Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm a little sadder for the future now, Orwell

You just now posted this as a source I did not see this in your prior posts.

Furthermore where exactly is this source saying anything concerning EEG readings and an infant in the womb?

I'm glad I could help darken your day.

To turn the tables on Orwell and LKL, does the IRB (Institutional Review Board) mean anything to either of you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_Review_Board

So yeah, actually LKL depending on what your source says, I can question its accuracy, considering that the tests needed to determine brainwave activity from a child in the womb would be probably considered illegal and a crime against humanity, in fact has been since before 1974.

So to be blunt LKL, I would question any experiment that says there is no brain waves, because the steps needed to conduct an experiment to make that determination would never gain IRB approval because it would arguably result in the death of the child.

You are not allowed to put a child regardless of whether or not you have parental consent through anything that has a good chance in resulting in the child's death for research purposes.

Why did you quote my laughing emoticon? What did he ever do to you, you monster!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7apTzfhfw[/youtube]

Orwell and LKL still have not addressed the fact that the experiments required to disprove the 1964 experiment would be illegal and could land the conductors of the experiments in prison.

Well, as I mentioned to you via PM, perhaps an alternative, such as a pregnant chimpanzee could be used. The developmental cycle is quite similar. And I also think a PET scan would be a better way to build a three-dimensional picture of what brain structures are developed and to what extent. Though you did bring up the issue of animal rights, which introduces a whole new problem, obviously... But if the test is not repeatable then I would say that those results cannot be given any value as one test is not enough to prove anything, unfortunately.

They aren't repeatable anymore because it would be considered illegal now because it puts a minor's life in jeopardy. There are other ways to indicate that there is voluntary motor activity around week 6, day 6.

I know that's why they aren't repeatable; my point is that those results must be excluded, despite whatever support you believe they might lend you or the other side believes it might lend them, because they cannot be repeated.

Aooga, aooga, mental disconnect warning.

Am I reading aright?

A. scanning would be illegal as endangering the life of the fetus

B. abortion would be legal because the fetus not being human is not protected?

Translation - the law never lets its upper right head know what its other three heads are thinking.

EEG is somewhat invasive, and PET scan, while less dangerous than others, still exposes the fetus to ionizing radiation in the form of gamma rays resulting from a positron-emitting tracer (positron as in an anti-electron. I still find it awesome that there is at least one application of anti-matter currently in use. But I digress)

Actually, you can't argue they can be discounted arbitrarily either cause when the research was conducted back in 1964 it was legal. It is just the test methods would be illegal now, due to the danger it would put a child in. There are a lot of medical studies that are held as valid still that the experiments can't be ran again due to legal issues.

The claims that Orwell and LKL have made though can be discounted because in order to disprove the 1964 paper, they would have to conduct an experiment that would be illegal, same thing is true for what LKL sourced and the "textbook" in question.

Well, why was the experiment not repeated while it was legal? That is another issue. There was time to do the experiment again. They must prove it another way. I maintain that these results can't be included. If it isn't falsifiable, it cannot be taken at a scientific level