Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Bob and Abortion

Bob's been talking about abortion again a lot lately, so I figured it was my duty to remind everyone that Bob is still an illogical control freak.

Today, Bob was reacting to a new medical study published yesterday which put the figurative last nail in the coffin of the Religious Right's "Abortion causes Breast Cancer" hypothesis. The study included 105,716 women over a 10 year period of time. This New York Times article gives a good overview of the study. In summary,

[t]he scientists found no difference in breast cancer incidence between the women who had had spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not. Breast cancer incidence did not differ among women who had had an induced or spontaneous abortion before or after their first birth, or who had had no abortion at all.

Importantly, the article also details the errors with previous studies that tended to show a link between abortion and breast cancer.
Retrospective studies ... looked for a history of abortion in women who had already been given a diagnosis of breast cancer. [S]uch studies are subject to error caused by inaccurate reporting. Because of personal sensitivities and the stigma associated with the operation, healthy women may be reluctant to reveal that they have had an abortion, while those with breast cancer, seeking a cause for their illness, are more likely to report one.
Nevertheless, Bob had no problem finding fellow anti-choice brethren who were quick to dismiss the study. I liked this quote from the "Christian" News Wire:
'So why has the [National Cancer Institute] continued to spend millions of dollars to fund studies on the abortion-cancer link?' asked [Karen] Malec. 'Clearly, its scientists must either suspect a link or know that it exists.'
Check out that first-rate logical reasoning! Ms. Malec presumes that there's only one reason that the NCI would attempt to study an abortion-cancer link: Because it's a massive cover-up! Maybe the reason that the NCI continues to spend money on this is because blowhards like Bob Dutko and his ilk keep asserting that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, even though there isn't!

Last week, Bob was basking in the glory of the anti-choice crowd's victory at the Supreme Court. The Court upheld a federal law which banned so-called "partial birth" abortions, even when the mother's health was at risk. Keep in mind that Bob has repeatedly argued that overturning Roe v. Wade would simply return the issue of abortion to the states, so that each state could decide. This is the "state's rights" argument that Republicans, like Bob, often employ when it suits their interests, and discard when it doesn't.

But let's be clear what Bob really wants. Bob could care less about whether women get breast cancer or whether each individual state can pass its own abortion laws. Bob wants to use the power of the government to prevent women from getting an abortion, no matter what the circumstances. Furthermore, Bob also wants to use the power of the government to prevent women from using oral contraceptives.

What I'm always puzzled about is why is Bob finds it so necessary to use the power of the government to force women to comply with his narrow ultra-religious morality. I assume Bob's wife isn't going to have an abortion and he no longer has any daughters. So why is he so concerned about whether my wife and my daughters have an abortion or use contraceptives? Why does Bob feel it so necessary to control women he has never met?! Why does he find it necessary to stop an abortion that doesn't affect him in any tangible way?! If his arguments against abortion and contraceptives were so compelling and convincing, why would he need the law to enforce them?!

Why? Because Bob is an illogical control freak.


John the Apostate said...

Bob indeed was on a roll about debunking the latest study on abortion/breast cancer. I didn't listen to the whole show and don't know if he said what exactly was the link between having an abortion and the risk of getting breast cancer. I read or heard something that women who never had a child have a greater risk of developing breast cancer ( somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) .Apparently the biochemical changes in a woman's body during pregnancy confer some protection ( not prevention)against breast cancer. So could it be that the abortion itself is not the cause for greater risk of breast cancer but the fact that the woman was no longer pregnant. We need to have a rational discussion based on scientific data and not ranting.
I am going to take a break from listening to BOB ( my water bill is sky high from me coming home every day and having a need to take a long shower to wash away the latest rantings). To those who continue listening you are stronger than I. Will be checking the site. Like Dan Rather used to say in signing off : "Courage".

John the Apostate said...

I couldn't resist-like not being able to stop picking at a scab so the wound could heal I listening to Bob during lunch today. Just the first few minutes of his "news hour". Talked about the latest extra -solar system planet discovery that is more earth like than previously discovered and may may water and hence life. This lead Bob to a scread on how life never came from nonlife,has never been proven that life came from nonlife and that secular science is a religion. ( to be fair Bob rattled off his chain of reasoning so fast and I had to keep my attention on driving my car that I had a hard time following his stream of bathering). Bob then went on to talk about how Rosie O'Donnel is leaving the view. What got me to do a classic double-take was when he said that Rosie was the "most vile and mean spirited person in media "today. Hey Bob, may I suggest that you listen to a radio program that airs on WMUZ in the Detroit area from 12 to 4. I think Rosie may be knocked out of first place . Then Bob went on to talk about how the mainstream media, especially the View has rabid liberals ganging up on a "token" Christan and conservative who is weak in defending her position. Bob suggested they have Ann Coulter on instead of Elizabeth Whatever Her Last Name Is. Fine Bob as long as James Carville replaces Alan Colmes on Hannity and Totally Irrelavent Liberal on Fox ( gag ) News.

Anonymous said...


These incoherent screads from Bob seem to be occuring even more frequently than before. Later in the day Bob tried to start talking about this new planet, but before he could even get to the topic itself, he went off on some tangent about how he was skeptical about the whole thing since astronomers are wrong about the age of the universe and then something about comets prove that the universe is young, and then on into something about how abiogenesis is false, and on and on. My head was spinning from so much b.s. I felt like gouging my earsdrums out with an ice pick. Luckily, after some rhythmic breathing techniques and about 12 valiums, I could get back to work.

But can you imagine reading a term paper written by Bob? No matter what the topic, the conclusion would undoubtedly be that liberals and scientists and atheists are evil and wrong about everything!

John the Apostate said...

Why is it that only scientific positions on the origin of life/evolution/age of the universe seem to be the targets of Bob's doubts as to the validity of methods and conclusions? Why doesn't he call into doubt scientific knowledge on botany.Why doesn't he have Dr. Von Krackpott from the Discovery Institute( boy there's a misnomer) riping apart plant photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is only a theory anyway.I have never seen photosynthesis happening when I look the danilions popping up in my lawn! Unlike Bob's seemingly unchanging literal acceptance of what is written in the Bible as gospel ( sorry for the bad pun), scientists' can and do change their ideas based on what can be demonstrated. So Bob, let scientists do science. You can just keep on harping on how secular humanists are using babies to make chicken mcnuggets.