Log In Sign Up

Oh my flippin #$%^%


Abortion Debate

This forum is for Abortion debate only. If you are highly sensitive about this topic, read at your own discretion.

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Abortion Debate LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #42  
October 16th, 2006, 03:47 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't understand.. just becuase there are some brain waves present, doesn't mean they have the means to process anything. Can you remember being in the womb?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
October 16th, 2006, 03:55 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think you're combining issues to fit your agenda.

The bottom line is that original post's thread/video was doctored.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
October 16th, 2006, 04:00 PM
kadydid
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
NONE of my children moved in that manner...and yes, I would definitely say that if they did. Yes, they would move sporatically, but NOT deliberate like that. And the video DID show the baby moving sporatically before the actually abortion took place....the first time you see the baby, it is freeze-framed or the image was slowed so that you can get a good picture of the baby and distinguish certain things without having the baby move, which would make it more difficult.[/b]
Did you have 10-12 week ultrasounds? We asked about it when we had ours done and she said that they just do that, it is something that is very common at that stage.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
October 16th, 2006, 04:00 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
Quote:
At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26–27 weeks' gestation (24–25 weeks' fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.[/b]
Quote:
Although some electrical impulses have been recorded as early as 10 weeks' gestation, these cannot be interpreted as or compared with brain waves. Genuine brain waves do not occur until the third trimester.[/b]
They distinguish between electrical impulses and genuine brave waves.
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
  #48  
October 16th, 2006, 04:12 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
I think you're combining issues to fit your agenda.[/b]
I don't understand? How?
People keep saying (in this thread), that prolife info is false and prochoice info is NOT. But, here I clearly show that yes, prochoice info CAN and IS false.
[/b][/quote]
I think you can show information is subjective. There aren't any definate facts about fetal development. There are studies that claim this or that. We all try to work within those new studies. To claim PP is lying over disputable facts is very absolute.

To actually get back to the OP ~ Cece, do you agree or disagree that original video and information could have been embellished?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
October 16th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
That wasn't really a medical site. but if you wish:

Quote:
They found "electrical activity" in fetal brainstem cells from 10 weeks of pregnancy (56 days after fertilization) on, but that doesn't mean much. An EEG involves measuring varying electrical potentials across a dipole, or separated positive and negative charges. Any living cell has an electrical potential across its membrane, and any living structure is a dipole, which explains why people have been able to put electrodes on plants, hook them up to EEG machines, and get "evidence" that plants have feelings. But this has nothing to do with "brain waves," which are a nontechnical term for a particular kind of varying potentials produced by certain brain structures that don't even exist in an embryo and associated with consciousness and dreaming as well as the regulation of bodily functions.

The Bergstroms did not find electrical activity of a kind that had anything to do with "brain function" until 84 days (12 weeks) of gestation, or 70 days after conception. The activity then recorded was not in any way similar to what is seen on a normal EEG, which includes what people call "brain waves." Rather, the Bergstroms stimulated the fetal brain stem and were able to record random bursts of electrical activity which looked exactly like the bursts they got from the fetal leg muscles when they were stimulated.[/b]
Quote:
At 17 weeks of pregnancy (119 days after fertilization) R.M. Bergstrom also reported finding "primitive wave patterns of irregular frequency or intermittent complexes from the oral portion of the brain stem and from the hippocampus" in the midbrain, according to Electroencephalography. Even the oldest fetuses that were studied, however, had no "brain waves" or other kind of signal from the cortex up to 150 or so days.
So all that this research showed, and reported, about the brain development of 56-to-70-day embryos and fetuses is that they have live nerve cells present in their brainstems. This is not the same as "brain waves" (Willke), or "electrical waves as measured by the EEG, indicating brain functioning" ("The Pro-Life Advocate"), or "coordinating and individuating brain function" (Goldenring).[/b]
Quote:
When people, including physicians, talk about "brain waves" and "brain activity" they are referring to organized activity in the cortex. While no embryo or fetus has ever been found to have "brain waves," extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies. A very good summary of their findings can be found in Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus," a review article (often cited by "pro-lifers" writing about fetal pain, but not about brain development) by K.J.S. Anand, a leading researcher on pain in newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM:

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.
There are reasons, based on the physics of the EEG, why this has to be so. Remember, an EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record "brain waves" prior to 20-24 weeks. Period. End of story. Scientists do not attempt to find electrocortical activity in embryos and fetuses because they know more about the physical structure of the developing human brain than they did in 1963.[/b]

Quote:
Electroencephalography is the neurophysiologic measurement of the electrical activity of the brain by recording from electrodes placed on the scalp or, in special cases, subdurally or in the cerebral cortex. The resulting traces are known as an electroencephalogram (EEG) and represent an electrical signal (postsynaptic potentials) from a large number of neurons. These are sometimes called brainwaves, though this use is discouraged [1]. The EEG is a brain function test, but in clinical use it is a "gross correlate of brain activity" [2]. Electrical currents are not measured, but rather voltage differences between different parts of the brain.[/b]
(wiki)



So, we can make a plant do the same thing that fetus did. That just electrical impulses, not brain waves.
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
  #52  
October 16th, 2006, 04:17 PM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cece your absolutes are really pissing me off..

I have to go. Thank you Sara for posting yet more information that supports the research PP has. PP wants to help the woman, not an abortion agenda. A pro-lifer is forcing opinions on women.. To me PP is far less of an evil.

Quote:
Again, another example of lying just to move ahead in one's agenda. That statement is completely false.[/b]
Reply With Quote
  #54  
October 16th, 2006, 04:23 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
Sorry, that "that" was referring to the brain wave site. The fetal "brain" at this point is not connected to the cortex, which isn't even functional....hence, no "brain waves" but, rather, just electrical pulses that you would get by hooking the machine up to any dipole...like, a plant, for example.
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
  #56  
October 16th, 2006, 04:32 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,496
Quote:
The heart rate of the fetus portrayed in the film does not change significantly at any time. Nevertheless, a fetal heart rate of 200 is within the normal range (normal 180–200 beats per minute) for this stage of pregnancy. It is also unlikely that the fetus had a heart rate of 140 that rose to 200. A rate of 140 is generally noted in the latter half of pregnancy.[/b]
First, there is no sudden prolonged change, as they note. So, the flux could have been normal, from mother anxiety, or just a random period of higher bpm. Second, they dont claim that the normal range is 180-200, just that 180-200 is still considered normal. And htey note that 140 is "generally" seen later.

I don;t think, reading this, they were making a be all and end all statement on bpm, just suggesting that 1) the heartrate did not flux as dramatically as we are told and 2) VEen if it did, its still not out of the range of ok for this period of time

Also, they are attempted to refute the idea that the bpm rose in response to "imminent mortal danger," which doesn't even need to be done by looking at bpm. The fetus cannot detect nor process "imminent mortal danger," nore can they "react to it without the ability to process it.
__________________
taking jm breaks if you don't see me around much
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0