Abortion at 38 Weeks: A Thought Experiment?

[J'ean Skirt]

[link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise]Here it is.[/link] The studies are cited.

I see no actual bibliography in that article.

See above.

Likewise. There are no peer reviewed studies referenced in that Scientific American article.

Also, question for all of you: Would you be okay with abandoning a one year-old - i.e. leaving it out to die? How is that much different from a full-term newborn? And how is a full-term newborn much different from a 32 week-old in terms of awareness? I think this is a fuzzy area and something to think about. None of these are fully aware of what they are doing.

Actually, there are a huge number of changes that happen between the uterus and the outside world. Lungs fill with air, major changes to the circulatory system happen, the digestive system changes, there are liver changes, the body and gut are populated with bacteria, etc., etc.

Before birth, the fetus is totally dependent on the mother for everything: breathing, eating, oxygen. This is why many heart defects aren't actually a problem until birth, the heart doesn't have to work correctly because mom's body is doing all the work. Fetal hearts with holes in them can still pump blood, it's only when the circulatory system has to oxygenate and pump blood the problems arise.

Personally, I'd feel incredibly uncomfortable with a doctor that didn't understand the difference between an unborn fetus and a year old baby. That is just so ignorant of physiology I'd distrust any of that particular doctor's medical opinions.

ETA the information about the lack of proper citations.

[valsa]

Also, question for all of you: Would you be okay with abandoning a one year-old - i.e. leaving it out to die? How is that much different from a full-term newborn? And how is a full-term newborn much different from a 32 week-old in terms of awareness? I think this is a fuzzy area and something to think about. None of these are fully aware of what they are doing.

As bisky has already explained, there are huge and very significant changes between even a 40 week old fetus in utero and a few minutes old newborn.

For someone who claimed, at the beginning of this thread-

Let me preface by saying that I'm a medical student, so I know a lot about embryology, physiology, and pathology

- you sure as hell don't act like it.

For the sake of your potential future patients, I hope you're lying about being a medical student.

[lilith]

(I also was part of the final drug trial for RU-486 which I am still proud of participating in to this day).

Thank you. I am so glad I could access a chemical abortion, a surgical one may not have been an option for me at that time (sole carer to three kids under four with very little support). And I know that even here in relatively liberal Australia they require far more trials and regulation of chemical abortificants than they do of other medications.

[feministing]

I see no actual bibliography in that article.

Likewise. There are no peer reviewed studies referenced in that Scientific American article.

Actually, there are a huge number of changes that happen between the uterus and the outside world. Lungs fill with air, major changes to the circulatory system happen, the digestive system changes, there are liver changes, the body and gut are populated with bacteria, etc., etc.

Before birth, the fetus is totally dependent on the mother for everything: breathing, eating, oxygen. This is why many heart defects aren't actually a problem until birth, the heart doesn't have to work correctly because mom's body is doing all the work. Fetal hearts with holes in them can still pump blood, it's only when the circulatory system has to oxygenate and pump blood the problems arise.

Personally, I'd feel incredibly uncomfortable with a doctor that didn't understand the difference between an unborn fetus and a year old baby. That is just so ignorant of physiology I'd distrust any of that particular doctor's medical opinions.

ETA the information about the lack of proper citations.

[link=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin]This is interesting if you want to look at factors other than neural ones.[/link]

[link=http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/CR/CR-Babies-09.pdf]This is a Caltech prof discussing the findings on this topic, which I think should be credible enough.[/link]

The fetal heart has these holes on purpose, actually. There are several ducts that ARE SUPPOSED to close up with a newborn's first breath - ductus venosus, ductus arteriosus, and the foramen ovale (hole between septum, most common congenital heart defect is when this doesn't close up). So YES, babies are vastly different physiologically from fetuses, but I'm speaking from a purely neurological standpoint, which I think is our best window into awareness.

I am perfectly happy with Canada's lack of abortion laws (I also trust women to make decisions in consultation with her doctor). My embryology professor (who is also a close mentor) told me once that she believes abortion should be allowed to full term because Jewish law states that life begins at birth... I thought that was a bit ridiculous.

As queasy as the concept of a 38-week abortion makes me, I still think that we'd be better off without restricts. We'd have less problems with people seeking exceptions and doctors making oppressive decisions that are not in the best interests of the woman or baby because of his or her religious beliefs, and without abortion laws you don't have to deal with someone denying you in those grey areas when the "correct" answer would have been to allow the abortion yet the healthcare professional prevented it from happening because of THEIR religion.

I don't know. 38 weeks is term. That's a baby that can live outside the womb without medical intervention (usually). I agree that so few women do it and that the vast majority of those that do, do it for good reason. Perhaps it WOULD be best to just have no restrictions at all like Canada does. It makes everything so much easier.

[Minerva]

[link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise]Here it is.[/link] The studies are cited.

See above.

This will probably make me sound silly, but can you tell me where exactly I need to look for the studies? I can't find them.

The article says this about the scientific evidence surrounding fetal awareness:

- The set of brain structures necessary for consciousness "begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation."

- A certain EEG pattern "signals the onset of global neuronal integration" between 28 and 32 weeks.

- Third trimester fetuses are "almost always in one of two sleep states" and have different EEG patterns for different movements.

- Low oxygen and a handful of chemicals secreted by the placenta keep the fetus sedated.

There's nothing in there about consciousness being known to start at any specific point, or about brain waves supporting such a conclusion. Could you have given me the wrong link?

The article mentions EEGs being done on human fetuses in utero, so I was wrong about that. A quick google indicates that it's possible to do an EEG on a baby after the membranes have ruptured but while it's still on the inside, and it appears that electrodes need to be attached directly to someone's head to get an EEG, so I'm going to assume that's what the article referred to.

Of course I don't think people should be forced to be donors. That completely goes against patient autonomy.

The reason I asked this is because you seem to think someone should be forced to let a fetus use their organs if said fetus is past a certain gestational age. Was I misunderstanding you?

Also, question for all of you: Would you be okay with abandoning a one year-old - i.e. leaving it out to die? How is that much different from a full-term newborn? And how is a full-term newborn much different from a 32 week-old in terms of awareness? I think this is a fuzzy area and something to think about. None of these are fully aware of what they are doing.

I would not be ok with abandoning a 1-year-old. I also wouldn't be ok with abandoning a newborn. I haven't read your studies yet, but what I've read tells me we don't know exactly what kind of awareness a 32 week fetus possesses. Your article suggests that it may not have much awareness at all. This isn't all about awareness, though. A fetus is still in someone's body and will need to come out in a way that necessarily risks that person's life and health. Any obligation society has towards that fetus is curbed by the rights of the person carrying it. Nobody's rights stand in the way of rescuing an abandoned 1-year-old or newborn. You're not stepping on anyone's bodily autonomy by making it illegal to knowingly endanger a child.

ETA There are also major cognitive differences between a 1-year-old and a newborn.

[J'ean Skirt]

No citations? Odd.

There's no bibliography nor any actual citations in the article. They mention a couple researchers.

The fetal heart has these holes on purpose, actually. There are several ducts that ARE SUPPOSED to close up with a newborn's first breath - ductus venosus, ductus arteriosus, and the foramen ovale (hole between septum, most common congenital heart defect is when this doesn't close up)

Yes. I understand this. You, however, claimed there was no difference between a baby in utero and after birth. The changes to the heart at birth is something anyone who has had a whiff of embryology would know (my embryology knowledge is actually a side effect of the research I was involved in and while my work wasn't directly heart related even I picked up that bit of knowledge by osmosis). Your claims made me question your actual medical knowledge and experience.

[valsa]

[link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise]Here it is.[/link] The studies are cited.

That's an article by a guy who claims that the reason computers don't have consciousness is because they can't tell you whether or not "the Chicago skyline, seen at a distance from the approaching highway, resemble a burned tree grove emerging from the mist" (seriously: http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/401/1/sc ... 611-44.pdf) Which is a definition, by the way, that would eliminate both a fetus and a newborn from being considered conscious.

[jaynie]

Ok, I did a quick search on fetal awareness on PsychInfo, which, if you don't know, if an online database of scientific (or otherwise) journal articles. Very little turned up. The only journal I could find that had anything relevant published an article that genuinely states that sperm can feel rejected. So I'm not really leaning towards taking that seriously :lol:.

