Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity

Today, Bob had a guest on with the "Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity." This group sponsors a day of civil disobedience in which students attempt to abstain from talking for a day. During the course of the interview, the guest and Bob casually asserted that pro-choice people have to lie to make their point.

Well, I went to the group's website and found this statement on the front page:

Over 4,000 children have their lives taken each day in the name of choice.
Over 4,000 women are emotionally damaged every day.

Essentially, they're saying that each and every woman who gets an abortion is somehow "emotionally damaged" by their decision to have an abortion.

That's what I call a lie.

There's absolutely no evidence to support this argument in any way. On the contrary, the evidence supports the opposite position.

Folks, I absolutely support the rights of anyone to speak out (or remain silent) against what they think is morally wrong. After all, it's one of our First Amendment rights. But if you have to lie (unnecessarily) to make your point, you're undermining your position. Do some women regret having an abortion? Sure, I have no doubt. Do all or even the majority of women share this regret? To that, I believe the answer is a resounding NO.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jeff: I would respectfully disagree. I would like to tell you studies show there is a direct link between abortion, and breast-cancer. The hormones that are in a woman as she prepares for mother-hood have nowhere to go when an abortion violently stops the babies life. The number of woman injured in this so called "safe" procedure is larger than you might think. Not to mention the terrible emotional damage to women. The bottom line is abortion doctors and planned parent-hood make alot of money off of murderous abortion.

Anonymous said...

There is no connection. Show us peer-reviewed studies. Maybe you should read up on this issue before posting such garbage.

The Bible does not consider abortion to be murder. The Bible does not consider a fetus to be a person. Maybe you should call an orthodox rabbi or read Mosaic law for yourself.

djtyg said...

Anonymous #1, the study has been debunked numerous times, including on this blog. So please save the lies.

Jeff said...

Anonymous #1,

Thanks for dropping by. Let's take a look at your so-called arguments.

I would like to tell you studies show there is a direct link between abortion, and breast-cancer. The hormones that are in a woman as she prepares for mother-hood have nowhere to go when an abortion violently stops the babies life.

Sounds like textbook anti-choice talking points to me. So tell me more about these "hormones". Do they have a specific name? When do they first develop or increase during pregnancy? How are they linked to breast cancer? Where do these hormones "go" when a woman "violently" gives birth to a child? (I've seen child birth first hand; it's a violent process)

The number of woman injured in this so called "safe" procedure is larger than you might think.

Well, lets look at some statistics from the CDC. In the 90s, there were 11.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Compare that to less than 1 death per 100,000 abortions. So tell me again, what's "safer"?

The bottom line is abortion doctors and planned parent-hood make alot of money off of murderous abortion.

That's your "bottom line"? Doctors collect a fee for providing services? So what!? Doctors also make money off of delivering babies, removing tumors, treating cancer, and replacing joints. Should all doctors making money be outlawed?!

Oh, and by the way, "a lot" is two words. I haven't made that mistake since 8th grade.

Anonymous said...

Are you all crazy, First of all the bible is the authoritative word of god whether you believe it or not.. You know whats really funny about the whole issue, the simple fact that you guys get all upset about people taking trees down or global warming is here and get passionate about. Which is a GOOD thing, but just remeber for any one that was born in the seventies that was supposed to be the new ice age, and nobody also seems to care about innocent human live being taken.. That is absolutely disgusting.Regardless of whether it helps cause breast cancer or not. We are talking about life think about a plant its not moving doesnt talk or have feelig but guess what its is alive from day one. So is a baby.

djtyg said...

Anonymous:

1. We're a collection of different religious beliefs here. I do believe the Bible is the Word of God, so stop talking like everyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically not a Christian. It's condescending.

2. On the subject of abortion, please show me the verse where God outlawed it. Abortion was taking place thousands of years before the exodus, so I'm sure if God wanted it banned he'd have had something to say about it.

Of course he didn't say anything about the abortion procedure, but he did once say a fetus wasn't the equivelant of a human life (Exodus 21:22-25).

3. If one of Bob's talking points (in this case global cooling) has been mentioned in the last year, we've probably debunked it. It's what we do. Click on the global warming tab on the right on the front page. Just keep the comments here. Bumping old threads is annoying.

djtyg said...

BTW, anonymoua, do you ever wonder why Bob doesn't like policies that advocate for the prevention of abortion? Ever wonder why that is? It's because Bob would have to allow his audience to vote for Democrats, something he csn't do.

It's also why he loves to falsely imply that a Democrats hate Christians. His whole agenda revolves around exploiting Christianity to get votes for the GOP. He doesn't care about the Bible.

kdog said...

The peer review studies are there, you just don't want to hear it. Dr. Janet Malek in a peer review study is pro"choice". She insists that her federally funded study about the link between breast cancer and abortion is"rock solid" Studies show the chance of a woman getting breast cancer after abortion can rise as high as 50 percent. She says and I quote" I wish there was no link, but the evidence is rock solid". So, maybe you should study some more.

Jeff said...

kdog,

Why don't you provide a link to this damming evidence? Because you're full of shit.

1) I Googled "Janet Malek abortion cancer". I figured that would give that quote you provided. Nope, nothing at all. I can only assume you made this B.S. up. There is a Janet Malek, Ph.D on the faculty at East Carolina University, but there is no evidence that she said anything of the sorts.

2) Even if she did say what you claim she said, you still haven't provided any links to any of these so-called "peer review studies". Please provide evidence.

3) You're probably confused with Karen Malec. She is not a Ph.D nd has no medical training. She runs an anti-choice outfit called the "Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer".

Stop posting undocumented B.S.

kdog said...

Jeff: I just got the name wrong. No need to get so angry. Ok, you want documentation? September 28,1997 Los Angeles Daily News. Dr.Daling from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research center" If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we make. I have 3 sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-life or pro-choice. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of what is.

djtyg said...

KDog, please work on your grammar.

Having said that, the Daling study was done by selecting random women out of a phone book. It's not the best way to gather information.

Also, why has no anti-abortion person who has visited this blog said anything about Exodus 21:22-25? There are no verses that mention abortion, and considering they were taking place before The Exodus, you would think God would want to mention it if it was a sin. But he didn't. And Exodus 21:22-25 states that a fetus isn't the equivalent of a human life. You only paid a fine that was determined by the courts if you accidentaly caused a miscarriage. But if you hurt the woman in the matter it was eye for an eye.

djtyg said...

(I was cut off from the last comment)

That's not a popular statement to make amongst Christians, but the Bible says what it says.

Jeff said...

kdog,

If you're actually interested in learning a little (and I'm guessing you're not), I suggest you start with Wikipedia's article on the Abortion -Breast Cancer Hypothesis. It is very well sourced and presents a very balanced view of the arguments.

The Daling studies likely suffer from a "response bias". Specifically, in order to determine if breast cancer is more prevalent among women who have abortions, they need to find a "control group" of women who don't have breast cancer and see how many of them had abortions. Now, you can imagine if somebody randomly calls you out of the blue and wants to know if you've had an abortion, you might not answer truthfully!

Daling actually performed two studies. The first, in 1994 is where the anti-choice advocates quote-mined their "50% higher" figure. The second study, in 1996, tells a different story:

"These data support the hypothesis that there may be a small increase in the risk of breast cancer related to a history of induced abortion among young women of reproductive age. However, the data from this study and others do not permit a causal interpretation at this time; neither do the collective results of the studies suggest that there is a subgroup of women in whom the relative risk associated with induced abortion is unusually high.

But, of course, anti-choice advocates have already drawn their own conclusions.

Furthermore, the anti-choice advocates always fail to mention the numerous studies that show absolutely no link between abortion and breast cancer. For example, read the abstract from this Danish study, where the researchers had access to a central repository of computerized abortion and cancer data:

After adjustment for known risk factors, induced abortion was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. ... No increases in risk were found in subgroups defined according to age at abortion, parity, time since abortion, or age at diagnosis of breast cancer. ... CONCLUSIONS: Induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.

You can stop trying to sell your bullshit here any time you want, kdog. We're not stupid and we're not buying it.