Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihlpm!cher From: cher@ihlpm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: RE: Newsweek Poll and early abortions Message-ID: <158@ihlpm.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 13:50:41 EST Article-I.D.: ihlpm.158 Posted: Fri Mar 1 13:50:41 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 04:44:04 EST References: <534@homxb.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 38 > Who has widely characterized "Silent Scream" as fraud? > Where has this characterization appeared in print? > What do you mean by fraud? > Tim Meagher The statement questioned here was not a very relevant one for my point about EARLY (<8 weeks) abortions. The questions above represent 1) nitpicking 2) attempt to change the issue raised. Nevertheless, to remove those doubts: 1) I did not write down the names of the people who renounced the stuff, but the ones that did so were physicians, no less qualified then the narrator of the film. Some of them belong to Planned Parenthood Society (sounds close). 2) Characterization appeared probably everywhere, but I saw it in Chicago Tribune (late January). 3) By fraud I mean the narration of the movie. Here are few things that I remember: 12-week fetus is called "fully formed human being". The words "fully formed" are a joke - major systems have not achieved the stage where they are anywhere near being functional. The statement that the fetus is screaming is questionable to highest degree. Present it as a fact is intellectual dishonesty. The narrator gives it as rock-hard evidence. When the suction cup is applied, the movements of the fetus are described as "horror of a child that seeks to escape the imminent danger of destruction that it senses" - or some shit like that. Opponents observe that the real reason is the suction device that causes flow. To sell stuff of such questionable validity ( in such emotionally loaded manner) is fraud, as much as any other call to action based on unsubstanciated claims. Honest approach would require that the narrator present his stuff as far-fetched conjectures. It's been a while and I do not remember all the details. Anyway, what about the questions I asked previously? They are not strongly tied to stuff I just typed. Mike Cherepov