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.

[GopherIt]

You flagged me back to this thread I'm not sure why. My only point was that the conscious/unconscious argument is not relevant to the morality of abortion, since unconsciousness is as integral to life as is its opposite. I can see how that sustains your lately expressed opinion, but I cannot concur with your arrogance in not stating your thesis at first, nor in your declaration of the enemy within: never, ever gainsay the power, moral and political, of the experience of a Mother, nor of a Father, even if they are in your view dunderheads.

[plusone]

I had an interesting discussion with a member of planned parenthood at an auctionsale last fall. How we started up the debate, I don't recall, but it was a strange instance of sincronicity (sp) as the property being auctioned belonged to staunch pro-lifers. He talked about the hypocracy of religious people who were against abortion, but yet practised birth control. I told him (and this was a polite debate, in the clasical sense of the word 'argument') that the pro and anti choice crowds (whichever term they like to call themselves) both had it wrong. That birth control and abortion are two separate things, you can be in favor of one, and not the other. The problem as I pointed out to him is that both crowds confuse what they are debating. The pro abortion group views abortion as just another form of birth control...and the stricter religious group (usually Catholics, but I'm not targetting anyone) views birth control as another form of abortion. I believe both are wrong. A famous abortionist in Canada, Henry Morgentaller (sp) claimed that upwards of half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage, often before the the first month of gestation. At this point, the women often don't even realize that they are pregnant. (How he knew this number, I can't say, let's just take it for argument's sake) In his view, this made God a bigger abortionist than he was. This view seemed reasonable, yet it bothered me. Was he right? Well, it turns out that according to the Bible, there is something called 'the time of quickening'. This is when the baby starts to 'kick'. The Biblical explanation was that this was the point in which the baby received its soul, and was now a separate identity from its mother. After this point, abortion would be considered murder, because you are taking, not a separate life, because life starts at conception, but instead, a individual soul. And this happens around 12 weeks (Sorry, I'm doing this from memory, and I read this quite some time ago). So the Dr's example was false. The miscarried babies hadn't reached the time of quickening yet, so they weren't 'souled'. So from this logic, I guess abortion before this point in time would not be restricted by religious taboo. It also explains why birth control is not evil. A zygote is three months away from being a 'person'. I think the gentleman appreciated my point, and we left the debate having learned something from the other's position.

[WFTR]

However, I remain pretty skeptical about prenatal consciousness, since there doesn't really seem to be a whole lot of postnatal consciousness for several months. I guess it all comes down to how you want to define it.

I think we disagree a little on the importance we place on this point, but I respect your skepticism. To some extent, I think that skepticism of this point is healthy for the pro-life movement. Thanks for your comments.

Abortion - Not About Sex
Bill

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Nebullis]

However, the key question, which no one is addressing is, "Do fetuses experience suffering in abortion?"

"Suffering" may be about as fuzzy as "consciousness". During fetal development, physical trauma causes a cascade of stress responses that have an effect on the development of the fetus. So, yes, there is "suffering". If the intent is to kill the fetus, however, this suffering is not a consideration.

[AndrewC]

So abortion is all right before the 28th week?

No, logic doesn't work that way. Establishing a limit one-way does not establish a limit both ways. Further, I made no argument, I merely provided evidence that something other than an unreactive piece of meat exists in the womb at around that gestational age.

[SuziQ]

there was evidence to suggest the conscious mind could develop before 24 weeks, the upper age where terminations are permitted.

Nah, ya think? Their brains have been emitting waves since about 8 weeks, so if their brains are functioning, I'm assuming they're feeling everything! All you have to do is see the baby's reaction when it is touched with something; it automatically recoils! This happens as early at 12 weeks!

Maybe this will begin to soften the hearts of those hardened so long by the mantra of "Choice".

[Hank Kerchief]

never, ever gainsay the power, moral and political, of the experience of a Mother, nor of a Father, even if they are in your view dunderheads.

What a silly thing to say. I am a father, and grandfather. Truth be told, dunderheads are found in all classes of society, including fathers and mothers (e.g. the Clintons), but just being a father or mother does not make you one.

I appreciate your difference of opinion and respect your right to express it. I just do not agree with it. I guess you think anyone whose opinion is not the same as yours is arrogant, heh?

Oh well!

Hank

[Nebullis]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the higher brain tissue is non-functional until several months after birth, and generally isn't fully "online" in any meaningful sense until a human is around two years old.

Its too bad that false information was pointed out elsewhere and then repeated. There is no such thing as non-functional tissue in the brain. Neural function, esp. cortical function is progressively acquired. At any point in development, the tissues are functioning at their capacity. Development of the human brain follows a slow progression that peaks in the early teens. Fetal pain responses, speech, or the abilities of a 6 month old or 2 year old, are all milestones along that progression.

[Friend of thunder]

My point is that if one uses consciousness as an argument against abortion then if it were determined that consciousness does not exist at a specific point that would invalidate the argument. I believe abortion is wrong irrespective of whether or not consciousness exists at the time of abortion, and that that there is a better argument against it.

[WFTR]

Just to be clear, let me say that I'm not advocating abortion prior to the second or third trimester or even prior to the start of a heartbeat or brainwaves. I differ from most of the pro-life movement in that I don't see the moment of biological conception as being that morally or legally significant, but I believe that the child is a person before the mother can know that she is pregnant. From a practical point of view, I advocate the same laws that most pro-lifers advocate.

The point of my original post is that I respect people who have taken a serious look at fetal development before coming to their stand on the issue even if that stand differs from mine. If someone will look at when the heart starts, when brainwaves start, when features develop, I respect that person much more than I respect someone who refuses to consider these facts. Ultimately, I think that the discussion of facts like those presented in this article help the pro-life cause by forcing more people to consider the evidence.

Abortion - Not About Sex
Bill

[AndrewC]

My point is that if one uses consciousness as an argument against abortion then if it were determined that consciousness does not exist at a specific point that would invalidate the argument.

I hope you are not espousing the position that there can only be one reason for not engaging in an activity.

[plusone]

Good points. See my post 82. Thanks.

[Hank Kerchief]

You are claiming rigor in an area where it is easy to show you are wrong:

Then yhou will have no trouble doing it, I suppose. You assert the unborn do not suffer.

I made no such assertion. I assert only that it is impossible to know the unborn are conscious, in the sense we are conscious when awake, as opposed to unconscious, as when asleep.

What is so magical about the birth canal or c-section that it is the gateway to sufficient consciousness to enable suffering? That's just laughable.

Does this have a point? Not criticising you. I just may not understand.

This inquiry into just when a foetus becomes functionally indistingushable from an infant when it comes to pain and suffering is, at least, a valid pursuit.

That very well may be, but the question of when infants actually begin to consciously experience pain has not yet been settled.

You're the one spouting dogma.

Really? Here's my dogma. Abortion is both morally and practically evil and wrong. It is easy to demonstrate what is wrong with abortion, but most of the arguments and most of the approaches by those who oppose abortion are doing more harm than good.

This "the unborn feel pain," argument is one of the bad arguments against abortion. That is why I am opposing it.

Hank

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

there was evidence to suggest the conscious mind could develop before 24 weeks, the upper age where terminations are permitted

My niece was born (obviously prematurely) at 5-1/2 months. Yale University Hospital saved her and my sister's life. She is quite conscious; quite alive; quite beautiful; quite a gift from God.

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[GopherIt]

Sorry guy. Since you are a grandfather, the fact you forgot that in one of your first two posts you defined sleep as total unconsciousness can be forgiven. That you disguised your argument against your perceived enemies and came out only on the second page as a "good guy" ... is an arrogant trick. Your last reply totally inverts what I said, and I suspect you need a good episode of unconsciousness (sleep). Now I am being arrogant. Good night.

[Friend of thunder]

I hope you are not espousing the position that there can only be one reason for not engaging in an activity.

No, just that the best (in my opinion) argument does not rely on the consciousness of the unborn. If one were to ague that abortion is wrong because a fetus is self aware and it were later proved that a fetus was not self aware it would severely hinder the argument. I believe the pro life movement has better – more convincing – arguments to use.

[kezekiel]

"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."

Such hate speech! The speaker would obviously like to see women barefoot, pregnant, and in a 19th century kitchen. (/sarcasm)

[hove]

This article ia amusing but moot! The arc of life begins at conception...and ends at death. Any abortion is ending the life a human person. If that person is only one day old after conception, it is still a person. A very young person....but still a person.