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

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

[MadIvan]

Foetuses may develop consciousness long before the legal age limit for abortions, one of Britain's leading brain scientists has said.

Baroness Greenfield, a professor of neurology at Oxford University and the director of the Royal Institution, said there was evidence to suggest the conscious mind could develop before 24 weeks, the upper age where terminations are permitted.

Although she fell short of calling for changes in the abortion laws, she urged doctors and society to be cautious when assuming unborn babies lacked consciousness. "Is the foetus conscious? The answer is yes, but up to a point," she said.

"Given that we can't prove consciousness or not, we should be very cautious about being too gung ho and assuming something is not conscious. We should err on the side of caution."

Last year, a Daily Telegraph straw poll found many neurologists were concerned that foetuses could feel pain in the womb before 24 weeks after conception.

Many believed foetuses should be given anaesthetics during a late abortion, after 20 weeks. Some also believe pain relief should be given for keyhole surgery in the womb.

Abortions are allowed up to 24 weeks in Britain, but are rarely given so late. Around 90 per cent of the 175,000 planned terminations that take place each year in England and Wales are in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Around 1.5 per cent - or 2,600 - take place after the 20th week.

Terminations after 24 weeks are only allowed in exceptional circumstances if, for instance, the mother's life is threatened.

Lady Greenfield is sceptical of philosophers and doctors who argue that consciousness is "switched on" at some point during the brain's development.

She believes instead that there is a sliding scale of consciousness and that it develops gradually as neurons, or brain cells, make more and more connections with each other.

She told the British Fertility Society in London last week that she had serious concerns about foetal consciousness.

"The Home Office has legislation that applies to a mammal and they have now extended it to the octopus, a mollusc, because it can learn," she said. "If a mollusc can be attributed with being sentient, and now has Home Office protection, then my own view is that we should be very cautious after making assumptions."

In 2001 a Medical Research Council expert group said unborn babies might feel pain as early as 20 weeks and almost certainly by 24. They called for more sensitive treatment of very premature babies, who often had to undergo painful procedures like heel pricks and injections.

[Terriergal]

We should err on the side of caution

Oh but that's a blasphemous thought to the pro-death crowd!

[Terriergal]

If the child is conscious at 24 weeks, dear God in heaven, the implications regarding the brutality of Partial Birth Abortion are staggering

When you think preemies are born many weeks early, you KNOW partial birth abortion is nothing but 1st degree murder. And still we can't get enough people to ban it. My stomach turns when reading the description of the process.

SHOW KIDS "THE SILENT SCREAM" long before they even THINK about having sex.

[Terriergal]

Isn't France trying to force their "morality" on both Ireland and Poland

Naw, liberals never try to force their morality down anyone's throat!

/sarcasm

[MHGinTN]

A viewing of "The Silent Scream" should be enough to convince the skeptical, that is, if they dare to view the film. It's sad to say, but in the past years when I've directed folks to that video, they simply deny the authenticity of what they've viewed. It is sad that people can lie so decisively to themselves in order to continue this holocaust as a means of demonic empowerment.

[MHGinTN]

If the "tissue" isn't part of the mother (it has different DNA), then what type of being is it? ... I know you are aware of the following, I only note it because of the many readers we have who will not join in the discussion and ask questions.

The 'only tissue, only a clump of cells' argument has so many flaws it is hardly an effort to refute them. From the first cell division following fertilization/conception, the individual human being builds its own capsule and its own body. Tissue from the placental sac and the yolk sac are later incorporated into the sinews and gut of the growing child. The placental sac and the fluid within are all produced by the newly conceived individual, not the woman's body, as proven by extensive embryological studies. It is the amazing God programmed ability of the newly conceived human being that protects it from tissue rejection by the woman's body, acting as a barrier and a type of camouflage that prevents the woman's immune system from attacking and shedding the 'other' life within her body attaching to her uterine tissues. The new conceptus sends out the chemical messengers to bring about the supportive actions from the woman's body. At the very outset, it is the newly conceived individual human being who directs the gestational program as it seeks to survive, existing exactly normal in form and function for its age, as it ages, and for the environment in which its life has begun.

[Mjaye]

I've got memories of a house we moved from when I was 2 years old. I recall in detail the seat covers in the it car of the police officer who found me when I wandered off from that same house, and I remembered what my mother was wearing when they came to get me. When I visited the house as an adult, I knew where everything had been, even though it had since been remodeled.

[AndrewC]

The pain criteria gives them such a criteria. While you and I both know that it isn't an exclusive choice, there are people who will latch onto it an use it as their only criteria.

The point you are making is that people are different. Those that grasp at one criteria they can live with are those that will not grasp those they cannot live with. You will not convince that person any further. At this point in history and on another subject, France and Iraq are such entities.

[Coleus]

" but I've started calling them "pro-abortion" much of the time,

Good term, since the child has NO choice.

[Question_Assumptions]

Good term, since the child has NO choice.

Not only that but they don't seem all that interested in giving women a choice, either. They fight informed consent, crisis pregnancy centers, and remain silent on forced abortions and sterilizations in the third word. Even taking what they say on its own merits, they woefully fail to show any interest in giving women any choice other than abortion.

[Coleus]

Yep, I do sidewalk counseling and know that there are no options, counseling, etc. given to the women, they make an appointment and get the abortion on their first visit.

Many of the girls are shocked that there are complications, deaths, suicides and high rates of breast cancer associated with abortions. These facts are the ones which catch their eyes on their way in.

And the DemonRats who state they are for choice are against the choice of the parent to raise their child the way they want, against school choice, against parental notification and against private Social security accounts for those who want them, hypocrites they really are.

[plusone]

Thanks for writing back. I appreciate your view, but strongly disagree. If the sole purpose of the repro. system is pregnancy, then having sex during the infertal portion of the cycle would indeed be sinful, afterall, no pregnancy can result. You're only in it for the pleasure. Also, I see no reason why denying the repro system its functioning is bad for the health, constant pregnancy can't be that beneficial either. Another point to consider is this: what is the difference morally between usin g birth control and simply deciding to not have sex during the fertal part of the cycle. Both choices result in no pregnancy. Both are conscious decisions made to avoid the creation of life. If BC is wrong for that reason, than not having sex at those times must also be wrong. Extending that logic, a woman must be continuously pregnant her whole life. This seems absurd and highly unreasonable. Thanks.

[Friend of thunder]

"Your" argument is equivalent to --- If I am not in Phoenix then I am not in Arizona

With all due respect, I am not arguing that if a fetus is not self aware (conscious) then abortion is all right. In fact that is exactly the opposite of my argument. Earlier in the thread, some brought up the point that the consciousness or lack of consciousness of a fetus is not, in itself, an argument for or against abortion. Because if one argues that abortion is wrong because a fetus is conscious – in other words, because a fetus is conscious abortion is wrong – if one could then demonstrate that a fetus is not conscious, that specific argument is of no use. True, it does not imply – in and of itself – abortion is all right. But if one is using an argument that is shown to be untrue, then, whether or not it is logically valid, the entire argument is weakened in the court of public opinion. The argument against abortion will not be won with truth tables or syllogisms; the argument against abortion will be won when the hearts and minds of the American people are changed.

In my opinion, that is more likely to occur if we argue: a fetus is a person, abortion kills a fetus, therefore abortion kills a person.

[Hank Kerchief]

You sir, obviously have a serious character flaw.

Why thank you. If it's a flaw, of course, it cannot be helped. I'll live with it.

I was thinking of the experience of another accused of having, not only flaws, but even of being demon possessed. His own familiar friend, named Judas, betrayed him.

This other flawed character I'm speaking of once said this: "For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. (Lu 21:15)

Yes, we flawed characters do say some unusual things.

Hank

[MHGinTN]

Arbitrarily killing the unborn at any age, from their conception onward, is not reproductive choice since reproduction has already occurred at fertilization. Not being a Catholic, I might add, every woman ought have the right to practice contraception. To state otherwise is to embrace enslavement of women. Once conception is in evidence, any choice thereafter is made with regard to rejecting contiuned life support for an individual human being already alive. To debate whether pain management should be employed is to tacitly accept the notion that one individual human being has some inherent right to hire a serial killer to off another innocent individual human being. Somehow the 'doctors' debating these issues have gotten beyond the fundamental inhumanity of arbitrarily killing innocent human beings. Abortion is a form of birth control; it is not a form of contraception.

[independentmind]

Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair. Fuzzy Wuzzy
wasn't fuzzy, Wuzzy?

[jwalsh07]

So far we really don't know where the seat of consciousness might be. All we know is that the brain seems to be in contact with it.

No, we know much more than that. We know that absent brain function, conscious actions do not occur. So it would be very difficult to argue that consciousness is not a function of the brain since we know for certain from empirical evidence that conscious acts require a functioning brain.

[plusone]

Good points. But if abortion is birth control, then so is miscarriage. And if Dr Morgentaller is correct and half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, then God really is the biggest abortionist going. Why create life just to take it three weeks later. I think I stand with my original post, in that life begins at conception, but humanity starts about three months later at the time of quickening. Thanks.

[muawiyah]

Obviously the brain is a serious communications device, but there is no evidence at all that it is the seat of consciousness.

The fact that no one has detected consciousness independent of the existence of a brain in an individual means nothing more than that consciousness has not been detected - not that it does not exist separate and independent of the brain.

[independentmind]

And if Dr Morgentaller is correct and half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, then God really is the biggest abortionist going.

And following your line of logic--if one is so generous to call it that--God is the ultimate murderer. After all, everyone dies, don't they?

[MHGinTN]

If the life of an individual human being doesn't start at conception/fertilization, when does it start?... And your answer is 'about three weeks following the 'start' of conception' ... is that about right?