Comments on: Life in the Womb

By: Ali S.

Ali S. — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:25:59 +0000

I remember watching a documentary I believe that was similar to this on NG. It was quite fascinating. It was all about the birth of a baby elephant.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:12:07 +0000

No worries, Tempscire; I had no intention of instigating a flame war, but things like that start around here with little provocation. It's just that when topics like this come up, the connection to the life issue seem pretty natural, and pointing out the inconsistencies in the story line coming from the left is pretty easy comment fodder. Entertaining too. Besides, Tim W. started it. ;o) @Nicholas Dollak "I’m sure that at least some of the crowd arguing about whether a foetus is “alive” are joking…" Yes, joking a bit, but with the intention of poking holes in the pro-abortion position, with the (sometimes vain) hope of convincing someone of the truth of the pro-life position. "but, without dragging ethics into the equation, here it is: Yes, an embryo or foetus is considered to be alive in the scientific sense. Not only is the fetus "alive in the scientific sense", it is also a unique individual in a strictly scientific sense. That's something the pro-abort crowd conveniently dismisses. "However, it cannot sustain itself outside of the womb until it reaches a certain point in its development." True enough, but even beyond that point a human child cannot sustain itself outside the womb; it requires care rendered by an adult in order to survive. The child is no less vulnerable before or after that magical moment of birth, but somehow the distinction is made that a child outside the womb is worthy of protection, but the one inside the womb is expendable. That makes no sense on any level.

By: Tempscire

Tempscire — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:00:10 +0000

Dave-
Nothing personal. I just loathed the thought of some little abortion flamewar starting and your post was rather provocative.

By: Snow

Snow — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:44:38 +0000

nielo: sustain themselves as an in breathing and other bodily functions.

By: nielo

nielo — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:24:16 +0000

Hey Dollak... Does that same standard apply to infants than? They are unable to sustain themselves even when they are out of the womb. Usually they are unable to do that until about 3 years or so. Just curious.

By: Nicholas Dollak

Nicholas Dollak — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:40:46 +0000

There was a National Geographic special aired a year or two ago along these lines, part of a trilogy called "In the Womb." One was about a single human foetus; the second was called "Multiples" and showed the development of human twins, triplets and even quadruplets; and the third was called "Animals" and showed the development of a litter of puppies, a dolphin and an elephant. While fascinating to watch, I did want to see more, especially something outside the Order of placental mammals. It looks like this should help satisfy that wish! I'm sure that at least some of the crowd arguing about whether a foetus is "alive" are joking... but, without dragging ethics into the equation, here it is: Yes, an embryo or foetus is considered to be alive in the scientific sense. However, it cannot sustain itself outside of the womb until it reaches a certain point in its development. And regarding the "4-D scanning technology" --- In the earlier videos, and possibly this as well, we saw 3-D computer animation that was based directly on scans of the actual embryos and foetuses. As Jenny said, they basically cleaned up the scanned images. The result was a little better than most CGI.

By: anathema

anathema — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:49:02 +0000

Wish they'd do a cat, a giraffe for novelty, and a human.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:25:08 +0000

That's ok, Tempscire. I'm happy just talking to you. Only way to have an intelligent conversation. ;o)

By: Jenny

Jenny — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:16:34 +0000

i thought this aired a long time ago? in the US anyway
and edward, they used the graphics just to enhance the images, because the images alone were hard to understand, so they basically enhance the image
at least thats what i remember them saying when it came out here

By: dogrun81

dogrun81 — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:49:31 +0000

It looks like kitten has claws.

(*crosses fingers Tempscire doesn't post here anymore*)

By: Tempscire

Tempscire — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:13:56 +0000

Ugh, newborn marsupials. Blech.

(*crosses fingers no one starts talking to Tim or Dave*)

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:51:14 +0000

"Wait. ‘Life’in the womb? I thought life didn’t begin until birth. What the heck!?!"

Yeah! And are they sure that only cats come out of cats and sharks from sharks? Cuz to hear the pro-abort... Umm, I mean, pro-CHOICE crowd talk, when a woman is pregnant it's just a blob of tissue until it magically becomes human at the moment of birth.

By: CheeseDuck

CheeseDuck — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:04:31 +0000

Wait... Wait... 4D scanning technology? I don't understand.

By: Tim W

Tim W — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:15:53 +0000

Wait. 'Life'in the womb? I thought life didn't begin until birth. What the heck!?!

By: Edward

Edward — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:03:12 +0000

" ... plus state-of-the-art graphics ... and the most sophisticated natural history models ever ..."

Doesn't this suggest that we are not going to see reality?

By: Jack D

Jack D — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:24:22 +0000

Peter Piper, peaked at a Panda, prior to production.