Talk:Fetus/Archive 1

message: Needs references for content, added tag.--FloNight 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

message: The definition of human fetus given here is at variance with the definition given at embryo. This needs to be fixed. AxelBoldt 19:38 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
:I agree. In embryo it says that a human embryo becomes a fetus at 8 weeks. Here it says 3 months. Also here it says that a fetus is an embryo, in the embryo definition it says that an embryo ceases to be an embryo when it becomes a fetus. We need consistency here. Any embryologists out there who can sort out the definitions properly?--84.231.87.71 17:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition wrong somewhere

message: It might make sense to put in a link to the paradox of the heap. I don't think this would violate NPOV too much, but I'm somewhat of a neophyte. I'm passing the buck.--Marlasdad
----
Sorry if I added a link which turned out to be inappropriate. Will see if I can find something less POV! The main article seems to need a good deal of work, as there is currently an overemphasis on the circulatory aspects and little on the general development of the fetus. Also I agree with Derek about the Fetus spelling, I think it is common to find it with an O in the UK, but _not_ in medical texts.
Sarah the poet 08:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Paradox of the Heap

message: In the intro text it says, 
:In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed), until birth. Fetus, in Latin, literally means 'young one'. When speaking in the most rational of terms, a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.
But then in the picture caption it says,
:Fetus at eight weeks
If the sketch were at exactly eight weeks, then it is not a fetus but an embryo, and the image should be moved to that article.  However, the image text on its page says it's "roughly" eight weeks, so perhaps a disclaimer should be put in the caption saying it's an embryo or fetus at around eight weeks, and it can be used on either article.  
--zandperl 01:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image and development stage 

message: Fetus doesn't mean "young one, and certainly not exclusively so.  This seems a politcal ploy to push the idea of the fetus as the equivalent to a child.  A couple of sources show otherwise:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2318064
fētus (foet- ), a, um, adj. [Part., from ‡ FEO, whence also: fecundus, femina, fenus, felix] , that is or was filled with young (syn.: gravidus, praegnans). 
I. Pregnant, breeding (mostly poet.). 
A. Lit.: lenta salix feto pecori, Verg. E. 3, 83 ; 1, 50: vulpes, Hor. C. 3, 27, 5 .--
2. Transf. 
a. Of land, fruitful, productive: (terra) feta parit nitidas fruges, etc., Lucr. 2, 994 ; cf.: terra feta frugibus et vario leguminum genere, * Cic. N. D. 2, 62, 156: loca palustribus ulvis, Ov. M. 14, 103 : regio nec pomo nec uvis, id. P. 1, 7, 13 ; id. F. 1, 662.--Also of plants: palmites, Col. 3, 21, 3 .--
b. In gen., filled with any thing, full: machina armis, Verg. A. 2, 238 : loca furentibus austris, id. ib. 1, 51 : colla serpentis veneno, Sil. 17, 448 .--
B. Trop., full of.--With abl.: feta furore Megaera, Sil. 13, 592 : praecordia bello, id. 17, 380 : praecordia irā, id. 11, 203 . --With gen.: fetas novales Martis, Claud. Bell. Get. 25 ; and in a Gr. construction: fetus Gradivo mentem, id. 10, 14 .--
II. That has brought forth, newly delivered: veniebant fetam amicae gratulatum, Varr. ap. Non. 312, 12: agiles et fetae (opp. tardiores et gravidae), Col. 7, 3 fin. : ursa, Ov. M. 13, 803 : lupa, Verg. A. 8, 630 : ovis, id. E. 1, 50 ; Ov. F. 2, 413: qua feta jacebat uxor et infantes ludebant, Juv. 14, 167 .--Absol.: insueta gravis temptabunt pabula fetas, Verg. E. 1, 49 .
Nice source.  If you click on the word in the beginning, it gives a list of definitions as well, distinguishing between different uses and conclude the meanings as respectively "filled with young, pregnant, breeding, with young" or "a bringing forth, bearing, hatching, producing"
As such, the correction should be that In latin, fetus means "filled with young, pregnant, breeding, with young" and/or "a bringing forth, bearing, hatching, producing"
:Actually, I believe the relevant form is not that adjective, but the fourth declension noun of the same spelling. But yes, the whole "Latin for Little One" slogan is quite annoying. --Iustinus 07:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since fetus doesn't actually refer to the child itself, what IS the proper technical word for the actual...whatever it is? bcatt 09:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin meaning 

message: Why isn't there a better picture on this page? There are lots of very clear color pictures out there, and I think it'd be more professional to have one of those instead of a sketch. Polyhymnia
:It might be due to difficulty finding a public domain colour image. I have a great book that has excellent colour intra uterine photographs, but they are copyrighted and I'm not sure how to request permission to scan and upload them to wikipedia. bcatt 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added one of a rat fetus.  Hope this helps. Medlat 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: "Fetus" is derived from the latin root "fetus", this can be verified in any dictionary, British, American or otherwise. The pseudo-greek spelling (OE) is an error introduced by some English authors in the 19th century which seems to have stuck. There is no etymological justification for it whatsoever, and it is simply incorrect usage. I'm a diehard preserver of British/American distinctions, but in this case the American usage is actually the ONLY correct one. - MMGB
: As an aside... I always thought it was fœtus. Eurosong 17:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Foetus" is a spelling mistake or error? Who says so? As far as I am aware, English has no Academie defining what's right and what's wrong. If it's in the dictionary (in my case Collins) and in common usage (e.g. ) then that's good enough to be correct. --Ajkgordon 09:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fœtus is correct in French...Cameron Nedland 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: foetus

message: :When speaking in the most literal of terms, a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.
This sentance should be striken from the article as it injects the opinion of the fetus as a not yet  member of a species. An individual's functionality, or lack thereof, has no bearing on membership in a species. Species is a genetic designation in which membership is granted as soon as a unique DNA signature occurs. "Functional" is a subjective term. For example, marsupials posess significant locomotion outside the womb as a fetus, would that be considered "functional"?
--BigJugs 23:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "functional" is subjective. The sentence seems to have no point, so I'll delete it. thejabberwock 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know why, but it was put back anonymously. I'll re-delete it. 82.181.198.55 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: last sentence of intro

message: Hmm. Had a picture to add to that section...but there wasn't a section for a non-human fetus! I added a short one, still have to add sources. Help appreciated. Verloren Hoop 03:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-human fetus

message: * 'I Spoke With My Child' : A beautiful, comforting & heart-stirring presentation - for every parent who has lost a child 
* LossAwareness.com - An informational website for bereaved parents, family members and friends
What do these have to do with the article? No where does the article address miscarriage in much depth. As useful as these links may be, they are not relevant here - move them to miscarriage?--Cooper-42 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Go move! Gnusmas 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I am somewhat surprised that this paragraph has survived in its current form for such a long period of time.  To me, the phrase "legislation which passed the US Senate" indicates some kind of problem.  I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Act to make the edit.  So I'll just give my two cents:
If the quote is from a version of the bill that only passed the Senate, then I think the statement is clearly POV, as it attempts to deceive the reader somewhat into thinking that this is actual law.
If the same text was later included in the final bill, then the reference should be updated and the link changed to point to Unborn Victims of Violence Act.  However, in this case I would still question the significance and POV of the statement: the definition of "unborn child" means little in the absence of information on what the law says about unborn children.  Rather, it is the kind of term that is meant to emotionally muddle the issue.  That's probably the reason that, I suspect, it was left out of the final bill. Kyle Cronan 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Unborn Victims of Violence Act

message: Please remove the cat fetus, its distrubing.  At least create a button that reveals it too those who wish to see it.
Lewis
:I also find the fetus-in-a-jar picture quite disturbing. It's a dead unborn baby in a jar, isn't there a public domain intrauterine fetus picture out there somewhere?--Doron 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shrunken these two pictures, and indicated that they can be clicked to enlarge.Ferrylodge 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that we create a gallery page that can be linked from the present article.  All of the images mentioned by Andrew C. could be included in the gallery.  The link could contain a warning that some might find various of the images disturbing.  Dare I ask: any objections?Ferrylodge 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been any discussion in a while. Would anyone mind if I put :Image:Catfetus1.jpg back into the non-human fetus section? And can we maybe compile a gallery of ultrasound images?-Andrew c 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disturbing and unescessary picture

message: Human fetuses
*:Image:Baby_foetus.jpg: Model in a natural history museum.
*:Image:Human_Fetus2.jpg: The perserved human fetus. From a museum in Belgium.
*:Image:Human_Fetus.jpg: The above at a different angle.
*Ultrasounds: :Image:Siescape-fetus.jpg, :Image:Baby sonic 23 week.jpg, :Image:Baby in ultrasound.jpg, :Image:Praenatal.png, :Image:Embryo at 14 weeks profile.JPG, :Image:Embryo at 12 weeks.JPG, :Image:Embryo at 10 weeks.JPG, :Image:Embryo at 11 weeks.JPG, :Image:Fetal 3D-Sonography.jpg, :Image:3dultrasound.png, :Image:OMGbaby.jpg.
Fetuses of other species
*:Image:Cat fetus.jpg: The cat fetus photo originally displayed in the article.
*:Image:Catfetus1.jpg: A higher-quality, earlier-term cat fetus picture.
*:Image:Deerfetus.jpg: A deer fetus preserved in a jar.
*:Image:Elefetusus.jpg: Display on elephant fetal development at a museum in Mozambique.
The second catfetus image is very good. It is well labeled and sharp, but I don't really like the green background (it could be changed easy enough). The first cat fetus and deer fetus images are not that helpful. The elephant display is a neat concept, but the image isn't that well composed. The model of a fetus isn't that bad, but there isn't enough information (how old is the fetus supposed to be?). The human fetus in jars are controversial as noted above and not that descriptive. There is no size scale, and no gestational age information. On top of that, it has the side-show feel to it (fetus in a jar). An ultrasound image could be helpful. I'd throw out the ones that do not have age information, and the ones with foreign text in the image. There are some dots on the image, and it would be helpful if there was a better caption to explain those dots. I'm particularly fond of the composition of Week 11 embryo, but others might work as well. Just my two cents.-Andrew c 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that we create a gallery page that can be linked from the present article.  All of the images mentioned by Andrew C. could be included in the gallery.  The link could contain a warning that some might find various of the images disturbing.  Dare I ask: any objections?Ferrylodge 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been any discussion in a while. Would anyone mind if I put :Image:Catfetus1.jpg back into the non-human fetus section? And can we maybe compile a gallery of ultrasound images?-Andrew c 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos