Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Silent Scream Revisted
Message-ID: <5186@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 12:18:57 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5186
Posted: Mon Apr 22 12:18:57 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 06:43:57 EST
References: <377@ptsfc.UUCP> <5172@cbscc.UUCP>, <740@whuxlm.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 171

From Mike Gray

}Why does Nathanson spend all his time on trying to prove that the
}panel attacking his film is biased and that CBS denied him promised
}minutes on the air?  His comments in the lengthy article posted by
}Paul Dubuc do not meaningfully address the assertions of the
}original criticism - what would he have done with the extra time?

I think Nathanson's comments are meaningful.  Don't you think it's
fair to complain about outright dishonesty and deception (not just
bias) done by the media?  If you have read the whole article I think
you would have to agree that if Nathanson's and Andrusko's charges
are true, then CBS is guilty of this.  Would you think you had no
cause to complain if CBS had treated the pro-choice side of the argument
that way?

}> Nathanson found a few problems with the designation of the other panel
}> as being neutral:
}> 
}> 	CBS conceded that its "neutral" panel of experts
}> 	was proposed--at least in part--by the American
}> 	College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
}> 
}> Is the ACOG "uninvolved in the abortion controversy"?  Nathanson goes
}> on to point out that,
}> 
}> 	... the ACOG has an umblemished record of abortion
}> 	advocacy.
}> 
}Come on!! NOBODY in this controversy is neutral.  I believe that Nathanson
}himself (whose film it was) is known for pro-life activities! ( :-) ).
}Anyway, claiming that the news media is biased is irrelevant.  Why not
}just rebut the criticism of the panel?

Come on and read the article again.  The point is that CBS deceptively
presented the panal as neutral, "uninvolved in the abortion controversy".
I doubt Nathanson would have had a complaint if the biases of the panel
were revealed.

}> 	In the segment in question there was a dismaying amount
}> 	of purposless athetoid niggling about the size of the
}> 	unborn on the television screen, the speed of the tape
}> 	and a few other equally monumental pendantries.
}>
}That's right - don't rebut the criticism - just show contempt
}for the criticizers!  A few people will think that this amounts to
}persuasive argument.

Nathanson has rebutted the criticism.  I posted some of that a
month ago.  I also think you miss the point in your critique of
his rebuttles here:

}>	Any
}> 	school child can tell you that if an image is captured
}> 	on a four inch screen (the size of the realtime ultra-
}> 	sound imaging device we used), then transferred to a 
}> 	twenty-one inch television box, the image will appear
}> 	five times larger than it actually is--no deceit intended.
}> 	...
}More pointless efforts to discredit the criticism with contempt.
}The phase "Any school child can tell you. . ." is highly suspect.
}Maybe SOME school children could, but they'd be really bright if
}they realized that the fetus in question was a couple of inches long
}if they had no reference.  Generally, researchers indicate the
}true size of an observed object by inserting a ruler in the frame
}or some such device.  Since so many people though it was larger,
}will Nathanson now insert a line in the narrative like "Now, we
}see the fetus, no larger than a walnut. . ." ?

Maybe he should insert the phrase.  But so what if it is acually no
larger than a walnut?  What difference does that make with regard
to the morality of the act?  The point of the film is to study the
fetus in detail during an abortion.  Magnification  is necessary
to achieve this.  The fact that the fetus is actually smaller than
it show on the screen has little bearing on what is actually going
on.

}> >    [a] significant point was that, when the film claims the fetus is
}> >    starting to struggle, it is actually only showing the speeding
}> >    up of the film. One of the doctors said: "Any of us could show
}> >    you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted."
}> 
}> 	As for the apparent speeding up of the tape following the
}> 	thirty second clip in slow motion (slowed only to allow a
}> 	more careful study of the child's reactions at that point
}> 	in the procedure) was I required to continue the remainder of
}> 	the tape in slow motion merely to stave off the fatuous
}> 	accusation that I was somehow rigging the play?
}> 
}The weasel-wording in the above paragraph is truly breath-taking!
}Nathanson uses the phrase "apparent speeding up" and suggests thereby
}that it was NOT speeded up.  Later on in the same sentence, he admits
}that he went from slow motion to normal speed.  That's what speeding
}up MEANS! Review:  Opponents accuse the film of being sped up.
}Nathanson replies by saying, yes, it was sped up, and acts as if this
}statement is a rebuttal!  As regards the doctor's claim that any one
}of them could show the same image in a fetus that was not being
}aborted,  Nathanson is silent.  Why doesn't he rebut that?  It's
}a very significant point.

Here you're missing the point, which is that the film was never run
at faster than normal speed.  The film's critics suggested that it
was.

}> 	To have read my full statement
}> 	would have cowed their "neutral" experts into submissive
}> 	silence and the show would have perished of its own weight.
}> 	The deleted portion of the statement contained an affidavit
}> 	provided by Dr. Ian Donald, former Regius Professor of 
}> 	Obstetrics at the University of Glasgow, inventor of
}> 	ultrasound, and, indisputibly the world's leading authority
}> 	on its use and interpretation.  In a sworn statement dated
}> 	February 23, 1985 Dr. Donald declared:
}> 
}> 		I the undersigned Ian Donald ... having had
}> 		experience in the development and exploitation
}> 		of diagnostic ultrasound from 1955 onwards until
}> 		1981, the last four years of which were much taken 
}> 		up with filming fetal activity at various stages
}> 		of pregnancy ... have now studied Dr. Nathanson's
}> 		videotape film not less than four times and affirm
}> 		that I am of the opinion that the fetal activities
}> 		depicted by the ultrasound realtime scanning in
}> 		this film are not faked, nor the result of artifact,
}> 		intentional or otherwise.
}> 
}I don't think anyone is denying that the film depicts an abortion and
}that the fetal activities are real.  This is just another straw man.

They were charging the film as being deceptive and rigged.  That is
the point being refuted here.

}> 	At the conclusion of the film, as the life of the child been
}> 	obliterated, the body having been torn from the head and the
}> 	head crushed and removed in pieces?
}> 
}This isn't a question.  Come to think of it, it's not even a grammatical
}sentence.

Sorry.  The gramatical mistake was mine--the result of a typo.  The "as"
in the first sentence should be "has".

}But it seems to say that the abortion was unpleasant to watch.
}OK - probably was.  So are lots of medical procedures.

Medical procedures that "obliterate" a human life?

}>	One final
}> 	question is in order:  Is the brutal act depicted in this film--
}> 	the deliberate unappealable destruction of a tiny defensless
}> 	human being--compatible with the declared moral certitudes of
}> 	a civilized society?
}> 	...
}WHAT "declared moral certitudes?"  I've lived in society a few years and
}heard that there is disagreement on what the "moral certitudes" are!

How about the moral certitudes in our Declaration of Independance and
the Constitution?

}To mimic the style of Nathanson in my response: YES, my moral certitudes
}allow women control over their own bodies.  YES, it is compatible.
}Are the BRUTAL laws being proposed by Nathanson, denying a TINY,
}DEFENSELESS, woman control over her body and threatening her with JAIL
}compatible with the moral certitudes of a civilized society?

A person's control over his/her own body is generally limited so as not
to conflict with another's rights.  You aren't arguing for unlimited
control are you?
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd