Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mit-eddie!barry From: barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: RE: Newsweek Poll and early abortions Message-ID: <3733@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Mar-85 10:37:12 EST Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3733 Posted: Sun Mar 3 10:37:12 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 20:29:51 EST References: <534@homxb.UUCP> <158@ihlpm.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 17 The basic fraud in "silent scream" is that the fetus can feel pain, and realizes the "mortal danger" it is in. I have seen large numbers of doctors, biologists, etc. refute these assumptions by reminding us that at 12 weeks, the cerebral cortex of a fetus is not developed enough for pain, or realizations of any sort. Whether anyone would like to argue this point or not is irrelevent. The issue is that since there is such widespread disagreement as to whether the fetus feels pain or realizes danger is enough to refute any medium that plays upon an unfounded emotional theory, and tries to cause pregnant women to make a decision based on innacuracies. Espcially when such a theory (held by a minority of the medical community, and not even by all right-to-lifers) is stated as fact, and all assumptions of the movie are based on it. I wonder on what premise the right-to-lifers got the permission from the aborting woman to make the film in the first place. Did they tell her it would be used to generate propaganda that would make her seem a murderer of her "fully formed human being"?