So a while ago I took a look at abortionNO.org, an anti-abortion site that uses shock tactics such as pictures of aborted fetuses and genocide imagery (body parts of blown-up dead kids, photos from the Holocaust, etc). Frankly when I look at an aborted fetus I just think it's gross looking, I don't think it looks human. However even people who see aborted fetuses/embryos in the same way that I do will probably be upset by the imagery of dead children, etc, so I do NOT recommend anyone looks at that site. It's completely useless and full of misinformation, anyway.
But here's the funny thing.
After I explored the site for a while, I filled in their survey, and in the comment section, said something like, "I'm disgusted with the amount of balant misinformation given on this site." Something like that.
And what the hell? A couple days later, I get a one-liner from their main address: "Name one misstatement of fact."
Daaaamn. Someone's a little demanding
Personally I find it pretty disgusting that they respond to my optional response to their survey. Do they usually do that or do they only harrass people who are pro-choice? Do they send snippy little notes to women who've had abortions telling them they are murderers? Is the survey a sneaky way to get them to convert those who haven't been converted by their ridiculous site?
I fired off an email in return. We shall see if they reply. I thought though, perhaps, that those who get their "facts" from biased, anti-abortion shock sites, might be interested in seeing my reply, which named several of their misstatements of facts:
"You claim that "viability generally begins at 21 weeks... when the baby has a 15% chance of survival." Incorrect. It is EXTREMELY rare for babies born at 21 weeks to survive. In fact, only two in medical history have, and they were both born towards the end of the 21st week (James Gill, born at 21 weeks and five days, and Amillia Taylor, born at 21 weeks and six days.) Babies born during the 22nd week have slightly less than a 15% of survival, and about half those babies are brain-damaged. Generally because the chances of survival without serious disability is rare, babies born at 22 weeks are not resuscitated. Most neonatologists believe no infant born before 22 weeks will be viable, because the lungs aren't developed enough until at least halfway through the 22nd week, when it has a miniscule chance of living.
I have some issues with you defining an unborn xygote/embryo/fetus as a "person", since generally a person is assumed to be sentient. But that's more misleading your audience than actually lying to them. Same with calling it a baby before it has reached that point of development.
You claim that getting an abortion increases a woman's chance of getting breast cancer by 30%. It is a twisting of facts - a completed pregnancy adds a certain amount of protection against breast cancer. However, a childless woman who does not have an abortion has the same likelihood of getting breast cancer than a childless woman her age who did have an abortion. It's a matter of whether or not they have had a child, not whether or not they had an abortion.
Regarding the other risks of abortion, such as future complications with pregnancy - again you give incorrect information. Most abortions are performed before eight weeks, when vaccuum aspiration can still be used. That causes no damage to the uterine wall. There has been no conclusive link found between later pregnancy complications and previous abortions and many doctors assert that abortion does NOT cause any infertility, heightened chance of miscarriage, etc. Your "sources" are from over 20 years ago.
The section claiming women don't die from illegal abortions is entirely false. According to the World Health Organization, botched abortions account for 13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide (65,000 girls and women per year). In Latin America, the percentage jumps to 21%. In Mexico, it's 31%. In Egypt, abortion-related problems are responsible for about one-fifth of all obstetric and gynecologic admissions. In some countries, women suffering from complications from botched abortions make up two thirds of patients in maternity wards.
It is also incorrect that making abortion illegal causes abortion rates to rise. Abortion rates are lowest in European countries where abortion is legal and accessible, higher in developing countries where it is illegal."
I'll be going into more detail on these subjects in my series "A Step-by-Step Argument for Abortion", but I thought people might be interested in some examples of how anti-abortion sites are full of shit. Perhaps soon you will also get some examples of how they harrass those who disagree with them.
If you enjoyed this post, please give it a high rating!
You may also want to check out these related posts:
"A Step-by-Step Argument for Abortion: Is It Murder?"
http://www.progressiveu.org/020948-step-step-argument-abortion-it-murder
"A Step-by-Step Argument for Abortion: Teen Sex & Pregnancy"
http://www.progressiveu.org/061328-step-step-argument-abortion-teen-sex-...
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
You go girl.
Is it progress to point out to a website where they have twisted the facts? I think so.
You presesnted the REAL facts well. Now, I may not be "for" abortion...not really (I'm still making up my mind on the subject) I am glad that you pointed out the facts in spite of what that website says. Only 2 babies in HISTORY to be successfully born at 21 weeks?! That is totally not 15%. That's more like .000000000001%. Or something like that....
~ *~
Visit my blog! I'll even provide a link for ya:
Comments are always appreciated! :)
He doesn't give a damn about the facts. It's really insane, what he says regarding viability - just the way he disregards HIS OWN facts and twists them. I'm trying to show people that he's incorrect, but he's doing the job for me. x.x
I can't wait to see if they respond and what they'll say if they do. Promise you'll post it?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
She better.
I'll be watching, Kiota! *gives evil eye* *fails at being evil* Well, post it if you can. I hope they respond it would be most enjoyable to read the response.
~ *~
Visit my blog! I'll even provide a link for ya:
Comments are always appreciated! :)
I think it would be verrrry interesting to read. Hopefully they actually respond without using what is on their website... Well Kiota, whatever it may be, please post it. I think we would all love to read on.
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
Indeed. If it is short I will simply edit this post to add it in, but if I write a long reply to it, I'll post it.
What's sad is that, if they do reply, they're probably going to quote back the same statistics used on their website.
And people are still going to reference them when offering "facts" for their own arguments.
Sometimes, enlightening a fanatic can be like talking to a brick wall. I hope they'll prove me wrong and overly-cynical. I'm looking forward to reading a possible response.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
Sometimes, enlightening a fanatic can be like talking to a brick wall.
I dunno...at least talking to the brick wall is less frustrating because it doesn't talk back. :)
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You can also take your frustration out on the brick wall with a sledge hammer without getting into too much trouble.
read my blogs!
My ProU Blog
My Other Blog
Yeah, probably. Oh well.
I can't believe they sent you something because you filled out a survey disagreeing with them! I know which site NOT to send feedback to.
Excellent use of facts!
I totally got what you're saying. A lot of websites and shows do twist facts a lot like this. It jut isn't fair to those who want to know the truth and the facts. Another thing that isn't taken into account is the reasons behind abortions. People can preach and preach and preach about abortions don't take into acount of the hundreds of reasons behind some abortions, such as rape.
"It is also incorrect that making abortion illegal causes abortion rates to rise. Abortion rates are lowest in European countries where abortion is legal and accessible, higher in developing countries where it is illegal"
this part of your blog doesn't make sense. You contradicted yourself, read over it carefully. Just trying to help ya out.
I believe abortion is wrong. I don't agree with it. Life is defined in biology as simple as one cell. Therefore, even just one human cell is a living human. <- but you probably don't agree.
I know a lot of people who were born by teenage mothers wihout fathers... my life would be completely different without them. Even if it's not alive or has a 'soul' whenever a mother (or not) has an abortion, It's not their choice to decide.
I do agree that if someone is raped and gets pregnant that they should get an abortion. no question. But other than that I believe it to be immoral, and vain. A waste of technology on the destruction of life, it's selfish and wrong. But you probably don't agree, and that's fine, I'm not expecting to persuade you.
enjoy.
Something that is immoral and vain is acceptable to you only when it comes to rape? I'm trying to understand you here...
Furthermore, you can't prove a cluster of cells has a soul. If that's the case, I suggest you stop eating right now in case you are murdering innocents daily with your consumption of meat, fruit and vegetables. These things are living too. Do they have souls? You only identify humans with souls because you believe humans to possess them. Being alive is something completely different from being sentient with the ability to think or even feel pain. There being a soul or there not being a soul is not a logical or viable reason to make abortion illegal. Abortions will happen regardless of their legality, like it or not.
Yeah I was right next to you when some of this was coming down.
It's hard to make logical excuses / explanations for cretins like this, but it seems to me that he just wants to needle you now that he's got you fired up enough to respond. It's tres' amusant that he's making his own case against himself, and you point out how obvious that is!
I think there ought to be big 12-foot tall displays not of aborted bits of tissue but of closed and bolted "minds." This is the Fred Phelps mentality, it's pernicious and cancerous and contagious. Debate with these folks is impossible. As is taking a rational, logical approach with them.
" To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
ok, while i totally agree that sites who post misinformation are bad, it doesn't mean all anti-abortion sites do that! I am pro-life and nothing you say will change that. just wondering, ive done a lot of research on abortion, what are YOUR sources? because ive never heard of anything you mentioned.
You've never heard of the World Health Organization?
I have always found it interesting that the pro-lifers always seem to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion, shouldn't give a child up for adoption, and then just say she shouldn't be having sex unless a child is intended. If they really wanted to stop abortions and only cared about protecting life then they should help get programs for mothers who need financial aid to keep their children, ensure they have adequate health care, have options like affordable day care, and other advancements that they have in Europe. Funny thing though, the only time I see a church or pro-lifer attached to an organization to "help" mothers usually gives aid or housing only to those who are giving their children up for adoption and only until they have delivered.
It is never too late to be what you might have been- George Elliot