|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:41 am
Yup, you didn't even look at the sites LYme and I presented, just passed them away. The numbers from my site came from reports that were published in local newspapers and never made it national.
That article is still not what I'm lookign for. They may not think the fetus can feel pain but there are thousands in the same occupation that disagree with them. And its talkign about fetal pain. I honostly don't care if the fetus can feel pain or not. It has no bearing on the issue of whethe ror not it deserves rights as a person. This is about the silent scream. Please present an unbiased source debunking it. YOu got close and actualy tries this time, so I'm giving you one more chance before I just completly ignore you.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:11 pm
Tiger of the Fire Yup, you didn't even look at the sites LYme and I presented, just passed them away. The numbers from my site came from reports that were published in local newspapers and never made it national. That article is still not what I'm lookign for. They may not think the fetus can feel pain but there are thousands in the same occupation that disagree with them. And its talkign about fetal pain. I honostly don't care if the fetus can feel pain or not. It has no bearing on the issue of whethe ror not it deserves rights as a person. This is about the silent scream. Please present an unbiased source debunking it. YOu got close and actualy tries this time, so I'm giving you one more chance before I just completly ignore you. Mind getting your head out of your a**? I'm not doing this solely for your benefit. There's a chance other people might be interested. You wanted me to provide sources supportnig my view that the commentary in 'The Silent Scream' was a load of crap. I provided some proof. I presented an unbiased source debunking one of the claims, so stop requesting all over again. If you're so convinced that the commentary in 'The Silent Scream' is correct in its entirity, provide some unbiased sources of your own instead of coming up with weak arguments for mine. The Silent Scream Claims: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula). Insights Into Early Fetal Development KEY POINTS * Ultrasound provides remarkable pictures of the fetus allowing the study of early development as well as diagnosis of congenital abnormalities. * Fetal movement begins about 7.5 weeks after conception and by 14 weeks flexion, extension, rotation, thumb sucking and yawning occur. * Even when seemingly purposeful, early movements are due to reflexes occurring at spinal cord level. * Purposive movement depends on brain maturation. This begins at about 18 weeks and progressively replaces reflex movements, which disappear by about 8 months after birth. Persistence of reflex activity is common when brain damage has occurred. * The fetus can hear from around 23 weeks, and shows response to maternal speech. Fetal learning has been shown in response to sound. * Most cerebral palsy is due to brain injury acquired in the womb. Ultrasound study of fetal behaviour may identify such abnormal neurological development before birth. There's an entire article there if you can be bothered reading it. There are the key points if you can't be bothered. The Silent Scream Claims: The fetus emits "The Silent Scream." Planned Parenthood Article A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26–27 weeks' gestation (24–25 weeks' fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries. I can't find anything other than this to debunk the 'scream' claim of the video's commentary, but I can't find anything to support it either. To me, this claim of Planned Parenthood's makes sense - a baby cannot breathe inside the womb, you have to be able to breathe to scream, therefore, a baby inside the womb cannot scream. The Silent Scream Claims: A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us. Biologically, of course a 12 week foetus is not the same as a fully-developed baby, and certainly not an adult. Must I patronise you by presenting proof for that? The Silent Scream Claims: Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of "crushing instruments" for extraction. Family Planning Agency UK Website Vacuum aspiration or suction termination (usually from 7–15 weeks of pregnancy) Some services may offer suction termination up to 15 weeks, while others use this method up to about 12 weeks. Sometimes this method can be used before seven weeks but this is not common. The procedure takes five to ten minutes and can be carried out under a local anaesthetic (given around the area of the entrance to the womb), or a general anaesthetic, or under conscious sedation. Conscious sedation is when you are give drugs that make you sleepy. This means that you won’t remember everything that happens during the abortion but you will stay conscious during the procedure. The passage through the cervix (entrance to the womb) is dilated – gently stretched and opened – until it is wide enough to allow the contents of the womb to be removed with a small suction tube. To make this safer the cervix may be softened, with a tablet placed in the v****a, a few hours before the abortion. You will usually go home on the same day. No mention of anything needing cut up or squashed here. In case anyone's unconvinced, here's another source (albeit Wikipedia): Wikipedia Article: Infant A newborn's head is very large in proportion to the rest of the body, and the cranium is enormous relative to his or her face. While the adult human skull is about 1/8 of the total body length, the newborn's is twice that. At birth, many regions of the newborn's skull have not yet been converted to bone. These "soft spots" are known as fontanels; and the two largest are the diamond-shaped anterior fontanel, located at the top front portion of the head, and the smaller triangular-shaped posterior fontanel, which lies at the back of the head. During labor and birth, the infant's skull changes shape to fit through the birth canal, sometimes causing the child to be born with a misshapen or elongated head. It will usually return to normal on its own within a few days or weeks. Special exercises sometimes advised by physicians may assist the process. If the baby's head is like that at that stage, why would it need 'cut up' or 'crushed' at the much earlier stage of 12 weeks? Surely the head would be much softer? If you can find anything to prove the facts the commentary is presenting, go ahead. Otherwise, there is no basis for your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:20 pm
Leave snark out of this, thank you.
I never once suggested I beleived the information in the silent scream. I never once challanged the information presented. I mearly asked oyu to hold your self to your own standards. That being, if you're gogin to present a biased site that uses a fair ammount of unbiased information, don't dismiss us when we do the same. If you are goign to ask for information form an unbiased site, then we expect you to hold your self to the same standard. SO the basis of my argument wasn't on the claims made in the presentation, it was on the seemign double standadr you have.
Lyme and I both presneted biased sites that drew their information form some unbiased sources. You dismissed them simply on the grounds that the sites were pro-life and biased to the pro-life cause. You present a pro-choice site that draws its information form some unbiased sources and then when challanged simply on the grounds that the site is biaed to the pro-choice cause, basicly being asked to hold your self to the standard you held Lyme and I to, you jump. Thats not fair. Hold your self to your own standards.
Thanks for presenting information from unbiased sources. I could debate you on breathing amniotic fluid and drawing oxygen form it and thus, in a sence, we do breath with in the womb (National Geographic's "In the Womb" talked about this). Or how every reponce we have to stimules is a reflex first, and "feelings" second. Or how when he says "indistinguishable", it is a matter of context and could simply mean physical form, but then it would be drawing this thread out farthe rinto left feild then it needs to be. We're through here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:33 pm
Tiger of the Fire Leave snark out of this, thank you. I never once suggested I beleived the information in the silent scream. I never once challanged the information presented. I mearly asked oyu to hold your self to your own standards. That being, if you're gogin to present a biased site that uses a fair ammount of unbiased information, don't dismiss us when we do the same. If you are goign to ask for information form an unbiased site, then we expect you to hold your self to the same standard. SO the basis of my argument wasn't on the claims made in the presentation, it was on the seemign double standadr you have. Lyme and I both presneted biased sites that drew their information form some unbiased sources. You dismissed them simply on the grounds that the sites were pro-life and biased to the pro-life cause. You present a pro-choice site that draws its information form some unbiased sources and then when challanged simply on the grounds that the site is biaed to the pro-choice cause, basicly being asked to hold your self to the standard you held Lyme and I to, you jump. Thats not fair. Hold your self to your own standards. Thanks for presenting information from unbiased sources. I could debate you on breathing amniotic fluid and drawing oxygen form it and thus, in a sence, we do breath with in the womb (National Geographic's "In the Womb" talked about this). Or how every reponce we have to stimules is a reflex first, and "feelings" second. Or how when he says "indistinguishable", it is a matter of context and could simply mean physical form, but then it would be drawing this thread out farthe rinto left feild then it needs to be. We're through here. I would call insisting on different sources to be challenging the information provided. I can't remember the details of the incident you mention, and quite frankly I don't care. I do remember that you didn't offer anything of substance to back up your biased sources. Hey, you brought us into left field. I suppose it's fitting that you end it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:07 pm
I like it, but I can't say I'm a fan of their layout.
Lucky for the site, I'm not superficial
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:42 pm
Scribblemouse Tiger of the Fire Lets also ignore the fact that you are using a biased source (which also has been prooven to get quite a bit an information wrong) when you constently ask for unbiased ones. I really can't stand hypocracy Scribs. So please find an unbiased source. It was a biased source with an unbiased piece of research. I figured it was just as valid as the biased pro-life research claims. Wow. I am having an EXTREME case of deja vu here. Only...I think we were the ones with a "biased" source and an unbiased piece of research. It was the one about the woman who posed as an underaged girl who was having sex with a 22 year old calling planned parenthood and other abortion clinics and they told her how to and even helped her get around various laws protecting young people from being raped by *****. Oh, and they had audio tapes of this happening. Oh, and it was also picked up by various news stations around the country. Yeah. You didn't like that one too much, did ya? But this case is just fine by you. evil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
