» ACLU Crime Summit
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Over Islamic Indoctrination In School »

“Dangerous” Information

Posted on October 3, 2006

We read:

“Sophisticated ultrasound scans that show foetuses as early as 12 weeks appearing to “walk” in the womb have had a dangerous impact on the public debate over abortion, leading doctors and scientists said yesterday.

Source

Above post crossposted from Tongue Tied

» Filed Under ACLU


Trackback URL

Comments

7 Responses to ““Dangerous” Information”

  1. Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 2:22 am

    Apparently, you decided to read no further. The scans were deemed “dangerous”, because they were “misleading”, not because they implied that the UK’s current laws were wrong.

    The emotive photographs, taken with new fourdimensional imaging technology, have created a misleading impression that foetuses become viable and potentially self-aware at a much earlier stage than is actually the case, according to experts on foetal development.

    Although Professor Campbell insisted that the images did not mean that the foetal brain was consciously controlling these movements, they were seized on by anti-abortion campaigners to demand a reduction in the time limit on terminations.

    I’m not sure what point you were attemping to make, but the one that you implied is false.

  2. Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 2:24 am

    “But there was also a temptation to associate these movements — sucking a thumb, gasping as if talking — with adult movements, to think it is sucking its thumb because it is happy. It’s that feeling which I think is extraordinarily dangerous.”

    Though the foetus clearly looks human by 12 weeks, proper sensory development takes place much later, he said. There was a risk that the pictures would make people assume that foetuses have more advanced brains than is the case.

    “The neurons in the brain might be in their final positions by about halfway through the pregnancy, but that in no way means they function in an adult way. These images don’t tell me anything I haven’t known for 30 years with ultrasound scans. We know what it looks like, and that it moves continuously. I don’t think in a scientific sense this sheds any new light on the debate.”

    Huseyin Mehmet, Reader in Developmental Neurobiology at Imperial College London, said: “Personification of the foetus at that age is dangerous. Scans that look at the structure of the foetal brain at 23 to 24 weeks show that the human brain is extremely immature. It is the period between 24 and 40 weeks that is largely responsible for brain development. I was worried when I saw those images. To suggest that an early foetus in utero has those kind of human qualities of being able to suck its thumb and move, that it meets the biological definition of being really viable outside the uterus, is very difficult indeed.”

  3. Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 2:27 am

    I’m not going to offer my opinion as to when, if ever, an abortion is morally acceptable, but for anyone to use this article as evidence that abortion is morally unaccaptable at week X is entirely disingenuous.

  4. kerwin_brown on October 4th, 2006 6:00 am

    What does viability or “self awareness” awareness has to do with being a human being. According to Biologist you are either a human being or not and genetics it the determinate. Are you pulling some theological argument?

    In reality a human being is viable from conception as they are able to grow and develop.

    The “Awareness Questionnaire” was developed in 1998 and is probably at least as controversial as the IQ test. So according to you the higher you scale on this questionnaire the more human you are and the lower you score the less human you are even if you are a dog or an human being genetically.

  5. Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 10:11 am

    What does viability or “self awareness” awareness has to do with being a human being.

    So according to you the higher you scale on this questionnaire the more human you are and the lower you score the less human you are

    I presented no opinion on that subject and I won’t.

    According to Biologist you are either a human being or not and genetics it the determinate.

    No doubt. A fertilized egg, and everything that follows, is genetically human.

    The real question, though, is: When does the egg/embryo/fetus become ‘morally significant’? When does it start to have a “soul”? When does it begin to enjoy all of the rights that a sentient being deserves?

    The pro-life crowd typically believes this happens at fertilization or implantation. The pro-choice crowd is spread out over other milestones such as the first brainwave, heartbeat, birth, or somewhere in between.

    But honestly, we just don’t know. Our understanding of what “life” is or isn’t is so limited, we can’t possibly know with any certainty when it “begins”.

  6. Paul Yanna on October 4th, 2006 2:09 pm

    I was going to post exactly what Mr. Molby already has. johnjayray plainly did not read or even skim the article. I am wondering how easily he could be duped by a “news” item in “The Onion” is the headline suited his beliefs.

    “According to Biologist you are either a human being or not and genetics it the determinate.”

    Kerwin, obviously you have never spoken to Biologist. My fingernails contain all the genetic material required to make a copy of me; does this mean I’m comitting murder by trimming them?

  7. kerwin_brown on October 5th, 2006 3:21 am

    Paul Yanna,

    I read a lot. The difference between your fingernails and a child at the point of conception, is that the child is an individual organism known as a homo sapient, and your fingernails are not. I just though it was obvious I was talking about a whole organism and not part of one. Courses in either basic human reproduction or human development should cover it, if they are half way competent. They even teach it in grade school.

» ACLU Crime Summit
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Over Islamic Indoctrination In School »