Talk:Prenatal perception

message: Since I last checked the article has changed and seems more pro life biased as opposed to and objective display of cases of fetal pain or lact of it. I think this article should have a lock, because this is a serious scientific issue and needs people to write objective facts rather than twist evidence for one point of view. Tichina a fan (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased?

message: Cannot this be made into a proper entry and be linked to from the Abortion entry? 
WikiSceptic 02:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been done. Brisvegas 12:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New entry 

message: This issue is too weighty to be merged into another article - it deserves some space of its own. Brisvegas 11:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a "political epithet" - it's a controversial issue which cannot be summed up in two/three sentences. Brisvegas 12:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an 'issue' at all, it's an article prtending to have medical content--Aolanonawanabe 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of our personal opinions, this article deserves to be on its own and not be swallowed up by a list. Brisvegas 12:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reality isn't an opinion, and certianly not a personal one, this article should be swallowed up by a list, and quickly too, before somebody reads it and gets then impression that it has some sort of encylopdic value, it's a political buzzword, it should go to a list of political buzzwords--Aolanonawanabe 12:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, let's compromise - we'll add the term to the list but retain this article as a separate reference. If you feel it is little more than a buzzword, feel free to put this in the introduction - but in a NPOV way of course. The info about the research into this topic/buzzword/etc. deserves an article, and would be far too big to fit into the list. This article was expanded after advice from editors of the main Abortion article, when they felt that this section was getting too long. Brisvegas 12:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not merge 

message: So why is it POV, and why do you as one person feel the need to force your opinions upon others...No one else has made comments on this version being POV. So why not wait for others to reach a census? Chooserr 05:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk 

message: Giving an overview of the developmental issues involved here is useful. But I don't believe it is appropriate to paint the academic/medical side of this debate as pro-life versus pro-choice. I have removed statements like Academics who hold "pro-choice" points of view often estimate that a fetus can only feel pain during the third trimester... and acedemics who hold a pro-life point of view argue that the fetus is capable of feeling pain as early as 7 weeks... because they imply that those academics are letting their politics drive their research findings. Also, I removed unsupported statements like Most pro-life advocates believe... and Most pro-choice advocates believe...  Advocates on both sides have a wide range of beliefs, so I think these statements are greatly oversimplified. If anyone has support for these findings, please cite it. FreplySpang (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found that part of this was a copyvio from , so I am going to reword. Copying whole sentences and paragraphs from other websites with only minor changes is not acceptable at Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you quote what part was a copyright violation for I wrote the first paragraph on my own and thought it looked damn fine, and shouldn't have been changed. Chooserr 01:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There, I changed it. The copyright violation wasn't by you, Chooserr, it was added by Brisvegas in this edit: . From "Pain in an adult, child, newborn or late-term fetus..." to "... i.e. sometime after about 26 weeks into pregnancy." was lifted (with tiny changes) from .  I also changed your paragraph because it had a lot of redundancy with the following paragraphs. And it certainly did not look "damn fine" with its spelling and grammar errors.  Also, after reading the given reference , I re-added a bit about the relationship between belief and research. FreplySpang (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes to first section 

message: Note that there is currently a dispute over whether religioustolerance.org is an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and its talk page. (There's also a dispute over the dispute, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org !) The dispute started as part of the larger dispute over BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. 
Personally, I think that the religioustolerance.org piece provided a useful starting point for this article. It would be great if interested people could expand the article to use multiple sources, but I understand it takes time. FreplySpang (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source disputed 

message: Sorry I miss typed it in the rush to fix the unjust revert Chooserr 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't give a flip who put it there, it has no bearing on fetal pain whatsover. It isn't to a medical study on the developent of the nervous system, or anything else relevent. There is no reason to have it in an article titled "Fetal pain" because it isn't about fetal pain. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to do with fetal pain, and you did ask who put it there - don't ask if you don't want to know. Chooserr 01:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh sheesh, my apologies. It was a rhetorical question... I didn't realize you were answering my question, because it was rhetorical, if that makes *any* sense. Thanks for the info, apologies again for not making sense. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See your talk page, Chooserr, for a longer explanation of my conduct as an editor. Thanks. -Kyd 02:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It isn't a shock site 

message: There was a new study released on this topic . Here are some points:
Summary points
*The neuroanatomical system for pain can be considered complete by
26 weeks’ gestation
*A developed neuroanatomical system is necessary but not sufficient
for pain experience
*Pain experience requires development of the brain but also requires
development of the mind to accommodate the subjectivity of pain
*Development of the mind occurs outside the womb through the
actions of the infant and mutual adjustment with primary caregivers
*The absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the morality of
abortion but does argue against legal and clinical efforts to prevent
such pain during an abortion
--Andrew c 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New study 

