As it appears you are doing. 
From there we are reduced to debating whether and when that EEG measured brain function qualifies as "brainwaves." So, brain waves at 8 weeks, with considerable debate over whether they qualify as brainwaves, all of which is just a recap of what I already said. The only new wrinkle is we are now debating whether brainwaves even CAN be defined, despite their being the standard for when life ENDS (which, as the article notes, was the focus of both the first two citations of when brain activity commences.) "But a bigger problem is that" Sykes "was writing another personal essay, not reporting" her "own research," which, according to her article, means such essays should be ignored. I will stop short of making that proof of dishonesty, as she repeatedly does; it is just plain old sincere bias.
The quote in the title of your post is basically entirely fabricated, the result of no actual research. Making a false statement and then listing citations which don't actually support it is not the same as directly linking to and quoting from the citations. Claiming that the former is reliable while the latter is biased is, quite frankly, bullshit.
We're not debating if brainwaves can be defined; they are very clearly defined, the "pro-lifers" just tend to ignore those definitions.
The quote in the title of my post is one the author at your link does not dispute; she simply disputes what "brain function" means. In other words, even the person who disputed the conclusion the meaning is unclear does not deny the statement; she simply claims the meaning IS clear, and NOT "brainwaves."
I put "brainwaves" in quotes because the author at your link consistently does the same, noting the term oversimplifies complex phenomena. She then has a field day using that complexity to repeatedly move the goal posts on what constitutes "brainwaves" until they reach the location she desired from the outset. That is still well before the third trimester; her article concludes, "So I have no objection to saying that 'a human life' or 'human personhood' begins when brain waves are measured on an EEG. That is well into the second half of pregnancy, however, no matter how many times the '40 days' factoid is repeated."
I wonder if she realizes her psuedoscientific political polemic finishes by saying late term abortion violates the Fourteenth Amendment. My guess is "no."

http://web.archive.org/web/20110722021033/http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.full
The first link debunks the myth and the bad citations which continue to be used in support of it. The second link gives an actual scientific discussion of fetal brain development.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.full
The first link debunks the myth and the bad citations which continue to be used in support of it. The second link gives an actual scientific discussion of fetal brain development.
From there we are reduced to debating whether and when that EEG measured brain function qualifies as "brainwaves." So, brain waves at 8 weeks, with considerable debate over whether they qualify as brainwaves, all of which is just a recap of what I already said. The only new wrinkle is we are now debating whether brainwaves even CAN be defined, despite their being the standard for when life ENDS (which, as the article notes, was the focus of both the first two citations of when brain activity commences.) "But a bigger problem is that" Sykes "was writing another personal essay, not reporting" her "own research," which, according to her article, means such essays should be ignored. I will stop short of making that proof of dishonesty, as she repeatedly does; it is just plain old sincere bias.

The quote in the title of your post is basically entirely fabricated, the result of no actual research. Making a false statement and then listing citations which don't actually support it is not the same as directly linking to and quoting from the citations. Claiming that the former is reliable while the latter is biased is, quite frankly, bullshit.
We're not debating if brainwaves can be defined; they are very clearly defined, the "pro-lifers" just tend to ignore those definitions.
The quote in the title of my post is one the author at your link does not dispute; she simply disputes what "brain function" means. In other words, even the person who disputed the conclusion the meaning is unclear does not deny the statement; she simply claims the meaning IS clear, and NOT "brainwaves."
I put "brainwaves" in quotes because the author at your link consistently does the same, noting the term oversimplifies complex phenomena. She then has a field day using that complexity to repeatedly move the goal posts on what constitutes "brainwaves" until they reach the location she desired from the outset. That is still well before the third trimester; her article concludes, "So I have no objection to saying that 'a human life' or 'human personhood' begins when brain waves are measured on an EEG. That is well into the second half of pregnancy, however, no matter how many times the '40 days' factoid is repeated."
I wonder if she realizes her psuedoscientific political polemic finishes by saying late term abortion violates the Fourteenth Amendment. My guess is "no."
Being unable to dispute the actual science involved, you turn to unfounded and unsupported implications of bias and inconsistency. Your reading of the page is objectively incorrect, and the corresponding vagueness of your claims is not surprising.
I do not feel that your lack of reading comprehension puts the onus upon me to deconstruct a fairly short page with clear citations, written in a language in which we are both (supposedly) fluent. Unless you decide to offer substantiated criticism, there is no discussion to be had here.
As for your interpretation of her statement about personhood, her usage of the two quotes directly above those paragraphs indicates that she did realize what she was saying. I happen to agree that fetuses in the third trimester should generally be considered persons. (The second link, which you seem to have ignored entirely in your rush to misread the first, gives further insight into fetal brain development. It also notes that "only 1.4% [of abortions] are performed at or after 21 weeks’ gestational age." )
This message last edited by Dreaded Anomaly on 07/02/2012 at 04:38:33 AM
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit)
02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM
- 2368 Views
The most annoying part is in the sixth paragraph- abortions are only a small part of their thing
02/02/2012 05:08:07 PM
- 1260 Views
I agree.
02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM
- 1149 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill.
03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM
- 1150 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal.
03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM
- 1105 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked.
03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM
- 1200 Views
That is a little unfair.
03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM
- 1426 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?!
04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM
- 1186 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points.
04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM
- 1121 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority.
04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM
- 1111 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap?
04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM
- 1160 Views
It worries me when we think alike....
05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
- 1191 Views

Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth.
05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM
- 1276 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation."
05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM
- 1194 Views
Oh please.
05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM
- 1144 Views
Re: Oh please yourself.
06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM
- 1025 Views
Quite a telling reply.
07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM
- 1114 Views
Re: I quite agree.
08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM
- 1314 Views
You're taking an issue of objective facts and treating it like a day of playground gossip.
09/02/2012 03:47:06 AM
- 1120 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me.
11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM
- 1175 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments.
14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM
- 1437 Views
I presented factual rebuttals.
19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM
- 1217 Views
You continue to miss the point.
23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM
- 1309 Views
No, I got the point: You expect me to accept a heavily biased, partisan and combative "source."
07/03/2012 01:47:37 AM
- 1213 Views
The claim of brain waves at 8 weeks is still unsupported by evidence, i.e. a myth.
15/03/2012 09:16:14 PM
- 1280 Views
Well, yes.
04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM
- 1187 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects.
05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM
- 1137 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect.
05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM
- 1240 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM
- 1284 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM
- 1128 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM
- 981 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM
- 1161 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM
- 1106 Views
I'm done discussing my use of the term "oppression." The Tim Ryan stuff is interesting, though.
07/02/2012 05:37:05 AM
- 1237 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM
- 1329 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM
- 1179 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM
- 1198 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM
- 1299 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM
- 1178 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM
- 1506 Views
There are problems with the implants
03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM
- 1165 Views
Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though.
03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM
- 1179 Views
Oh yes, I totally agree! My point is just that there are some barriers to handing out implants
*NM*
03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
- 542 Views

What on earth does that have to do with anything?
03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM
- 1100 Views
I was actually kinda with you until you closed with that anathema I condemned in my response to rt.
03/02/2012 01:39:06 PM
- 1136 Views
I agree that they have made Beast Cancer a cult but splitting with PP is just smart
02/02/2012 05:39:49 PM
- 1300 Views
I agree.
02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM
- 1089 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other
02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM
- 1145 Views
Right
02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
- 1203 Views
it is a judgment call and I hope her decision is based on more than my guesses
02/02/2012 06:53:50 PM
- 1070 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side?
02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM
- 1139 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that?
02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM
- 1054 Views
You didn't; I inferred it from the way you phrased that ("if she HAS to..."). Sorry.
02/02/2012 08:06:11 PM
- 1133 Views
I know I'm not always clear.
02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
- 1132 Views

Just curious...
02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM
- 1116 Views
Not at all.
02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM
- 1182 Views
Not at all?
02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM
- 1072 Views
No.
02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM
- 1017 Views
My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes
02/02/2012 11:17:24 PM
- 1124 Views
Re: My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes
03/02/2012 12:08:01 AM
- 1117 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks
03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
- 1093 Views

Ooor, the best.
03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM
- 1073 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM*
03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM
- 658 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM*
03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM
- 608 Views
Never having heard of any of those except PP, my opinion may not be the most relevant...
02/02/2012 08:32:48 PM
- 1184 Views
You don't know stuff.
02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM
- 1155 Views
I know the stuff that matters.
02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
- 1058 Views

they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN
02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM
- 1211 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander.
03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM
- 1256 Views
did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective
03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM
- 1161 Views
The investigation by Congress is well-known to be specious. It's the House GOP abusing their power. *NM*
03/02/2012 12:41:58 AM
- 707 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me
02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM
- 1182 Views
Re: stuff
03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM
- 1067 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer"
03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM
- 1122 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no.
04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM
- 1195 Views
I"m not that fussed. I'm just generally leary of research that has results like that
04/02/2012 08:35:04 PM
- 1065 Views
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
- 1166 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
- 1069 Views
After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
- 1004 Views
They restored funding incidentally
03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM
- 1080 Views
Unless I've missed it
03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM
- 1142 Views
You must have missed it then
03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM
- 1064 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli
03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM
- 1231 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words
03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM
- 1121 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM
- 1131 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM
- 1318 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
- 1258 Views
Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM
- 1035 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen.
03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM
- 1066 Views
Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort
03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM
- 1136 Views
Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies.
03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM
- 1188 Views
Judge for yourself
04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM
- 1186 Views
Well, a public letter makes whether they signed it "Sen. so-and-so" irrelevant: It is political.
04/02/2012 04:07:20 PM
- 1100 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted?
03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM
- 1203 Views
To me, it depends on the nature of the contact, which I have not dug enough to discover.
03/02/2012 10:43:45 PM
- 1082 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened
04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM
- 1143 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite.
04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
- 1157 Views

educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker
04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM
- 1083 Views