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"?