changes have taken place in a few
> short seconds!
>
> So, I'd appreciate if you didn't say that the immediate newborn
> and term fetus are almost identical, because they just aren't. The
> digestive changes alone would be ten times the length of this very
> basic circulatory primer, and the respiratory chemistry changes at
> the instant of birth could fill a book.
>
> -- Bruce Forest <bforest@interramp.com> on 09-05-1996.
>
> * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
> FOOTNOTE, by Craig Chilton ---
>
> There is NOTHING in the Bible (or anywhere else that I know
> of) that documents any sort of "specialness" to the simple, mechan-
> ical act of sperm and ova merging (i.e., fertilization. Yet, for their
> own arcane reasons, Anti-Choicers desperately cling to THAT
> POINT from which to "defend" entities of the human reproductive
> process. Which is both strange and hypocritical, considering the
> fact that all the DNA that is found in those last 3 stages was
> ALREADY present in the first two, when summed. AND... Stage
> One of the reproductive process (sperm and ova) is comprised of
> entities which, JUST like the later stages, are human, alive, and
> POTENTIAL people. To be sure, SOME physiological changes
> occur at the merging of sperm and ova to form a zygote, but those
> PALE by coparison to the PROFOUND changes that occur at
> BIRTH.
>
> All things considered, it really is no wonder that the Bible
> clearly accords personhood at BIRTH, and never defends the
> non-sentient POTENTIAL people of the reproductive process.
> And never once says so much as one word against abortion.
>
> -- Craig Chilton xanadu222@mchsi.com



John Savard
2003-12-08 08:11:49 EST
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:03:15 -0600, "killing my daughter"
<*f@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:

>Are you saying that the newborn sperm doesn't experience any changes?

>No matter. For you, anyone who more "trivializes" the "reproductive entity"
>at one point during the "process" rather than at another is an idiotic,

I'm confused here. I've noticed another post by you where you talk
about sperm being significant.

Usually, the notion that sperm and egg might be important is raised by
the pro-choice side. They argue that, if we think conception is
important, why not respect life at even earlier stages. If it's true
that sperm could be important, doesn't it mean we can't coherently
argue against abortion, because the whole question of when life begins
becomes absurd?

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

Craig Chilton
2003-12-08 11:29:48 EST
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:11:49 GMT,
John Savard <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> "killing my daughter" <deadself@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:


[ ... ]

>> Are you saying that the newborn sperm doesn't experience any
>> changes?
>>
>> No matter. For you, anyone who more "trivializes" the "reproductive
>> entity"at one point during the "process" rather than at another is an
>> idiotic, ...

> I'm confused here. I've noticed another post by you where you talk
> about sperm being significant.
>
> Usually, the notion that sperm and egg might be important is raised
> by the Pro-Choice side. They argue that, if we think conception is
> important, why not respect life at even earlier stages. If it's true
> that sperm could be important, doesn't it mean we can't coherently
> argue against abortion, because the whole question of when life
> begins becomes absurd?

PRECISELY, John. And it's *great* whenever Anti-Choice loons
are publicly hoisted by his own petard!

>John Savard
>http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html


-- Craig Chilton xanadu222@mchsi.com

Killing My Daughter
2003-12-08 14:19:24 EST
I'm not making any comments about my feelings on the significance of sperm.
Though, if you would like to know, I do not think sperm are in anyway
insignificant. It is life, and, for me, all life can and should be
respected, which means, for me again, that there's isn't any need to
deliberately attack and kill sperm. But that's a matter of personal faith.
I do not, however, believe that my life, the "I" in "me," began before the
union of my father and my mother. From that, it's a simple matter of and
interest in equal protection (not to mention consistency) that has me
wanting the law to protect life at least back to the point where "I," and
everyone else by extension, came into existence.

This "anyone who more "trivializes" the "reproductive entity" at one point
during the "process" rather than at another is an idiotic..." is my friend,
Craig. I don't know how much of the thread you've followed, but the crux of
it from my end is that he is as guilty of trivializing the sperm as those he
calls idiotic, hateful liars (and, you see, it is the "fact" that they, not
Craig, of course, "trivialize" one more than the other which makes them
idiotic, hateful, bigoted liars).

The following might have been a better way to wrap it up than was the post
to which you are replying (keep in mind that, according to Craig, it's
irrefutable "fact" that all "entities" of the reproductive process are
equally "trivial" and that the newborn fetus can be elevated, logically, to
a position worthy of protection whereas the other "entities," by his
"factual" trivialization, cannot. It's my contention that if birth, by his
own logic, is the key to protection, then the birth of the sperm ought be
where protection starts. I know that this is messy, but it is what happens
when people like Craig get a hold of a textbook. The end of it for me is
that I'm having fun at someone else's expense, which I probably shouldn't be
doing):



If you (Craig) will elevate the newborn fetus because someone pointed out to
you that it changes, by logical extension you must elevate the unborn fetus,
and the embryo and the zygote, as they, pssssst, are also changing.

