From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Brain Function in Anencephalic Infants
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:12:41 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <Byv2I4.5y7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Recently, several
>>> pro-choicers have suggested that human sentience cannot appear
>>> before 24-30 weeks gestational age, pointing to the lack of
>>> development in the cerebral cortex as evidence.
>>>
>>> No support has been demonstrated for either the 24 weeks
>>> claim or the 30 weeks claim.

>> Evidence has been posted, with sources.  Here is a recap of it:
>> [I found these articles so full of info that I saved copies.]
>>
>>  Age     Gross appearance                       Nervous system
>> (weeks)
>>
>>  24th    Skin wrinkled and red.            Myelination begins in brain. [***]

>Various claims were made that myelination of the brain was necessary 
>in order for sentience or "thought" to appear, but these claims have  
>never been proven.  The fact that some medical textbook claims that
>myelination begins at 24 weeks does not prove that myelination is
>necessary for sentience or "thought".  In fact, I posted evidence 
>showing that myelination was NOT necessary in order for neurological 
>function to appear:

"thought" is not the same as "neurological function".  All mature animals have
"neurological function".

>   Brain Maturation and Cognitive Development
>   Edited by Kathleen R. Gibson and Anne C. Petersen
>   Aldine De Gruyter Publishing, 1991

>   pg. 30

>  "As axons can propagate impulses prior to myelination, myelination is
>   not an indicator of functional onset (Ulett et al., 1944, 1950).
>   Rather, myelination is a late developmental event and an indicator
>   of functional efficiency and specificity. Myelination data, then,
[      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    ]
>   may be considered estimators of those aspects of neural maturation
>   and function related to speed and specificity of nerve transmission."

In other words, prior to myelenation, the creature has the mental capacity of
a slug.

>   pg. 188

>   In both rats and humans, neurological function begins before myelin
>   appears.  In many species[,] critical functions in the adult, such as
>   those of the autonomic nervous system, occur in normally unmyelinated
>   [nerve] fibers.  Many invertebrate nervous systems function without
>   myelin, and anatomically specific demyelination does not invariably
>   result in the expected loss of function in clinical syndromes such
>   as multiple sclerosis." 

I don't see any reference to "thought" in this quote; it is talking about
autonomic functions and motor-control (which are present in all mature higher
animals, not specific to "people" or even to "humans")

>> [... Carl Sagan article ...]

>>>>> Neither of these unsupported claims
>>>>> account for the possibility that "thought" and "reason" might 
>>>>> actually appear sometime after birth.

>>>> Stating that a point is a lower limit
>>>> does not deny the possibility that thought and reason appear mush later; 
>>>> it's simply stating that they *can not* be present before this point.

>>> I didn't deny that, but there exists strong evidence that
>>> the beginnings of "thought" and "reason" might actually 
>>> occur sometime after birth.  

>> I'm very happy if there is; That would clinch my argument that abortion 
>> is not immoral at any time of pregnancy.]

>Only if you believe that the possession of "thought" is necessary
>for personhood status.

It is required for "sentience" and for my definition of "personity".
By "person" I refer to a "sentient" being. (mostly)  So does everyone else
who understands a distinction between "person" and "human"--though they may
not understand that what they *mean* is called "sentience".

Many people say "life" or "human" when they really should be saying "sentience"
or "person".  An android is not "alive" but it could (hypothetically) be
"sentient".  Similarly, a dolphin is not "human", but it may be "sentient" in
which case it is a "person"--and has "rights" and should be protected under the
law.

>                        If you believe that, then you must condone
>infanticide.

I have explained before why that "belief" does not condone infanticide.
In case you missed it:  Infanticide would only be moral if it was done with
the express consent of all *people* who have had contact with the infant.
(Once the infant is a *person*, it is included.)  Prior to birth, the *only*
person who has "had contact with the infant" is the mother.  (assuming that
the unborn child is not yet a person)  After birth there is:  the mother, the
father (usually), the doctor, any other doctors in attendance, nurses in
attendance, any relatives who come by, etc...  Once the child is born the
doctors have an ethical responsibility towards the child (I think), which makes
it pretty darn near impossible to get "the express consent of all *people*
who have had contact with the infant".  Without such consent, you are violating
the rights of those *people*, even if the infant is not a person and has no
"rights" itself.

If you want to lobby to legalize infanticide under those restrictions I won't
stand in your way.

>              Carl Sagan's article suggests that the capability for
>"thought" and "reason" doesn't occur until after the 6th month of 
>pregnancy.  I posted evidence showing that it appears sometime
>after birth:

You still don't get it.  The 6th month is the *earliest* that it could
*possibly* occur.  That does *NOT* exclude the possiblity that it doesn't
actually occur until after birth.  (which I mostly believe)  Your evidence
does not contradict Sagan at all.  (In fact he probably knew about it himself
if it was published before the article that was quoted.)

>   pg. 45-46

>  "Advanced sensorimotor intelligence, as defined by Piaget, emerges
>   at the same time the neocortical association areas begin to 
>   myelinate.  These areas are considered to mediate the highest
>   cognitive functions.  

>   ... [F]rom the age of 1 to 2 years in the human, all cortical areas
>   and most cortical layers are myelinated to some degree.  According
>   to PET scan data, all cortical areas in the human neocortex also
>   exhibit high degrees of glucose utilization by 1 year.  Thus, all
>   cortical areas are probably functional between 1 and 2 years of
>   life in the human...  Cortical maturation from that point on 
>   involves increasing efficiency or complexity of function of areas
>   that are already functioning at least in rudimentary form by late
>   infancy.  All cortical areas continue to gain myelin subsequent
>   to late infancy, but the most dramatic changes in myelination
>   occur in the cortical association areas.  The upper layers of
>   the cortical association areas do not begin to myelinate until
>   4 to 8 years of age and emerge as prime candidates for the
>   mediation of maturing intelligence in childhood."

>   pg. 199

>  "As noted by Bronson (1982), it is reasonable to think of the neonate
>   as functionally subcortical.  Although some potential exists for
>   function in cortical systems, behavioral and physiological data
>   suggest that this function is extremely rudimentary."

>>-Rob

>Doug Holtsinger

Basically, I see it as three areas.  A time before which we *know* it is not a
"person", A time after which we *know* it *is* a "person" (about 1-2 years old),
and a "grey area" in between, where we *think* it is not really a "person" but
we can't be totally sure.  In order to be on the safe side, I would be willing
to give them the benefit of the doubt in that "grey area" and disallow abortions
after that point, if the majority of society concurrs.  As for "moral"...I have
an "objective" definition of "morality"--based on some "objective" definitions
of "people" and "rights"--which is general enough to be held as axioms but are
clear enough to lead to a decision, after sufficient thought, in each situation.
It would be perfectly "moral" to have an abortion at a time when the fetus is
not yet a person.  It would be quite "immoral" to kill a child when it *is* a
person.  It would be "morally irresponsible" to kill a child in the "grey area".
(It would also be "morally irresponsible" to have an abortion without a "good
reason" after the point where the embryo/fetus is developed to the point that
it can "feel pain", etc--just as it would be "morally irresponsible" to kill an
animal without a "good reason".)

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion