From: darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves (was: Re: fetus vs. baby)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:59:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.143851.8351@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>>fred j mccall writes:
>>>>	"40 days      The baby's brain waves can be detected,
>>>>		      recorded and even read by a doctor."
>
>>Biased source or not, it's a correct figure.  Six to eight weeks of
>>gestation is the figure I've seen quoted in every single book on
>>child development that I've read.
>
>Well, not quite correct, apparently, since even if we take 6-8 weeks
>as a correct figure, that's 42-56 days, not 40 days.

Come off it, Fred.  42 days is approximately equal to 40 days.  There's
also the fact that there is a development period when brainwaves are
initially detected (barely detectable) and when brainwaves are easily
readable on the EEG.  I believe the book John quoted mentions this
fact (I found it in a bookstore) as does Nathanson.

>>>The figure I've been given (by someone whose words I trust a hell of a
>>>lot more than I will ever trust the words of someone like you) is that
>>>human brain waves appear between the 4th and 5th month.  Tell you
>>>what, though.  I'll ask her to take a look in her Embryology textbook
>>>and make sure that her memory isn't flawed.  THEN I will call you a
>>>liar (again).
>
>>Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a gynecologist who used to run the largest
>>abortion clinic in the world, says six to eight weeks.  Oddly enough,
>>Dr. Nathanson now finds himself on the pro-life side of things after
>>looking seriously at what he was doing.  In the introduction to his
>>book _Aborting_America_, I believe he says he was personally
>>responsible for performing tens of thousands of abortions.  He's
>>not what you would call a religious fanatic either; he's a Jewish
>>atheist.  His arguments are mostly built on logic and reason.  
>
>>As a suggestion, Fred, I'd highly recommend your personally making
>>use of a public library and the treasures within instead of relying
>>on word-of-mouth information for everything.  
>
>I find it incredibly interesting that taking what someone said as fact
>for one thing has now somehow miraculously equated to "for
>everything".  

Without being inflammatory, may I point out that you have yet to post
a *verifiable* source for any statistics or figures you have quoted
in any article that I've seen you post to tx.politics.  Ignoring the
"I saw it on the evening news" episode, you have not cited a single
reputable book, person, study, or survey that backs you up.  Because
of this, I made the generalization "for everything."  You're welcome
to invalidate this generalization.

>Frankly, the first thought that occurs to me upon seeing
>this bit of arrogance is to suggest that you go to your public
>library, find the biggest book you can, and, well, I'm sure you get
>the idea.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be arrogant.  It's simply that you seem to
get all of your facts "second-hand", from sources that none of us
can verify.  If you were to post verifiable sources, I might even go
dig it out myself!  I'm always open to considering other points of
view (this does NOT mean I'll accept the point of view as valid -- only
that I'll consider it) -- just point me in the right direction.

>>You could put your
>>own doubts completely to rest if you'd simply go to a public library
>>and look at some encyclopedias or child development texts.
>
>Well, I didn't HAVE any reasonable doubts up until now.  You see,
>unlike some people (apparently), I don't assume someone is lying just
>because I happen to disagree with them or they say something that I'd
>prefer not to believe.  

Several of us have cited references that directly contradict the
information that you have, and you don't have any reasonable doubts?!
I can understand having no doubts INITIALLY, but when confronted
with information that says your information is incorrect, you're not
even looking into it further?  

Like you, I don't assume someone is lying just because I disagree with
them, but please don't think less of me simply because I verify
my opponents' information.  Even John Haugh has changed his opinion
on marijuana legalization because he was confronted with "better"
facts from his opposition.

>I generally only start disbelieving people
>when, like John Haugh II, they have demonstrated repeatedly that their
>standard stock in trade consists primarily of personal insult, lies,
>wholesale distortion of the facts, and biased presentation whenever it
>happens to suit them.  Of course, once someone has clearly
>demonstrated, as has John Haugh II, that that is indeed their usual
>mode of discussion, I will give much less weight to anything they say,
>particularly if it contradicts something that someone else with more
>credibility has said.

I am not as, ummm..., confrontational as John Haugh.  I believe that
he does sometimes use language that is too strong when addressing
his political/ideological opponents.  However, I find your charges
that he wildly distorts facts and biases his presentations whenever
it suits him to be stretching the truth.  Obviously, there will always 
be some bias in a persuasive argument, but there are only a few Haugh 
discussions that I can think of where he probably did take too much 
liberty with his information.

>I'm curious.  Since I've never seen paper refuse to take ink, why is
>it that you find a book so much more reliable than someone whose
>professional training involves having the knowledge?  

It depends on who wrote the book.  In my case I cited a book written
by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, M.D. (Ob/Gyn, at that) who has extensive
experience with abortion (he has performed them, he has run a clinic,
her has taught how to perform them, he has treated women and their
ailments/conditions, he has lobbied for abortion rights, he has lobbied
for pro-life causes -- he has seen a lot of things).  He's a credible
source.

I know four people in medical school (one near graduation) -- would you
prefer me to ask them what their textbooks say about child development?
I'll bet that they agree with Nathanson and the book (1250 questions...)
that John Haugh cites.

>After all, this
>is the first time that Mr. Haugh bothered to give a source for his
>contention, either.  

John Haugh *usually* cites his material, whether it's a book, a recognized
authority in the field, or his own empirical observations.  If you think
his material (especially his empirical observations) are invalid,
then please try to refute them with "better" sources.

>So, like I said, I will ask Jeanie to check her
>embryology text and make sure.  Then I'll either cite a source or say
>that I was previously misinformed.

My goal in this discussion is to cut through the misinformation and
get to some of the core issues, not to embarrass you or anyone else.

Daryl
--
Daryl Biberdorf                 |  Compaq Computer Corporation | standard
darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com |  20555 SH 249  M/S 060701    | disclaimer
dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu         |  Houston, TX 77070           | applies