'Predecessor' Neurons to Human Brain Discovered

Yale researchers claim to have found the very first neurons in what eventually becomes the human brain. Developed before most anything else, these neurons are in place just 31 days after fertilization. From the article: "We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions," Rakic said. "As a next step it is essential to determine their neural stem cell lineage, pattern of gene expression, developmental role and eventual fate."

Comments

Expect abortion opponents to jump on this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hear the "human life begins at conception" crowd exploiting this just now.

Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this.

[eln]

"pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.

This discovery means nothing in this debate, because the basic concept of what constitutes life (potential life versus viable life) is not affected. Sure, some pro life groups may choose to add this to their stable of propaganda, but it probably isn't going to change the debate in any meaningful way.

Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this.

[lbrandy]

"pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.

That is an interesting perspective. As science progresses, the set of all life which is "viable outside of the womb" is going to eventually be equal to the set of all "potential for becoming life". The abortion debate seems to be about a disagreement about an interval of time whose limit is zero. That's true, anyway, if we presume your definition of "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

I do certainly agree they are talking right passed each other. That's why we should just rename the groups "baby-killers" and "woman-haters", and that way we can just skip the second sentence of every innane abortion debate.

Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this.

[Jay Clay]

Something that can give insight, though, is how they feel about someone dying. Many pro-lifers consider a person dead if they're brain-dead, even if brain cells exist and the rest of the body is doing just fine (and that's going to the lowest common denominator, past sentience and other standards of whether or not they're "living"). Yet they'll consider a fetus alive with just one cell living, regardless if it's the equivalent of brain-dead or not.

So although I disagree with pro-lifers, I can at least understand the ones that will draw that equivalent line on both sides. Trouble is, most of the ones that make their voices the loudest do not - hence the stereotype of "a bunch of religious zealots" (and hyprocrites at that).

Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this.

[the_womble]

Not necessarily, you are looking at the extremes of both.

I am pro-life, but I think that the right to life comes with self-awareness. It is pretty clear that unborn children have developed fairly complex mental activity well within the range within which abortion is allowed in most countries.

On the other had I know pro-abortion people who are definitely not in favour of abortion up to birth.

Incidentally abortion is many countries is allowed for babys who would be viable outside the womb - the limit in the UK is 28 weeks, viability with modern medicine is several weeks before that. So viability in itself is probably not a criterion for anyone any more.

So certainly evidence of brain activity would make a huge difference form my point of view and many others.

Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this.

[dfghjk]

feeling especially biggoted today? Yes, there are people like that but I doubt they are any more pro-life than anything else. I have no illusions of the greatness of "pro-life"-ers but there are crappy people everywhere.

no doubt the term "pro-life" is a joke. "pro-choice" is a joke as well. just how many "pro-choice"-ers will be in favor of gay marriage for example? probably more than the other side but nowhere near 100%. pro-choice is in favor of choice for the things they'd like to choose. pro-choice means "pro-abortion rights", nothing more.

I'm always in favor of more rights and more choice. I'm in favor of life too. None of that helps me choose sides in the abortion matter.

both sides present themselves with appealing names to cover up their hatred of the other.

Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this.

[tepples]

assuming that you believe Darwin knew what he was talking about, it is our obligation as a species to continue the propogation of life. When you take this kind of view, you arrive at the conclusion that not only is abortion "killing babies," but so is everything from effective use of condoms, birth control, and yes, even celibacy.

Measures that contain sperm, such as abstinence or condom use, extend the life of existing organisms because they ensure that new life does not compete for resources that could be used to sustain existing life. Define "propagation of life" precisely to help solve this dilemma. Is it the maximum number of organisms at any given moment? Is it the sum of the lifespans of all organisms? Is it just the number of diploid cells in existence at once?

everyone is a hypocrite. Living in this society, personally, I've come to terms with that, and I rightfully enjoy my hypocrisy.

I too recognize that I am a sinner, but I enjoy improving myself so that I become less of a hypocrite.

What if your parents had decided to abort you?

Then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And it would be one fewer advocate for the choice of a woman carrying a child within her to end the child's life. You wouldn't be having this discussion, but I still would because thank God I had a good pair of grandparents to adopt me.

Because I'm a Roman Catholic...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great... ...If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate....

If the souls of aborted babies go to heaven, then shoudn't the christians ENCOURAGE abortion as much as possible? Especially in athiests? I mean, saving the child's soul is the most important thing, right? What kind of loving parent would allow the child's soul to come in danger of eternal torment, when salvation is just an abortion away? :)

Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic...

[lav-chan]

The Catholic Church says, quite literally, "We don't know what happens to unbaptised babies who die... we just assume God does the right thing".

It'd be cool if they applied that line of thought to... anybody else, really.

It's funny how the Church seems to know exactly what God is thinking when it comes to homosexuals and transgendered people and pre-marital sex and all that jazz, but when it turns the subject of babies they're suddenly too humble to speculate.

Clarification

[eonlabs]

I'm only speaking for myself and anyone who decides to agree with me after I've made this statement.

I'm pro-choice.
Life begins before conception.
It is continued through conception, and lasts onward through birth.

Before about the sixth month, a human baby will not be able to
develop a fully functional brain if removed from the uterus.
Up until that point, I feel that if a woman doesn't feel they can
raise a child properly, they should have the right to stop their
pregnancy in a method safe for themselves. It's better than the
alternatives for them. I think it's also important to allow doctors
who could use the same techniques to save lives if it is deemed a
birth would kill a woman.

I think that it's a hard decision to decide to stop a pregnancy,
and I think it should be, which is why I'm not trying to sway any
'pro-lifers' off their fence. They can have it. I think it's sick
what the extremist pro-lifers do, but you don't see pro-choicers
running around aborting every fetus they can find, no matter how
extreme they are, so pardon me while I hold the argument that you
need to get the people on the far side of the fence into some level
of control. Those people are seriously sick and need attention for
it.

I find the results of this cool. It's exciting research. Keep the
pro-X bullshit out of it. I will love it when one day I've got a kid
on the way and I can plot out what part of it is growing when. There's
a lot of value in that.