General Chat

Yep, that is right, Len... this last one is an NHS generated information page.

Your previous ones weren't.... and I have done my research... you and I both know that they were not general information... but propoganda for a rather heinious variety of groups opposed to the abortion... no matter what the grounds... of a foetus... the groups who used this propoganda, use any means within their grasp to get their message across... and that includes destruction of property, attacks on nursing and medical staff, and various other. They are, and were, basically moralistic thugs and neo nazis.... who object to women having a choice when faced with a pregnancy that is difficult, where the foetus is severely damaged, where carrying a child to term might kill the mother, where the mother has been raped, violated, and resulted in a pregnancy... these people, whose spurious *research* you are spouting... they seek to deny those women the right to terminate the pregnancy......... Oh, and if anyone wishes me to prove it, I shall happily pm the links for them to find out for themself.

I was a woman in one of those situations..... I chose to take a huge risk and keep my baby, but it nearly killed me, and almost left my older child motherless. But I had a choice, and I made it. No-one.... but no-one, has the right to take that choice away from me, or other women........ and certainly not through violent means.

Now, I have exercised my right to object to what you have put up... and that includes being referred to as a member of a coven. I see that post has been deleted. Thank you.

Len, if you put such material on the net, then you must expect it to be challenged. Especially when you make claims about Research... and the research is no such thing at all!!

Daff

I do wish people would tell me when they want my post deleted not run like children to GR

I said the latin is as stated by Janey and the utube is a pig waving good bye!!!!!

GR if you have a problem with my post do say coz if not please dont delet its a valed point to the conversation and upsets people when you do it

Your link

www.justthefacts.org.clar.asp (Schools’ Project 2009)

doesn't actually show the place you got this information from, as a primary research source... although I will agree that at birth a child will respond to feelings that are familiar... which is why mothers from ancient times swaddle (wrap up cosily) and many will leave a ticking clock next to a fretful baby... or a tape of mummy just making little noises.

Your link, Len, shows a series of chat rooms which have asked the question for school homework!! Not a wonderful research link!! Oh, and it was a *this is the nearest we can get to that url* type link, so isn't even close.

And for those interested.... the questions, and answers, are about having an abortion, and the ethical questions surrounding that.

This thread, and your *evidence* Len, is extremely subversive and underhand...

You are putting forward anti-abortionist propaganda, and don't even have the courage to openly admit to it... you just put up these posts alluding to it... without once saying what your purpose is... why you have found it interesting, why you think we would find it interesting.... you are not wanting to debate it, as you don't discuss, you just c & p and post it.

Personally... I find that creepy and offensive!!

Birdi, mine did too... it is the sounds and the timbre which are familiar, not the words, though, and that will include the ticking clock... have you ever noticed the way a newborn responds to being immersed into water (not fully, obviously, lol... but that has been done, safely, I think) it is the environment he/she is used to , so will almost always relax. They instinctively feel safe and comfortable. (personal observation, no scientific research)


Daff

Using vision?

It's pretty dark in there; I shouldn't think she'd see much!

I do know though, that my youngest who was born without the use of drugs, recognised my voice just after she was born, that was obvious.

Birdi

www.justthefacts.org.clar.asp (Schools’ Project 2009)


“30th week. She is now using the four senses: vision, hearing, taste and touch. She recognizes her mother’s voice…..”

She is gaining weight rapidly and by the end of the 7th month may weigh 4lb….”

“35th week: She is responding to familiar noises such as her mother’s voice and music”

Kemp...... I read some of what was deleted!

But the attacks on Janey started right from the start........ she had barely written anything... now I don't always agree with her... but she never attacks a person unless it is in response to an attack on her..... and during the rest of the thread there are many goads... so she may have been *quite rude* but others were *very rude*...

if each one of you had taken the time to actually read what sources were being quoted by Len, then you would have to agree with Janey... they are very very dodgy sources to be used as a statement of fact... and Len did not make it clear at all that his thread was based on dodgy anecdotal evidence... read it, and then come back and tell me that Janey (and I, now) don't have a valid point.

You say that

Quote fom Kempinasunhat at 15.57 ** AND i do understand this thing to be the reasearch but it doesnt come across like that **

Well my point is that you DIDN'T understand... if you did, you wouldn't have reacted the way you did........ if you had read the links she gave you (which Len should really have put up) you would have seen that Janey was right to warn us... this book is anti-female, anti-choice, and I will make a wild stab in the dark assumption here, probably anti-abortion as well..... it is propagandist.. now before you argue with me that it isn't.. go and read it for yourself!

The book that Len is quoting from, is a very very dodgy book.... and that is just reading one little itsy bit!! Go on, I dare you... read it!

Lol Janey..... I am used to not being taken seriously, it's ok, lol..... just as long as you didn't ruin a keyboard when you giggled, that's ok, lol

Well.... I am off to find a non-debating thread to become embroiled in!

Love

Daff xxx

The pig waving goodbye is a famous cartoon character. "That's all, folks!" as spoken by that pig is a widely recognized popular idiom.

"Res ipsa loquitur" has the literal meaning of "the thing speaks for itself". What it means, in use, is: no additional proof is needed, the fact is obvious on its face.

In this case, two facts: the anti-intellectualism in this thread, and the preference for personal attack over discussion and for untruth over fact, as a way of "winning" a debate. An debate in which someone has a vested interest, usually -- the facts need to be covered up, and the arguments need to be ignored, because they would lead to something that someone doesn't want; and a person needs to be discredited because if people listened to that person, they might be persuaded to do something they must *at all costs* be kept from doing.

A lot of people have a vested interest in keeping women down. So we must appeal to feelings and anecdote, and use sentimental babytalk, to keep people from considering facts and arguments. And we must claim that women who stand up for women's rights, and who use facts and arguments rather than feelings and babytalk, are really men. And so on ... and on ... and on ... and on.

Daff the person whom deleteed has said she did .....


And as for Janey she has been quite rude directing us to a pig waving good bye and quoteing latin which says
The thing speaks for its self ....AND i do understand this thing to be the reasearch but it doesnt come across like that

And thank you, Daff, for making me giggle.

Not that the whole rest of the thread didn't, too. ;)

And not that everything you said shouldn't be taken seriously! Although maybe not until you send certified copies of your credentials by email to everybody involved ... and of course your birth certificate, so we know exactly what sex you are!


But on a serious note - yes, you're very right, there is a scary undertone.

The wiki article on anti-intellectualism is a little odd, with a kind of curious POV, but it does make one thing clear. Anti-intellectualism is the universal tool of rightwing political movements and governments, which exploit "the people's" suspicion of people who are different and ideas they don't understand. How much better the world would be if people would open their minds rather than closing them.

I have just read this (sorry to interrupt.... I have other things to say about this thread, but thought I'd better start reading the links so kindly added (thank you Janey!!))

Well... I have read one so far, and have never read such a load of unmitigated, unscientific psychic claptrap in all my life!!

If this is being cited as scientific proof... well!! Words almost fail me....

I will c & p what I have written so far (before I went back and started to read the links).......

"" I have read this through... briefly the first time, a little more carefully the second.

I don't normally join in debates... I am not a good debater, as I have a tendency to personalise the subject, and that does not make for good debating, lol

I have, however, made a couple of observations about this one....... and they are quite noticeable.

One is that debating is about taking a subject, and, using words, present arguments for or against, proving or disproving that statement... or even ending up with an open verdict, in an objective and reasoned manner. It is about researching and finding viable proofs for (or against) and presenting those facts to other debaters... if one wishes to debate about feelings, then a whole new thread should be required!! They are not really objective, are they, feelings, lol!!

Two is that the debate is about the subject, and not about the person or people who are debating that subject. Not about their qualifications, education or lack of, or motive, or personality, intelligence or otherwise.

Now, I find nowhere does Janey direct any ridicule at the people behind the words, statements and c & p'ing of articles... she has directed evidence to suggest that some of the research being used as above, to validate an argument was based on untruth, and out and out lie, where information was misused by the author to misdirect and back up their own *feelings* and was not scientifically correct nor validated (nb, not the author of any post or thread here, I hasten to add, but it is being used as an evidence, and is based on incorrect information, so is therefore invalid as a scientific research proof) She has also been able to point folk to research and information to support her own theory and belief. For that I respect her, but can quite understand if she does then retaliate in a more personal way

However... she has been attacked, her credentials been questioned, as has her intelligence and her education... which actually, are not of any significance to the subject matter of the thread title or OP. And really not anyone elses business... her credentials are just as valid as yours or mine!

It does seem that she has been attacked in a way that is not very *debate-correct*... Please, if folk are going to disagree in a subject open to debate... then make sure that it is the subject matter that is debated, not the other debaters. """"

Well.... now I know that Janey is being attacked because it is Janey.... there are some serious issues I would be taking up with the authors of this information that Len is citing... and it isn't made clear that it is all based on supposition, not a single sentence of controlled scientific research went into it! It does not, for me, make interesting reading... I find it scary that some people are taking it seriously... For me there are undertones here, of something that I find hard to put into words.... I have no proof, just a *feeling*

But I think the bits of the book I have read are subversive, they are not based on scientific fact but on anecdotal evidence - and dodgy anecdotal evidence at that! - I mean, would YOU listen to a blue shining light that appeared every month to let you know that you should go get yourself pregnant? No? Me neither, lol

I wonder what the book has to say about a woman's right to have a termination? It already implies that a developing fetus reacts badly (anecdotaly) to the amniocentethis needle?

No, Len, you come across as a lovely man, usually but in this instance, I find the article/book/whatever you are quoting to be more than a little disturbing. And your attack on Janey, a little worrying, as she has merely debunked the bunkum you posted.

I also worry about those people who do not have the courage of their convictions, and delete their posts with no explanation, whilst the, erm, debate is still in progress. Oh, and I am NOT debating..... as I said, I am not very good at it....

Oh.. one other thing.. minor, but relevent (sp) water does carry sound, but distorts it... one of my sons had a hearing impairment as a small child, and I was told to immerse my head and ears under water and get someone to chat to me, normally........ try it!!

So... thank you Janey, for showing where I, as an intelligent woman, could read this source for myself, form my own opinion... and also provide alternate, scientifically researched articles which balance and point to a slightly different viewpoint.

Love

Daff xxxx

Len could I ask if you are still there !!!???

If children per-birth get a tone of conversation do you think its easier for children to speak two or more languages after birth if the mother speaks them at the time of pregnancy................

and therefore I wonder which language gives the unborn child the most sounds therefore making it easy to learn the most languages.............

But no, a reply to the personal attack by Len of the Chilterns is in order.

There never was a KathyB. I have never concealed the fact that I used the name assigned to me by this system and then changed it because the system violated my privacy (as it does everyone's) by revealing my identity. Anyone who claims not to know this ... well, res ipsa loquitur. Anyone who feels compelled to keep violating another person's privacy in an effort to attack someone who disagrees with them .... well, the word bully does come to mind.

Speculating about someone's identity is just, well, a personal attack. The sort of thing engaged in by someone who has nothing to say worth saying. How do you feel about the fact that the "article" you quoted at length here was written by a lying quack, Len? No comment?

As far as insulting a woman by calling her a man ... well, once again, the thing just speaks for itself, don't it? But hey, Len, your low opinion of men, gosh, maybe you should get help with that.


And Mary? I did say I hadn't fallen off any turnip trucks lately. But thanks for spelling out the vile anti-woman agenda of the militant anti-choice brigade!

Well, folks, we had a saying back in Latin class. Or was it law school?

Res ipsa loquitur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4

I doubt that I could ever be accused of this?

"Anti-intellectualism is the hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science."

I haven't read all of this, I have flu and I am not in an 'intellectual' mood, I am in a 'huddle under blanket' mood :)

But I do know this, my son , pre birth ( still 'my son' make what you will of that I don't give a stuff :)) ) responded to music , Irish to be specific played on cassette on walkman on my tummy...sent him off to 'sleep' without fail ( he was a prodigious kicker ) . Did he come out with an Irish accent, no ( well it was instrumental actually, but he didn't wail like Uillean pipes either lol) nor did he cry in my 'native language' or with my inflections... but then he didn't cry much at all :))

My point , such as there is one , is...does it matter? Anyone who has had a baby, knows what reactions or lack of them you get...It doesn't NEED a scientist to tell you that, and I certainly think it is about time they stopped wasting money rersearching things that are of no relevance to anyone. Like wise the use of the words 'foetus' 'unborn baby'..... it either IS or isn't and no one from either 'camp' will shift one millimetre towards the other opinion because of what they read here.

Science/ logic .... instinct/ feeling/ ....just words.....

Stand on just one 'side' of that divide and you are a fool , take the best of both and filter it through your own common sense, and 'humanity' and you might come somewhere close to a state of 'understanding' :)

PS just a word re 'academics'... If one academic historian says the English civil war was down to the 'rise' of the gentry, and another says it was down to the 'fall' of the gentry.... and both are argued equally well...there is only one option...think for yourself :) I can recommend it ...that way you get everyone's back up..but have the absolute certainty that 'you' are right ;)

The hectoring style of JaneyC is reminiscent of that of KathyB and EavieBeavie who once graced(?) these boards. Is there a connection, one wonders? What happened to them?

Another thought: the bullying, "in your face" demeanour leads one to wonder about the gender of the author. This sort of aggressive, confrontational approach is normally more often found in a certain type of man.

she has a law degree- nuff said

Dear Janey.......

Could you please tell us which degrees you have and at which uni you studied as my son and I are wetting ourselves at this stuff you are telling us ....we would love to know which uni is this far behind in their research...and Thank goodness to my sons uni that they are researching this very subject in great detail.


Mary , yes its a shame that life is taken coz they dont have enough contact between brain and thort!!!

insisting that babies be called fetuses dehumanises them

and if they are not human it is so much easier to kill them

womens free choice?

what choice do the babies have?

Okay, me demonstrating my own stupidity. The post I put here was intended for a TTF thread that I've been working on in the adjoining tab ...

Forgive my piecemeal replies. I'm having to do this between jobs of work.


Maggie:

"There is so much anti-intellectualism in the world ... and especially around here ..."

Which could lead some to believe you thought you were of some sort of 'higher' intellectualism to those who had either started the thread or replied to it.


I suppose it could lead someone to believe that if they didn't know the meaning of "anti-intellectualism".

Or if they chose to claim that they thought I was using the term as a way of referring to myself somehow. Of course, there would be no basis for such a claim, and it wouldn't even make sense.


You'll forgive my using a source that is accessible to everyone, I'm sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

"Anti-intellectualism is the hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science."

"In public discourse, Anti-intellectuals usually perceive and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk — populists against élitists and academic élitism — proposing that educated people are a social group detached from the quotidian concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education."


Now, tell me you don't see that all over this forum.

Contempt for education and educated people. All. Over. This. Forum.

Doesn't really matter -- everybody can have contempt for whomever they choose, of course.

But it manifests in attacks on persons rather than challenges to ideas, doesn't it?



Maggie, you queried my academic qualifications, and offered this explanation for your query:

I, in particular am very aware that you can be extremely intelligent without having academic qualifications - but I am also very aware that shooting your mouth off - and in the process continually putting other people down - which you have done to every response to this thread - will eventualy lead to the ultimate question.

What gives you the right to declare everyone else is wrong?'

Hence my question.



The thing here is, you are once again setting up a straw person to knock down, and pretending that the straw person is me.

I have not declared anyone else wrong. I have offered evidence to refute nonsense.

That has precisely zip all to do with who is right and who is wrong.

So whether I have a "right" to declare anyone wrong is a question that arises out of nothing said in this discussion. So your query of my academic qualifications, and attempt to depict my presentation of facts and refutations of nonsense as personal attacks, stands as the personal attack it was.

Interesting how the reality is completely opposite to your portrayal of it, hm?

I happen to have two degrees plus other course work, plus 30 years of professional experience in a field that *requires* me to have a broad knowledge of just about every field of endeavour outside the hard sciences and math: sociology, psychology, political science, economics, even statistical methods.

I also have over a decade of experience in dealing with anti-choice fanatics on the internet. Like I said, no turnip trucks in my vicinity.