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! :)
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
