During a recent posting of mine, Adoption instead of abortion, commenter "Ginny" said:
"pro-choice groups aren't opposed to women being informed”.
I disagree.
You see, "pro-choice" groups only selectively inform women and ignore any evidence that they don't like. Evidence that might make women think twice about having an abortion. Evidence that shows a link between abortion and breast cancer. Evidence that shows a fetus can suffer excruciating pain during an abortion. Evidence of the psychological and physical harm done to women from abortion. “Pro-choice” people debunk this evidence and tell women that they are being lied to, and that they are being misinformed, and deceived.
I've discussed this before, but it obviously bears repeating. Let’s start with the evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer (ABC). In 2003, the National Cancer Institute conference concluded there was no ABC link. But one participant at that conference, Dr. Joel Brind (Ph.D., Professor, Human Biology and Endocrinology) disagreed. He said he was:
"convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real, independent, positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk."
Dr. Brind's report is here.
Other studies that support the ABC link here.
In fact one of the researchers and organizers of that conference, Dr. Louise Brinton, reversed her position on the ABC link in January 09.
The Pro-choice Action Network reported in their so-called "expose" on crisis pregnancy centres that a fetus:
"cannot feel pain until at least the third trimester".
But there is lots of evidence that a fetus does in fact, feel pain at 20 weeks gestation and even before that. Dr. K.S. Anand is a world authority on research into pain perception in fetal and neonatal children. His study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987. At the Partial Birth Abortion hearings in the Southern District of New York in 2004, Dr. Anand testified that:
"the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain by 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children."
Dr. Anand's testimony is here.
Dr. Paul Ranalli, a Toronto Neurologist, in a public information meeting in Toronto, Canada in October 2008, sponsored by the deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research agrees with Dr. Anand. Dr. Ranalli's talk is quite compelling--I suggest you listen to it and make your own conclusions on when a fetus feels pain here.
Pro-Can’s report also says:
"there is no evidence to suggest that women who have abortions experience any more or less sadness and regret than women who complete an unwanted pregnancy".
The report cites the American Psychological Association (APA) as one source. Andrea Mrozek, manager of research and communications at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, explains here why the APA research was flawed.
And here’s more research of the after affects of abortion here and here.
So to conclude, many “pro-choice” people are opposed to women being informed of all the information that would actually enable them to make a truly informed decision regarding having an abortion or not. Because if women were "informed" of this evidence, they might even change their minds and not have that abortion. And this would make a dent in the goal of the the pro-abortions’ continual and relentless promotion of abortion.
Yeah! I am a keyword! Cute.
ReplyDeleteProlifers love to cite evidence that isn't conclusive and reserach that isn't recognized as sounly. Nowhere is this more evident than with the oft-quoted "Dr" David Reardon of the so-called Eliott Institute.
Prochoice have nothing against women being informed and making their own choice. They are opposed to false information presented by strongly biased prolifers, sometimes posing as researchers.
"In fact one of the researchers and organizers of that conference, Dr. Louise Brinton, reversed her position on the ABC link in January 09."
ReplyDeleteThat's not entirely true, is it Patricia?
"Prolifers love to cite evidence that isn't conclusive and reserach that isn't recognized as sounly." The same can be said for "pro-choice" research. Regardless, you miss the point. "Pro-choicers" refuse to tell women about any research that harms their abortion cause. Give women all the evidence and let them make up their own minds.
ReplyDelete"Prochoice have nothing against women being informed and making their own choice." See above.
"They are opposed to false information presented by strongly biased prolifers, sometimes posing as researchers." False information? What false information is that Ginny?
"In fact one of the researchers and organizers of that conference, Dr. Louise Brinton, reversed her position on the ABC link in January 09."
ReplyDeleteThat's not entirely true, is it Patricia?"
Ginny if you believe this isn't true, then please provide evidence to the contrary.
Patricia, there is no evidence that Dr. Louise Brinton reversed her position.
ReplyDeleteShe was involved in a research study that found a corealtion betweem the occurence of breast cancer and a history of abortion, but this does not mean this Dr. Brinton has reversed her position.
This does not, however, stop prolifers stating that she has. A good example of misinformation.
"there is no evidence that Dr. Louise Brinton reversed her position. She was involved in a research study that found a corealtion betweem the occurence of breast cancer and a history of abortion, but this does not mean this Dr. Brinton has reversed her position."
ReplyDeleteBut there is evidence. It was widely reported in the news that Dr. Brinton had reversed her original position on the ABC link. Subsequent to this, there was never any rebuttal from Dr. Brinton that her reported reversal was not true. You yourself acknowledge that the study found a co-relation between breast cancer and abortion. So the evidence (scientific involvement; media reports of reversal; no rebuttal of reported reversal) points to a reversal of her position.
This is evidence Ginny, not misinformation.
"It was widely reported in the news that Dr. Brinton had reversed her original position on the ABC link."
ReplyDeleteClarification Patricia: It was widely reported in the news by prolife groups that Dr. Brinton reversed her position. She has done no such thing.
This is not evidence Patricia. It is, however, a good example of how prolife misinforms.
Sorry Ginny that you don't like pro-life groups reporting capabilities, that's not my problem. The Globe and Mail also reported this story--and I'm quite sure the G&M isn't pro-life. And sorry you don't like my evidence, but that doesn't make it any less real. Again, there is no misinformation here, there is evidence you don't like, but evidence just the same. Unless you have anything new to add that supports Brinton's non-reversal of her position, I would say that the matter is closed.
ReplyDelete