# Some advice for those 'accidental' pregnancies



## newbie1 (Apr 11, 2011)

After reading some threads on here I thought id share our story with you.
Our cat is a beautiful pure white moggy, and our first vet informed us, that as she was 14months old and had never come into heat, she most likely had a testicle inside her, making her a 'he she' cat. 
Not one to doubt our vet, we went home, only for 6weeks later to find our cat was indeed pregnant.
We changed vets, and with his advice, we continued her pregnancy, mainly because we had solid relaible homes for any kittens born. (this one appointment cost £56)
At this point, i was very, very neive (sp) to cat pregnancy, and had i known what i do now, I would of aborted the regnancy, even though she was far along the pregnancy, nothing could of prepared me for what happened during the birth. 
First of all, kitten one didnt come out in its sack, infact, all i saw was a perfectly formed paw- complete with claws, almost hanging out of poor mums bits.... She was screaming, something that i dont think Ill ever forget, and when kitten one was eventually born, Mum cat didnt lick it, or eat the afterbirth, she just sat there. 
AT this point, i called our emergancy vet, who was on call dealing with another emergacy, so it was me, my husband and the cat, 
She then gave birth to kitten 2, again, showed no interest in the kitten, so again, i had to cut the cord, tie the cord, help the little kitten breathe, 
Kitten 3 came out shortly after, and mum DID show materna signs and eventually took the 3 kittens and nursed them. 
However, she then went into shock, so me, mum cat, 3 kittens and lots of blankets rushed to the vets, and after various med and fluids, we came home (this appointment cost £78) 
We also had to stock up on replacemnet milk, bottles ect for if she regected them again. Costing another £50.

The kittens then had all the usual treatments, worming, vaccinations ect, costing at least £200. 
The kittens are 8weeks old now, and will be going to forever homes (fully vaccinated, wormed, flea treated- again more expense) in 2 -3weeks. 

So, to people who, like me a few months back, think, Oh, having kittens is natural, mum cat will be fine... Your wrong. 
Leave it to people who know what they are doing, trust me, its hard work, its emotionally draining- i was a wreck thinking that we almost lost 2 of the kittens, and had i of been at tesco doing my shopping, i would of come home to dead kittens, and mum cat would of bled to death if not died from shock. 

I would no way of continued the pregnancy had i read half of this information on here, and yes, i should of had 'he she' cat neautured when the first vet told me she was a half he, but I didnt, because they had told me it was 99% likely she wouldnt be fertile, it seems that 1% is a big number after all. 
Luckily, im in a finaicial position where i could afford the vets bills, But what if your cute moggy who 'accidently fell pregnant' suffers like my mum cat did ? 
can you seriously give 8weeks of your time, empty your bank account when needed, and risk losing your beloved cat before or during birth ? 

I know regular memebsr say this time and time again, but trust me, it is the BEST thing for your cat, to have her neautured. 
Poor mum cat has been through SO much stress, been pumped full of medicins, all because I was to late getting her spayed. 

Do your pet a favour, be resposnible. get her spayed NOW. if shes just 'caught' you can still have her neautured, save her heartache and pain. 

Oh, and mum cat is currently in being spayed as i type. £40 for spaying, compared to the hundreds of pounds spent on 3 kittens who luckily i ahve homes for, but more to often you will hear 'Id love a kitten' Then youll be let down. and left with goodness knows how many kittens. 
ALl my kittens are being rehomed with people wh have paid a 'neauturing deposit' to the vets, to stop them going through any of the above to.


----------



## Marley boy (Sep 6, 2010)

very good thread hun  point well made


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

First up, I fully understand all that you are saying. 

HOWEVER.... not everyone can live with the decision to abort kittens and I, for one, am glad.

My Merson was an 'accident' - Mummy was at the vet for her op when the vet called the owner to advise that his mummy was preggie. He offered to continue with the spaying but the owner was not happy with that & allowed her cat to go through with the pregnancy. Had she not, I would never have had my Merson and, by golly, I love that cat more than I will ever be able to express.

I know they say you don't miss what you've never had but Merson has given me so much love, affection and good times and he is such a beautiful boy that for him to have been aborted would have been sacrilige!

I know there will be many who'll shout me down on this but I don't care.

There are many people here whose much loved babies have come about as accidents so they will know where I am coming from.

Yes, prevention is much better but there ARE such things as happy accidents. I know, I have just spent 10 years with one.


----------



## gloworm*mushroom (Mar 4, 2011)

I have known too many cats die during birth and complications to be sentimental about kittens that are yet to be. I would rather save the lives of the cats that are alive already.

Any cat can be loving and bring a wonderful life. I am glad Merson has been a wonderful cat to you, but to say a world without him would be sacrilegious is a bit silly, in my opinion. If Merson was a girl, and got pregnant, and died during birth, how would you then feel?


----------



## Gratch (Aug 22, 2010)

Hindsight is 20/20


----------



## newbie1 (Apr 11, 2011)

well if what ive said can maybe get ONE person to have their cat spayed, then it was worth my typing. 

people seem to think its happy ever afters with fluffy little kittens, when its NOT. 

Its not fair on the mother cat (as ive found out the HARD way) and infact, its dam right selfish of a pet owner to choose to breed their cat without the relevant info/guidence/experience. 

Also, I dont think some cat owners are aware that a cat can still be spayed shortly after mating, and although some people say 'I cant abort a kitten' How about 'You CAN save your cats life ?'


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

newbie1 said:


> Also, I dont think some cat owners are aware that a cat can still be spayed shortly after mating, and although some people say 'I cant abort a kitten' How about 'You CAN save your cats life ?'


So why is it ok to abort kittens but if it were babies being discussed, the argument would be very different?

Yes I am sure that many cats have difficult pregnancies but there are just as many who have very easy pregnancies. In the same way that some humans have bad pregnancies and some have easy ones. We don't go around telling all female humans to get rid of their babies because 'they MIGHT have a bad pregnancy' do we?????

I still fully agree that prevention is best, I applaud you sharing your terrible experience with us and if it may make some owners get off their butts & sort out their cats sooner rather than later even better BUT anyone who does NOT choose to have their already pregnant queen spayed, and the kittens aborted, is NOT A BAD PERSON! They need to make the decision that THEY can live with.


----------



## newbie1 (Apr 11, 2011)

wow........really do need a *bang head here* sign for this site!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

newbie1 said:


> wow........really do need a *bang head here* sign for this site!


Yeah, tell me about it!!!! :mad2:


----------



## Jenny1966 (Feb 7, 2011)

newbie1 said:


> wow........really do need a *bang head here* sign for this site!


MoggyBaby just put her views across, dont think there is anything wrong in that .....


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

I don't really want to get into the pregnant spay debate. Suffice to say that most likely I, myself, wouldn't spay a cat past a certain stage of pregnancy unless, on balance of veterinary opinion, it would endanger her health for the pregnancy to continue.

That said, I do notice that some people erroneously compare a human pregnancy to that of a cat. Up to day 12 in a feline pregnancy there IS no embryo, added to which spaying up to that stage (and much veterinary opinion states somewhat beyond that stage because of the still very minimal extra lood supply to the uterus) is equally as safe as a routine spay where no mating has occurred.

Given that many people who post here asking for advice own a female who has only very recently (i.e. within 12 days) escaped/been mated/possibly been mated/etc, I think the above is worth bearing in mind when it comes to the advice they receive here.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

gskinner123 said:


> I don't really want to get into the pregnant spay debate. Suffice to say that most likely I, myself, wouldn't spay a cat past a certain stage of pregnancy unless, on balance of veterinary opinion, it would endanger her health for the pregnancy to continue.


That is the thoughts of all of the people in rescue I know


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> Up to day 12 in a feline pregnancy there IS no embryo


Sorry but this is factually incorrect. New life begins the moment the sperm meets the egg. If you want to call it a "pre-embryo" or something then I suppose you can but the usual scientific term is simply embryo. What you mean is that it has not yet implanted.

Liz


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

I respect your viewpoint, Liz, on when life begins. But I personally hold a different opinion. A blastocyst, pre the formation of an embryo, is a microscopic cluster of less than a hundred cells - that is fact. We may disagree about when actual life begins and, of course, I respect your beliefs and equally your right to express them.

However, when it comes to sharing information with people who come on this forum, telling of the cat that is accidentally pregant and trying to discover what the options are, I think it important to point out the above. It's a distressing thought for many people, the idea of aborting an embryonic foetus; that is what they picture. It's vital that people are in possession of the full facts and are not being swayed by emotional argument, whether pro-life or not.


----------



## newbie1 (Apr 11, 2011)

The point of me posting wasnt in anyway to start a debate on spaying whilst pregnant, it was just to show all these people who think its an easy ride having kittens (ive seen many topics started here by people who find themselves in different situations regarding unplanned pregnancy where people think, or seem to come across that its a easy ride with a few cute fluff balls at the end of it) that in fact, it can be a very hard journey, not only for the queen, but for us as owners.

In no way was my post to anger or upset any person here. I do apoligise if its come across that way.


----------



## gloworm*mushroom (Mar 4, 2011)

newbie1 said:


> The point of me posting wasnt in anyway to start a debate on spaying whilst pregnant, it was just to show all these people who think its an easy ride having kittens (ive seen many topics started here by people who find themselves in different situations regarding unplanned pregnancy where people think, or seem to come across that its a easy ride with a few cute fluff balls at the end of it) that in fact, it can be a very hard journey, not only for the queen, but for us as owners.
> 
> In no way was my post to anger or upset any person here. I do apoligise if its come across that way.


I think your point has gotten across very well.


----------



## MatildaG (Nov 8, 2010)

newbie1 said:


> The point of me posting wasnt in anyway to start a debate on spaying whilst pregnant, it was just to show all these people who think its an easy ride having kittens (ive seen many topics started here by people who find themselves in different situations regarding unplanned pregnancy where people think, or seem to come across that its a easy ride with a few cute fluff balls at the end of it) that in fact, it can be a very hard journey, not only for the queen, but for us as owners.
> 
> In no way was my post to anger or upset any person here. I do apoligise if its come across that way.


I don't think you need to apologise - it was a very refreshing, honest post which I hope makes future people of the 'I just want one litter before spaying' school of thought think again....

Good luck with the kittens! x


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> I respect your viewpoint, Liz, on when life begins. But I personally hold a different opinion. A blastocyst, pre the formation of an embryo, is a microscopic cluster of less than a hundred cells - that is fact.


Yes, and technically that is an embryo. Blastocyst is a type of embryo.

blastocyst (embryo phase) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

The way you worded it, it sounded as if you were claiming that fertilisation doesn't take place for 12 days! I suspect cat embryos have rather more than 100 cells by 12 days since I can't see any reason why they would take that long to get that far, but I can't quickly find any scholarly articles on this.

Liz


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

I think we're diverting this somewhat off topic!

I'm well aware that a blastocyst is referred to as embryonic, even in scientific terms; an embryonic form of life, much as an acorn is to an oak... but I still wouldn't call an acorn an oak  A blastocyst is small number of *undifferentiated* cells and that, to me, is the key. I do appreciate though that from your religious standpoint you will hold a very different opinion.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

Yes, but what you said was that at 12 days there were no embryos.

Liz


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

lizward said:


> Yes, but what you said was that at 12 days there were no embryos.
> 
> Liz


Liz, as I mentioned previously, I didn't want to get drawn into what is an emotional subject for many people, added to which I don't want to divert the topic from its intended purpose so this will be my last post in response to yours.

All I was doing was expressing an opinion; an opinion which is shared by many (but not all) in the scientific field and many (but not all, and that includes yourself) laypeople and is frequently debated as a result of stem cell harvesting in human medicine.

And that opinion is - whilst it, a blastocyst, may be referred to as embryonic, i.e. a rudimentary stage with the *potential* for life that is a cluster of around 100 cells, around a tenth of millimetre in size, where reproductive development only continues with successful implanation in the uterus - that it is not, therefore, a "life" that is being taken as a result of spaying a cat up to day 12 after mating.

As I keep saying, I think it's important that people have all the facts available to be able to make an informed choice on how to proceed. Your opinion is, of course, equally as valid as my own but it is for the individual to choose once they're in full receipt of the facts.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

A simple "in scientific terms you are correct and I was wrong to put it like that" would have sufficed. As for the unscientific notion that life begins at any point other than fertilisation, well, that is perhaps one for the general forum and needs to wait until I have finished my degree (3 weeks 2 days to go)

Liz


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

lizward said:


> A simple "in scientific terms you are correct and I was wrong to put it like that" would have sufficed. As for the unscientific notion that life begins at any point other than fertilisation, well, that is perhaps one for the general forum and needs to wait until I have finished my degree (3 weeks 2 days to go)
> 
> Liz


Ah as a complete aside, since you throw your upcoming degree into the mix, I have no qualms with being nosy and asking you what your degree is in? I have a vague memory of it being theological in nature but could be mixing you up with someone else.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

MoggyBaby said:


> So why is it ok to abort kittens but if it were babies being discussed, the argument would be very different?
> 
> Yes I am sure that many cats have difficult pregnancies but there are just as many who have very easy pregnancies. In the same way that some humans have bad pregnancies and some have easy ones. We don't go around telling all female humans to get rid of their babies because 'they MIGHT have a bad pregnancy' do we?????
> 
> I still fully agree that prevention is best, I applaud you sharing your terrible experience with us and if it may make some owners get off their butts & sort out their cats sooner rather than later even better BUT anyone who does NOT choose to have their already pregnant queen spayed, and the kittens aborted, is NOT A BAD PERSON! They need to make the decision that THEY can live with.


Fair enough, but as much as I love cats, they are not human and cannot accurately verbalise their wishes and needs. As humans have domesticated these animals, we are ultimately responsibile for them (and their long-term future as a species) and sometimes have to make difficult decisions on their behalf, for their health and future welfare. These considerations may also entail termination of pregnancy. So, similarly, nobody should be made to feel bad for choosing to do so.


----------



## Taylorbaby (Jan 10, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> So why is it ok to abort kittens but if it were babies being discussed, the argument would be very different?
> 
> Yes I am sure that many cats have difficult pregnancies but there are just as many who have very easy pregnancies. In the same way that some humans have bad pregnancies and some have easy ones. We don't go around telling all female humans to get rid of their babies because 'they MIGHT have a bad pregnancy' do we?????
> 
> I still fully agree that prevention is best, I applaud you sharing your terrible experience with us and if it may make some owners get off their butts & sort out their cats sooner rather than later even better BUT anyone who does NOT choose to have their already pregnant queen spayed, and the kittens aborted, is NOT A BAD PERSON! They need to make the decision that THEY can live with.


Since you want to do the whole humans same as kittens/cats thing, I shall do that.

The kittens becoming pregnant on here are ther equvlient of 6/7year old baby to a teenage child, so yes I wouldnt want those babies having babies either!

So to me it just enforces the fact that they arent ready, bodies maybe (may) mature to produce a baby, but certainly not mentally.

No one is saying that these people are 'bad/evil' just merely saying that in this day and age, you neuter asap, there is NO reason for these 'accidents' (that arent really accidents...as accidents cant be prevented  ) to happen.

However there are alot of humans that could do with a good neutering!!


----------



## catsmum (Feb 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> A simple "in scientific terms you are correct and I was wrong to put it like that" would have sufficed. As for the unscientific notion that life begins at any point other than fertilisation, well, that is perhaps one for the general forum and needs to wait until I have finished my degree (3 weeks 2 days to go)
> 
> Liz


but she just explained in post number 21 that she isnt wrong

so why should she conceed to you that she is?

but since she is being very polite and not wanting to steer this post further off topic she has stated that she is refraining from answering your further

so i will repeat what GS Skinner said and maybe then you will understand why she will not come back with a "I was wrong to say that", because she wasnt wrong.Thats not to hard to grasp now, it it?

she was expressing an opinion which is shared by many (but not all) in the scientific field. And that opinion is - whilst it, a blastocyst, may be referred to as embryonic, i.e. a rudimentary stage with the *potential* for life that is a cluster of around 100 cells, around a tenth of millimetre in size, where reproductive development only continues with successful implanation in the uterus - that it is not, therefore, a "life" that is being taken as a result of spaying a cat up to day 12 after mating.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

hobbs2004 said:


> Ah as a complete aside, since you throw your upcoming degree into the mix, I have no qualms with being nosy and asking you what your degree is in? I have a vague memory of it being theological in nature but could be mixing you up with someone else.


Yes it's a BTh. I have to submit all work by May 5th or lose the degree. I still have 2 x 3000 word essays and a 6000 word essay to write - and by write I don't mean I have all the notes I need yet, I still have to research for the long one 

Liz


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

lizward said:


> Yes it's a BTh. I have to submit all work by May 5th or lose the degree. I still have 2 x 3000 word essays and a 6000 word essay to write - and by write I don't mean I have all the notes I need yet, I still have to research for the long one
> 
> Liz


 Better get to it then! No more wasting time on the forum for you until then Liz :nono:


----------



## gloworm*mushroom (Mar 4, 2011)

Taylorbaby said:


> Since you want to do the whole humans same as kittens/cats thing, I shall do that.
> 
> The kittens becoming pregnant on here are ther equvlient of 6/7year old baby to a teenage child, so yes I wouldnt want those babies having babies either!
> 
> ...


Brilliant post. Far too much is talked about cats LOVING having kittens and all this 'when life begins' rubbish is clouding the real issue.

If a beloved cat got pregnant, and the vet told you it would certainly die if it continued with the pregnancy, what comes first? The clusters or cells in its womb or the cat which is alive and could be saved? I have a horrible feeling many people would go with the kittens....

Personally, to me, the adult cat comes first until those kittens can physically survive ALONE outside the womb. Then there can be some consideration.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

gloworm*mushroom said:


> Brilliant post. Far too much is talked about cats LOVING having kittens and all this 'when life begins' rubbish is clouding the real issue.
> 
> If a beloved cat got pregnant, and the vet told you it would certainly die if it continued with the pregnancy, what comes first? The clusters or cells in its womb or the cat which is alive and could be saved? I have a horrible feeling many people would go with the kittens....
> 
> Personally, to me, the adult cat comes first until those kittens can physically survive ALONE outside the womb. Then there can be some consideration.


I suppose only the owners can make that decision or the parent of the child or the pregnant adult. If I was to get pregnant (eek I'm 55) I would not go through with it at this point in time because of my health, if my cat got pregnant at 6 or 7 months I would not let it go through with it either it would be spay/abort no option, if my daughter got pregnant at say 10 she would have an abortion. If she got pregnant at 16 it would be her decision based on medical advice.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

catsmum said:


> but she just explained in post number 21 that she isnt wrong


It's just basic biology, knowledge of which is often quite lacking in arguments about certain emotive subjects.

Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

gloworm*mushroom said:


> If a beloved cat got pregnant, and the vet told you it would certainly die if it continued with the pregnancy, what comes first? The clusters or cells in its womb or the cat which is alive and could be saved?


And how often is this the issue?

Liz


----------



## gloworm*mushroom (Mar 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> And how often is this the issue?
> 
> Liz


Enough for the question to be asked. Just interested on which side people fall on these debates, considering many of these pregnancies occur in kittens.


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

gloworm*mushroom said:


> Enough for the question to be asked. Just interested on which side people fall on these debates, considering many of these pregnancies occur in kittens.


Without a shadow of a doubt, my priority would lie with the mother.


----------



## buffie (May 31, 2010)

hobbs2004 said:


> Without a shadow of a doubt, my priority would lie with the mother.


I would hope that nobody would disagree that the mother is the priority.There can surely be no doubt.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

gloworm*mushroom said:


> Enough for the question to be asked. Just interested on which side people fall on these debates, considering many of these pregnancies occur in kittens.


Honestly I doubt if it is ever an issue with cats. It's very rare in humans. Size alone won't do it (because caesareans can be done) unless, perhaps, you have a very undersized girl both call and be successfully mated at perhaps five months. I have considerable experience with stud cats and I honestly don't think it would even be physically possible for them to mate any girl that was that small. I really don't see how they could get themselves down that low and bend themselves over that much.

But to answer the question, if it really honestly was a matter of life of the queen vs. life of the kittens, I would choose to save the queen.

Liz


----------



## catsmum (Feb 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> It's just basic biology, knowledge of which is often quite lacking in arguments about certain emotive subjects.
> 
> Liz


I noticed that in your posts when you had trouble accepting the fact that many scientists support that life does not begin at the moment of fertilisation, although of course some do. (see post 21 for further explanation, if you dont agree with that maybe its best to take it up with the scientific community)


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

catsmum said:


> I noticed that in your posts when you had trouble accepting the fact that many scientists support that life does not begin at the moment of fertilisation, although of course some do.


Can you find me one? Just one will do. Please note I said "life", not pregnancy or personhood. You are looking for a Biologist / Medic who believes that the fertilsed dividing egg is not alive. Seriously, when doing an essay recently I was unable to find such an extreme view but it may be that you have found something I haven't, so please, I really would be grateful for the reference.

Liz


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

gloworm*mushroom said:


> Personally, to me, the adult cat comes first until those kittens can physically survive ALONE outside the womb. Then there can be some consideration.


Agreed. In terms of feral feeding and care, the Mom is ALWAYS more important than the kittens.


----------



## catsmum (Feb 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> Can you find me one? Just one will do. Please note I said "life", not pregnancy or personhood. You are looking for a Biologist / Medic who believes that the fertilsed dividing egg is not alive. Seriously, when doing an essay recently I was unable to find such an extreme view but it may be that you have found something I haven't, so please, I really would be grateful for the reference.
> 
> Liz


*"Unfortunately, many people take the position that their personal belief is both absolutely true, Bible-based, and self-evident to any normal person. Opposing beliefs are often regarded as without merit.

Actual dialogue in which people attempt to learn each other's opinions in a non-confrontational environment is almost unheard of. Where discussions occur, they are generally in the form of very heated debates". *

That is taken from religious tolerance dot org, I think if you want to carry this subject on further perhaps the general chat section is the place to do it, I dont think this post is the place for a no doubt heated religious debate. all the original poster has to know is that there are at least two camps, if not many more, with differing views on this. yes your view point is valid, but so is that of GS Skinner.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

catsmum said:


> *"Unfortunately, many people take the position that their personal belief is both absolutely true, Bible-based, and self-evident to any normal person. Opposing beliefs are often regarded as without merit.*


*

I haven't got time to get into the abortion debate, not for the next three weeks, I have a degree to finish. I am only posting now because I am drinking coffee trying to wake myself up after spending hours in the uni library last night.

If we get into the abortion debate (yes, on general of course) it will run for pages and pages if everyone controls themselves, the arguments go round and round and I for one know them all by heart. Usually they get very nasty indeed (religioustolerance is quite correct on that point!). I do not have the time now. I dare not even look at the general section because I will be unable to resist if anyone does bring it up. I can't do it. My degree is more important.

The issue on this thread was one of basic Biology, not of morals - cats are not humans and although I would never condone the spaying of a cat I knew to be pregnant, the issue is not the same as abortion in humans.

The claim has been made that science says that the blastocyst is not alive. My challenge to you was to find a scientific reference that says that. religioustolerance.org is not a science site and, as far as I recall, makes no claim to be such.

So, I'll take the answer to my challenge as "no".

Liz*


----------



## catsmum (Feb 4, 2011)

and that last reply just goes to show that you are one of the many people who take the position that their personal belief is both absolutely true, bible-based, and self-evident to any normal person and that opposing beliefs are often regarded as without merit. Maybe further replies on this could go in to the general chat section, the mods have enough to do without more posts going totally off topic on subjects that the contributors are simply never going to agree on. Gskinner accepted your views as valid enough, even though they were different to hers, why can't you pay her the same courtesty. Is getting the last word so important?


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

Look, the issue I was discussing was the claim YOU made that SCIENTISTS do not believe that the blastocyst is ALIVE. So far you have failed to find even one scientists who holds this view, which is hardly surprising since in SCIENTIFIC terms it is untenable.

As far as the Bible goes, in recent months we have thrashed things out (without any need for moderator intervention, by the way) twice on general, one went to over 50 pages, the other to over 80. I do not have the time right now. I have said this several times now. 

If you can't produce a scientist who makes the claim that the blastocyst is not alive, then you ought to do the decent thing and retract the statement. I won't let it stand without comment when it is factually incorrect, any more than I would let stand without comment a claim that the average cat gestation period is four months. It is not a moral issue at this point, it is a basic scientific fact. If the blastocyst is not alive it is never going to grow into a kitten / baby / whatever else it might be, and there is no argument.

Liz


----------



## catsmum (Feb 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> As far as the Bible goes, in recent months we have thrashed things out (without any need for moderator intervention, by the way) twice on general, one went to over 50 pages, the other to over 80. I do not have the time right now. I have said this several times now.


i take it these bible discussion were on the general chat forum and not on cat breeding forum though?

and read back, i never made the claim, GSSkinner did, i just objected to you having to have the last word from her by insisting she should admit she was wrong. She isnt wrong and explained all that in post number 21. She is just polite enough to drop it so as not to take this post further off topic. Youre not as you keep coming back to it. I will say again, if you want to debate this, take it to general chat where it belongs.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Liz, the reason I did not want to get into this debate with you or post links in support of my opinion is that we will always disagree and you will always find a link that says to the contrary which I don't feel is at all relevant to this thread

But if it helps you to drop the bone and get on with your degree work, here you go, written by a scientist for scientists.

www.stowers-institute.org/MediaCenter/docs/091605Science.doc


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

catsmum said:


> i take it these bible discussion were on the general chat forum and not on cat breeding forum though?


Of course - I said so



> and read back, i never made the claim, GSSkinner did


She claimed the blastocyst is not an embryo. Your claim was (post 27) "you had trouble accepting the fact that many scientists support that life does not begin at the moment of fertilisation" I asked you to find one, that's all. So, you agree now that what you said was incorrect? If so, we can move on. If you want more, let's make a date for May 6th 

Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> Liz, the reason I did not want to get into this debate with you or post links in support of my opinion is that we will always disagree and you will always find a link that says to the contrary which I don't feel is at all relevant to this thread
> 
> But if it helps you to drop the bone and get on with your degree work, here you go, written by a scientist for scientists.
> 
> www.stowers-institute.org/MediaCenter/docs/091605Science.doc


If I made the claim in an essay that some scientists believe the blastocyst is not alive, and cited as evidence "We have no illusions that more exact terminology will quiet disputes about when life begins", I would be told that the citation I had made did not say what I claimed it said, and rightly so, because it doesn't. It does not say WHO says the blastocyst is not alive (or even if anyone actually says that!)

Liz


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Alive? Who said a blastocyst is not alive? Certainly not me. You could have a colonic endoscopy where live cells would be picked up. Would you call them a "life" ?

You asked for a science based opinion on whether a blastocyst should be called an embryo and you got one.

Doubtless you could provide scientific opinion which disagrees so surely you see my point that we could go on for ever more in disagreement


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

I wouldn't bother arguing with Liz. She doesn't listen and will only keep repeating her own agenda. Well done to the OP for posting what can go wrong, especially as she was one of those who used to think one litter won't hurt.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> Alive? Who said a blastocyst is not alive? Certainly not me.


Right, sorry, it was catsmum.



> You could have a colonic endoscopy where live cells would be picked up. Would you call them a "life" ?


Well they aren't going to grow into a human being, are they. They are alive though, which is why catsmum's argument is so odd. The only cells we have in our body that are not alive are our outer skin cells, as far as I know.



> You asked for a science based opinion on whether a blastocyst should be called an embryo and you got one.


Right, your article was an interesting example of people citing out of context to support their own argument. I assume it was a letter addressed to Science journal. The full definition from Merriam-Webster, of which the authors of the letter clearly wanted only the second part, reads:

"an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception"

Nature journal vol. 327 (1987) discusses the growing trend to use the term "pre-embryo" and describes it as a "cop-out", an attempt to pretend that public conflict can be made to go away by using a different name. Things change of course, especially when vast amounts of money are available to "educate" the public.

I think we should make a date for May 6th too. Liberation theology calls and I must reluctantly obey 

Liz


----------



## catsmum (Feb 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> Right, sorry, it was catsmum. Liz


no I didnt. you seem to have some trouble working out the difference between "alive" and "a life". A leaf on a tree is alive, it's not a life. stop twisting things and trying to stir the pot, it wont work.



luvmydogs said:


> I wouldn't bother arguing with Liz. She doesn't listen and will only keep repeating her own agenda.


you can say that again



gskinner123 said:


> Alive? Who said a blastocyst is not alive? Certainly not me. You could have a colonic endoscopy where live cells would be picked up. Would you call them a "life" ?


like the above posters says, whats the point of arguing with her, people like her have their own agenda and will never accept any other view point on when life begins.


----------



## gloworm*mushroom (Mar 4, 2011)

A particular Monty Python song springs to mind....


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Always look on the bright side of alive?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Or did you mean 'Every Sperm is Sacred' ? Also from from same film


----------



## gloworm*mushroom (Mar 4, 2011)

gskinner123 said:


> Or did you mean 'Every Sperm is Sacred' ? Also from from same film


Hahah I was thinking more the second one but both work


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

catsmum said:


> no I didnt. you seem to have some trouble working out the difference between "alive" and "a life". A leaf on a tree is alive, it's not a life. stop twisting things and trying to stir the pot, it wont work.


The term you used was "life begins". Were you alive before your life began?

Liz


----------



## catsmum (Feb 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> The term you used was "life begins". Were you alive before your life began?
> 
> Liz


i think you might have missed the last few times i said it

so i will say it again

if you want a religious debate on when life begins, take it to the general chat forum

this is cat breeding, not general chit chat.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

lizward said:


> The term you used was "life begins". Were you alive before your life began?
> 
> Liz


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

catsmum said:


> i think you might have missed the last few times i said it
> 
> so i will say it again
> 
> ...


You're the one that keeps coming back with unsupportable comments, not me.

I think I'll declare game set and match to me and leave you to it.

