more anti-abortion distortions (updated again)
(EDIT: there's a cleaner, more readable version of this post here.)
Nadine Dorries has produced "twenty reasons for twenty weeks" - arguments for reducing the week limit on abortion which are, in turn, irrelevant, misleading or entirely stripped of any factual content. (UPDATE: the Mail has pulled the original story for some reason so the link goes to a different story. Hmm.) So, very quickly, here's a run-down of the paucity of Dorries' case, to which I'm sure others can add:
Argument one is an exercise in public polling (without actually citing any sources for the polls) rather than actual medical research or evidence to support a change.
Argument two fails to make any note of the actual survival rates for premature births, choosing to distort by focussing on a literal extreme, "the worlds' most premature baby."
Argument three ("High-resolution 3D ultrasound images") is also argument twenty, an ultrasound picture of a foetus. Both are a transparent appeal to emotion.
The claimed survival rate in "top neonatal units" in argument four says nothing about the survival rate elsewhere in the country, or any of the physical and mental disabilities that are are common consequence of premature birth.
Argument six says absolutely nothing about the health of either mother or child - "Mothers first feel their babies kick at 19 weeks in a first pregnancy" - it's another kind of emotive appeal based on ignorance.
Argument eight, pointing out the rising number of abortions being carried out between 20 and 24 weeks fails to also note that those abortions form an incredibly tiny proportion of the total (less than a percent after 22 weeks, for example) and ignores the urgent reasons for why those procedures take place.
Argument nine - that people like David Cameron want a cut in the week limit - is an appeal to entirely irrelevant authority.
The possible link to mental illness in argument twelve is also entirely one-sided and fails to note that the Royal College of Psychiatrists aren't sure whether such illness is linked to pregnancy, abortion, birth or any of the above:
It's also, entertainingly, an apparent contradiction of Dorries' own claim from last week that no late abortions take place in NHS hospitals; it's now only "most" which take place in private clinics. Presumably Dorries will now be issuing an apology for her previous faulty claims, and for accusing those who contradicted her of being liars.
Argument fourteen - about surgical procedures - has no relevancy to the issue of abortion for social reasons, and little relevance to the general issue of abortion.
Argument sixteen is not an argument - it's an opinion that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists should ignore the overwhelming body of research and their own professional opinions to listen to people like Nadine Dorries.
Argument seventeen once more confuses the examination of evidence with opinion polling, and ignores - in any case - that the vast majority of members of the BMA support the current week limit and voted accordingly at conference.
Argument eighteen is trite to the point of ridiculousness, and fails to note that late term abortions can take place because of birth defects which have become apparent during pregnancy: a pregnancy testing kit is of no help in that situation.
Argument nineteen - that the Commons science and technology committee was heavily influenced by pro-abortion witnesses - is another baseless slur that has been discussed before at painful length (updated: with a proper chronology detailing Dorries' hypocrisy over here.)
It's also only a few weeks since Dorries was apparently throwing her support behind a 15 week limit - it's entirely unclear why 20 weeks is now appropriate.
If there's a compelling case to be made for the reduction in the week limit, it's not made here - all that Dorries has managed to do is to assemble a rather long list of the most frequently repeated red herrings and appeals to emotion. And - in line with Dorries' track record - it makes a shamefully selective use of evidence, overstating only the elements which appear to support a week reduction while ignoring the majority view which contradicts it.
(UPDATE: If you're looking for a one-line summary of the kind of distortion you can expect, the 20 week campaign website currently claims "All evidence is telling us that it is time to slow down and cut the limit," while linking to a one-sided assessment of the evidence by.. Nadine Dorries.
UPDATE 2: brief responses to the remaining arguments down in the comments.)
Nadine Dorries has produced "twenty reasons for twenty weeks" - arguments for reducing the week limit on abortion which are, in turn, irrelevant, misleading or entirely stripped of any factual content. (UPDATE: the Mail has pulled the original story for some reason so the link goes to a different story. Hmm.) So, very quickly, here's a run-down of the paucity of Dorries' case, to which I'm sure others can add:
Argument one is an exercise in public polling (without actually citing any sources for the polls) rather than actual medical research or evidence to support a change.
Argument two fails to make any note of the actual survival rates for premature births, choosing to distort by focussing on a literal extreme, "the worlds' most premature baby."
Argument three ("High-resolution 3D ultrasound images") is also argument twenty, an ultrasound picture of a foetus. Both are a transparent appeal to emotion.
The claimed survival rate in "top neonatal units" in argument four says nothing about the survival rate elsewhere in the country, or any of the physical and mental disabilities that are are common consequence of premature birth.
Argument six says absolutely nothing about the health of either mother or child - "Mothers first feel their babies kick at 19 weeks in a first pregnancy" - it's another kind of emotive appeal based on ignorance.
Argument eight, pointing out the rising number of abortions being carried out between 20 and 24 weeks fails to also note that those abortions form an incredibly tiny proportion of the total (less than a percent after 22 weeks, for example) and ignores the urgent reasons for why those procedures take place.
Argument nine - that people like David Cameron want a cut in the week limit - is an appeal to entirely irrelevant authority.
The possible link to mental illness in argument twelve is also entirely one-sided and fails to note that the Royal College of Psychiatrists aren't sure whether such illness is linked to pregnancy, abortion, birth or any of the above:
Mental disorder can occur for some women during pregnancy and after birth.Argument thirteen is a repeat of the "abortion industry" slur, given without any regard to any of the actual reasons why the NHS can't provide the specialised service of abortion nationwide.
The specific issue of whether or not induced abortion has harmful effects on women's health remains to be fully resolved. The current research evidence base is inconclusive - some studies indicate no evidence of harm, while other studies identify a range of mental disorders following abortion.
It's also, entertainingly, an apparent contradiction of Dorries' own claim from last week that no late abortions take place in NHS hospitals; it's now only "most" which take place in private clinics. Presumably Dorries will now be issuing an apology for her previous faulty claims, and for accusing those who contradicted her of being liars.
Argument fourteen - about surgical procedures - has no relevancy to the issue of abortion for social reasons, and little relevance to the general issue of abortion.
Argument sixteen is not an argument - it's an opinion that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists should ignore the overwhelming body of research and their own professional opinions to listen to people like Nadine Dorries.
Argument seventeen once more confuses the examination of evidence with opinion polling, and ignores - in any case - that the vast majority of members of the BMA support the current week limit and voted accordingly at conference.
Argument eighteen is trite to the point of ridiculousness, and fails to note that late term abortions can take place because of birth defects which have become apparent during pregnancy: a pregnancy testing kit is of no help in that situation.
Argument nineteen - that the Commons science and technology committee was heavily influenced by pro-abortion witnesses - is another baseless slur that has been discussed before at painful length (updated: with a proper chronology detailing Dorries' hypocrisy over here.)
It's also only a few weeks since Dorries was apparently throwing her support behind a 15 week limit - it's entirely unclear why 20 weeks is now appropriate.
If there's a compelling case to be made for the reduction in the week limit, it's not made here - all that Dorries has managed to do is to assemble a rather long list of the most frequently repeated red herrings and appeals to emotion. And - in line with Dorries' track record - it makes a shamefully selective use of evidence, overstating only the elements which appear to support a week reduction while ignoring the majority view which contradicts it.
(UPDATE: If you're looking for a one-line summary of the kind of distortion you can expect, the 20 week campaign website currently claims "All evidence is telling us that it is time to slow down and cut the limit," while linking to a one-sided assessment of the evidence by.. Nadine Dorries.
UPDATE 2: brief responses to the remaining arguments down in the comments.)
7 comments:
ooh you big abortion monger you. Look at you, mongering abortions like there's no tomorrow. Which there isn't, not for these little people who if it wasn't for all that amniotic fluid would probably be reading Paul Celan right now.
Don't you realise the ends always justify the means when God's on your side. Surely even a cursory reading of the smitier parts of the bible would have told you that.
Yep. Nadine's 20/20 does not hold water.
You can't really rationalise the decision about where to to draw the line. My argument, for what it is worth, is that the line has to be drawn somewhere and, for me, the line must be drawn well short of possible foetal viability. So, for me, 20 weeks is good.
But what I would always make clear is that
(a) abortion should be genuinely and easily available for women who choose to have one
(b) the decision should be the woman's alone - it is not our job to try to talk her out of it.
I would like to see Nadine (who, Iain Dale assures me is NOT against abortion) stand up for (a) and (b). But she won't because, I suspect, she is totally against abortion. She has a perfect right to take that stance, but she needs to be a little more honest about it.
John
Personally I am with Dr Crippen and think that the question should be about the viability of a foetus, and then the answer should be a limit set below where that threshold cross from positive to negative. In that respect there is a case for lowering the limit so long as (a) and (b) of Dr Crippen's argument remain stable.
AM curious why you missed out reasons 5, 7 ,10, 11, and 15 though.
Just realised that the original link at the top of the story is now wrong, as the Mail has replaced the original article titled "New abortion campaign to cut limit to 20 weeks: Fight to save 2500 babies" with a new one titled "Britain is 'becoming the abortion capital of the world' claims Tory MP fighting to lower legal limit."
Hmm. So for the list of twenty arguments you'll have to visit their campaign website.
As for the "missing" arguments, I was running out the door so had to stop writing. So:
5 - The claim that Anand's research "proves that foetuses can feel pain" is unreliable (see Unity for shortand longversions of why).
7 - the claim that "botched abortions" are increasingly common covers the fact that such errors are a) still incredibly rare and b) that abortion has never been safer.
10 - the fact that we are "the most liberal" in Europe is irrelevant. There are plenty of ways in which our laws differ from other countries and for good reasons.
11 - this is another appeal to (negative) emotion - besides which, the unpleasant details of surgical abortion do not tell us anything about fetal viability, or the advances in medical science which would supposedly justify a reduction in the week limit.
15 - abortion practice has always been limited to a small percentage of the medical community - and I'll bet there are a number of other specialisms with limited interest. But again, it tells us nothing about foetal viability or the state of medical science.
I think that's all of them. Separately, these arguments are weak - collectively, they're far from compelling.
Good show, old chap. I've linked this, gladly, as any fisk of Nadine Dorries is automatically going to conjure up some joy in me.
"7 - the claim that "botched abortions" are increasingly common covers the fact that such errors are a) still incredibly rare and b) that abortion has never been safer."
If she wants to see botched abortions, maybe she should go to a country where abortion is actually illegal. 70,000 women die a year due to unsafe abortions.
Hiya - fantastic post. Hope you don't mind me linking to it in my Dorries post ( which is rather immature and sinks to her level somewhat)
Post a Comment