• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Wow, who could collapse this skull? ...baby WALKING in womb at 12 WEEKS

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alcibiades

Member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm

Scans uncover secrets of the womb

Baby 'walking' in the womb


A new type of ultrasound scan has produced the vivid pictures of a 12 week-old foetus "walking" in the womb.

The new images also show foetuses apparently yawning and rubbing its eyes.

The scans, pioneered by Professor Stuart Campbell at London's Create Health Clinic, are much more detailed than conventional ultrasound.

Professor Campbell has previously released images of unborn babies appearing to smile.

He has compiled a book of the images called Watch Me Grow.

Conventional ultrasound, usually offered to mothers at 12 and 20 weeks, produces 2D images of the developing foetus.

These are very useful for helping doctors to measure and assess the growth of the foetus, but convey very little information about behaviour.

Complex behaviour

Professor Campbell has perfected a technique which not only produces detailed 3D images, but records foetal movement in real time.

He says his work has been able to show for the first time that the unborn baby engages in complex behaviour from an early stage of its development.

Professor Campbell told the BBC: "This is a new science for understanding and mapping out the behaviour of the baby.

"Maybe in the future it will help us understand and diagnose genetic disease, maybe even conditions like cerebral palsy which puzzles the medical profession as to why it occurs."

The images have shown:

* From 12 weeks, unborn babies can stretch, kick and leap around the womb - well before the mother can feel movement

* From 18 weeks, they can open their eyes although most doctors thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks

* From 26 weeks, they appear to exhibit a whole range of typical baby behaviour and moods, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccoughing, and sucking.

Until recently it was thought that smiling did not start until six weeks after birth.

An hour long session using the new technology, which is not yet available on the NHS, costs £275.

_40322435_walking203.jpg


_40322433_yawning203.jpg



of course, in this world I don't expect the "inconvenience" factor to be affected and abortions will of course continue in large numbers as a method of birth control even....
 

shoplifter

Member
Thanks for the PSA.

For the record, I don't think I could do it, but I'm not going to try to keep others from doing so.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
this seems like nothing new... maybe it's being shown for the first time in this level of detail... of course this is the BBC as most here like to point out.
 
Wow, I didn't realize that a 12-week-old fetus was considered a baby. I'm sure it would walk well out of the womb at that age, right?
 
Leave the politics out of this, and marvel at some of those pictures, if they're true. They're facsinating, but I have to admit, until I see it in action in person, I'd have to wonder if the might hand of Photoshop was involved.
 

Alcibiades

Member
levious said:
this seems like nothing new... maybe it's being shown for the first time in this level of detail... of course this is the BBC as most here like to point out.

yeah, I always notice it's places like Time mag. and BBC that are breaking research on fetuses and how advanced their development is even early on...

Time Magainze once had an article that would seem very anti-abortion (not that it brought the issue up, but it talked about development. etc...), and it's weird cause these are all very pro-choice publications/news organizations...
 

Alcibiades

Member
Mercury Fred said:
Wow, I didn't realize that a 12-week-old fetus was considered a baby. I'm sure it would walk well out of the womb at that age, right?

well, this one can't but many viable fetususes that COULD live have their heads collapsed while they are half born...

for example, if they had been let out all the way, they would be ok as babies, but instead they are "aborted" (skull crushed) before they take out the rest of their body...

this is of course in 3rd tri-mester, but basically, as long as the mother isn't in labor, the procedure has been done...

edit: the BBC loosely uses the term "baby"
 

darscot

Member
My daughter is almost 2 and I have ultrasound pictures like this of her. Got them in a Doctor's office in Japan just you average family Doctor. Hardle new.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
Ripclawe said:
BUT nothing says you can't let it die is rather goofy.

I think that's more intended for situations of severe premature birth, where little chance of significant brain development is there and it's left up to the parents to decide how much effort is put in life support.
 

Alcibiades

Member
Ripclawe said:
There does seem to be a problem about live babies after abortions, they have to tighten the rules.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/11493605?source=Evening Standard

the doctor's quote about once its born, you can't kill it, BUT nothing says you can't let it die is rather goofy.


Professor Thornton, of City Hospital, Nottingham, said: "Once it is born, you can't kill the baby but the law doesn't say anything about to what degree you resuscitate it.

"The way it is dealt with is by sensible doctors and sensible nurses keeping it under their hat and allowing the baby to pass away peacefully."

WTF is this for real?!
 

White Man

Member
well, this one can't but many viable fetususes that COULD live have their heads collapsed while they are half born...

for example, if they had been let out all the way, they would be ok as babies, but instead they are "aborted" (skull crushed) before they take out the rest of their body...

this is of course in 3rd tri-mester, but basically, as long as the mother isn't in labor, the procedure has been done...

Why do people make it sound like partial-birth abortions are commonplace procedures that teenagers get done whenever they stop by clinic on their way to the mall? PBA's are only given when the process of labor could be harmful to the mother (or the baby, I think). Now, I suppose the definition of what 'harmful' is could be flimsy, but even still people don't get these all the time.

If you want a decent anti-abortion argument, look to the recent news of eugenics in today's world. Down's syndrome abortions in NA now outnumber Down's live births. Eugenics == bad.
 

Alcibiades

Member
White Man said:
Why do people make it sound like partial-birth abortions are commonplace procedures that teenagers get done whenever they stop by clinic on their way to the mall? PBA's are only given when the process of labor could be harmful to the mother (or the baby, I think). Now, I suppose the definition of what 'harmful' is could be flimsy, but even still people don't get these all the time.

If you want a decent anti-abortion argument, look to the recent news of eugenics in today's world. Down's syndrome abortions in NA now outnumber Down's live births. Eugenics == bad.

where did I say or imply it was commonplace?

that's like saying the media is making civilian deaths in war seem "commonplace" when in fact they do not occur all the time...

even a few deaths are unjustified and should be taken into consideration...

and yes, the whole arguement centers around what is "harmful" and basically regulation is very flimsy in this area... what is health of the mother, a headache or stomachache, temporary discomfort or long-term illness, it's basically all in the one "health of the mother" category (not to be confused with "life of the mother" category in which the mother's life is in danger)
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
efralope said:
well, this one can't but many viable fetususes that COULD live have their heads collapsed while they are half born...

for example, if they had been let out all the way, they would be ok as babies, but instead they are "aborted" (skull crushed) before they take out the rest of their body...

this is of course in 3rd tri-mester, but basically, as long as the mother isn't in labor, the procedure has been done...

edit: the BBC loosely uses the term "baby"

Many viable fetuses have their heads collapsed? The sort of procedure you are describing accounts for some minute percentage (less than one percent) of all abortions. Not that it isn't particularly greusome.
 

White Man

Member
where did I say or imply it was commonplace?

You brought up an exception to the rule without pointing it out as so, and without giving a description of the more commonplace procedure. It's all connotation and implication.

No harm, no foul. You're a good lad.

But really, look into the eugenics angle. Folks are getting abortions because their kid has a wonky foot and such. That's just outright wrong. Some folks make it sound like aborting an unwanted baby is the wrongest thing ever -- I think aborting a baby that IS wanted, but has a physical deformity, is much, much, much worse.
 

Alcibiades

Member
well, of course one would point out an extreme example...

just like the media don't point out that civilian deaths are "exception to the rule" when it comes to Israeli strikes on militants, the more rational mention that it's a small percentage of woman and children that die on the Palestianian side (while a larger percentage of women/children die on Israeli side, of course because they are specifically targeted by Hamas, Al-Qasa Martyr's Brigade, Islamic Jihad, etc...), exceptions to rule are usually much more interesting and really cut through to the point much faster than "rational" discussions...

btw, considering some people are pro-choice but against partial-birth abortions, that mention is much more relevant to a procedure people would be against...
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
efralope said:
exceptions to rule are usually much more interesting and really cut through to the point much faster than "rational" discussions...

This is where our discussion ends. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the extremes, or even discussing them, but there is a problem when the rare case becomes the meat of your whole argument.

Without turning this into a discussion of media bias, do you have any numbers on youth deaths in the Israeli/Palenstinian conflict? It would be hard to show children deaths are greater on the Israeli side when the Palestinians account for 2/3rds of the death in the conflict. While reporting bias may be a whole other issue do you have numbers to claim that that specifically is an exception to the rule? when children die on both sides it *should* be reported because really that is the portion of the conflict that really shows both sides need to STFU and stop the cycle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom