Rubio, Cuomo, and the beginning of human life

The following first ran at National Right to Life News Today.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) recently sparred with host Chris Cuomo on CNN over the beginning of human life. Cuomo denied Rubio's contention that science has established that the life of a human being begins at conception.

"It having a DNA map—so does a plant," Cuomo said. But a plant doesn't have human DNA. A plant life isn't a human life. Rubio, obviously, was talking about human life.

Writing at Slate, Amanda Marcotte also takes issue with Rubio's contention. "Actual biologists, for what it's worth, argue that life is continuous and that a fertilized egg is no more or less alive than a sperm or an unfertilized egg," she argues. "Human sperm cells, much like fertilized eggs, have human DNA."

This is remarkably biologically uninformed. Life in general is continuous (sperm and egg are alive), but the life of an individual human being is not continuous. It has a beginning and an end. Rubio, obviously, was referring to the beginning of the life of an individual human being.

Human sperm cells do have human DNA. So do human skin cells and human heart cells. But none of those cells are whole organisms. They are merely parts of larger organisms, not human beings themselves. The zygote/embryo/fetus is an actual human organism—an individual member of the species Homo sapiens, like each one of us—at the earliest stages of his or her development. That is simply not true of sperm cells.

The embryology textbook Human Embryology & Teratology makes the point clear: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization ... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed."

Indeed, Rubio's position is fully established by science. "Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote," explains The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. "This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

In his exchange with Rubio, Cuomo also showed a deeper confusion. Cuomo said Rubio's scientific assertions were actually a matter of "faith. That's not science." But here Cuomo mixed two different issues. The first is a scientific question: When does the life of a human organism begin? That's what Rubio was talking about, and his answer was correct. The second is a moral question: When does this developing member of our species become valuable and deserving of respect and protection?

Science shows that human embryos and fetuses are human beings in the biological sense. The real question is how we ought to treat these young human beings. This isn't a matter of religious "faith," but basic morality. Do all human beings have a right to life, or do only some? Is human equality true or just a myth?

And, on that foundational question, Rubio made his own position clear in the previous night's debate: "I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws."

On the science and on the morality, Rubio is right.

Video: Hormonal stress response at 16 weeks after conception

Bill to protect unborn children who can feel pain introduced in U.S. Senate

Legislation to protect pain-capable unborn children nationwide was introduced in the U.S. Senate yesterday by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The landmark bill passed the House on June 18.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would prohibit abortion (with a few exceptions) beginning at 20 weeks post-fertilization (22 weeks LMP), the age at which substantial scientific and medical evidence shows that babies can feel pain. The bill is based on  model legislation—crafted by National Right to Life—that has already been enacted in 10 states. The Minnesota Legislature passed the legislation in 2011, but it was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton.

National Right to Life estimates (based on a Guttmacher Institute study) that at least 140 abortion providers perform abortions at 20 weeks post-fertilization or later. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would save lives and prevent suffering. It also draws attention to the humanity and pain-sensitivity of unborn children and the brutality of killing them.

The House version (H.R. 1797), sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), passed by a vote of 228-196. Among Minnesota's U.S. House delegation, Reps. Kline, Paulsen, Bachmann and Peterson voted in favor of the protective measure, while Reps. Walz, McCollum, Ellison and Nolan voted against it (and in favor of unlimited abortion in the sixth month and later).

Anatomical, behavioral and physiological evidence that unborn children can experience pain and suffering at 20 weeks, if not earlier, is compiled at www.doctorsonfetalpain.com. A helpful discussion of the fetal pain debate was published recently in Deseret News.

"There is ample biologic, physiologic, hormonal, and behavioral evidence for fetal and neonatal pain," testified Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, a neonatology professor at Northwestern University, before a U.S. House committee last year. "We now understand the fetus to be a developing, moving, interacting member of the human family who feels pain as we do. If we are to be a benevolent society, we are bound to protect the fetus. We should not tolerate the gruesome and painful procedures being performed on the smallest of our nation."

Dr. Maureen L. Condic, a professor of neurobiology at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explained the scientific evidence for fetal pain before a U.S. House committee in late May. "Imposing pain on any pain-capable living creature is cruelty. And ignoring the pain experienced by another human individual for any reason is barbaric," she concluded. "We simply have to decide whether we will choose to ignore the pain of the fetus or not."

Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortion practitioner, graphically described the dismemberment procedure—called Dilation and Evacuation (D & E)—he used when performing second-trimester abortions. "If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again," he told the committee.

D & E abortions are as barbaric and inhumane as the killings of notorious Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted earlier this year on multiple counts of first-degree murder. The only difference? Location. Gosnell was convicted for brutally killing babies outside—rather than inside—the womb.

The weight of public opinion is decidedly against late abortions. A Polling Company survey in March found that 64 percent of Americans (and 63 percent of women) support protection for unborn children capable of experiencing pain. Similarly, a Gallup poll in January found that 64 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the second trimester of pregnancy, and 80 percent think it should be illegal in the third.

Senate leaders must be urged to allow a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken should consider the interests of the child suffering in the womb and vote for this reasonable and compassionate measure, which is supported by the majority of Americans and Minnesotans.

Video: Tongue in motion at 12 weeks after conception

The fetal brain and fetal pain

Testifying before a U.S. House committee on May 23, Dr. Maureen L. Condic presented the scientific evidence concerning the development of the human brain and nervous system and the ability of unborn children to experience pain. Dr. Condic is a professor of neurobiology and anatomy and director of human embryology instruction at the University of Utah School of Medicine. Some excerpts from her written testimony:

Scientific data regarding fetal brain development and pain perception

The earliest "rudiment" of the human nervous system forms by 28 days (four weeks) after sperm-egg fusion. At this stage, the primitive brain is already "patterned"; i.e. cells in different regions are specified to produce structures appropriate to their location in the nervous system as a whole. ... In the region of the brain responsible for thinking, memory and other "higher" functions (the neocortex), the earliest neurons are generated during the fourth week after sperm-egg fusion. ...

There is strong scientific evidence that communication between neurons of the brain is established in the seventh week. Synapses, which are the molecular structures required for brain cells to communicate with each other, are detected in the cortex at this time. In animals, synapses are functional immediately and this is likely also true of humans. Thus, the earliest function of the neocortex as a network appears to commence in the seventh week.

The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development. This is the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity. And a fetus responds just as humans at later stages of development respond; by withdrawing from the painful stimulus. ...

The earliest connections between neurons in the subcortico-frontal pathways (regions of the brain involved in motor control and a wide range of psychological phenomena, including pain perception) are detected by 37 days post sperm-egg fusion and are well established by 8-10 weeks. This indicates that the brain is "wiring" itself in the first trimester, well before reaching the fetal stage of life. ...

Connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus, the region of the brain that is largely responsible for pain perception in both the fetus and the adult, begin to form around 12 weeks and are completed by 18 weeks.

The long-range connections within the cortex that some believe to be required for consciousness do not arise until much later, around 22-24 weeks. And these connections continue to develop for an exceptionally long time. Indeed, recent studies indicate that the anatomy of the human brain, and therefore the pattern of brain activity underlying all higher functions (reason, memory, emotion, language, etc.), is not fully mature until approximately 25 years after birth.

What brain structures are necessary for a fetus to feel pain?

To experience pain, a noxious stimulus must be detected. The neural structures necessary to detect noxious stimuli are in place by 8-10 weeks of human development.

There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience a newborn or an adult would have. While every individual's experience of pain is personal, a number of scientific observations address what brain structures are necessary for a mental or psychological experience of pain.

First, it is clear that children born without higher brain structures ('decorticate' patients) are capable of experiencing pain and also other conscious behaviors ... This indicates that the long-range connections that develop in the cortex only after 22 weeks (and are absent in these patients) are not obligatory for a psychological perception of pain. Similarly, experimental animals that have had the cortex removed also show a vigorous response to painful stimuli, again indicating that late-developing cortical pathways are not required for pain perception and response. The observations of human decorticate patients and experimentally decorticated animals noted above are consistent with what is known about the representation of consciousness and emotion in the brain. ...

Finally, direct experimental evidence from adult humans contradicts the assertion of ACOG, JAMA and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that mature pain perception requires cortical circuitry. Ablation or stimulation of the cortex in humans does not affect pain perception, whereas ablation of lower centers, including the thalamus, does. These neurological findings indicate that "mature" pain perception is largely localized to the thalamus. The spino-thalamic circuits required for pain perception are established between 12-18 weeks post sperm-egg fusion.

What we observe about fetal pain

[W]hat we directly observe about fetal pain is very clear and unambiguous. Fetuses at 20 weeks post sperm-egg fusion have an increase in stress hormones in response to painful experiences that can be eliminated by appropriate anesthesia. Multiple studies clearly indicate "the human fetus from 18–20 weeks elaborates pituitary-adrenal, sympathoadrenal, and circulatory stress responses to physical insults." All of these responses reflect a mature, body-wide response to pain.

Fetuses delivered prematurely, as early as 23 weeks, show clear pain-related behaviors. We know less about infants delivered prior to 23 weeks only because so few are available for study. Strikingly, the earlier infants are delivered, the stronger their response to pain. These and many other direct observations of fetal behavior and physiology have resulted in a clear consensus among professional anesthesiologists (highly specialized physicians who are experts in pain management) that the use of medications to relieve pain is warranted in cases of fetal surgery. Many of the advocates of fetal anesthesia make no claims regarding the qualitative nature of fetal pain, but based on both the scientific literature and on their own observations, they clearly conclude that pain exists for these fetuses and that as physicians they are obligated to address fetal pain medically ...

Our own experience; Why fetal pain matters

Imposing pain on any pain-capable living creature is cruelty. And ignoring the pain experienced by another human individual for any reason is barbaric. We don't need to know if a human fetus is self-reflective or even self-aware to afford it the same consideration we currently afford other pain-capable species. We simply have to decide whether we will choose to ignore the pain of the fetus or not.

From the perspective of neuroscience, it is unclear precisely what "psychological" aspects of a mature pain experience are in place at precisely what point in either human prenatal or postnatal development. It is impossible for me to know with certainty whether another adult, a teenager or a fetus experiences pain in precisely the same manner I do. Yet it is entirely uncontested that a fetus experiences pain in some capacity, from as early as 8 weeks of development. Moreover, most modern neuroscientists have concluded that the thalamic circuitry developed by 18 weeks post sperm-egg fusion is primarily responsible for human experience of pain at all stages of life.

Given that fetuses are members of the human species—human beings like us—they deserve the benefit of the doubt regarding their experience of pain and protection from cruelty under the law.

In light of the scientific facts, the observations of medical professionals, our own experience of pain, and our indirect experience of others' pain, we must conclude that there is indeed a "compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain." And this unambiguously requires a 20 week fetus to be protected from pain, as proposed under H.R. 1797 [the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act].

Members of Congress should be contacted and urged to support the federal Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

International Day of the Unborn Child: March 25, 2013

The following was released today, March 20, 2013, by MCCL GO.

The International Day of the Unborn Child is to be celebrated by all citizens on Monday, March 25, 2013. It is a day to recall the remarkable journey of life each member of the human family has taken in our commonality as human beings and our uniqueness as individuals.

Initiated by Pope John Paul II to coincide with and to honor the Feast of the Annunciation, the March 25 event has grown into a day of celebration and remembrance for all unborn human beings. It is a time to celebrate human dignity and the amazing world of the developing child yet to be born. It is also a day to remember the millions of unborn children whose lives have been ended by the violence of abortion.

In 1993, El Salvador became the first country to officially celebrate a "Day of the Right to Be Born." Subsequently other countries have begun official celebrations for the unborn, including Argentina with "Day of the Unborn" in 1998, Chile with "Day of the Conceived and Unborn" in 1999, and also in 1999, Guatemala's "National Day of the Unborn." Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic and Paraguay are all nations that now celebrate a day for the unborn child.

While many nations celebrate the unalienable worth and value of every unborn child, we must raise our voices against the current U.S. administration's unrelenting war on the innocent unborn child. Since President Obama's election in 2008, the U.S. administration's policy of advocating the destruction of unborn children has come in all forms, from taxpayer funding of abortion and embryo-killing research, to funding efforts abroad to rid other countries of their pro-life constitutions. Never before in the history of the world has an unborn child faced such a great struggle just to be born.

It is important in 2013 to recall how much we have learned about the intricate world of the unborn child and humanity itself. Current developments include intrauterine surgery, ultrasound, neo-natal intensive care, fetal heart monitoring and much more. We also know now that the unborn child has the ability to feel pain.

To help spread this message of this special day, MCCL GO has created web graphics for pro-life people and groups to share. They are available for free here (click to enlarge) and at MCCL's Facebook page.

MCCL GO is a pro-life global outreach program of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Education Fund with one goal: to save as many innocent lives as possible from the destruction of abortion. Learn more at www.mccl-go.org.

Please subscribe to our RSS Feed.

Video: 11 weeks after conception

Yawning in the womb

PLOS ONE

A study published last week shows that unborn babies yawn in the womb. From the Reuters story:

Growing into a fully formed human being is a long process, and scientists have found that unborn babies not only hiccup, swallow and stretch in the womb, they yawn too.

Researchers who studied 4D scans of 15 healthy fetuses also said they think yawning is a developmental process which could potentially give doctors a new way to check on a baby's health.

While some scientists have previously suggested that fetuses yawn, others disagree and say it is nothing more than a developing baby opening and stretching its mouth.

But writing in the journal PLOS ONE on Wednesday [Nov. 21], British researchers said their study was able to clearly distinguish yawning from "non-yawn mouth opening" based on how long the mouth was open.

The researchers did this by using 4D video footage to examine all the times when fetuses opened their mouths.

Nadja Reissland of Durham University's department of Psychology, who led the study, said the function and importance of yawning in fetuses is still unknown, but the findings suggest it may be linked to fetal development and could provide a further indication of the health of the unborn baby.

See below for video of an unborn child yawning.

Video: 10 weeks after conception

Video: Beginning of fetal period

Video: Squinting, grasping 8 weeks after conception

Video: The prenatal eye 7 weeks after conception

Video: 6 weeks after conception

Why the human zygote is an organism (and why it matters)

In the public debate over embryo-destructive biomedical research, many people dismiss the claim that the human zygote and blastocyst/young embryo (early stages of human prenatal development just following conception) are human beings on the grounds that other cells and tissues—such as a patch of skin cells, or the sperm and egg—are also living and human, yet no one supposes that they are themselves human beings. But these critics are not well-informed of the biological facts. The crucial difference is that zygotes and embryos are organisms, and skin cells, sperm and egg are not. The zygote/embryo is a whole distinct human organism—that is, a human being, a self-developing member of the species Homo sapiens—at a very early stage of life. Other cells are mere parts of larger wholes, not individual organisms themselves.

But the term "organism" requires explanation. Dr. Maureen L. Condic, a Berkeley-educated neurobiologist and professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine, where she teaches human embryology, explains:

An organism is defined as "(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being." This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism.

Based on this definition, it has been proposed that human beings (including embryonic human beings) can be reliably distinguished from human cells using the same kinds of criteria scientists employ to distinguish different cell types: by examining their composition and their pattern of behavior. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of characteristic human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to "carry on the activities of life." In contrast, collections of human cells are alive and carry on the activities of cellular life, yet fail to exhibit coordinated interactions directed towards any higher level of organization. Collections of cells do not establish the complex, interrelated cellular structures (tissues, organs, and organ systems) that exist in a whole, living human being. Similarly, a human corpse is not a living human organism, despite the presence of living human cells within the corpse, precisely because this collection of human cells no longer functions as an integrated unit.

Maureen Condic

So is the zyogte an organism? Condic continues:

From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a complete whole, with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state. Everything the sperm and egg do prior to their fusion is uniquely ordered towards promoting the binding of these two cells. Everything the zygote does from the point of sperm-egg fusion onward is uniquely ordered to prevent further binding of sperm and to promote the preservation and development of the zygote itself. The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism.

Mere human cells, in contrast, are composed of human DNA and other human molecules, but they show no global organization beyond that intrinsic to cells in isolation. A human skin cell removed from a mature body and maintained in the laboratory will continue to live and will divide many times to produce a large mass of cells, but it will not re-establish the whole organism from which it was removed; it will not regenerate an entire human body in culture. Although embryogenesis begins with a single-cell zygote, the complex, integrated process of embryogenesis is the activity of an organism, not the activity of a cell.

Based on a scientific description of fertilization, fusion of sperm and egg in the "moment of conception" generates a new human cell, the zygote, with composition and behavior distinct from that of either gamete. Moreover, this cell is not merely a unique human cell, but a cell with all the properties of a fully complete (albeit immature) human organism; it is "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being."

Condic concludes:

[T]he embryo comes into existence at sperm-egg fusion ... a human organism is fully present from the beginning, controlling and directing all of the developmental events that occur throughout life. This view of the embryo is objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other, and it is consistent with the factual evidence. It is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical questions surrounding the embryo: What value ought society to place on human life at the earliest stages of development? Does the human embryo possess the same right to life as do human beings at later developmental stages? A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined "moment of conception," a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species—human beings.

Science, then, tells us what the embryo is: an individual human organism, a human being, at the embryonic stage of life. It cannot tell us how the embryo ought to be treated, which is a moral (rather than scientific) question. But if it is true (as pro-life advocates argue) that human beings as such have intrinsic moral value—that there is a fundamental equality among all members of our species, irrespective of size, age, ability and condition of dependency—then we may not destroy embryonic human beings for their stem cells any more than we may kill and harvest the useful parts of a 10-year-old child for the benefit of others.

Video: Heart beating at 4 weeks after conception

The unborn: Not 'living and breathing'?

Sometimes pro-choice advocates say that pro-lifers care only about the unborn (i.e., the human fetus or embryo) rather than "actual living, breathing human beings" (or variations on that phrase). Of course, pro-lifers do care about already-born human beings, and to suggest otherwise is an indefensible slander (and an ad hominem attack irrelevant to the ethics of abortion). But here I want to address the implication that the unborn is not "living" and "breathing."

The unborn is obviously living in a biological sense, exhibiting metabolism, cellular reproduction, reaction to stimuli, and rapid growth. Indeed, the unborn is not only living, but is a distinct, complete, self-integrating, self-developing organism, and a member of the human species. He or she (sex is determined from conception) is a living human being.

An actual living, respiring human being

Perhaps the pro-choice advocate means "living" in a different sense -- a social or moral one. On this view, perhaps, the unborn does not yet possess the qualities necessary for the kind of "life" that is deserving of moral respect and protection. But it seems misleading to use the term "living" in this way, since we commonly use that term in the biological sense to describe living plants, animals, insects, etc. In any case, one must explain what "living" in this moral/social sense actually means, and offer reasons to think that it serves as a valid criterion for having the right not to be intentionally killed. It is far from obvious that we may discriminate between members of the species Homo sapiens on the basis of age/development and acquired characteristics, permitting the killing of some but not others. (I argue against such a view here.)

What about breathing? Breathing as we usually think of it, using the lungs, does not begin until birth (or shortly after). But the biological process of respiration, involving the transfer of oxygen, begins long before birth. The means of respiration is different for human beings still in the womb, but the fact of respiration is the same. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a prolific abortionist and co-founder of NARAL (before he famously changed his mind), explains:

[A]t the end of pregnancy, [the fetus/newborn child's] growth needs simply outstrip the ability of the placenta to supply food and oxygen, so the lungs and mouth must take over. The organism is put into a different physiological milieu -- and nothing more. It is like switching from AC to DC current; the energy connection changes, but the basic mechanics remain the same.

The change in the mode of respiration obviously does not change the kind of thing the unborn/newborn is (a living organism of the human species). No scientifically informed person would ever say so. Nor is it clear how such a change could possibly be relevant to whether someone has fundamental dignity and basic rights. Indeed, I have never seen anyone seriously argue that it is. A person who has become dependent on a medical ventilator, for example, is still a person who may not be killed without just cause.

So: The being killed by abortion is a living, respiring, fast-growing organism, a human being, a member of our species, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage of life. Defenders of abortion favor denying unborn human beings the kind of moral respect and legal protection that are owed to human beings at later developmental stages. They are free to make their case. But it simply will not do to claim that human beings in the womb are not "living and breathing."

What babies learn in the womb

At CNN.com, Annie Murphy Paul, author of Origins: How the Nine Months Before Birth Shape the Rest of Our Lives, writes:

Starting a few years ago, I began noticing a dazzling array of findings clustered around the prenatal period. These discoveries were generating considerable excitement among scientists, even as they overturned settled beliefs about when we start absorbing and responding to information from our environment. As a science reporter -- and as a mother -- I had to find out more.

This research, I discovered, is part of a burgeoning field known as "fetal origins," and it's turning pregnancy into something it has never been before: a scientific frontier. Obstetrics was once a sleepy medical specialty, and research on pregnancy a scientific backwater. Now the nine months of gestation are the focus of intense interest and excitement, the subject of an exploding number of journal articles, books, and conferences.

What it all adds up to is this: much of what a pregnant woman encounters in her daily life -- the air she breathes, the food and drink she consumes, the chemicals she's exposed to, even the emotions she feels -- are shared in some fashion with her fetus. They make up a mix of influences as individual and idiosyncratic as the woman herself. The fetus treats these maternal contributions as information, as what I like to call biological postcards from the world outside.

By attending to such messages, the fetus learns the answers to questions critical to its survival: Will it be born into a world of abundance, or scarcity? Will it be safe and protected, or will it face constant dangers and threats? Will it live a long, fruitful life, or a short, harried one?

The pregnant woman's diet and stress level, in particular, provide important clues to prevailing conditions, a finger lifted to the wind. The resulting tuning and tweaking of the fetus's brain and other organs are part of what give humans their enormous flexibility, their ability to thrive in environments as varied as the snow-swept tundra in Siberia and the golden-grassed savanna in Africa.

The recognition that learning actually begins before birth leads us to a striking new conception of the fetus, the pregnant woman and the relationship between them.

The fetus, we now know, is not an inert blob, but an active and dynamic creature, responding and adapting as it readies itself for life in the particular world it will soon enter. The pregnant woman is neither a passive incubator nor a source of always-imminent harm to her fetus, but a powerful and often positive influence on her child even before it's born. And pregnancy is not a nine-month wait for the big event of birth, but a crucial period unto itself -- "a staging period for well-being and disease in later life," as one scientist puts it.

Read the rest.

(HT: Right to Life of Michigan)

Study: Unborn child affected by mother's psychological state

A Nov. 11 story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal:

Science has learned that a developing fetus receives messages from the mother, everything from hearing mom's heartbeat to the music she might direct toward her belly. But a new study in the journal Psychological Science suggests that the fetus can pick up on signals and respond to a mother experiencing depression.

Researchers at the University of California-Irvine recruited pregnant women and checked them for depression before and after the mothers delivered their babies. They also tested the babies after delivery to see how their development was progressing.

What appeared to matter most, according to their finding, was a consistent environment. The babies who fared best were those born to mothers who were either not depressed both before and after birth, or those who were depressed both before and afterwards. When mothers' moods shifted from to depression to healthy or from healthy to depression, the change appeared to slow development of their babies.

Authors said the finding should not be taken as an indication that depressed mothers should be left that way during pregnancy, but rather that they should be treated when they first show signs of depression.

"We believe the human fetus is an active participant in its own development and is collecting information for life after birth," said Curt A. Sandman, one of the authors and an emeritus professor of psychiatry and human behavior at UC-Irvine. "It's preparing for life based on messages the mom is providing."

A unique visualization of human development before birth

In the video embedded below (also viewable here), Alexander Tsiaras, a renowned medical imaging expert, presents a unique visualization of human development from conception until birth. Note how often he uses words and phrases like "beyond our comprehension," "marvelous," "incredible" and "the magic of us."  Tsiaras says that the complexity of prenatal human development is "beyond any comprehension of any existing mathematics today."

Facial expressions in the womb

"Whatever the fetus is feeling, at 20 weeks she is certainly capable of demonstrating lots of facial expressions. 4D scans have revealed babies not only grimacing but also seeming to smile and even laugh." -- Peter Tallack, In the Womb (National Geographic)

These images are from the Endowment for Human Development (which is not a pro-life organization). See more fetal facial expressions here.