Fetal Brainwaves

A favorite anti-abortion myth is the "fetal pain" myth... as taken from the ironically named "abortion facts" web page:

"the cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain. Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex."

Now, if we go to the Mayo Clinic we would find the following regarding the thalamus:

"What the thalamus does is act as a sorting and switching station located deep inside the brain. The thalamus quickly forwards the pain message simultaneously to three specialized regions of the brain: the physical sensation region (somatosensory cortex), the emotional feeling region (limbic system) and the thinking region (frontal cortex). Your brain responds to pain by sending messages that moderate the pain in the spinal cord. "

Ummm... you might be asking yourself just how the heck any stimulus could be "felt" if one "completely removes the cortex" considering the thalamus forwards the stimulus message directly to the somatosensory, limbic system and the frontal cortex. You're right... it can't be "felt" without the cortex.

But hey... scientific facts? Who needs 'em... they just think abortion is icky.

It seems that the anti-abortion extremists enjoy using misinformation (considering that they tend to employ this tactic quite regularly.) I'm not sure if they think this will make women decide not to have abortions (although, as far as I know, no woman has ever listed a reason for terminating a pregnancy as "my fetus cannot feel pain.") But never mind those sneaky devils, there will always be people around to ensure that these woman receive accurate medical information (thanks Mayo Clinic!)

On another note... I recently had a fellah (yes, a person who will never know the emotional or physical -not to mention the financial- responsibilities of giving birth to a child) chastise me for using a photograph of a 6 week abortion. He would prefer that I use the photographs that the anti-abortion extremists use (usually very much wanted pregnancies which ended in still birth or therapeutic abortion). Apparently, he is of the mind that a 6 week abortion looks just like a 40 week full term baby (killed moments prior to birth, no less.) OH, the emotional horror!!!

Listen dude... I'm sorry... but this is what a 6 week abortion looks like...

And may I add (for the record and all) that if I feel compelled to use terms such as "dude", I can use my God-given right (free will... thanks God!) to use this term (and any other I so deem necessary) whenever and where ever I like. It is not enough that this guy wants to control my reproduction and my choice of medically accurate information... he would also like to control my use of verbiage.

Hey Jasper... go fuck yourself.

This pretty well sums it up

Your response to my post titled Religious nonsense and public policy is very telling, Mr. Jasper. It appears as if you have no compelling argument to counter my points (how very surprising) and instead chose the only retort you could possibly imagine: your religiousness.

Mr. Jasper: Well, its obvious we just don't share the same values. You certainly can't be a beliver in Christ.

Mellankelly: Well boo for you, Mr. Jasper. The country that we live in (a democracy) is a far cry from the imaginary country you wish it was (a theocracy). Thankfully, this country was founded by the notion that we are free to practice any religion as evidenced in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs. So while you may fancy yourself a "believer in Christ" it has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever. Further, I have many friends and family members who are Christian and do not share you limited views; I would also direct you to the The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice where you will find that religious people of many faiths support a woman's reproductive choices... are you now going to proclaim that they're not "real" Christians because their belief system compels them to protect the rights of all people (including - gasp - pregnant women?) Remember, "A closed mind is not only closed to outside thoughts, it is often closed to itself as well. It is closed to new thoughts and anything that threatens the status quo. But if you can open the doors, maybe just a crack at first, the ideas that have been patiently waiting at your gates will flood in."

And regarding your stories... rape victims and rape victims alone get to decide whether or not to gestate a pregnancy that was the result of rape. I believe that only a coward would hide behind his religion when insisting that women gestate rape-related pregnancies. You have proven yourself to be a coward on more than one occasion... and you've clearly demonstrated that your concern is not with "life" per se, but begins at conception and ends at birth. I pity you and I'm sorry that your religion prohibits you from caring about the life of women facing unwanted pregnancies (including rape victims). I will pray for you, Mr. Jasper.

Oh, and regarding your bogus photo ... debunked: This picture, also distributed on a 3 x 5 inch card and used in numerous anti-abortion campaigns is equally inconsistent. If the forceps securing its head over the jar are standard OR ring forceps, the ring is 1 x 0.5 centimeters, which would mean that the head is too small to be in its third trimester, yet one less developed would not have that much hair, says Dr. Ross. "I strongly suspect that this picture is fake, and the information on the back of the card certainly does not match what's shown," he adds. The second, and most obvious, fallacy lies within the description. It says that the pictured fetus was aborted in 1987 in Texas. However, that was the year that third trimester abortions were banned, rendering the alleged procedure altogether illegal

Holy Hannah Montana...

What is up with the vehement response to the photos of Miley Cyrus taken by Annie Leibovitz? To tell you the truth... I was more freaked out by how way creepy (pedophilial?-probably not a word) her dad looks in those photographs. The black & white photo of Miley that appears in the magazine comes off as haunting (in my opinion, anyway)... the dark messy hair, the dark eyes, the pale, almost translucent skin... she appears ethereal. Take a look at Annie's other photographs and you'll find that many of them have this same quality to them. I don't believe for one second that Ms. Leibovitz sexualized this fifteen year old girl... but unfortunately for us all, men (and women) of all ages do just that with their salacious comments about the photographs. It is just horrible that this poor girl was made to feel as if she did something so wrong that it was worthy of an apology to the general public... the same public that would view a photo of the naked back of a teen aged girl with a wanton concupiscence. Shame on them.