₦airaland Forum

m_nwankwo:
@Huxley

1. Thanks for providing some original articles. I have in previous posts stated that sponteneous miscarriage can and do occure. I rejected the figures you are citing because no body has actually sat down to do a robust research on the issue. What is been bandied about are estimations made from a cohort of few samples. Estimating the number of sponteneous miscarriages in England and Wales using a sample size of less than a thousand is not good science. More suprising is the assertion by these investigators that 30-50% of fertilized eggs are lost before the women realise that they are pregnant. How did these investigators come to this observation? They only assumed that it is so without data.

2. The gist of my point is that spontenous miscarriges do happen either as a result of biological self regulation or due to non biolgical reasons, and that human assited miscarriages or abortion is morally wrong. Just like a man has no right to kill his neighbour, he too has no right to destroy an embryo or foetus. The foetus or embryo is human. It is just a state in the devlopment of the human body. At no stage in the development of the human body is its destruction permissible. Whether it is a fertilized egg, an embryo, a foetus in the first or last trimester, at birth, at pubertity, during adulthood and old age, it is the same human life that is involved. Thus from conception to death is a single continum and trying to separate this continum in order to justify the destruction of one step in the continum is illogical since the successful completion of step A leads to step B, C, D etc.

m_nwankwo,

Thanks for your response. Looks like we are now quibbling over research methodology and numbers.

1. Thanks for providing some original articles. I have in previous posts stated that sponteneous miscarriage can and do occure. I rejected the figures you are citing because no body has actually sat down to do a robust research on the issue. What is been bandied about are estimations made from a cohort of few samples. Estimating the number of sponteneous miscarriages in England and Wales using a sample size of less than a thousand is not good science. More suprising is the assertion by these investigators that 30-50% of fertilized eggs are lost before the women realise that they are pregnant. How did these investigators come to this observation? They only assumed that it is so without data.

Natural miscarriage is a reality and I recently experience this in my family. These are miscarriages were the woman knew they were pregnant. The figures are quite high (10-25%), as reported in one of the studies above, quote below;

Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). [/b]Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. [b]Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

This figure is attributed to ACOG, and I would tend to respect their eminence in this area. Are you also casting doubts on the figure of 10-25% of known pregnancies that end in miscarriage? I suppose research such cases is relatively less trickier than the cases where the woman is unaware of the pregnancy. Even for this type of miscarriage, this amounts to millions of foetuses (humans, or souls) lost naturally.

For Chemical pregnancies, the figure of 50-75% is appallingly very large. The range (25) suggests that there is a lot of unknown in the true numbers. Now, you are querying the methodology. Let's imagine how this could have been done;

1) Sample a population of women who sexually active and trying to get pregnant
2) Get these women to submit biological specimens (menstral output, blood, urine, etc) every month for analysis.
3) Examine these for signs of fertilised eggs. Examine hormone levels in urine/blood.
-
-
-
10) Use statistical analysis to interpret results and do epidemiological investigations and implications of the result
etc.

Do you think this is beyond the capabilities of modern day scientist? In fact, this is the bread and butter of most research discipline. Of course, selecting the sample size and characteristic is crucial. Pollsters routinely do forecast and predictions base of sample sizes of about 1000.

What size is the right size? CAn you suggest the correct sample size for the population of the UK (70million)? Or are you going to sample all sexually active women of child-bearing age? There are statistical methods for adjusting and interpreting such work.

They only assumed that it is so without data

How did you come by this? How do you know they have no data? Do you think the ACOG would not be interested in this sort of research? Do you think it would be beyond their wit to gather such data?



The fact is millions of fertilised eggs are lost yearly through natural processes. These may be eggs lost soon after fertilisation or later into the pregnancy. The question is why would the creator arrange for such wasteful extermination of souls. We should count ourselves lucky in a way. We got the chance to experience this reality. But many potential billions more are wasted yearly or not even given the faintest chance.

BMJ article with references at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7099/32

Miscarriage statistics miss about a third of cases

No one knows how many miscarriages are already treated in primary care as the only statistics published in Britain come from hospital inpatient figures. On p 32 Everett reports the results of a prospective community study of bleeding in early pregnancy. Extrapolations from live birth and population figures suggest that there may be 70 000-90 000 miscarriages every year in England and Wales, and about a third of these women are not admitted to hospital. The data also suggest that the risk of a miscarriage among women who have miscarried their previous pregnancy is not significantly higher than that for other women.

Source: British Medical Journal (BMJ) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7099/0/d

Another article with journal references about the number of natural miscarriges;
Source: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html


Spontaneous abortion (SAB), or miscarriage, is the term used for a pregnancy that ends on it's own, within the first 20 weeks of gestation. The medical name spontaneous abortion (SAB) gives many women a negative feeling, so throughout this article we will refer to any type of spontaneous abortion or pregnancy loss under 20 weeks as miscarriage.

Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

Most miscarriages occur during the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. Pregnancy can be such an exciting time, but with the great number of recognized miscarriages that occur, it is beneficial to be informed about miscarriage, in the unfortunate event that you find yourself or someone you know faced with one.

There can be many confusing terms and moments that accompany a miscarriage. There are different types of miscarriage, different treatments for each, and different statistics for what your chances are of having one. The following information gives a broad overview of miscarriage. This information is provided to help equip you with knowledge so that you might not feel so alone or lost if you face a possible miscarriage situation. As with most pregnancy complications, remember that the best person you can usually talk to and ask questions of is your health care provider.

Your purchase supports the APA
Why do miscarriages occur?

The reason for miscarriage is varied, and most often the cause cannot be identified. During the first trimester, the most common cause of miscarriage is chromosomal abnormality - meaning that something is not correct with the baby's chromosomes. Most chromosomal abnormalities are the cause of a faulty egg or sperm cell, or are due to a problem at the time that the zygote went through the division process. Other causes for miscarriage include (but are not limited to):

* Hormonal problems, infections or maternal health problems
* Lifestyle (i.e. smoking, drug use, malnutrition, excessive caffeine and exposure to radiation or toxic substances)
* Implantation of the egg into the uterine lining does not occur properly
* Maternal age
* Maternal trauma

Factors that are not proven to cause miscarriage are sex, working outside the home (unless in a harmful environment) or moderate exercise.
What are the chances of having a Miscarriage?

For women in childbearing years, the chances of having a miscarriage can range from 10-25%, and in most healthy women the average is about a 15-20% chance.

* An increase in maternal age affects the chances of miscarriage
* Women under the age of 35 yrs old have about a 15% chance of miscarriage
* Women who are 35-45 yrs old have a 20-35% chance of miscarriage
* Women over the age of 45 can have up to a 50% chance of miscarriage
* A woman who has had a previous miscarriage has a 25% chance of having another (only a slightly elevated risk than for someone who has not had a previous miscarriage)

What are the Warning signs of Miscarriage:

If you experience any or all of these symptoms, it is important to contact your doctor or a medical facility to evaluate if you could be having a miscarriage:

* Mild to severe back pain (often worse than normal menstrual cramps)
* Weight loss
* White-pink mucus
* True contractions (very painful happening every 5-20 minutes)
* Brown or bright red bleeding with or without cramps (20-30% of all pregnancies can experience some bleeding in early pregnancy, with about 50% of those resulting in normal pregnancies)
* Tissue with clot like material passing from the vagina
* Sudden decrease in signs of pregnancy

The different types of Miscarriage:

Miscarriage is often a process and not a single event. There are many different stages or types of miscarriage. There is also a lot of information to learn about healthy fetal development so that you might get a better idea of what is going on with your pregnancy. Understanding early fetal development and first trimester development can help you to know what things your health care provider is looking for when there is a possible miscarriage occurring.

Most of the time all types of miscarriage are just called miscarriage, but you may hear your health care provider refer to other terms or names of miscarriage such as:

Threatened Miscarriage: Some degree of early pregnancy uterine bleeding accompanied by cramping or lower backache. The cervix remains closed. This bleeding is often the result of implantation.

Inevitable or Incomplete Miscarriage: Abdominal or back pain accompanied by bleeding with an open cervix. Miscarriage is inevitable when there is a dilation or effacement of the cervix and/or there is rupture of the membranes. Bleeding and cramps may persist if the miscarriage is not complete.

Complete Miscarriage: A completed miscarriage is when the embryo or products of conception have emptied out of the uterus. Bleeding should subside quickly, as should any pain or cramping. A completed miscarriage can be confirmed by an ultrasound or by having a surgical curettage performed.

Missed Miscarriage: Women can experience a miscarriage without knowing it. A missed miscarriage is when embryonic death has occurred but there is not any expulsion of the uterus. It is not known why this occurs. Signs of this would be a loss of pregnancy symptoms and the absence of fetal heart tones found on an ultrasound.

Recurrent Miscarriage (RM): Defined as 3 or more consecutive first trimester miscarriages. This can affect 1% of couples trying to conceive.

Blighted Ovum: Also called an anembryonic pregnancy. A fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall, but fetal development never begins. Often there is a gestational sac with or without a yolk sac, but there is an absence of fetal growth.

Ectopic Pregnancy: A fertilized egg implants itself in places other than the uterus, most commonly the fallopian tube. Treatment is needed immediately to stop the development of the implanted egg. If not treated rapidly, this could end in serious maternal complications.

Molar Pregnancy: The result of a genetic error during the fertilization process that leads to growth of abnormal tissue within the uterus. Molar pregnancies rarely involve a developing embryo, but often entail the most common symptoms of pregnancy including a missed period, positive pregnancy test and severe nausea.
Treatment of Miscarriage:

The main goal of treatment during or after a miscarriage is to prevent hemorrhaging and/or infection. The earlier you are in the pregnancy, the more likely that your body will expel all the fetal tissue by itself and will not require further medical procedures. If the body does not expel all the tissue, the most common procedure performed to stop bleeding and prevent infection is a dilation and curettage, known as a D&C. Drugs may be prescribed to help control bleeding after the D&C is performed. Bleeding should be monitored closely once you are at home; if you notice an increase in bleeding or the onset of chills or fever, it is best to call your physician immediately.
Prevention of Miscarriage:

Since the cause of most miscarriages is due to chromosomal abnormalities, there is not much that can be done to prevent them. One vital step is to get as healthy as you can before conceiving to provide a healthy atmosphere for conception to occur.

* Exercise regularly
* Eat healthy
* Manage stress
* Keep weight within healthy limits
* Take folic acid daily
* Do not smoke

Once you find out that you are pregnant, again the goal is to be as healthy as possible, to provide a healthy environment for your baby to grow in:

* Keep your abdomen safe
* Do not smoke or be around smoke
* Do not drink alcohol
* Check with your doctor before taking any over-the-counter medications
* Limit or eliminate caffeine
* Avoid environmental hazards such as radiation, infectious disease and x-rays
* Avoid contact sports or activities that have risk of injury

Emotional Treatment:

Unfortunately, miscarriage can affect anyone. Women are often left with unanswered questions regarding their physical recovery, their emotional recovery and trying to conceive again. It is very important that women try to keep the lines of communication open with family, friends and health care providers during this time.

Some helpful web sites that address miscarriage and pregnancy loss include:

* www.nationalshareoffice.com
* www.mend.org
* www.aplacetoremember.com
* www.madisonfoundation.org


Last Updated: 7/2007

Compiled using information from the following sources:

Current Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment Ninth Ed. DeCherney, Alan H., et al, Ch. 14.

MedlinePlus [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); [updated 2006 Feb 23]. Pregnancy Loss; [updated 2006 Feb 22; reviewed 2006 Feb 7; cited 2006 Feb 23]. Available from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/pregnancyloss.html

Planning Your Pregnancy and Birth Third Ed. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Ch. 15.

Williams Obstetrics Twenty-Second Ed. Cunningham, F. Gary, et al, Ch. 9.

m_nwankwo:
@Huxley

I will address the issues you and the articles you posted raised.

1. The National Institute of Health is a well respected body and has a lot of eminent scientists. An article that refers to them as a source remains an opinion except if the scientific paper on which the article is based is cited. The scientific paper can then be examined with several other papers in a similar area and a reasonable inference can be made. Please site the original scientific papers on which the articles are based. Only then will it be possible for the methods, the results and the conclusion of the paper subjected to analysis. If you have the original scientific papers, cite them.

2. God is not responsible for spontaneous miscariages. There are biological and spiritual reasons why they do occure. Even the article you posted delineated some of the biological reasons why sponteneous miscarriages do happen. The developmental process of every cell has checks and balances. These checks are programed into the molecular clock of such a cell to ensure that the cell or cells survive and perform their alloted tasks. If a cell or cells suffer chromosomal abnormalities or extensive DNA damage, the check process marks those cells for destruction.

3.The occasional occurrence of spontenous miscarriage should not be used to justify abortion or man mediated miscarriages. Just like the observation that humans die naturally is not an alibi for murder.

Of course, I have not got the original research paper but have to rely on the authorities of these research bodies. If these figures had been in dispute I am sure they would not be published, or if published withdrawn or given with some warnings. Several other scientific bodies have release similar figures.

That is the way science and research works. It builds on the works of others. If the foundational work is in dispute, that will soon be discovered. In my previous incarnation as a research engineer,, I had to rely on the results of other research bodies and did not have to re-do all their work just to progress mine.

Are you in dispute with the figures? What if it was not 30 - 50% but say 1%. Would you be more comfortable with that? Or are you saying that NO natural miscarriage take place whatsoever?

m_nwankwo:
@Huxley,

I have read the article you posted. It is not a scientific paper but rather the opinion of the author. Inspite of that I will address the points raised.

1. Preccursor cells that will finally devlope into mature eggs are not mature eggs. Therefore it is false to say that millions of eggs are destroyed even before a foetus is born. Both cell death and cell proliferation are normal physiological processes in a living organism. I am sure even the author is aware that he cannot equate mature eggs to precursor egg cells. The author recognised this and labelled them as "potential eggs" Having already recognised that potential egg is not a mature egg, it is an irony to then state that millions of eggs are destroyed during embrogenesis, birth and development.

2. A mature egg or a mature sperm remain gametes in so far as fertilization has not taken place. A human spirit cannot connect with either a mature egg or a mature sperm. It can only connect with a fertilized egg. In simple language, neither the sperm or the egg is human but a fertilized egg is human. Thus the reabsorbtion of unused sperm or the decomposition of an unused egg (menstruation) are biolgical processes. God designed the human body that way. However, once fertilzation has taken place, that ball of cells is not just a biological entity, it has the breath of God, the spirit pulsating through it. It is human and has a right to life like any other person. Even at the moment of conception, it is possible for those blessed with "X-ray" eyes to see the connection between the inhabiting spirit and the fertilized ovum.

3. I question the study that claim that 30% of fertilized eggs are lost before implantation take place. I will like to know the sample size for such a study, the age of participants, their race, predisposing factors like smoking, alcoholism, their medical history etc. It only when these are provided can a deduction be made.

4. Sponteneous miscarriges can happen for a variety of biological and spiritual reasons. However what ever is the prevailing biolgical or spiritual reasons, God is not the cause. If we follow Gods law in our spiritual and biological life, then misscariges, diseases and much of what torments us today will cease to exist.

There is a lot of scientific evidence on the side of a very high natural miscarriage rate. Check out the articles and links below. This can only mean that if all these death is god's plan, then he must be killing between 30 and 60 million humans worldwide yearly. This would really be atrocious. Do you want to make your good god responsible for these deaths?

===============================================================================


http://www.gloriaspregnancyinfo.com/pregnancy_complications/understanding_miscarriage.html

Understanding Miscarriage & Coping With Pregnancy Loss
Understanding Miscarriage imageIf you are visiting this section, chances are that you have recently had the terrible misfortune of losing a baby to miscarriage or being born still. First of all, we wish to extend our deepest and most heartfelt condolences if this is the case.

This section is dedicated to assisting women experiencing a miscarriage, trying to conceive again, or are pregnant after enduring a loss or losses. The ultimate goal is to provide women with a haven of comfort and support that they generally cannot find in their local communities or workplaces.

Women who have undergone a miscarriage are usually faced with insensitive and sometimes well-meaning people who say the wrong things. Women who are grieving the loss of their babies experience disapproval, or worse yet, silence from those whom they thought they could trust to understand their pain. This web site exists to provide the understanding that these women need.

What is a miscarriage?

Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. About 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks. This doesn't include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before you get a positive pregnancy test. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman finds out she's pregnant, because they happen so early that she goes on to get her period about on time. If you lose a baby after 20 weeks of pregnancy, it's called a stillbirth.

What can cause a miscarriage?
Between 50 and 70 percent of first trimester miscarriages are thought to be random events caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg. Most often, this means that the egg or sperm had the wrong number of chromosomes, and as a result, the fertilized egg can't develop normally.

In other cases, a miscarriage is caused by problems that occur during the delicate process of early development — for example, when an egg doesn't implant properly in the uterus or an embryo has structural defects that don't allow it to continue developing. Since most healthcare practitioners won't do a full-scale workup after a single miscarriage, it's usually impossible to tell why the pregnancy was lost. And even when a detailed evaluation is performed — say after you've had two or three consecutive miscarriages — the cause still remains unknown in about half of cases.

When the fertilized egg has chromosomal problems, you may end up with what's sometimes called a blighted ovum (now usually referred to in medical circles as an early pregnancy failure). In this case, the fertilized egg implants in the uterus and the placenta and gestational sac begin to develop, but the resulting embryo either stops developing very early or doesn't form at all. Because the placenta begins to secrete hormones, you'll get a positive pregnancy test and may have early pregnancy symptoms, but an ultrasound will show an empty gestational sac. In other cases, the embryo does develop for a little while but has abnormalities that make survival impossible, and development stops before the heart starts beating.

Once your baby has a heartbeat, which is usually visible on a ultrasound at around 6 weeks, your odds of having a miscarriage drop significantly.

How to cope after having a miscarriage
Coping with miscarriage is a very personal experience that every woman will do differently. Also it will depend on the gestational age of the baby before the miscarriage. Some women form a bond with their unborn child immediately upon the news that they are pregnant, while others only do when signs and symptoms of pregnancy begin.
It's My Fault - While coping with miscarriage many women believe that it is their fault that they miscarried. Many women will even feel that they are inadequate as a woman because they must be "defective" if they can not carry a pregnancy to term. While other women will wonder what they have done to deserve such a devastating experience.

* It is not your fault! Approximately 40% of miscarriages have no medical explanation for their occurences. Also 50-60% of first trimester and 20% of second trimester miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormatlities within the fetus.

Anger - Anger is a completely normal feeling during the process of coping with miscarriage. Women can feel anger towards God for "letting this happen", medical field for not preventing the miscarriage, anger towards others who are pregnant or have children, and even their significant other for not coping with miscarriage the way they think they should.

* Anger is expected during the process of coping with miscarriage. Just understand that the anger is about the pregnancy loss and not having control over this devastating experience.
* Be nice to your signifigant other because it's not their fault either and they may be hurting on the inside but may have trouble showing it on the outside.

Feeling of Depression - This feeling if it occurs has different severity for each person coping with miscarriage. However, a minority of women actually develop actual depression. Women may find themselves crying at odd times, not wanting to get out of bed at times, and feeling of hopelessness.

* These are all normal feelings of grief. It is okay to cry and is actually healthy to cry. However, if these syptoms interfere with the woman's daily life after several weeks she may need to find addtional support through professional counseling, church, or family and friends.

I will never get pregnant again or I am afraid to get pregnant again - While coping with miscarriage it is only natural to feel that it may happen again to you. Especially when a lot of women try for a long time to get pregnant and then this devastating experience occurs.

* 90% of women who experience a miscarriage with the first pregnancy will have a successful second pregnancy. Do not give up hope while coping with miscarriage and allow yourself to grieve but do not loose the hope of having children some day.
* Also realize that all women are afraid when they get pregnant again after a miscarriage. So do your best and try not to worry about "what if it happens again".

Conceiving after a miscarriage
Conceiving after miscarriage creates different feelings for each woman as well as differences among women and men. There are a lot of questions and fears that have to be addressed before most women feel that they are ready to attempt conceiving after miscarriage. Some women want to attempt conceiving after miscarriage right away while others want nothing to do with conceiving after miscarriage. It is a long road that no one can understand but the woman and man who are going through the miscarriage experience.
How long will the bleeding last after a miscarriage? Most women want to know how long they will have vaginal bleeding before they even think about conceiving after miscarriage. While this will vary from woman to woman, most women have vaginal bleeding for 4-5 days up to 2 weeks. However, if someone experiences a third trimester loss they may have vaginal bleeding up to 6 weeks. It is important that during that time the woman does not place anything within the vagina (no intercourse, no douching, no tampons).

* Allow this time to let your body heal and cope with the loss you have just had.

No desire for sex - There are a lot of women who are left with no desire to have sex after a miscarriage which makes conceiving after miscarriage extremely difficult. Many women state that it reminds them to much of their unborn child and / or the miscarriage experience. Also many women agree that they are afraid of conceiving after miscarriage and having another miscarrige. Some women even admit that they do not feel that they are adequate enough as a woman since they can not carry a pregnancy to term. Many women's feelings of inadequancy leads them to feel sexually unattractive.

* Allow your body and mind to heal before you consider conceiving after miscarriage. If sex is to painful then you must communicate that to your partner and try to make them understand it is still to difficult of a time. In time it will get easier and you will find that you want to become intimate again and conceiving after miscarriage is what you may want.
* Also when you do attempt conceiving after miscarriage remember that 90% of women who have had one miscarriage have a successful next pregnancy, and even 60% of women who have had two miscarriages have a successful next pregnancy.

Desire to get pregnant right away - The desire to immediately attempt conceiving after miscarriage is a common feeling. A lot of women just really want to have a child and do not want to wait a few months before they attempt conceiving after miscarriage. It truly comes down to how you are dealing with your miscarriage. No one knows their body better than a woman does, so if she feels she is ready to attempt conceiving after miscarriagte then try.

* It truly is up to the woman when she wants to attempt conceiving after miscarriage. However, make sure you have had time to mourn and cope with your loss and prepare your mind and body for pregnancy again before you attempt conceiving after miscarriage.
* It is a good idea to at least wait until you have one normal menstrual cycle to allow your body to prepare itself for conceiving after miscarriage. Some physcians even say that you should wait for three menstrual cycles before you attempt conceiving after miscarriage. This is truly a decision that should be left up to the couple trying to attempt conceiving after miscarriage.

Not getting pregnant while trying - Many couples want to get pregnant right away the first time they try conceiving after miscarriage. The stress and emotions that will occur during this time is extremely difficult. Each month when a woman begins her menstrual cycle she will be reminded of the miscarriage and that she is not pregnant now when she should be. Most women agree that after they stopped timing and planning the sex and just let it happen they became pregnant.

* Do not plan to get pregnant immediately after you decide to attempt conceiving after miscarriage. The stress of wanting to be pregnant will definately hinder the intimate sexual contact and make sex no longer enjoyable and more like a job.
* The best way to get pregnant is have sex everyother day between the tenth and eighteenth day of the woman's menstrual cycle. However, be spontaneous and make it romantic and enjoyable.

The fear of having another miscarriage - Once a woman experiences a micarriage that fear of it happening again will be with her for every pregnancy there after. No one can understand the feeling of this fear except for someone who has experienced a miscarriage themselves and have been successful conceiving after miscarriage.

* Do not be surprised at how scared you are once you become pregnant. It is natural to have this feeling and most women will have this fear for every additional pregnancy no matter how long ago the miscarriage was.
* Be honest to your husband or loved one because they will not understand how you are feeling, even after you have one successful pregnancy.

More to come on Understanding Miscarriage,

===================================================================================
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/miscarriage.html?pageNum=2

About miscarriage

A miscarriage is a pregnancy that ends before the fetus is considered “viable” (before 20 weeks of gestation). A fetus is viable if it can live outside the mother’s womb. Pregnancy losses after the 20th week of gestation are known as preterm deliveries.

Womb

A woman’s reproductive system includes the uterus, cervix, two ovaries, two fallopian tubes and the vagina. The fallopian tubes are narrow tubes that connect the ovaries to the uterus. Once a month, an egg is released by one of the ovaries, and travels down the fallopian tube, where it may be fertilized by sperm.

Once the egg and sperm join, they rapidly begin to develop new cells. This bundle of cells, called the embryo, normally implants on the inner wall of the uterus. Once implanted, the embryo continues to grow inside a sac of amniotic fluid, contained within the placenta. After several weeks, the embryo is called a fetus.

In a miscarriage, the woman’s body expels all or some of the fetus, the placenta and the fluid surrounding the fetus. The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion. It is also referred as early pregnancy loss.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), up to 50 percent of all fertilized eggs die and are spontaneously aborted, usually before a woman even realizes that she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of miscarriage is approximately 25 percent, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Miscarriage usually occurs between the 7th and 12th week of pregnancy (during the first trimester).


In many cases, chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg prevent it from developing normally and the pregnancy terminates naturally. Typically, such problems are the result of errors that occur by chance as the embryo divides and grows.

In other cases, complications may occur during the delicate process of early human development that may prevent an embryo from continuing gestation. For example, the egg may not implant properly in the uterus or the embryo may have structural defects that do not allow it to continue growing inside the mother’s uterus (womb).

In all cases, spontaneous expulsion of the pregnancy is preceded by death of the embryo or fetus. Sometimes a miscarriage may be accompanied by an infection in the uterus (septic miscarriage). This is a serious condition that can result in shock and organ failure, which requires prompt medical treatment.

When a woman experiences the loss of two or more consecutive pregnancies in the first or second trimester OR the loss of three or more pregnancies before 20 weeks gestation, she is experiencing recurrent miscarriage. Other terms for this condition include: recurrent spontaneous miscarriage, recurrent spontaneous abortion and recurrent pregnancy loss.

According to the ASRM, less than 5 percent of women will experience two consecutive miscarriages, and only 1 percent will experience three or more miscarriages.

A woman who experiences recurrent miscarriage is typically subject to more diagnostic tests than a woman who has a single, first trimester miscarriage. However, in 50 to 75 percent of couples who experience recurrent miscarriage, no explanation is found, according to the ASRM. Treatment options for recurrent miscarriages depend on the cause of the miscarriages and usually differ from standard miscarriage treatment options.

Couples may be comforted to know that, according to the ASRM, pregnancy is successful in 60 to 70 percent of women who experience unexplained recurrent pregnancy losses.
===================================================================================
http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/emotional-life/grief-and-loss/coping-with-a-miscarriage.aspx
http://www.babycenter.com/0_understanding-miscarriage_252.bc;jsessionid=D77CC1245A97520B480B0A92C74C9790.02-08?print=true
http://www.scrippshealth.org/News.asp?ID=271
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/miscarriage.html?pageNum=2

olabowale:
And by the way, Huxley, when does human begin in the world of agnostics and atheists? Let me quote brother Frizy: Dont worship your intellect!

That is the wrong question, if I may. There really is no such thing as life beginning in a christian, agnostic, atheist, theistic worldview. Life just begins at some point, period - independent of what impressions we impose upon the event. So my question (in the subject of this thread) was a bit of a bluff-call.

The important question is: when can one be considered to be a sentient being?. I think this is a scientific question rather than a supernatural or theological or metaphysical one. Scientist are hard at work investigating these issues and the outcome of such research is apt to inform other areas of human discuss including human rights, philosophy, theology etc.

BTW, the word [b]"worship" [/b]does not exist in the lexicon of rationalist who are guide by reason rather than faith. So do not project this slavish word into the worldview of the rationalist.

Mark 4: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them .


Is this the mark (no pun intended) of a good teacher?

MC Usman:
Why afraid of the truth


There is a direct answer in the Bible

According to the Old Testament, Abraham "the friend of God" had more than one wife, David had one hundred wives, and Solomon is even said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

If polygamy is immoral per se, then these and other leading figures in the Biblical traditions are immoral. In this case, there would be no sanctity attached to the Bible, its Prophets, or it teachings! No sincere Jew, Christian would regard God’s chosen Messengers as immoral persons!

It was concerning the Old Testament laws and Old Testament Prophets that Jesus (as) said plainly that he came not to destroy the Law or the Prophets but rather to fulfil.

In addition, there is no passage in the New Testament that clearly prohibits polygamy. This was the understanding of the early Church Fathers and for several centuries in the Christian era.

Note that polygamy in Is'lam as well as in Christiannity is:

neither mandatory, nor encouraged, but merely permitted.

Good answer

olabowale:
@Huxley:Since you are so lazy to read, that is your assignment. You want to bash believers, yet you fail to read what is truth. You want the truth? You can handle the truth. lol.

All of these are just the summary of the creation of mankind. Read, mister man.

Waste of time and space. You admit that you have simply googled and cut&paste. Does that make you any different from me who has not read it?

What the hell are you doing? WHo do you think will read all of this? Can't you just answer the simple question or provide a synopsis of what you just posted? C'mon be reallistic

Is the solution not in the Bible?

cgift:
So that we can find examples of people who were tested and passed it and gain strength to face our own situations too. this boy

But god said "for now I know that thou fearest God". Did god not know before Abraham attempted to complied with the request?


I submit that that phrase indicates that he did not know. If he did not know, can he still be god?

Frizy:
Why must you write an exam to be qualified for a job? You think everyone should just be left alone because God knows what they can do. That's not possible because one has to increase in faith or decrease. As people increase in disbelieve or decrease.

The exam is essentially for the benefit to the potential employer, who do not know the state of your knowledge in the subject. But in this case, god should already know, shouldn't he, if he is god.

Or is foreknowledge and omniscience NOT one of god's attributes?

olabowale:
Coming back to Ibrahiim, we know that he left his people because of their disbelief in One True God, who needs no associations. As he left his people, insearch of god, and the true process of worship of Him, God tested him as he had tested every Prophet and believers before him. God did not test him out of the ordinarily or arbitrarily. God tested him in measure according to his capability, with a safety system for him to fall upon.

What is the point of testing anyone if he is god. If he is god he should already be aware of the state of everyone's heart and mind. So why is the test required? Is it because god did not know and needed the test to find out, like you and me would have needed a test to determine suitability of a candidate for a position?

The Human reproductive process is very wasteful, discarding about 30% of all fertilised eggs naturally. All of these eggs that go down the toilets every day represent a vast proportion of cells that could have developed into humans, but nature just unceremoniously discards them.

This begs the question; can we consider these fertilised eggs discarded from the body humans? If so, at what point did they become human - at the instant of fertilisation, 10 minutes after, 1 week after, 1 month after etc?

Why would a loving god design a process that eliminates about 30% of his potential loving children?

Check out the following article from the New Scientist Gillian Bentley


References


Source: The NewScientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120456.100-forum--doing-what-comes-naturally.html

Gillian Bentley is a Royal Society research fellow in the Department of Biological Anthropology at the University of Cambridge.


WOMEN'S fertility has been hitting the national news in the past few weeks as a storm of debate and moral outrage has descended on reproductive clinicians and their patients. The first story concerned the law requiring fertility clinics to destroy unclaimed frozen human embryos after five years of storage. This was followed by two stories about a woman's right to selectively abort fetuses in a multiple pregnancy.

But while the media debates the sanctity of embryonic life, women lose fertilised eggs through spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, every single day. And they are lost in vastly greater number than those embryos lost through either intentional thawing or elective abortions.

Normal human reproductive processes might appear extraordinarily wasteful since they involve discarding embryos and fetuses at rates that would alarm the least conscientious of objectors debating the morality of abortion and reproductive technologies. These physiological processes are, however, the result of long-term evolution designed to optimise the production of viable offspring. Surely most of our conscious human reproductive decisions, whether storing frozen embryos or selective abortions, have the same end in mind?

Despite our burgeoning numbers, human reproduction is a random process requiring an excess of gamete and embryo production. In the fragile biological endeavour to produce a viable fetus, eggs and embryos are lost every day on a scale that staggers the imagination. Even before birth humans are endowed with copious, even profligate, amounts of gametes.

So, at about the twentieth week of gestation, a female fetus has as many as 7 million potential eggs in her ovaries, but these begin to die off naturally through a process called atresia. At birth there are only about 2 million of these incipient eggs left, and at puberty between 300 000 and 400 000. (Among Western women, only about 300 to 400 of these eggs are ever ovulated and an average 2.2 children born.) These astounding numbers represent about one egg lost per woman every four minutes. The greatest loss of eggs, then, takes place even before a woman is born. Of course, males also lose sperm cells at phenomenal rates: roughly 1000-plus sperm per second are produced from puberty onwards and millions of sperm either go to waste after ejaculation or remain in the testes until they die. The reason for this apparent excess is that humans are a relatively infertile species compared with most other mammals. At best, only 20 per cent of couples will conceive in any given month of trying.

On top of this at least 30 per cent of all fertilised eggs are miscarried before they implant in the uterus. In such cases, most women would not have realised they were pregnant, even though the embryo may have reached around 100 cells, well beyond the four-cell legal maximum permitted for frozen embryos. Beyond these early spontaneous abortions, about 15 per cent of all clinically recognised pregnancies end in miscarriage, or fetal resorption in some cases. For women over 35, rates increase to 20 per cent and are even higher among older women.

The majority of these miscarriages occur during the first three months of a pregnancy, the same period during which most elective abortions are carried out. Many of the early spontaneous abortions occur either because of chromosomal abnormalities, or inadequate hormonal support; the embryo would therefore never survive the gestation period. Frozen embryos have even lower chances of survival. Only about 2 per cent of these when thawed are sufficiently viable to produce a live birth. A small proportion of miscarriages occur during the second and third trimesters. Prior to the advent of modern technology, most of the fetuses would not have survived.

Successful reproduction, as well as the capacity to shut down reproductive function when necessary, evolved through the body's ability to take account of human health and energy reserves, factors that have long ceased to be the only reasons for limiting our reproductive potential. Nowadays, we weigh our potential to raise children in socioeconomic terms, such as the likelihood of support from a partner, the size of our salaries and long-term employment prospects—signals which our bodies are ill-equipped to read.

Instead, the decisions we make about contraception, elective abortions, infanticide (in some cultures), and reproductive technologies have superimposed themselves on our evolutionary make-up, together with all their emotional baggage. So legal rulings, such as whether unclaimed frozen embryos should be destroyed, continue the long social evolution by which conscious human decisions about the limits of human reproduction are being called upon to replace what were formerly unconscious decisions made at a physiological level.

The current furore does, however, remind us that society remains unable to deal with the moral responsibility of these conscious decisions despite the fact that major reproductive losses occur naturally every day. Yet these losses are not perceived as immoral or unjust. We generally accept them as part of a natural process.

Why can't we view our conscious decisions in this light? How will we deal with developments that further tax the limits of our moral horizons? We may, for example, soon harvest the eggs of fetal ovaries to help infertile women produce children. Indeed, it's uncertain that we will ever completely resolve the ethical arguments surrounding these new technologies given the diversity of human thought. But our own physiology provides an instructive example of just how we might do so.

Gillian Bentley is a Royal Society research fellow in the Department of Biological Anthropology at the University of Cambridge.


Source: The NewScientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120456.100-forum--doing-what-comes-naturally.html

m_nwankwo:
@Huxley
Science in my understanding is simply investigating the laws of God as it manifests in matter. There are possibly two types of scientists: One type investigates the laws of nature and sees these laws of nature as an end in itself and do not boarder to investigate how these laws and its manifestations came into being in the first place. The second group investigates the laws of Nature and the origin of these laws and I belong to this second group.

1. Huxley, the spirit is not material, and it did not come from the sperm or the egg. The spirit is spiritual and belong to what you refered in your penultimate post as "supernatural"

2. The only way a fertilized eggs can be lost naturally is through miscarriages. I have not seen evidence that miscarriages are so prevalent among women. What is more common are embryoes discarded as a result of invitro fertlization, embrayo screening, abortion and similar man made procedures which mocks at the sacredness of life. God does not cause misscarriages. There are several biological and spiritual reasons why a misscarriage can occure but that is not the purpose of our discussion.

Check out the following article from the New Scientist Gillian Bentley,

Gillian Bentley is a Royal Society research fellow in the Department of Biological Anthropology at the University of Cambridge.


WOMEN'S fertility has been hitting the national news in the past few weeks as a storm of debate and moral outrage has descended on reproductive clinicians and their patients. The first story concerned the law requiring fertility clinics to destroy unclaimed frozen human embryos after five years of storage. This was followed by two stories about a woman's right to selectively abort fetuses in a multiple pregnancy.

But while the media debates the sanctity of embryonic life, women lose fertilised eggs through spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, every single day. And they are lost in vastly greater number than those embryos lost through either intentional thawing or elective abortions.

Normal human reproductive processes might appear extraordinarily wasteful since they involve discarding embryos and fetuses at rates that would alarm the least conscientious of objectors debating the morality of abortion and reproductive technologies. These physiological processes are, however, the result of long-term evolution designed to optimise the production of viable offspring. Surely most of our conscious human reproductive decisions, whether storing frozen embryos or selective abortions, have the same end in mind?

Despite our burgeoning numbers, human reproduction is a random process requiring an excess of gamete and embryo production. In the fragile biological endeavour to produce a viable fetus, eggs and embryos are lost every day on a scale that staggers the imagination. Even before birth humans are endowed with copious, even profligate, amounts of gametes.

So, at about the twentieth week of gestation, a female fetus has as many as 7 million potential eggs in her ovaries, but these begin to die off naturally through a process called atresia. At birth there are only about 2 million of these incipient eggs left, and at puberty between 300 000 and 400 000. (Among Western women, only about 300 to 400 of these eggs are ever ovulated and an average 2.2 children born.) These astounding numbers represent about one egg lost per woman every four minutes. The greatest loss of eggs, then, takes place even before a woman is born. Of course, males also lose sperm cells at phenomenal rates: roughly 1000-plus sperm per second are produced from puberty onwards and millions of sperm either go to waste after ejaculation or remain in the testes until they die. The reason for this apparent excess is that humans are a relatively infertile species compared with most other mammals. At best, only 20 per cent of couples will conceive in any given month of trying.

On top of this at least 30 per cent of all fertilised eggs are miscarried before they implant in the uterus. In such cases, most women would not have realised they were pregnant, even though the embryo may have reached around 100 cells, well beyond the four-cell legal maximum permitted for frozen embryos. Beyond these early spontaneous abortions, about 15 per cent of all clinically recognised pregnancies end in miscarriage, or fetal resorption in some cases. For women over 35, rates increase to 20 per cent and are even higher among older women.

The majority of these miscarriages occur during the first three months of a pregnancy, the same period during which most elective abortions are carried out. Many of the early spontaneous abortions occur either because of chromosomal abnormalities, or inadequate hormonal support; the embryo would therefore never survive the gestation period. Frozen embryos have even lower chances of survival. Only about 2 per cent of these when thawed are sufficiently viable to produce a live birth. A small proportion of miscarriages occur during the second and third trimesters. Prior to the advent of modern technology, most of the fetuses would not have survived.

Successful reproduction, as well as the capacity to shut down reproductive function when necessary, evolved through the body's ability to take account of human health and energy reserves, factors that have long ceased to be the only reasons for limiting our reproductive potential. Nowadays, we weigh our potential to raise children in socioeconomic terms, such as the likelihood of support from a partner, the size of our salaries and long-term employment prospects—signals which our bodies are ill-equipped to read.

Instead, the decisions we make about contraception, elective abortions, infanticide (in some cultures), and reproductive technologies have superimposed themselves on our evolutionary make-up, together with all their emotional baggage. So legal rulings, such as whether unclaimed frozen embryos should be destroyed, continue the long social evolution by which conscious human decisions about the limits of human reproduction are being called upon to replace what were formerly unconscious decisions made at a physiological level.

The current furore does, however, remind us that society remains unable to deal with the moral responsibility of these conscious decisions despite the fact that major reproductive losses occur naturally every day. Yet these losses are not perceived as immoral or unjust. We generally accept them as part of a natural process.

Why can't we view our conscious decisions in this light? How will we deal with developments that further tax the limits of our moral horizons? We may, for example, soon harvest the eggs of fetal ovaries to help infertile women produce children. Indeed, it's uncertain that we will ever completely resolve the ethical arguments surrounding these new technologies given the diversity of human thought. But our own physiology provides an instructive example of just how we might do so.

Gillian Bentley is a Royal Society research fellow in the Department of Biological Anthropology at the University of Cambridge.


Source: The NewScientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120456.100-forum--doing-what-comes-naturally.html

m_nwankwo:
@Huxley

What is true cannot be contradicted by past, present or future scientific development. Science has the capacity to verify things connected with matter. Thus if religion makes a claim of an event that happened materially, then science will now or in the future authenticate or disaprove of such claims. I do not want to be drawn into the falsehood or otherwise of the bible or any other sacred texts. The much that I can say is that whatever is of God cannot be contradicted by past, present or future discoveries. If such contradictions are exhaustively proven to exist, then such religious claims are purely the postulations of men which they ascribed to God. Neither science nor anything else will contradict the truth, that is a relaible yardstick by which what is of God is separated from what is of man. Now to the answers to the questions you raised

1. Germs cause some of the disesases especially infectious diseases

2. Hereditary traits are transmitted via the genes

3. The earth revolves around the sun

4. The spirit is connected with the zygote from conception, that is, at fertilization, thus from the point of fertilization, the developing zygote or mass of cells as you call it is human.

5. The spirit is independent of the brain counsciousness. Thus the spirit is not part of counsciousness rather the brain and its associated counsciousness is the instrument that the spirit uses to navigate and experience in matter.

6. I get the information from the book "In the Light of Truth-The Grail Message" My experiencing of this book for years has also enabled me to have personal experience of some of the things I post. Thanks.

Ok, so you are agreed that the scientific facts I list above are very unlikely to be overturned wholesale. If anything, new scientific discoveries are only like to add weight to these and provide further refinements to their theories.

4. The spirit is connected with the zygote from conception, that is, at fertilization, thus from the point of fertilization, the developing zygote or mass of cells as you call it is human.

Curious about this one. If a fertilised egg has a spirit, did this spirit come from the sperm or the egg or from the spirit world?

Do you know how many fertilised eggs are lost naturally from the woman's womb very year? They run into the hundred of millions. Are you saying that all of these "humans" are purge from this life by their creator God even before they have the chance of a life?

m_nwankwo:
@Huxley

What is true cannot be contradicted by past, present or future scientific development. Science has the capacity to verify things connected with matter. T

How then do you know what is true? If an Eastern "spiritualist" came to you talked about Yin & Yang, Karma, etc. Are these truths or would you dismiss their claims?

Yes, science is necessarily naturalistic and cannot investigate the supernatural.

I would be much obliged if you could answer the questions I posed above. I will restate them here again;

1) At what point in the developing zygote does the spirit become infused into the developing cells?

2) If such spirit-infused cells were to be aborted either naturally or artificially, could it be said to be "human"?

3) Is the "spirit" part of what constitute consciousness?

4) Where did you get this informations and how could it be verified? Is it biblical?

m_nwankwo:
I do not agree with Huxley on his non-belief in God. However to label him dumb is not the way to discuss. I am not sure if some of the discussants are scientists (particularly with experience with the DNA). Although he seems to overinterpret the data to suit his atheism, the data he presents have scientific validity. If a scientific discovery contradict widely held religious beliefs, there appear to be three options (1) The scientific discovery is flawed, (2) the widely held religious beliefs are flawed, and (3) both the scientific discovery and the religious beliefs are flawed. There is enough genetic and fossil evidence to show that the physical body of the the present humans can be traced back to a cluster inhabiting the African continent between 150000 and 200000 years ago. What is however unknown is wheather that cluster originated from Africa only, or that their is parrallel origin in other parts of the world or even a mixture of the two models. I specifically state the human body because the body can be studied by scientific technigues but the real man, the spirit that activates the body cannot be studied by scientific technique. `The human spirit is a "direct" creation of God, it is spiritual and as such it is not subject to biological evolution. The human body or more precisely its template, the DNA is a product of biological evolution. The human specie has been on earth for atleast 200000 years, probably millions of years.

I was not even making a case for atheism with this thread. If anything, I was making a case for the falsehood of the biblical account. If the genesis account is not literally true as given, how do we know which way to re-interpret in? Should we be guided by scientific data in our understanding of "scriptures". As every good scientist knows, scientific discoveries are an approximation of the truth and are accepted in the scientific community only tentatively. But that does not mean that the direction of truth knowledge cannot be known.

Think about it; Which is the most like of these?

1) Germs causes diseases OR miasma causes disease?
2) Hereditary traits are transmitted via gene/DNA OR via food/water/air?
3) The earth revolves around the sun OR the sun revolves around the earth?

For each of the above, do you think there is likely to be an overwhelming rejection of the current scientific consensus?

m_nwankwo you raise an important point about this issue of human spirit. At what point in the developing zygote does the spirit become infused into the developing cells?

If such spirit-infused cells were to be aborted either naturally or artificially, could it be said to be "human"?

Is the "spirit" part of what constitute consciousness?

Where did you get this informations and how could it be verified? Is it biblical?

Here is scriptures for you, 1 Timothy;

2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Which of these do christian women today observe?

TCUBE:
The buttom line is that the quest for knowledge is driving the human race nutts,

Just imagine, if human had not quested for knowledge about the following;

Malaria,
snake venom,
tuberculosis,
Water cycle,
Nitrogen cycle,
DNA,
Germs,
Sewage treatment,
Radio-activity,
Electronics, electricity and magnetism,
Geology,
physics and cosmology,

What sort of world we would be living in today? Would you prefer to live in a world without the fruits of these quests?

Genesis 22: 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for NOW I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.

If god is omniscient, how come he did not know that Abraham fearest him and needed to put him and Isaac through this reprehensible ordeal just to find that out?

If god is omniscient, he should not only know what is in our hearts/minds now, but he should also know the future state of our hearts/minds. So any exercise of tests of faith for which the sole beneficiary of that knowledge is god is redundant.

Genesis 22: 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.

If god is omniscient, how come he did not know that Abraham fearest him and needed to put him and Isaac through this reprehensible ordeal just to find that out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M

Has anyone watched the film Expelled? Apparently, this is making waves in the Christian community. Can anyone comments on the claim by the film-makers that "Science leads to killing people", (Ben Stein)?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/science_leads_to_killing_peopl.php

Hell Past, Hell Present; Which Do You Prefer?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113947.0.html#msg1971669

If you lived in the period of the Old Testament, you would have had NOTHING to fear about burning in the eternal flames of hell. Why? Because the notion of hell as a place of eternal punishment did not exist at that time. The eternal burning fireworks of hell, as punishment, did not exist until gentle Jesus, meek and mild makes his entry onto the Judean landscape.

Old Testament describes a notion of a place for the dead devoid of punishment, but this is a far cry from the burning fireworks, which did not enter popular imagination until Jesus gave it graphic illustration in the new Testament. So what reason did people living in the OT era have for been righteous, given that they were never subject to the threat of hellfire for not being righteous?

With the advent of the Jesus doctrine, the place of the dead takes a cruel and particularly wicked refurbishment from a place of mild repose to one of eternal punishment. Imagine the surprise of those souls who were already in hell before Jesus arrived and enjoying gentle relaxation. Upon Jesus's arrival, the sheep would have had to be separated from the goats, with the goats subjected to the newly introduced furnishings of fireworks. So much for the kind, meek, gentle and loving Jesus

For more on the doctrine of hell, check the following links below;

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113947.0.html#msg1971669
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm

olabowale:
@Huxley: How many types of humans are you talking about, except what those who belief in the existence of God call Adam and Eve and their progenies? Further, could you give us the boundary of the "Africa" you are talking about when the prior to the origination, immediately after it and just before humans began to migrate to the rest of the world. Will this Africa of yours exclude the land that is now cut off from the larger land mass that remain, after the SUEZ Canal was constructed?



And the migratory patterns of man is really your concern? But fail to even acknowledge the existence of God Who created them, shephard them and gave them survival knowledge to outsmart the more fiarce animals and harsh climate which could have easily doomed this specie known as human. Yet you do not see that humans are their own worse enemies. The animals have not been able to conquer man. But man have been able to conquer man and creat calamitous condition for himself. Part of it is arrogance of knowledge. You have actually exibited that here. All those who deny the existence of God can do is to postulate hypothesis, which they prematurely call theories. And in time when the theory fails, they will shift the goal yet again.

Is this your concern really? Let me assure you that no one will be spared of death and consequently of judgement day based on race. But you live in England. How do you cope with the colonizers who you are in their mist? Take heart, man.



Could anything be enviromental? If there is, then your link hypothesis dies off. Here in America, the Children of the Fulanis or the Asiatic Indians are now meatier, unlike their parents who may gain so flesh, but still lighter weight than somebody in their normal body frame, who are indegenous Americans. The result of this change is simply because of more nourishing food, etc.



It is mankind, in his arrogance is the one spelling his own perulous end. Come to think of it, could lack of belief in God be one of man's greatest calamities? Of course. But God is so powerful that He brought about mankind from a single sould, yet before this soul was nothing but dirt/soil.

Can you think of some more?

The foregoing is all rubbish; not a singe modicum of sense in it. To ask a slightly different question:

Given the various creation myths (the African, Australian Aboriginal, Native America, Jewish, Babylonian, etc) which one should one believe and why?

The book of Daniel presents itself as having being written in the 6th century BCE, during the reigns of the Babylonian rulers Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar and the Persians Cyrus and Darius. From that point in time it presents itself as predicting events in the ancient Near East during the 5th, 4th, 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. But strangely, whenever Daniel talks about the 6th century it is vague and inaccurate and when it talks about the second century it is quite detailed and exact. This gives some idea as to the time of composition.

With regard to the 6th century, the book of Daniel opens with;

1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.

2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.


But in fact Jehoiakim reigned for eleven years: it was only in the first year of his son and successor Jehioachin that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem, captured it, and "carried off the treasures of the House of the Lord" (2 Kings 28:8-13). The author of Daniel is quite weak on the facts about the 6th century BCE, and continues to be so in his account of the fall of Babylon to Persia in the year 539. He writes that "Belshazzar king of the Chaldaeans was slain, and Darius the Mede took the kingdom" (Daniel 5:30). But it was Cyrus the Persian who conquered Babylon (Ezra 1:1); there was never a king Darius the Mede. The author of Daniel confusedly imagines him in place of Darius the Persian, who succeeded Cyrus' son Cambyses in 521 BCE. The author of Daniel also confusedly imagines that Cyrus succeeded Darius (though in fact Darius succeeded Cyrus' son), and imagines that Balshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar (5:11) though he was in fact the son of Nabonidus. Nabonidus, in turn, was not related to any of his predecessors, including Nebuchadnezzar; so the author of Daniel was ignorant even of the lineage of the ruler, Belshazzar, in whose court Daniel was said to be "chief of the Magicians" (5:11).

Thus it ought not surprise the attentive reader of the book of Daniel that modern critical scholars of the bible are unanimous in their conviction that Daniel "actually comes from the 2nd century BCE", and that its pretence of coming from the 6th century BCE is literary fiction intended to impress its readers with the supposed accuracy of its foreknowledge of the next several hundred years. (Source: Who wrote the Gospels, Randel Helms)

I suppose incest was acceptable then. Or maybe they were hermaphroditic.

TCUBE:
its amazing that we humans keep coming up with all these so-called "studies", I wonder how the research will benefit we humans. The truth is that nobody knows what happened ,

First off, there is value and virtue in (true) knowledge and it is enormously liberating. Just think about it. Do you think we would have had satellite communication today if humans still believed in biblical cosmology?

The fact that you cannot think of any practical use of this research is only a limitation of your mind and does not make the research result any less true. First, let's look at the non-practical aspects this research reveals;

1) All humans originate from Africa
2) The migratory patterns of humankind
3) The dangers the human race faces here on the planet


The practical usefulness could be as follows;

1) At a philosophical level, this result is a powerful counterpoint to arguments of racial superiority
2) Knowing the various links in our past gives us the means to develop therapies targeted at special local and regional variation of diseases.
3) The planet earth faces many cosmic threats from global warming, to asteriod impacts, to supervolcanoes etc. These threats have been know to exterminate whole plant/animal species in the past. If the human population could bounce back from a population of about 2000, then we know what it takes to keep us from being wiped out. Face with a similar problem again, I think with this konwledge we would resist the travails of nature better.

Can you think of some more?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/tech/main4044053.shtml


It looks like chickens deserve more respect.

Scientists are fleshing out the proof that today's broiler-fryer is descended from the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex.

And, not a surprise, they confirmed a close relationship between mastodons and elephants.

Fossil studies have long suggested modern birds were descended from T. rex, based in similarities in their skeletons.

Now, bits of protein obtained from connective tissues in a T. rex fossil shows a relationship to birds including chickens and ostriches, according to a report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

"These results match predictions made from skeletal anatomy, providing the first molecular evidence for the evolutionary relationships of a non-avian dinosaur," Chris Organ, a postdoctoral researcher in biology at Harvard University said in a statement.

Co-author John M. Asara of Harvard reported last year that his team had been able to extract collagen from a T. rex and that it most closely resembled the collagen of chickens.

They weren't able to recover dinosaur DNA, the genetic instructions for life, but DNA codes for the proteins they did study.

While the researchers were able to obtain just a few proteins from T. rex, they have now been able to show the relationships with birds.

With more data, Organ said, they would probably be able to place T. rex on the evolutionary tree between alligators and chickens and ostriches.

"We also show that it groups better with birds than modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards," Asara added.

The dinosaur protein was obtained a fossil found in 2003 by John Horner of the Museum of the Rockies in a barren fossil-rich stretch of land that spans Wyoming and Montana. Mary H. Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences discovered soft-tissue preservation in the T. rex bone in 2005.

The research of Organ and Asara indicates that the protein from the fossilized tissue is authentic, rather than contamination from a living species.

The researchers also studied material recovered from a mastodon fossil and determined it was related to modern elephants.

Their research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Paul F. Glenn Foundation and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation.

Meanwhile, in another paper in Science, researchers report refining a method to determine ancient dates that will allow them to better pinpoint events such as dinosaurs' extinction.

A team led by Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center and an adjunct professor of earth and planetary science at the University of California, Berkeley, said they were able to refine the so-called argon-argon dating method to reduce uncertainty. The method compares the ratio or two types of the element argon found in rocks.

The greater precision matters little for recent events in the last few million years, according to Renne, but it can be a major problem for events in the early solar system. For example, a one percent difference at 4.5 billion years is almost 50 million years.

The new system reduces that potential uncertainty to one-fourth of one percent, the researchers said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/tech/main4044053.shtml

olabowale:
@Huxley: From your post on "Human being being product of incest," you claimed that by insuniation that Adam/Eve era, as the first man/woman could not have been more than 10,000 years ago. But in your introduction of this thread, above, you spoke about the tragedy that almost wiped out humans at about 70, 000 years ago.

Clearly, one of your problems is comprehension of English. That can be remedied by working on your comprehension and reading and doing more analytical work.

How does any of the above non-sense show that the origin of mankind is Africa. All you just said was quote recent past events or old untestable (or unproveable) history and mythology. The oldest of the old event in the bible/k-ran is no more than 10000 years old.

You have made the gross logical error of thinking that I believe the bible/k-ran is true and historical. Far from it. These books contain very little historical facts and truths. If the oldest events in the bible is about 10000 years old (including the supposed creation), when we know from scientific evidence that the earth is about 4 billion years old, then the bible must be wrong in its dating and timing of factual events. If you had difficulties in my previous comments, let me restate it here;

The bible/k-ran is mostly mythology and is wrong in its dating of the formation of the earth and the emergence of life on the planet. So I do not see a contradiction with the current thread. It is your understanding that is screwed up.

olabowale:
If I just compare the two statement, it is obvious that 70,000 is way more and earlier than 10,000! Further one will see that you can have a near extinction, unless you have been existing before the contion that brought about the calamity developed. In essence, it proves that human, have been in existence over 70,000 years and Adam and Eve, their parents must hae existed much, much earlier! Or does anyone exist as a progeny earlier than their forebearers?

Did you read all the article? This finding is very consistent little the theory that mankind originated from Africa, rather than the Arabian desert. If there really was a biblical Adam&Eve, then the bible got the dating and location wrong as this studies show. If humans existed more than 70000 years ago, then the bible/k-ran are wrong.

olabowale:
You can see how faulty your Atheist and Agnostics ideas are. This alone is enough for a sound mind to quit fooling himself about denial of the existence of God. When you guys can even get the timeline of human existence versus the events that happened to them correctly, without shooting yourself in the foot, you should know that its time to face reality.

You are mistaken yet again. Atheism/agnosticism make no claims about human origins. In fact, you will find that some of the people championing this research are actually theists. What is study show is that the account given in the desert mythologies are wrong. It does not make any claims about the existence/non-existence of gods.