Playing Music to Unborn Babies

 

According to This Is Your Brain on Music by Daniel J. Levitin, pre-born babies hear sounds within the womb:

"It hears the heartbeat of its mother, at times speeding up, at other times slowing down. And the fetus hears music, as was recently discovered by Alexandra Lamont of Keele University in the UK. She found that, a year after they are born, children recognize and prefer music they were ex­posed to in the womb. The auditory system of the fetus is fully functional about twenty weeks after conception. In Lamont's experiment, mothers played a single piece of music to their babies repeatedly during the final three months of gestation. Of course, the babies were also hearing­ -- through the waterlike filtering of the amniotic fluid in the womb -- all of the sounds of their mothers' daily life, including other music, conversa­tions, and environmental noises. But one particular piece was singled out for each baby to hear on a regular basis. The singled-out pieces in­cluded classical (Mozart, Vivaldi), Top 40 (Five, Backstreet Boys), reg­gae (UB40, Ken Boothe) and world beat (Spirits of Nature). After birth, the mothers were not allowed to play the experimental song to their in­fants. Then, one year later, Lamont played babies the music that they had heard in the womb, along with another piece of music chosen to be matched for style and tempo. For example, a baby who had heard UB40's reggae track 'Many Rivers to Cross' heard that piece again, a year later, along with 'Stop Loving You' by the reggae artist Freddie McGregor. La­mont then determined which one the babies preferred.

"How do you know which of two stimuli a preverbal infant prefers? Most infant researchers use a technique known as the conditioned head­-turning procedure, developed by Robert Fantz in the 1960s, and refined by John Columbo, Anne Fernald, the late Peter Jusczyk, and their col­leagues. Two loudspeakers are set up in the laboratory and the infant is placed (usually on his mother's lap) between the speakers. When the in­fant looks at one speaker, it starts to play music or some other sound, and when he looks at the other speaker, it starts to play different music or a different sound. The infant quickly learns that he can control what is playing by where he is looking; he learns, that is, that the conditions of the experiment are under his control. The experimenters make sure that they counterbalance (randomize) the location that the different stimuli come from; that is, half the time the stimulus under study comes from one speaker and half the time it comes from the other. When Lamont did this with the infants in her study, she found that they tended to look longer at the speaker that was playing music they had heard in the womb than at the speaker playing the novel music, confirming that they pre­ferred the music to which they had the prenatal exposure. A control group of one-year-olds who had not heard any of the music before showed no preference, confirming that there was nothing about the mu­sic itself that caused these results. Lamont also found that, all things be­ing equal, the young infant prefers fast, upbeat music to slow music.

"These findings contradict the long-standing notion of childhood amnesia -- that we can't have any veridical memories before around the age of five. Many people claim to have memories from early childhood around age two and three, but it is difficult to know whether these are true memories of the original event, or rather, memory of someone telling us about the event later. The young child's brain is still undeveloped, func­tional specialization of the brain isn't complete, and neural pathways are still in the process of being made. The child's mind is trying to assimilate as much information as possible in as short a time as possible; there are typically large gaps in the child's understanding, awareness, or memory for events because he hasn't yet learned how to distinguish important events from unimportant ones, or to encode experience systematically. Thus, the young child is a prime candidate for suggestion, and could un­wittingly encode, as his own, stories that were told to him about himself. It appears that for music even prenatal experience is encoded in mem­ory, and can be accessed in the absence of language or explicit awareness of the memory."

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Truth is...Do NOT talk to me about "clumps of cells" or "potential life". A human is a human, no matter what his or her stage of development.

If This Doesn't Break Your Heart...

 

I became aware of a grief-inducing statistic the other day.

Because of my years of speaking in high school health classes on behalf of Amnion Pregnancy Center, I am on a mailing list that gets sent the state's annual abortion report. In this year's report, there are plenty of tables and graphs that could start a person ranting and raving, but I want to share with you one that practically broke my heart.

For each of the abortions performed in Minnesota, a record is kept of how many previous abortions that person has gone through. The numbers surprised me...and maybe shocked would be a better word.

Just to make sure you're understanding this table, there were 6,015 first-time abortions performed in Minnesota during the 12 months being reported on. There were also 2,335 abortions performed where the woman had had one previous abortion.

That isn't the shocking part.

Go down further and let the realization hit you that for 88 women who had abortions last year, it was their sixth one. For 21 women, last year marked their tenth...or more.

Truth is...This doesn't make me want to jump on a soapbox or urge anyone to vote one way or another. This makes me want to wrap my arms around these women and pray for Yahweh to shower them with comfort and grace.

You Have Heard That It Was Said...

This may be the riskiest piece I've ever written for this blog. It is sure to meet with widespread disagreement, perhaps even anger.

And for that, I apologize.

But, with National Sanctity of Human Life Sunday approaching this coming weekend, it's time for me to point out an inconsistency I see among many folks who purport to be "pro-life."

No, I'm not talking about the well-earned stereotype of folks being on picket lines against abortion and for capital punishment. That's a cognitive dissonance that is easily seen (and has been mentioned here before). Today's topic is a little more subtle, but just as life-and-death. It's a view held on to firmly, which is what will get me in hot water for coming out as being in disagreement with it.

Here's what I'm getting at.

You have heard that it was said, "I'm opposed to abortion except in cases of rape or incest," but I say to you, "Murder is murder, no matter who the victim's father is."

I know, I know...

...that sounds so harsh and uncaring toward women who have had to suffer the trauma of sexual violation. Please know that my intention is not to impose any privileged-white-male dominance over anyone. My intention is to be consistent in my stance on the serious nature of ending a human life (which you can review by clicking here).

Truth is...if I found out that your father had raped someone, that would not give me the right to kill you. In the same way, if it came to light that your mother is also your half-sister, it would not negate your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is the ending of a human life, no matter the origin of that life.

God Is the World's Biggest Abortionist

Nobody kills more unborn babies than God.

Apparently because of some recent state legislation, the topic of abortion has been trending again. And because of that, I reposted my first blog entry on the subject to my Facebook timeline.

And because of that, I've been involved in a few comment threads of late, one of which brought up the point alluded to by the title of this post and spelled out in the first sentence above.

The argument basically goes like this:

Abortion shouldn't be such a big deal because there are far more miscarriages, including those that happen before a woman even knows she's pregnant, than there are abortions.

My single-point response? There are far more people who die every day from natural causes than there are murders, but it's still illegal to murder.

Truth is...to get a broader scope of my take on this topic, click the "abortion" label to the right, or just click here.

Comedians in Cars Getting All Superior

The history of comedians goes at least as far back as the court jesters of old...although I think when God created the platypus He was ROFLOL.

Partly because of that background of speaking truth to power (veiled in laughter), today's comedians  -  and stand-up comics in particular  -  have no problem in expressing their opinions. After all, that's pretty much what most stand-up routines are...a person gets in front of people and tells them things that he thinks are ridiculous: "This is what I think. Isn't it crazy that the world is like this? Look at such-and-such. That's so stupid!"

It's not a huge leap, then, for a person to start thinking his thoughts about things ought to be agreed to by everyone. [Of course, I recognize that I think that about the thoughts I express here, too.]

Case in point: an episode of Jerry Seinfeld's Web series, Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, in which Jerry is having a conversation with Ricky Gervais. Most of it was fairly interesting and mildly amusing, but there was one little interchange between the two men that I haven't been able to ignore.

RICKY

I really think the death penalty is too depressing to even think about. I don't - I mean I don't agree with it that the state can show that sort of form of violence.

JERRY

What about abortion? Do you agree with that?

RICKY

Yeah, but that's different, isn't it.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

First of all, the period at the end of "that's different, isn't it" is intentional. He wasn't asking a question. He was making a statement and assuming agreement.

Secondly, just so there's no misunderstanding, I, too, don't agree with the death penalty. I know there are philosophical arguments in favor of it, but they don't persuade me. The moment I take someone's life, I take away that person's opportunity to choose Christ...which is exactly the opposite of what I ought to be about.

Thirdly, and most importantly, yes, Mr. Gervais, abortion is indeed different from capital punishment. In the case of abortion, we are 100% sure that the person being killed is absolutely innocent.

Truth is...there is a stereotypical alignment of attitudes about these two issues. On one side, it seems that those who support the availability of abortion generally think capital punishment is wrong, and on the other side, pro-life proponents are typically viewed as being in favor of capital punishment. It seems to me that either of these stances is illogical.

As a side note, it may interest you to know that Seinfeld responded to Gervais in a way that I thought was going to bring the whole episode to a screeching halt: "I guess, uh, you can just arrange things the way you like them...when you're rich...famous...like you."

Who Will Speak Up For The Little Ones?

During the mid-to-late eighties, I spent my fair share of time on picket lines outside abortion clinics, protesting the loss-of-life taking place inside those walls. At the time, it was the standard approach for the pro-life folks among us.

But now, it is so much more satisfying to be able to say that I've spent the last 15 years speaking in high school health classes about the advantages of abstinence before marriage...and doing so on behalf of Amnion Pregnancy Center, a place where women and men can get non-judgmental counseling and support to help them through the difficulties of an unplanned pregnancy.

In honor of the upcoming Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, allow me to offer a song by Phil Keaggy that has been a motivator for hundreds of pro-life efforts for the past 30 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUvLWxGKaBk

Truth is...it is far better to offer help and hope, than merely to speak up against something. Phil's song does a little bit of that. The hope lies in "though all on Earth forsake you now, yet He'll never forsake you," and in the recruitment of people who will speak up for the benefit of those who have no voice.

For the record, here are a couple prior pieces I've written in my personal effort to speak up for the little ones:

On Abortion
Murder or Medical Procedure?

A Life Worth Living

Facing the prospect of bringing a child into the world who is differently-abled from the majority of folks can be a scary thing. There are so many questions:

• Will I be able to handle it?
• How long will my child live?
• What kind of financial burden is this going to be?

And then there's the question that a certain expectant mother asked of a Down Syndrome support group and the beyond-beautiful video answer that was given...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju-q4OnBtNU

Truth is...nobody has a perfect life, but each life is precious.

Murder or Medical Procedure?

In my humor blog, Almost the Truth, there is a recurring feature called "Almost the News," where I quote actual headlines and then skewer their intent with my twisted perspective on word meaning and syntax. (You can open the latest example in a new window by clicking here.) Because of this, I tend to scan the newspaper headlines frequently...and because of that, I recently found the following Associated Press piece (PG Warning...this is slightly graphic):

Woman Convicted In Fetus Abduction

A Milwaukee woman who confessed to trying to steal a baby by attacking a pregnant woman and slicing out her full-term fetus was convicted Thursday of killing them both.

Jurors deliberated for less than two hours before finding [the woman] guilty of two counts of first-degree intentional homicide in the October 2011 deaths of the mother and fetus. [She] faces a mandatory life sentence...though the judge could allow for the possibility of parole.

A key piece of evidence during the trial was a videotaped police interview in which [the defendant] described her attack.... She told investigators she was desperate to have a son, that she had faked a pregnancy, and that she devised a plan to steal an unborn baby as her supposed due date approached.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Apparently, one's intent is of utmost importance when it comes to matters of ending a human life. (For more on the humanity of the pre-born, see my previous post, On Abortion.) If a person is selfishly wanting a child but inadvertently kills it, that is homicide. But if a person is being paid by the mother to kill the child on purpose, that is a legally-defensible constitutional right.

Truth is...intentionally taking a human life, no matter what his or her size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency, is taking a human life.

On Abortion

While I am a man of faith, and my commitment to follow Jesus Christ colors everything I do (at least, that is my desire), my firm pro-life (anti-abortion) stance is not dependent on my faith. There are solid, scientific, "secular" reasons that convince me that the yet-to-be-born entity is indeed a human being endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


And make no mistake about it, this is the only question that matters: Is it human? If your 5-year-old son comes up behind you with a paper bag in his hand and says, "Can I kill this?" wouldn't your first thought be, "Well, that depends on what it is"? In the same way, we better be sure of what we're doing before we determine that terminating a pregnancy is a choice needing to be protected. If that "product of conception" is human, then killing it would be murder.

Not convinced that the preborn entity is a human? Think about this. There are basically four differences between the preborn and an infant. Those differences can be represented by the acrostic “SLED,” representing Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. (Are there any other significant differences between the preborn and the born?) I don’t think a person can honestly say any of those things determines whether something is human.

Let me explain. [Full Disclosure Note: This was first developed by Stephen Schwarz in his book The Moral Question of Abortion. This pro-life defense has since been adopted by prominent pro-life writers such as Francis Beckwith, Scott Klusendorf, and Stephen Wagner. In fact click here for a short clip of Scott Klusendorf explaining the acronym...the way I first heard it.]

SIZE: The preborn is obviously smaller than, say, a two-year-old child. But a two-year-old child is smaller than a 17-year-old. Does that mean the two-year-old is less human than the teenager? Most professional basketball players are taller than I am. Are members of the NBA more human than me? So you see, size has nothing to do with whether something is human.


LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT: The preborn is obviously not as physically, emotionally, or mentally developed as a two-year-old child. But again, neither is that two-year-old as developed as a 10-year-old, or the 10-year-old as a teenager past puberty. But all of these people are still people. They are simply in different stages of their individual development. From the time an egg is fertilized, that entity has all the genetic make-up that will determine so many things about his/her life. All that is needed is time and nourishment. And the same can be said for the toddler and the teen. Degree of development has nothing to do with whether something is human.

ENVIRONMENT: The environment of the preborn is obviously different than the environment of those of us who have been born. But since when does our environment determine whether we are human? Am I more human when I am inside a house than when I am in my car? Does going from one store at the mall into another make a teenager more or less human than he/she was before changing location? It’s silly to even ask the question.


DEGREE OF  DEPENDENCY: The preborn is obviously completely dependent on the pregnant woman for his/her well-being and nourishment. But so is the 3-month-old baby, and no one has attempted to argue that a 3-month-old is not a human being. (So you see, talk about viability as determining when the fetus becomes a human is moot. Even a born human being, fully recognized as such, isn't independently viable for quite some time.) I am more independent and self-reliant than my 10-year-old niece. Does that make me more human than she is? Some people are physically disabled and dependent on others to clothe and feed them; some elderly people cannot take care of themselves; and yet, these people are no less human than you or me. Level of dependency has nothing to do with whether something is human.


Notice that I have not appealed to the Bible. I have not threatened damnation for any who have a differing view. I'm just saying that this makes sense. This is logical. This isn't sign-toting screamers (from either side).


Truth is...I am pro-choice. I am in favor of giving every human a choice.