Facebook Miscellany 1/13 - 1/26

The most important news on the internet: J.J. Abrams to direct Star Wars VII. To me, this is wonderfully good news, as I have enjoyed all the Abrams films I've seen. According to IMDB, "'Argo' director Ben Affleck was also in contention [to direct]." (Insert huge gasp of relief here.)

I think the funniest response I've seen so far has been this one:

Star Wars Episode VII: Revenge of the Lens Flair

A note on why I like him: of the first three Mission Impossible movies, (the ones I've seen), #3 (directed by Abrams) was my favorite, while #2 (directed by John Woo) was an abomination that ought to be fed to the ravenous bug-bladder beast. What is interesting is that, in M:I2, the villain threatened to release a virus that would kill billions, and yet I could not motivate myself to care if the hero succeeded (I was hoping he wouldn't, so the heroine would be forced to throw herself off a cliff). In M:I3, we are never told what  plot the villain is attempting. There is no on-screen threat beyond the hero and his new bride. And yet I cared intensely.

And getting me to care about Tom Cruise is a feat in itself.

President Obama, the Closet Pro-Lifer

Well, Yeah

Wherein a Slate writer laments that if women start treating their unborn like children, then y'know, we might (*gasp*) start treating them like humans in other ways.

Key quote:

[I]t got us thinking about how the more we treat fetuses like people—including them in our family photo shoots, tagging them on our Facebook walls, giving them their own Twitter accounts—the harder it will be to deny that they are people when the next, say, personhood amendment comes up, with legislators and activists arguing that “the unborn child” inside a pregnant woman’s womb should have the same rights as the living among us.

Premises, Premises

So, I've had the idea for this post for a while, but haven't been able to put it in words. I had planned writing a long, rambling, boring post, but I realized it could probably be said better shorter.

Also, it helps that SF author, statistician, amateur philosopher and historian, and all around Cool Guy Michael Flynn has done the bulk of the work for me. Recently, he wrote a piece on the "ladder of inference". You should go read it. No, seriously. Go. I'll wait.

All done? To summarize for those too lazy to read, the ladder of inference is basically the process we mentally apply whenever presented with facts. It goes like this:

1. I observe objectively.
2. I select data from what I observer.
3. I add meaning to what I have selected.
4. I make assumptions based on the meaning I have added.
5. I draw conclusions, which prompt feelings.
6. I adopt beliefs about the world.
7. I take action based on my beliefs and feelings.

Now, there is a loop, called the Reflexive Loop from step 6 to step 2: our beliefs influence what data we select from our observations. This is why two people can be presented with the same set of data and draw completely different conclusions about it. Based on their beliefs, developed from previous experiences, people will notice different things, infer different meanings, and make different assumptions from the same things.

For our purposes, I will refer to these beliefs that influence our observations and actions as "premises". These are not, of course, philosophical premises in the sense of "first principles", since they are based on prior experiences. But, for a given situation, they are the things we assume are a given, and not topics for discussion.

Now, the problem is people tend to assume that their experiences are universal, and internalize their premises to such a point that they assume everyone else shares them. So when two people observe the same data, and come to different conclusions, if they've climbed too high, too fast, on the ladder of inference, they'll be completely at a loss to understand how the other person came to another conclusion.

This is why arguing on the internet is, for the most part, completely futile. Every time you see two people going at it in comboxes, each one talking past the other, it's typically because one (or both) have climbed too high on the ladder. Each one assumes his premises to be true, based on experiences he assumes are universal. And since the premises are usually not the things being discussed, the "conversation" continues apace, with neither party actually hearing or addressing the points made by the other.

Every time you come across a pro-life person lamenting how much pro-choice people hate babies, while the pro-choice person bemoans that pro-lifers hate women, it's because of the ladder. When you see a same-sex marriage advocate calling a traditional marriage advocate a homophobe, while the latter insists that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman and why-oh-why can't the homosexuals understand this, it's the ladder. And when you see an atheist call all religion irrational while the theist is calling atheists blind, it's the ladder. None of the parties are acknowledging that the other person may have a different starting point for his beliefs because of his different life experiences.

(Note: I'm not saying that neither person is correct, or that both views are true; I'm just saying that someone's reasons for holding a belief are, in the vast majority of circumstances, rational and well-intentioned, no matter how wrong it might be.)

So it's a particularly treasured moment when someone reveals in plain language, right off the gate, what his premises are. It allows one to see why, exactly, that person holds the beliefs that he holds,

This is all a very, very roundabout way of introducing the topic of a document released by the International Planned Parenthood Federation called "Exclaim!: Young People's Guide to 'Sexual Rights'". An old college buddy of mine linked to it on the blog of his psychotherapy practice as an example of the "philosophy and social conditioning that the youth of today experience in our culture."

I found it fascinating because it puts the premises of the the sexually promiscuous culture right out front, plain to see. For instance:

Other newly-discovered rights: the pleasure of eating irrespective of desires for nourishment; the right to breathe without respiration; and the freedom to jump off cliffs without falling.

Simply put, it is a premise of the culture of death that everyone has a right to sex without babies. From here, it is easy to see how you end up with the right to abortion. If you have a right to actions without consequences, when the consequences occur, they are interfering with your rights. It's also easy to see why they think that pro-lifers are "denying a woman her rights".

This is important, because any pro-life argument that fails to address this mentality is doomed to failure. Any argument that starts with the humanity of the unborn is a futile argument. What a fetus is does not matter to a woman's right to "sexual freedom". If stealing candy from African AIDS orphans was necessary for sexual freedom, that would be justified by this premise.

This explains the cognitive dissonance exhibited in other places in the document. For instance, on page 8, IPPF defines all human rights, as universal, inalienable, indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, and impose obligations, then goes on to define inalienable:

INALIENABLE: Everyone is entitled to human rights simply for being human [NB: "for being human". Not "person". This undercuts the "the fetus isn't a person" objection]. Human rights cannot be taken away or given up from anyone, irrespective of their age [So... a 10-week gestational human being cannot have its rights taken away?], gender, ethnicity, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, disability, HIV status or health status.

Then, on page 19, while listing human rights, they state:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and to be free from harm."

There are, of course, implications to these two statements. But the ladder of inference can prevent someone from seeing them.

This Is Not a Baby

Why would the ultrasound technician use the incorrect terminology? One would think that trained medical professionals would know the difference.

His heart beats at a rapid 175 beats per minute but he is not alive.

We can see his arms, legs, fingers, toes, ribcage, nose, genitalia, and both hemispheres of his developing brain, yet he is merely a "blob of tissue" which can be removed like an appendix or the tonsils.

Indeed, we even know that he is a "he", but he isn't really.

His eye and hair color have already been determined. He has a unique set of genes, one that has never been seen before and will never be seen again in the history of the human race. Everything that makes him human is there. But he is only potentially human. Not "fully" human.

In time, as his muscles and organs form and grow, he will suck his thumb, yawn, cry, and blink his eyes. He will act just like a newborn baby outside of the womb, but he won't yet be a baby until he is born.

These are the facts that inform our society, our laws, and our beliefs.

“This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.”

*RESPECT LIFE*

LinkDump

"A group proposes to build a religious establishment on their own property near a site associated with great pain and significance for some people. These people, rightly or wrongly, associate that religion with the many deaths that were caused and so raise a great ruckus in protest against the said establishment. For their part, the religious establishment pleas that they intend to pray for all who died there, including their own co-religionists. But this plea is dismissed," writes philosopher, statistician, physicist, historian, SF author extraordinaire, and all-around cool guy Mike Flynn.

"I pause while you assume the proper attitude," he continues.

"I write, of course, of the Polish sisters who wanted to establish a convent near Auschwitz, which created a great outcry that it was insensitive to Jewish concerns. The Pope intervened and told the sisters to place their convent elsewhere, since if they remained intransigent they would do more harm than good. That they had a right to do what they planned did not mean it was right to do it."

We haven't discussed the ground-zero mosque in this space, and I am curious what my readers think. Me, personally? I am in favor of it, so long as they build a chapel to Our Lady of Victory right next door.

Mike Flynn continues:

"A pastor of a sect of 50 people announces that he will burn copies of the Qur'an, sending the entire world into a tizzy. The POTUS intervenes personally to beg him not to do so as such a burning will deeply offend many people. (Unlike, say, the burning of a US flag.) Curiously, in a TV shot, all the copied stacked up appear to be in English and thus not legitimately Qur'ans. (The true Qur'an is written only in Arabic.)

"OTOH, Charles Merrill, cousin to Merrill Lynch co-founder, burned a Qur'an valued at $60,000 (in the apparently magick belief that it would 'eliminate homophobic hate.' This book was not only a genuine Qur'an (in Arabic) but was a rare manuscript given to his late wife, Evangeline Johnson Merrill of Johnson & Johnson, by the late king of Jordan during a UN mission in the 1950s. So not only was it a real Qur'an, but a precious antique, and a diplomatic gift by the King of Jordan, and he actually did burn it. Not a peep."

For those of you who didn't click through the link on my previous post, I will re-link the blog of Jennifer Fulwiler, a Catholic convert from atheism, whose blog I discovered by following a link from a link from a link from my Google reader (it sometimes gives me interesting things, though for some reason it's convinced I like Andrew Sullivan). She has an audio link to a talk she gave about her conversion which is really quite remarkable. I think my favorite part was when she finally saw the "fingerprints of God" on the Church. It really is amazing that She's still around, 2000 years later, i'n'it?

Anyways, her article on her pro-life conversion is, simply, a-mazing. I'm not a particularly eloquent or insightful person, and when a thought enters my head, I have a very hard time forming it into something meaningful and expressing it. For this reason, I rely on other people to express my thoughts in fully-formed ways. Usually, reading John C. Wright sufficiently tells me what I'm thinking, but Mrs. Fulwiler hit on something that had been smoldering in the back of my mind for a while but I had been unable to express, namely that abortion comes from society's understanding of sex. She even put a name to it: the "contraceptive mentality". I will plagiarize that term heavily from now on. (That is the idea I was working up to here and here, but was not completely able to develop.) It's for this reason that I'm becoming increasingly dubious that the abortion holocaust will be ended by laws or judges, but instead by conversion, one heart at a time. I feel more and more that the pre-born will only finally be treated as equal under the law once society, as a whole, no longer feels it needs abortion. Only then will it wither away.

I always find conversion stories to be fascinating. As a cradle Catholic, I always doubt whether I believe what I believe because it is truth, or merely because I was taught to believe it. Do I defend it because it is right or because it is reflex? That's why I always find it interesting when someone who started with opposite beliefs to my own, through a slow and gradual process of philosophical inquiry and open-minded questioning, climbs the mountain of Truth and finds the Church built atop it, where she has been waiting for 2000 years. There is something reassuring about knowing other people reasoned their way to the Truth I've known since childhood.

Lastly, this is simply a-mazing:

"If abortion is merely about women's rights, ladies and gentlemen, then what were mine?"

A Pair of Deuces, Revisited. Part I: Abortion

I put on my robe and John C. Wright hat.


Devin has responded to my arguments that marriage does not apply to homosexual relationships. She has done so in more words than I used to make the original post. Her comment warrants a more detailed reply than what will fit in a combox, so I will dedicate two posts to it. This, the first post, deals with the first part of her reply, about the seemingly-unrelated topic of abortion. It is actually somewhat appropriate considering there is a direct and strong link between homosexual "marriage" and abortion, which I will talk about later.

Devin linked to a video from NARAL where several women spoke of alleged misinformation given to them at an unnamed "Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center". I watched the video, and my first response was the word most commonly written in red ink on my history papers by Miss Smyth, my high school history teacher: "evidence". I.e., the lack thereof. Unlike the video I linked, which shows the statements of a nurse in a Planned Parenthood clinic giving false information to a patient, the NARAL video consists only of a series of women stating things which allegedly they were told at an unnamed crisis pregnancy center, like neighbors gossiping over the fence. No context is given for these statements. We are not told who made them, if they were in printed materials, if they were spoken, what the context was, if they represent the view of one recently-hired nurse or the director of the center. We are not told the affiliation of the center, if it was run by a major national pro-life organization or out of someone's garage. All those details are left to the viewers imagination to encourage us, I guess, to assume the worst.

For these reasons alone, I could dismiss the entire video as uninformative and unhelpful, but I will address the allegations point by point.

First alleged statement: HIV can swim through the holes in condoms.
Well, if there are holes in the condom, this is true. But I assume the statement refers to the urban legend that HIV is small enough to fit between the molecules of the condom, or whatever.

While this has been debunked, it is largely irrelevant the point about condoms' ineffectiveness. The typical use conception rate for condoms is 10-18% per year [Guttmacher Institute (1992). "Choice of Contraceptives". The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics 34 (885): 111–114]. That means if 100 women use condoms as their primary form of birth control for one year, 10-18 of them are expected to get pregnant. The "perfect" use pregnancy rate is 2% per year.

The rate of breakage is between 0.4% and 2.3%, while the rate of slippage is between 0.6% and 1.3%. [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (2001-07-20). "Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention".] Even if no breakage or slippage is observed, 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom. [Walsh, T; Frezieres, R; Peacock, K; Nelson, A; Clark, V; Bernstein, L; Wraxall, B (2004). "Effectiveness of the male latex condom: combined results for three popular condom brands used as controls in randomized clinical trials". Contraception 70 (5): 407–13.]

So while the details of the alleged statement may be wrong, the message is correct: condoms can't always protect against HIV.

Second alleged statement: Your risk of breast cancer almost doubles after one abortion.
This is a true statement, or near enough to it. If the National Cancer Institute disagrees, then they have their collective heads stuck firmly in the sand, to the detriment and harm of women worldwide.

Here is a list of studies that have found more than a two-fold increase in breast cancer risk after abortion:

• M. Segi, et al., “An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan,” GANN, Vol. 48, Supplement: April, 1957.
• Pike, et al., (1981) British Journal of Cancer 43 Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women 
• Nishiyama, (1982) Shikoku Ichi 38: 333-43
• Laing et al., (1993) Journal of the National Medical Association 85:931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African - American women: the Howard University Tumor Resistry experience
• Laing, et al., (1994) Genetic Epidemiology 11:A300 Rohan et al. American Journal of Epidemiology September 1988;128(3):478-89.
• Rohan, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology 1988 Sep;128(3):478-89
• A population-based case-control study of diet and breast cancer in Australia.
• Bu, et al., (1995) American Journal of Epidemiology 141:S85

Here is a list of studies that show an increased risk of breast cancer, due to abortion.

• Ye, et al., (2002) British Journal of Cancer 87:977-981
• Brinton, et al., (1983) British Journal of Cancer 47:757-62 Reproductive factors in the etiology of breast cancer.
• Rosenburg, et al., (1988) American Journal of Epidemiology 127:981-9 Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion.
• Marcus, et al., American Journal of Public Health 1999 Aug; 89(8):1244-7 Adolescent reproductive events and subsequent breast cancer risk.
• Palmer, et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control 8:841-9 Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer.
• Lazovich, et al., Epidemiology 2000 Jan;11(1):76-80 Induced abortion and breast cancer risk.
• Daling, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology 1996 Aug 15;144(4):373-80 Risk of breast cancer among White women following induced abortion.
• Daling, et al., Journal of National Cancer Institute 1994 Nov 2;86(21):1584-92 Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion.
• Laing, et al., Journal of National Medical Association 1993 Dec;85(12):931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience.
• White, et al., (1994) Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86:505-14 Breast cancer among young U.S. women in relation to oral contraceptive use.
• Newcomb, et al., (1996) Journal of the American Medical Association 275:283-7 Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer.
• Howe, et al., International Journal of Epidemiology 1989 June;18(2):300-4 Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40.
• Andrieu, et al., British Journal of Cancer 1995 Sep;72(3):744-51 Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer—a combined analysis of six case-control studies.
• Hirohata, et al., (1985) National Cancer Institute Monograph 69:187-90 Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: a case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan.
• Ewertz & Duffy (1988) British Journal of Cancer 68:99-104 Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark.
• Lipworth, et al., (1995) Int Journal Cancer 61:181-4 Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece
• Rookus & van Leeuwan Journal Natl Cancer Inst 88:1759-64 Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study
• Talamini et al. (1996) Eur Journal Cancer 32A:303-10 The role of reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause
• Watanabe & Hirayama (1968) Nippon Rinsho 26:1853-9
• Dvoirin & Medvedev (1978) Meth Prog Breast Cancer Epidemiol Research, Tallin 1978. USSR Acad Sci pp 53-63 (In Russian)
• Le, et al., (1984) British Journal of Cancer 72:744-51
• Luporsi, (1988) British Journal of Cancer 72:744-51
• Wu et al., (1996) British Journal of Cancer 73:680-6
• Robertson, Van Den Donk, Primic-Zakelj, MacFarlane, Boyle, The association
• between induced and spontaneous abortion and risk of breast cancer
• in Slovenian women aged 25-54. Breast 2001; 10:291-8.

Thirteen of 15 studies conducted on post-abortive American women report increased risk of breast cancer. Seventeen studies are statistically significant and 16 found increased risk. Most of the studies were conducted by abortion supporters. The first study was published in an English publication in 1957 and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 relative risk, or 160-percent, increased risk of breast cancer among women who had abortions. These studies suggest that an induced abortion causes biological changes to occur in a woman’s breasts which make her more susceptible to breast cancer. Approximately 1 in 100 women procuring an abortion is expected to die as a result of abortion-induced breast cancer. [M. Segi, I. Fukushima and M. Kurihara, An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan, GANN (Japanese Journal
of Cancer Research) 48 (Suppl.) (1957): 1-63.]

As of March, 2002, there have been published in the worldwide medical literature 37 studies reporting data on the risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion. Twenty-eight of these studies report increased risk. Thirteen of the 15 American studies report increased risk, eight with statistical significance (at least 95 percent probability that the result is not due to chance) irrespective of age at first full term pregnancy. The relative risk increase of the 37 studies combined is 30 percent. [(2002, July). APLOG Statement on Abortion & The Risk of Breast Cancer, Physicians for Life.]

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion. She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. 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."

Even Planned Parenthood admits the breast cancer/abortion connection: “It is known that having a full-term pregnancy early in a woman’s childbearing years is protective against breast cancer. ... Interruption during the first trimester of a first pregnancy causes a cessation of cell differentiation, which may result in a subsequent
increase in the risk of cancerous growth in these tissues.” [(1997, September 5). Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc. Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Issues 3.]

This is what I found in about 30 minutes of searching. One could write volumes on the proven link between abortion and breast cancer, and volumes have been written, but I will stop here, my case having been made.

To address the National Cancer Institute's study, their summary report, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer," reached contradictory conclusions with respect to the link between abortion and breast cancer. It acknowledges one of the two breast cancer risks associated with abortion - the protective effect of a full term pregnancy - but then contradicts itself by stating that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." And during the production of that study, Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's "study" of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed.

The pro-abortion activists are tipping their hand here. They demonstrate that the sacrament of abortion is so sacred to them, so paramount, that they are willing to ignore evidence. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of women to uphold the "right" to slaughter an innocent babe in the womb. I hold nothing but contempt for these people's lies.

Third alleged statement: 28% of women attempt suicide after an abortion.
This is a slight misquote of a Finnish study. With no context to NARAL's claims, it's impossible to determine if the crisis pregnancy worker was misquoting the study, or the NARAL supporter was misquoting the crisis pregnancy worker:

According to the study, "approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, and half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records-based study. They identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. Suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9). Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage, the rate was 18.1 per 100,000 and for abortion 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women carrying to term and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers." [A. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987). M. Gissler, E. Hemminki and J. Lonnqvist, “Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study,” British Journal of Medicine 313 (1996): 1431-4.C. N.Campbell, K.Franco, and S. Jurs, “Abortion in Adolescence,” Adolescence, 23(92) (1988): 813-823. H.Vaughan, “Canonical Variates of Post-Abortion Syndrome,” Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990.]

So it's not 28% of women who obtain abortions; it's 28% of women who experience psychological trauma related to those abortions. The number of women who experience post-traumatic stress  disorder (PTSD) due to abortions is difficult to determine. A Russian study puts the figure at about 46% [N. Mufel, A. Speckhard and S. Sivuha, Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Abortion in a Former Soviet Union Country, Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health 17(1) Fall 2002.], while an American study put the number at a minimum of 19% [C. Barnard, The Long-Term Psychological Effects of Abortion (Portsmouth, N.H.: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990)].

Fourth alleged statement: The more abortions you have, the more you miscarry.
True statement. The health risks that abortion causes with subsequent pregnancies are well-documented. At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions. Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Induced abortion increased the odds of ectopic pregnancy four-fold over live birth. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility. [A. Levin, S. Schoenbaum, P. Stubblefield, S. Zimicki, R. Monson and K. Ryan., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion,” American Journal of Public Health 72 (1982): 253. C.S. Chung, “Induced Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Subsequent Pregnancies,” American Journal of Epidemiology 115 (6) (1982): 879-887.

A Boston study by a group who have aggressively done abortions denied any increase after one abortion, but, after two or more abortions, they did find a "two-to three-fold increase in risk of first trimester spontaneous abortions [miscarriages]," as well as "losses up to 28 weeks gestation." [Levin et al., "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, vol. 243, no. 24, June 27, 1980, pp. 2495-2499.]

Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66 or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent preterm delivery, compared to women who carry to term. Prior induced abortion not only increased the risk of premature delivery, it also increased the risk of delayed delivery. Women who had one, two or more induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.61 and 2.23 times more likely to have a post-term delivery (over 42 weeks). [Z. Weijin, et al., “Induced Abortion and Subsequent Pregnancy Duration,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 94 (6) (December 1999): 948-953.]

Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5% rate in a non-aborted group. [Richardson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy," British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4.]

Women who had delivered their first pregnancy had (in the second pregnancy) the "best reproductive performance." Those who had a spontaneous miscarriage on the first had "the highest frequency of an early loss." Those with induced abortion on their first had "the highest frequency of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." [Koller & Eikham, "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primagravida" Acta OB-GYN Scand, 56 (1977) p. 311.]

"In a series of 520 patients who had previously been aborted, 8.6% had premature labor compared to 4.4% of [non-aborted] controls." [G. Ratten et al., "Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy," Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480.]

"The induced abortion group had the highest incidence of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." [O. Kaller et al., "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primigravidae," Acta OB GYN Scandinavia, vol. 56, 1977, pp. 311-317.]

Fifth alleged statement: STDs can hide in the vagina, crawl up into the fallopian tubes and make you infertile.

Aside from the cartoonish idea of an STD hiding and crawling, NARAL's response agrees with the pregnancy center's statement, that STDs/STIs can cause infertility. We are in agreement on this one.

As a point of fact, neither the Murloc nor I have ever been tested for STDs. I can only imagine that it would be "important" to get regular check ups for these things if you decide to live the type of dangerous lifestyle, in opposition to prudence and common sense, that would put you at risk. Wisdom teaches us that STDs/STIs are easily avoided.

Sixth alleged statement: You probably have several STDs from sleeping around, and you’ll be dead before college if you continue this lifestyle.

It is to laugh. NARAL expects us to believe that this represents the type of official information given by crisis pregnancy centers? What was the context for the statement? Did the NARAL advocate accuse the crisis worker of hating women, or tell her her mother was a whore? Was this part of a heated debate over abortion in which the worker lost her cool? We can never know.

Expressing care for others by urging them away from a dangerous lifestyle, i.e., one that carries a risk of STDs is noble and an expression of Christian charity. One simply has to be careful of the words one uses to do so. The worker's heart may have been in the right place, even if her head was not.

Seventh alleged statement: If you have an abortion, your next baby will be twice as likely to die in the first few months of life.

See point four about the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. The actual increased risk is four-fold. True statement.

Eighth and ninth alleged statements: Because the doctor can’t see what he’s doing, he could accidentally suck out your bowels. During an abortion, the uterine lining can be pulled out entirely, and, once it gets pulled out, it will never grow back.

Context required. Worker is likely confused. Abortion does carry a risk of uterine and cervical damage. Between two and three percent of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed. [S. Kaali, et al., “The Frequency and Management of Uterine Perforations During First-Trimester Abortions,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 161 (August 1989): 406-408. M.White, “A Case-Control Study of Uterine Perforations documented at Laparoscopy,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 129

(1977): 623.]

Uterine rupture occurs during labor in almost 1% of cases when women have had earlier first trimester abortions. [140 D. Nemec et al., "Medical Abortion Complications," OB & GYN, vol. 51, no. 4, April 1978, pp. 433-436.]

In addition to overt injury to the cervix during suction curettage, covert trauma is also important. Microfractures of the cervix may occur during forceful dilatation of the cervix, which may lead to persistent structural changes, cervical incompetence, premature delivery and pregnancy complications. [K.Schulz, et al., “Measures to Prevent Cervical Injuries During Suction Curettage Abortion,” The Lancet (May 28, 1983): 1182-1184.]

The statement there is a “preponderance of evidence that abortion does not impair women’s future fertility" is a lie. The preponderance of evidence is that abortion harms a woman's future fertility. Tipping the hand, the sacrament of abortion, once again, is more important to these people than women's wellbeing.

Tenth alleged statement: When you have an abortion, the cervix is forced open and sometimes it won’t go back to it’s original size. This can lead to miscarriages since it isn’t closed properly.

Basically true statement. See fourth, eighth, and ninth points, about risks of abortion on subsequent pregnancies, and damage to uterus and cervix.

Eleventh alleged statement: Many women who have had an abortion now have bad flashbacks whenever they hear a vacuum.

True statement. Nowhere does it say that all women are the same. NARAL's response is a strawman and a lie.

Twelfth alleged statement: Everyone who has an abortion regrets it even if she says she doesn't.

An exaggeration, but largely true. 

Dr. Anne Speckhard, of the University of Minnesota, published a study on women who had abortions. These women reported:

Preoccupation with the aborted child 81%

Flashbacks of the abortion experience 73%

Feelings of “craziness” after abortion 69%

Nightmares related to the abortion 54%

Perceived visitations from dead child 35%

Hallucinations related to the abortion 23%

[A. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987).]

