Hannity's America investigates Planned Parenthood tonight

hannity1.pngTonight, Hannity's America on Fox News Channel will feature an investigation of Planned Parenthood. The show will air 8p CST and 11p CST.

The program's impetus was the Aurora situation and the tremendous uprising against it. But also covered will be PP's other dubious activities. In fact, show producers asked pro-lifers providing background info to keep it quiet until a few days ago so they could do some digging of PP without it knowing.

The segment is supposed to air about 8:30p CST. It will feature one or more of the Scheidlers, and we hear it will also feature Chicago's own Yvonne Florczak-Seeman, who had five abortions and is now pro-life.

This is not Planned Parenthood's week.

[HT: Tom Brejcha, Rock for Life, Eric Scheidler]


Comments:

It's Planned Parenthood vs. Seeman!

This stuff just writes itself...

Posted by: Laura at September 7, 2007 3:53 PM


I have a cool idea!
Hannity and Scheidler are both devout Roman Catholics. Why don't they get the RCC to spend say..., $200 MILLION DOLLARS on a ginormous crisis pregnancy center.
Oh wait...
Forget it...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Diocese Settles Abuse Claims for $198M
San Diego Diocese to Pay $198 Million to Settle 144 Claims of Abuse by Clergy

The Associated Press By ALLISON HOFFMAN Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO Sep 7, 2007 (AP)

The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego said Friday it has agreed to pay $198.1 million to settle 144 claims of sexual abuse by clergy.

The agreement caps more than four years of negotiations in state and federal courts. Earlier this year, the diocese abruptly filed for bankruptcy protection just hours before a trial was scheduled to begin on 42 lawsuits alleging sexual abuse.
The diocese has been under pressure to reach a settlement. It sought to shield its assets by declaring bankruptcy, but a judge recently threatened to throw out the diocese's bankruptcy case if an agreement wasn't reached with the plaintiffs.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Posted by: Laura at September 7, 2007 4:28 PM


Laura, 3:53p, said: "It's Planned Parenthood vs. Seeman! This stuff just writes itself..."

Laura, you may be vicious, but you sure can crack me up. Lol

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 7, 2007 5:28 PM


"Hannity and Scheidler are both devout Roman Catholics."

*sigh* maybe some other time....

Posted by: Rosie at September 7, 2007 5:38 PM


Oh Hannity...

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 7, 2007 5:55 PM


"Oh Hannity..."

Oh Hannity is right PIP. This is good he's getting the word out, not bad.

Posted by: jasper at September 7, 2007 7:48 PM


He who laughs last laughs longest. Remember that, pockmark!

Posted by: SoMG at September 8, 2007 12:01 AM


SoMG,

Thought I'd take a break from Seuss for a minute...How bout Shel Silverstein...


Cloony The Clown
BY
Shel Silverstein


I'll tell you the story of Cloony the Clown
Who worked in a circus that came through town.
His shoes were too big and his hat was too small,
But he just wasn't, just wasn't funny at all.
He had a trombone to play loud silly tunes,
He had a green dog and a thousand balloons.
He was floppy and sloppy and skinny and tall,
But he just wasn't, just wasn't funny at all.
And every time he did a trick,
Everyone felt a little sick.
And every time he told a joke,
Folks sighed as if their hearts were broke.
And every time he lost a shoe,
Everyone looked awfully blue.
And every time he stood on his head,
Everyone screamed, "Go back to bed!"
And every time he made a leap,
Everybody fell asleep.
And every time he ate his tie,
Everyone began to cry.
And Cloony could not make any money
Simply because he was not funny.
One day he said, "I'll tell this town
How it feels to be an unfunny clown."
And he told them all why he looked so sad,
And he told them all why he felt so bad.
He told of Pain and Rain and Cold,
He told of Darkness in his soul,
And after he finished his tale of woe,
Did everyone cry? Oh no, no, no,
They laughed until they shook the trees
With "Hah-Hah-Hahs" and "Hee-Hee-Hees."
They laughed with howls and yowls and shrieks,
They laughed all day, they laughed all week,
They laughed until they had a fit,
They laughed until their jackets split.
The laughter spread for miles around
To every city, every town,
Over mountains, 'cross the sea,
From Saint Tropez to Mun San Nee.
And soon the whole world rang with laughter,
Lasting till forever after,
While Cloony stood in the circus tent,
With his head drooped low and his shoulders bent.
And he said,"THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT -
I'M FUNNY JUST BY ACCIDENT."
And while the world laughed outside.
Cloony the Clown sat down and cried.

Posted by: mk at September 8, 2007 6:18 AM


YVONNE ON FOX NEWS CHANNEL, THIS SUNDAY, 8PM CENTRAL TIME (AURORA PP)

I heard Yvonne Florczak-Seeman will be on gHannityfs Americah on the Fox News Channel this Sunday September 9th.

Yvonne had 5 abortions in her past and is now Pro-Life. She now heads Project Rachael. I seen her talk a couple of times -- once for Fr. Frank Pavone who could not make it to Chicago because of a snow storm in New York. Yvonne gave her talk without a script and she was tremendous. Her talk really came from the heart. Everyone in the audience could really feel it.

She also once talked to Pre-Med students at Northwestern University who were shocked by Yvonne's talk. I believe she turned a few Pre-Med students from being Pro-Choice to Pro-Life on that day.

Last year she was on gCatholic Answers Liveh on 2-17-06. You can listen to the Audio Archives of the show by going to c

http://www.catholic.com

Click on gRadioh, click on gGuest Scheduleh, go to g2-17-06.

Double click on gA Time To Speakh.


Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 8, 2007 6:37 AM


Sorry, on my previous post go to Catholic.com.

Click on "Radio", Click on "Guest Schedule", then go to "2-17-06".

Double click on "A Time To Speak".

-------

Here is Yvonne's website...

http://www.lovefromaboveinc.com/

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 8, 2007 6:44 AM


Yvonne had 5 abortions in her past and is now Pro-Life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Translation: Yvonne utilized her right to reproductive autonomy every time she felt like it. Now she's going to deny you YOURS.
Yvonne sounds like she can't make adult decisions. Why should ANYONE listen to a mouth-breather like that? Shouldn't we listen to the 50,000,000 women who chose abortion and were totally satified with the result?

Posted by: Laura at September 8, 2007 9:32 AM


Laura,

50,000,000 women have not had abortions.

* Almost half of the women undergoing an abortion - - 46% - - have already had at least one previous abortion,' a percentage which has tripled since 1974. In 1983, 39% of abortion patients reported having 1, 2, 3, or more abortions; in 1974 the percentage was 15. (Facts in Brief, Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995.)

* Now, at least 15% of the women have had 2 or more abortions. The Alan Guttmacher Institute has not published a breakdown on repeat abortions recently, but in 1987 26.9% of abortion patients reported I previous abortion, 10.7 had 2, and 5.3 reported 3 or more earlier abortions. ("Characteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1982-1983," Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1987, p. 3.)

Posted by: mk at September 8, 2007 10:42 AM


And of those women many, many, many do regret their decisions...

Posted by: mk at September 8, 2007 10:42 AM


Well I guess that Yvonne - like those other women - were SO pleased with the result that they went back for more!
Yvonne must have some sort of Hoover fetish...

Posted by: Laura at September 8, 2007 10:58 AM


many,many,many do not. That's life. Make a decision and live with it. Sometimes we might regret a decision, but Laura's right, that's no reason to deny the right to make those decisions to others.

Posted by: Hal at September 8, 2007 11:02 AM


Wow, Laura you sure are tolerant!

Posted by: lauren at September 8, 2007 11:04 AM


why should Laura be tolerant? Would you be tolerant of a woman who had five abortions and told the world it was the greatest thing she ever did? And she can't wait to have another?

Posted by: Hal at September 8, 2007 11:44 AM


Hal, I think there are a few women out there like that. I wouldn't say they are in love with the procedure, but they sure use the abortion clinic as their BC. Why? I will never know.

Posted by: Heather at September 8, 2007 12:13 PM


Hal, no, but I don't wave around a banner saying that I support "choice".

Even then, I wouldn't call the woman a "mouth breather" or "bottem feeder".

I would just really, really believe what she was doing is wrong and thus be "intolerant" of her actions.

Posted by: lauren at September 8, 2007 4:27 PM


Almost half of the women undergoing an abortion - - 46% - - have already had at least one previous abortion,' a percentage which has tripled since 1974. In 1983, 39% of abortion patients reported having 1, 2, 3, or more abortions; in 1974 the percentage was 15. (Facts in Brief, Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995.)

Now, at least 15% of the women have had 2 or more abortions. The Alan Guttmacher Institute has not published a breakdown on repeat abortions recently, but in 1987 26.9% of abortion patients reported I previous abortion, 10.7 had 2, and 5.3 reported 3 or more earlier abortions. ("Characteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1982-1983," Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1987, p. 3.)

MK, used to be that around 45% of American women would have at least one abortion. Now the rate is lower - I think at current it is expected that right about 1 in 3 will.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 8, 2007 11:36 PM


Hal: many,many,many do not. That's life. Make a decision and live with it. Sometimes we might regret a decision, but Laura's right, that's no reason to deny the right to make those decisions to others.

Indeed. There are no guarantees in life that every decision will be seen as good, on balance, forever. Of course, this includes continuing pregnancies as well as ending them. If we want to "outlaw" regrets, here, there is no way to do it as long as people get pregnant.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 8, 2007 11:38 PM


why should Laura be tolerant? Would you be tolerant of a woman who had five abortions and told the world it was the greatest thing she ever did? And she can't wait to have another?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...Or a woman who had five children, decided she didn't like them, and tried to have childbearing outlawed in the US.

Posted by: Laura at September 9, 2007 6:39 PM


Never got into Shel Silverstein. I'm of the Underdog generation.

Posted by: SoMG at September 9, 2007 8:07 PM


"You can charge me with murder, or with want of sense
(We are all of us weak at times.)

But the slightest approach to a false pretense
Was never among my crimes!"

Who can identify the author of the above lines?

Posted by: SoMG at September 9, 2007 8:09 PM


All,
How about listening to Yvonne's testimony before jumping down her breathin' mouth? She may have something of interest to share with you.

Honestly.

Such tolerant, compassionate, pro-woman, pro-choicers.

Posted by: carder at September 9, 2007 8:09 PM


All,
How about listening to Yvonne's testimony before jumping down her breathin' mouth? She may have something of interest to share with you.

Honestly.

Such tolerant, compassionate, pro-woman, pro-choicers.

Posted by: carder at September 9, 2007 8:09 PM


"You can charge me with murder, or with want of sense
(We are all of us weak at times.)

But the slightest approach to a false pretense
Was never among my crimes!"

_____

SoMG, I couldn't think of it, and had to look it up. He was a great poet.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 9, 2007 8:57 PM


Hello All,
I'm sorry my posts are so long...I have so many questions and things I wonder about...well thanks for having the patience to read my thoughts...

I just joined this blog about a week ago, so I'm still new here...I went to Yvonne's site and I know one of the things that that people debate with regards to abortion is the question as to when life begins. Yvonne's site states that "We believe that human life begins in the womb on the day of conception." I know many people who agree, there are also those who either disagree or who have other ideas of when life begins. I'm just asking an open question as to what some of you believe.

I guess I'm not sure what I believe after reading so many different arguments on the subject. I did some research on the subject and learned some interesting things which I'll bring up in a moment.

First of all my own political convictions lend me to think that the government has no right to sticks it's paws into personal or religious affairs, I guess this is because I tend to lean libertarian in much of my politics. However given this, I also believe that personal motivation and conviction can be just as strong as any law...i.e. if people are educated properly they will be more motivated to make the better decisions, as opposed to "I just do this because the law says so" vs. "This is the right thing to do and I know so in my heart" (maybe that's just the teacher in me :). But, a woman can be more motivated by her personal convictions for example, not to have an abortion because she is aware of all the facts and consequences vs. because the law says so.

Although laws are important in that they protect against abuses and criminal activity and such. Again, I would like to hear if anyone has any thoughts on any of the points I bring up... Also, I know in reality that because we function within a capitalistic culture, there is a (market) demand for doctors who perform abortions, as horrible as a procedure as it may be, there will be women who seek to have this procedure, I learned that there have been throughout history women who sought abortions - in ancient times this may have meant taking an herbal concoction (possibly risking death because it's essentially poison!), but still there were women who would choose this...this is why I mention personal motivation, because with all this in mind education and personal motivation could contribute to decreasing demand for abortions.

Also, realistically, if the government decides that abortions are to become illegal, this could jeopardize the lives of some women, yes a small percentage, but still there may be those in a life-threatening position in which a terminated pregnancy may save her life, and then also there are the victims of sexual assault?

These are all difficult questions that need to be realistically addressed, should there be exceptions?

I personally would never have an abortion myself. Like I said in a previous post I am also a survivor of a violent sexual assault (the perp. was a stranger) but I still feel the same way, abortions just don't fit with my personal beliefs or convictions (luckily I did not get pregnant).

I also said in an earlier post, as an instance where something positive can come out of a situation like this, that my husband was conceived as a result of a rape.

However, I cannot speak for the experience of the mother which was not good, since my husband was beaten mercilessly (to the point of hospitalization) as a kid and was resented by both (non-biological) father and mother - he eventually ran away and went to live with another family member.

However, my life would be entirely different if it wasn't for him being born. I personally believe that the child in no way should be punished for the crime by being given a death sentence, I couldn't imagine if the love of my life had been not given the chance at life!

But I understand that some women, especially young girls (who could be as young as 8), would not be able to make this same decision, furthermore there is the problem, which many children face, of being resented - this however could be dealt with through education and support.

Still, I couldn't imagine the struggle of say, a 9 or 10 year old who is a child herself carrying a pregnancy which was forced upon her.

Again, I think education is key in that women need to have the truth and all information on this subject and of course support, those that choose against abortion will have very strong personal motivations for doing so, and this ideally could become the norm.

Also, it is very much a personal affair since it involves personal religious belief. I wanted to talk about this as well because in my search on the internet I found that there seem to be differences among religions as to when life begins and even the laws on abortion.

It is interesting that the Christian Church's historical stance on this position has changed throughout history. It was dominated by the belief of "delayed ensoulment" either after "quickening" or through a distinction between "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus": "contraception and abortion were not condemned if performed early in gestation [90 days]. It is only if the abortion is done later in pregnancy that a human soul is destroyed" And the traditional Jewish faith's position: "The Jewish faith was generally opposed to both infanticide and abortion. An exception occurred if the continuation of a pregnancy posed a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or to her other children. In such cases, the pregnant woman is actually obligated to abort the fetus; the fetus is then considered "radef" -- a pursuer."

These were interesting to learn because I had always assumed that abortion had been condemned throughout history and in all religions, but clearly there is a lot of grey in the debate. As a country of religious tolerance here in the U.S., and as it seems that different religions have different beliefs as to when life begins and what constitutes infanticide, it appears that it is hard to say with certain, when a life truly begins, except for in our own personal convictions and religious faith - there will always be other religions and faiths that differ on this issue (as I said earlier I certainly don't think the government has a right to step over the feet of religious doctrine in order to settle any controversial issue, that should be left for the faith to decide).

The Vatican has changed its position on this issue within the last century and now states that a life begins at conception or even possibly two weeks before conception.

Even "when a delivery goes terribly wrong, and the attending physicians have the choice of (a) killing the fetus, and saving the life of the woman, or (b) doing nothing, allowing nature to take its course, and watching both the woman and fetus die, the only moral decision is the latter" (since no evil should ever be done no matter what good may come of it.) This is an interesting scenario, what would you do? I personally don't think I could ever just let someone die, but it's interesting moral dilemma to ponder, should we accept the death of one person in order to save another? The Jewish faith's current view on the issue differs from the Vatican's. It can be taken from Jewish law, "Halacha which defines when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). it says that "a baby becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb.

Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.'" and in the case of a feet-first delivery, "it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body." So there is a difference of beliefs among modern religions as to when a fetus can be considered a full-fledged living being. I'm not sure what Islam, Buddhism or the others say, but maybe someone else here knows. The issue of when life begins is a very controversial topic it seems even to this day there has not been much agreement. Even today there have been some statements by the Vatican which seems to imply certain exceptions such as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, since murder is not the intentional outcome or the procedure.

I'd like to hear what others think on this...especially, do you think that if the government were to take a position on where life begins that they would be butting in to religious affair in which they have no place?
What about personal motivation and making the desire for life the norm?

Also, I'd like to share another personal conviction of mine...that goes along with my conviction that life is sacred. I made a personal choice a while ago to abstain from eating meat (which I think of as dead animals)

Although there are debates as to what diet is best I feel that we can be perfectly healthy and not eat meat...wasn't Jesus a vegetarian? Many people think those of us who choose to abstain from meat are crazy peta freaks, I'm not a freak at all, and I'm not violent nor do I push my beliefs on anyone else. My choice comes solely from the value that I place on life and that I feel it wrong to kill - whether it be a human or a chicken.

Again it's all about personal choice, belief and motivation, and the fact that I would never abort or eat meat is based on my personal values.

What do you all think? Do any of you choose to abstain from eating meat or consider it? (I know it's a random question, a lot of this post is kinda a random conglomeration of thoughts and ideas but I thought it relates to the life debate)

Thanks again for hanging in there and for being so patient, I always seem to type such long posts. I guess I have a lot to say!

Peace & love

Edited to include paragraph breaks

Posted by: nicole at September 9, 2007 10:07 PM


Nicole,

Welcome Aboard! I am very glad you are here!

I can't comment on the content of your post right now because I have to get up early tomorrow but I do have a small request...

Is it possible to use paragraphs when you have a change in thought? It makes it so much easier for me to read and comprehend.

Sorry, I hope I did not come across the wrong way. I am glad you are here and look forward to read your future posts here.

Mike

Posted by: MIke at September 9, 2007 10:24 PM


yea, sorry I was just being lazy.

Posted by: nicole at September 10, 2007 12:35 AM


In this day and age the clearest and most easily defined definition of when life begins is the scientific definition, at conception.

There have been other science vs religion issues argued in the courts and it is just not possible to use religion as the overiding legal principle in a pluralistic and secular society.

The scientific definition is adequate and easily proved.

Posted by: hippie at September 10, 2007 6:46 AM


arguing with Doug...

"Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic"

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
lewis caroll

Posted by: mk at September 10, 2007 7:36 AM


SoMG,

"One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others."
Lewis Carroll

Posted by: mk at September 10, 2007 7:37 AM


Nicole,

I'd like to hear what others think on this...especially do you think that if the government were to take a position on where life begins that they would be butting in to religious affair in which they have no place?

While different faiths do indeed weigh in on when life begins, and it does tend to be Christians that fight hardest to end abortion, the question of whether or a not a human being has the right to life from conception on, is not really a religious one.

Do you think it is a religious question whether or not capital punishment should be legal? After all, different faiths have different takes on this?

Is euthanasia a religious question, just because different faiths weigh in on the topic? Is the reason that we don't put old people down like dogs, only because the Catholic Church says we shouldn't? Or is it because it's wrong?

Contrary to what Doug believes, ending a child's life should be an external truth. It should not be left up to the whim of women...All human life should be protected from conception to natural death, because we are all members of the human race. At the most selfish level, protecting life means that if the situation arose, they couldn't take your life either. At the unselfish end, life should be sacred, simply because it's the right thing to do.

Posted by: mk at September 10, 2007 7:53 AM


Good morning, Marykay!

Posted by: Bethany at September 10, 2007 8:24 AM


Mk and Bethany, good morning!

Posted by: Heather at September 10, 2007 9:04 AM


mornin' Bethany and Heather...

Posted by: mk at September 10, 2007 9:47 AM


Jill Girl here...

Good morning, MK, Bethany, and Heather...

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 10, 2007 10:14 AM


Nicole,we're in the middle of the move from hell(It's even raining today!), so I don't have too much time to respond. You posed some great questions and I can't wait to talk with you more. Welcome!

As for your question on the government's role...

The government does take a position on "when life begins", they say birth. How would it be different to move that marker to conception?

I'm fairly libertarian as well, but I believe that our liberties are inherant to us as humans. Thus, I believe that unborn children are also entitled to said liberties. We are told that right to life is both self evident and endowed by our creator. This implies that our rights our inherant to our natures. If this is the case, abortion can not be just, as it is taking away our self evident rights.

Anyways, I'm sorry I can't stick around today and discuss more, but I promise I'll be back.

Lauren

Posted by: lauren at September 10, 2007 10:53 AM


In this day and age the clearest and most easily defined definition of when life begins is the scientific definition, at conception.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sperm aren't alive?
Ova aren't alive?
Life is a continuum. Unless you can go back in time and wade through some primordial soup, you have no idea when life "begins."

Posted by: Anonymous at September 10, 2007 12:03 PM


Anonymous, I'm sure that you are aware that what was being spoken of was "human life", not just "life" in general. The sperm and ova (not human life) come together and from conception form a new human life, a complete human organism with it's own DNA. The sperm and ova alone are not human organisms.

Posted by: Bethany at September 10, 2007 12:19 PM


Doug,

Tasting and Smelling

The structures for tasting are available at about 14 weeks g.a. and experts believe that tasting begins at that time. Tests show that swallowing increases with sweet tastes and decreases with bitter and sour tastes.

http://birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html

Surely, taste preferences show conciousness at 14 weeks, or are you going to say that's a reflex also?

Posted by: mk at September 10, 2007 2:11 PM


Doug,

Between week six and ten, fetal bodies burst into motion, achieving graceful, stretching, and rotational movements of the head, arms and legs. Hand to head, hand to face, hand to mouth movements, mouth opening, closing, and swallowing are all present at 10 weeks (Tajani and Ianniruberto, 1990). By 14 weeks, the complete repertoire of fetal movements seen throughout gestation are already in evidence (deVries, Visser, and Prechtl, 1985). Movement is spontaneous, endogenous, and typically cycles between activity and rest. Breathing movements and jaw movements have begun. Hands are busy interacting with other parts of the body and with the umbilical cord.

From this early stage onward, movement is a primary activity, sometimes begun spontaneously, sometimes provoked by events. Spontaneous movement occurs earliest, probably expressing purely individual interests and needs. Evoked movement reflects sensitivity to the environment. For example, between 10 and 15 weeks g.a., when a mother laughs or coughs, her fetus moves within seconds.

How many of these are you going to keep down-playing? What will it take? Does the fetus have to write a poem? Take a phone call? Kiss a midget? What? What do you need?

You can't even give me a clear definition of sentience/consciousness and yet you ask me to prove it has taken place at a certain gestational age? Does that really seem fair to you?

Posted by: mk at September 10, 2007 2:15 PM


How many of these are you going to keep down-playing? What will it take? Does the fetus have to write a poem? Take a phone call? Kiss a midget?

Posted by: Bethany at September 10, 2007 5:10 PM


MK: Contrary to what Doug believes, ending a child's life should be an external truth. It should not be left up to the whim of women...All human life should be protected from conception to natural death, because we are all members of the human race. At the most selfish level, protecting life means that if the situation arose, they couldn't take your life either. At the unselfish end, life should be sacred, simply because it's the right thing to do.

That "should" you mention comes from you, MK. Internal all the way.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 10, 2007 9:53 PM


Bethany: How many of these are you going to keep down-playing? What will it take? Does the fetus have to write a poem? Take a phone call? Kiss a midget?

:: laughing ::

Bethany, don't you worry - I've seen vast amounts of fetus poetry on other message boards.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 10, 2007 9:54 PM


MK: The structures for tasting are available at about 14 weeks g.a. and experts believe that tasting begins at that time. Tests show that swallowing increases with sweet tastes and decreases with bitter and sour tastes.

http://birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html

Surely, taste preferences show conciousness at 14 weeks, or are you going to say that's a reflex also?

