Non-threaded

Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

A place to sit back, hang out, and make monkey noises about anything you'd like.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Well, in fun news, Ireland has recently gotten rid of its constitutional amendment preventing us from allowing abortions in a two thirds vote. Now, we can finally get around to cutting down the population, getting rid of those weird Down Syndrome guys who take too long bagging at the grocery's and do a whole bunch of fun stuff with the fetuses!

I know none of you Americunts care, and the non-Americans are also cunts who don't give a fuck, but I'm just content that we did it, and with all the old Catholic fucks (and teenage fucks who also somehow were against it) that are now miserable as fuck. Huzzah!

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

#BantheFetus2018

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

This is evil through ignorance. The slaughter of the most innocent of human beings -newborn and unborn babies- is actually a great tragedy of modern times. Paraphrasing what a very intelligent person said: shouldn’t they at least give these children a fair trial before they execute them; and since they are too young yet to be tried as an adult shouldn’t you also wait until they are 21? Are you not glad you were not on a whim murdered because you were thought to be an inconvenience at the time?

P.S. Speaking of evil through ignorance, the banning of DDT actually caused a tremendous number of unnecessary deaths of African children in particular, but nobody talks about that much.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Honestly, I wish I was aborted, just to save me from reading this deranged, stream-of-consciousness cum splatter of a message. 

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

I feel sorry for you, but these are human beings we are talking about, most do not want to die. There are survivors of botched abortions who are glad the abortion was botched and they were rescued. They are good contributors to society as well, if that is more important to you.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Buddy, we all know you're glad the abortion failed. 

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

?

So, do you believe in innocent until proven guilty?

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago
Call me old fashioned, but I think parents should have the right to abort their children for as long as they remain under their roof.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

What? lol

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

They aren't sentient, they hold none of the traits of value I have in human beings. Something having human DNA in and of itself isn't something I care about.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Of course they are sentient, as studies have shown. When you are this young you are actually a genius at learning and will learn much more rapidly & easily than at any other time in your life. But, you didn’t actually answer my question.

P.S. Did you know they like to listen to their mother’s voice?

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Studies don't show that. If you're going to say studies show that, I'm going to need you to cite some stories. In regard to whether they should get a free trial, no, they shouldn't. Fair trials are a system we decided between sentient members of society. Foetuses aren't that.

Am I glad I've not been aborted? Yeah, sure, but I'm also glad to my grandparents weren't able to legally buy a condom at the time they conceived my dad. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to selling condoms. I'm glad my parents didn't practice safe sex and had me by accident. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to that.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

That is good that you are glad that it didn’t happen to you, but why would you wish on others what you wouldn’t wish on yourself? (That part about your dad wouldn’t have been whether they had killed you or not but whether you had come into existence here or not.)

P.S. Yes these children do have sentience. In the U.S. the burden of proof is with the prosecution, but yes I could link info on here. They haven’t enacted that new information restricting thing (I know they do have a lot of restrictions already) in the EU yet, which would affect us in the U.S. as well. However, this would probably have a lot more meaning to you if you found this out yourself. 

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Pfft, you're just being too much of a wuss to link some info.  No one is going to look it up just because you think it might mean something to them.  

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Because I exist NOW, so obviously I'm glad of that. But had I never existed at all, there's no issue there. Being glad my grandparents couldn't buy a condom and thus had my dad doesn't mean that I should be against condoms. Hell, you and I both certainly exist because someone, somewhere in your ancestry was raped, that doesn't mean we should support rape.

The burden of proof is with the person who makes the claim, actually, not the prosecution. The burden of guilt would be on the prosecution, but that's in a legal court of law, and neither of us here are in one of those, and neither of us are the prosecution, because that's not how law works. If the defense says "A wizard actually killed the victim, and made it LOOK like it was my client", the prosecution don't have the burden of proof to disprove that. So, if you're going to say babies in the womb are sentient, you need to prove that.

But, since you're not going to because you're wrong, I'll show a few to show that it's definitely post birth when this occurs.

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/baby-consciousness/

 

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No, you are glad you exist despite the fact you had an evil ancestor, you obviously would prefer if you exist without an evil ancestor, right? What a parent or ancestor did is not the fault of the child. Would you condemn a child for a crime a parent did?

P.S. About the burden of proof: if you make a claim in civil trials sure, but you are not supposed to execute the defendant in a civil trial if they lose.

Your link is OK, it is a start, but this is an old study (which would be ok if it were still valid) and your conclusions were wrong.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Yeah, I'd prefer if I didn't have an evil ancestor, but I do. I'm glad I exist, and even though that's because of something bad having happened, I'm allowed to be glad I exist. Me being glad I exist doesn't mean I'm against rape prevention, even though good rape prevention would've meant I would've never existed in the first place. Similarly, legal abortion would've meant I would've never existed in the first place, but that doesn't mean I have to be opposed to that. And no, I wouldn't.

No... you're not supposed to execute people if they lose a trial in civil cases. What's your point? We were talking about the burden of proof, and how it's on you. If you lose this argument and fail to provide proof, you won't be executed. However, you're still going to need to show proof.

The study's not old, no, it's within a few years, and is still valid. Do you have any evidence that this study has been disproven, such as a study saying fetuses ARE sentient? Or have you failed the burden of proof by showing nothing, and thus lost?

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

http://chooseyourstory.com/resources/images/user/50792?50792

You cannot change the past, if you have done wrong try to be better in the future.

Perhaps we have some sort of language barrier here... I thought it was clear that I believe you and these poor kids have a fundamental human right to live. I even said that it was good that you were glad you were not killed.

Although we are (at least) four-dimensional human beings in the space-time continuum, we cannot go back in time. You cannot change what your ancestors did even if you wanted. Thus you are not responsible for any crimes they may have committed. If you had been killed that would have been wrong yes?

Were you implying it is your fault what your evil ancestor did? It is not, but you keep arguing as if you believe this.

You are persecuting yourself. I am pro-life, I thought this was obvious.

P.S. What did you mean what was my point? If you were on trial could they just execute you if you failed to prove you were sentient? (I do hope you know this is hypothetical, neither you nor I is on trial. It is these innocent baby dreamers that are being persecuted in real life.)

That study you keep talking about doesn’t show no sentience in babies, it is showing how little they (or at least the writer of that article) knew about sentience or science. I am sorry I had to say that, because it was good of you to look for information before you condemn innocent babies.

I recommend you use duck duck go instead of google, I would not be surprised if that is why you are having trouble finding information.

[I am wondering if I post information, if you would study it. And would you condemn the killing of these innocents if you did.]

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No, I don't support a fundamental human right to live. Things deserve to live on how we value them, and I value life by it's sentience. If a human life isn't sentient, but was just, for instance, some brain-dead but technically alive dude, I have little to no value on them compared to something sentient.

No, if I had been killed, it wouldn't be wrong. If I had been killed, that's fine, because I hadn't achieved sentience, and thus my life was of little concern. It's only at sentience that I can even become glad I'm alive, so before that, kill away.

I'm not arguing that it's my fault, you're failing to understand the point. You've argued that me being glad I wasn't aborted was basis for me to be against abortion, but as I've explained, that's stupid. I might only exist because of evil anti-abortion laws, but that doesn't mean I should have to take the blame for those existing or support them now, and instead, I can be opposed to them.

The study absolutely shows sentience, and that it CAN come as early as four or five months, it isn't there before that. You've yet to provide any evidence that babies are sentient, thus we can disregard you saying babies are sentient, as its bullshit you can't provide evidence for. I've looked for it, and it doesn't exist. I'd happily study and learn if there was information, but since you refuse to provide any, the burden of proof has been failed and you've no argument.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Am I reading this right? If you had your way you would have had yourself killed at an age when you thought you had no sentience at the time? You are (at least) a four-dimensional being. You would condemn yourself to insure you condemn innocent babies (you admit you know you were innocent of the charges; therefore, you know they would be innocent too); that is really twisted (or very immature). If you really believe this I don’t know if there is any point in me talking with you.

You give me the impression you are anti-life. This is unfortunate, since life is a good thing and the only life we know of exists on this planet. (There could be other universes with life, maybe with humans too, yet the only people we will ever know will be here on earth.) Humans are capable of both good and evil. Why would you presume a person’s life worthless or evil without giving them a fair trial?

On the cosmic scale, humans have fleeting lives; yet, they accomplish so much. Humans were the only species on earth to figure out a way to get to the moon! It would be awesome if humans could bring life that could sustain itself to some of the cold dead planets or moons in our solar system [This would make it less likely we, and a lot of other life, go the way of the dinosaurs and become extinct by a meteor. Then we would have more time to figure out what to do before the sun fries all remaining life in the solar system when it expands, billions of years from now, into a red giant.]. If that ever happens you and I will have been long gone, but perhaps some descendants of these poor kids will be there.

P.S. Can you prove you are sentient? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Do you really think it would be fine if someone killed you while knowing full well you were only in a temporary coma?

Since you have given your word you would study it, I will post some information.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-key-question-when-is-the-foetus-a-sentient-being-528676.html

 

https://www.parenting.com/article/what-babies-learn-in-the-womb

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090413185734.htm

If you had used Duck Duck Go this information would not have been as hard to find. Google is biased, and makes a lot of stuff hard to find.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago
You aren't even trying to debate in good faith, are you?

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

?

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Now that I exist, I don't want my existence to have been prevented. But if I never existed, I couldn't have that worry, so it'd be fine to kill me pre-sentience, just like I'm glad my parents didn't wear condoms, but if they had worn condoms, I'd never been around to regret it so it's fine.

Humans aren't capable of good or evil without sentience. Sentience is the ultimate source of all we value about human life. Without that, there's not much to really care about. We don't care about life without sentience. We're fine with weeding the grass without giving the weeds a fair trial, because weeds aren't sentient. No difference with this.

Yeah, space is cool. Not relevant, but alright then.

I can, sure. I'd have to go into testing or something, but I could easily prove that. Innocent until proven guilty exists, sure, but abortion isn't about guilt, so you seem confused there. And no, you're not allowed to kill people in comas because they've achieved sentience, and killing sentient beings is wrong, even if they're not sentient at that moment. However, if they've never been sentient, it's fine.

The first link you sent is mostly on the debate among British people and politicians about abortion rather than any scientific evidence. The only bit of scientific evidence is that fetuses open their eyes, move about or smile, none of which shows sentience, and instead, this is just pictures that are meant to convince people.

The second link doesn't work. So that's a good sign you're not reading your own research.

The third link isn't about consciousness at all. It's about the development of REM sleep in babies and what they learn in the womb, which isn't sentience. I feel you haven't bothered to read your own articles in the slightest, and if you did, you'd know that they're not about what you think they are.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

What? Are they already filtering info in the UK? The second link works fine I just tested it again. It is important like the other links.

[So, you can’t call a gun evil, right? I remember you, you were anti-gun.] Seriously, do you not know what I mean by a four-dimensional being? Time is relative. You in a temporary coma are less sentient than these children.

Unfortunately, I believe I was correct in my estimation of you: I think you are arguing for argument’s sake and you don’t care if these children are sentient or not. Thus, it is pointless for me to continue this conversation with you. You would not be wishing the demise of these kids without all the facts if you cared.

P.S. REM sleep occurs when you are dreaming. It doesn’t matter if you don’t remember your dreams or not, you are dreaming when you do this.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

I'm not from the UK, and they aren't, no. 

No, guns aren't evil, they're objects.

Time isn't necessarily the same for all observers, no, but that doesn't mean what you think it means. The person in the coma has achieved sentience before. The person aborted hasn't, and never will, so there's no loss of sentient life.

I'm not arguing for argument's sake, no. I looked at your sources, they're just all wrong. You never actually debated my sources, you just didn't seem to understand them, and then said they were outdated, which is funny, because your sources are several times older than them. So, it seems far more likely that you're too ignorant, purposefully or otherwise, to actually learn. However, if you'd like to give up on reasonable debate, or at least, saying bullshit to someone reasonably debating, that's your own choice.

P.S. REM sleep doesn't occur when you're dreaming. Dreaming occurs in REM sleep, but not all REM sleep leads to dreams. 

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Your last post seems almost polite [though you kind of ruin it by cursing], albeit fraught with errors.

I’m sure you haven’t realized this, but according to your own arguments it actually would be ok for a government to kill you in a coma, since after you are dead you won’t regret it. (Remember: how would you know that was not your end?) This would be a dangerous path to follow, and I am hoping you will realize this with the coma scenario. I believe you are the type who would be for killing people you think are in permanent comas (if you are not, I apologize profusely), since you would consider them dead or dead-like. If they were to kill you, like they would do under communistic rule, while you were under a temporary coma, your arguments would indicate that that would be ok because now it is a permanent coma, cause they have killed you. Then of course, according to your logic, you won’t regret it because you will be dead. If you would consider these children to be in a temporary coma, you would realize it is just as bad. But, in a way it is worse for the children, since they are not really in a coma, just sleeping most of the time, and they, being younger, have greater potential than you or I.

You say you are not arguing for argument’s sake and want to learn more, which would be commendable if it were so. So, can you please explain to me why you would take what I say out of context, not read the articles I post, and then claim you had a reasonable argument. That kind of ruins this assumption for me. Your “articles”- I mean your one article- is not valid, as I implied before. You seemed to be fine with old articles, since the only article you posted was old- and like I said at the time, was fine if it were still valid. But, apparently, did you mean it is only fine if Steve posts an old article?

[Hremm... still no comment on the second article? Ok... you say you are not from the UK... but are you in the UK or some other country? I am pretty sure kids your age have the know-how to look up these articles. In the U.S. where I am, this article works just as well as any other.]

I can see that the relativity discussion has gone over your head. So, according to what you think I mean by time is relative, if they are not killed then it would have been bad to have attempted to kill them, yes? ‘Cause there is no denying they, or at least the ones who were rescued in time, are sentient now.

I actually thought you would understand the “innocent until proven guilty” discussion... it is a metaphor, we both know the children are innocent. Why should a human being have to prove they are sentient or be executed? Hey, you haven’t proven you are sentient yet...

Can you give me a better answer than,

“I can, sure. I'd have to go into testing or something, but I could easily prove that,” to prove you are sentient?

P.S. I suggest you brush up on your science. For now, take my word for it: unless you are having a seizure, REM sleep, is (tho not necessarily the only time) when you dream.

P.S. P.S. Happy Father’s Day to all you fathers out there!

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No, sentient beings should be protected, even if they're not currently sentient. Any being that has achieved sentience and could return to that state has protection. That means comatose people. Any being, however, that has not achieved this has not got to a point where we need to protect them. You're just not understanding anything. As well as this, if someone killed you when you were in a temporary coma, it would not become a permanent coma. Death is not a coma, the fact that you've confused the two shows your incredible ignorance on the subject. It's about the chance that they will ever return to sentience. If they will return to sentience, you shouldn't kill them, if they never will, it's fine to kill them. If they've never achieved sentience, go ahead and kill them.

I haven't taken what you said out of context, and I read the articles you showed that I could, other than the one that the link didn't work for, which is shown by the fact I've discussed details inside them.

My article is absolutely valid, and you've shown no evidence for it not being so. It's far newer than all of the articles you've posted, anyhow. Mine was from 2013, yours were from 2012 and 2005. So you're downright lying now.

Not from the UK, I'm from another country, and the link still doesn't work.

Time relativity once again doesn't mean what you think it is. Time already passed still isn't relative, it's only the way we move through it that is. Causation doesn't break down.

Non-sentient things aren't really innocent, anymore than moss is innocent. Why would moss have to prove sentience before we're against killing it? Same answer to your question.

Well I've passed the Turing Test loads of times, so that's some evidence there. But besides that, are you now asking me to prove I'm sentient without the ability to be tested for sentience? That's retarded, and you absolutely know that.

You can dream in REM sleep, that is when you dream, but REM sleep doesn't necessarily mean you're dreaming, I've explained this. Try again.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

How about the chance, using your logic, of near 100% the kids will return to sentience if they are saved. I can tell you are only trying to justify your morally indefensible statements... I am pretty sure you know what my points are by now.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No, they will not. They will not return to sentience, because they have never been sentient before. They will become sentient, but not return to it. Return involves going back to something, and thus having been there before, something that anyone with a basic grasp of English should understand.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Time is not what you think it is...

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

And again, you seem to think all time exists at once, or some bizarre misunderstanding of what relativistic time means. 

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

This is the second article:

parenting_logo.png

 

Profile

Search

You are here

Home  /  Pregnancy  /  Developing Baby

 

What Babies Learn In the Womb

 

They're doing and thinking a lot more than we used to believe

Tags: Third Trimester, second trimester, Pregnancy Symptoms

By Laura Flynn Mccarthy

  •         
    FACEBOOK
  •         
    PINTEREST
  •         
    TWITTER
  •         

The first time I played my acoustic guitar for my son, Michael, he was just a few months old. But even though the only other occasions he could have heard me play was when I was pregnant with him, he turned around and gave me a smile that seemed to say, "I recognize that sound!" Was it possible that he was remembering what he had heard in the womb?

For years, doctors assumed that babies were born without any knowledge about the outside world. But recent research is questioning this assumption, offering clues to what babies comprehend in utero, what they remember after they're born, and how that information prepares them for the world outside the womb. Today, doctors realize that babies begin to engage many of their senses and to learn about the world around them during the last trimester of pregnancy—and maybe even before.

What's That Noise?

The uterus isn't exactly the quietest place to hang out. Not only can a baby hear the sounds of his mom's body—her stomach growling, her heart beating, the occasional hiccup or burp—but he can also hear noises from beyond. If mom sits in a movie theater with state-of-the-art sound or walks by a noisy construction site, odds are the fetus will react to all the ruckus by kicking or shifting around.

Of course, not all sounds are the same. Perhaps the most significant one a baby hears in utero is his mother's voice. Around the seventh and eighth month, a fetus's heart rate slows down slightly whenever his mother is speaking, indicating that mom's voice has a calming effect.

By the time they're born, babies can actually recognize their mother's voice. In one study, doctors gave day-old infants pacifiers that were connected to tape recorders. Depending on the babies' sucking patterns, the pacifiers either turned on a tape of their mother's voice or that of an unfamiliar woman's voice. The amazing result: "Within 10 to 20 minutes, the babies learned to adjust their sucking rate on the pacifier to turn on their own mother's voice," says the study's coauthor William Fifer, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons. "This not only points out a newborn's innate love for his mother's voice but also a baby's unique ability to learn quickly."

Interestingly, there is no evidence that newborns show a similar preference for their father's or siblings' voices, or for any other voices they may have heard frequently while in the uterus. "The difference could be that the maternal voice is communicated to the fetus in two ways: as ambient sound through the abdomen and internally through the vibration of vocal chords," says Janet DiPietro, Ph.D., a developmental psychologist at Johns Hopkins University. "In contrast, external voices and other noises are only heard as ambient sounds."

In fact, research has shown that if newborns are given a choice, they prefer the version of mom's voice that sounds closest to what they heard in the womb. "In studies where we gave day-old babies a choice of hearing their mother's voice filtered to sound as it did in utero—muffled and low—or as it does outside of the womb, they showed a distinct preference for the filtered voice," says Fifer.

An Ear for Language

Muffled or not, unborn babies seem to develop a fine ear for certain sounds. Research reveals that babies had their first lessons in their native language while still in utero. They'll suck more vigorously to turn on tape recordings of people speaking in the language of their mothers, rather than in a foreign tongue. Of course, it's likely the babies are picking up on the rhythm and melody of the speech, rather than individual words.

This doesn't mean that moms need to converse directly to their swelling belly to give their child a head start on language, however. A developing fetus gets all the information he needs just by listening in on his mother's conversations with others. He also may be picking up something from any books she reads aloud. Besides being able to tell the difference between English and French, a study shows that babies in the womb may be able to recognize the specific rhythms and patterns of the stories they hear. Pregnant women read out loud one of two stories—The Cat in the Hat or The King, the Mice, and the Cheese—twice a day for six weeks before they delivered their babies. After birth, when the infants were three days old, they were played tape recordings of unfamiliar voices reading those stories: They consistently changed their sucking patterns on the pacifiers to hear the story they'd heard in utero.

Seeing the Light

Since there's no such thing as a womb with a view, it's no great loss that a baby's eyes, which form in the first trimester, are sealed shut until about the seventh month. After they open, the fetus is able to see, but there's little or no light to see anything by. Some doctors have reported, however, that if you shine a very bright light up inside the uterus, the fetus will turn away from it. Similarly, doctors suspect that the fetus may be able to detect a faint glow if a strong light is pointed right at mom's belly. Ultrasound has also revealed that fetuses gradually open and close their eyes more and more as they near delivery, as if practicing for blinking and seeing in the outside world. 

Discriminating Tastes

A pregnant woman really is eating for two, and the quality of what she eats matters as much as the quantity. Taste buds develop in a fetus around the seventh or eighth week and, by week 14, there is some evidence to suggest he can taste bitter, sweet, or sour flavors in the amniotic fluid. As with his other senses, he uses taste to explore the womb around him. Ultrasounds have even shown that fetuses lick the placenta and uterine wall.

Studies indicate that the flavors and aromas of the foods mom eats during pregnancy, which pass through to her amniotic fluid, may affect her baby's taste preferences long after birth. "The more varied a mother's diet during pregnancy and breastfeeding, the more likely that the infant will accept a new food," says Julie Mennella, Ph.D., biopsychologist at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, in Philadelphia. Studies have also found that breastfed babies are more willing than those who were formula-fed to consume a new food when they get older. "This could be because they've learned to accept the many different flavors that have passed through the mother's digestive system to her breast milk," says Mennella.

A Nose for Mom

An unborn baby not only tastes foods, but can smell them as well. Doctors have noted that, at birth, amniotic fluid sometimes carries the scent of cumin, garlic, fennel, and other spices a mother has eaten while pregnant. Amniotic fluid, which babies swallow and breathe in during their time in utero, not only has the smells of the foods mom eats, but of mom herself.

That, in fact, may be how newborns recognize their mothers. "It's possible that in the first few hours after birth, a baby's sense of smell may be more important in helping him identify his mother than his vision is," says Mennella. In fact, studies have shown that if a mother washes just one breast right after birth, the baby will prefer to nurse at the other, unwashed breast. (This is why some doctors advise new mothers not to shower until at least after the first feeding—to allow their natural aroma to help establish breastfeeding.) 

Perchance, to Dream?

Through ultrasound tests, researchers have seen evidence that babies in utero experience rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, which is associated with dreaming, at around 32 to 36 weeks. No one knows whether they're actually dreaming, since their brain waves can't yet be monitored, but doctors believe that it's certainly possible.

In fact, the sleep patterns of fetuses in this stage of development closely resemble those of newborns: They spend a lot of their time in REM sleep, but also in a quiet, deep sleep where there is no eye movement. Researchers have also observed babies in utero in a state of quiet alertness, which suggests they may be concentrating on something—listening to mom talking, perhaps.

Ready for the Big World

Babies eagerly investigate whatever they can get their hands on—and the fun starts before birth. As early as 20 weeks, fetuses react to what's around them. (Ultrasounds have shown that some try to grasp the amniocentesis needle when it's inserted into the uterus.) But it isn't until the third trimester that they really begin to grow curious about their intrauterine world. Though there isn't a whole lot in there to play with, fetuses entertain themselves by sucking on their hands and fingers (especially their thumb, which they discover at about 18 weeks). They also 'walk' around by pushing on the uterine walls with their feet, and yank, pull, and swing their umbilical cord—they even practice breathing.

All this playing around helps them develop important reflexes they'll need once they're born. Sucking will not only be crucial to taking in food but will also be a source of comfort. And feeling things with their mouth is an important way for babies to explore things. Filling their lungs and moving the diaphragm up and down—albeit with fluid instead of oxygen—is also good practice; by the time the baby makes his entrance into the world, he will have learned to breathe on his own.

Doctors believe that pushing off the uterine wall probably helps the fetus develop the ability to reach his mother's breast soon after birth. When a newborn baby is placed on his mother's bare abdomen, his primal instinct starts to kick in: Within the first hour of life, he'll push his way up toward his mother's breast, guided mostly by scent, according to research by Marshall Klaus, M.D., author of Your Amazing Newborn.

So compelling is the research on this early dance between mother and baby that Dr. Klaus and other neonatal researchers are now urging hospitals to change their procedure for handling newborns: Instead of weighing and bathing the infant right after delivery, they suggest placing him between the mother's breasts immediately after an initial examination and waiting at least an hour after birth to perform any necessary procedures.

All this goes to show that a baby isn't just passively waiting to be born while in the womb. He's already building important skills and developing a strong bond with one of the most important people in his life—his mother.

Laura Flynn McCarthy is a New Hampshire-based freelance writer who specializes in health and parenting issues. She is also the mother of two boys.

C Copyright 2018, Meredith Corporation. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy - Your California Rights | Data Policy | Terms of Service

AdChoices

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Yeah, babies have senses, obviously. Like, you know, cave fish or whatever. That's not sentience. The only actual piece of information here goes against what you said, as it confirms that babies have REM sleep as we discuss, but tells us that doesn't necessarily mean they're dreaming, which I've been trying to explain to you, but now your own source proves. Thanks for that.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Ah, yes you have no idea what sentence is, like most pro-abortionists. Or in Steve’s words, “So, it seems far more likely that you’re too ignorant, purposefully or otherwise, to actually learn.”

Did you have a child you aborted? You seem overly adamant that these kids, nooo they can’t possibly be sentient! You expect them to prove their sentence, when you can’t even prove yours, this would be laughable if I didn’t feel sorry for you.

Moss doesn’t have a brain silly. Babies are constantly learning, which is why they sleep so much. I actually have some authority speaking about REM sleep and dreams, since I am one of the few to have discussed this with a leading scientist, and in my opinion the leading scientist, in this field.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Nah, I wear protection, so I've never had a kid. And again, I'll happily prove my sentience as I've done before through passing the Turing Test and having subjective feelings. But no, I don't expect them to prove their own sentience, I expect science to. Science has proven the sentience of nineteen year olds, so I'll stand with that as presumed.

So? Fish have brains, does that mean they're sentient? What about flies? They have brains and they're learning.

Have you? Well, either he's an idiot, or you misunderstood him, because the source you just used discredited your own understanding of him.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Read the source carefully, the people doing those studies have not denied this is so: they have only personally never come across the studies that show this. The one and only article you could find, and seem rather attached to, also does not deny this, but like I said before, your article is no longer relevant, unlike the three I posted.

In conclusion, yes these kids have dreams, and yes these kids have sentience.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Your source says that they don't know whether the REM sleep means dreaming. Which means that REM sleep doesn't necessarily mean dreaming.

And no, I'm not particularly attached to that article, which is still absolutely relevant ant valid, and you've done nothing to disprove. There's others we can look to.

This one places it at around eighteen months when we get definitive self-awareness, subjective likes and dislikes, the core human traits: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/great-kids-great-parents/201211/self-awareness

This one runs us through the actual process of how they become sentient, going at around two years is when they actually gain a sense of distinct personhood: http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/Rochat5levels.pdf

This one goes to another study that says around eighteen months: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-12891-001

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No, it actually just means the people involved with that were unsure. In case you are wondering, I am 99.7% sure it is what I have been saying this whole time. Of course, I have a different set of knowledge than you, who are still rather young and inexperienced.

You have posted stuff that is even less valid, if that is even possible. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the major flaws in the conclusions of your articles. [2012, 2003, and 1987. Wow, you are getting more and more recent stuff! Of course, none of these are valid today.]

You still haven’t proven yourself sentient: the Turing test does not test sentience, also a computer passed that, so you are just being silly. Plus, if a five year old purposely fails the test for laughs, would you have thought he wasn’t sentient? Apparently, according to your logic it isn’t murder for them to kill a two-year-old. And I thought it was bad when you previously implied this about a two-month old via your first article!

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

If they're unsure, it means there's a possibility they're not dreaming, which means REM sleep doesn't necessarily mean dreaming. Unless they're mistaken, in which case you'd be trying to discredit your own source. 

2012 was the most recent so far, but, and this is important, the date of publication doesn't decide if something is valid. If you have something against these studies, please explain and debunk them. If not, just make an excuse and I'll know you're incapable of doing so.

Well, we can look at the studies I've shown to show that I would've achieved sentience at around eighteen months, so that's further evidence. You're welcome.

No, if someone purposefully fails the test, that test is invalid. That seems obvious. Do you think babies are purposefully failing tests for sentience? 

You've now been given an abundance of evidence, while your own has not said what you've claimed and you now seem to be trying to discredit your own sources. While your behaviour is certainly trolling, I'd appreciate it if you could up your level a bit closer to believable, because this is getting boring.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

You even stated you do not care if they are seperat human beings it is ok to kill them if you want to. You need to study more, or maybe see a therapist. Unless you are unable to procsses emotion wich is somthing i am someone experianced with then you should be able to figure out it is wrong on your own.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

It's OK to take life if it's not sentient, yes. We all do it, everyday. The meat we eat, the animal products we consume, the insects we kill. The fact that this life shares the same DNA as me, while not sharing anything I value, means it's about as valuable as the rest. If we grew brainless human bodies in tanks, they're still human, but they're of no value.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Only they were unsure, I told you I was sure. And no, why would I discredit a perfectly good article because they lacked one piece of data? For an extreme example, Steve has been making weak and ridiculous arguments all over this chain of posts. Does that mean I should discredit everything Steve says? I actually agree with you that guns are not evil.

