From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 17:45:28 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.715474639@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep01.234125.29513@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
> >In  <nyikos.715380785@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
> >> In <1992Aug30.072618.32178@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm
> >>
> >> But the bottom line is, do we stake the life of a being who is already
> >> quite possibly sentient on it, or do we give it the benefit of the doubt?
>
> >Before 28 weeks, it's *not* possible.
>
> It is very possible.  [...]
> _Fetal Electrocardiography and Electroencephalography_, By Richard Lee
> Bernstine [Charles C. Thomas, Springfield IL, 1961]
> [...]
>      CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FETUS IN UTERO
>
>         The determination of the state of consciousness of fetus
>      in utero is an intriguing problem and one which receives
>      speculation from time to time.  From the observations
>      of the electroencephalograms of the fetus, it is possible
>      to make general statements on this subject.  In the
>      author's recording from the brain of a forty-three to
>      forty-five day old fetus "sleep spindles," not unlike
>      that observed during sleep in adults, was observed.

OK, he saw spikes in an EEG.  Does he draw any conclusions regarding
sentience?  The neuroscientists I quoted explicitly stated that it's
not possible before 28 weeks.

> >> >Or, she might want to give birth, not realizing how even more dangerous it i
> >> >Better outlaw that, too.
> >>
> >> This is typical pro-abortion propaganda.
>
> >You mean because I have facts and figures to back me up, while you have
> >lies and unfounded opinions obtained from anti-abortion newsletters?
> >Yes, typical.  :-)
>
> I suppose the Alan Guttmacher Institute is your idea of a reliable source
> of facts and figures?

Yes, I consider them one reliable source.  I also presented figures from
the Universal Almanac and from a book called "Abortion and Sterilization:
Medical and Social Aspects".  There are many additional sources which say
the same thing.  Would you care to present some figures and sources, or
is it easier to just question everything you hear which doesn't agree
with your pre-conceived notions?

> Funny how you insist on using "safe" to apply to an operation one of
> whose major complications is cervical incompetence, which can inflate
> the carrying-to-term mortality rate.

Source for this?  Is this referring to suction curettage, which is by
far the most common method?  And, since you're quibbling about
"insignificant rates", how common is this "major complication" in what
has been described as one of the safest operations in the US?

> And another thing: "carrying to term" is a misnomer because that
> 8 to 12 times bit includes C-sections, does it not?

Given the definition "the normal elapsed period for birth after conception",
I don't think it's a misnomer for C-sections which take place at or after
the time when birth would normally be expected.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion