What will this report do to the ethics of abortion after 30 weeks and to personhood theory as it relates to fetuses? From the story:
The unborn have memories, according to medical researchers who used sound and vibration stimulation, combined with sonography, to reveal that the human fetus displays short-term memory from at least 30 weeks gestation – or about two months before they are born. “In addition, results indicated that 34-week-old fetuses are able to store information and retrieve it four weeks later,” said the research, which was released Wednesday.
Scientists from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Maastricht University Medical Centre and the University Medical Centre St. Radboud, both in the Netherlands, based their findings on a study of 100 healthy pregnant women and their fetuses with the help of some gentle but precise sensory stimulation. On five occasions during the last eight weeks of their pregnancies, the women received a series of one-second buzzes on their bellies with a “fetal vibroacoustic stimulator,” a hand-held diagnostic device used to gauge an unborn baby’s heart rate and general well-being.
Many people support abortion on the scientifically ridiculous belief that unborn life isn’t yet “human.” Biologically, that’s nonsense. But what they mean is that the unborn don’t exhibit human capacities. This study seems to bely that, and also the idea that fetuses at a certain stage aren’t “persons,” in the sense used by many bioethicists.
This issue deserves to be discussed since, for those who reject human exceptionalism, it has a great bearing on ethics. However:
A call to NARAL Pro-Choice America for comment on the implications of the research were not returned.
Of course not. To answer the question I posed at the top of this post: Will people of certain beliefs permit new scientific understandings get in the way of ideology, utilitarian desires, or expediency? Not a chance.
July 17th, 2009 | 4:35 pm
Have these memory tests also been performed with unborn chimpanses?
As a Christian I am also very concerned with the use of human embryos and abortion…I hate the latter for sure.
My concern is that Christians (speaking as a Christian) often use data and logic that is ‘scientifically biased’ in supporting what may be a correct conclusion…where the conclusion is correct, but the scientific arguments used to support the conclusion have many holes. THe statements above have LOTS of holes in them and do not prove anything except that memory is stored and can be recalled…but what if a Chimp fetus can do the same thing? Then we have not proven ‘human’ life…we have just proven that living tissue can retain memory…not that it is ‘human’ specific in nature.
Anyway, I hate abortion. But your logic will never convince someone who is prochoice…it is weak logic, at best.
You’ve got to change peoples heart or you WILL fail in your quest to quash abortion. The Christian Right (of which I am a part) has been it’s own worst enemy in that it tries to use forever arguable data to “prove” when life starts, etc, etc.
You will never succeed until you change the hearts of mankind. Preach the gospel in stead…what we are commissioned to do, and everything esle will fall in line much better than via this approach.
Rob
July 18th, 2009 | 4:23 pm
Rob, I see your point, although the question of abortion is a public argument, involving various theological anthropologies on both sides. To me, it seems that some sort of Thomistic understanding of humanity would give the strongest defense for arguing that the single cell at conception has dignity. The reason for this is because the fertilized egg certainly has a human soul, under this understanding. But as one wishes to build an alliance, and as many people instinctively locate human dignity in the mind rather than the soul, finding memories in the fœtus is indeed relevant to the debate.
July 18th, 2009 | 8:18 pm
The fact that memories can be stored is meaningless without proving the fetus is also capable of cognition. I might ask if anyone “remembers” things that happened to them before they were born. I think the anti-choice crowd will have to do better than this.
July 19th, 2009 | 5:10 pm
History Writer,
I certainly don’t “remember” things that happened to me before I was born. But then again, nor do I “remember” things that happened to me in the first days after I was born, do you? Are you claiming there is a fundamental distinction in the cognitive abilities of a baby right before birth and right after?
July 19th, 2009 | 10:39 pm
Well of course they are humans; otherwise what they became once born wouldn’t be humans. Sheesh. Although in many cases, come to think of it, what they become doesn’t seem to be very human, now, does it. When people ask me why I’m not overly or automatically fond of children, I say look what many of them grow up into. Same thing, viz. the ridiculously illogical cadre of the “scientific” crew. What the fetus remembers is within the context of being a fetus, which, being inside the womb, can’t “exhibit” much, now, can it.
July 19th, 2009 | 10:41 pm
And as for “cognition,” who really knows what goes on in anybody else’s head. The mind is sacrosanct. And it’s supposed to be.
July 20th, 2009 | 8:42 am
You refer to the inability of logic, information, or evidence to persuade those who are committed to a pro-death position. A parallel is those committed (by a deep-seated, non-rational need) to evolutionism (the ism is vital here; it’s materialistic philosophy, not science) – they are also deaf to evidence, logic, etc. So, in each case, those of us opposed to the culture of death, and materialism, have to seek to expose the ideology that motivates them, and show it for what it is.
July 20th, 2009 | 11:06 am
“I think the anti-choice crowd will have to do better than this.”
Well, the pro-life side has already proven about seven thousand times that a new life begins at the moment of fertilization, so I guess we’ll just file the memory thing somewhere in Chapter Eight.
July 20th, 2009 | 11:28 am
John Thomas: Some things are just bad. It’s that simple. Trying to spin it out beyond that plays right into the hands of the enemy.
July 20th, 2009 | 2:53 pm
Love cannot be an arbitrary thing, but must be directed to what is good. Therefore, one must have knowledge of what is good before one begins to love properly and responsibly.
The basis of being pro-life is not a person’s love for the unborn child, but because a person /knows/ that the unborn child is a human being created by God and is thus deserving of love.
Love comes after truth; caritas after logos.
July 20th, 2009 | 3:28 pm
I would think that most NARAL people would poo poo this because their response would be that abortions only happen after thirty weeks when there is a severe health problem in the mother or the fetus. Now, the problem there is that “severe health problem” is subjective and up to the woman and her doctor to determine. If the doctor is willing to view emotional distress as a mental health issue, than the abortion will still be performed.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact