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 ) 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. 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.

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.

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.


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.

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.