There is so much to discuss when speaking out against the myths, health care, false information and other truths regarding abortion…including how our facts and information is collected.
Currently, I’m working on gathering information for a new abortion video series that I hope will help (even just 1 person) in the dismissal of anti-abortion/anti-choice myths, “alternative facts” and moreover the replacement of those lies or created myths with facts to expose their claims as lie.
There’s tons of studies and research to go through just for one subject [thus why it’s taken me longer than expected to post the first video in this series] but this is a post long overdue.
And as I read through research reports or journals, I grew curious about how anti’s could dispute these facts about the abortion procedure and it’s extremely high rated safety. I decided to check out where the anti-choicer gets information to back their lies.
What I found surprised me; I didn’t expect them to be so blunt with their selective research method! Their list is long (over 100 pages apparently) and contains what appears to be a list of most if not all relevant research organizations, most of whom they deem unethical for not supporting their “findings.”
An example is: standing against the American Cancer Society & deeming them “unworthy of support” because they agree with research reports –and their own professional knowledge on cancer- in they reassure women with their and a great number of other findings, that no, abortion does not have any link to an increase in breast cancer!
Standards in ethics…
I’m going to reference independent research foundation, the World Human Organization. They are but one of many independent research organizations that have found abortion to be acceptable and safe; in other words, to be everything the anti’s claim (incorrectly) that abortion is.
Independent research is the only form of reliable and unbiased, objective research. Because WHO and all other professional or dependable research sources is invaluable. Independent means they do not write anything based on their own personal views or beliefs, instead only facts and findings in unbiased settings will be reported and documented.
If abortion were actually harmful, wrong or in any other way grotesque to woman or fetus/embryo, it’s obvious at least one if not all independent researchers would report just that as they are reporting not from personal opinions or feelings but from an objective standpoint! This is something Anti’s are proud apparently of not practicing.
Let’s get to their and any reliable organizations standards on procedure.
What standards does WHO have for their professionals and when conducting and reporting research? In part they state:
Declarations of Interests
Risks of conflicts of interest can generally be found at 2, non-mutually exclusive, levels: organizational and personal. Perception is key – it is imperative to understand that different people look at things in different ways. Thus, it is not enough for staff to feel they act well: staff must also be seen as acting well, as displaying good judgement and upholding the ethical principles of WHO.
Generally speaking, a conflict of interest arises when a secondary interest interferes with the primary interest of WHO and its staff. The scope of conflict of interest goes beyond financial interest.
Declarations of Interest for staff
WHO has strict ethical principles of integrity, independence and impartiality. Identified WHO staff members are required to disclose on an annual basis the interests that may conflict with their functions as international civil servant.
To read the complete requirements in standard, please click here.
Now, if we switch over and see the standards which anti-choicers use as “facts” or “evidence.”
First let me explain how their long list is rated. The referenced list is of organizations people may want to donate to, use, support or go to for information. The long post of research organizations are rated either (and most commonly rated) unworthy of support; these organizations are typically independent, well known and generally respected.
On the other hand, the organizations whose beliefs are the same as their own are said to be reliable and “worthy” of support. So, they state:
“The list of charitable research organizations and their corresponding positions on the life issues posted to our website is neither all pro-life nor all anti-life; it is mixed. Unfortunately, most of the organizations on our list are marked with the red minus sign. It is simply just a sad fact that most national medical research/advocacy groups support… some form of unethical research. There is no listing, to our knowledge, of only pro-life research organizations.”
…support NOT unethical research but instead, FACTUAL, unbiased and independent research! That is how it should end, but of course, any source of research which disagrees and finds something other than what they want to hear, that will always be wrongly called “unethical research” _ which I believe “unethical research” is all they support.
Think about this; why would all of these research professionals and organizations -world respected and trusted- lie, especially given their independent stance? They’ve got nothing to win or lose. On the other hand, the anti’s support and cite the small cluster of all research sources, and anti’s do have something to lose; they’re proven factually wrong. By only using selective researchers for obvious reasons. This kind of research is TRULY unethical and unreliable; not those from neutral and unbiased sources.
An example of how they conduct biased research:
When conducting a study on how women feel about abortion, they first go through each participant and dismissing any women or participants whom disagree or don’t relate to their stance on abortion. Not only does that make their pool of subjects in conducted “research” extremely small (so small in studies with such low numbers of resource, respected organizations will note them to be unreliable); it also means, by controlling their research participants and the research in general (or changing any information they don’t like) also guarantees they will have something in line with their ‘views.’
Anyone who only references material done by fellow supporters in anti-choice theory will not and cannot accept the truth, it would mean all they claim is false (and it is), which they refuse to believe.
Stick to facts, and remember abortion is not bad nor murder. Abortion is part of life and a safe medical procedure demonized only fairly recently by anti-choicers (will write on this another time). Be proud of your choice!