« Sunday Bonus | Main | Nutrition & Health »
September 15, 2003
Standing Firm
I guess this post/topic is going to be controversial but I want to go ahead with it because an interesting juxtaposition of news articles triggered some interesting thoughts.
The first entry was in the most recent "Catholic Weekly" which was quoting the Archbishop when he spoke at the consecration of two new auxiliary bishops for the diocese of Sydney:
He [Archbishop Pell] was discussing coverage of their [the two new bishops] appointments by the general media.
"One account announced them as new archbishops," Dr. Pell said with a smile.
"Another spoke of shock, worst nightmares and an atmosphere of tyranny; then worked up to a crescendo, where, almost breathless with dismay, it was announced that one of the appointees was opposed to contraception, abortion and euthanasia.
"Actually the situation is much worse, because both bishop-elects hold these positions."
The media has been really pushing the Catholic Church on the matter of abortion and the SMH has been one of the ring leaders. Then suddenly, today, they ran this article, which at the very least suggests that maybe the bishops are actually standing on firmer ground than the pro-abortion media.
It is very easy to dismiss abortion as a 'woman's right to choose' but that argument fails if you believe that the foetus is truly alive (which is the position held by the church). I remember having a philosophy lecturer (Peter Singer - now exported elsewhere - thank goodness) who insisted that abortion was no different to infanticide and that disposing of "damaged" babies after birth was perfectly acceptable. His entire argument was based on the fact that the point of birth is an arbitrary point in the existence of the baby which is not truly human until about two years old. I had two arguments with him, the first was that if you reject abortion as an acceptable procedure then his argument for infanticide is equally unacceptable (i.e. has no foundation). The second argument was more along the lines that no woman who had given birth would ever agree that the act of giving birth was "an arbitrary point". I wonder if he ever tried telling his own mother about his opinion?
I wonder sometimes if the insistence on murdering foetuses is somehow balanced by the enormous amount of money poured into the birth industry. Once upon a time the "unwanted" children would have been adopted by those who now go to so much expense and trouble to conceive. For that matter, I wonder how many of those "unwanted" children may have had a change in status after birth. It can be really special to hold a new-born and know that you had some part in the process ...
Note: Because I cannot give a permanent link to the original article, it appears in the Extended Entry. At the time of writing, the link was here and you may want to try that before checking the extended entry.
Foetuses may express emotion in the womb
By James Meikle, London
September 14, 2003
Photo Caption:
As good as it gets...First smiles at 26 weeks in the comfort and security of the womb. Photo: Reuters
Article:
Images published for the first time seem to suggest that unborn babies can smile, blink and cry weeks before they leave the womb.
The pictures of foetuses about 26 weeks after conception have been captured by state-of-the-art scanning equipment being used at some clinics and teaching hospitals.
Experts can debate whether this apparent grin reflects an emotional response or is a simple physical reaction, helping prepare baby for the outside world.
The smile might appear at 26 weeks' development, but the new techniques clearly show limb movements at eight weeks, the foetus leaping, turning and "jumping" at 11-12 weeks, intricate movement of fingers at 15 weeks and yawning at 20 weeks.
Obstetrician Stuart Campbell, who has been using the Austrian-developed equipment at the private Create Health Clinic, London, for two years, said: "It is remarkable that a newborn baby does not smile for about six weeks after birth. But before birth, most babies smile frequently.
"This may indicate the baby's trouble-free existence in the womb and the relatively traumatic first few weeks after birth when the baby is reacting to a strange environment."
Professor Campbell, who is also head of obstetrics and gynaecology at St George's medical school, London, said: "With this new advance, there are many questions that can now be investigated. Do babies with genetic problems such as Down syndrome have the same pattern of activity as normal babies?
"Does the foetus smile because it is happy or cry because it has been disturbed by some event in the womb? Why does a baby blink when we assume it is dark inside the uterus?"
The $300,000 scanner that makes this possible costs two to three times more than conventional equipment. The machine develops ultrasound so that it can be transformed and shaded to produce detailed surface features from the foetus which move in real time.
It is already improving diagnosis of abnormalities such as cleft lip and palate. Professor Campbell said: "One woman I scanned, whose baby had a cleft palate, wanted to take the pictures to a surgeon to discuss the surgery after birth. Parents often don't know what such abnormalities look like so they have terrible mental images.
"The parents faced up to the reality of what the cleft palate looked like and bonded with the baby. It helped them come to terms with the problem long before the birth of the baby."
Professor Campbell said scanner techniques were improving. "Some mothers say: 'I feel I am almost cheating. I am enjoying my baby before it is born.'
"The bond between parents and baby is enormous. The reaction is overwhelming especially with fathers, who rarely get involved. Before they sat in the corner. Now they really show emotion. I enjoy scanning and looking at babies. It is so informative about babies and behaviour. Every scan is an adventure."
The Guardian
Posted by Ozguru at September 15, 2003 06:09 AM
Comments
Posted by: Peskie at September 15, 2003 06:09 AM
Posted by: ozguru at September 15, 2003 06:09 AM
