...and still the war against women continues

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, August 5, 2011 05:21
VIEWED: 6652
PAGE 7 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Magons: DT said "vaginal ultrasounds" are more risky as far as I can see, not that regular ultrasounds result in immediate child death or brain damage.

Kwicko: Um. Are we comparing sex to owning a house? Because I know some people put sex in the same hierarchy of needs as shelter, but that is just an entirely bizarre and foreign concept to me.

Not to say there aren't different kinds of shelter... You know what, I think maybe this thread just got too metaphorical for me.

Byte, Magon

Ultrasounds of the foetus damage the baby's brain and so whould be used sparingly. Longer exposure does more damage. This has been all over the news for years, it's hardly a controversial idea or even in the realm of theory. The waves break up the formation of new synapses. Anyone at all familiar with neurology would have predicted this anyway. The sensible thing is, use sparingly. Also, post ultrasound abortions are 75% females, so bear that in mind from a women's rights perspective.

Anyway, a simple google search returns hundreds of studies, here's the top searhc result I got:

http://www.naturalchild.org/research/yale_ultrasound.html

It's scientifically obvious. Probably a better imaging system is around the corner, but we really want to think about pre-natal gender identification and how that will effect gender ratios. I can tell you right now that in countries where women actually *are* a minority, women's rights are headed for zero. We were just talking about women as slaves in china. That's new. 20 years ago, women had close to equal rights. Now it's heavily backsliding, because china is becoming a male dominated society.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

KWICKO

Sunday, July 31, 2011 6:54 PM

In other words, if you're going to FORCE women to get ultrasounds, you'd damned well better give them an abortion afterwards, since you've already fried the fetus's brain...

BYTEMITE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 7:12 PM

Ah. That does seem rather conclusive.

Well, I point again to what I said about politicians not understanding science. I doubt many people would support this new law if they knew about these consequences.

JONGSSTRAW

Sunday, July 31, 2011 8:30 PM

I feel that it's very wrong to force women to undergo bureaucratic delays prior to having an abortion. It's already been a difficult choice or a necessitated one for the mother, and it's ridiculous to believe that all the personal options haven't already been considered. Just give the gals what they want or need. Religious zealots step aside.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:34 PM

Mike,

Someone asked a scientific question. The effect is similar to being struck with an electrical current, the longer the exposure, the worse it gets. There are times when it's essential to do, but it shouldn't be done frivilously.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

M52NICKERSON

Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:50 PM

I looked at the site you posted Dreamtrove, and did a search of my own. I only found a few studies in which many of the websites are referring to. Unfortunately I can't find the Yale Study itself. I'm skeptical of any findings that come from only a few studies, and more so of websites that referred to them.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, July 31, 2011 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Ultrasounds of the foetus damage the baby's brain and so whould be used sparingly. Longer exposure does more damage. This has been all over the news for years, it's hardly a controversial idea or even in the realm of theory. The waves break up the formation of new synapses. Anyone at all familiar with neurology would have predicted this anyway. The sensible thing is, use sparingly. Also, post ultrasound abortions are 75% females, so bear that in mind from a women's rights perspective.

Anyway, a simple google search returns hundreds of studies, here's the top searhc result I got:

http://www.naturalchild.org/research/yale_ultrasound.html

It's scientifically obvious. Probably a better imaging system is around the corner, but we really want to think about pre-natal gender identification and how that will effect gender ratios. I can tell you right now that in countries where women actually *are* a minority, women's rights are headed for zero. We were just talking about women as slaves in china. That's new. 20 years ago, women had close to equal rights. Now it's heavily backsliding, because china is becoming a male dominated society.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Thanks for providing a link. I did a quick scan of some of the information available on the net. From what I can see, the meta research indicates 'just don't know' rather than any conclusive results, and that the best advice is unless you are in danger of having a high risk pregnancy, less is better. Makes sense. I don't particularly like the routine nature of ultrasounds for pregnancy these days, but they can be useful and sometimes save both mother and baby's lives. I can see that the research has been jumped on by natural medicine sites, but frankly some of the natural childbirth advocates are complete nutty and would have us, along with the anti abortion crowd, living back in the dark ages as far as pregnancy and childbirth are concerned. As someone pointed out not so long ago, pregnancy is a high risk activity. A hundred or so years ago, it was the highest cause of female deaths.

DT, you keep bringing up female infanticide. Can you show me any links to data which suggests ultrasounds are linked to aborting female fetuses in western countries?

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 1, 2011 12:32 AM

Magon,

Not off hand, I'm not aware that it's a problem, I thought we were on abortion, internationally. No question the figures are much lower for any problems in most developed nations than in third world countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion

Wikipedia suggests that it's a probably in Korea if you count that as a western nation, but the real trouble spots are India and China. My off-hand guess would be that there would be a slight tendency, but that overall women who have ultrasounds in the US are not considering abortion.

Not sure why the feminist perspective would be western centric though. I see the benefits of ultrasound as neonatal care, but I also just wanted to point out the dangers. I suspect the studies that showed the brain damage risk might have been funded by feminists from the other side, worried about the gender imbalance in India/China which is translating into a threat to women's rights, but the idea of synaptic interruption through ultrasound is certainly scientifically sound. This is basically the klingon disrupter, and that's how it's used in medicine. As I said, better imaging will come along, but for now, I think it's safe if you just use it sparingly, and be aware of the risks.

The question about how much information is dangerous is always going to be one for society. I could certainly picture a Philip K. Dick style world in which parents know the whole lives of their children, and select to create football captains and cheerleaders, and perhaps the occasional nobel scientist, but without a world full of people whose work made those breakthroughs possible...

A couple I know just deliberately skipped the ultrasound so as not to know, and named the boy Ogden, and then had to change course when it was born a girl.

The boy bias is strange, but ingrained at some level. All our weird little quirks of humanity are in danger of coming out in chaotic and destructive ways if we fail to keep an eye on them ourselves. As technology advances, the impact of one random human nature glitch is just going to be multipled ad nauseum.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

1KIKI

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:12 AM

I think DT may be mixing up ultrasound and MRI. Ultrasound uses sound waves, like sonar. MRI uses powerful shifting magnetic fields which MAY induce small wavelength short-distance currents in the body similar to how cell phones seem to kick up brain activity with their (electromagnetic) broadcasts.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I think DT may be mixing up ultrasound and MRI. Ultrasound uses sound waves, like sonar. MRI uses powerful shifting magnetic fields which MAY induce small wavelength short-distance currents in the body similar to how cell phones seem to kick up brain activity with their (electromagnetic) broadcasts.

Kiki, the story was all over the place, I'm a little surprised everyone here didn't already know it, it was a couple years ago, but I just posted it. It had been suspected in epilepsy for year, but in the 90s and 2000s they started seriously studying it. The conclusion of the vibrations disrupting the formation of new synapses came at a time when my nephew was still in the womb, so I can really pinpoint it precisely.

I have no reason to believe that MRI would cause any synaptic damage.

I humbly suggest that people google things rather than ask me. I'm familiar with the subject, but google and wikipedia are sure to know far more than I do.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE