My Conversation with AbortionNo.org, Part IV

This is the continuation to http://www.progressiveu.org/074405-my-conversation-abortionno-org-part-i...

Apparently the good Director is showing this debate to his staff. Does he realize he is doing my work for me? XD

This is his latest response:

"The New York Times, May 16, 1997, citing the National Center for Health Care Statistics, reports that approximately 15% of babies born at 22 weeks will survive, 25% at 23 weeks, 42 % at 24 weeks and 57% at 25 weeks. There are documented cases of preemies sustained at twenty-one weeks. How many have to survive before the definition of viability changes? You are also overlooking the point that the age of viability keeps decreasing from 30 weeks in the 1960s to 28 weeks in 1973 etc. So if you and I keep debating this issue long enough, even you will be forced to acknowledge that the number has shifted downward again. Science is on our side, not yours.

We are amused by your presumptuous dismissal of studies which produce findings that are inconsistent with your political objectives. We had no idea you were smarter than all these review committees at all these prestigious medical journals. You are certainly entitled to posit methodological flaws in the studies but you should know that yours is hardly the majority point of view.

A for the politics of officials at NCI they are personally, politically, liberal and pro-abortion, as public health officials overwhelmingly are. They published a study finding a link one year and repudiated it the next. Did the science change or did the politics change?

It is scandalously inaccurate to say, as you do, that “suction does not damage the uterine wall.” The sharp tip of the suction cannula can be pushed through the wall of the uterus and pull bowel into the tube with devastating consequences. It happens all too often. Your own statistics reveal that the overwhelming majority of all abortions have been suction procedures since the early seventies and suction procedures have not changed clinically in any significant way.

The studies you site on abortion being outlawed without reducing its frequency of occurrence often describe countries whose criminal justice system is so incompetent that they don’t effectively enforce criminal prohibitions against any criminal misconduct, much less abortion. In the U.S., where we have a reasonable level of competence and a relative absence of corruption in law enforcement, laws against abortion do tend to deter this crime. And all the more so as the emerging societal consensus against abortion gathers momentum.

The drop in mortality and morbidity regarding abortion from the 1960s to the 1970s is attributable to a shift away from sharp curettage and a wider use of suction curettage as well as better antibiotics and had little to do with the law when the doctors (back-alley butchers) who were killing babies in the 1960s were the same ones killing them in the 1970s (now main-street butchers).

And please stop whining about the fact that we are not going to allow you to spout shockingly inaccurate propaganda without respectfully challenging your misstatements. “Disrespect” does not mean politely but forcefully correcting false claims. No one forced you to visit our site, fill out a survey, give us your e-mail address (many survey correspondents do not) and ultimately your name. We have not misused any of this information but it is presumptuous in the extreme for you to accuse us of misleading the public and then insist that we are treating you disrespectfully when we explain why you are wrong. If you find this discussion objectionable, you have every right to discontinue it. But we hope you don’t because you are providing our staff with invaluable training in the recognition and refutation of the false claims of the abortion industry."

My response:

"You just proved my point. As I said, approximately 15% of babies born at 22 weeks survive. That's 22 weeks, not 21 weeks. About half those babies are brain-damaged. There are, in fact, two documented cases of babies born before the 22nd week who survived, and I listed them both in my previous email. Two cases in history of babies born in the last 21st week certainly does NOT mean that viability "generally" begins at the 21st week, as you claimed. Viability generally begins at 24-25 weeks, when babies survive upwards of 50% of the time. I am not claiming it is not possible for viability to occur towards the end of 21 weeks; however, it is balantly incorrect to claim that viability "generally begins" at 21 weeks.

I am certainly not smarter than those reviews committees. However, those studies have been proven to be incorrect by many, many other scientists, and by many, many prestigious medical journals. I have listed a number of the prestigious medical organizations that find no link between abortion and breast cancer, mental health problems, and later complications in pregnancy, including the World Health Organization. These same prestigious medical journals have found numerous flaws in the studies that do claim that such a link exists - flaws that make the study completely incorrect.

I just proved you wrong and you ignored it. You claimed that abortion methods have not changed, which I have shown you to be incorrect. Suction is one of the most safest methods of abortion. It's almost always used in abortions done before 13 weeks now (as I said, 96.6%, up from 65% in 1972), and only 0.5% of women who have an abortion before 13 weeks suffer complications serious enough to require hospitalization. You claim uterine rupture is a serious problem - but in fact, perforation or tears of the uterine wall or other organs occur in only 0.4% of surgical abortions, and do not necessarily require intensive medical care. (Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy and abortion: A public health perspective. In Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG. A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1999, pp. 11-22. Also, Elam-Evans LD, Strauss LT, Herndon J, Parker WY, Whitehead S, Berg CJ. Abortion Surveillance-United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2002; 51 (SS09): 1-28.)

What is your evidence that abortion rates go down when abortion is made illegal? Studies worldwide, including of developed European countries, show the opposite. Even in the USA, abortion rates have actually gone down.

You contradicted yourself here, "The drop in mortality and morbidity regarding abortion from the 1960s to the 1970s is attributable to a shift away from sharp curettage and a wider use of suction curettage", as you had just said that abortion methods have not changed. However, mortality and morbidity regarding abortion are still extremely high in countries where it is illegal... but drop dramatically when abortion is made legal.

My point is, contacting a person who responded to a survey on your website is extremely unprofessional. But that's your decision. However... respect? I have made no personal attacks on you, yet you say I'm "whining", etc. The first letter, and subsequent letters, you sent to me, were not respectful in the least - you first letter was a demanding one-liner, how is that respectful? You claim you are acting respectfully, but your manner of speech to me shows otherwise."

Personally what shocks me most is not his disrespect, it's his jumping to the conclusion that the millions of women worldwide who have abortions, often at the cost of their lives, would all stop if sanctions against abortions were harshly enforced. x.x

If you enjoyed this post, a high rating would be more appreciated!