Jul 09 2010
When Rebecca and I wrote this piece about how the World Health Organization conjured up the 70,000 women dying from abortion, Joyce Arthur responded with this. I didn’t link to it yesterday because I thought it was very weak and borderline slanderous–an ad hominem attack in face of strong evidence.
Today, Rebecca and I respond with this letter to the editor in the Post:
Re: There’s No Dispute, Joyce Arthur, counterpoint, July 8.
Joyce Arthur, a devoted abortion advocate, takes us to task for questioning the methodology used to conjure up 70,000 deaths annually as the result of unsafe abortions. She should have taken up the issue of sound research with the authors of the studies she cites, for it is they who pepper their work with caveats, qualifiers and disclaimers. We merely quote their work.
Citing surveys of schoolchildren about whether they know someone who’s had post-abortion complications, as Ms. Arthur did in her piece, is baffling. We feel sure that a sizeable number of Canadian schoolchildren might claim to know a friend of a cousin whose stomach exploded after combining Coke and Pop Rocks. Shall we launch a worldwide campaign against junk food on the strength of those numbers? Schoolyard gossip and rumours do not constitute sound evidence.
More seriously, there is indeed an elephant in the room. It’s the number of women in the developing world who die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth. We know with certainty this number is much higher than abortion-related deaths. As we saw at the G8/G20 meetings, abortion was not the controversial topic activists thought it might be. The G8 leaders understood help for mothers in the developing world shouldn’t focus on abortion. Why can’t Joyce Arthur?