05 December 2013

Let's Get Ready to Arguuuuue!




As the flow chart above demonstrates, there cannot be a discussion (on any topic) if the parties involved in the discussion do not abide by certain rules.  These rules are immutable and cannot be discarded if, in fact, a discussion is to be held.  Let’s put this to the test.  There is a good chance that as you read this essay, you may be guilty of improper argument techniques, per the flow chart.  Let’s find out. 

I came across an article today, written by a doctor (OB/GYN, no less) who is on a crusade to tell the world that having an abortion is directly linked to breast cancer.  In fact, she posits that the more abortions a woman has, the greater her chances of being afflicted. 

On the surface, her claim seemed plausible:  Basically, she says that induced abortions interrupt the hormonal production that occurs naturally during pregnancy, and, if I understand correctly, that interruption is a shock to the woman’s body.  All those extra hormones floating around with nowhere to go then become an unstable petri dish, which can and will become cancerous.

At first, her position seemed to have a semblance of merit.  Just two paragraphs in, though, she wrote something that immediately set off my bullshit detector.  She wrote:  “…abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 44% with one abortion, and 76% and 89% with two and three abortions.  Now, I’m no doctor, but that seemed wildly improbable.  Indeed, if that were the case, one would think women, particularly those who have had more than one abortion (and they are legion), would be dropping like flies.  Further, it seemed to me that the global medical community at large would have easily pinpointed the cause of these deaths and sounded an alarm that people the world over would have heard. 

It didn’t take much research to find that Mary Davenport, MD, author of the article, was being less than honest about her claim.  It turns out that every major scientific body on the planet disagrees with her.  In fact, the American Cancer Society “noted with concern that: ‘The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer in women (lung cancer is the first). Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer’.”

The comments on this article, which, ironically, were published by a website called “American Thinker”, illustrate how easy it is to forget how to discuss a topic rationally.  There are none that dispute the main issue, namely, that abortion causes cancer.  Instead, they rail on about the evil abortion killing machine (which, in the minds of the commenters, generates billions of dollars per year), and the government/big pharmaceutical company cover up that has blinded an unsuspecting public in pursuit of their godless liberal agenda, to wit, killing as many innocent babies as possible for the love of money, immortal souls be damned.

It took little time for this “American thinker” to decide that this article is not designed to educate the audience about a potential health hazard, but is instead a thinly veiled tirade against a practice the author disagrees with.  Whether abortion is right or wrong is not the subject of the article, but it is the issue she wants to address.  She just doesn’t say that.  Mary Davenport is counting on an audience that isn’t reading the words.  She is counting on a fallacy.  She is counting on an audience that does not know how logical arguments (discussions) work.

As I believe I’ve made clear, Mary Davenport, MD, is not telling the truth.  As far as science (as we know it) is concerned, abortion does not cause cancer, no matter how much the good doctor wants it to be true.  It is, of course, entirely possible that evidence could come to light that disproves our current knowledge, but the key word is “evidence”. 

Now, ask yourself this:  Did you, at any time while reading this, feel compelled to say “Ermergherd, abortion is bad!”, or “It’s her body, her choice!”?  If you did, then you fell off the logic train.  Abortion is a complicated issue, one that demands rational discourse.  Davenport’s article posits that abortion causes cancer.  It does not say whether it’s right or wrong, but she’s counting on you to make that leap, to forget the initial, salient issue, and go blindly charging to another, frothing with her brand of baseless moral confidence.  As soon as you do that, you’re off track.  If you can’t stay on one point, there’s no way you can expect to stay on several. 

One issue at a time.  Slow and steady wins the race.  We are much better off putting our faith in what we know to be true than what we want to be true.