It was you who started to obsess over the publication dates (remember: “...then said they were outdated, which is funny, because your sources are several times older than them,” [I am hoping you meant “it” instead of “them” here, because this would be being dishonest otherwise, as you had only posted one article at this point] taking my original statement (which was an euphemism for me telling you your study was no good) that, “...this is an old study (which would be ok if it were still valid) and your conclusions were wrong,” completely out of context.

The 2018 article I posted is the most recent actually. Not to mention, I know of some studies that are going to be published. Perhaps you wish to wait til then? I would think that anyone with half a brain could debunk your articles. When I have the time, and if you are not easily offended, I can show you step-by-step. However, as my time here is limited, I would rather talk about the more interesting stuff right now; also, I think it is really unfortunate you have this view that a human must prove their sentience to not be murdered. That is just so wrong..

As I said before (or implied), your studies are no good, but... wait, so are you saying that you believe it would not be murder if they kill a kid who is 17 months old?

And what if the five-year-old accidentally fails the Turing test because he is bored. [again, the Turing test is not a sentience test] A baby is not going to know if his life is going to depend upon a silly test, and is therefore not going to take it seriously. They are learning a language, without having known one before, in order to translate their thoughts to others. They do this miraculously fast, as they are indeed very intelligent and have more brain cells than an adult. They are very emotional beings, which is in nature designed to make sure they make rapid decisions, for in a harsher, more primitive world they would die if they didn’t.

You have not provided reliable or relevant info. I actually thought you? were trolling. You said you wanted to learn, but you have not even tried. I have seen your arguments, and they are nothing I haven’t seen and rejected before. This is common among Anti-Life groups, weak or no real arguments.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Lacking the information of whether REM sleep is definitely dreaming would definitely discredit the author, as the piece includes sections on REM sleep. It doesn't mean they're wrong about everything else, but it means that as a source they're no longer credible.

It was you, actually. "This is an old study". Which was useless information to mention. If saying it was old was a euphemism, please go on to explain how it'd invalid without mentioning it's age, something you've never actually done for any of the sources.

Ah, so you're incapable of refuting these sources, or refusing to do so. In that case, they stand, as that's the system that's used. Points are refuted when refuted, not when people decide to say they can and will in future refute them.

It would be murder, yes, it's illegal.

He wouldn't fail the test because he's bored, that's not how the test works.

I have, actually, and everything I've posted actually stands as it hasn't been refuted, and that is how science tends to work. Ironic that you claim I have no real arguments, when you refuse to refute any of my sources. Anyhow, as you haven't actually refuted my sources, they still stand, and prove that you are incorrect while I am correct. Until further notice, that stands.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

It is tedious trying to explain this to you. Most people if they don’t get it the first time, get it after I state it again. Your logic is so flawed you keep arguing against yourself and what you have been doing. Your world need not collapse just because the world wasn’t what you thought it was. Try to use a little logic before you make your statements.

According to your increasingly contradictory statements, you and your sources are not credible.

You keep repeating your same mistake of taking what I say out of context.

I’m not interested in points, I was trying to help you understand. Boleslaw might be correct: you need a therapist. [or a good doctor or parent]

It is good you know it is murder [and hopefully you know it is wrong, too] to kill a 17-month-old child. But, didn’t you say before that a child had to be 18 months old to be sentient? [which is actually not true, they are sentient] And didn’t you also say earlier, that it is not wrong to kill non-sentient beings? [which is something that can be debated on at another time]

The Turing test is not a sentience test, and a five-year-old could fail it in theory if he was bored. But, I don’t think you would want to force an unwilling five-year-old to take the test in real-life, unless you like hassling children.

The articles I posted show evidence that these children actually are sentient. You haven’t legitimately refuted anything I have said or posted yet. All you have done so far is take things out of context and make contradictory statements. I was hoping you would realize this on your own, but I’m starting to think you cannot. You really should talk about this to a trusted adult or something; I am just a stranger to you.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Unfortunately, it seems you've once again failed completely in understanding the situation. You've confused the fact that you've discredited your own sources in an attempt to prove a point that they don't make with the bizarre ideas that I don't find my own sources credible. 

You also seem confused about how context works. It seems you've misconstrued the situation to think that if your bizarre attempt at logic fails to get to the answer you wanted, it's somehow that the context itself has failed or been misused rather than yourself. 

It's also worth noting you don't seem to understand what exactly murder is, either through not understanding basic legal principles, like "What is murder?", or having such a childish view of morality that even Kant would blush at. Murder is simply unlawful killing, not necessarily immoral killing. An action can be immoral without being illegal, and vice-versa. You've either misunderstood the concept of murder, or the concept of morality. Let me know which when you get around to it.

The fact you're not interested in actual points of information is perhaps the most telling thing you've said so far. It's quite true of people of your intellect and position. Facts and logic become meaningless, and instead, simply being right is all you strive for, no matter how much reality needs to be pushed aside. It's quite childish.

Once again, however, there's no refuting of the sources that have shown sentience doesn't exist in babies in the womb, and only a confused repeating of your misunderstanding of your own sources, which means my sources continue to stand and we've simply managed to learn about more misunderstandings you've been making.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

By your logic if someone is in a coma and the hospital is 100% sure they will wake up within the next 12 or so months (maybe even earlier) it does not matter if we don't feel like waiting it is ok to kill them? You really are short sighted.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No, you're just ignorant, my man. Comatose people are still sentient, they're just not exercising that sentience. If someone has achieved sentience, even if they're not currently practicing it, they should be protected. If they have not reached this position, there's no need to protect them.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

And if they will reach sentiance, in a reasonable time, say 12 or so months then they should also be protected. They can eventually be important to the human race. Abortions are useally a waste of good resources.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No, not even slightly. If something will in the future reach sentience in, we don't need to afford it any protection out of any morality, because it hasn't happened, and preventing it from happen doesn't harm any sentient life. We don't need to protect possibilities anymore than we should protect moss in case it might evolve into sentient life.

And no, they're not. We already have too many people, we really don't need to be raising the population higher with unwanted life when we could avoid it without harm to sentient life.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

:) That’s an excellent point, Boleslaw!

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Although human resources are not important as they used to be they are still needed. Either way it does jot matter. We are already about to reach our capacity at wich the population will slowly decrease no matter what we do, as is how nature works.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Um... no, that's not how science, or nature, or anything works. Something reaching overcapacity doesn't mean it starts to slowly drop, it can also mean we continue to exhaust resources until there's none and we wipe ourselves out, which seems more likely than your... Christ, I don't even know what it is you think will happen.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No sorry but capacity does matter. If you look at the rate at wich our species is growng in population the increase is shrinking. This has been seen with many other species as well. Once a certain size has been reached we use more then we produce and die off. That is how nature works. Although most species also have natural preditors that keep things balaced.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Yeah, most species have predators and things like that. We're a different case, because the resources we now consume can run out, and won't be coming back, unlike say if there's too many foxes hunting too many hares, which after the foxes starve will make a comeback.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

:) Boleslaw, it is refreshing to see a young person who is knowledgeable in science; not that many know these facts!

P.S. Steve has trouble with science and logic, that is why it is difficult to explain this to Steve.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

If some one a coma is not using their sentiance they are the same as a baby as they need to be cared for and they will not use their sentiance, the only seperation is that a person in coma will stay un active longer most of the time.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No, because a baby has never achieved sentience, and does not have any rights bestowed on it until that point. If we're to bestow the rights of sentience on beings that could, in the future, become sentient depending on our actions, we should bestow it to any and all life, which could evolve to sentience.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Yes that is true but i am not talking about things that could gain sentiance i am speaking of things that will gain sentiance and in a short amount of time. They have just as many rights to live as we do, we need to stop sustaining disabled oeople in hospitals never to recover and start taking better care of ourselves and our children.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Well no, it's not "will". They could die beforehand, so that's not certainty.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

It is a will be cause it is what they are designed to do. Yes they can die before hand but like i said that is not supposed to be in their design and the likelyhood of the, gaining sentiance is extremly high compared to them dying espedcially now with modern tech. 

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

And that's relevant because...? What, now if something is designed that way, but not sentient, and even if it may not become sentient, it's necessary to protect it? So the computers we design to make sentient need to be protected, even if they're not?

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Either way i got to go, it's late and i have exams tomorrow.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Best of luck.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

My cousin has a form of down-syndrome and I treat her like family. It wasn't her choice dude. Don't hate on people with disabilities that don't have the ability to defend themselves. I respect your stance but just please don't be a dick about it.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago
Steve's just like that.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Might as well tell him to stop breathing.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

Uh... if it's your cousin who has down syndrome, then she IS family, so it's probably normal to treat her like that. But anyhow, I was just joking, I don't hate down syndrome people. I've an aunt with it, and she's lovely. However, I've always preferred darker, more offensive humor, so here we are.

Didn't want to give off the vibe I actually had a problem with them, but this community's pretty small and pretty much everyone here knows that's kind of my thing an dI don't really mean it. Given you seem to be part of the new wave that showed up with Jenna Marbles or whatever, it seems understandable you wouldn't be privvy to that and could confuse me for an actual down-syndrome hating asshole, but know that I'm not and it's just kind of my offensive shtick.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

I understand.  Sorry for being too quick to judge.

Ireland devouring her children

5 years ago

No need to apologize at all. It was a completely understandable mistake to make.