[video=youtube;gON-8PP6zgQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ[/video] For those of you who do not already know about it, "The Silent Scream" was a classic pro-life video where a medical doctor explains in detail the procedures used in abortion. By today's standards it is a really slow and boring film (nearly a half hour long), but it was well made, and is still often referred to amongst pro-life activists. [video=youtube;_nff8I2FVnI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nff8I2FVnI[/video] So sit back and enjoy comments welcome. Perhaps these old videos will stimulate some good debate.
Or we can just debunk the film as it has already been debunked LONG ago and not watch the propaganda and lies presented before us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/3/11/manipulative-silent-scream-pbto-the-editors/ And of course here's Planned Parenthood's review of the film if you care to read it. I doubt you will since it's from PP but, meh, if we have any lurkers around at least they can get the facts. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Facts_Speak_Louder_than_the_Silent_Scream_03-02.pdf It's very easy to deceive a person that what they're looking at, very blurry ultrasound image, is depicting something it's not by pointing things out and narrating what it is/what it's doing. That's a little something known as the power of suggestion. The reality here is that there was a LOT of deception used in the film and so it ultimately boils down to a propaganda film that should not be taken as a serious Scientific film. Anyways one thing I agree with you on, the abortion forum is darn near dead around here!
Okay, then tell me, how old was that fetus which was shown being aborted in the second video? (13:20 into the video) It looked very human to me. The fetus is already very fully developed even before the third trimester. Supporters of abortion are very fond of stating that most abortions are not late-term abortions, but don't like to show pictures of what some of these babies look like before they get terminated in abortions which are not late term.
So is consciousness based on the ability to look human? Go back in the naughty corner with that comment as I wouldn't expect someone over the age of 4 to say something that stupid. Define "developed" because if developed means it has toes or things of that nature it's irrelevant, if it has a consciousness and a working central nervous system then we may be on the discussion of whether it's a person or not.
You don't see the parallel between the beliefs which were used to justify slavery and the beliefs which are being used to justify abortion? What exactly is "consciousness", and why must the fetus have it to be a human life worthy of protecting? Even if the fetus was not conscious, which is highly contestable, it would only be a temporary unconsciousness; not unlike a sleeping infant or a hospital patient in a medically induced coma. The brain is there. Just because it is not working at full capacity does not mean it is not human. We well know that the baby is moving around in there, it's not as if the baby is brain dead! What about Down Syndrome children that cannot speak, nor understand enough to know what it means to be alive? Is it okay to kill them if the mother feels like it? (I am a proponet of euthenasia in such cases, but just wanted to give you something to think about)
Nothing to think about a person who is sleeping, in a coma etc is still conscious in the terms we are talking about. Temporary unconsciousness implies past consciousness which a fetus hasn't ever had. I'll say this as simple as possible, at conception the zygot is not conscious at birth the baby is conscious this must mean at some point during the pregnancy a fetus develops the necessary parts to become conscious so we must have a point where this is. So notice why many pro-choicers and/or medically qualified people pick a rough date around the 24th week period, I think that would give an indication for when this is accepted to be. Also slavery has nothing to do with it, many of the proponents of slavery believed that there were different races which is shown to be false nothing to do with consciousness. A better example comparing slavery would be animal rights since that's what many were compared to, so I could easily say if you eat meat or use animal based products you are no better than people who used the idea of different species to justify using them. Though this is just a better comparison on that end and a better comparison for a fetus or a zygot would be a brain-dead patient who is being kept alive by something else and both have the same amount of protection against the law.
At 23 weeks, the baby has a 35% chance of survival if given appropriate medical treatment (mostly just a warm incubator and oxygen). And yet it is still okay to abort these babies, apparently. Over in this thread, I posted some pictures of babies born at 22 and 21 weeks: http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/251920-clump-cells-deserving-life.html
True but even then the time of viability is around this time limit as it is when the fetus starts developing it's body fully (bad scientific terms but can't help that) though to be fair the viability of a fetus as 21 weeks is extremely low and even in the most technologically advanced hospitals it's not that much better.
But even if the fetus is at a point where it cannot survive outside of the womb, that does not necessarily mean it is not a baby. At 24 weeks, the fetus (baby) has a survival rate between 40-70%, and it only goes up from there. Now suppose the fetus is only at 19 weeks and cannot survive outside the womb. That is a mere 5 week difference between having a decent chance of survival and a certain chance of death if premature labor is induced. Is the woman's sovereignty over the womb so great that 5-6 weeks of convenience is more important than the life of her baby — a baby that is almost old enough to be able to survive outside the womb?
Convenience and a rights are separate things. A woman has the convenience would be if an abortion would be easily accessible her right is what she has to be able to get one, two very different things. The survival rate only goes up the longer you wait surely that's what you mean to say, though you first gave a number I mildly accepted that that could be a possible number but please provide a source showing where you are getting them so I can at least see what I'm arguing against.
With that much time in already, might as well finish the thing and sell the kid afterwards... you already almost spent the entire time cooking them already... Finish it off and get paid for your efforts too... Hahahahahahaha So terrible.. XD
This film has been debunked by the pro-choice side...for all the most obvious reasons. They should love this video....they love this dark side of abortion, they embrace it on every level. the truth is....if a woman is keeping the baby...its a baby...to herself and the family. From the minute she finds out she is pregnant...its a baby she is carrying. And her family refers to it as such. No one says.....your carrying an embryo. No one says...when is the embryo due. No one gives her an embryo shower. For those who want to kill it or dispose of it...its not a life, not really human and to small to count as anything. My niece was born at 231/2 weeks...she is now a Senior in college in pre-med. Don't talk to me about possibility.
Debunked? You mean like the part about the fetus feeling pain? http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/10/fetal_pain_engl.html If it was actually debunked 100% there would be no controversy surrounding the movie. Well, there is one thing to debunk: Now they suck up the face first to stop the scream.
The SCREAM turns them on......Anders. They love it, could care less about any child in the womb feeling pain. The pictures...they deny...they don't care. These peoples position is heartless.
You know holocaust denial has been thoroughly debunked yet there is still a widespread of controversy over it since in some countries you can be put in jail for openly expressing that opinion. Though from what I've read so far during this thread is that supposed "scream" has been debunked or at least hasn't shown to be true.
Was going to make a sarcastic comment but I'm guessing you're not one for it. Though yes you can deny pictures if it has been shown to not be entirely accurate, so until it can be shown that a zygot or early fetus can feel pain the evidence still lies on you to prove it. Isn't standards of evidence a great thing, though I wouldn't say I'm particularly heartless maybe just slightly maniacal and dastardly but heartless? That just brings hurt to my black coal heart.
It would not matter what you people saw....nothing will convince you of the horrors of abortion. No picture is accurate...no account that any pro-lifer would say the truth. You are pro-abortion....thats it. Kill the unborn....throughout the entire pregnancy....for any reason...that is what you condone.
Elective late-term abortions are a Holocaust. Perhaps these countries should put abortion holocaust deniers in jail. At least the deniers of the jewish holocaust are not actually carrying it out as we speak! There's a reason it's called Silent Scream. You can't hear the baby scream because there's no air in the uterus. In induced labor abortions, it is not uncommon for the premature little babies to cry as they are abandoned, thrown into a heap of bloody rages in a corner bin. Eventually the babies, being that their birth was forced so prematurely, wimpering gradually fades into oblivion as they struggle to breathe on their own and slip into unconsciousness. Planned Parenthood is still doing induced labor abortions on late-term babies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ubrw80RbEQ
So no evidence because I apparently won't listen anyway? Seems slightly dodging of your burden of proof. See while you're assigning positions to me just say how much I hate freedom because that works for some people also how I'm an evil abortionist who loves the idea of killing babies. I mean (*)(*)(*)(*), allowing woman the choice to end a pregnancy how dastardly and evil though it doesn't sound sinister enough but screw facts since you aren't providing any rather strawmanning my position.
I was talking about the supposed "scream" that it was supposed to show a baby with it's mouth open like it was screaming was apparently it's chin and torso. Though in America Roe vs wade only covers abortions up to 24 weeks except under extreme circumstances if I remember right but I could be wrong on the details if you know more just say so I don't know what your argument is, do you think abortions within a certain time is okay?
It sounds like this: [video=youtube;_uxuw9CKIao]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uxuw9CKIao[/video] (this fetus is only 26 weeks old at the time of the video)
Okay? When what does this have to do with abortion? Also if you could respond to the last part of my last response because it was the question I asked.
I am not assigning positions, your posts define your position...and you do that yourself. I don't think any abortion picture would bother you. Why would it, you support abortion. You want it legal. You do not want protection for the human life in the womb. The choice you afford the woman, kills another living human being. That if left alone would no doubt be able to be born a right we all should have. No honey your position is clear because your posts make it clear.
Anders...the scream, babies crying doesn't faze them...seriously we are wasting time on people who embrace this stuff.
