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