Precisely the problem: Her goal is portraying opponents as ignorant and/or dishonest, rather than simply advocating her own position. Toward that end she alleges (at least) ignorance in a half dozen people whose entire professional careers consisted of studying and practicing medicine. She then proceeds to "take them to school," laughably presuming she checked their sources better than they. Hence the charges of "unoriginal research," based on no more than her assumption doctors addressing other doctors at medical conferences did not bother checking the sources of the sources they cited, simply because they did not explicitly sub-cite them.

If a leading engineer addressed an engineering conference on the subject of nuclear power, only citing a study on electrical generators without bothering to trace it all the way back to the well known Faraday experiments, would that be "unoriginal research"? Is it not a BIT presumptuous for a layman to question a professional citation of a statement on the grounds that statement itself cites one of the fields TEXTBOOKS and thus the writer and audience have not read it?

I dispute her conclusions because, rather than just attacking partisan misuse of those letters and speeches, she extends her attacks to the speeches and letters themselves, impugning (at least) their authors knowledge of their field and its studies along with the misuse others make of their work. I further dismiss her own partisan misuse of those maligned speeches and letters as no better than the examples she attacks. Most of all, I dispute her strong implication research shows brainwaves begin "well into the second half of pregnancy" on the same grounds she disputes that research shows they begin in the first trimester: Because the evidence is inconclusive (which I noted in my first post on the subject.)

Had she set out to argue brainwaves cannot be proven to exist in fetuses before "well into the second half of pregnancy" she would have been on firm ground. She could even cite Dr. Hellegers statement that "at the end of eight weeks there will be readable electrical activity coming from the brain.9 The meaning of the activity cannot be interpreted" as support, rather than dismiss it by insisting "It can be interpreted." Saying an OBGYN professor has more credibility on fetal monitoring than an online advice columnist does is not an ad hominem; that is an indictment of her education and experience, not her personally. Given her vitriolic and biased approach throughout, and that her specific About.com experience is "About Pro Choice Views," I also question her objectivity. If you want to see what an ACTUAL ad honinem looks like, try this statement from your source:

"As is typical of "pro-life" writings and websites, however, it's doubtful whether "Jack Dean" or anyone else has actually read Hamlin's speech, which makes citing it dishonest."

It is not an ad hominem to point out she lacks the medical knowledge and experience of those whose medical statements she disputes, or that her open bias undermines her objectivity. It IS an ad hominem to declare someone "dishonest" solely because of an ASSUMPTION they did not do their homework in turn resting solely on her belief that is "typical" of her policy opponents. Granted, it is hard to prove a negative (that Dean did not do his research,) but no one forced her to try.

That, and the naked bias motivating it, is the whole problem with her hit piece: She seeks, not to prove brainwaves and the physical structures necessary for them have only been found "well into the second half of pregnancy," but that they are ABSENT at all prior points. Had she been forced to prove that negative her efforts would be pitiable; since she CHOSE to attempt it they are simply lamentable.

The research evidence, as Dr. Helleger noted of one example, "cannot be interpreted." That does not support pro life claims of early fetal brainwaves, but also does not refute them as Sykes insists. Had she been content with "inconclusive" her claims would be valid (her tone would still be horrid, but civility and veracity are distinct.) Yet that would not give her moral ascendancy, prove allegations pro lifers are ignorant and/or dishonest. So she attacked the credibility of doctors as well as pro lifers, to serve her unabashed bias, on no better basis than her assumption she (but not they) read all the medical research they directly and otherwise referenced.

When an OBGYN professor says data "cannot be interpreted" and an online advice writer with no medical degree says it can, I will defer to the doctor(s) whose opinion is based on decades of medical study, practice and research rather than an overt political agenda. It is not an ad hominem to say she lacks their knowledge, experience and objectivity; it is a simple statement of fact. Sykes concedes in her second paragraph that "brainwaves" "is a nontechnical term" for very complex phenomena, and disparages its use throughout her article. She nonetheless insists research shows them present, indeed, POSSIBLE, ONLY at some unspecified "nontechnical" point "well into the second half of pregnancy." That is a bridge very much too far, but she attempts it anyway, even to the point of assailing a host of doctors whose claim to "expertise" rests on university degrees and decades of practice and research rather than an autobiographical web profile.

She DOES do a great job illustrating why "brainwaves" is a nontechnical term. Whether the various examples of different kinds of electrical brain activity well within the first trimester, or others in the second, indicate a person is a legitimate debate. The problem is she treats it as settled, and attacks claims to the contrary, even those by leading doctors, dismissing even those supported by MEDICAL TEXTBOOKS on the assumption doctors have not read them. Is it not absurd for someone with no medical degree to assume more familiarity with medical textbooks than those who DO have the degrees REQUIRING that knowledge?

Objectively discussing an objective interpretation of medical data requires such an interpretation to discuss. An interpretation heavily biased to "refute" one with an equal but opposite bias does NOT qualify. An interpretation from an About Pro Choice Views writer with no medical degree, who nonetheless disputes the medical opinions of not only lay partisans on the other side, but doctors who take no position on abortion, is less than uncredible.

We return whence we came, and had I intended to debate what meets the "nontechnical" definition of brainwaves I would not have said at the start opinions vary.