If you elevate the unborn fetus and the embryo and the zygote, but not the
sperm, you trivialize the sperm, which brings us back to the fact of your
hateful, bigoted, moronic, lying self.

Of course, you may be taking your other medication today and will insist
that the sperm is changing -- What do I care. There's no law against being
a nutcase.well, until we find the gene, I mean. But in that case and
because the "fact" of change is the only thing that matters, the birth of
the sperm remains as trivial, or not, as the birth of the fetus, which is
where we started.

Now, and again, you're certainly free to elevate the birth of the fetus by
AUTHORITARIAN decree: "These changes are the only and ACTUAL changes."
blah, blah, blah. But you'll excuse me and the rest of us when we offer out
your decree as a sperm wipe for maniacal sperm whackers.



A final note, John. If I have successful equated the birth of the sperm to
that of the fetus, which means nothing to me other than what it can do to
pin Craig's flaky "factual" ears back (and very little even then), the only
thing that's made absurd, in my mind, is the suggestion that life can't be
elevated to a position worthy of protection until it emerges from the womb.
(The demand for protection from attack is not the same, to me, as the demand
for nurturing or ensuring survival.)

The other side of it, too, of course, is, like you suggest, abandoning all
protection at any point throughout all human life, which, in my mind, is
exactly where Craig's logic leads, which is why he's so mad to convince us
that fetal birth creates an entity "factually" -- did I mention that Craig
likes to think of himself as a purveyor of fact? -- an entity "factually"
worthy of distinction from its unborn earlier self. Even Craig (probably)
doesn't want to be the killer his thinking makes him.




"John Savard" <jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fd477f8.1865055@news.ecn.ab.ca...
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:03:15 -0600, "killing my daughter"
> <deadself@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>
> >Are you saying that the newborn sperm doesn't experience any changes?
>
> >No matter. For you, anyone who more "trivializes" the "reproductive
entity"
> >at one point during the "process" rather than at another is an idiotic,
>
> I'm confused here. I've noticed another post by you where you talk
> about sperm being significant.
>
> Usually, the notion that sperm and egg might be important is raised by
> the pro-choice side. They argue that, if we think conception is
> important, why not respect life at even earlier stages. If it's true
> that sperm could be important, doesn't it mean we can't coherently
> argue against abortion, because the whole question of when life begins
> becomes absurd?
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html



Killing My Daughter
2003-12-08 15:01:14 EST

The respect I hold for the "life" of sperm (or ova) is not well explained
(no doubt my thoughts on respect for sperm are at the top of your "can't
miss" list). Anyway, and briefly, it's more a matter of respecting our own
lives and the choices we make where bringing our lives into the lives of
others is concerned. (I don't even know that I believe sperm are living,
though maybe living extensions of ourselves). Am I a shedder of ova? a
spewer of sperm? Am I racing to extinguish myself for what I can't tolerate
in having spread myself (carelessly?) about. Am I humping myself to pass
the day? Are these goals worthy of the gifts I've been given?

Recognizing the impact of our reproductive selves can't be meaningless, and
so I refuse to make it meaningless.

Enjoy the day.


"John Savard" <jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fd477f8.1865055@news.ecn.ab.ca...
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:03:15 -0600, "killing my daughter"
> <deadself@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>
> >Are you saying that the newborn sperm doesn't experience any changes?
>
> >No matter. For you, anyone who more "trivializes" the "reproductive
entity"
> >at one point during the "process" rather than at another is an idiotic,
>
> I'm confused here. I've noticed another post by you where you talk
> about sperm being significant.
>
> Usually, the notion that sperm and egg might be important is raised by
> the pro-choice side. They argue that, if we think conception is
> important, why not respect life at even earlier stages. If it's true
> that sperm could be important, doesn't it mean we can't coherently
> argue against abortion, because the whole question of when life begins
> becomes absurd?
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html



Ray Fischer
2003-12-10 00:33:07 EST
killing my daughter <deadself@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Physiological changes occur throughout development. Why focus on these?

Same question back at you.

> Is
>it because the word "profound" is used? Is it
>P R O F O U N D!!!!!, Craig.

Is fertilization "profound"?

--
Ray Fischer
r*r@sonic.net

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron