The Silent Scream

Still thinking about the abortion debate? Here's something everyone should see before they make up their mind.  There are five videos.  They should be listed below in the right order from segment one, to segment five.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqZDP9TeJxg&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU_DQ_7NcDA&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JOOcS2Q_is&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMTMfrXaqRQ&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9AoG_uQ14M&mode=related&search=

>>1
Fake

>>1 Seen it. Not going to let esthetics swing me when the actual issue is about philosophy and sociological causation. Facts are facts, one death is emotional, many deaths are a statistic. Maybe I should travel around South Dakota and ask impregnated victims of rape and create my own little populistic faux-documentary? No, because then I would be on your level. How come so many pro-lifers are poster children for pro-choice?

>>3
You are precisely right about one thing.  The issue at hand IS about philosophy.  Here's the philosophy at hand:  individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property.  In this case, the individual's right to life is being threatened.  It is the proper role of government to then protect said individual. 

>>4 But you support the imperfect DP on a utilitarian basis. So then I can prioritize the woman over the foetus on that very basis. Also, we are talking about the potential of life, so maybe I just slaughtered millions by going number three? Legislators can't deny a woman the right to murder, if said legislators are taking lives themselves. Techically the foetus is taking nutrients from the woman, so why doesn't she have the right to defend her nutrients (unless she steals all her food and drink from others)?

>>5 Here's some reasons as to why those irresponsible liberal whiny feminist selfish coastal bitches not always manage to have abortion before that precious eight-week limit. http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml This also proves, in a paragraph, what I have claimed; that a major percentage of the abortions occur before sentience can be affirmed. Claims about reality = backing with research.

>>6 The fun never stops: here is how the pro-lifers, at home and at school, make young women have less knowledge about the "carnal vice", and then pushes all the responsibility on them by the time the sub-par sex education kicks in. http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml Want to have both no unwanted pregnancies and still have the smug satisfaction of being able to blame it all on women? Okay, then prevent the jesustards from demonizing condoms and putting a stop to sensible sex education. How did those virginity pledges work out, BTW? http://youtube.com/watch?v=vQttlPIa_L4

>>5
I don't support the death penalty.  Why do you assume as much?

"Legislators can't deny a woman the right to murder, if said legislators are taking lives themselves."

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Furthermore, in a free society, there is no such thing as the 'right' to violate the rights of others. 

>>5
"Techically the foetus is taking nutrients from the woman, so why doesn't she have the right to defend her nutrients"

Ok that's ridiculous.  The woman's actions brought the fetus into being inside her.  Killing the fetus then for 'taking her nutrients' would be like me inviting a friend to my house for dinner, and then killing him for eating my food. 

>>8 Didn't say two wrongs make a right. I assumed you are the legendary utilitarian-libertarian who are plaguing me at the moment, but I guess you are some other guy who believes that a few shockumentaries are going to scare me.
>>9 The man put half the foetus inside of her, and one of the reasons unwanted pregnancies occur is because pro-lifers are consciously denying young men and women knowledge about their internal processes and what real love -and lovemaking- means. Women sometimes get pregnant in order to tie a relationship tighter (because they have been taught submission and reliance on men is their best bet) and men are lackadaisical with protection (because they haven't been taught responsibility or that sex is a very bipartisan affair). I can't speak for the adult women who should know better, but girls in America are having a horrible time and I think that teenage pregnancies is American society's fault.

>>10
>>8 wasn't me.

:3

>>10
"Didn't say two wrongs make a right."

I think so.  You implied, with the following statement, that we should ignore or disregard the abortion debate, and just leave things legal, due to legislators who are taking lives themselves. 

("Legislators can't deny a woman the right to murder, if said legislators are taking lives themselves." -Xel)

"The man put half the foetus inside of her"

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the woman had the ultimate decision in the creation of the fetus, giving it 'entry' (used for lack of a better word) to her body, and access to her 'nutrients', as you put it.  Thus, my analogy is valid. 

Essentially, she gave the ultimate consent necessary for the creation of the fetus within her.  At this point, my analogy becomes valid. 

"The woman's actions brought the fetus into being inside her.  Killing the fetus then for 'taking her nutrients' would be like me inviting a friend to my house for dinner, and then killing him for eating my food. "  -My analogy

"and one of the reasons unwanted pregnancies occur is because pro-lifers are consciously denying young men and women knowledge about their internal processes and what real love -and lovemaking- means."

Maybe, but this really has nothing to do with whether or not there should be an impediment (a legal one) to prevent murder, half murder, or whatever term you want to apply to this taking of innocent life.  The point is, is that once the being is there, it has this right, and it is the duty of any reasonable government to protect it, period. 

"Women sometimes get pregnant in order to tie a relationship tighter (because they have been taught submission and reliance on men is their best bet) and men are lackadaisical with protection (because they haven't been taught responsibility or that sex is a very bipartisan affair)."

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there should be a legal impediment created by the government to protect the right to life of the fetus. 

Blame the religious right and gender roles for the present situation all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that this being has a right to life, and that is the bottom line.  This being had absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in the outside world, and is completely innocent.  Again, it is completely innocent, which is why your argument "well it's ok that abortion is happening because of gender roles and inequality"  -- is complete bullshit.  The two things are unrelated, and it isn't right to deny the fetus its right to life due to the percieved flaws of society and the outside world. 

"I can't speak for the adult women who should know better, but girls in America are having a horrible time and I think that teenage pregnancies is American society's fault."

It doesn't matter whose fault it is.  The point is is that the fetus has a right to life, and the proper function of government is to protect that right to life from infringement. 

The fetus and its right to life is not dependent on the rest of society.  The right to life is supposedly one of the inalienable rights that all humans are supposed to be endowed with.  I speak of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't dependent upon whether or not society and the outside world are perfect or not - they should have them. 

"The Silent Scream" is nothing more but a video made up by anti-abortion zealots in order to scare women out of having an abortion. The videos are chock-full of innaccuracies and myths.


Medical Inaccuracies in The Silent Scream

Claim:
The 12-week fetus experiences pain.

Facts:
At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26–27 weeks' gestation (24–25 weeks' fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus
We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.

We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.

To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.


Claim:
The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).

Facts:
At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.

An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

What is termed "frantic activity" by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.

In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.

Claim:
Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus.

Facts:
The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.

Claim:
The fetus emits "The Silent Scream."

Facts:
A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26–27 weeks' gestation (24–25 weeks' fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.

Claim:
A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.

Facts:
A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman's womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.

Claim:
Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of "crushing instruments" for extraction.

Facts:
At 12 weeks' gestation (10 weeks' fetal age) and even 1–2 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus.


Misleading Statements, Exaggerations and Innuendoes in The Silent Scream

Claim:
"Brain waves have existed for six weeks" in the fetus displayed on the screen.

Expert Opinion:
Although some electrical impulses have been recorded as early as 10 weeks' gestation, these cannot be interpreted as or compared with brain waves. Genuine brain waves do not occur until the third trimester.

Claim:
Fetal heart rate rose from 140 to 200, which is abnormally high and reflective of fetal response to "imminent mortal danger."

Expert Opinion:
The heart rate of the fetus portrayed in the film does not change significantly at any time. Nevertheless, a fetal heart rate of 200 is within the normal range (normal 180–200 beats per minute) for this stage of pregnancy. It is also unlikely that the fetus had a heart rate of 140 that rose to 200. A rate of 140 is generally noted in the latter half of pregnancy.

Claim:
The large, well-developed fetal model intermittently picked up and displayed during the narrative of the abortion procedure is representative of a 12-week fetus.

Expert Opinion:
The fetal model displayed during the abortion procedure is much larger than a fetus of a 12 weeks' gestation model visualized by ultrasonography. The model compared in size to a fetus of 18 weeks' gestation (about 14cm or 5½" in crown-rump length [CRL]) as opposed to a fetus of 12 weeks gestation (about 6cm or 2½" in CRL). Such an inaccurate comparison is invalid.

Claim:
Many women who have an abortion suffer severe and lasting psychological damage.

Expert Opinion:
Serious emotional problems following abortion are uncommon. Most women report a sense of relief, although some may experience temporary depression. Serious psychological disturbances after abortion occur less frequently than after childbirth.

Claim:
There were 100,000 illegal abortions annually in the US in 1963.

Expert Opinion:
100,000 illegal abortions is considered by experts to be an underestimation. Although there are no accurate data on the number of illegal abortions prior to its legal performance, Dr. Christopher Tietze, a demographer who was known worldwide for the scientific quality of his work, estimated that in 1963, the numbers ranged between 200,000 and 1,200,000. It is generally believed that the figure was closer to the higher level, and has risen little since abortion was legalized (currently about 1,500,000). In 1963, only those botched abortions having serious complications requiring hospitalization could be counted. Without a legal requirement for reporting, there are no accurate estimations as to what percentage of the degrading, dangerous, illegal abortions was successful without such complications.

Claim:
The crime syndicate is heavily involved in the abortion industry today.

Expert Opinion:
There is nothing to prove or even suggest that the crime syndicate is currently involved in the provision of abortion services. However, it is a well-known fact that organized crime was heavily involved with illegal abortion. The high cost of illegal abortion made it lucrative for underworld elements. In the 1960s, illegal abortions cost from $750 to several thousand dollars. Considering inflation rates over the past 20 years, the cost of illegal abortions now would be more than triple that of the 1960s. Today [1985] the average cost for a first-trimester abortion is $200.

Claim:
Quoting from Williams' Obstetrics, the fetus is amenable to intrauterine therapy and is to be considered as a second patient.

Expert Opinion:
The statement in Williams Obstetrics text is true and intended to stimulate further interest and research in fetal and maternal relationships so as to improve the health of the mother and the autonomous newborn. However, in the film presentation, Dr. Nathanson focuses only on the fetus, totally ignoring the pregnant woman, who is the first patient and the thrust of the text. He misconstrues Williams' statement and implies that Williams considers the fetus the primary patient — an unacceptable premise under any circumstances.


I hope that these medical facts enlighten all of you.

Maybe, but this really has nothing to do with whether or not there should be an impediment (a legal one) to prevent murder, half murder, or whatever term you want to apply to this taking of innocent life.  The point is, is that once the being is there, it has this right, and it is the duty of any reasonable government to protect it, period.

As long as the fetus can't live outside the womb of a living, breathing, voting woman, then it isn't just one life the government is protecting and possessing, it's two. Consentual protection and possession by the society (the government) is a part of a social contract that assures liberty in exchange for this 'possession'. Non-consentual protection and possession is communism.


>>12 said: "Essentially, she gave the ultimate consent necessary for the creation of the fetus within her.  At this point, my analogy becomes valid."

And then >>12 said: "It doesn't matter whose fault it is.  The point is is that the fetus has a right to life, and the proper function of government is to protect that right to life from infringement.

So does it, or doesn't it matter that if a man doesn't have all the information or feel safe enough in his knowledge about the woman he's about to have intercourse with?

It's good to see you're finally straying away from the "whose's responsibility" argument (one you were losing, horribly) and going with something else. It's just that your comments seem contradictory.

>>13 I believe this is what is known in serious internet argumentation as a royal fisking up teh butt. Here on 4chan, jumping up and down in your seat, doing improv dancing and screaming "PWNT PWNT PWNT!!!" over and over is an accepted equivalent.

A FETUS IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL YOU RETARDS !!! THE CHIKEN THAT WAS KILLED TO MAKE THE MEAL I AM CURRENTLY EATING HAD A HIGHER LEVEL OF SENTIENCE THAN A FETUS...

>>16 Dude, don't give the faux-libertarian zealots any more ammo. They milk posts like that until it is as shrivelled as Condi's cooze.

>>17
>>16 Dude, don't give the faux-libertarian zealots any more proof that we are completely bat shit fucking loco. They will crush our insane opinion in debate until it is as finely powderred as the preparation H I must frequently use on my shit stank gonhorea syphilis aids infected faggot asshole!*

fix'd

You guys wanna hear a joke?

Women's rights.

LOL

>>18 Puerile attempt at humiliation? Check. Prejudice against gays? Checksy. Using a non-serious, non-factual post as an example for an opposing faction that has regularly used sources throughout the debate? MMMMMmmmmcheck. Using non-heterosexuality as a derogatory example? Checkity Choo. Using the term 'bat-shit insane/crazy/loco LOLILOL" for the xth time in the history of all net-forums? Checky... something.
What we have here is classic fail at troll of the 2nd degree. Kill it with melon scoops and salt.

tl;dw

>>21 What does that mean? Is it something marginally useful to know?

>>21

too long didn't write ?

>>13
So fucking true.

>>22
>>23
too long; didn't watch. dur

"Claim:
The fetus emits "The Silent Scream."

Facts:
A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26–27 weeks' gestation (24–25 weeks' fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries."

You are just getting into bullshit semantics.  The opening of its mouth signifies it knew something horrible was coming. 

>>14

"As long as the fetus can't live outside the womb of a living, breathing, voting woman, then it isn't just one life the government is protecting and possessing, it's two."

If you are trying to say the government should protect both the woman's, and the fetus' life, I agree.

"Consentual protection and possession by the society (the government) is a part of a social contract that assures liberty in exchange for this 'possession'. Non-consentual protection and possession is communism."

The government doesn't own or possess me or my body.  This isn't the soviet union.  Further, we do have non-consensual protection.  Whether or not I want to be protected from murderers by the police, the police will do it. 


"So does it, or doesn't it matter that if a man doesn't have all the information or feel safe enough in his knowledge about the woman he's about to have intercourse with?

It's good to see you're finally straying away from the "whose's responsibility" argument (one you were losing, horribly) and going with something else. It's just that your comments seem contradictory."

I will not stray away from that argument, and I wasn't losing it either.  If you want to continue this argument, continue it in that thread. 

This thread, is about the Silent Scream Video.  It has to do with whether or not abortion should be allowed, and again, also has to do with the video previously mentioned. 

"You are just getting into bullshit semantics.  The opening of its mouth signifies it knew something horrible was coming."

It's no different from an amoeba pulling away from something that touches it. In order for a being to KNOW and UNDERSTAND that something was coming it needs to have a cerebrum to INTERREPT pain, which for a fetus, doesn't develop until the third trimester. The mouth opening is merely a reflex without any PURPOSE.

"Claim:
The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).

Facts:
At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.

An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

What is termed "frantic activity" by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.

[[In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.]]"

Kthxbai.

>>27
"This thread, is about the Silent Scream Video.  It has to do with whether or not abortion should be allowed, and again, also has to do with the video previously mentioned."
Experts have already proven The Silent Scream as a product of anti-abortion extremists and zealots.
>>13

>>28

It doesn't matter if the fetus' movements are purposeful or not. The body reaction to alien interference is proof that it's trying to continue living.

An ameoba is a corporeal object that can be manipulated, but it is not reactionary. This is opposed to the fetus.

>>30
"The body reaction to alien interference is proof that it's trying to continue living."

Exactly, and it is the responsibility of any good government to protect this individual and its right to life. 

>>30
>>31
Dogs are reactionary too.  Do they have a right to life as well?

>>32
In this situation, it is clearly a developing human being, not a dog, and thus the developing human life deserves the protection of the government. 

>>33
Clusters of non-scentient cells need government protection just because they have some human DNA in them

Pro-life logic

LOL

>>30 You just placed a bunch of URL's on a post in an attempt to kick all the pro-choicers in the face, and when it becomes clear that the documentary is neither factual nor interested in the truth you gripe over one single debatable detail? Don't try to hide the fact that you couldn't be bothered with cross-reference and source scrutiny; that shockumentary got fisked and you invested some of your credibility in it.

>>33
A dog beats out a fetus in the areas of intelligence, sentience, ability to survive on its own, etc.  The only reason a fetus has more importance is because it COULD develop into a human being? How far back does it go?

>>35

Well Mr. Xel, the ameoba point made by Kumori was the only one worth responding to, so I did. The bulk of his post isn't necessarily consequential to the movement of the fetus and primarily theoretical except for his last line of his post.

Everytime you and I speak, you sound increasingly bitter...It really is pretty sad.

Plus, I'm not the one who made the first post. Furthermore, the most Kumori did to say those videos were faked was resort to hearsay. Because you piggy-backed his argument, you're an accessory.

>>36

Uuuhhhhh....What else is a human fetus gonna grow into exactly?

>>37 He gave medical facts that showed how pro-lifers resort to propaganda below the level of the creator of Loose Change. And I'm not that bitter. Exasperated and challenged, sure, but I don't care, really. Since four-fifths of the abortions occur before sentience can be proven, and I have shown how abortion clinics are geographically hard to get to, birth control is too expensive ofr some and national sex education is sub-par (especially in pro-life areas), my position doesn't have to change. One percent occur by the time of third trimester, so why should I have to defend myself? It might be murder but society isn't really trying to prevent the causes. I have already said what I have to say, the only thing I could be doing now is to push stuff back and forth and everything I say is apparently inadequate argumentation and extremism. Fair enough. I think a human can be measured by the consistency and sanity of the criticizm levelled at her. With enemies like you, why do I still keep friends?

I think you mean "she." I'm a woman. I believe the FACTS that I have shown pretty much gave a lot of people a good kick in the face. The Silent Scream was made up to brainwash the uneducated and further brainwash those away from hardcore, sound science.

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1154765576/13

Abortion is FAR from murder. A fetus is a POTENTIAL lifeform, it is NOT a PERSON. A fetus is easily compared to an acorn of an oaktree. An acorn ISN'T an oaktree. A fetus ISN'T a person.

It's also sad to see that the woman in The Silent Scream was TOTALLY left out. Sympathy was shown to the fetus, but not to the woman whom was left out. I suppose that Pro-lifers see a fucking fetus as more human than a woman already established in society.

"It doesn't matter if the fetus' movements are purposeful or not. The body reaction to alien interference is proof that it's trying to continue living."

I believe you missed this:
""In addition experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.""

The fucking video was purposely slowed down and sped up to the give the IMPRESSION that the fetus was reacting to alien interference. Please try accepting sound facts and logic.

Also, body cells also react to alien interference. If you cut yourself body cells will repair the wound. I suppose that by doing that you're committing mass murder. A fetus is comparable to body cells. Both have no feeling. I suppose that every time a woman has her Period she's committing murder and when a man has a wet dream he's committing mass man slaughter.

"I guess sperm is sacred too, and so must be the food that you eat to make sperm. Save the milkshakes! Milkshakes are sacred!"