[feministing]

That's an article by a guy who claims that the reason computers don't have consciousness is because they can't tell you whether or not "the Chicago skyline, seen at a distance from the approaching highway, resemble a burned tree grove emerging from the mist" (seriously: http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/401/1/sc ... 611-44.pdf) Which is a definition, by the way, that would eliminate both a fetus and a newborn from being considered conscious.

Yikes! That sounds quite ludicrous. I'll try to find better sources:

http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3 ... 0950a.html - here is a review on the topic in nature

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false - when did you feel it? The beginning of human consciousness.

You will need to have subscription to a database to access the second one, so I will post the important bits.

This is from 1996, before the technology was developped, however it states the CONDITIONS for consciousness to occur and the definition of "moral consideration" which I found interesting. (The previous part of the paper was simply defining consciousness).

Earlier in the text, as well, other studies on fetal consciousness are cited but I really don't have the time to go over 25 pages of extra stuff when I have studying to do, especially since the paper is 17 years old which is quite old for a neuroscience paper.

Now that we have established the principle, it is time to get down to the hard bargaining. Given that electrical activity in the cortex is what is directly correlated with consciousness- is that upon which facts about consciousness supervene - and this is best analysed through EEG recordings, it is time to move to a consideration of the best available evidence in order to provide a plausible answer to our question. But, here we strike two difficulties that have misled several authors into doubting whether the notion of brain (cortical) birth is even intelligible, let alone useful.

Briefly, thefirst difficulty is this: cortical death in adults and even relatively young children is a relatively brief event - after electrical activity has ceased for five minutes, the cortex has suffered damage so great as to result in irreversible loss of cortical f~nction.~C’ortical birth, however, seems to be different: it is so gradual that it might seem more accurate to speak of functional ‘evolution’rather than birth - hence the title of this ~ection.~’

Theseconddifficultyisthattwobizarrefacts-soon tobeannounced - aboutearlycorticalfunctioningthrowthewholequestionofcorti- cal birth out of focus for several authors. Whilst there is some truth in

57 Although he shows sensitivity to this distinction elsewhere, Gareth Jones is surely making this c o d a t i o n when he claims that a fetus can experience pain at 14 weeks.SeeJones,op.cit.,note3atp.106.SeealsoFlowerM.J.: ‘Neuromaturationof the Fetus’, ThcJournalofMcdicincandPhilosophy,10, 1985: pp. 237-251.

58 Cranford, 01c.it., note 10. 59 This point has been stressed by GarethJones, OFc. it., note 2 at p. 177.

8 Blackwcll Publishen Ltd. 1996

20 J.A. BURGESSANDS.A.TAWIA

the first difficulty and no reason to doubt the facts that give rise to the second difficulty, we believe, somewhat ironically, that the bizarre facts, when properly analysed, provide the clue needed to overcome the first difficulty.

Thejlrstbicarrefact is this: EEG data make it clear that the stream of consciousness begins not suddenly, nor as a trickle, but as a series of isolated discontinuouspuddles. Spontaneous electrical activity has been consistently recorded from the brainstem of human fetuses as early as

10 weeks gestational age6’ and there is one report of the detection of brainstem activity in a fetus of 6 weeks gestational age.61(There is, of course, no reason to believe that electrical activity of this kind is indi- cative of a capacity for consciousness.) Data on the development of the human brain prior to the 24th week of gestation is extremely lim- ited, therefore, any discussion of such development must necessarily be based primarily upon data obtained from 24 weeks onwards. Assessment of the electrical activity of the developing brain (preterm) has been largely confined to the recording of EEG activity and the stimulation of EPs from premature newborns.

The development and maturation ofcortical EEG activity has been extensively studied in premature and term newborns and can be divided into periods with distinguishing patterns of activity. Between 22 and 25 weeks of gestation the most distinctivefeature of EEG activ- ity is its discontinuous nature (Pattern 1). At this stage ofdevelopment the EEG is made up of bursts of activity of up to 20 seconds inter- spersed with periods of no activity for up to 8 minutes.62At 24 weeks, periods of activity occupy an average of only 2% of the EEG record- ing time and the EEG consists of a variety ofslow waves. EEG activity is still discontinuous from 26 to 29 weeks; however, the periods ofinac- tivity tend to be shorter than those occurring between 22 and 25 weeks ge~tation.~~

Two EEG patterns can be distinguished from 30 to 33 weeks of gestation. Pattern 1, characterised by discontinuous activity, is still present but a second pattern (Pattern 2) develops which consists of continuous slow waves. The two patterns are weakly correlated with

60 Bergstrom R.M. and Bergstrom L.: ‘Prenatal Development of Stretch Reflex Functions and Brainstem Activity in the Human’, Annales Chirurgiaeet Gynaecolgiae Fenniae,52, 1963:Suppl. 1-21.

Borkowski W.J. and Bernstine R.L.: ‘Electroencephalographyof the Fetus’, Neurology, 5, 1955:pp.362-365.

‘* HughesJ.R.,FinoJ.andGagnonL.:‘PeriodsofActivityandQuiescenceinthe PrematureEEG’,Neuropediatrics, 14,1983:pp.66-72.

63 SpehlmannR.:‘TheNormalEEGfromPrematureAgetotheAgeof19Years’, EEG Primer, Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland-Biomedical Press, 1981; Torres F.andAndersonC.:‘TheNormalEEGoftheHumanNewborn’,Journal ofClinical Neurophysiology, 2, 1985: 89-102.

0 Blackwell Publishen Ltd. 1996

LOCATING THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS 21

the development of sleeplwake cycles in the premature newborn with Pattern 1 associated with quiet sleep and Pattern 2 being associated with wakefulnessand active (REM)sleep.From 34weeksofgestation until term, the two EEG patterns already present are modified and a third pattern (Pattern 3) becomes apparent. Discontinuous activity of Pattern 1 is still present but the periods of inactivity are shorter and, within the periods of ‘inactivity’,some low amplitude slow waves may be discernible. By 34 weeks of gestation, periods of activity occupy a n average of 80% of the EEG recording time.64 Pattern 2 consists of continuous regular slow waves of low frequency. The new pattern, Pattern 3, consists of low amplitude irregular slow waves. As before, Pattern 1 is associated with quiet sleep, whereas both Patterns 2 and 3 are associated with wakefulness and active sleep. Sleep/wake cycles which start to become organised at about 34 weeks are now clearly discernible by 37 weeks of gestation. A fourth EEG pattern (Pattern 4) appears at term and slight modificationsof the other preterm pat- terns are also made. Pattern 4 consists of continuous high amplitude slow waves and is associated with quiet sleep.65

For our purposes, the most distinctive features of the developing EEG are the discontinuity of activity and the appearance of sleep/ wake cycles. Discontinuity of the EEG persists until about 4 weeks post-term; however, maturation of the EEG is characterised by a pro- gressive decrease in discontinuity with increasing gestational age.66 Similarly sleeplwake cycles show a progressive maturation with increasing gestational age. Sleep/wake cycles which appear at about 30 weeks of gestation become more organised at about 34 weeks and are well-established by 37 weeks.

The maturational stage of the developing brain can also be mea- sured by determining the response of the cerebral cortex to an evoked potential. Somatosensory EPs have been recorded from premature newborns with gestational ages ranging from 25 weeks to term.67In very early premature newborns of less than 29 weeks of gestation, somatosensory EPs are characterised by a large, slow negative wave. Before the appearance of distinct primary components, the signifi-

64 Hughes, Fino and Gagnon, op. cit., note 62. 65 Spehlmann,OF.cit.,note63;TorresandAnderson,op.cit.,note63. 66 Hughes, Fino and Gagnon, op. cit., note 62; Nolte R. and Haas G.: ‘A Poly-

graphic Study of Bioelectric Brain Maturation in Preterm Infants’, Developmental MedicineandChildNcurology, 20, 1978:pp. 167-182.

†Hrbek A., Karlberg P. and Olsson T.: ‘Development ofvisual and Somatosen- sory Evoked Responses in Pre-term Newborn Infants’, Electroencephalography and Clinical Neu7ophysiology, 34, 1973: 225-232; Klimach V.J. and Cooke R.W.I.: ‘Maturationof the Neonatal Somatosensory Evoked Resporlse in Preterm Infants’, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 30, 1988: pp. 208-2 14.

