This is the continuation to http://www.progressiveu.org/203319-my-conversation-abortionno-org-part-i...
So whaddayaknow? Apparently the Director has a lot of time on his hands, because he responded within the hour. Nice, nice. What was not so nice was his reply (which STILL somehow managed to ignore half of what I said! I hate having to repeat myself...):
"You argument about viability isn’t with us because we didn’t produce the data. We, like the New York Times, merely quote the experts who did. How difficult is that to understand.?
You may be unaware of the fact that a respected researcher did publish a National Cancer Institute study which found a significant link between abortion and breast cancer before she was shouted down by her pro-abortion colleagues at NCI. There is nothing new in politics corrupting science. For decades, researchers in the pay of the tobacco industry adamantly denied the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
Your point about abortion methods changing since 1989 is totally bogus. Most abortions are suction aspiration procedures which haven’t changed significantly in decades. Only thirteen percent of all abortions were performed with abortifacient drugs in the most recent reporting period for which data are available. The ages of these studies is immaterial and I recall one which found that laparoscopic examination of the uteri of women who had terminated found a six-fold higher rate uterine perforation than had theretofore been assumed.
Your point about high rates of mortality and morbidity attending abortion in Third World countries where abortion is unlawful is equally misleading. Planned Parenthood has admitted that even in the U.S. ninety percent of all abortions performed in the years preceding Roe vs. Wade were performed by licensed physicians, the same doctors who continued to perform abortions after Roe vs. Wade. The reasons for the dangers associated with abortion in developing countries derive both from the intrinsically dangerous nature of these procedures and the primitive state of the healthcare systems in these countries. None of these factors would be made to go away by legalizing abortion.
And you are also wildly inaccurate in your claim that legalizing abortion doesn’t increase its frequency of occurrence. The consensus among public health care experts is that prior to 1973, abortions in this country were measured in the hundred’s of thousands, not the millions which became the norm after 1973.
And to your question about our policies regarding replies to web surveys, we treat all those with whom we correspond with the utmost respect, as we have treated you, despite the baseless propaganda which abounds in your every message. When someone shares their e-mail address they invite correspondence. If they decide to terminate the exchange, they need only stop responding."
My response:
"My argument with viability certainly is with you, because you are quoting utterly incorrect data. I would assume that on such a well-known site you would endeavor to have all your data be correct. You should've made sure the data was accurate. However, you did NOT in fact quote any experts on that particular page - if you did, you did not cite them. The sentence I found so problematic is here: http://abortionno.org/AbortionNO/abortion_fl.html. I do not know of a single expert who would claim that viability begins at 21 weeks. Care to cite your source for me?
I am quite aware of that study. I explained in my last email why those studies are not accurate (they use case-control studies rather than cohort studies, mainly). If you give me the name of that specific researcher and the title of his study, I can explain to you why his study is flawed.
What politics do the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization have that would caues them to tell people lies regarding the link between abortion and breast cancer?
If you give me more information about those studies on uterine damage (i.e., a link to an abstract, so I can know, for instance, what the sample size was) I can explain to you why those studies are inaccurate, aside from being twenty years old.
It is entirely incorrect that abortion methods have not changed. If you take a look at the stats at http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp you can see that abortion by suction, which does not damage the uterine wall, has risen from 65% in 1972 to 96.6% in 1995. In 1995, only 2.3% of women who got abortions were at risk of possible uterine wall damage due to cutterage. You can see that other methods of abortion also went down significantly.
Women do not only die in third-world countries from illegal abortions. In the 1960s in New York (where most abortions were performed), 42% the maternal mortality rate was due to illegal abortions. After abortion was legalized there in 1970, maternal mortality rates DROPPED 45% - showing that the legality of abortions is definitely very much connected to whether or not women die of it.
I recommend you read the article posted at http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/10/12/laws_impact_... which cites a very large study that shows that making abortion illegal does not decrease its rate. Also, as I said before, abortion rates are in fact LOWEST in parts of Europe where abortion is easily accessible, and HIGHEST where it is illegal.
I was certainly not inviting correspondence when I put my email there. I was simply filling out a survey - I never expected a personal response. I'm fine with it, but I think many others would be quite annoyed by it - your survey seems more of a veiled attempt at finding people who disagree with you so you can, in a matter of speaking, convert them. I do not feel like you have treated me with any respect. You emailed me a one-liner practically demanding I back up the opinion I wrote in a survey, and you continue to say insulting and demeaning things like, "How difficult is that to understand?" I think you should at least post a disclaimer with your survey, noting that people who disagree with you may get a response arguing with them. I have filled out many survey sites before and never have I been contacted."
What do you think? And, IS it really that weird to randomly email someone who filled in an option survey about the site experience, or is it just me?
Also, if you enjoyed this post, please rate it highly! :)
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
......and I would advise you to be careful. This guy isn't a doctor. He's a former ultra-conservative republican legislator who was instrumental in passing a number of anti-abortion laws, and lawyer who has previously pursued his position all the way to the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. He mentions Thornburgh v. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (1986) on his website, but fails to mention that this is not a standing precedent (it was replaced by the plurality in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)). He also doesn't mention (that I could find, anyway) Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v.City and County of Honolulu (2006), which was refused on appeal to the Supreme Court..
The chance of you convincing him of anything is nil, and this guy is an expert in the art of equivocation. But, he does serve as a perfect example of the dishonesty and misinformation that is pervasive throughout the "pro-life" movement.
Good job!
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Yeah, that's him. He's THAT famous? Why the hell is he responding to ME?
Infamous is more like it, methinks.
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
Because Mr. Cunningham is a paid advocate. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform touts itself as a charity, with a gross yearly income of more than $250,000 a year (how much more, I can't say). Unfortunately, the group does not comply with normal requirements for financial disclosure, which to me is a big "red flag" on their credibility as an organization.
"Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (the Center) does not meet the following 10 Standards for Charity Accountability:" (Follow this link for the listed reasons.)
Typical.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You might find this interesting, then. And Gregg gets paid a little over $65k. There's also about $500k of excess income (which I would generally call "profit").
*Edit: That's what I get for not following links. >< Though if you look below the accountability list, it shows his pay and a $500k discrepancy between income and expenses.*
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
so that might have something to do with why Director Cunningham is careful to conceal certain things about his stweardship ... *rolls on floor laughing*
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is merely waiting. " :Joe Gideon
Is his actual goal to convert you? If it is, he isn't doing a very good job. I wonder if this is what he does with all of his time.....
This guy is entertaining. Hey, do you think he still lives with his Mom?
"And to your question about our policies regarding replies to web surveys, we treat all those with whom we correspond with the utmost respect
Just a little white lie....
'as we have treated you,"
Bigger white lie....
"despite the baseless propaganda which abounds in your every message."
OOH! Someone is cranky!
~ *~
This is a signature, an automated thingy that pops up when I comment, not a demand to see my blog!
Mind Control is Easier Than You Think
You might want to put a head's up on the link to the abortionno page you had issue with. I was expecting text and found pictures of a .... not so pleasing nature. Just something like NSFW or "graphical, not for the faint of heart" would be appreciated. I simply ask as a mother who has miscarried at that point in gestation and know how much it hurts to see things like that if you've gone through it.
That said, the guy's a terrible "con artist."
The consensus among public health care experts is that prior to 1973, abortions in this country were measured in the hundred’s of thousands, not the millions which became the norm after 1973.
Yay for flawed, misleading logic. Of course it's going to rise in the view of health care experts! Because now women are seeking them out!
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
Exactly!
I thought the same thing when he talked about the 90% of abortions being done by professionals before it was legal. I'm like, seriously? Where do you get that number?? The back alley abortions were back alley because NO ONE was reporting it! I guaruntee there were more than we'll ever know about. There's no way he can claim that sort of percentage as a fact.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
-Buddha
"For decades, researchers in the pay of the tobacco industry adamantly denied the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer."
He is conveniently ignoring the fact that pretty much the entire world's medical community didn't give a rats ass about what such dubiously funded researchers asserted. Health professionals everywhere still maintained that cigarettes caused lung cancer despite the fact some researchers tried to claim there wasn't a conclusive link.
I haven't heard any health professionals voicing notable concerns about the serious threat of breast cancer increasing as a result of abortion; my father is a doctor, my mother a nurse. So the irony here is in his projecting; the researchers he likes to glean his dubious research materials from are actually akin to the researchers he derisively referred to as being 'in the pay of the tobacco industry', except this time they are in the pay of the anti-abortion industry; an offshoot of the far more profitable God industry.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Maybe that's where the extra half million is going...(see my above response to Percivale regarding how much Gregg Cunningham gets paid).
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
I liked this part of his email to you:
"Only thirteen percent of all abortions were performed with abortifacient drugs in the most recent reporting period for which data are available. The ages of these studies is immaterial..."
I'm pretty sure that when you are dealing with percentages, particularly if you are claiming "most recent" facts, the age of a study is never "immaterial." In fact, it is quite vital. Even he admitted this when discussing studies on the affects of tobacco.
I understand this man's passion for what he believes in. He has invested so much into it, he doesn't want to be wrong. He doesn't want to give up on it. On the other hand, I was not impressed with his demeanor towards you - frickin' "How difficult is that to understand?" lines, totally uncalled for. He's totally engaging you. I imagine that he's feeling attacked (attacking his belief is like attacking him), even though you've been quite professional. He is very defensive at this point, and to compensate he is trying to make you look stupid; in reality, he's only making himself look like an ass. I think you are handling it quite well. :)
And no, I've never received a response by doing a random survey... That is so bizarre!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
-Buddha
This guy is insane. Not only is he telling you wrong but he is saying you are REALLY wrong by using words like " totally bogus" and "wildly inaccurate". Completely uncalled for.
I find it very strange that they respond to surveys. I have never been responded to by a site because of a survey. Very odd.
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
Check out my latest blog! :]
I think it's interesting that you're going to these lengths to debate with someone who will never see eye-to-eye with you on this issue.
You both have valid arguments in your own respect, I just wonder if it's really worth your time to try and correct him, when he may never even see it as being wrong.
Either way, interesting blog.
The problem is that he hasn't actually made any valid claims, because none of his arguments can be validated. He is basing his research on false information that he wants to be true. He's good at avoiding the truth and making the lies sound like truth, but he's not actually good at researching for truth.
The purpose is for people like him to know that there are people like us who don't give in to his oppressive puff-piece just because he shouts louder. He's clearly threatened by this, which, frankly, is good news.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
-Buddha
Maybe a nugget of what I'm saying will lodge in his brain and lead him to the path of logic and reason. Who knows? But my main goal isn't to convince him that he's wrong. It's to show the world that he's wrong. Which is why I'm posting it here. :p
Also, he started it. :p So I can't just LEAVE in the middle and let him get the last word! It would haunt me forever.
You are doing an excellent job in defending yourself against this moron. I've dealt with people like this many a time via the good 'ol internets and they never back down. You've quite obviously frightened this old codger, and now with his back in the corner he is getting peeved that his "facts" are wrong and that your facts are actually facts. Of course, he'll never admit that his data is wrong, he'll just keep on trying to make it seem like your facts are influenced by pro-choice organizations. It seems like he's just trying to defend his paycheck with outdated data and playground debate tactics. What a sad little man...
I think it's totally legitimate that he send you a follow-up e-mail after you filled out his survey. Why else would they ask for it? E-mails hardly serve any other purpose aside for the facilitation of communication. When I fill out surveys within which I make a highly controversial contention that i strongly believe I love receiving a response. If anything you should be grateful to find him so willing to embarrass himself =]
But yes, I agree that giving your e-mail address does invite correspondence.
you have a point-this guy is disrespectful and...wierd. but your responses kinda are too. once again here iam as the only voice saying you're wrong! abortion is murder. check out www.standtrue.com they are not outdated and misleading like abortionno
Well, first you'd have to get everyone to agree on the definition of what murder is. If you're definition is simply "killing a living thing" then you are already a murderer and since, as you say, murder is wrong you should stop your murderous ways right this instant. It's wrong after all.
I view murder as the willful destruction of the life of a sentient being. Somebody who kidnaps a human being, or breaks into their house and then kills them - that's murder. Removing a cluster of cells which can't even feel their removal from your body, a cluster of cells that isn't even aware that it exists, that is not murder. You're using sensationalized terms to try and aggravate sympathy from people and it really is unnecessary.
Furthermore, Kiota has shown a "man" who whines and behaves like a teething child more respect than he's shown her. She hasn't stooped to his level by saying he's too stupid to understand what she's saying, she's just willing to step up and point out his faulty "science" and what's wrong with his website. And, considering how he is the one who demanded that she explain her position, I don't see how any of her messages have been unwarranted. But, that's just me :).
It isn't just you. It is me too, and I can guarantee, a lot of other people here. :]
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
Check out my latest blog! :]
...backing up KrisanMD's guarantee!
It still always amazes me that folks like this Ethical Director meet verified facts and sound scientific / medical research with sarcasm and attacks on posters / correspondents --- such as he's doing with Kiota. Indeed, it's true that the behavior of this ED is simply making Ki's case for her.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is only waiting. " :Joe Gideon
I do not support abortion either....so I am with you. And in reference to the thought "You're using sensationalized terms to try and aggravate sympathy from people and it really is unnecessary." I think that it could be argued that your "cluster of cells" opinion might be doing the same thing for your opinion. The debate of abortion is and has always been highly emotional. Further, her opinion...she can word it any way that she feels gets her point across. I am totally against abortion and that is my opinion...and yes, I do also use a scientific basis in my opinion.
However, I do have to say that this is a very interesting blog. I really liked that you posted this on here. I also highly applaud you on your debate.....although I am not in the same camp you fought your fight well.
I do think that this man was completely unprofessional. His language does not seem appropriate to be a spokesperson on any cause for any organization. Although I do think that leaving your email address was in a form permission for him to contact you I hate the way he did it. There was no reason to be so badgering and disrespectful. I think that you are both very firm in your opinions and I think that it is probably a waste of time. I admire your persistance and passion however.
Who are you talking to? Please use the REPLY button when responding to other people :)
Danke! :)
----
Your Tongue is a Rudder; It Steers the Whole Ship, Sends Your Words Past Your Lips or Keeps Them Safe Behind Your Teeth... [Brand New]
Oh and dishonesty and misinformation has also been rampant among pro-choice groups so I don't really think that that is much of an argument.