Talk:Fetus/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Needs references for content, added tag.--FloNight 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Definition wrong somewhere

The definition of human fetus given here is at variance with the definition given at embryo. This needs to be fixed. AxelBoldt 19:38 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. In embryo it says that a human embryo becomes a fetus at 8 weeks. Here it says 3 months. Also here it says that a fetus is an embryo, in the embryo definition it says that an embryo ceases to be an embryo when it becomes a fetus. We need consistency here. Any embryologists out there who can sort out the definitions properly?--84.231.87.71 17:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

70.184.40.30 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Removed line "A fetus is not alive"

This is absurd. Even one living cell is alive.

Scythe 70.184.40.30 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: "fetus" is the American spelling and "foetus" is the Canadian spelling. 66.245.29.135 00:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe this is part true. From what I've heard, "foetus" is the general spelling in British English, Australian English, and Canadian English (and maybe some others). Interestingly, it appears that "foetus" is a technically incorrect spelling according to Fetus#Etymology and spelling variations and elsewhere. --Diberri | Talk 00:27, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
All publications in the UK spell it "Fetus" and I'd think it's the same in Canada. I always felt that it had the O because of my dislike of americanisms, but all the textbooks spell it without. violet/riga 09:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it appears that "foetus" is being deprecated. NEJM prohibits its use, and IUPAC prefers "fetus" [1]. --Diberri | Talk 18:17, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Paradox of the Heap

It might make sense to put in a link to the paradox of the heap. I don't think this would violate NPOV too much, but I'm somewhat of a neophyte. I'm passing the buck.--Marlasdad


Sorry if I added a link which turned out to be inappropriate. Will see if I can find something less POV! The main article seems to need a good deal of work, as there is currently an overemphasis on the circulatory aspects and little on the general development of the fetus. Also I agree with Derek about the Fetus spelling, I think it is common to find it with an O in the UK, but _not_ in medical texts. Sarah the poet 08:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image and development stage

In the intro text it says,

In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed), until birth. Fetus, in Latin, literally means 'young one'. When speaking in the most rational of terms, a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.

But then in the picture caption it says,

Fetus at eight weeks

If the sketch were at exactly eight weeks, then it is not a fetus but an embryo, and the image should be moved to that article. However, the image text on its page says it's "roughly" eight weeks, so perhaps a disclaimer should be put in the caption saying it's an embryo or fetus at around eight weeks, and it can be used on either article. --zandperl 01:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


The distinction between an embryo and a fetus isn't a precise one; noone can say that exactly eight weeks after conception it's a fetus rather than an embryo - for a start the precise moment of conception is never certain. It's just generally accepted that around the 8 week all the organs and such have been basically formed and there's very few major changes after this point - it's mostly just growth, and it's at this point that the word fetus is used.

So perhaps a slight change to the wording would fix any confusion? --Speh 21:34, 25 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Latin meaning

Fetus doesn't mean "young one, and certainly not exclusively so. This seems a politcal ploy to push the idea of the fetus as the equivalent to a child. A couple of sources show otherwise: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2318064

fētus (foet- ), a, um, adj. [Part., from ‡ FEO, whence also: fecundus, femina, fenus, felix] , that is or was filled with young (syn.: gravidus, praegnans).

I. Pregnant, breeding (mostly poet.). A. Lit.: lenta salix feto pecori, Verg. E. 3, 83 ; 1, 50: vulpes, Hor. C. 3, 27, 5 .-- 2. Transf. a. Of land, fruitful, productive: (terra) feta parit nitidas fruges, etc., Lucr. 2, 994 ; cf.: terra feta frugibus et vario leguminum genere, * Cic. N. D. 2, 62, 156: loca palustribus ulvis, Ov. M. 14, 103 : regio nec pomo nec uvis, id. P. 1, 7, 13 ; id. F. 1, 662.--Also of plants: palmites, Col. 3, 21, 3 .-- b. In gen., filled with any thing, full: machina armis, Verg. A. 2, 238 : loca furentibus austris, id. ib. 1, 51 : colla serpentis veneno, Sil. 17, 448 .-- B. Trop., full of.--With abl.: feta furore Megaera, Sil. 13, 592 : praecordia bello, id. 17, 380 : praecordia irā, id. 11, 203 . --With gen.: fetas novales Martis, Claud. Bell. Get. 25 ; and in a Gr. construction: fetus Gradivo mentem, id. 10, 14 .-- II. That has brought forth, newly delivered: veniebant fetam amicae gratulatum, Varr. ap. Non. 312, 12: agiles et fetae (opp. tardiores et gravidae), Col. 7, 3 fin. : ursa, Ov. M. 13, 803 : lupa, Verg. A. 8, 630 : ovis, id. E. 1, 50 ; Ov. F. 2, 413: qua feta jacebat uxor et infantes ludebant, Juv. 14, 167 .--Absol.: insueta gravis temptabunt pabula fetas, Verg. E. 1, 49 .