Dr. Hanna Söderberg, the lead author of a study, conducted interviews with women one year after their abortions. Her research team found that approximately 60 percent of the women in their sample of 854 women had experienced emotional distress after their abortions. This distress was classified as “severe,” warranting professional psychiatric attention, among 16 percent of the women. The research team noted that over 70 percent of the women stated that they would never consider an abortion again if they faced an unwanted pregnancy. [H. Söderberg, C. Andersson, L. Janzon and N. Sjöberg. Selection bias in a study on how women experienced induced abortion. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 77 (1998): 67-70. H. Söderberg, L. Janzon N. Sjöberg. (1998). Emotional distress following induced abortion: A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmo, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (1998): 173-178.]

In a study of post-abortion patients eight weeks after their abortion, 55 percent of the women expressed at least some guilt feelings, 44 percent complained of nervous symptoms, 36 percent had experienced sleep disturbances, 31 percent had regrets about their decision, 11 percent had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by a doctor, eight percent believed they had make a mistake by having an abortion and eight percent

reported worsening guilt feelings. [J.Ashton, “The Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion,” British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 87 (1980): 1115-1122.]

Thirteenth alleged statement: The only birth control you need is abstinence.

True statement. NARAL and I agree on this one. Their further statement "it also indicates that there are no other options," is a strawman and a lie. The original statement says no such thing.

That aside, abstinence is the only 100% reliable option. Women have gotten pregnant on the pill (a friend of mine got pregnant three times, each on a different kind of pill), when using condoms, when using any imaginable form of birth control (including NFP). The only responsible way of dealing with pregnancy is not to have sex unless you are ready to deal with the consequences. That is the message of chastity, of the Church throughout its 2000 year history, and the message that NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and all those who profit through abortion want to suppress. To promote contraceptives as a viable alternative to abstinence for the unmarried is like promoting drunk driving as a viable alternative to calling a cab. Yes, you will likely get home, maybe even safely. But the risks and the potential for injuries do no make it worth it. Those who attempt to live by the virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and wisdom cannot substitute safety and health for mere personal pleasure, nor condone such in the behavior of others.

A perfectly monogamous society would have no concept of such things as unwanted pregnancy and STIs. We as a society can choose between those two options: free sex or free Life. So long as sex is seen as consequence-free, we will need contraceptives. So long as we use contraceptives, there will be failures. So long as there are failures, there will be unwanted pregnancy. And so long as there is unwanted pregnancy, there will be abortion.

That is the link from gay "marriage" to abortion. To paraphrase Mark Shea, show me a society that hates chastity, and I'll show you a society that hates children. The society that encourages fornication will find the need to do away with the inconvenient result of it:

An inconvenient result. Not worthy of protection. Does not have a right to life.

Conclusion

The biggest difference between the alleged misinformation of the Unnamed Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center and the lies of Planned Parenthood has not yet been mentioned: Crisis Pregnancy Centers are suppressed by the government, while Planned Parenthood is encouraged. As you point out, the city of Baltimore is trying to steer people away from the crisis pregnancy centers (no other charity is required to list the services it doesn't perform). However, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year from the federal government. That makes their lies government-subsidized.

There is one more difference worth mentioning. The alleged misinformation given by the Unnamed Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center is at debatable, or an exaggeration, or true in concept but false in details, it is at least in some way related to the truth. You and I can debate endlessly, linking and quoting surveys and studies. We can dismiss each other's references with charges of bias or argumentum ad hominem as you have dismissed the pro-life sources and I have dismissed the National Cancer Institute's findings. A study can be made to say whatever it is you want it to say. But the crisis center claims were at least backed up by something. There is some evidence, some piece of information that supports the claims, even if it is misquoted or exaggerated.

Planned Parenthood's statement about the humanity, or lack thereof, of the unborn cannot make any such claim. The worker's statement that "there is no head, no brain, no arms, no legs, no heart," has absolutely no basis in fact. No evidence can be brought to support it. No scientific report could be misinterpreted to make her think the baby does not have the shape of a human. The statement cannot be justified or explained away as being partially true. It is simply not true. It is the exact opposite of truth. It is a Lie.

Part II to follow when I'm done playing StarCraft II I have time.

Content, Shmontent.

Time for the third-lowest form of blogging: a link without commentary! (Just above YouTube videos and Lolcats.)

This has been circulating the pro-life blogosphere. An abortionist describes aborting an 18-week fetus while she herself was 18 weeks pregnant:

With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick - a fluttery "thump, thump" in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a "thump, thump" in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes - without me - meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling - a brutally visceral response - heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

The article is an interesting read.

QFT: "I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother's uterus - but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable."

Her world view is somewhat depressing. Dare I call it pagan? Her idea that denying a woman an abortion is violence against her, but performing the abortion is horrible violence against the baby.... It's as if violence is an unavoidable truth, an evil to which there is no alternative, and that we live in a world with no hope of ever achieving peace. There is something very sorrowful about that. But I suppose that's what a world without Christ is. As Tolkien understood it in The Lord of the Rings, prior to the incarnation, there was never any hope of lasting peace. "Only a fool's hope."

Ok that was, in fact, commentary. Fifth-lowest form of blogging (above baby pictures).

Smart Girl.

She won a contest for the speech, too.

I think she takes just the right approach. The pro-choice position is based on emotion, not reason, so a reasoned rebuttal is unlikely to change any minds. Instead, we need to take a page from Scott Ott and learn how to love them right.

Any argument against abortion that focuses on the humanity of the unborn is liable to fail, simply because the reasons for why an unborn child is human will never change the emotions of the pro-choicer about the mother's situation. That's why I like the approach of Lia here, who takes the time to talk about the impact of abortion on the emotions of the mother.

And I swear, this blog is not turning into an affiliate of the National Right to Life League. Maybe come August or so, when my child is actually granted rights under the Constitution, we can return to our normally scheduled programming.

And, again, congratulations to little Benjamin for surviving the most dangerous place in America. It shows that your parents love you very, very much.

Change We Can All Believe In.

That is, so long as you agree with the use of taxpayer money to fund foriegn abortions. What a brilliant, wonderful use of public funds during a recession.

As this commentor from John C. Wright's blog mentions, "I like to point out that now, you will get thrown in jail if you don't want to pay money to kill foreign children."

Let it be known that now and forever more, the argument of the pro-choice crowd that pro-lifers try to force their beliefs on others while they, taking the moral high ground, do no such thing, is now nothing but a bald-faced lie. You are now required to pay to abort children, even if you find the procedure a gross violation of your morals and ethics.

Also, this video was brilliant.

God Bless George W. Bush

It is fitting that he, whose first act in office was to block federal funding to foreign groups promoting abortion, left us with this as one of his last.  As Joe mentioned elsewhere, it will certainly be the last one for a while.

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

More info about this tradition instituted by President Ronald Reagan can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Sanctity_of_Human_Life_Day.  Rapidly deleted from the White House website after President Obama took office, it can now be found here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85644.

Brilliant!

Who knew that our new president is a closet pro-lifer?

Quoted. For. Truth.

<<

When ordinary rationalization fails, people revert to other modes of suppression. We often see this when an unmarried young woman becomes pregnant. Suddenly her conscience discovers itself; though she was not ashamed to lift her skirts, she is suddenly ashamed to show her swelling belly. What can she do? Well, she can have an abortion; she can revert to the mode of suppression called "getting rid of the evidence." Once again conscience multiplies transgressions. But she finds that the new transgression is no solution to the old one; in fact now she has something even more difficult to rationalize.

Think what is necessary to justify abortion. Because we can’t not know that it is wrong to deliberately kill human beings, there are only four options. We must deny that the act is deliberate, deny that it kills, deny that its victims are human, or deny that wrong must not be done. The last option is literally nonsense. That something must not be done is what it means for it to be wrong; to deny that wrong may not be done is merely to say "wrong is not wrong," or "what must not be done may be done." The first option is hardly promising either. Abortion does not just happen; it must be performed. Its proponents not only admit there is a "choice," they boast of it. As to the second option, if it was ever promising, it is no longer. Millions of women have viewed sonograms of their babies kicking, sucking their thumbs, and turning somersaults; whatever these little ones are, they are busily alive. Even most feminists have given up calling the baby a "blood clot" or describing abortion as the "extraction of menses."

The only option even barely left is number three: to deny the humanity of the victims. It is at this point that the machinery slips out of control. For the only way to make option three work is to ignore biological nature, which tells us that from conception onward the child is as human as you or me (does anyone imagine that a dog is growing in there?)—and invent another criterion of humanity, one that makes it a matter of degree. Some of us must turn out more human, others less. This is a dicey business even for abortionists. It hardly needs to be said that no one has been able to come up with a criterion that makes babies in the womb less human but leaves everyone else as he was; the teeth of the moral gears are too finely set for that.

Consider, for instance, the criteria of "personhood" and "deliberative rationality." According to the former, one is more or less human according to whether he is more or less a person; according to the latter, he is more or less a person according to whether he is more or less able to act with mature and thoughtful purpose. Unborn babies turn out to be killable because they cannot act maturely; they are less than fully persons, and so less than fully human. In fact, they must be killed when the interests of those who are more fully human require it. Therefore, not only may their mothers abort, but it would be wrong to stop the mothers from doing so. But look where else this drives us. Doesn’t maturity also fall short among children, teenagers, and many adults? Then aren’t they also less than fully persons—and if less than fully persons, then less than fully humans? Clearly so, hence they too must yield to the interests of the more fully human; all that remains is to sort us all out. No, the progression is too extreme! People are not that logical! Ah, but they are more logical than they know; they are only logical slowly. The implication they do not grasp today they may grasp in thirty years; if they do not grasp it even then, their children will. It is happening already. Look around.

So conscience has its revenge. We can’t not know the preciousness of human life—therefore, if we tell ourselves that humanity is a matter of degree, we can’t help holding those who are more human more precious than those who are less. The urge to justify abortion drives us inexorably to a system of moral castes more pitiless than anything the East has devised. Of course we can fiddle with the grading criteria: consciousness, self-awareness, and contribution to society have been proposed; racial purity has been tried. No such tinkering avails to change the character of our deeds. If we will a caste system, then we shall have one; if we will that some shall have their way, then in time there shall be a nobility of Those Who Have Their Way. All that our fiddling with the criteria achieves is a rearrangement of the castes.

Need we wonder why, then, having started on our babies, we now want to kill our grandparents? Sin ramifies. It is fertile, fissiparous, and parasitic, always in search of new kingdoms to corrupt. It breeds. But just as a virus cannot reproduce except by commandeering the machinery of a cell, sin cannot reproduce except by taking over the machinery of conscience. Not a gear, not a wheel is destroyed, but they are all set turning in different directions than their wont. Evil must rationalize, and that is its weakness. But it can, and that is its strength.

>>

From "The Revenge of Conscience", J. Budziszewski, First Things, June/July 1998.

Today marks the 36th anniversary of the day the Supreme Court of the United States of America decreed that my child has no inherent rights.

It is interesting how becoming a father has influenced my view on abortion. Prior to last November, it was such an abstract thing. We were always talking about other people's children, some other child, outside my monkeysphere. I knew through reason that we were talking about some one that I should protect, but it's hard to muster feelings for an abstract concept. Even my own nieces and nephew, I did not begin to feel a bond with until after they had been born, after I had held them in my arms. My choler over the issue was driven more by the ignorance and lack of reason on the part of those who sought to promote it, rather than over the loss of any life.

But now, I have a hard time maintaining a stoic, rational distance from the issue. Now, it's personal.

On November 1st, my purpose in life—the very point of my existence—changed. A change of such magnitude had only occurred once prior, on January 10th, 2004. Before January 10th, the meaning of my life was simply "to know, love, and serve God in this life so I can share ever-lasting happiness with him in the next." On the tenth of January, 2004, a new reason was added: to Love my wife, as Christ Loves his church. And finally, on November 1st, a third reason was added: to protect and nurture our children so that they, too, may one day share in God's love.

When I die, and am judged before God in all his majesty and glory, he will ask me two questions, in particular. He will ask me: "Did you love your wife as I have loved you?" and "Have you raised your children to know me, and strived with all your might to keep them from all harm?" If I cannot answer both those questions with a powerful, resounding, unreserved, unhesitating "yes" then I will be in serious, serious trouble.

And that is why my fury is beyond anything that this world could cause when there are those who would deny my solemn responsibility to protect my child.

Perhaps the most common justification for abortion is that it is not really killing an inoccent human life. It is merely a "removal of the mother's tissue". Abortion is sometimes referred to as "the extraction of menses", or as I heard one pseudo-feminist refer to it, "just like getting your tonsils removed, only safer," an assertion so ludicrous (read from point 22 at the bottom of page 24 (30 by the pdf's numbering) to point 100) that it would be funny, if it did not involve the wounding of millions of women and the deaths of millions of children.

These people do not really anger me so much. Instead, I look at them with confusion and pity. Their claim that my child is not really a child, but instead just a part of my wife, is so out-of-touch with reality that I can only shake my head in wonder at the monumental ignorance and denunciaton of what is manifestly true. I have seen pictures of my baby. I have seen him bouncing and dancing in the womb, as alive as you or I. I have seen and heard her tiny heart, beating furiously, pumping her own blood through her own veins. For someone to come up to me and assert "that is not a child" or "that is not really alive" or "that is a lump of undeveloped tissue" is beyond reason and reality. It is as if some one came up to me and said, "your car is such a very fiery shade of red." I can only wonder if this person really occupies the same reality as I. Do I really need to argue such a thing? Is the truth not self-evident for anyone with eyes to see?

No, these people do not anger me; they merely arouse my pity.

The second group of people are those who recognize the humanity of the unborn, but are too cowardly, or too uncaring to do anything about it. These are the John Kerrys of the world; the "I personally believe abortion is wrong, but I'll be damned if I'm going to do anything about it." (And it is likely they will be.)

These people I look upon with disgust. While they claim to be on my side, functionally they are opposing me. Not only do they refuse to offer help, but they actively prevent my ability to safeguard my wife and child. They refuse to give me recourse to the law to be able to bring to justice those who would prey on the most innocent. These are the ones that, If they really do believe that abortion is wrong, then they are willingly and blithely condoning the largest holocaust the world has ever seen. It is cowardess of the highest and most ignominious kind. It is shameful and disgraceful. It is as if, when the Soviets come door to door looking for Gypsies, Catholics, Poles, Ukranians, or other Undesireables, I simply stood by and watched as they dragged my neighbor away. "I feel for you man," I might say to the poor, condemned neighbor, in an attempt to make him feel better, "but who am I to tell Comrade Stalin what he should do with his own body?"

Then there is the third group.

These are those who do not merely deny my resposibility to protect my wife and child; they do not merely fail to help me guard them from the butchers who would take the innocent life and, in the process, grievously wound my wife. No, the third group are those who openly champion the cause of the butcher. They are the ones who stand up and applaude those evil men who would slice my child into pieces and suck him out of my wife's body; or poison him with salt; or pull her feet-first out of my wife and then, when she is mere inches from birth, slice open the back of her sweet, precious little head and suction out her brains; or use any one of the cruel and barbaric practices that have been designed to destroy those who are most innocent and most needing of our protection. They are the Gloria Steinems and the President Barack Obamas.

If I lived in a less civilized time, or if I did not have the benefit of a faith informed by reason, these people would drive me to take up arms, and give me cause for violent revolution to defend the rights of those I love.

And they ought to thank God that I am Christian, for in my righteous fury, one of the only things holding me back is the hand of Christ on my shoulder, and his voice in my ear, whispering "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and forgive them for they know not what they do."