Who says the structures are "available" and what exactly does that mean? "Experts believe" - yeah, right.... Just what tests were actually conducted?

Chamberlain is a pro-life guy, and he's embellishing if not outright fabricating stuff there.

It's silly to say that "tasting begins at that time." I have seen any number of such obfuscations if not worse.

http://www.crossroadsprc.org/development.php = a good, general, and unbiased site.

Says, "taste buds form" in week 24. Not to mention that the taste center in the brain isn't connected, developed or operational enough until the weeks late in the 20s.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 10, 2007 10:56 PM


MK: Between week six and ten, fetal bodies burst into motion, achieving graceful, stretching, and rotational movements of the head, arms and legs. Hand to head, hand to face, hand to mouth movements, mouth opening, closing, and swallowing are all present at 10 weeks (Tajani and Ianniruberto, 1990). By 14 weeks, the complete repertoire of fetal movements seen throughout gestation are already in evidence (deVries, Visser, and Prechtl, 1985). Movement is spontaneous, endogenous, and typically cycles between activity and rest. Breathing movements and jaw movements have begun. Hands are busy interacting with other parts of the body and with the umbilical cord.

Still nothing conscious there. Yes, there are muscular contractions, but are they intentional, willful? The conscious part of the brain isn't even really "there" at 10 or 14 weeks. Chamberlain is skirting the issue here, describing things and sort of implying that mental awareness of sensation is present without actually stating so, and setting himself up to be proven false.

.......


From this early stage onward, movement is a primary activity, sometimes begun spontaneously, sometimes provoked by events. Spontaneous movement occurs earliest, probably expressing purely individual interests and needs. Evoked movement reflects sensitivity to the environment. For example, between 10 and 15 weeks g.a., when a mother laughs or coughs, her fetus moves within seconds.

Again, the question is if it's truly conscious response or not. There is reflexive motion early on, but this speculation of "probably expressing individual interests and needs" stuff isn't proven. Sheesh.

.......

How many of these are you going to keep down-playing? What will it take? Does the fetus have to write a poem? Take a phone call? Kiss a midget? What? What do you need?

We need proof of conscious response. Not reflexive motion and not the autonomic nervous system being the driver. If the parts of the brain where consciousness resides is developed, connected, and operational enough, then it's possible. Before that, it's not.

......


You can't even give me a clear definition of sentience/consciousness and yet you ask me to prove it has taken place at a certain gestational age? Does that really seem fair to you?

I did say brain waves - the type we associate with consciousness, mental awareness, etc. Anand, a doctor who is quite pro-life by the way, found that electroencephalic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres become sustained at 22 weeks, and bilaterally synchronus at 26 to 27 weeks (whatever that last part means). Anyway, it's not at least until the weeks in the 20s that "sensate" or "sentient" or "mentally aware" or "conscious" can be said to be the case.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 10, 2007 11:05 PM


Nicole, thanks for those paragraphs.

There is life at conception, and "human" certainly applies. I don't think those are really at issue.

I like meat, and in 1984 ate a 6 lb. steak in 19 minutes - which was the speed record at the restaurant at the time. You had 90 minutes to eat it all, plus a salad and baked potato, and if you did it you got it for free. If not it cost $30.

There was a sister restaurant, and there the speed record was 10.5 minutes, a record which had stood since 1973. All I can say is that must have been a grizzly bear.

In the "meat" vein, my Screen Name on AOL has been "PorkLoin" for 11 years, just 'cos it sounds funny.

I don't know if Jesus or people who lived way back when were vegetarians. Don't even know if they flossed or not. I do know there wasn't any Surgeon General saying do this or don't do that, so I imagine they partied pretty hard.

You are right on, saying (the abortion debate) is about personal choice, belief, and motivation. Great post by you, and well said indeed.

I'm pro-choice, not religious much at all, and hope you keep posting.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 10, 2007 11:17 PM