Active Users:783 Time:23/12/2024 07:01:35 AM
Re: I quite agree. Joel Send a noteboard - 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM
As it appears you are doing. :P
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.

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.

I did not dispute any of the actual science involved, and the author at your link did not dispute much of it. She disagreed with some conclusions, and attacked the conclusions about abortion drawn by some early essays on brain activity, despite (correctly) noting those essays were not actually ABOUT abortion, only brain death. In other words, she made "unfounded and unsupported implications of bias." In fact, the entire article is little more than a biased allegation of bias, beginning with doctors not discussing abortion at all, so perhaps it is only right to fling the same allegation at me for noting that.

Had she wished to argue for her preconception studies prove life begins at the point of steady regular measurement of brain activity patterns (we are going to need a bigger bumper sticker :P) she could have, and should have, done so. Earlier studies and essays, some of which did not even speak of abortion, or even when life begins, are irrelevant to that point and later fetal development in general. Unfortunately, she analyzed each piece by piece anyway, contending they irrefutably prove a negative (that fetuses displaying such activity are not people) and that therefore pro lifers are dishonest and/or ignorant.

You want it more in depth and substantive? OK....

She begins by tracking the "40 day" claim to Dr. Hannibal Hamlins 1964 speech, which she says, "is still being used in ways that must have Hannibal Hamlin turning in his grave.... Not surprisingly for 1964, Dr. Hamlin had nothing to say about abortion." Yet she pretends he did anyway and attacks him for it, claiming he "incorrectly quoted" one of his references, and calling even the studys indisputable findings "likely... mostly artifacts." If what they found were "likely mostly" NOT brainwaves that settles it. :sarcasm: Even with Hamlin and the other DOCTORS contending otherwise and taking no position on abortion, we should dismiss that in favor of dissent from a layman pro chioce advocate who writes About.com guides. :rolleyes:

She then goes on to attack another doctors letter that cites yet another doctors essay stating "at the end of eight weeks there will be readable electrical activity coming from the brain," based on a MEDICAL TEXTBOOK written by still a third doctor. In ridiculing the previous statement, she smugly noted, "Bernstine's work is not mentioned in any neurology or electroencephalography text I've searched," but now that another claim IS she dismisses it as "unoriginal research." On that basis, the whole discussion would essentially be moot; Margaret Sykes is not a doctor and can thus only provide "unoriginal research" in the form of citing research by those who ARE. Conclusions doctors with no stated position on abortion draw from research are far more credible than counter-conclusions drawn by an overtly pro choice layman. To be clear: That is not directed at Margaret Skyes personally, only her qualifications and objectivity, which are far more questionable than the qualifications of doctors (which she is not) or their objectivity when they take no position on abortion (which she openly does.)

Even in that instance Skyes does not ultimately dispute Dr. Hellegers statement, despite devoting five paragraphs to excoriating it:

"In fact, of all the personal essays cited, only Hellegers got it right when he said that 'readable electrical actitivity' is present at 56 days, but even he was wrong in saying that 'The meaning of the activity cannot be interpreted.' It can be interpreted: it means that fetal brain-stem cells are alive, interconnected, and react to stimulation, just the way fetal leg-muscle cells do."

I am sure Dr. Hellegers is grateful for Ms. Sykes interpretation of medical data for which he could venture no interpretation. :rolleyes:

After "proving" to her satisfaction the negative of fetal brainwaves prior to 56-70 days, she then goes on to claim that "At 17 weeks of pregnancy (119 days after fertilization) R.M. Bergstrom also reported finding 'primitive wave patterns of irregular frequency or intermittent complexes from the oral portion of the brain stem and from the hippocampus' in the midbrain, according to Electroencephalography. Even the oldest fetuses that were studied, however, had no 'brain waves' or other kind of signal from the cortex up to 150 or so days."

The whole of her attacks on earlier medical statements is that they were based on research others performed, or even referenced mere medical textbooks citing that research. Why, then, does HER ENTIRE REBUTTAL rest on a single study performed by Swedish doctors and citation of it in a medical textbook? Beyond that she has only her laymans disagreement with Dr. Hamlin on the details of the Okamoto and Kirikae study. Why is the standard different for an abortion advocate with no medical degree than for half a dozen doctors, even those taking no position on abortion?

Perhaps the better question is why she assumes the doctors citing secondary conclusions did not track their basis to original sources at least as relentlessly as a lay policy advocate did. Given Sykes' statement "Only two courses of study on still-living aborted human embryos and fetuses have ever been done: Okamoto and Kirikae in Japan in the 1940s, and Bergstrom and Bergstrom in Finland in the 1960s," and the doctors she disputes citing BOTH, she should be grateful THEIR "unoriginal" research so well informs HERS. Are those REALLY the only two courses of study on still-living aborted human embryos, or has she just not found any other doctors citing other studies for her to reference in service of ripping apart their medical conclusions (or lack thereof) for sake of her public policy advocacy?

She moved the goalposts, repeatedly and flagrantly, mostly in cases not relevant in the first place, because research on EEGs prior to 120 days is immaterial if she genuinely believes brainwaves require brain structures other studies "prove absent" until then. The first statements she attacked did not even have anything to do with abortion, but, since claiming pro lifers ignore or do not know that paints them as ignorant and/or dishonest, she went after the statements anyway.

If you will not see all that, perhaps MY reading comprehension and/or bias is not the problem here. Particularly since I agree with her (apparent) position on when abortion should be legal, only disagreeing that she made a good argument for it.

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." )

The quotes preceding her statement are from doctors whose other statements she spent her entire article condemning piece by piece; it thus does not follow that she agrees with them on that single point despite disagreeing on all others. More importantly, none of those quotes states a time at which abortion should be considered homicide (almost certainly NOT coincidence,) and Sykes consequently elaborates from there on when she, as a strongly pro choice layman, believes the conditions they discuss exist. Even then she is careful not to endorse a late term abortion ban, with or without health exceptions; she only concedes "personhood" exists when brainwaves are detected, a point she vaguely defines as "well into the second half of pregnancy." That narrows it down to about four months; too bad there are no QUALIFIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS to refine that. :P

I did not look at the second link because fetal brain development involves a lot more than when "brainwaves," "brain activity" or whatever we choose to call it can be detected; reading through it all would be like taking a course in fluid dynamics to figure out when a cup of water will boil. As for the note that "only" 1.4% of abortions are in the third trimester, by itself that just reminds me of Cannolis observation most people oppose homicide 100% of the time, not 98.6% of the time. You do realize that if infinitesimals equaled zero calculus would just be a series of division by zero errors, right? There is definitely such a thing as justifiable homicide, but recognizing and legislating that is far more defensible than trivializing the small percentage of late term abortions. Much as with contraceptive failure, those low percentages are non-trivial to people affected by them.

I get it: Margaret Sykes thinks pro lifers ignorant and/or dishonest. That does not rebutt their position, but demonstrates her bias. Your extending her allegations of ignorance to me simply for pointing that out does not improve her "arguments," only degrade yours.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 08/02/2012 at 06:05:19 PM
Reply to message
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit) - 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM 2209 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 1099 Views
I agree. - 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM 1003 Views
I can understand it though. - 02/02/2012 05:45:55 PM 1065 Views
I can too, it just isn't for me. - 02/02/2012 05:58:33 PM 985 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill. - 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM 989 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal. - 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM 955 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked. - 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM 1039 Views
That is a little unfair. - 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM 1250 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?! - 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM 1034 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points. - 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM 979 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority. - 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM 956 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap? - 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM 973 Views
A zygote isn't a person, because it doesn't have a brain. - 05/02/2012 12:33:29 AM 972 Views
It worries me when we think alike.... - 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM 1013 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth. - 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM 1115 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation." - 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM 1028 Views
Oh please. - 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM 997 Views
Re: Oh please yourself. - 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM 869 Views
Quite a telling reply. - 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM 936 Views
Re: I quite agree. - 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM 1142 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 977 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me. - 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM 998 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments. - 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM 1240 Views
I presented factual rebuttals. - 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM 1031 Views
You continue to miss the point. - 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM 1120 Views
Well, yes. - 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM 1041 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects. - 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM 982 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect. - 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM 1077 Views
Ignoring what? You haven't shown me anything solid. - 05/02/2012 05:25:23 AM 976 Views
It's ok, we're done. *NM* - 05/02/2012 09:29:05 AM 594 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case. - 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM 1071 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case. - 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM 973 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM 815 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM 982 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM 955 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 1056 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM 1152 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM 1017 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM 1045 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM 1109 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM 1028 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM 1325 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 07/03/2012 01:47:44 AM 988 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 15/03/2012 10:27:23 PM 1240 Views
There are problems with the implants - 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM 1002 Views
You have a talent for understatement. - 03/02/2012 01:08:40 PM 991 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 1137 Views
I agree. - 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM 921 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other - 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM 988 Views
Right - 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM 1037 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side? - 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM 985 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that? - 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM 895 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 975 Views
I know I'm not always clear. - 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM 979 Views
Just curious... - 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM 959 Views
Not at all. - 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM 1028 Views
Not at all? - 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM 919 Views
No. - 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM 873 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 972 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 970 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks - 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM 938 Views
Ooor, the best. - 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM 912 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM* - 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM 592 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM* - 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM 541 Views
rabble rouser *NM* - 04/02/2012 04:24:01 AM 556 Views
I misread this at first - 03/02/2012 12:51:44 AM 974 Views
not to mention codeine seems to make me double post - 02/02/2012 11:17:26 PM 2018 Views
I'm not so sure I agree. Or not completely. - 02/02/2012 06:14:11 PM 908 Views
I don't diagree with the way you see it - 02/02/2012 06:39:41 PM 971 Views
More inevitable than anything, considering who started Komen. - 02/02/2012 10:19:34 PM 924 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 1041 Views
You don't know stuff. - 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM 1006 Views
I know the stuff that matters. - 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM 912 Views
That's true. - 02/02/2012 10:34:32 PM 1002 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN - 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM 1053 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander. - 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM 1067 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me - 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM 1024 Views
Must be nice. *NM* - 03/02/2012 12:26:49 AM 644 Views
Re: stuff - 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM 922 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer" - 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM 955 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no. - 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM 969 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 915 Views
Fair enough. - 04/02/2012 10:17:31 PM 982 Views
They restored funding incidentally - 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM 908 Views
Unless I've missed it - 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM 991 Views
You must have missed it then - 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM 907 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli - 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM 1061 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words - 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM 938 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you. - 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM 974 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you. - 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM 1162 Views
Well, I'll try again for both of us. - 04/02/2012 02:56:42 PM 995 Views
Re: Well, I'll try again for both of us. - 04/02/2012 07:40:25 PM 963 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision - 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM 1101 Views
I think that ship sailed long ago. - 03/02/2012 08:45:13 PM 911 Views
Truth - 04/02/2012 02:07:20 AM 1018 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen. - 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM 906 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted? - 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM 1035 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 935 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened - 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM 957 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite. - 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM 1008 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker - 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM 907 Views
Dude. - 04/02/2012 11:20:49 PM 845 Views
Yo mama? - 05/02/2012 05:32:11 AM 998 Views
whhhhhhyyyyyy - 04/02/2012 11:23:58 PM 979 Views
Why would I not think that? - 05/02/2012 05:46:15 AM 873 Views

Reply to Message