Foetuses [Fetuses] 'may be conscious long before abortion limit'

The Daily Telegraph ^ | March 10, 2003 | David Derbyshire

[LPStar]

I've got one memory which I can place at an age of 2 years old, but nothing before that.

When you were a very tiny baby, you knew who your mother was, and you remembered who she was from day to day. So even though you might not have a conscious memory of that, you did start remembering almost immediately from birth (and probably before).

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Bump for the British docs who are brave enough to say what the Americans aren't!!

[Rocky]

An amazing article. Here's hoping it opens some eyes.

[Question_Assumptions]

By the way, I believe abortion is wrong, but I believe almost every argument made by those who consider themselves the "anti-abortion" movement has done more to harm their cause and promote abortion than anything the pro-abortion people have done.

Is this why public opinion is turning more against abortion or why even Norma McCorvey had her mind changed? I think you are confused between what pro-life people are really saying and what the media says they are saying. I've been to the March for Life and the camera crews took great pains go pass by the crowds of nice college studends and pillar of society types to find the loons in the costumes with the strange things to say.

[Wavyhill]

While I'm personally opposed to the killing of abortion "doctors," I don't feel that I have the right to impose my views on others.

[Dog Gone]

When you were a very tiny baby, you knew who your mother was, and you remembered who she was from day to day.

I think that is more of a conditioned response than what I'd consider a real memory, but that's certainly how the process begins.

[Hank Kerchief]

The point here is not primarily whether they suffer or not. Neither you or I are in a position to know that for a certainty. The real point is that a human life is callously taken. That is a fact that can only be denied by fools and monsters.

But many so-called anti-abortion spokemen make whether they suffer or not the point, and that is what is wrong. I am opposed to abortion, but when others make these absurd arguments supposedly against abortion, and which are easily refuted by any good highschool debater, they are helping the pro-abortion cause.

You are absolutely right, the point here is not primarily whether they suffer or not, but look how many on this thread have made it the point. When that false point is refuted, look at the damage they have done.

Find out who your enemies are. Often it is those who claim to be your friends.

Hank

[Question_Assumptions]

There are different types of "memory" and some of it isn't conscious and more than a heartbeat is. I'm not trying to be rude but I think you are playing into the pro-abortion side's trap by even talking about pre-natal consciousness. Yes, this might buy you a good argument that abortion at 20 weeks or even 10 weeks is wrong but, at some point, your argument is going to fall apart and you are going to be left with neural activity somewhere between conception and birth. Once you start drawing lines like that, it becomes easy to move them back and forth. But more importantly, such lines are a red herring. They are artificial criteria that are easily dismissed by an opponent who doesn't agree with you. If I wanted to play devil's advocate, I could easily argue that I don't accept that basic consciousness is a sufficient criteria to make a being a "person" worthy of a right to life. And I honestly don't think there would be much you could do to prove me wrong.

The only criteria that seperates man from beast is "sentience" or the fully aware mind. That isn't present a birth but turns on around 2 years of age and why most adults don't remember much before around 2 years of age. If you limit yourself to current capabilities, you are going to be forced to draw your line at that point as. What you do is to use this to illustrate that any other line between conception and that point is a red herring and give your opponent the choice. Two years or conception. You must pick one. And, trust me, getting people to admit that they support infanticide is the easiest way to drive decent people who know better into the pro-life camp.

[Rightly Biased]

--Our Leftist enemies are in the service of Satan in wanting to keep this barbaric practice going.--

Well said Thanks for having the wherewithall to post this article

Regards

RB

[Question_Assumptions]

There are good pro-life arguments and bad pro-life arguments. Personally, I think that arguing against abortion from a religious perspective with anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is a fool's errand (either present a secular argument against abortion or try to convert them -- you can't do both at once). But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the arguments have made things worse. In the case of Norma McCorvey, for example, they seem to have made a difference.

[RS]

"Is the foetus conscious? The answer is yes, but up to a point," she said. Given that we can't prove consciousness or not...,

What the heck does "yes" mean when she says in the next sentance she dosen't know ?

"yes, but up to a point"
means exactly what ?

I can guarantee you that every foetus is a certain percent conscious since zero is also a percentage.

[Unleashed]

It seems to me that some are missing the point on this thread. I agree that the definition of the beginning of "conciousness" or "intelligence" (which I think is what most mean by "being aware") is fuzzy and hard to determine at best. However, the key question, which no one is addressing is, "Do fetuses experience suffering in abortion?" If the answer is no, then there is one less reason to oppose abortion. If yes, then by all means it must be stopped.

I have noticed that several people are asserting that human consciousness does not begin until much later in the development cycle, and maybe not until several months after birth. This fact, they assert, means that the fetus can not "experience" suffering. And yet, these same people also refute arguments made by others that state that fetuses are perfectly capable of learning certain things (a mother's voice) as proof of intelligent consciousness (sentience). Once again, they're missing the point.

If babies don't truly develop sentience until much later in life (which they might not) this does not prevent them from experiencing pain. Why is it that the assumption is made that fetuses must first attain sentience before they can truly feel pain and be made to suffer? This just simply doesn't make sense, especially in connection with the argument that learning the voice of a parent is simply a lower-level brain function. Isn't pain, receiving and interpreting outside stiumli as physically harmful, an even more basic, low-level, fundamental function of the brain?

That said, most people seem to be making the point that no consciousness equals no pain/suffering. Prove to me that a non-conscious animal (and by that I mean both unintelligent and intelligent creatures) doesn't feel pain at any point of life, and you've proved that abortions are ethical, moral, and reasonable. Don't prove that (in other words, deny the fact that, consciousness or not, fetuses feel pain) and you've come to the most inescapable reason for banning abortion: you are inflicting pain upon the innocent, underserving, unprotected life of a mortal creature.

[Friend of thunder]

By the way, I believe abortion is wrong, but I believe almost every argument made by those who consider themselves the "anti-abortion" movement has done more to harm their cause and promote abortion than anything the pro-abortion people have done.

Yes, In my mind the question is: when does human life begin? Are the unborn people?

I have friends who think abortion should be legal, they were ‘offended’ by people who thought it should be illegal. They were also offended when I pointed out that people who wanted to outlaw abortion considered it the moral equivalent of putting a loaded gun to the head of a five year old, and pulling the trigger.

The the best argument against abortion is that at some point the unborn are humans, with all the rights of humans. What this point is could be debated, but there must be a point.

[Hank Kerchief]

The fallacy in your arrogant approach is the fact that sleep, which you define as total unconsciousness, is an absolutely necessary precursive condition for the occurence of measurable consciousness.

I do not recall defining sleep as, "total unconsciousness," because it seldom is, although comatose states probably are. I know that most have missed my point, so I will state it clearly. Suppose it is proved the unborn absolutely do not experience what we mean by conscious pain, at any stage?

Does that make any difference? Does that make abortion OK?

If you keep making these specious arguments against abortion, you are helping the pro-abortion movement. Is that what you want?

Abortion is wrong, it is harmful to all involved, it is a complete distortion of all that sex, and love, and life, and morality, and motherhood are about. But I am afraid, the biggest promoters of abortion are those who fancy themselves as "pro-life."

Hank

[AndrewC]

Fetal Psychology

Behaviorally speaking, there's little difference between a newborn baby and a 32-week-old fetus. A new wave of research suggests that the fetus can feel, dream, even enjoy The Cat in the Hat. The abortion debate may never be the same.

...

Fetal Alertness

Scientists who follow the fetus' daily life find that it spends most of its time not exercising these new abilities but sleeping. At 32 weeks, it drowses 90 to 95% of the day. Some of these hours are spent in deep sleep, some in REM sleep, and some in an indeterminate state, a product of the fetus' immature brain that is different from sleep in a baby, child, or adult. During REM sleep, the fetus' eyes move back and forth just as an adult's eyes do, and many researchers believe that it is dreaming. DiPietro speculates that fetuses dream about what they know - the sensations they feel in the womb.

---

Dr. Janet Dipietro studies the behavior of the fetus in the womb

Their studies include examinations of the fetal heart rate, fetal movement, and other factors in the womb that display the development of the fetus. She has found an apparent period of accelerated neurobehavioral development in the fetus during the third trimester, between 28 and 32 weeks. During this time, fetuses display more mature patterns of heart rate, respond more to external sounds, display sleeping patterns like newborns and exhibit more regular periods of activity. This indicates that the nervous system is forming more neural connections.

She is currently trying to prove two hypotheses: 1) that the fetus responds to the mother's emotional state and 2) that negative emotions and stress affect development negatively and can affect the baby's temperament.

[concerned about politics]

Our Leftist enemies are in the service of Satan in wanting to keep this barbaric practice going.

The sacrifice of an innocent sin free soul, just so they can go back to whoring the following weekend. Pathetic.

[Salvation]

BTTT!

[Friend of thunder]

between 28 and 32 weeks. During this time, fetuses display more mature patterns of heart rate, respond more to external sounds, display sleeping patterns like newborns and exhibit more regular periods of activity. This indicates that the nervous system is forming more neural connections.

So abortion is all right before the 28th week? While I don’t claim to speak for Hank, his argument seems to be that we need to argue against abortion on a more fundamental level. There many people in hospitals who do not respond to external stimuli, can we kill them?

This is my question now, are the unborn protected by the Fifth Amendment to the constitution (i.e. nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;.

[Jeff Chandler]

	View Humane Humanity (739KB RM) From www.VirtueMedia.org

[Salvation]

**Something to ponder: IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.**

Check Priests for Life

As I posted this the number increased by five!!!

Number of babies killed by abortion since 
January 22, 1973: