Babies as extra-uterine foetuses.

[tripsis]

When human babies are born, only 23% of their final cranial capacity has been reached, as opposed to the fully formed brains seen in most mammal species at birth. Due to this fact, some theorists have argued that we are extra-uterine foetuses until 21 months of age. If this were true, what would be the implications for late-term abortions I wonder? Thoughts?

[Sallubrious]

When my Mrs fell pregnant I read everything I could find about early childhood development and I came to a fairly similar conclusion, although I never heard it stated in quite the same way.

Those first two years are crucial to the development of the childs mind and the stimulation they receive in the critical stage of development has an enormous impact on the way the brain hard wired. Given the correct stimulation in that period a child can learn a mind boggling amount, without stimulation much of the childs potential will never be realised.

By the time my kids were 21 months old they could read about 30 words and sort number cards into their correct order. All before they'd spoken a word. Now my kids reading and maths skills are equal to or above an average child 4-5 years older.

I also played a lot Mozart & Bach to them in that crucial stage, I figured if I had the choice I'd prefer to have my brain hard wired to Baroque music that's proven to increase intelligence in adults in preference to all the commercial crap of the day or heavy metal or rap.

I think they way we are born not fully developed gives us an edge over most other lifeforms and is the key to our species adaptability.

I could never see it as justification for late term abortion.

[Foo]

I know some 40+ Y.O's that appear to have not yet developed full cranial capacity. Late term abortion might have its upsides

[Dreamwalker.]

I know some 40+ Y.O's that appear to have not yet developed full cranial capacity. Late term abortion might have its upsides

actually that's very common..............in fact at a guess 70 to 80% of adults fail to develop full cranial capacity...........

Such a wasted potential ......early environment is so important...............best time to learn a 2nd language...........brain is just packed with mass neuron connections...............before the pruning........

[bogfrog]

Well this makes my job all the more daunting haha. I'm on the way to spend some time with some extra-uterine foetuses just now.

Those first two years are crucial to the development of the childs mind and the stimulation they receive in the critical stage of development has an enormous impact on the way the brain hard wired. Given the correct stimulation in that period a child can learn a mind boggling amount, without stimulation much of the childs potential will never be realised.

While the first two years are probably a more distinctive window, I reckon that even by one year opportunities can taper off if they haven't been given much stimulation. I am working with under twos at the moment and I can already see that certain children who appear to have been starved of intellectual stimuli at home show quite different behaviour than those who are read to, talked to and interacted with a lot.

Maybe it's just me generalising, as all children are unique, but the littlies who seem like they have just been left to their own devices seem to have very short attention span and limited ability to focus or remember. It's really quite scary to see how quickly their potential can begin to be limited.

Delicate times. For me it just intensifies the need for educating parents and educators on how crucial this early stimulation is for ongoing brain development. Everyone seems to know this, but the commonly seen behaviour of adults around very young children doesn't give me confidence that many people really keep this in mind.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Ceres

[gtarman]

The problem is rednecks really. I think we've always known that it's important to nurture and stimulate children and to teach them right from wrong, and to be responsible and fair and tolerant people.

The problem is that a disproportionately large class of people are raising kids in a manner more toward this end of the spectrum. It's a vicious and ongoing cycle with seemingly no end in sight that just seems to turn out more ignorant and intolerant rednecks, bogans, 'chavs', and simple-minded bigots. And they just don't know any better, because they were never given the chances that most of us were. It's sad to think about.

It's even sadder when you consider that these sorts of people tend to also breed like rabbits without thought, and the people who's children might actually make the world a better place tend to have fewer children (if any at all) after giving the decision the serious attention and ponderance it deserves. The movie "Idiocracy" is a comedy based on the long-term effects this may have on society.

Edited November 17, 2013 by gtarman

[tripsis]

Thanks for you thoughts Sally.

I think they way we are born not fully developed gives us an edge over most other lifeforms and is the key to our species adaptability.

Yes, this is correct, although we're not the only mammalian species that has not reached full cranial capacity at birth; a number of other primates are the same, though to a lesser extent. It is also our lengthened period of immaturity that helps give us the edge, as by the time we reach adulthood, we have many years of experience behind us.

I could never see it as justification for late term abortion.

Do you agree with abortion in the first place? If so, how and where do you draw the line between what is acceptable abortion and what is deemed murder? Surely the line should be decided through scientific means. If we are, in fact, extra-uterine foetuses until 21 months, then would postpartum abortion be justifiable, on account that the foetus is still lacking sufficient development to be able to consider it murder?

Delicate times. For me it just intensifies the need for educating parents and educators on how crucial this early stimulation is for ongoing brain development. Everyone seems to know this, but the commonly seen behaviour of adults around very young children doesn't give me confidence that many people really keep this in mind.

It's probably cultural to some extent. People here aren't taught to interact with babies in a way that enhances cognitive development. I wonder how other cultures treat babies?

And they just don't know any better, because they were never given the chances that most of us were. It's sad to think about.

Most of us? I would consider most of Australia to be composed to that demographic to be honest.

Edited November 17, 2013 by tripsis

[Sallubrious]

 

Do you agree with abortion in the first place? If so, how and where do you draw the line between what is acceptable abortion and what is deemed murder? Surely the line should be decided through scientific means. If we are, in fact, extra-uterine foetuses until 21 months, then would postpartum abortion be justifiable, on account that the foetus is still lacking sufficient development to be able to consider it murder?

It's a contentious subject for sure.

For the most part I'm against abortion, but there can be extenuating circumstances such as rape victims and women that will put their lives will be at risk if they continue with their pregnancy ect.

Personally I don't buy into that theory that an unborn child isn't a cognitive being. I sang the alphabet and a counting song to my kids every night while they were still in the womb and they would turn their heads to place an ear next to where my mouth was to listen. It really seemed like they were listening. I know they would never have understood what I was saying but my hope was they'd be become familiar with rhythms of my speech and it would become familiar to them.

I even recorded them with a microphone I'd rigged up inside a metal cup towards the end of the pregnancy and they seemed to be trying to copy the rhythms in the minutes after I'd sang to them.

So in a nutshell no - I don't believe in abortion at any stage unless there is extenuating circumstances.

It all seems to be reduced to a very clinical procedure, almost like having an ingrown toe nail removed. To me there is much more to life than flesh and blood.

Some people will insist that I'm mad when they read this, but I believe my oldest daughter visited me several times before she was even conceived. I saw a young girl standing at the end I my bed with blonde hair and she told me that she was coming soon. At the time it didn't make sense because both myself and my Mrs have brown hair and my Mrs had given up thinking that she'd never fall pregnant as she was getting to the age where the window for pregnancy was almost closed.

I told her about the child I kept seeing and she spun out, she dug out a few photos of herself as a child and she had blonde hair as kid.

About a year later she gave birth to a baby girl with blonde hair.

[tripsis]

The very fact it's a contentious topic is why I brought it up.

Ah, so you and I definitely differ on the topic of abortion then. I think that abortion should be completely legal, under any circumstance. I don't think any woman should be forced to carry a baby to term if that is not her desire, and no entity, be it a person or a government, should have any power over her decision. Her body, her rights. We have enough laws controlling every other aspect of our lives, we don't need more. And to be blunt, we have enough people on this planet that we don't need more that aren't even wanted by their mothers / parents. If those first months/years of a baby's life is so important, as all who have commented in this thread appear to agree, then as a corollary being raised by a mother or parents that don't actually want the child is going to leave it at a severe disadvantage relative to a child that has been raised in a loving and nurturing environment. I recall reading a study done on Romanian orphans which supports that notion.

http://www.livescience.com/21778-early-neglect-alters-kids-brains.html

Logically then, if this is the case then, forcing mothers to give birth to unwanted children is going to result in a higher percentage of maladjusted adults down the line. Why then, would we ever wish to ban abortion?

Personally I don't buy into that theory that an unborn child isn't a cognitive being.

I very much doubt a foetus which has less than 23% of its cranial capacity developed, perhaps even just 5% or 10%, is a cognitive being. How could it be? Without the required physiological development of the brain, there is no mechanism for cognisance. Not too many people remember anything from their first few years of life. Sure, babies interact with their environment, but so do bacteria and the vast majority of people would not consider bacteria to be cognitively aware beings.

Edited November 18, 2013 by tripsis

[IndianDreaming]

I very much doubt a foetus which has less than 23% of its cranial capacity developed, perhaps even just 5% or 10%, is a cognitive being. How could it be? Without the required physiological development of the brain, there is no mechanism for cognisance.

It seems like your statement of 23% cranial capacity relies on the fact that Cognition is located in the head or brain? If on the other hand, the brain is just an aerial, then 5% or even 1% is still a dodgy signal, but the consciousness that's transmitting could be fully formed, even if the receiver isn't... Cognition and consciousness (even in bacteria) are still complete mysteries in this day and age so anything is possible...

[Sallubrious]

If they are not cognitive why is it that can recognise their mothers voice when they are born and some say even before birth ?

There was a study published in the Infant behavior and development journal on this (prenatal voice recognition) based on research done at Johns Hopkins University hospital, I'll try to track it down.

[tripsis]

It seems like your statement of 23% cranial capacity relies on the fact that Cognition is located in the head or brain? If on the other hand, the brain is just an aerial, then 5% or even 1% is still a dodgy signal, but the consciousness that's transmitting could be fully formed, even if the receiver isn't... Cognition and consciousness (even in bacteria) are still complete mysteries in this day and age so anything is possible...

Sure, we can throw around statements like "anything is possible", but that's not going to get us anywhere. Policy needs to be based on real, evidenced-based data, not semi-religious theories of consciousness. To the best of our knowledge, cognition does reside in the brain. Anything else is pure speculation, just as the concepts of "consciousness transmitting" and souls are. I consider consciousness to be a product of physiology, not of some cosmic force or mystical representation of God.

If they are not cognitive why is it that can recognise their mothers voice when they are born and some say even before birth ?

There was a study published in the Infant behavior and development journal on this (prenatal voice recognition) based on research done at Johns Hopkins University hospital, I'll try to track it down.

Does response to certain stimuli automatically grant cognisance? Plants respond to light, it that evidence of cognisance?

There is an evolutionary selective pressure for a mother and her young being capable of recognising one another, which could be considered an instinctive response, rather than one which implies some higher form of awareness, similar to that of Pavlovian conditioning. There is obviously some degree of cognitive development present in a newborn, yet this doesn't mean they are fully cognitive humans - they clearly are not. We take several years to grow out of infancy and many more before maturity. A brain that is less than a quarter developed is clearly missing a significant amount of its function. Having some cognitive function is not the same as being fully cognitive.

[IndianDreaming]

Edit: No comment.

Edited November 19, 2013 by IndianDreaming