message: forgive me- I do grammatical deconstruction when I get this close to disinfo. it's a coping mechanism.
 it's the subject of debate as a part of the controversy. 
ok, so less than 50 articles link here, so it's not super important, but all articles about contorversies are such bad places to get information. so is that what we settle for on 'pedia for controversial topics? we just accept the truth that the truth on these pages is gonn be fuzzy? I dunno. it's tough territory. I feel sorry for admins who end up having to sort this kind of stuff out. 
while I'm sure there are non-abortion-related reasons (anti or pro) to understand fetal pain, there are few reasons money would find it's way to funding such research besides abortion-interest-money reasons. I find it weird that pro-choice persons would really go down this road cuz, eh. If this gets debated, I think prolifers win, slightly. 
also- it mighta been prominent, relavant news but there's ad hominem stuff in here. (4th paragraph under fetal pain#Medical opinions) that should be removed unless there's a (gulp) source. CrackityKzz 05:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: andrew c- "manual of style says the name of the article should be bold and the start of the opening sentence" I understand the sentence up to the word "bold". what does the rest of the sentence intend to say exactly? u'v got a hanging participle or something. CrackityKzz 16:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that wasn't clear, here is the relevent link Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles. The edit that I reverted moved the title out of the subject of the opening sentence into a subordinate clause. Does that make sense? Forgive me for not being clearer in the edit summary.--Andrew c 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent. chances are if you use "subordinate clause"- gotcha. thanks. CrackityKzz 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  debate, controversy, all that 

message: I am going to edit the article to include links to the main articles on pain and suffering.  This is very appropriate.  It is useful for readers to know that pain and suffering can be distinct, and to understand what each term means.  These are not links to articles on "postanatal pain" and "postnatal suffering".  These are links to "pain" and "suffering".  
Generally speaking, I do not think it would be useful to search out and erase everything in this fetal pain article that might also have some relation to postnatal life.Ferrylodge 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that generally speaking, we shouldn't search out and erase everything that isn't related to the fetus. However, I take issues with these two sentences "Generally speaking, pain may occur without being triggered by injury.[4] Moreover, there are types of suffering distinct from pain.[5]" The citations have nothing to do with the fetus. In this context, I believe these two sentences are original research, so let me explain a little further by summarizing the connotation I get from reading these sections. We talk about how various scientific studies conclude it is impossible for fetuses to feel pain before ~26 weeks because not all of the bits and pieces are in place. We counter that by saying, in essence, pain and suffering is very complex. A full grown adult my be able to "experience" pain without and physical stimulus, and again there is the vauge notion of "suffering" which a fetus may undergo, so saying a fetus doesn't have all the bits and pieces to feel pain is misleading because a fetus could still "suffer" or experience some sort of pain without stimulus. By mentioning two studies unrelated to fetal pain in association with studies related to fetal pain, we are in essence rebutting those studies by saying pain and suffering are mysterious so we don't really know what a fetus can experience. While this may be a valid concern, I'd seems like original research to synthesize the sources together in this manner in this context. I'd feel much more comfortable if we could get an actual citation of a medical source saying these things in regards to a fetus. Understand where I am coming from?-Andrew c 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew C., are you opposed to linking the pain article and/or the suffering article in this article? Additionally, I did not see anything in the cited portions of references [4] and [5] that limited the discussion to "adults". Have you noticed something there that I didn't? Where did it say that the discussion did not apply equally to infants?Ferrylodge 02:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pain and suffering

message: There has been a lot of activity on this article with little discussion. We may need to take a bit slower than that, here are my changes:
I addressed the wordiness in the sentence in the first paragraph concerning the BMJ's study and abortion debate. 
I moved the fetal pain law sentence up next to the sentence about the abortion debate.
I removed the sentence "Pain is only one aspect of suffering, and suffering is only one aspect of human emotion." because it is unsourced and POV pushing. It's commentary there for the only purpose of saying "this is a very complex issue and therefore the focus on fetal pain is only a small part of the picture. I believe this concept is adequately addressed elsewhere with citation. 
I added a fact tag tot he lethal injection analogy. Who makes this comparison? I quick google search didn't find anything relevent, seems like OR.
I restored the longstanding 2nd paragraph. The citation says: "Many physicians and researchers of fetal development believe... 'fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.'" then "Some mental and medical professionals suggest that a fetus cannot feel pain, no matter how far developed." and finally "Others, mostly pro-life advocates, believe that a fetus as early as 7 weeks after conception can feel pain". They make it clear that the majority view, and what the minoritiy views are, and I feel that a) we accurately represent that source with the way we word the 2nd paragraph, and that our source is accurately summarizing the source material.
We were confusing two different studies in UK, one from the RCOG and one from MRC. I added a section for the latter. I also restored my sentence which cites the actual paper's findings for the latter. I removed the fox news quote because it is no longer necessary.-Andrew c 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit explination 

message: Andrew c, you recently made this reversion.  You offered no explanation for the reversion at all, despite Wikipedia policy that reversions should be explained.  Your edit summary said this: "restoring longstanding paragraph. don't revert things if you aren't going to respond on talk."  When have I ever reverted something without responding on talk?  Instead of making false accusations/insinuations, I think you yourself ought to try a little harder to be a good Wikipedian.
Look in the mirror to see who is unresponsive.  I have already explained to you at the fetus discussion page: "There is no footnote to support the rest of the sentence: 'sometime during the pregnancy usually after 26 weeks gestation....'"  You did not respond at all.  Nada.  
Please, andrew c, why does everything have to be a battle with you?  Why do you violate Wikipedia policies, and pretend that I am somehow the one who will not "respond on talk"?  
The sentence that I have repeatedly objected to is this: "Most scientists believe that a fetus is able to feel pain sometime during the pregnancy, usually after 26 weeks gestation although the question of exactly when pain might be possible is disputed."  You have no footnote here, and so your sentence is uncited.  Contrary to what you say, this sentence is not "longstanding" in this article; it was added by an anonymous user on 21 December 2006.
The idea that most scientists "usually" believe that pain is only possible after 26 weeks is not only unsupported by any footnote, but is also demonstrably false.  I have quoted Arthur Caplan in the article: "there is no consensus among the medical and scientific experts about precisely when a fetus becomes pain-capable. Some put the point at 28 weeks. Others say 26 or 24 and still others younger still."  
Apparently, you are putting the burden on me to prove that your uncited statement is false, which seems like a very odd way to operate.  In any event, I will now insert the following info into the article: "a Daily Telegraph straw poll found many neurologists were concerned that foetuses could feel pain in the womb before 24 weeks after conception."  Derbyshire, David, Foetuses 'may be conscious long before abortion limit', Telegraph (UK) 2003-09-03.Ferrylodge 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section immediately preceding the previous section dealt with "my reversion", so I'm not sure why a new section has been started. You are a bully and you make things personal that shouldn't and I just cannot get along with you. I'm sorry. You win.-Andrew c 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew c, this editing process is not about winning or losing.  It is about being accurate and neutral.  If you discover that I have made any error, I would be glad to fix it.Ferrylodge 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to say that despite differences of opinion, I have always found Andrew c to be a reasonable and thoughtful editor who strives towards fairness and accuracy.  He listens, speaks calmly, and really makes an effort towards consensus.  I don't agree with some of his opinions but despite that I have found him to be a good neighbor.  That's all.  Joie de Vivre 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Reversion by Andrew C

message: The first section is pretty long, and contains a whole lot of direct quotations.  Rather than paraphrase, I think a simpler solution would simply be to insert a section break after the first paragraph, and insert a new section header: "Background". Ferrylodge 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking Up First Section

message: This article should start with a simple definition of what “fetal pain” refers to before it launches into its political significance. The article is also too abortion centric as Fetal pain is not only an abortion related issue but is also implicated in pre-natal health care.LCP 20:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead needs to start with a simple defintion of what "fetal pain" means. 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This study does not refer to fetuses at all (it concerns newborns):
Also in 2006, a study in the Journal of Neuroscience stated: "We conclude that noxious information is transmitted to the preterm infant cortex from 25 weeks, highlighting the potential for both higher-level pain processing and pain-induced plasticity in the human brain from a very early age." Slater, Rebecca et al. "Cortical Pain Responses in Human Infants", Journal of Neuroscience, (2006-04-05). Retrieved 2007-03-10.
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Studies

message: These citations come from pro-life websites - I propose they be removed or replaced: 
White, Robert. Testimony to U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution (1995-06-15). Quoted in http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBABA%20HR%20760%20HJC%20report.pdf this congressional report. Retrieved 2007-03-10. (link does not work)
http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/html/life/abortion/fetalpainmenu.html Canadian Physicians for Life. Retrieved 2007-03-10
Glover, Vivette and Fisk, Nicholas. " http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/BJOGfetalpain1999.pdf Fetal Pain: Implications for Research and Practice  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a report or study was REPRINTED in a pro-life journal or was QUOTED in a pro-life journal does not mean that the study itself was done by pro-lifers.  IronAngelAlice, you are deleting everything from this article that pro-life people believes supports their cause, which is plainly a mistake.  Please reconsider.  Pro-life websites often quote the Declaration of Independence, but that does not imply that the Declaration of Independence is a biased, POV, pro-life document.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I added the section "Abortion Debate," where all the quotes from pro-life doctors about fetal pain have been made during parliamentary and congressional hearings.  We should also probably include quotes given from pro-choice sources as well. I delineated this section from the "Medical studies and reviews," section.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem citations

message: I ran across a tiny stub today, pain asymbolia, that made me think of this article.  The fundamental political disagreement about fetal pain is not whether a fetus reacts to getting stuck with a needle, but whether that reaction is morally significant.  That is, does sticking a fetus with a needle induce suffering, or does it just trigger a meaningless reflex, like blinking your eyes when something gets too close?  It seemed to me that if we better understood pain asymbolia, it might help resolve some of these questions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pain asymbolia

message: :One more thing, about my recent edit to the US section regarding recent legislature, I think we need a sentence saying why pro-lifers support such laws. I briefly searched on NRLC's site, but couldn't find a good, concise blurb. I'll keep searching, but it may be a bit. If someone else know of a good source to add a bit more balance to that paragraph, it'd be great. Something like "Pro-life organizations generally support these laws because...." -Andrew c [talk] 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is current legislation on fetal pain, so there's probably no need to bring up legislation from 2005.  See here for the current bill.  Also, the external links provide opinion about this legislation.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So should we delete the info from 1995 and 1984? State laws that I am aware of have passed as recently as November 2007, and the Feb 2008 NYT's article states that the federal act has been introduced in every congress since 2005.-Andrew c [talk] 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I'm saying is that it's odd to focus on federal legislation from 2005 that failed, while not mentioning current federal legislation.  If you take a look at the link I provided, you'll also see that there was failed legsilation before 2005 (i.e. in the 108th Congress).  Why should the 109th Congress be mentioned, but not the 108th or 110th?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully my last edit has addressed your concerns. I was going by page 5 of the Times Magazine article. I saw the title of the bill and googled it and the 3rd hit was the official page for the 2005 bill. I wasn't paying close enough attention to notice 2004 was the first year it was introduced. I apologize, and thank you for noticing it (though the exact nature of your concerns were not clear to me by your first posts). Hopefully all is good now in regards to the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. Maybe we could add a sentence about how it has been introduced every year since?-Andrew c [talk] 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go for it.  It also might be worthwhile to wikilink Informed_consent#Abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US fetal pain laws

message: One of the most significant aspects of neonatal perception this page is supposed to address is that of theories relating to, and researched performed on, neonatal pain, especially with regard to abortion and the perception, or lack thereof, of pain by the fetus at various stages of pregnancy. Although the header exists, there is no text under it, significantly undermining the validity of the article. I request any expert in this area to fill up the fore mentioned space.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.8.60 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Content Under Neonatal Pain 

message: I was expecting a wider discussion in this article about the implications of neonatal perception.  While abortion is certainly one area where there are heavily debated implications (both the legality of abortion and also procedures for it e.g. anaesthesia of the foetus), I was also expecting other implications to be covered e.g. the debate on wider legal rights pre-birth, associated implications for the rights of pregnant women etc.  Can someone who is editing the page look into this?  I don't have any specific content to cite, but I do think the article could be improved by widening it's focus a little to look beyond abortion... 008cait (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications section? 

message: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7853321/Foetus-cannot-feel-pain-before-24-weeks.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevant news item: "Foetus 'cannot feel pain before 24 weeks'" 

message: File:Ruptured ectopic pregnancy.jpg|thumb
This is from an ectopic pregnancy -- not an abortion -- but a naturally occurring defect, like the ones that kill one third of all fetuses conceived.  There's a good chance that any pregnancy will terminate in something like this, so a caring parent will abort the fetus before that twelve weeks or twenty six weeks or whenever it is they can feel pain. And millions of fetuses are poisoned and killed every year by toxic waste, lets do something about that as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.97.34 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see absolutely no reason for having that picture on this talk page.  Please tell me if this is not 'the done thing' on Wikipedia, but for the moment I have removed the double square brackets that identified it as a picture.  The (anonymous) poster can return them if they wish, but I have no idea why it is on this talk page and would appreciate an explanation.  It appears to have no purpose other than to shock/tittilate.  (I am not sure why this section of talk even exists in relation to this article on prenatal perception.)  Ambiguosity (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did this fetus feel some pain? 

message: The link to Peter McCullagh's foetal sentience article points to a page in the wayback machine saying the file cannot be found. After much searching, I found a copy. This is not a research paper, but a submission to the British Parliament. It does not summarize McCullagh's own research, nor does it summarize his review of the available evidence. In fact, I see no evidence that McCullagh has a degree or any research training in any relevant area of science. He is currently involved in immunology and cell biology, fields that have no relevance to fetal brain development. 
His presentation is merely a recitation of a select list of anecdotal evidence, the significance of which is questionable. For instance, his claim that the Karen Quinlan case shows that it is the thalamus and not the cerebral cortex that is responsible for consciousness is based on the fact that autopsy showed the cortex to be relatively intact, but that the thalamus was extensively damaged. The modern consensus holds that the thalamus is responsible for sorting nerve signals and sending them to the appropriate part of the cortex for processing. It stands to reason that if the thalamus is severely damaged, it will be unable to continue forwarding signals. The cerebral cortex would therefore have nothing to work with, resulting in the vegetative state Quinlan had fallen into. 
If anyone can find any credible scientific support for this thalamus theory, we may include that and work McCullagh in there somehow. Otherwise, I think it should be cut.
Kanwaljeet Anand, on the other hand, is a pediatrician with experience treating newborns and premature babies. He believes that pain may be processed by the somatosensory subplate, a transitory brain structure which recedes after the more permanent cerebral cortex begins to develop. Since the thalamic afferents (pain bearing nerves) only reach the subplate at week 18, long after the 10 week mark proposed by MCullagh. (First Ache, NYTimes, 2008) However, neither the RCOG nor the JAMA study accept this suggestion, pointing to a lack of data suggesting processing mechanism in the subplate. Ermadog (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further reflection, I think it should stay. If the "pro-life" forces are citing McCullagh, his opinion is still noteworthy. I will be adding some rebuttal material.Ermadog (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The McCullagh Quote 

message: For an article about neonatal perception, it talks a whole lot about fetal pain and pretty much ignores any other form of perception. Not to say that fetal pain isn't an important subject. It's just that I imagine some people (myself included) would be interested in neonatal perception in general. 81.82.101.135 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The title does not correspond with the content

message: That's important the exact time in the pregnancy when. It's especially relevant to the abortion debate. I consider any perception to confer personhood on a fetus but before perception it's not a person. I don't know whether to say I'm pro-life or pro-choice or how many weeks to support abortion now, because it's so hard finding an exact number even online. It's driving me crazy.35.8.4.129 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fetuses Hear Sound. OK, When? This article is a stub. 

message: This is an overly broad statement:
:Scientific research generally indicates that the fetus is incapable of feeling pain until at least the 24th week.[17]
The cited report is a meta-analysis of other studies. The above statement represents the conclusions of this one report as a majority of scientific research.
--Turgar (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statement (NPOV) 

message: As others have pointed out, this article is supposed to be about prenatal perception but somehow appears to have focused upon prenatal pain.  I have trimmed that section of some opinions, but would like other editors to consider the following:
#  Section 2 ends with three paragraphs about some suggestions that foetuses (fetuses) sleep through gestation.  Is there any evidence to support this, or should it be removed?
#  Is section 2.1 at all relevant to discussion of prenatal perception?
#  Is section 3 at all relevant to discussions of prenatal perception?
#  Why is there no discussion of senses other than hearing and pain?  Surely sight, taste, mood, smell, temperature sensitivity etc. (refer to Sense for more) surely can be commented upon in this article - or is there no data/no sense (in which case it should probably indicate the lack)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiguosity (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is foetal sleep supported by science?  Why a reference to legislation about abortion, in an article about prenatal perception?  Where are the other senses? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Prenatal perception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014111725/http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice to http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418153229/http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=201 to http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=201
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20061116044144/http://www.prochoice.org/policy/congress/fetal_pain.html to http://www.prochoice.org/policy/congress/fetal_pain.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226223517/http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/index.html to http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified