Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[mangy_dog]

This last presidential election, I didn’t vote.

I simply refuse to be reduced to choosing the “lesser of two evils”. For me, it has come to this…

If this, that or the other candidate does not represent the “greater good”…I still have the option to not vote.

These are heroic times we live in…don’t collaborate with the enemy.

 

[fix]

Your question is a good example of an oversimplification, because according to it you should support contraception and abortion in order to to remain consistent and true to your stated goal of supporting the right to life of innocent persons. I am referring here, of course, to the countless number of innocent people who die needless and entirely avoidable deaths from sexually transmitted diseases where no contraception is available, and I am referring to the more than 20 million unsafe abortions already occurring in the world wherever access to abortion services is limited or non-existent. A number that would only skyrocket if the oversimplified, contradictory and self-defeating agenda of the pro-life movement were ever to be adopted.

Sorry, but this is not true. The ends never justify the means and you present a false choice. It is not either use a contraceptive device or die. There are better choices.

If you would prefer to discuss Church teaching instead of what scripture says then you could answer my Catechism questions regarding 2270 and 2271, which start from post #317 on page 21.

You cannot separate Church teaching and Scripture or claim they oppose each other. If you sense they are in opposition then the problem is your interpretation.

The Church is quite clear on this issue.

 

[beafedor]

This very recent article from the Psychiatric Times calls post-abortion trauma syndrome “a fabricated mental disorder conceived by anti-abortion activists to advance their cause, not a scientifically based psychiatric disorder.” psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1442899?pageNumber=1&verify=0

I can’t let that one pass and not answer. The APA reports are biased to fit Planned Parenthood’s political and $$$$ agenda. They don’t acknowledge dozens of studies conducted worldwide about post abortion trauma. Let me share a letter that I sent to the APA in August 2009:

"Dear members of the American Psychiatric Association,

You stated in a recent report that abortion has no effect on a woman’s mental health. This surprises me, as I am one of many women who have developed irrational thoughts and behavior after having 2 abortions.

Let me share with you how my abortions have affected me.

At age 18, my boyfriend coerced me into having an abortion using the RU486 pill. I didn’t want to take these pills and I was choking on them. I was thinking: “this pill might kill me, and it is surely going to kill my baby”. After the procedure, I started to have panic attacks and to be scared to swallow food solids, pills, liquids, dental instruments and also my own tongue.

At age 25, I had a curettage abortion. This baby was aborted out of fear, to protect him from his abusive drug addict father. I woke up after the procedure and saw the blood on my legs, I was feeling trapped in that building and trapped mentally. I burst into tears, repeating: “what have I done, what have I done”. My panic attacks (claustrophobia) occurred more often, especially when I was in medical buildings and elevators. I was having intrusive thoughts about swallowing my tongue and killing myself 24 hour a day. My mind was always on these thoughts, even when I was having a conversation with someone. I was not living in the reality, I was living in my own dark and desperate world. I would not sleep much at night because I thought I would swallow my tongue and die if I was sleeping in certain positions. I was always feeling physically and mentally exhausted.

At age 32, I was married and became pregnant. My husband would find me at the end of the day, curled up in a chair, crying and unable to speak. I was doing nothing all day long, just sitting in a chair, crying and reproaching myself with taking my children’s lives. I was taking antidepressants and sleeping pills to be able to function. I gave birth to my first live baby.

At age 34, I gave birth to a second live baby. After the delivery, I was passing blood clots and I started having nightmares. The blood clots were my 2 aborted babies and all the guilt, shame and fear resurfaced. I was beating myself up, because I had flushed 2 babies in the toilet and in the meanwhile gave birth to a healthy one. Why couldn’t I save them? I was wondering.

After my abortions and for years, I couldn’t hold a baby in my arms. I was thinking, if the parents knew what I have done, they would be appalled because I can harm babies. I was thinking that no one should trust me because what I have done is unforgivable. For years I didn’t have friends. I was hiding in my apartment, away from people and waiting for death to take me. In the winter time, I had to go see my doctor and beg for anxiety pills and antidepressants as my fears, guilt and shame were out of control. I was diagnosed with seasonal depression. Please note that both my abortions both took place in the winter time. To this day, I’m still having nightmares of lost or dying babies that I’m not able to save. I’m still having issues with claustrophobia, especially in hospitals.

These are some of the odd thoughts, emotions and behaviors I have been experiencing after abortion. I ask you, as psychiatric health professionals, to read my story, consider others like it, and make every effort to arrive at unbiased professional conclusions about the consequences of abortion. I trust that you are placing the best interests of your patients and the general public first."

 

[Caramel]

That “film” is extremely misleading - let’s look at some of the facts about pain in a 12 week old fetus and some of the “claims” that are made on that film:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus

We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.

We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.

To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.

CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).
FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.
An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

What is termed “frantic activity” by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.

In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.

CLAIM: Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus.
FACTS: The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.
CLAIM: The fetus emits “the silent scream.”
FACTS: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26 - 27 weeks’ gestation (24 - 25 weeks’ fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.
CLAIM: A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.
FACTS: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman’s womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.
CLAIM: Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of “crushing instruments” for extraction.
FACTS: At 12 weeks’ gestation (10 weeks’ fetal age) and even 1 - 2 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus.

I understand that both sides of the abortion issue have valid arguments- I just wish BOTH sides would stick to the facts and not insinuate things that are not true. This is very much like the whole assertion of birth control and abortions causing breast cancer- this has never been proven - there was one study which claimed that “all” of the participants the had an abortion got breast cancer - they only looked at 12 women!- Ask any statistician and he/she will let you know that isn’t a valid representation of women. Don’t get me wrong, I know PPH does it too some I’m not just ragging on the anti choice people.
God Bless
Rye

Would you please provide a link to the above mentioned article?? It appears to me that you have copied and pasted statements without even giving credit to the author(s). You have not even placed the author(s)’ quotes in quotation marks. This means that you are claiming the “facts” presented in the article as yours. That is called plagiarism.

Unless you provide the names of the author(s), the title of the article (research paper, etc.), the date it was published, the name of the periodical, the volume number, and the pages, you are not providing enough information for anyone to gain access to the article.

You have provided some of what is required; however, if you are going to use scientific research as a basis for your opinions, you must present it all.

And that also applies to research that presents evidence you don’t agree with. Just stating that “there was one study which claimed that “all” of the participants the[sic] had an abortion got breast cancer” is not enough. How can anyone access that article without the proper reference?? Your claims about the small number of subjects may be valid or perhaps it is not valid - it is difficult to determine when you leave out the reference to the paper.

One other point which I have stated over and over and over.
You cannot prove anything in science. It is one of the rules of the scientific approach. You can provide data which may be significant, but you CANNOT PROVE any theory, no matter how plausible it appears,

 

[Caramel]

Now Gakroeger you have to admit that was funny. :egyptian:

There is nothing the least bit “funny” about abortion.

 

[Worthy5]

There is nothing the least bit “funny” about abortion.

No one said it was, quit spinning :ballspin:

 

[Caramel]

No one said it was, quit spinning :ballspin:

I have no idea what “spinning is” but I do have some ideas about abortion. It is wrong for anyone to kill any child, whether that child is prenatal or postnatal.

We are discussing the killing of children here, and it is not funny or humorous and although joking about it may lessen one’s anxiety about it, it really is not appropriate IMO to laugh about it on this thread. It makes it appear that you don’t care about the deaths of innocent human beings, whether or not that is true.

 

[Caramel]

I can’t let that one pass and not answer. The APA reports are biased to fit Planned Parenthood’s political and $$$$ agenda. They don’t acknowledge dozens of studies conducted worldwide about post abortion trauma. Let me share a letter that I sent to the APA in August 2009:

"Dear members of the American Psychiatric Association,

You stated in a recent report that abortion has no effect on a woman’s mental health. This surprises me, as I am one of many women who have developed irrational thoughts and behavior after having 2 abortions.

Let me share with you how my abortions have affected me.

At age 18, my boyfriend coerced me into having an abortion using the RU486 pill. I didn’t want to take these pills and I was choking on them. I was thinking: “this pill might kill me, and it is surely going to kill my baby”. After the procedure, I started to have panic attacks and to be scared to swallow food solids, pills, liquids, dental instruments and also my own tongue.

At age 25, I had a curettage abortion. This baby was aborted out of fear, to protect him from his abusive drug addict father. I woke up after the procedure and saw the blood on my legs, I was feeling trapped in that building and trapped mentally. I burst into tears, repeating: “what have I done, what have I done”. My panic attacks (claustrophobia) occurred more often, especially when I was in medical buildings and elevators. I was having intrusive thoughts about swallowing my tongue and killing myself 24 hour a day. My mind was always on these thoughts, even when I was having a conversation with someone. I was not living in the reality, I was living in my own dark and desperate world. I would not sleep much at night because I thought I would swallow my tongue and die if I was sleeping in certain positions. I was always feeling physically and mentally exhausted.

At age 32, I was married and became pregnant. My husband would find me at the end of the day, curled up in a chair, crying and unable to speak. I was doing nothing all day long, just sitting in a chair, crying and reproaching myself with taking my children’s lives. I was taking antidepressants and sleeping pills to be able to function. I gave birth to my first live baby.

At age 34, I gave birth to a second live baby. After the delivery, I was passing blood clots and I started having nightmares. The blood clots were my 2 aborted babies and all the guilt, shame and fear resurfaced. I was beating myself up, because I had flushed 2 babies in the toilet and in the meanwhile gave birth to a healthy one. Why couldn’t I save them? I was wondering.

After my abortions and for years, I couldn’t hold a baby in my arms. I was thinking, if the parents knew what I have done, they would be appalled because I can harm babies. I was thinking that no one should trust me because what I have done is unforgivable. For years I didn’t have friends. I was hiding in my apartment, away from people and waiting for death to take me. In the winter time, I had to go see my doctor and beg for anxiety pills and antidepressants as my fears, guilt and shame were out of control. I was diagnosed with seasonal depression. Please note that both my abortions both took place in the winter time. To this day, I’m still having nightmares of lost or dying babies that I’m not able to save. I’m still having issues with claustrophobia, especially in hospitals.

These are some of the odd thoughts, emotions and behaviors I have been experiencing after abortion. I ask you, as psychiatric health professionals, to read my story, consider others like it, and make every effort to arrive at unbiased professional conclusions about the consequences of abortion. I trust that you are placing the best interests of your patients and the general public first."

Dear Bea,

Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. I have no doubt that you were suffering from the trauma that you went through.

Your heartfelt post certainly touched me and I am so sorry that you went through these procedures.

I like that you sent the letter to the APA. Have you considered also sending it to Psychology Today? I’m asking this because I know it is a periodical for those of us who don’t have those letters “MD” or “PhD” after our names. However, I don’t know their agenda.

I don’t see how anyone with even half a brain could not see that you were traumatized.

But people will still say it. Go figure.

 

[Worthy5]

I

We are discussing the killing of children

 

[Caramel]

This link also does not mention abortion or contraception, however, it conveys the message we in the pro life movement are trying to express.

Beautifully put. So simple and so true.

Thank you.

 

[Worthy5]

Really, your statement above shows how misinformed you are. The OP uses the terms " Pro-choice" which is by definition a legal term saying that the women has the choice to protect or not protect the early fetus in accord with the rule established in Roe v Wade.

But for some strange reason the OP does not want to talk “legalities” but goes on to state the following:

“Please, let us discuss only Church teaching and not the legal and biological arguments.”

To discuss Church teachings, what is there to discuss?—the Church is unequivocal in its position that abortion is morally wrong-----So what is there to discuss?

Then the OP states:

“I am hoping that a few “pro choice” Catholics will face these questions head on and help me to understand how they can claim to be both “pro choice” and Catholic at the same time.”

The OP is asking for an explanation. A few Pro-choice posters give the rationale for such a position----this poster outlined the legal rationale----but the OP decides he/she does not want to hear about that------well you asked did you not?

Further, the OP provides a link to the CCC including the section 2273 where the CCC talks about the " state" and what " civil legislation" should do, and the " penal sanctions" that must exist and that if they do not " the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined" (of course this last statement is simply a conclusion–the CCC does nothing to explain how it arrived at such a conclusion)

But of course this is not suppose to be a discussion about the law. The attempt to " close off" certain area of debate is rather remarkable given this society is about the market place of ideas in order for the best ideas to win out.

Perhaps the US Supreme Court was legally correct in Roe in terms of placing some restraints on government power on a no doubt difficult and sensitve issue like abortion, but also an issue that is often mischaracterized in many ways.

 

[Caramel]

Really, your statement above shows how misinformed you are. The OP uses the terms " Pro-choice" which is by definition a legal term saying that the women has the choice to protect or not protect the early fetus in accord with the rule established in Roe v Wade.

But for some strange reason the OP does not want to talk “legalities” but goes on to state the following:

“Please, let us discuss only Church teaching and not the legal and biological arguments.”

To discuss Church teachings, what is there to discuss?—the Church is unequivocal in its position that abortion is morally wrong-----So what is there to discuss?

Then the OP states:

“I am hoping that a few “pro choice” Catholics will face these questions head on and help me to understand how they can claim to be both “pro choice” and Catholic at the same time.”

The OP is asking for an explanation. A few Pro-choice posters give the rationale for such a position----this poster outlined the legal rationale----but the OP decides he/she does not want to hear about that------well you asked did you not?

Further, the OP provides a link to the CCC including the section 2273 where the CCC talks about the " state" and what " civil legislation" should do, and the " penal sanctions" that must exist and that if they do not " the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined" (of course this last statement is simply a conclusion–the CCC does nothing to explain how it arrived at such a conclusion)

But of course this is not suppose to be a discussion about the law. The attempt to " close off" certain area of debate is rather remarkable given this society is about the market place of ideas in order for the best ideas to win out.

Perhaps the US Supreme Court was legally correct in Roe in terms of placing some restraints on government power on a no doubt difficult and sensitve issue like abortion, but also an issue that is often mischaracterized in many ways.

If you are so unhappy with the OP, why don’t you start your own thread about the topic you want to discuss? Then you can be the OP and maybe then you will be happy.

 

[beafedor]

I’m wondering if our “pro-choice” Brothers and Sisters in Christ who have been Baptized and Confirmed understand the implications of these Sacraments. I received the Sacrament of Confirmation in 2008 and I do not take it lightly. I wouldn’t be a pro-life speaker and activist if it wasn’t for the special Graces I have received on that day. Quote from the Catechism:

1294 (…) The post-baptismal anointing with sacred chrism in Confirmation and ordination is the sign of consecration. By Confirmation Christians, that is, those who are anointed, share more completely in the mission of Jesus Christ and the fullness of the Holy Spirit with which he is filled, so that their lives may give off "the aroma of Christ."105

1302 It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

• it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!”;117
• it unites us more firmly to Christ;
• it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
• it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;118
• it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:119

 

[gakroeger]

I’m wondering if our “pro-choice” Brothers and Sisters in Christ who have been Baptized and Confirmed understand the implications of these Sacraments. I received the Sacrament of Confirmation in 2008 and I do not take it lightly. I wouldn’t be a pro-life speaker and activist if it wasn’t for the special Graces I have received on that day. Quote from the Catechism:

1294 (…) The post-baptismal anointing with sacred chrism in Confirmation and ordination is the sign of consecration. By Confirmation Christians, that is, those who are anointed, share more completely in the mission of Jesus Christ and the fullness of the Holy Spirit with which he is filled, so that their lives may give off "the aroma of Christ."105

1302 It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

• it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!”;117
• it unites us more firmly to Christ;
• it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
• it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;118
• it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:119

Us cradle Catholics sometimes take for granted the gift we were given and converts to the faith often have a better understanding of their faith. It is like many other things, use it or lose it.

God is there waiting for all of us, but we must be open to Him. We must live our faith everyday and take every opportunity to read and learn more about how the truth of Christ’s Church should be the way we are living our lives. If we all did this, this debate would be unnecessary.

 

[Worthy5]

If you are so unhappy with the OP, why don’t you start your own thread about the topic you want to discuss? Then you can be the OP and maybe then you will be happy.

Caramel, people do not come to this forum " to be happy" or not. The forum is meant for the discussion of ideas and to better understand the faith.

 

[zamboni]

This link also does not mention abortion or contraception, however, it conveys the message we in the pro life movement are trying to express. (youtube.com/watch?v=9YU0aNAHXP0)

Thanks for the YouTube link. Even though abortion and contraception are not mentioned in the video, it is obvious to me why you offered the clip to convey a pro-life message. It works well that way for me, even though I am pro-choice.

What I also liked about your video is that it works just as well, in my opinion, as a pro-choice message, especially since your video is named “The Invisible Woman.” I hope you can see the pro-choice message as clearly as I can see the pro-life message. I would go further to say that the speaker in your video seems to do such a good job of staying out of trouble with her words that she may even have identified a hitherto unknown starting point from which the opposing sides in this issue could begin a dialogue in agreement, instead of at odds with each other.

…

The first hint that there is just something “not right” about this article (psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1442899?pageNumber=1&verify=0 ) is the term “anti-abortion movement.” In research using a pejorative term like that is frowned upon.

I’ve heard others say that the term “anti-abortion” is pejorative, but I think it is more descriptive and therefore more honest as a description for the majority of those who identify themselves as pro-life.

As the article is so recent I am sure that more psychologists and psychiatrists will be responding to it.

The article is recent but the point of view expressed is not, which I believe is confirmed by a pro-life contributor on this thread in post #660. So, I hope you realize that you were only adding salt to the wound by the time you added:

Just because two psychiatrists say something and it is printed in a journal such as Psychiatric Times does not mean that it is true or even that it is based on good research methods… My point here is that it is very, very dangerous to cite scientific research unless you know exactly what is being studied, the previous research, and the research which follows your cited research… Anyway, your citation is basically an article which should have been in an editorial section, not where it was placed. And one of the persons who reacted to that article stated the same thing.

I hope you would also judge the comments of all contributors to this thread, including your own, to be even more unworthy of placement in scientific journals than the one you say should be thrown out.

…

Sorry, but this is not true. The ends never justify the means and you present a false choice. It is not either use a contraceptive device or die. There are better choices.

Now that you are not just oversimplifying your questions but also my answers, this little exchange of views appears to have reached an oversimplified standstill (or standoff?) already. In your defence I can say that at least you keep your oversimplifications brief.

You cannot separate Church teaching and Scripture or claim they oppose each other. If you sense they are in opposition then the problem is your interpretation.

What makes you say that I am trying to separate Church teaching from scripture? If you sensed that I was trying to do that then the problem must be with your interpretation of my words.

…

I can’t let that one pass and not answer. The APA reports are biased to fit Planned Parenthood’s political and $$$$ agenda. They don’t acknowledge dozens of studies conducted worldwide about post abortion trauma. Let me share a letter that I sent to the APA in August 2009:

It is partly because of powerful testimonies like yours and Caramel’s that I regard abortion as an urgent issue. At the same time, however, I hope you understand why pro-choicers like myself believe that personal testimonies, not matter how powerful, should not trump objective analysis, scientific method.

…

 

[Caramel]

Hi to everyone!! When I logged in this morning I had a PM waiting for me. It was from a member that I know well. She told me that somebody has hacked into CAF and is posting pornography.

I’m just stating this as a warning so nobody is surprised if something pops up. It may have been taken care of. I haven’t seen any (yet).

I think it might be a good idea to actually logout of CAF when you leave instead of just clicking on the “x” and leaving.

Christina

 

[estesbob]

It is partly because of powerful testimonies like yours and Caramel’s that I regard abortion as an urgent issue. At the same time, however, I hope you understand why pro-choicers like myself believe that personal testimonies, not matter how powerful, should not trump objective analysis, scientific method.

…

And an individual Catholics subjective analysis and alleged scientific method can NEVER trump the teachings of the Church. Never. Which is why, to get this thread back on topic, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile being “pro-choice” with Church teaching

 

[gakroeger]

And an individual Catholics subjective analysis and alleged scientific method can NEVER trump the teachings of the Church. Never. Which is why, to get this thread back on topic, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile being “pro-choice” with Church teaching

This is the truth that I hoped would be realized by “pro choice” Catholics who visit this thread, I have been amazed at the extent some are willing to rationalize such clear teaching in their attempts to justify their political views.

It all goes back to your question;

"Does your (properly formed by Church teaching) conscience form your political views or does your political views form your ( improperly formed) conscience.

 

[Caramel]

I’ve heard others say that the term “anti-abortion” is pejorative, but I think it is more descriptive and therefore more honest as a description for the majority of those who identify themselves as pro-life.

I had responded to all your points and I hit a button and it all disappeared. I HATE it when that happens!!

OK, I will try again. I agree with you that it actually is more descriptive but I still think it is a hint - the research is most likely either conducted by researchers who consider themselves “prochoice” or is being published in a journal which has the reputation of publishing research as that would be considered “prochoice.” It’s a clue; that’s all.

The article is recent but the point of view expressed is not, which I believe is confirmed by a pro-life contributor on this thread in post #660. So, I hope you realize that you were only adding salt to the wound by the time you added:

Of course the POV is not recent. That POV has probably been around for as long as abortion has been around. And whether or not a “prolifer” has confirmed it, it is still a misuse of data. I get the feeling that you expect me to criticize research whose authors state that it lends credence to the “prochoice” viewpoint, while ignoring research whose authors state that it lends credence to the “prolife” viewpoint. No. That is not what I am trying to do. What matters to me is that research evidence is being misused. That is my objection.

I hope you would also judge the comments of all contributors to this thread, including your own, to be even more unworthy of placement in scientific journals than the one you say should be thrown out.

I don’t believe I ever said that anything should be thrown out. Where did I state that? If I did I was in error. I don’t remember stating that anything should be thrown out. On the contrary, I am asking for more information than was provided.

As far as any posts on this thread are concerned, I would wonder why anyone would even want to have them placed in scientific journals as research. Our posts are not research. If you are referring to a letter sent to a scientific journal or an association associated with that journal, I would hope that in the interest of free speech, that any one of us could send a letter with our own views. Editorials are allowed, letters are allowed.

It is partly because of powerful testimonies like yours and Caramel’s that I regard abortion as an urgent issue. At the same time, however, I hope you understand why pro-choicers like myself believe that personal testimonies, not matter how powerful, should not trump objective analysis, scientific method.

I hope that not **all **“prochoicers” believe that personal testimonies should not trump objective analysis, scientific method. What in the world is wrong with personal testimonies? Who are you to say how someone discovers the Truth?

Personal testimonies can also be used in research, although it is difficult to tease out the confounding factors. But they are obviously useful, powerful tools.

Aren’t we trying to discover Truth here?