Fact: Sykes assumed the doctors she quoted did not track their cited sources to original research, even though she did just that due solely to those citations.

Fact: She disputed and maligned both their research and conclusions to support her narrative, even when they took no position on abortion.

Fact: She is an abortion advocate, not physician, and so lacks the latters knowledge and training, yet desputes even their conclusions that do not address abortion.

Fact: She repeatedly accused policy opponents of deception based soley on her "doubts" they tracked their quotes sources as diligently as she, doubt in turn resting solely on her contention that is "typical of pro life writings and websites."

It is disappointing that you (incorrectly) accuse me of an ad hominem attack after quoting a "source" that states,


Sykes made, not just an ad hominem attack, but a string of them based entirely on biased supposition: She declared Dean dishonest because she believes (but cannot know) he did not do his homework, offering no evidence except her further belief pro life advocates "typically" do not. That is evidence of bias, not validity. I advise against letting speculative and biased personal beliefs decide if/when abortion is legal. I happen to think her assertion both valid and sound, but she made no effort to support it except further assertions of her personal opinion.


Perhaps not but, however common citing casually read research is, that does not establish the pro lifers quoted did so, let alone that the doctors THEY quoted did so. It is a supposition based on Sykes' low opinion of pro lifer research (and, apparently, of medical research in general, since neither Dr. Hamlin nor Dr. Helleger took a position on abortion.) She is entitled to her opinion, but it is not an argument, or at least, not a sound one.


Not the point; Faradays experiments are only easy to repeat IF one is informed of them (i.e. through citation.) By Skyes' standard, citing a study that in turn cited Faradays experiments would be "unoriginal research" unless one explicitly cited Faraday in addition to the study that already cited it. She assumes better knowledge of the subject than leaders in the field who have the benefit she lacks in decades of medical study and practice.


Textbooks can be wrong, yes, but statements and studies in medical science textbooks have received the rigorous peer review Sykes laments as absent in the letters and speeches she rejects (except when noting they stop short of assertions pro lifers contend they make; had she herself stopped at THAT point I would not disagree with her.) That is not an argument from authority, but from the experimentation and study of medical case files on which textbooks are predicated (which Skyes again dismissed as "unoriginal research.") Textbooks can be wrong, but if she contends Intrauterine Development is wrong that "at the end of eight weeks there will be readable electrical activity coming from the brain," she should conduct some experiments of her own demonstrating that, preferably after attending med school to obtain the necessary knowledge. That would be the convincing argument dismissing the statement as "unoriginal research" is not.

In "fact," it let us take a closer look at that section of Sykes' essay, because revealing exposes her arguments to be based on bias more than science:

Perhaps most significantly, Sykes implicitly admits (but carefully avoids STATING) the Bergstrom study recorded fetal brain activity on EEGs after 56 days of fertilization. Consequently, they DID "find anything that substantiates a claim of 'brain function, as measured on an electroencephalograph' at six weeks of development, as Goldenring claims." They found electrical brain activity and measured it on an EEG, corroborating Goldenrings statement that, to the extent brain function can be measured by EEG, it was. As Dr. Helleger states, "The meaning of the activity cannot be interpreted;" we can only say EEGs measured SOME kind of brain activity. Thus the physicians with decades of study and medical practice who made medical statements (one of which does not even address abortion) were correct, and the nonprofessional abortion advocate was incorrect to say otherwise.

In "fact," she was not even correct about Dr. John M. Goldenrings NAME; that does not suggest her conclusions about his articles are any better. I found Dr. Goldenrings resume posted online: http://www.jurispro.com/files/documents/doc-221158525-resume.pdf

It is 27 pages, 14 listing authored works. His 1982 JAMA letter to the editor is correctly listed as such, but his 1985 "The Brain Life Theory: Towards a Consistent Biological Definition of Humanness" is just as correctly listed 12th among 32 "Peer review medical journal article[s]." Note: Margaret Sykes cannot be such a peer without an MD and MPH (not to mention a JD.) Again, it is not an appeal to authority to note Dr. Goldenrings assertions are informed by decades of study, experience and qualified third party examination that earned him his medical degrees (and his legal one,) while Ms. Sykes are informed by only her biased policy advocacy. That is a statement of the very kind of fact you demand: He has authority she lacks, because his multi-decade professional career consists of exactly the homework she contends her policy foes have not done, and it is to that work, not the authority stemming from it, that I appeal.

Ultimately, we are reduced to debating the definition of "brain waves," as I stated is always inevitable in these discussions. Sykes correctly and repeatedly notes "brain waves" is a "nontechnical" NONMEDICAL term: It means different things to different people, and has no firm medical definition. She nonetheless chooses to TREAT it as a precisely defined term whenever it suits her, with a definition suiting her. Unsurprisingly, that definition conforms to conclusions suiting her, which only means she knows what evidence WOULD prove her conclusions, not that she has found any. According to Margaret Sykes, first trimester brain activity such as EEGs recorded in both the Japanese and Finnish studies "doesn't mean much" yet "can be interpreted." "Factually," one of those statements MUST be false.

To suggest the EEGs be ignored because "Any living cell has an electrical potential across its membrane, and any living structure is a dipole" is disingenuous (i.e. "misleading and deceptive") since every OBJECT is a dipole of varying strength, and an electrical potential exists between ANY two objects. Obviously an EEG cannot measure the difference between the electrical potential of you or I and that of Mt. Everest, and equating what it CAN measure to that value is ridiculous. If Sykes believes that "has nothing to do with 'brain waves'" her subsequent declaration she has "no objection to saying that 'a human life' or 'human personhood' begins when brain waves are measured on an EEG" is meaningless. She has asserted EEGs do not and cannot measure "brain waves" at all, so conceding life begins when they do so concedes nothing (which was the point.)

Sykes contends "brain waves" have no precise meaning, to serve her contention pro lifers referencing them are ignorant and/or dishonest, but, to serve the same argument, then turns around and asserts "brain waves" DO precisely mean "a particular kind of varying potentials produced by certain brain structures that don't even exist in an embryo and associated with consciousness and dreaming as well as the regulation of bodily functions." She uses that contention not only to discredit pro lifer arguments on abortion, but even to reject Dr. Hellegers statement that "The meaning of the activity cannot be interpreted." His statement is perfectly logical if a first trimester EEG "doesn't mean anything"; it only falls apart if we take "brain waves" to be "in any way similar to what is seen on a normal EEG" (is "normal EEG" a clinical term? ) If "brain waves" is a vague nontechnical term (as Sykes contends through most of her article,) Dr. Hellegers statement is unassailable; if "brain waves" are a sophisticated level of cerebral electrical activity requiring correspondingly sophisticated cerebral anatomy (as Sykes occasionally contends when it suits her, as in this case) it does not. As Sykes herself repeatedly notes, medical literature scrupulously avoids using "brain waves" in the second or any other way, thus she is presumptuous to treat it as such.


As Sykes notes, "the EEG continues to change and mature into childhood," but no one argues newborns and toddlers are not people, let alone that they can be legally killed. Just because she provides an elaborate definition for the term "brain waves," despite admitting it to be a nontechnical term scientists and physicians avoid, does not make it well defined to anyone but Margaret Sykes. Beyond that, while absence of evidence may be evidence of absence, it is not proof; black holes and atomic nuclei persisted in existence quite resolutely for millions of years before humans possessed any evidence of either. Again, I do not fault her failing to prove a negative, but very much fault her voluntarily TRYING, much less contending to have accomplished it.


Dr. Helleger did not make a knowing or otherwise incorrect statement; he went out of his way to avoid making a definitive statement, because, as he DID state, the evidence cannot be interpreted. From that statement, his views on abortion and/or when a fetus is a human being are unclear. However, there is an indication elsewhere he did hold firm views on the matter: Dr. Goldenring dedicated the below linked article to Dr. Hellegers memory, noting he began formulating his "brain life theory" as an undergraduate at the Kennedy Institute for Bioethics at Georgetown University while Dr. Helleger was its chairman. He further states Dr. Hellegers encouragement was invaluable to "the thinking of a heretical young student, even though the implications of the author's theory might prove unsettling to Dr Hellegers's strongly held ethical beliefs." Had Ms. Sykes exercised a little more due diligence she might not have assumed Goldenring ignorant of his mentors letter (despite explicitly citing it.) She might not even have been as incorrect about his name as she was about the statements to which he attached it.

I have no quarrel with Sykes objecting to the use pro life advocates make of Drs. Helleger and Goldenrings work, but she goes too far in trying to discredit them as well. It is a natural impulse, since their work does encourage (WITHOUT CONFIRMING) the conclusions pro lifers tend to draw without rigorous research. It is, however, a misguided and biased impulse uninformed by the study, experience and medical practice from which the doctors benefit. In terms of empirical evidence, it is inconclusive, whether Sykes or anyone else agrees; dismissing the EEG recording in the Japanese survey as instrument error and those in the Finnish study as "background voltage" (until the point she has decided fetuses are people, when the data suddenly means that instead of the opposite) does not change that. She is free to interpret that data differently than the chair of the Kennedy Institute for Bioethics did, but no more credible than I was when interpreting astronomical data differently than Dr. Sean Carroll does, for the same reasons. Either or both of us may be right, but the smart money is on the doctors benefiting from study and observation we lack. That she considers evidence conclusive when doctors do not only proves her judgement inferior rather than superior, due to bias and the absence of their study, experimentation and observations from medical practice. Since the empirical evidence IS inconclusive, those assets are far more compelling than a self appointed online experts autobiographical credentials.


Setting aside whether the brain is merely a physical actuator of a nonphysical entity, I believe most of those studies involve people losing self awareness due to brain damage, yet no one would contend they ceased to be people as a result. If someone shot one of those test subjects in cold blood, it would be prosecuted as the murder of a PERSON, even if test data showed that person had lost all self-awareness. It is both dubious and dangerous to let higher functions determine if/when a fetus is a person, because it means the absence of such function in people outside the womb makes them no longer "people" at all. These are the kinds of issues to which Drs. Hellegers and Goldenring devoted their careers, because bioethics covers a lot more than a womans right to choose her online agenda.

First trimester EEGs are inconclusive on whether/when fetuses are people, and thus on whether/when abortion is homicide, justifiable or otherwise. Since I stated that at the beginning of this discussion, I obviously would not object to Sykes comments had she been content with it. All medical publications (including that she accepts or disputes as convenient, such as Dr. Hellegers letter) would support her as it does me.

However, asserting "abortion in the first and most of the second trimester may not be homicide" is not sufficient for her policy advocacy; she evidently feels obligated to establish "abortion prior to the third trimester is DEFINITELY NOT homicide." The lady doth protest too much, methinks; regardless, the evidence does not, and indeed cannot, support her attempt to prove a negative. It remains inconclusive, notwithstanding her unlicensed medical opinions. Claiming otherwise on the grounds doctors did not research their citations as well as she only compounds that with an attempt to prove yet another negative, unless she has an affidavit from them to that effect.


I object to Sykes' conclusions, not her personally, as a CONSEQUENCE of objections to her biased interpretations, not their CAUSE. The cause is her: 1) Open brazen partisanship, 2) contradictory standard and 3) lack of first AND second hand knowledge she incorrectly claims absent in not just policy foes, but doctors.

Those are objections to her arguments merits (or rather, its flaws,) not her. "Factually," she is correct when she says a first trimester EEG "doesn't mean much" but incorrect when she says "it can be interpreted." "Factually," she may or may not be correct when she says pro lifers "dishonestly" cite medical research; not only has she not established they have not personally read the research, but claiming citation of research they only read in part and/or second hand is "dishonest" overtaxes the definition of that word. She can believe pro lifers liars, and it may even be true (though I doubt it; in most cases I think it just a case of sincere and often obstinate error.) She has not proven it, nor even offered any evidence of it save that sloppy research is "typical" of them, which, unlike my objections, IS an ad hominem attack. Observing all that is an attack on her arguments merits, not its author.

Look, man, I truly regret you picked a layman with an axe to grind to prove your argument. Find an objective source and I will be happy to treat it as such.