Nice source. If you click on the word in the beginning, it gives a list of definitions as well, distinguishing between different uses and conclude the meanings as respectively "filled with young, pregnant, breeding, with young" or "a bringing forth, bearing, hatching, producing"

As such, the correction should be that In latin, fetus means "filled with young, pregnant, breeding, with young" and/or "a bringing forth, bearing, hatching, producing"

Actually, I believe the relevant form is not that adjective, but the fourth declension noun of the same spelling. But yes, the whole "Latin for Little One" slogan is quite annoying. --Iustinus 07:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Since fetus doesn't actually refer to the child itself, what IS the proper technical word for the actual...whatever it is? bcatt 09:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

picture

Why isn't there a better picture on this page? There are lots of very clear color pictures out there, and I think it'd be more professional to have one of those instead of a sketch. Polyhymnia

It might be due to difficulty finding a public domain colour image. I have a great book that has excellent colour intra uterine photographs, but they are copyrighted and I'm not sure how to request permission to scan and upload them to wikipedia. bcatt 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I just added one of a rat fetus. Hope this helps. Medlat 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

foetus

"Fetus" is derived from the latin root "fetus", this can be verified in any dictionary, British, American or otherwise. The pseudo-greek spelling (OE) is an error introduced by some English authors in the 19th century which seems to have stuck. There is no etymological justification for it whatsoever, and it is simply incorrect usage. I'm a diehard preserver of British/American distinctions, but in this case the American usage is actually the ONLY correct one. - MMGB

As an aside... I always thought it was fœtus. Eurosong 17:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that once a variant gets used enough, it becomes an acceptable alternate form, even if its original justification was erroneous. M-W lists foetus as a chiefly British variant, so I don't think it's fair for us to call it incorrect. And no, that doesn't mean I like it or encourage its use.

Yeah - it depends on "who gets to make the call". The medical community explicitly forbids the usage of "foetus" - neither the Lancet (British) or the NEJM will permit its use in an article. No medical textbook uses it either. By this standard, it can be deemed "incorrect". IF you want to use a wider standard, then you could argue that "ain't" is correct as well. It depends on where you draw the line. - MMGB

If the medical community (including the British English medical community) says it is incorrect, then I'd say its incorrect. I like maintaining Britishisms (at least whenever they happen to be Australianisms as well) -- but I also am a slave to the opinions of scientific experts :) -- SJK

Speaking as a Briton, I see no reason to continue a widespread spelling mistake just because it's a British mistake. "Fetus" is a technical term so if the British Medical Association say "foetus" is wrong then it's wrong and the correct spelling is "fetus" no matter what the rest of the population may believe. Good British dictionaries such as Chambers or the OED point out the etymological problem even though they list the incorrect spelling Likewise a British encyclopedia such as Macmillan's has an entry for "foetus", but it just says "See fetus". I suggest that we do something similar but adding the point about the bad etymology on the "foetus" page. -- [[User:Derek Ross]

"Foetus" is a spelling mistake or error? Who says so? As far as I am aware, English has no Academie defining what's right and what's wrong. If it's in the dictionary (in my case Collins) and in common usage (e.g. [2]) then that's good enough to be correct. --Ajkgordon 09:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Fœtus is correct in French...Cameron Nedland 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

etymology

Regarding EdPoor's deletion of the sentence about the etymology: Ed - I'm sorry, I completely disagree, this is perfectly valid information and belongs on the fetus page, hence I replaced the single sentence dealing with the spelling issue. Each time I have posted I have noted that this should only be a sidenote, and that the main article needs substantial work. It's unfortunate that at the moment this sentence about the etymology exceeds the length of the rest of the article, but the information is still valid and relevant. - MMGB

last sentence of intro

When speaking in the most literal of terms, a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.

This sentance should be striken from the article as it injects the opinion of the fetus as a not yet member of a species. An individual's functionality, or lack thereof, has no bearing on membership in a species. Species is a genetic designation in which membership is granted as soon as a unique DNA signature occurs. "Functional" is a subjective term. For example, marsupials posess significant locomotion outside the womb as a fetus, would that be considered "functional"?

--BigJugs 23:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "functional" is subjective. The sentence seems to have no point, so I'll delete it. thejabberwock 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't know why, but it was put back anonymously. I'll re-delete it. 82.181.198.55 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-human fetus

Hmm. Had a picture to add to that section...but there wasn't a section for a non-human fetus! I added a short one, still have to add sources. Help appreciated. Verloren Hoop 03:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

ehh, I placed that disputed tag based on some comments from my mother, who is very strongly pro-life (as am I). This is very POV of me; maybe if we place the word "almost" before the word "indistinguishable". We definitely need some sources here. But, I must very much agree, this article should be rename "human fetus" and have we need a general "fetus" article that links to this one, along with some other notable types of fetuses. (QUINTIX 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

External Links

  • 'I Spoke With My Child' : A beautiful, comforting & heart-stirring presentation - for every parent who has lost a child
  • LossAwareness.com - An informational website for bereaved parents, family members and friends

What do these have to do with the article? No where does the article address miscarriage in much depth. As useful as these links may be, they are not relevant here - move them to miscarriage?--Cooper-42 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go move! Gnusmas 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Unborn Victims of Violence Act

I am somewhat surprised that this paragraph has survived in its current form for such a long period of time. To me, the phrase "legislation which passed the US Senate" indicates some kind of problem. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Act to make the edit. So I'll just give my two cents:

If the quote is from a version of the bill that only passed the Senate, then I think the statement is clearly POV, as it attempts to deceive the reader somewhat into thinking that this is actual law.

If the same text was later included in the final bill, then the reference should be updated and the link changed to point to Unborn Victims of Violence Act. However, in this case I would still question the significance and POV of the statement: the definition of "unborn child" means little in the absence of information on what the law says about unborn children. Rather, it is the kind of term that is meant to emotionally muddle the issue. That's probably the reason that, I suspect, it was left out of the final bill. Kyle Cronan 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Having looked at the history of the article, I am somewhat concerned that there is too much vandalism to this article. Please protect this page.


Disturbing and unescessary picture

Please remove the cat fetus, its distrubing. At least create a button that reveals it too those who wish to see it.

Lewis

I also find the fetus-in-a-jar picture quite disturbing. It's a dead unborn baby in a jar, isn't there a public domain intrauterine fetus picture out there somewhere?--Doron 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I have shrunken these two pictures, and indicated that they can be clicked to enlarge.Ferrylodge 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Doron, the technology used for in-utero photography was developed recently in history, so, I don't think we're going to find anything of that nature in the public domain quite yet. Ideally, we would have a Lennart Nilsson photograph in "The human fetus" section, and a picture like this one of an elephant fetus in "The non-human fetus" section, but we must abide by WP:C.

Ferrylodge, shrinking pictures to this size really isn't helpful, and "click here" is not recommended (see WP:ASR). The medical specimen photo was added on October 28, 2006, relatively recently in the history of this article, and without discussion. I went ahead and replaced it with the diagram which originally headlined the article, and removed the cat fetus photo, due to the concerns expressed by Lewis and Doron — at least until a consensus has been reached. I also searched through WikiCommons for alternatives (although the quality of a lot of what I found varies). Please discuss which of the images in the section below you feel are most appropriate. -Severa (!!!) 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Human fetuses

Fetuses of other species

The second catfetus image is very good. It is well labeled and sharp, but I don't really like the green background (it could be changed easy enough). The first cat fetus and deer fetus images are not that helpful. The elephant display is a neat concept, but the image isn't that well composed. The model of a fetus isn't that bad, but there isn't enough information (how old is the fetus supposed to be?). The human fetus in jars are controversial as noted above and not that descriptive. There is no size scale, and no gestational age information. On top of that, it has the side-show feel to it (fetus in a jar). An ultrasound image could be helpful. I'd throw out the ones that do not have age information, and the ones with foreign text in the image. There are some dots on the image, and it would be helpful if there was a better caption to explain those dots. I'm particularly fond of the composition of Week 11 embryo, but others might work as well. Just my two cents.-Andrew c 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that we create a gallery page that can be linked from the present article. All of the images mentioned by Andrew C. could be included in the gallery. The link could contain a warning that some might find various of the images disturbing. Dare I ask: any objections?Ferrylodge 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
There hasn't been any discussion in a while. Would anyone mind if I put Image:Catfetus1.jpg back into the non-human fetus section? And can we maybe compile a gallery of ultrasound images?-Andrew c 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent content

I think having a section on fetal development is ok, but we should simply summarize the main article. We should not have information here that isn't there. Per wikipedia's spinout policy. That said, I removed some questionable text:

Also at this point in development, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend hips and knees (or curl toes) to move away from the touching object. [1] And, at the beginning of the fetal stage, a fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises.[2]
Integrated brain functioning has been verified about seventy days after conception. [3] Rapid fetal activities are observed by ultrasound in the tenth week, when the fetus rarely pauses for more than five minutes. [4]

Most of this is verbatim taken from [3]. I doubt I have to point out that it is very coincidental that all of the sources there are also used here (despite say where you got it). I think it is also odd that there is this hodgepodge of sources. We should simply cite a neutral college level text and be over with it (but more importantly, simply summarize the main article here). All that said, we do have a pretty good start, and having a section on fetal development is a good idea. -Andrew c 05:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C, I am the person who wrote the stuff at confirmthem. There is no "coincidence" whatsoever.Ferrylodge 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Andrew c. It isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to mirror the text of a partisan blog regardless of whether the person who wrote the content gives persmission. Wikipedia is not a blog. -Severa (!!!) 10:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That is absurd, Severa, and you know it. There is no such Wikipedia policy. If a partisan blog happens to mention that George W. Bush is the President, will you exclude that fact from Wikipedia too? If a partsian blog happens to quote the British Medical Journal or the New York Times, there is no reason to prohibit a Wikipedia article from doing so. I will revert, and I urge you try to be reasonable. Thank you.Ferrylodge 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean to inform me that WP:NOT does not exist? Please cite one policy which states (or even implies) it is acceptable for Wikipedia to copy text almost verbatim from a site which was clearly written to promote a specific point of view, because I can cite three which say otherwise: WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#SOAP, & WP:POINT. -Severa (!!!) 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Severa, are you proposing to continue to blacklist the following four reputable article references from this article, or not?
[1] Also at this point in pregnancy, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend hips and knees (or curl toes) to move away from the touching object. (ref)Valman & Pearson, What the Fetus Feels, British Medical Journal, (January 26, 1980).</ref>
[2] And, at the beginning of the fetal stage, a fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises.(ref>Hopson, Fetal Psychology, 31 Psychology Today 44 (October 1998).</ref>
[3] Integrated brain functioning has been verified about seventy days after conception. (ref>Peter Steinfels, "Scholar Proposes 'Brain Birth' Law", N. Y. Times (Nov. 8, 1990).</ref>
[4] Rapid fetal activities are observed by ultrasound in the tenth week, when the fetus rarely pauses for more than five minutes. (ref>Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life 62 (1996).</ref>Ferrylodge 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Please stop begging the question. I never suggested "blacklisting reputable sources," only that a Wikipedia article should not copy text almost verbatim from a blog entry that was clearly intended to promote a specific point of view, per the policies I cited. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a pamphlet, soapbox, or blog. -Severa (!!!) 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Ok, I retract my copyright infringement claims, because I believe that you are Andrew Hyman. However, there are two bigger issues here. First, this article is the fetus article. There is a seperate article on fetal development. Per the wikipedia spinout article guidelines, we should just summarize that article in the section here. There is no reason for this article to include information not given in the main article. Second, I must agree with WP:SOAP. It seems very odd that sources that were compiled for partisan reasons, without NPOV consideration and being copied verbatim here and passed off as encyclopedic content. It is just suspicious, and I think the obvious solution would be to cite one or two college level introductory texts on the subject matter instead of compiling this hodgepodge of sources. It reminds me of one editor who padded up an entry about a medication with obscure journal articles about possible risks in certain animals, when the FDA, WHO, and other medication guidelines failed to mention these as actual drug risks. Sure the information was cited, but for an encyclopedia entry, it's probably better to use very reliable secondary sources, instead of obscure primary sources. Otherwise, we have an article full of all these alleged drug safety risks that are not found on any product label. Similarly, here, is one of the main defining characteristics of the start of the fetal stage the "hiccup"? While I commend your effort to cite sources, if we are writing an encycopedia article and I have to choose between "this self-published, personal website, advocating a strong political/moral position containing a strange mixture of random sources" or "a small stack of non-controversial college level texts, and the public domain Medline Encyclopedia" I'm going to have to side with the latter. We can do much better than this, I see no reason to try and compile a list of fetal development from half a dozen different studies, when such lists exist extensively in reliable sources.-Andrew c 17:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c. and Severa, will you permit the following four sources to be mentioned in this article, yes or no?
[1] Also at this point in pregnancy, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend hips and knees (or curl toes) to move away from the touching object. (ref)Valman & Pearson, What the Fetus Feels, British Medical Journal, (January 26, 1980).</ref>
[2] And, at the beginning of the fetal stage, a fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises.(ref>Hopson, Fetal Psychology, 31 Psychology Today 44 (October 1998).</ref>
[3] Integrated brain functioning has been verified about seventy days after conception. (ref>Peter Steinfels, "Scholar Proposes 'Brain Birth' Law", N. Y. Times (Nov. 8, 1990).</ref>
[4] Rapid fetal activities are observed by ultrasound in the tenth week, when the fetus rarely pauses for more than five minutes. (ref>Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life 62 (1996).
Additionally, the title of the section is "Fetal growth and abilities." It is not a "spin-out" or "spin-off" of anything else. Nor are the references cited a "hodge podge" that should be replaced with an excerpt from some textbook. If you would like to see a hodgepodge of sources, see the abortion article. I find it surreal that we are discussing whether info may be included from such reputable sources as the four listed above. If you think that this info is somehow incomplete, then supplement it.Ferrylodge 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
So you changed the title of the section to avoid being a 'spin out'? We both know what the title was when I first mentioned the matter. It was "Fetal development" [4]. Changing the title doesn't change what it is. We really should work up the Fetal development article, and summarize it here. What is the difference between "fetal development" and "fetal growth and abilities"? I hope it isn't a POV fork. As for your specific sources, since you asked. BMJ is surely a reliable source, by why cite something thats over 25 years old (you didn't like citing a survey that was under 10 years old, remeber)? Citing a New York Times article from over 15 years ago is also problematic, not only because of its age, but because it is a non-scientific, popular source. Popular newspapers are notorious for getting scholarly matters wrong. The RS guidelines specifically say "In science, avoid citing the popular press". Next, Psychology Today is a popular publication aimed for non-psychologists and the general public. What does the field of Psychology have to do with hiccups and loud noises? And finally "Beginning Life" is the best out of the bunch, but it is a popular book, a tertiary source. A college level text is clearly superior. Just because you asked twice.-Andrew c 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Andrew C., there is a difference between fetal development on the one hand, and fetal behavior/psychology on the other hand. I don't see why this article cannot discuss the latter at all. As for outdated articles about polls, it seems rather obvious that public opinion can change, whereas scientific facts and laws of nature tend to remain fairly stable. And, see articles dated 1983 and 1992 at footnotes 27 and 50 of the abortion article. Regarding the suggestion that I am trying to use a "POV fork", I am not trying to assert any POV here. The section "Fetal growth and abilities" looks good to me as it stands, and I am not trying to "fork" anything else into it. For you, I have obtained various alternative references for the footnotes.Ferrylodge 03:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fetal development

The timeline has been copy and pasted from the fetal development article. This is the opposite of summarizing content per our spinout policy. I propose removing the copied text, and moving the main link up to the top of that section (and perhaps restoring the title "fetal development")-Andrew c 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A few points. First, a specific and relevant portion of the main article on prenatal development was pasted here, not the whole prenatal development article. A similar thing was done at the embryo article. I agree that it would be useful to summarize what's been pasted, and I'll do that, just like what was done at the Embryo article.
Second, when I inserted the timeline into the present article, here's what I wrote in the edit summary: “Inserting timeline of development, from fetal development page. Some minor or redundant details may later be omitted, but here's the whole timeline for now.” I will now go ahead and reduce the detail by summarizing the content.
Third, it's difficult for me to understand part of your proposal, Andrew C. The heading of this section says "Timeline of development". The main article is already linked immediately below the heading, so I don't quite see what you mean by "moving the main link up to the top of that section" (or why you would want to do that).
Additionally, if you're suggesting that there should not be separate sections on fetal behavior as opposed to fetal development, I disagree. "Fetal behavior" is a discrete and interesting biological topic, and is distinct from the anatomical development of the fetus.Ferrylodge 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've finished modifying the timeline, so it now summarizes anatomical development. Hopefully, that will be satisfactory.Ferrylodge 09:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Correction to fetal development. The transition from embryo to fetus is signified by the foundation for all major organ structures having been laid down. It is not that all organ systems are in place as the text inaccurately suggested. I have changed it from "At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, are already in place," to: "At this point, the foundation for all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, have been laid down."

Secondly, under the age 8-15 weeks, the claim of EEG activity is nonsense. Electric activity occurs in all cells, but actual "EEG activity" is very specifically the graphic representation of electrical patterns of interactions between all parts of the entire brain. This simply is not possible until all parts of the brain are connected, which occurs when the thalamocortical tract finally connects at the end of the 26th week (See lesewhere in the section for references on this. Therefore, I have deleted the part stating "The first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week.[5]"Steen1962 06:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Steen1962, for taking the time to review the material here and comment. I'll address your two points, taking your second point first.
You deleted the following sentence: "The first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week." You also deleted the footnote at the end, which cited: "Singer, Peter. Rethinking life & death: the collapse of our traditional ethics, page 104 (St. Martins Press 1996)." Please note several things. First, I was not the Wikipedia editor who first inserted this info about the first signs of EEG activity, although I did subsequently convert gestational age (14 weeks was Singer's figure) to fertilization age (12 weeks). Second, please note that even after your edit, this fetus article still cites the same source (Peter Singer) for the proposition that, "Continuous EEG readings have been observed by the 30th week." Thus, Singer certainly was not saying that continuous EEG readings can be measured at the 12th week, and this fetus article never implied that EEG readings at 12 weeks are continuous. So, I think this fetus article is correct about the 12-week figure. You have not cited any source that contradicts Singer's figure of 12 weeks (fertilization age). However, just to make sure, I checked to verify the 12-week figure, and it does check out. I will add a further reference to the article: "Vogel, Friedrich. Genetics and the Electroencephalogram (Springer 2000)." According to this second source, "Slow EEG activity (0.5 – 2 c/s) can be demonstrated in the fetus even at the conceptual age of three months." This confirms Singer's 12-week figure.
Your first point involved the following edit you made. You changed, "At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, are already in place, but they continue to grow and become more functional" to instead "At this point, the foundation for all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, have been laid down, but they continue to grow and become more functional." I agree that the article could have been slightly more precise, but I don't think that your language quite gets us where we want to go. Saying that there is a "foundation for all major structures" is very ambiguous, because such a foundation could also be said to have been laid down at fertilization. Here is how a couple reliable sources deal with this issue:
"In humans, the fetal stage begins seven to eight weeks after fertilization of the egg, when the embryo assumes the basic shape of the newborn and all the organs are present. This stage continues until birth. The fetus is protected by a sac of amniotic fluid that also enables movement to occur. The placenta and umbilical cord are the sources of oxygen and nutrients and the means of waste elimination. 1 During the fetal stage, the body grows larger, the proportions of the features are refined, and organ development is completed." ---The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
and
"The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present." ---The American Heritage Science Dictionary.
I will go ahead and edit the article accordingly, to say that, "At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, are present, but they continue to grow, develop, and become more functional".Ferrylodge 08:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

fetal pain

I think we should revert back to my version of the 2nd sentence. The current version is even more verbatim copying than mine. On top of that, it is quoting the topic sentence, while my version tried to incorporate concepts from following sentences (not just the topic sentence). As it stands, it is ambiguous why the event is 'critical'. Next, the bit about "more than one type of pain" is original research. We aren't quoting a text on Pain saying "there is pain X, pain Y, and pain Z". A google book search for a phrase that doesn't seem to relate to the topic of multiple types of pain doesn't really work in this instance. I propose changing it to:

Because there are physical, emotional, and mental components to pain,[ref]Pain. Merriam Webster Medline Plus Medical Dictionary. Retrieved on 2007-02-06.[/ref] it is unclear when pain is first experienced consciously by the fetus, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[ref name="Johnson"/]

I think this section is coming together well, and I believe mentioning fetal pain here was something this article was missing. Now if we can clear up these few issues it will be even better. Thank.-Andrew c 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get across is that, for adults and children, pain can occur without any tissue damage; i.e. pain can occur without any physical component. For example, it can be excruciatingly painful to endure a divorce, or to watch a loved one die, or to go to be executed prior to the actual execution. That's why I don't like the flat statement that a fetus before 26 weeks can't feel pain; even if it's true that a fetus can't feel sensory pain, still that says nothing about the pain of knowing that you're dying, assuming the fetus knows such a thing. Emotional pain and psychic pain are very real phenomena, and I don’t think it’s proper to ignore that such pain can occur even in the absence of physical pain. (Another concern I have is the relevance of sensory pain; e.g. the fact that an innocent adult is murdered by painless lethal injection instead of by torture does not make that murder okay.)
Anyway, Andrew C., I'd be glad to think about your suggestion, but I'm hazy about what it is. It appears that the sentence that starts "There is an emerging consensus...." is not the only sentence that you'd like to change. It appears that you'd also like to change the ensuing sentences which talk about sensory pain not being the only kind of pain. It might be helpful if you'd present the whole paragraph with all of your proposed changes.
I disagree that the sentence that starts "There is an emerging consensus...." is copying in any way. Instead, it sticks closely to what the source says, and then cites the source at the end. The source itself is a bit ambiguous about why he thinks the event is "critical." Maybe that sentence could be changed to: “There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event for helping to determine when a fetus feels sensory pain.” This tracks the source.
In contrast, your sentence was: “there is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that a fetus cannot process incoming sensory information, and therefore cannot experience pain, before the establishment of thalamocortical connections (roughly week 26).” But that's not what the source says. The source merely refers to such connections being critical to help determine when a fetus feels sensory pain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
First of all, you are correct that I was proposing two different changes. My first proposal was to revert the second sentence back to my version (which you quoted above). My second proposal was the text written. Next, a good rule of thumb is if we are using more than 4 words in a row, we should use quotes to illustrate that and avoid possible copyright/plagiarism issues. Thirdly, I believe we are reading the text differently. I am taking "Such data have led to the suggestion that a fetus cannot 'feel' pain before the cerebral cortex is able to process incoming sensory, including noxious, information and that this is therefore most unlikely to be the case before about 26 weeks of gestation." to be an explanation of the emerging consensus. There is a topic sentence describing the emerging consensus generally. The next sentence goes into detail about thalamic development. The sentence after that describes the conclusions stemming from thalamic developmental study (i.e. the emerging consensus previously described generally in the topic sentence). The sentence after that qualifies these results by saying "even if we can pinpoint when this organ is developed doesn't mean the fetus starts feeling pain because of bigger issues stemming from consciousness" and goes on in other sentences to describe the problems with setting an exact point where pain begins. Therefore, I believe my version of the second sentence accurately describes the source, and I have explained above how I am reading the source. I believe your summary of what the source merely is referring to is inaccurate. I ask you to read that paragraph again and consider how the following sentences relate to the sentence that I keep calling a topic sentence.
Next is the issue of types of pain. Reading through Essential Reproduction again, I do not believe there is a reason to cite either your two sources or the dictionary (as I suggested in my proposal). Check out "The multidimensionality of pain perception, involving sensory, emotional and cognitive factors may in itself be the basis of conscious, painful experience, but it will reamain difficult to attribute this to a fetus at any particular developmental age." This basically says what my proposal above says (that there are multiple components to pain perception, so pinpointing an exact time in development is a difficult task, i.e. no consensus), without mentioning this business about multiple types of pain. If you want to include information about a fetus' ability to feel some 'other type of pain', I ask that you find a source making that claim. I understand now that you don't like the idea of saying "a fetus cannot feel pain before blah blah" because you believe there are other definitions of pain that may or may not be associated with fetal development. (seriously, not trying to be rude, but I will be blunt) Your desire is not enough for us to change the article. Pain has a medical definition, and we have sources that don't bother making these qualifications. If we can find another source that does make these specific claims, then we have something to work with. Hope this helps.-Andrew c 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
With regard to fetal pain, I will respond briefly right now, and will get back to it later when I've finished studying the matter. I find this statement incorrect (and somewhat offensive): "Your desire is not enough for us to change the article." My "desire" has nothing to do with it. For this article to use a hypertechnical definition of "pain", in declaring that a fetus before 26 weeks feels no pain, would be highly misleading. Readers of this article are not medical professionals. The fact is that even most medical professionals understand that "pain" can be emotional rather than physical, and that it can be caused in children and adults by distress, by anger, by the sense of being ignored, by the sense of being punished, by fear, by panic, et cetera --- even in the absence of tissue damage or sensory pain. I never suggested that emotional pain has been detected in a fetus prior to establishment of thalamocortical connections. However, its absence has not been detected either, and that is well worth mentioning in this article. Like I said, I will return to this subject, but will now skip ahead, since I see that Andrew C. has just made major unilateral deletions in other part of this article without any discussion whatsoever.Ferrylodge 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I said I wasn't trying to be rude or offensive for that matter, so I apologize. I do not want to discuss hypothetical matters, or argue over definitions. As for my changes, I apologize for being bold. I felt that we were working well together, and I could get my desired changes expressed to you best by actually enacting them, instead of going point by point with a proposal. Why don't you state what you do not like about my changes and we can go from there?-Andrew c 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding issues not related to fetal pain, I've responded in the next section below. Regarding fetal pain, I'll stick with what I said above. Also, perhaps it will be convenient for you to have the following quote from the book you cited (Essential Reproduction):
"Given the obvious complexity of the neural processes subserving pain, focusing on neural maturation of a specific part of the brain’s nociceptive system will not necessarily help the determination of when a fetus feels pain. But there is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (the pathway by which peripheral sensory information arrives at the cortex, where conscious sensation and feelings are processed) must be a critical event. The penetration of thalamic fibres into the developing cortex occurs between 22 and 34 weeks of gestation and evoked potential recordings have suggested that sensory impulses cannot reliably be detected in the cortex before 29 weeks of gestation. Such data have led to the suggestion that a fetus cannot ‘feel’ pain before the cerebral cortex is able to process incoming sensory, including noxious, information and that this is therefore most unlikely to be the case before about 26 weeks of gestation. Of course, even then it is impossible to know whether the fetus is consciously feeling pain since we have little data on the development or neural basis of consciousness. The multidimensionality of pain perception, involving sensory, emotional, and cognitive factors may in itself be the basis of conscious, painfull experience, but it will remain difficult to attribute this to a fetus at any particular developmental age."
The way I read it, the emerging consensus is simply that the penetration of thalamic fibres is a critical event in helping to determine when a fetus feels pain. But whether it's a critical event for helping to determine when a fetus feels pain, or instead is a critical event suggesting that a fetus cannot feel pain before 26 weeks, neither of those readings is evident in the language you proposed: "Though the issue of fetal pain is controversial, there is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that a fetus cannot process incoming sensory information, and therefore cannot experience pain, before the establishment of thalamocortical connections (roughly week 26)." It seems to me that you have changed a mere "suggestion" into an "emerging consensus."
Incidentally, I have cured the copyright/plagiarism issues raised by your initial citation of Essential Biology, by inserting quote marks.Ferrylodge 07:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Deletions Without Discussion

It's disappointing to see such a heavy-handed approach to editing. In the middle of a discuission about fetal pain, Andrew C. has unilaterally deleted other portions of the article, without the slightest warning or discussion. There is no longer any mention of the size of the fetus at various stages. There is no longer any mention of fetal behavior. References to the British Medical Journal, and to Kalverboer and Gramsbergen's Handbook of brain and behaviour in human development have been summarily deleted. The fact that the point of viability has changed during the last three decades as medical science has advanced has also been summarily deleted, along with the reference to a court case supporting that assertion. I will attempt to restore some of this, but I would encourage other editors to consider whether the most recent edits by Andrew C. pose a serious POV concern.Ferrylodge 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are over reacting. Please assume good faith. How is it that you can have so much of an influence over this article's content (anyone, compare the current version with a version 2 months ago and guess who wrote the majority of the new content), but when I do anything you cry POV concerns? I moved the information about brain development, I did not erase it. The information about the size of the fetus also belongs in the anatomic section as well (I was going to propose making a table or even a graphic, but you haven't let me get to that point yet). The only information that was removed was two sentences. One about a fetus's ability to hiccup, stretch, yawn. This information is not representative of the source. It is cherry picked. You had copy and pasted information from your pro-life advocacy site and I cried foul in regards to the sourcing and phrasing. You barely changed the phrasing and found a source that used these words. However, this source does not say that these are the most significant events of this stage of development. It would be much better to include the information in the 2 paragraphs preceding the word "hiccup". As for the viability section, what is wrong with the current text? Isn't it better to cite a recent medical textbook than a supreme court case from decades ago? I am not opposed to reintegrating some of the information back into the article, but I ask you to seriously consider my changes, as good faith edits, and to sit back and relax a little. -Andrew c 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Size is an anatomic feature and is covered in the prenatal development article. I was going to add the ranges in that section but Ferrylodge restored them in another section. So I am formally proposing that we put the size right next to the gestational age in the anatomic development section (and I also propose we rename that section Fetal development)-Andrew c 03:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Andrew C., there is a difference between additions and deletions, is there not? For you to go through the article, and pick out which cited facts you would like to keep and which you would like to throw away hardly seems comparable to merely adding content. And why not talk about it first?
Also, I do not agree with your proposal. You might mention what you're proposing to change it from, or doesn't that merit any consideration? The current subtitle of that section is "anatomic development". Perhaps you might be able to give a reason why you want to change that? The term "fetal development" is a very broad term, and it would include the ability of a fetus to feel pain, variations in growth, and also other material that is currently broken usefully into sections (such as development of fetal behavior).Ferrylodge 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that we have an article that goes into detail about fetal development, and therefore we should keep content on that topic here to a summary and point readers to that article if they want more information. You do not seem to agree with me. Your initial reaction to bringing up these concerns was not to move your content to the fetal development article, but instead change the title of your new section. Most of my recent edits have been to keep all the information about fetal development together, make it concise, and point readers to the main article on that topic. I hope this clears up the motives behind some of my recent edits. More later.-Andrew c 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Brain development isn't anatomical?? Come again. Please move that back. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, of course development of brain structure is anatomical. But there is a difference between anatomy and physiology. The former involve structure, and the latter involves function. Detecting brain activity is physiological. The size of a fetus is not anatomical either. I'll add the word physiology in the subtitle with behavior, just to make it clearer. I'll be back to address your other comments momentarily.Ferrylodge 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the title from "Size and Behavior" to "Size and Physiology". I think that the distinction between anatomy and physiology is fairly well known, and its a useful distinction (as is the distinction between size and anatomy).
If you're saying that we should have a single section on fetal development here, and lump anatomy, physiology, size, fetal pain, and everything else into it, then I do disagree. There's no reason to make this article a mere summary of what is at the prenatal development article. This article is not a summary of that article. That article covers development during various stages before the fetal stage, in addition to the fetal stage, so there is certainly overlap between the two articles, but I don't see why one article has to be a mere summary of the other.Ferrylodge 04:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not just going to jump into the thick of things, but I'll try to easy myself back into this article. In reply to directly above, I was never suggesting to lump all of those things together. I just think that the portions of the "size and physiology" section should be merged with the "anatomical development" section (and retitled "fetal development"). I would like to keep the opening paragraph, and then have a paragraph discussing the fetus from an external/pregnant woman perspective. We can discuss 'quickening' here, and it leads into the viability (I think the large block of quoted text that I inserted is too much, and a quote like that isn't encyclopedic, so I would propose a smaller quote, or a summary in our own words) and the birth discussion. All of the information about size and 'physiology' should make its was into the next section. It seems redundant to cover very similar topics in two different sections. The size thing especially. We talk about growth, and development, and age, but say nothing about size.

I believe the reason why all of this concerns me is because of the past discussion above and the article history. We previously had a section on fetal development. That section was expanded, and I felt that we should summarize the fetal development article instead. Any new content should have went to the fetal development article first, not here. And at the very least, make sure any new content here also goes into that article (same thing I am arguing at the bottom of the page regarding fetal pain).

What might be best is to adjust our focuses on expanding the fetus section of prenatal development, and once we have a solid section there, work on summarizing that content here. This all has to do with reducing redundancy, and putting detailed information in detailed articles and summary information in summary articles.

I first and foremost would like to see those issues above resolves. And I feel like we can do that and it isn't a controversial thing. However, the reason why things have been hard in the past is because partisan issues were mixed in with simple formatting concerns. So when I tried to adjust the article in line with my views detailed above, it was taken to be part of a content dispute.

Now onto the content dispute (and it really only deals with 2 sentences). Ferrylodge copied and pasted text and citations verbatim from his pro-life advocacy site. When I brought this up, initially I think it was a copyright violation (but was later convinced that Ferrylodge was the original author of that text). Then it turned into a sourcing issue. I suggested citing recent college level text books over articles in popular magazines and 25 year old medical journals. This for the most part was address by changing the sources, but not changing the wording. This still concerns me (and brings up issues of undue weight). It seems like the point is Ferrylodge wants to say that at a certain point a fetus yawns and hiccups and reacts to being poked and moves all around in the womb. In fact, the replacement source was found by searching google books for "hiccup and fetus". I personal do not believe that a hiccup is not a very important part of fetal development. If we were too look through any other encyclopedia article or college level text, a hiccup wouldn't be mentioned. In the cited text, they go on for 2 pages about the most noticeable forms of movement before mentioning the hiccup in one small sentence (IIRC). So I believe mentioning the hiccup is giving undue weight to something that is at best trivial. So I would propose removing the word hiccup, and would ask that a 3rd party please review the first paragraph of "Size and physiology" and make sure we are correctly summarizing the cited sources. (even if we are citing good sources, I have small concerns about our wording due to their connection to the pro-life advocacy site).

All that said, I'm much more interested in reducing redundancies and making sure similar articles correspond to each other. SO pay more attention to the first 3 paragraphs than to the one last one above.-Andrew c 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., to what "pro-life advocacy site" are you referring? I have no "pro-life advocacy site". I did include some material in this article that I had also mentioned elsewhere (e.g. at a political blog called confirmthem.com). And where did I get that information from? I researched it at a library. Is it frowned-upon at Wikipedia to do research at libraries? Why do you keep implying that I went to some "pro-life advocacy site" to copy material for this article? Even if I had done so --- which I did not --- what would be wrong with taking factual and relevant information wherever I find it? Hasn't information from the Guttmacher organization often been cited in Wikipedia articles, and are they not a pro-choice advocacy site? In any event, I find it difficult to focus on your other points --- which may be valid and well-intentioned --- while you continue to insinuate that I am some some sort of biased plagiarist. I hope we can try to move away from the pattern of accusation, insult, and insinuation, and try to focus on the content of the article. Thanks.Ferrylodge 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)