From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves (was: Re: fetus vs. baby)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:01:06 GMT

In <21387@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.143851.8351@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>                                                      After all, this
>>is the first time that Mr. Haugh bothered to give a source for his
>>contention, either.

>This is the forth or fifth time I've posted the same exact paragraph.
>I once posted the entire page.  Your reaction was identically the
>same the last time.  And your response was conspicuously non-existent
>that time as well.  You never did post your source, and you never did
>retract your claim.  Just a reference to a nebulous friend ...

That's nice, John, but it's the first time I've seen you do it that I
recall.  That might explain my 'conspicuously non-existent response',
wouldn't you say?  Of course, that explanation is probably a bit too
simple for you, since it doesn't involve malice or deliberate
deception.  As to my 'nebulous friend', I've asked her to dig out her
embryology textbook when she gets a chance and check to make sure that
it supports what she said.  You'll hear when I hear; either a
reference or a retraction.  Sorry if that doesn't meet with your
schedule, but the rest of us aren't going to order our lives around
the demands of John Haugh II, no matter how important he might think
he is.

>I would encourage you to be VERY careful what you write about fetal
>development since gestation begins at 3 WEEKS into a pregnancy.  

Hmmm, I hadn't considered that.  I had assumed that everyone was
counting from conception, since that seems to me to be the 'natural'
starting point that would occur to most people when they heard a
statement which talks about "X days" with regard to a pregnancy.

>The
>first 2 WEEKS involve the egg beginning its travels down the fallopian
>tube.  Thus 12 weeks into a pregnancy is really only 9 weeks of
>gestation.  I know that you will request a reference for this statement,
>so here is one

>	"Since pregnancy is dated medically from the first day of your
>	 last period, the record begins with what is termed the third
>	 week of a 40 week pregnancy, the week of conception."
>			-- The Complete Book of Pregnancy and Childbirth

>So, the 6 to 8 weeks figure could very well be 3 to 5 weeks gestation,
>and we are back below the 40 day gestation figure.  Note that the table
>was titled "Fetal Growth".  There is no inconsistency.

Or perhaps the 6 to 8 weeks are also counted as starting after that 3
weeks you mention, in which case it become 9 to 11 weeks.  Not quite
to the 4 month point, but closer to what I was told than it was
before.  

Another possible interpretation comes to mind, though.  Since your
chart is entitled "Fetal Growth", should we consider that Day 1 of
that chart is the first day when the embryo is classified as a fetus
(I've always preferred the spelling foetus, personally, but oh well).
I believe that that is generally considered to be at the end of the
first trimester (3 months).  That would put your '40 day' figure from
the chart at roughly 120 days into the pregnancy (midway through the
second trimester), which is 4 months (and there is no inconsistency
between what you posted and what I've said).  That's consistent and is
the sort of presentation I would expect in a 'pro-life' chart.

Anyway, as I've said repeatedly now, you'll get a reference or
retraction when Jeanie gives one to me.  If that's not good enough for
you, well, tough rocks.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.