Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!mag
From: mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Silent Scream Revisted
Message-ID: <740@whuxlm.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 23:03:46 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxlm.740
Posted: Sat Apr 20 23:03:46 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 06:22:54 EST
References: <377@ptsfc.UUCP> <5172@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 148

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?
When I read about his objections to the criticism and see that he spends
125+ lines bitching about TV time and a few lines weakly trying to
rebut SOME of the assertions, I begin to suspect that his ideas
lack substance. For example:
> 
> 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?
> 
> 	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.
>
>	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. . ." ?
> >    [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 readtions 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.
>
> 	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.

> 	After discarding the political banalities, after the ideologic
> 	baggage, after picking one's way thorugh all the scientific 
> 	dithering and waffing ... there are only four short questions
> 	of quintessential interest here:
> 
> 	Is this a realtime ultrasound film?
> 
No, not quite, since he already admitted to slow motion, but close enough,
probably.

> 	Is this a human unborn child on the screen?
> 
Sure.
> 	Is this a realtime ultrasound record of an abortion of a human
> 	unborn child?
> 
Let's assume it is, just so we can keep going.

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

> 	Even our "neutral" experts will agree--albeit grudgingly--that
> 	the collective answer to these questions is "yes".  

Of course they will - nobody was arguing about that!  And it's not
a "grudging" admission either!

>	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!
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?

Mike Gray