Crying Fetus

[Francisco]

I don't know if this is the correct post but do some of you know something about the crying of the fetus before it is born?

The crying fetus is a rare phenomenon. The probability oscillates among one in two million (as I understand it).

There are two old sayings in my country:
1-What the majority says is that they are supposed to be people that come with psychic powers.
2-Or that they are spirits that come from worlds where the positive ness dominates and when arrive at this planet earth, they cry because it is a place dominated by the negativity ness.

I believe that the only ones that can answer this are the C's.

 

[highmystica]

Why not both options? - kinda strange you mention this I have a friend that experienced it - in retrospect, I thought it was because of the issues that followed between her and her mate - but that would offer weight for both options one and two ... interesting ...

 

[Laura]

What is a "crying fetus"? A baby crying while still in the womb? Any first-hand descriptions?

 

[Keit]

The crying fetus is a rare phenomenon. The probability oscillates among one in two million (as I understand it).

Not according to this article.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/1719

And here the video
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/media/fetalcryingvideo.html

 

[Laura]

That was disturbing. Now they are torturing babies in the womb. I can hardly believe that they can do something that clearly causes distress to an innocent being, and do it again and again and again.

Sickening.

 

[CarpeDiem]

Keit, thanks for links! From first one:

First, the fetus was observed unperturbed on ultrasound for 20 minutes. Eye movements, body movement, and heart rate were observed and measured in real time. Then the fetus was challenged with electronic vibroacoustic stimulation with tones measuring 100 Hz and 95 decibels that provided 0.5 second of stimulation. The intrauterine noise intensity was reported to be about 85 decibels. The study had ethical approval from the medical center review board.

That reminds me of Nazi concentration camps experiments, but much more cruel, if one can say that something can be more dishuman than what Nazis were doing. They don't give kids a chance even to be born in natural way. How one can even utter the word "ethics" regarding something like these "experiments" and "scientific studies"?

 

[highmystica]

Okay that's just bizarre - who comes up with such experiments - no need to answer that. What amazes me is that only 10 out of 144 cried. And the experiment is so bizarre I wonder what possible hypothesis they were really trying to even test - babies of mothers who smoke or use coke - something is really odd about that. And who are these 144 mothers that signed up for this madness? Scary.

Considering Francisco's original post, I doubt he was thinking about babies that were being exposed to such extreme conditions - what about the babies that just happen to cry under otherwise peaceful conditions - peacefull enough at least for the mother to hear it as my friend did?

 

[the_hammer]

Eventhough i looked really hard at the video, i couldn't see any crying. All i could see was a baby maybe gasping for air. In the town where i live, some midwives allow mothers to smoke in the hospital (completely banned), so that the mother can see the baby gasping for air. Of course with the intent of persuading the mother to stop smoking.
The entire experiment is sick, in my opinion, but since a babys cry can be at 115 decibels (1), it shouldn't cause a great deal of distress at the given time, but to allow the scientists to use ultrasound repeatedly is nothing more than desgusting, since it has been proven to be linked to braindamage (2).

1: http://cati.csufresno.edu/CAB/good/stories/safebr/safe-break-jun.html
2: http://www.radmid.demon.co.uk/scans.htm

 

[Laura]

Eventhough i looked really hard at the video, i couldn't see any crying. All i could see was a baby maybe gasping for air. In the town where i live, some midwives allow mothers to smoke in the hospital (completely banned), so that the mother can see the baby gasping for air. Of course with the intent of persuading the mother to stop smoking.

Only problem is, the baby is immersed in fluid and is not breathing.

 

[Keit]

That reminds me of Nazi concentration camps experiments, but much more cruel, if one can say that something can be more dishuman than what Nazis were doing. They don't give kids a chance even to be born in natural way. How one can even utter the word "ethics" regarding something like these "experiments" and "scientific studies"?

I think this is what can be called "psychopathic ethics". It also can be applied to the case of this artist from another thread that made children cry in order to make pretty pictures. I think that the "logic" of this "psychopathic ethics" is - that until a person is aware of what is done to him, and can try and stop it: "Hey you hurt me! Stop it, I don't like it!" they can go and do what ever they like. Cause according to this "logic", real harm done only if a person aware of the pain. And obviously this logic is wrong and merely an excuse, cause even if a baby is still not aware (and we really don't know what is going on during those stages of fetus development) any discomfort creates an imprint. And such pain out of nowhere, and then crying because of this pain, will leave imprint of insecurity/fear of the unknown or possible dangers in this child. This is my opinion.

 

[the_hammer]

Only problem is, the baby is immersed in fluid and is not breathing.

Excately, but the video didn't show any clear images of the babys facial expressions nor did they record any sound. The babies have the reflexes of human beings even when in the womb, which would make it look like they are gasping for air, eventhough the oxygen they supposedly are being starved from comes from the mother/placenta/umbelical cord.

 

[Laura]

Excately, but the video didn't show any clear images of the babys facial expressions nor did they record any sound. The babies have the reflexes of human beings even when in the womb, which would make it look like they are gasping for air, eventhough the oxygen they supposedly are being starved from comes from the mother/placenta/umbelical cord.

True to some extent. But until they have begun to actually breathe air and get their oxygen through their lungs, this "reflex" is probably not operative in that way. Also, they probably are not being starved of oxygen. Smoking doesn't do that. In fact, smoking increases the number of red blood cells so as to be able to carry the full complement of oxygen AND carbon dioxide molecules. And for a smoking woman, the fetus would benefit from this as well. Also, unless the woman is a NON-smoker and suddenly smokes, the fetus is already "smoking" and would not experience anything other than what the mother is also experiencing by smoking - generally a calming effect as the nicotine binds to the acetylcholine receptors.

 

[Tigersoap]

What if the foetus is already dreaming ?

What do we know about the incarnation of the soul at that stage ? Wouldn'it be traumatic as well , hence the "cry" ?

I do not know if these questions are valid but I am wondering.

 

[Charles]

That story of making a baby suffocate so that it would grasp for air reminds me so much of that story of Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of their cribs to let them die on the floor or the spooning of eye balls out of Kuwaiti soldiers, i.e. terrible lies with a very particular agenda.

Still I don't think it is a good idea for pregnant mothers to smoke.

Nevertheless, and back to the thread's subject, this "experiment" on foetuses in the womb, hurt me, a lot actually. 85 decibels is an immense amount of noise. It's close to the 90 decibels of a pneumatic air drill. I am sure they start dreaming early on during development. And from a personal experience which I have not shared yet, I am nearly convinced that such experiences will be traumatic.

I am not against abortion as a rule to be followed by everybody (remember the situation of being raped and getting pregnant). But when it came to our personal decision of having kids, we decided to refuse the screening for possible Down syndrome, and bare the possible consequences. For each mongolism recognized and "done away with", 5 foetuses without mongolism die as well because of infections that occur due to the puncture. We decided that the possible pain inflicted outweighs on the possibility for having a mongol. Sure such will result in a different life, but I also think that there is a lot to be learned from them as well.

 

[the_hammer]

True to some extent. But until they have begun to actually breathe air and get their oxygen through their lungs, this "reflex" is probably not operative in that way. Also, they probably are not being starved of oxygen. Smoking doesn't do that. In fact, smoking increases the number of red blood cells so as to be able to carry the full complement of oxygen AND carbon dioxide molecules. And for a smoking woman, the fetus would benefit from this as well. Also, unless the woman is a NON-smoker and suddenly smokes, the fetus is already "smoking" and would not experience anything other than what the mother is also experiencing by smoking - generally a calming effect as the nicotine binds to the acetylcholine receptors.

Yes, we produce more red blood cells due to smoking, since smoking stimulates the kidneys to produce more EPO (which sends the message to produce more blood cells). The kidneys register the lack of oxygen which has been replaced by monoxide on the hemoglobin when smoking.
The only thing is that nicotine from the tobacco makes the blood vessels contract allowing less blood to pass through. This doesn't affect the kidneys in the same way as it affects the rest of our blood vessels, because the blood flow through the kidneys is highly regulated. This means they register the amount of oxygen in blood but doesn't get affected by the contraction.
In the placenta this means, that the blood vessels gets to be contracted, allowing less blood to pass through,
which therefore reduces the amount of available oxygen for the baby, which could mean that the baby for a period of time is being starved of oxygen.