0 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1996

22 J.A. BURGESS AND S.A. TAWIA

cance of the response to somatosensorystimulation is difficult to deter- mine. I t has been suggested that the large, slow negative wave repre- sentsthepoorly-definedresponseofundevelopedand undifferentiated cellswithin the cortex.68In addition, at this early stage the responseto the stimulus does not appear to be limited to the corresponding pro- jection area and other stimuli - for example, visual stimuli - elicit EPs with strikingly similar characteristics to somato sensory EPs. At 25 weeks of gestation, a response to somatosensorystimulation within the cerebral cortex can be detected, although it may be diffuse and largely undefined. The significance of the response to stimulation at this early stage is, therefore, questionable.

After 29 weeks ofgestation, the primary negative component, NI, is detectable within the response to somatosensory timmulation.^^ Pri- mary components of somatosensory EPs are detected weeks earlier than the primary components ofvisual EPs.~’These data suggest that maturation of the somatosensory cortex occurs prior to maturation of the visual cortex and adds weight to the proposal that the develop- ment, in the fetus, of the capacity to feel begins before that of other sensory capacities, and matures earlier than them.71In conjunction with the appearance of primary components within the EP, the latency of the response to a stimulus decreases with increasing gesta- tional age. The efficiencywith which a signalis transmitted to the cer- ebral cortex is thus increased.â€

The secondbizarrefact is this: EEG activity in normal, full-term chil- dren can be discontinuous - for several seconds, and, in extreme cases, for hours - for some weeks after birth, without being associated with the total, irreversible loss of cortical function through physical decay associated with cortical death73in older children and adults.74

T h e second bizarre fact appears conclusively to rule out one candi- date for cortical birth that is suggested by the first fact but which might have been a plausible candidate in any case. We might have proposed as the beginning of consciousness, properly so-called, the

68 Hrbek, Karlberg and Olsson, op. cit., note 67. Hrbek,KarlbergandOlsson,op,cit., note67;KlirnachandCooke,op.cid.,note

67. 7†Hrbek,KarlbergandOlsson,op.cit.,note67. †Gottlieb G.:‘Conceptionsof Prenatal Development: Behavioral Embryology’,

Psychological Review, 83, 1976: pp. 215-234. 72 Hrbek, Karlberg and Olsson, op.cit., note 67; Klirnach and Cooke, op.cit., note

67. 73 Cortical death i s not what is usually understood by brain death but there is

considerable controversy as to whether it should suffice for brain death. 74 Hughes, Fino and Gagnon, op. cit., note 62, GreenJ.B. and Lauber A.: ‘Return ofEEGActivityAfterElectrocerebralSilence:TwoCaseReports’,Journal ofNcu-

rology. Neurosurgery andpychiatry, 35, 1972: pp. 103-107.

8Blackwell PublishersLtd.1996

beginning of what will turn out, expost facto, to be an unbroken stream of consciousness.But, if lengthy discontinuities can occur without con- stituting cortical death, long after the first EEG readings which record cortical activity associated with waking states, it is quite implausible to suppose that those early readings are not indicative of experiences with sensational content.

Ruling out the beginning of non-discontinuous EEG activity leaves us with two possible answers to our question which seem to have some clear rationale. First, we could locate cortical birth at the occurrence of the first ‘puddle’of cortical electrical activity which occurs around 20 weeks of gestation. This would certainly appear at least to be a lower bound to the possible location of cortical life; it seems to be the most conservative location we could plausibly advocate. Clearly, it is also the beginning of cortical functioning, even though the ‘function- ing’ is extremely rudimentary and occurs only briefly and intermittently. That the functioning is intermittent is not in itself a drawback - we have already seen that full continuity of EEG activity is too strong a requirement to impose. A more significant drawback is the extremely rudimentary nature of the electrical activity at this stage. The EEG readings suggest that the cortical states a fetus enjoys at this stage are precursors of sleep states. There is no evidence we know of to suggest that a fetus at this level of maturity could bejolted ‘awake’, nor that it could enjoy anything remotely like a rudimentary ‘dream’. Accordingly, we can see no reason to suppose that these states have sensational content; in short, we do not think it plausible to claim that a fetus at this gestational age is yet conscious.

The second possible answer is to locate the beginning of conscious- ness at the time when the first waking-state EEG readings appear, or, better, the first EEG readings appear that indicate states that could plausibly be regarded as ancestors of adult waking states. This varies from fetus to fetus but occurs somewhere between 30-35 weeks of gestation. This is also the time when cortical functioning in the fetus begins to resemble mature cortical functioning in other important respects. First, at about this time, the periods of continuous EEG activity are considerably longer than the periods of inactivity. Sec- ond, this is also the period in which something recognisableas the pre- cursors of sleep/wake cycles develop. These landmarks in cortical development are undeniably significant. But we do not rest our case for locating the beginnings of consciousness at this point on either of these features. Rather, what we regard as significantis the emergence of waking states. Surely, it is states of this kind that we realb value. I t is states ofthis kind that we want to continue when we wish to survive. If this is not the only notion of consciousness that can be isolated, it is certainly the most important to us, and, at least in the current state

(3 Blackwcll Publishen Ltd. 1996

24 J.A. BURGESS AND S.A.TAWIA

of scientific knowledge, it is here that we are inclined to locate the beginnings of consciousness,properb so called. (Those who would insist on a less liberal notion of consciousness would almost certainly bc forced to locate its onset even later.)

Two comments on the answer we have just provided are called for at this point. First, even if we are correct in equating the beginnings of consciousness with the beginnings of waking states which we suppose to have sensational content, but probably not any other kind of content, it is important to emphasise that we cannot be certain that our approach is even broadly correct although we think that it is. Still less can we be certain that it is refined enough; we know it probably isn’t- too little is known at present about fetal development to draw anything but a tentative conclusion and all we claim for our proposal is that it seems vastly more plausible than any other we know of. Secondly, we are well aware that someone might wish to locate the beginning of consciousness at the time of arrival of the first dream states. W e have nothing absolutely decisive to say about this proposal. But all the EEG data suggest that no dream state ancestors can be identified earlier than 30 weeks and we are not even sure that the first such states could plausibly be said to have sensational content. What- ever the truth of the matter, it would seem to make no very substantial difference to our proposal.

This was posted straight off a PDF so some of the letters might have turned up weird. For those with database access: the HTML isn't the full text, open the PDF.

Put briefly, the interest view is the doctrine that the boundary between those beings who are morally considerable and those who are not coincides with the boundary between those beings who have interests and those who lack interests. To be morally considerable is to have interests that can be advanced or harmed. Further, it is both a necessary and sufficient condition for having interests, in the sense that is relevant to the question of moral status, that one be conscious in the minimal sense of that term that we have been employing.

Basically he says that if fetuses have interests, then they are morally considerable (i.e. they can be "harmed"), from which you could postulate that abortion is harm, however, there's more:

In the absence of a tolerably clear and carefully argued answer to the question we have been addressing, it is simply impossible to apply the interest view to the question of the moral status of fetuses.

Well great. 26-page paper and this is all it comes to?

[formergothardite]

So what do you think should happen to women who have late term abortions?

[Mama Mia]

In the U.S. are third trimester abortions even legal currently without a medical reason ?

I know availability and regulation varies greatly by state - but I didn't think there was any state where abortion was legal past the point of viability without a life of the mother/ fetal incompatibility-with-life type of situation ? Isn't that even what Roe v Wade states ?

What currently happens if someone has an abortion past the point of viability without a medical reason ?

[J'ean Skirt]

This was posted straight off a PDF so some of the letters might have turned up weird. For those with database access: the HTML isn't the full text, open the PDF.

Basically he says that if fetuses have interests, then they are morally considerable (i.e. they can be "harmed"), from which you could postulate that abortion is harm, however, there's more:

Well great. 26-page paper and this is all it comes to?

Yeah, neither of those papers seem to support your "consciousness starts at 24 weeks" assertion from earlier in the thread.

The Burgess and Tawia paper from 1996 asserts (from the abstract, your cut and paste was messed up enough I couldn't follow it)

We investigate the development in the human fetus of the anatomical and chemical pathways which underpin (immature) cortical activity and the growth and maturation of the electrical circuitry specifically associated with sensational content in adult experience. We conclude (tentatively) that a fetus becomes conscious at about 30 to 35 weeks after conception; an answer based on a careful analysis of EEG readings at various stages of cortical development.

The Lagercrantz and Changeux paper says something similar.

A first conclusion of this ongoing research is that the fetus in utero is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. In particular, it would not consciously experience nociceptive inputs as pain. Conversely, the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself touch, sense that their bodies are separate from the world, to express emotions, and to show signs of shared feelings.

This seems a pretty clear difference per and post birth. There are more specific differences in the nature paper.

The preterm infant ex utero may open its eyes and establish a minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. The connections with the GNW circuits are not yet fully established. Our view is that it has reached only a lower level of minimal consciousness analo- gous (though, of course, not identical) to that of a rat/mouse. A pending question is the status of the preterm fetus born before 26 wk (<700 g) who has closed eyes and seems constantly asleep. The immaturity of its brain networks is such that it may not even reach a level of minimal consciousness. The postnatal maturation of the brain may be delayed and there are indications that the connectivity with the GNW will be suboptimal in some cases as indicated by deficient executive functions. Therefore, the timing of the emergence of minimal consciousness has been proposed as an ethical limit of human viability and it might be possible to withhold or withdraw intensive care if these infants are severely brain damaged.

This is the interesting bit, to me. They're actually saying that it may be ethical to withdraw or withhold care in BORN babies if they are less than 26 weeks because they are minimally conscious.

Again, I don't think this paper really supports your assertion that consciousness happens in utero at the same time of viability. The 32 - 34 week age seems to be when consciousness happens. That changes when babies are born premature, but they seem to be pretty sure that consciousness is different between inside the uterus and outside.

[feministing]

So what do you think should happen to women who have late term abortions?

I do trust that if a woman has an abortion that late then they probably did it for a good reason (since it's so rare).

I don't think they should be convicted of murder, just like I don't think a woman who drinks/smokes/does drugs should be convicted of murder/child endangerment. Because whoever said that everyone has different OPINIONS and should thus be free to do what they want to their body (which they reign over) made a very good point. Babies are essentially parasites. People have the right to get rid of parasites they don't want, why shouldn't they have the right to get rid of babies they don't want?

Am I comfortable with any of those things? Of course not. Are women who drink/smoke/etc. while completely aware that they are pregnant with every intention to carry the fetus to term despicable? Absolutely. Are men who do those things in a way that makes them unfit/abusive parents despicable? Absolutely. But not all fetal cases are black and white (for example, women might not necessarily know they are pregnant). So it would be very hard to

Legalizing abortion has done a world of good, at all stages of the game. it reduced the crime rate, kept people safe, etc. That's why when you're deciding whether or not to allow a woman an abortion you're deciding whether or not you're allowing a kid to be brought up unwanted under sad circumstances, or whether you want to terminate that individual at a point where it won't harm it to as much of a degree as after birth.

As with every ethical dilemma, you're asking which value is most important to you. The life of a fetus or the life of a mother? To me, the mother always wins, hands down. But when the baby is approaching term and the abortion would be purely elective, that is where the grey area happens.

However, since it happens so rarely, I feel like any abortion laws at all would do more harm than good by silly religious people jimmying them to get their way.

[formergothardite]

I do trust that if a woman has an abortion that late then they probably did it for a good reason (since it's so rare).

I don't think they should be convicted of murder, just like I don't think a woman who drinks/smokes/does drugs should be convicted of murder/child endangerment. Because whoever said that everyone has different OPINIONS and should thus be free to do what they want to their body (which they reign over) made a very good point. Babies are essentially parasites. People have the right to get rid of parasites they don't want, why shouldn't they have the right to get rid of babies they don't want?

Am I comfortable with any of those things? Of course not. Are women who drink/smoke/etc. while completely aware that they are pregnant with every intention to carry the fetus to term despicable? Absolutely. Are men who do those things in a way that makes them unfit/abusive parents despicable? Absolutely. But not all fetal cases are black and white (for example, women might not necessarily know they are pregnant). So it would be very hard to

Legalizing abortion has done a world of good, at all stages of the game. it reduced the crime rate, kept people safe, etc. That's why when you're deciding whether or not to allow a woman an abortion you're deciding whether or not you're allowing a kid to be brought up unwanted under sad circumstances, or whether you want to terminate that individual at a point where it won't harm it to as much of a degree as after birth.

As with every ethical dilemma, you're asking which value is most important to you. The life of a fetus or the life of a mother? To me, the mother always wins, hands down. But when the baby is approaching term and the abortion would be purely elective, that is where the grey area happens.

However, since it happens so rarely, I feel like any abortion laws at all would do more harm than good by silly religious people jimmying them to get their way.

So you really don't view it as equal to murdering a one day old baby?

[OkToBeTakei]

I do trust that if a woman has an abortion that late then they probably did it for a good reason (since it's so rare).

I don't think they should be convicted of murder, just like I don't think a woman who drinks/smokes/does drugs should be convicted of murder/child endangerment.

Am I comfortable with any of those things? Of course not. Are women who drink/smoke/etc. while completely aware that they are pregnant with every intention to carry the fetus to term despicable? Absolutely. Are men who do those things in a way that makes them unfit/abusive parents despicable? Absolutely. But not all fetal cases are black and white (for example, women might not necessarily know they are pregnant). So it would be very hard to

Legalizing abortion has done a world of good, at all stages of the game. it reduced the crime rate, kept people safe, etc. That's why when you're deciding whether or not to allow a woman an abortion you're deciding whether or not you're allowing a kid to be brought up unwanted under sad circumstances, or whether you want to terminate that individual at a point where it won't harm it to as much of a degree as after birth.

As with every ethical dilemma, you're asking which value is most important to you. The life of a fetus or the life of a mother? To me, the mother always wins, hands down. But when the baby is approaching term and the abortion would be purely elective, that is where the grey area happens.

However, since it happens so rarely, I feel like any abortion laws at all would do more harm than good by silly religious people jimmying them to get their way.

Etc. Being drug use, any endangering behaviours, you covered drink, smoke which just about marginalises a huge part of society. No extenuating circumstances? Never? Just DESPICABLE? Before you start to sympathise or even study the nuances of conscience in a fetus. Try empathy with society all ready living around you.

I've been reading your comments with interest in this thread, listening to your point. But you just totally turned me away there.

[Minerva]

Etc. Being drug use, any endangering behaviours, you covered drink, smoke which just about marginalises a huge part of society. No extenuating circumstances? Never? Just DESPICABLE? Before you start to sympathise or even study the nuances of conscience in a fetus. Try empathy with society all ready living around you.

I've been reading your comments with interest in this thread, listening to your point. But you just totally turned me away there.

I know someone who's pregnant and addicted to crack. She's not despicable, she's trying to survive from one day to the next. People who live with addictions are probably a lot braver than you or I.

ETA I think I'm going to step away from this thread for the night. I'm trying to be mindful of the dog-piling issue, and it's starting to get to the point where I'm not adding to the conversation. I've also got a headache, so thanks bisky for reading all that text so I don't have to.

[Mama Mia]

Also, generally women who are already addicted to heroin are encouraged NOT to quit during the pregnancy .. as the withdrawal can be more dangerous than continuing - they are generally helped to go on methadone however.

And what is acceptable changes drastically overtime ... look at any old television show from the 50's or 60's - pregnant women are smoking and drinking. Even 30 years ago the advice wasn't to not drink at all - but that an occasional drink was fine, and to cut way back on smoking.

I understand there is more knowledge now and that leads to healthier babies - but really, the vast majority of people who were born pre-1980 didn't end up with major disabilities due to their mother's behavior during pregnancy. Even considering that most women probably didn't smoke or drink - you would still think the disability rates would be much, much higher if any use at all was so detrimental.

[lilith]

Doctors recommend that pregnant opiate addicts who wish to continue the pregnancy commence methadone treatment.

Does that make them despicable to you, who hopes to be a doctor? Following medical advise and taking prescribed medication?

[lilith]

Sorry, cross posted.

[MarthaMarcyMayMarlen]

So what do you think should happen to women who have late term abortions?

They should be charged with murder of course.

[MarthaMarcyMayMarlen]

Ihere.

[formergothardite]

For anyone who doesn't know, MMMM is a troll who tries to say the most offensive things she can. She has a thread in AMA.

[OkToBeTakei]

For anyone who doesn't know, MMMM is a troll who tries to say the most offensive things she can. She has a thread in AMA.

Still can't believe Chris Jeub sent her back. Next time put a rosette on her formergothardite.

[lilith]

I was waiting for her to show up here.

[MarthaMarcyMayMarlen]

I'm not a troll. I'm just someone telling you the truth.