# When is a fetus a human being with independant rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2001, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640 "2001-01-25T00:46:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/101 "2001-01-28T04:43:11Z")
Oh, that was 665 _views._ Oh, well. Do we have independent rights, though? Or is that an individualist conceit? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/102 "2001-01-28T05:24:29Z")
[aside] The annoying thing about a message board, is that one person must pick apart the other’s quotes, and then the other must respond at length without a point to point rebuttal. If you respond point to point repeatedly, things get confused fast, as you lose the forest for the trees by focussing on minutia, and losing the general picture of the debate. This is not a complaint, as often enough you are as often on the writing at length, as the point for point rebuttal side. Just an observation.[/aside] As far as you’ve gone, I see nothing objectionable in your responses, and certainly this debate is causing me to rethink my original stance to some degree. As you suggest, it is perhaps best to focus on brain development, as the surest route to progress. My main stumbling block to your viewpoint remains the origination of conscience thought. Your “conservative” criteria seems to be a developed cerebral cortex and detectable EKGs consistent with the indication of conscience thought consistent with those of fully developed individuals. [aside]Wondering if any animals record such EKGs. It seems an interesting area of exploration for animal rights activists, and it’s surprising that they haven’t proceeded along these lines (although the fact that they haven’t might be indicative of the results[/aside] Abandoning metaphor (which has always been my good friend,) my problem with this “conservative” criteria, is that it is not quite conservative enough. To me, the beginnings of a human thought are a human thought nonetheless. A fully developed cortex, and an indicative EKG may not be catching the glimmerings of thought. A fetus develops very fast. You have drawn the line at 6 months. To be truly conservative (and I think we both agree in which direction we would like to err in this debate,) it might be wise to draw the line a month earlier in order to make sure that we don’t miss this glimmerings. While the structure of development is rigid, time frames do differ between fetuses (I argued differently initially, further reading suggests that I was in error. Nobody else pointed it out, so I might as well rebutt myself.) If we push things back one more month to account for variances in development, we wind up with a figure of 4 mos. Based on the data we’ve uncovered in this debate, four months would seem to qualify as a point that we’d both agree there is no reasonable chance that an abortion is destroying a “person,” as we’ve defined it. I feel comfortable with that as an ultra conservative cutoff leaving little possibility for error. It seems extremely likely that that’s a cutoff that that can probably be adjusted upwards in the future, but is reasonably safe for now. Now for a couple of point to points: > [@](#): > > I do accept abortion for health reasons > because of the uncertainty as to whether the fetus in conscious, since I think the certainly-conscious mother’s rights overide a > possibly-conscious fetus’ rights. Agreed. Even given proof of conscious thought, I think this would still be so. > [@](#): > > I am very particular with my defintion of human: a human is something with human DNA. Anything that does not have human DNA may > be a person, but it is not a human. It’s tangential, but I don’t necessarily agree. What makes human DNA human? We share an awful lot of DNA with other animals. I’ve known a couple of dogs that were much better people than the majority of people I’ve met, and I’ve known a couple of people that really don’t deserve to be equated with gerbils, mush less people. > [@](#): > > The brain was not removed from the body in The Ship Who Sang; they had human bodies, albeit stunted and deformed and their senses > were hooked up to sensors in the ship. While correct, perhaps we’re nitpicking, since both amount to the same thing as neither case provides for awareness of the physical human body. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/103 "2001-01-28T05:45:25Z")
I’m still looking for cites relating to brain damage, functionality, and recovery in infants as pertinent to this discussion, and something I’ve mentioned earlier. I recall a disease or condition that results in excess spinal fluid within the brain cavity preventing growth of the brain, or actually destroying brain tissue. It was over a year ago, and I cannot for the life of me recall the name of the disease/condition. The site that I saw showed MRI’s of people with this condition who developed and functioned normally in spite of having very little actual brain tissue. any help would be appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/104 "2001-01-28T05:55:36Z")
> [@](#): > > To me, the beginnings of a human thought are a human thought nonetheless. A fully developed cortex, and an indicative EKG may not be catching the glimmerings of thought Well, without the cortex, there’s nothing to be thinking the thought. I’m not relying on the EKGs, but you can’t think without the structures in place for thinking any more than you can see without the structures in place for seeing. And to all evidence, the complex cerebral cortex is absolutely necessary to consciousness; brain-stem only infants have no complex cerebral cortex and show no indications of consciousness, and I have never seen anyone genuinely argue that they _might_ be conscious, we just aren’t looking hard enough. > [@](#): > > You have drawn the line at 6 months. To be truly conservative (and I think we both agree in which direction we would like to err in this debate,) it might be wise to draw the line a month earlier in order to make sure that we don’t miss this glimmerings. 😉 You must have missed it, but I have indeed drawn the line at 5 months, since that is when the complex cerebral cortex first begins to develop. I used the EKG readings as supporting evidence as to thought being impossible before the complex cerebral cortex develops, since the EKGs don’t register patterns indicative of thought until _after_ the complex cerebral cortex is developed. So I feel I am being sufficiently conservative with my 5-month line. > [@](#): > > If we push things back one more month to account for variances in development, we wind up with a figure of 4 mos. > > Based on the data we’ve uncovered in this debate, four months would seem to qualify as a point that we’d both agree there is no reasonable chance that an abortion is destroying a “person,” as we’ve defined it. Do you have a cite that shows that a fetus may be a full _month_ early in developing a complex cerebral cortex than is usual? That seems a vast difference. Since I’ve already scootched back my date to a place where to all scientific evidence shows that there is no chance of consciousness, I don’t see much need to change it unless such very premature brain development is fairly frequent. We do kind of have to go by averages; even abortions “from the point of viability” use the average point of viability as a basis. I don’t believe they account for a rare exception when the fetus may be viable significantly earlier. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that you are now using brain development rather than bodily development as a measure; I think it is a more logical choice and much more in line with your actual beliefs about when a human is a person. In addition, you are probably the _only_ person I have seen change their mind in an abortion debate, so this is quite remarkable. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Even given proof of conscious thought, I think this would still be so. I agree also, though it is a terrible situation. But a person cannot be allowed to ignorantly kill the person whose body they are living in (though if the mother wishes to die so her child can live, I think that is her right). > [@](#): > > What makes human DNA human? Er, I think scientists can identify human DNA versus dog DNA quite well, given a complete DNA strand. You’d have to ask a geneticist for how they actually know, though, and I am willing to admit my error if I am incorrect. > [@](#): > > While correct, perhaps we’re nitpicking Of course I was nitpicking. 😛 Considering that I’ve read most of that series, I felt obligated to correct an error in fact. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/105 "2001-01-28T06:02:20Z")
maybe meaningful: > [@](#): > > 1. A rare treatment for brain pathology is hemispherectomy --removal of one of the two cerebral hemispheres. Only those with severely diseased brains have such > operations, thus (as might be expected) while the surgery does not make them any worse, it leaves most in a poor state. A few, however, recover to lead surprisingly > normal lives and show psychometrically normal or above normal IQs. > > 2. Aaron Smith and Oscar Sugar of the University of Illinois School of Medicine (1975) report the case of a male who started to become paralysed on the right > side at five months, having seizures at three years and at five and half years of age had his left hemisphere removed. In spite of this, he went to a normal school, > learned to play the baritone horn and even became a member of his high school band. At 26, he was working as an ‘industrial executive (traffic controller)’ having > completed ‘his senior year at a prominent Midwestern university with a dual major in sociology and business adminstration’. His full IQ at that time was 116 (WAIS > verbal IQ, 126; performance IQ, 102). > > 3. Huw Griffith and May Davidson (1966) of the Radcliff Infirmary, Oxford, report the case of P.G. who at the age of 10 started having fits followed a year later > by paralysis on the left side of his body. At the age of 19 he had his right cerebral hemisphere removed. Postoperatively, his IQ by the revised Stanford Binet was > 142 points; by the Wechsler test: verbal, 118, and performance, 94. 15 years later, at 34, he was retested and the Wechsler verbal had increased to 121 and the > Wechsler performance had remained relatively unchanged at 91. Since his operation according to Griffith and Davidson, he ‘having obtained a university diploma > after [the] operation has [now] a responsible administrative position with a local authority’. > > 4. Eileen Vining and colleagues at the John Hopkins University School of Medicine (1993) report the outcomes of 12 children at an average of 9 years follow up. > They give extended details upon five of them. One case ‘13’, a female, is of interest. She started having seizures at five, by the age seven she was having up to 20 a > day. At seven and half, she had a left hemispherectomy remaining in coma for six weeks. Two years later she had a full scale IQ of 98. Three years afterwards, > though she needed some help in mathematics, she was in seventh grade gaining grades of A and B. > > 5. The brain mass following hemispherectomy in these three individuals can only be estimated. The human cerebral cortex makes up 80% of the total brain (using > the percentage found by post mortem rather than MRI), as a result hemispherectomy will reduce it by around 40%. Assuming their initial brains were average, they > would have been 1,371 cc, of which 1097 cc would be cerebral cortex and associated white matter. Thus they would have lost around 548 cc of cortical tissue > leaving them with a brain of around 823 cc. Similar calculations for the average volume of a female brain would suggest a brain after hemispherectomy of 730 cc. > > 6. As a group, the above cases provide evidence that some brains can possess normal cognition by psychometric tests while having brains within the range or > smaller than the average Homo erectus one. From here: [http://www.skoyles.greatxscape.net/brain.html](http://www.skoyles.greatxscape.net/brain.html) ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/106 "2001-01-28T06:16:09Z")
And note that a newborn human has a brain weight of only [350-400 grams](http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html). Quite a bit less than your half-brained friend’s measurements of 730-823 grams. 😉 I’m going by “degree of development” rather than just size, and I think that’s a good move (heck, my brain is probably significantly smaller than yours, being a smallish female). It might be possible to remove a great deal of a _fully-developed_ CCC without ending that person’s ability to think, but if the whole thing’s gone or not yet adequately developed, you’re outta luck. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/107 "2001-01-28T19:38:36Z")
Let me try a hypothetical to put my finger on the button of what’s troubling me. Suppose we determine that conscioussness can’t occur until an infant is two months out of the womb. Can you leave a newborn in the dumpster because it hasn’t had a conscious thought yet? It’s still not a person though. My wife gave birth by caesarian. I changed every diaper for two weeks while the Mrs. healed. I was there for every feeding. I had scrutinized and studied and watched my daughter with the focus that only a terrified new father can bring to the task. I honestly don’t think having newly formed in what is pretty much a sensory deprivation environment, that she was anything like conscience as we know it. She was a bundle of need, and instincts. She also had a personality even at that time. Conscience? I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure Mommy, Daddy and Baby were all one entity as far as she was concerned. I can’t tell you why, but I think she was a person even then. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/108 "2001-01-28T19:43:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\* She was a bundle of need, and instincts. She also had a personality even at that time. \*\* Given a few pints of Guinness…you’ve described me to a “T” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/109 "2001-01-28T20:15:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Suppose we determine that conscioussness can’t occur until an infant is two months out of the womb. And suppose that we determine that an infant is not conscious until two years? And suppose we determine the fetus is conscious at two months? I draw the line where I do because that is where the weight of scientific evidence puts it. I’d rather not go off to far on hypotheticals that are not supported by evidence. Besides, I draw the line for at-will abortions at “possibility for consciousness”, not a firm “certain consciousness”. Currently, “brain-death” is when there is no electrical activity in the complex cerebral cortex. If “person-death” is the cessation of electrical activity in the complex cerebral cortex, it makes sense that “person-life” should be reliant on the presence of electrical activity in the complex cerebral cortex. Since knowing whether a person is conscious is somewhat fuzzy, the presence of electrical activity in a developed complex cerebral cortex seems me the most solid and conservative method of determining whether a human may possibly be conscious, and a possibly-conscious human has certain rights (though they do not override the rights of a certainly-conscious person). I may be unnecessarily preserving the life of an unconscious creature by this defintion, but I’ll take that chance, at least until further data gives me cause to reevaluate. > [@](#): > > Can you leave a newborn in the dumpster because it hasn’t had a conscious thought yet? Once the fetus is not wholly dependent and parasitic on the mother, she does not have sole rights to its dispensation. Since we can’t tell _for sure_, I draw the line for at-will abortions at a point when it seems completely _impossible_ for the fetus to be conscious. If her newborn is born with only a brain stem and she was certain of this, my only issues with her leaving the child in the dumpster would be that she did not seem properly respectful of the tragedy that occured to what might have been a new person, and that she did not give the body to scientists to perhaps use the tissue to save other people. > [@](#): > > . She was a bundle of need, and instincts. She also had a personality even at that time. Conscience? I don’t think so. Yet if you compare her to an anencephelitic infant, I think you would see quite a difference. She did have a personality, in your opinion; I doubt you would have said that on a infant only possessing a brain stem and a few instinctive reflex actions. That cerebral cortex _does_ make a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/110 "2001-01-28T21:21:16Z")
Oh yeah! Well I’ve been getting along fine for 33 years and I haven’t used my cerebral cortex once! I dunno, you say “no longer fully dependant on the mother means that she no longer has sole dispensation” that almost makes it a viability issue doesn’t it? Where is that pegged now? 4-5 mos? Our one month difference seems to exist because you accept today’s laws which uses averages for brain development. That’s kind of an obscene standard though, isn’t it? It would be a real bitch to be murdered just for being a precocius fetus. Which is more valuable? A full month’s safety margin to ensure that their is **no** possibility whatsoever that a thinking person dies or An extra month to make a tough decision? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/111 "2001-01-29T15:57:04Z")
> [@](#): > > I dunno, you say “no longer fully dependant on the mother means that she no longer has sole dispensation” that almost makes it a viability issue doesn’t it? Where is that pegged now? 4-5 mos? No, it’s not a “personhood” issue to me here, it’s “right to dispensation” issue. Even if it is an unconcious nonsentient human body, once it is no longer wholly parasitic on you alone for its life I don’t believe you have sole rights over its life. If the infant is currently surviving outside the woman’s body, I think the father, and to a lesser degree, the state, have a certain degree of interest in the matter. The mother alone can hardly kill a brain-dead child, after all, nor can she do so without consulting doctors to make sure the child really _is_ brain-dead, even though brain-dead humans are generally no longer considered persons. The mother has sole claim on the dispensation of a nonsentient fetus currently living within her body because it _is_ in her body. > [@](#): > > It would be a real bitch to be murdered just for being a precocius fetus. Murder is overstating things a wee bit, Scylla; neither the mother or the doctor would have had a reasonable expectation that they were killing a person, so it was not murder. It’s like you decide you need to blow up an island 1000 miles away from land. You don’t see any sign that there is any life there and there’s no reason to expect that there would be, but unbeknowst to you some amazingly good swimmer has swum all that way and is hanging out there. Blowing the island up, while regrettable, is hardly murder; you didn’t know anyone was there. If you have no reasonable evidence to believe there might be a conscious person living anywhere and it seems exceedingly likely that there is not, you don’t have to refuse to blow up the island forever because there _might_ be a person living there. Anything _might_ be, but we need not let that make us refuse to ever take any action; we use our current knowledge and our judgment of likelihood of all the possibilities to judge what we should do. Do you have any evidence that a fetus may be a full month precocious in cerebral cortex development? I don’t like making decision without evidence, and I would think you wouldn’t either. Personally, I feel I am being sufficiently conservative, since my “at-will abortion” line is drawn when it seems consciousness is impossible; though I believe genuine consciousness doesn’t occur until the 6th month or so, I’m willing enough to hedge my bets that I move the “at-will abortion” line back a full month to a point when the physical features necessary to consciousness are undeveloped. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/112 "2001-01-29T23:43:24Z")
E_K_Gs measure heart activity. E_E_Gs measure brain activity. You’re welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/113 "2001-01-30T01:19:18Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by DoctorJ \* > \*\*E_K_Gs measure heart activity. E_E\*Gs measure brain activity. > > You’re welcome. \*\* I, of course, knew this. I only pretended to go along so as not to hurt Gaudere’s feeling. Frankly I’m surprised that you would be so callous as to point this out. You should be ashamed of yourself. …And you call yourself a Doctor. ::Straight face completely maintained:: ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/114 "2001-01-30T01:29:25Z")
Gaudere: It seems to me that we are in substantial agreement on this issue. Our remaining differences seem to be ones that result from different interpretations of data that neither of us is really expert in. I would prefer an extra month to be sure, weighing the protection of innocents favorably against protracting choice. Given a suitably high degree of certainty, I would have no problem going up a month, as I’m sure that your would have no problem dropping down a month given a reasonable statistical probability of suitable brain development at 4 months. (I’d draw the line at 99.5%, wherever that falls) Failing a ruling from a leading research embryologist (as this stuff seems to be pretty cutting edge with some disagreement among experts,) I think this is as close as we’re going to get. I’d say we agree. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/115 "2001-01-30T01:49:31Z")
I think that a fetus should have no citizen’s right and that they should be reserved for individuals who have been born. I like the resultant society better that way and the fetuses (fetii?) whatever they are in the plural, don’t have enough investment in the life they are living to allow them (or people concerned on their behalf) to overrule the wishes of the pregnant person in whom they reside. PS–I know how to perform them and would consider it my duty to make that service available if legal provision thereof were eliminated and my skills were wanted and needed. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/116 "2001-01-30T02:17:21Z")
A3hunter: I hope you exagerate. Unless you have a medical license, you’d be dangerous butcher. I know how to do lots of things that are dangerous and that I’m not qualified to do. Their is a **Huge** gulf between knowledge and competancy. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640/117 "2001-01-30T05:40:06Z")
> [@](#): > > [aside]Wondering if any animals record such EKGs. It seems an interesting area of exploration for animal rights activists, and it’s surprising that they haven’t proceeded along these lines (although the fact that they haven’t might be indicative of the results[/aside] Apparently dogs have a cerebral cortex and brain wave activity measurable with an EEG. [http://www.neurovet.org/HollidayandWilliamsEEG/HollidayandWilliamsEEG.htm](http://www.neurovet.org/HollidayandWilliamsEEG/HollidayandWilliamsEEG.htm) > [@](#): > > When sedative drugs are used, dogs undergo readily recognizable levels of all stages of normal consciousness: full arousal; alpha rhythm; > drowsiness; non-REM sleep; rapid eye movement (REM) sleep.26 > [sub]26. Foutz AS, Mitler MM, Dement WC. Narcolepsy. Vet Clin North Am [Small Anim Pract]1980;10:65-80.[/sub] I don’t know what to make of that either. Furthermore, I don’t know how human EEGs compare with dog EEGs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-fetus-a-human-being-with-independant-rights/51640.md?page=5)