This is an interesting study that belies the notion that fetuses are insentient: Apparently, babies cry in their own languages. From the story:
From their very first days, the cries of newborns already bear the mark of the language their parents speak, scientists now find. French newborns tend to cry with rising melody patterns, slowly increasing in pitch from the beginning to the end, whereas German newborns seem to prefer falling melody patterns, findings that are both consistent with differences between the languages. This suggests infants begin picking up elements of language in the womb, long before their first babble or coo.
Prenatal exposure to language was known to influence newborns. For instance, past research showed they preferred their mother’s voice over those of others. Still, researchers thought infants did not imitate sounds until much later on. Although three-month-old babies can match vowel sounds that adults make, this skill depends on vocal control just not physically possible much earlier. However, when scientists recorded and analyzed the cries of 60 healthy newborns when they were three to five days old — 30 born into French-speaking families, 30 into German-speaking ones — their analysis revealed clear differences in the melodies of their cries based on their native tongue.
The more we know, the more remarkable human development becomes.
November 6th, 2009 | 9:38 pm
Much as I’m glad never to have had to deal with one of those squalling creatures for more than a few hours, at which time I thought I could persuade it to stop screeching by means of reasoned argument and someone more knowledgeable had to solve the problem by burping it, which only reinforced my already entrenched belief that I was not meant to be a mother, I must say that this post itself is sufficient argument against abortion. This “research” stuff is very annoying. Anyone who’s ever dealt with those babies, which means a whole lot of people, already knew that. Of course they develop and hear etc. in the womb. Things don’t happen all at once as soon as they’re out of the starting gate, and why else would yuppie parents put tape recordings of classical music on the imminent mommy’s stomach prior to videotaping the birth and making everybody have to watch it, I swear if it’s not that it’s their worrying about global warming…but even they know the foetus can hear, and if even they can be that sensible, well, then, it must make sense.
November 6th, 2009 | 10:03 pm
By the way other animals’ development both before and after leaving the womb is also remarkable.
November 6th, 2009 | 10:32 pm
Ianthe,
Anyone who truly believes in the unborn is a good man in my book.
Peace
November 7th, 2009 | 4:00 am
That’s awesome! Really fascinating, too!
November 7th, 2009 | 10:26 am
Anybody know when do these capabilities begin to manifest themselves in the developing fetus?
November 7th, 2009 | 12:56 pm
That’s a good question HW but I ask you, could any body ever answer “IT” in way that would satisfy the ones who have already made UP their mind?
I pray and hope I’m wrong but sometimes I think that many would sooner believe in an unseen virus than believe in a developing fetus.
Peace
November 7th, 2009 | 6:38 pm
Sorry, Victor, but viruses have been seen — under electron microscopes. Fetuses are somewhat easier to visualize. Not only do I believe in fetuses; I’ve actually seen them.
But I’m really interested in the imagined “melody” of babies’ cries. Do German newborns cry in Wagner and French newborns in Debussy? Where did this “study” take place, and when? Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? Or is it simply anecdotal? It would be helpful if Wesley provided a citation.
November 7th, 2009 | 7:10 pm
History Writer: There is a reason I provide links. It was peer reviewed and the journal is listed in the story.
November 8th, 2009 | 12:51 am
HW-don’t be such a square. The article talked about the inflection of the babies’ cries. Making some snide comment about Wagner and Debussy totally ignores what the article actually said.
November 8th, 2009 | 3:19 pm
Ohhhhh, I see; I should have clicked on “babble or coo.” Sorry, that’s not the way my law school taught us to do citations.
November 8th, 2009 | 3:26 pm
Wesley: The journal article is talking primarily about newborns’ learning skills — which are admittedly prodigious in most cases. The business about developing language sensitivity in the womb is strictly conjecture and adds nothing to the debate about fetal personhood.
November 8th, 2009 | 3:30 pm
safepres: Is one of the criteria for being conservative total lack of a sense of humor, or is that just the essential you? I think you really need to loosen up.
November 8th, 2009 | 3:34 pm
P.S. safepres: Note that the last line of Wesley’s article uses the term “melodies” and not simply inflection, hence my “snide” remark about Wagner and Debussy. Get it?
November 8th, 2009 | 5:00 pm
[...] research shows that babies larn language patterns in the womb Story from Live Science. (H/T Secondhand Smoke via [...]
November 8th, 2009 | 9:45 pm
Re: Wintery Knight. Of course the phenomenon could just as easily be genetically based. It would be interesting to experiment by placing a French newborn with a German family (or vice versa) and then examining any variations in their vocalization during the first year.
November 9th, 2009 | 1:07 pm
[...] A new research study demonstrates that babies cry in their own languages immediately after birth! This story may prove to be significant because of the persistent unwillingness to acknowledge the status of [...]
November 9th, 2009 | 2:15 pm
Just as easily? What are the chances the genes involved could possibly keep up with the evolution of spoken language? It’s worth study, but a genetic basis is highly unlikely. If you think the French can possibly be that genetically distinct from Germans, there should be evidence that more “distant races” have trouble with each other’s languages from childhood.
November 9th, 2009 | 2:32 pm
[...] from Live Science. (H/T Secondhand Smoke via [...]
November 10th, 2009 | 9:46 am
What a silly world we live in where only some human beings are persons; the rest must be meat popsicles or something?
HW, don’t you have some internal struggle when you type “debate about fetal personhood?” Doesn’t it bother you that we as humans take it upon ourselves to segregate classes and groups of people into the categories “person” and “non-person,” to say that we will draw an arbitrary line where everyone on this side has to be treated with respect, but everyone on the other side can be disposed of or manipulate with for our own personal satisfaction?
November 10th, 2009 | 5:23 pm
[...] reading (h/t Wesley Smith) November 8th, 2009 at 4:56 [...]
November 10th, 2009 | 10:22 pm
JustChris: No, I don’t have any internal struggles over the issue of fetal personhood. The supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution, is on my side of the issue.
But consider the consequences of the alternative. How far back shall we go to infer “personhood”? Conception? If a contraceptive causes a fertilized ovum not to implant is that murder? Would you like the birth control police standing at the foot of your bed, to make sure you’re not engaging in “feticide”? Shall we forbid every woman of childbearing age to drink if she is having sexual intercourse, lest she damage the zygote? Shall we have a coroner investigate every miscarriage?
The idea of fetal personhood is not scientific; it’s theological, based on the proposition that ensoulment occurs at the moment of fertilization (although for the life of me I’m unable to figure out what happens if twins begin to form after the first couple of cell divisions).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact