Not gonna happen; she has no credentials and plays fast and loose, not to mention self-servingly, with the facts, data and conclusions, so she has no credibility.

There is the rub; not only do none of the doctors your source cite use the term "brain waves," but virtually all of them are careful NOT to take a specific position on what the various detected first trimester brain activity means. It is misinterpreting (at best) or falsifying (at worst) the facts to claim they state first trimester fetal EEGs indicate living beings; it is no less so to claim they state such EEGs indicate NON-beings. The evidence is inconclusive, and one of the sources referenced in your source as much as says that; that your source then proceeds to attack both not only his conclusions but his credibility demonstrates nothing but her own bias.


When we begin debating whether an EEG at one stage of development is on par with an EEG at another stage we increasingly move from matters of fact to those of opinion. In general, I still tend to credit investigators with doctorates in medicine, law or (in Dr. Goldenrings case) BOTH over a policy advocate with no formal education on the matter who consults (and derides) their research second hand. Particularly when she falsely claims them to take a position they do not just because their conclusions do not support her position. When the medical and legal scholar with decades of practice, study and research says, "inconclusive," but the partisan advocate with none of those things says, "conclusive; he just mistated his data because he is pro-life," it is obvious which is credible.


The partisan pro-lifer claim first trimester fetuses are beings with the brainwaves of same is currently unverifiable; whether it is false is therefore unknowable. However, the claim, and thus the burden of proving it, is theirs; the evidence is inconclusive, so they have not met that burden and their claim is unsubstantiated. I have no argument there, but any counterclaim faces the same insurmountable challenges.

Your sources problem lies there, because she addresses that issue by attacking the doctors' conclusion their studies ALLOW no conclusion. That does not validate the blank check she wishes written, so it is not enough to refute pro-lifer claims first trimester fetal EEGs demonstrate a being: She seeks to affirm the position those EEGs demonstrate a NON-being, and consequently maligns all doctors who state otherwise. Had she restricted herself to refuting her partisans on the other side I would have no argument; my issue is that her agenda obliged her to falsely malign doctors as well, and that she overreached herself in the process.


That is a large, dubious, contentious and SEPARATE debate (just ask Michael Schiavo and his former in-laws.)