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.