Liz


----------



## catsmum (Feb 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> You're the one that keeps coming back with unsupportable comments, not me.
> 
> I think I'll declare game set and match to me and leave you to it.
> 
> Liz


you are very strange indeed

how old are you? i initially thought you were a grown woman but with this level of one upmanship i can only assume youre in puberty

stop trying to stir the pot and steer a cat related topic on to a religious debate or take it to general chit chat where it belongs


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

catsmum said:


> you are very strange indeed
> 
> how old are you? i initially thought you were a grown woman but with this level of one upmanship i can only assume youre in puberty
> 
> stop trying to stir the pot and steer a cat related topic on to a religious debate or take it to general chit chat where it belongs


48, I have no intention of steering this into a religious debate and find it bizarre, to say the least, that you regard matters of basic biology as being issues of religion  Hint: stinging nettles are alive but I don't have any problem with cutting them down!

I do have a BSc in Biology so I have some idea of what I am talking about.

Liz


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

catsmum said:


> you are very strange indeed
> 
> how old are you? i initially thought you were a grown woman but with this level of one upmanship i can only assume youre in puberty
> 
> stop trying to stir the pot and steer a cat related topic on to a religious debate or take it to general chit chat where it belongs


I may not always agree with Liz, but that is a bit mean and childish 

I'm not big on orthodox religion, but it IS a big part of some peoples lives and we should respect their beliefs/religious ethics even if we don't share them


----------



## gloworm*mushroom (Mar 4, 2011)

Looking at this people seem to have differing views on life and potential life. To me, even if something has the potential to become a life, until it IS one (in my opinion) its not. And that goes for cats/humans, etc. I dont care much for potentiality.

Oh and I got degreez and a masterz as apparently this is important for this discussion...


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

Sperm and eggs have the potential to become life - they become life if they meet. Once they meet and the egg starts to divide you HAVE life. That is when your life started.

I honestly don't see how there can be any possible dispute about this and repeat my challenge - find me any scientist who believes that the dividing fertilised egg is not alive.

Liz


----------



## gloworm*mushroom (Mar 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> Sperm and eggs have the potential to become life - they become life if they meet. Once they meet and the egg starts to divide you HAVE life. That is when your life started.
> 
> I honestly don't see how there can be any possible dispute about this and repeat my challenge - find me any scientist who believes that the dividing fertilised egg is not alive.
> 
> Liz


Until 20+ weeks, its not viable outside the womb, and in my opinion, its a parasite until that point. Entirely dependant on mother, maybe I am some cruel horrible thing but in my opinion clusters of cells are not 'life.' Maybe scientifically its 'life' but then you are crushing billions and billions of 'life' everytime you walk out the door.

Like I said, Im not sentimental about anything potential, and to ME, it is only potential until it is viable and exists. A blob of cells, is not a life to me.


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

gloworm*mushroom said:


> Until 20+ weeks, its not viable outside the womb, and in my opinion, its a parasite until that point. Entirely dependant on mother, maybe I am some cruel horrible thing but in my opinion clusters of cells are not 'life.' Maybe scientifically its 'life' but then you are crushing billions and billions of 'life' everytime you walk out the door.
> 
> Like I said, Im not sentimental about anything potential, and to ME, it is only potential until it is viable and exists. A blob of cells, is not a life to me.


All this is opinion and belongs on the general forum (after May 6th please)

Liz


----------



## gloworm*mushroom (Mar 4, 2011)

lizward said:


> All this is opinion and belongs on the general forum (after May 6th please)
> 
> Liz


Well you were happy to bump it with your opinions, and I can tell our opinions differ so greatly that I have nothing to gain from a discussion on the general forum.

I will respect your views and I hope you can respect mine and others. This thread has derailed enough.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

lizward said:


> Sperm and eggs have the potential to become life - they become life if they meet. Once they meet and the egg starts to divide you HAVE life. That is when your life started.
> 
> I honestly don't see how there can be any possible dispute about this and repeat my challenge - find me any scientist who believes that the dividing fertilised egg is not alive.
> 
> Liz


Agree and as nurse I have assisted in several abortions and make no apologies ... I have also arranged many pregnant cat spays and make no apologies for that either 

In an ideal world I would have been a participant in neither ... but until we reach perfection ... people like me will have to be participants in the mess ...


----------



## lizward (Feb 29, 2008)

gloworm*mushroom said:


> Well you were happy to bump it with your opinions.


No, I was arguing about facts. Actually I don't think I have even said on this thread that I am pro-life, though you are right in assuming that I am.

So, shall we agree to drop it?

Liz


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

Regardless of my views on abortion, I have arranged for spaying of pregnant females before. No rescue worker ENJOYS having to do this, just as little as we ENJOY having to PTS unwanted kittens.


----------

