Abortion Protesters Who Get Abortions

[FlamingMoe]

And its not a human being.

Canis familiaris, then? Ursus arctos horribilis? Or maybe even giving it mammalian status would be too much: paramecium bursaria, perhaps?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Though I doubt if George's anecdote can be considered scientific. Or absolute- he wouldn't notice the absence of those patient/picketers who did stop picketing.

I'll add that I have friends who have worked at Planned Parenthood here in St. Louis who have told me "You'd be surprised who shows up for abortions". Anecdotal, but I have no reason to doubt them.

 

[Cleon]

I'll add that I have friends who have worked at Planned Parenthood here in St. Louis who have told me "You'd be surprised who shows up for abortions". Anecdotal, but I have no reason to doubt them.

Used to volunteer as a clinic escort. I've long since stopped being surprised.

 

[GreNME]

That's why I pointed out that "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" link-- this is a regular thing that pops its way into local gossip and unofficial discussions on the subject, yet never seems to find its way into the mainstream discourse despite being a fairly common thing discussed on more personal and 'unofficial' settings.

Does that mean it's anecdote and not worth mentioning as data? Judging by the number of times it comes up I highly doubt it, but since medical records are private and doctors tend to be strict about keeping confidence (even before HIPAA) I can't really suggest a way to frame it so that those who don't want to believe it won't simply use the "it's anecdote and not proven" excuse to disregard it.

 

[theprestige]

The problem you are having finding the claim credible is not one of the claim being extraordinary. Quite the contrary, it's a claim that regularly comes up from various sources. Some of them were collected for the article/essay "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" by Joyce Arthur, who while being an activist also fancies herself a skeptic and an author (according to her site), and has written several essays on this and other topics.

While not medical records, I certainly suggest it as an interesting read. Casting the claim from the OP as if it were not a question that regularly comes up regarding the anti-abortion crowd is mistaken, to say the least.

That's why I pointed out that "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" link-- this is a regular thing that pops its way into local gossip and unofficial discussions on the subject, yet never seems to find its way into the mainstream discourse despite being a fairly common thing discussed on more personal and 'unofficial' settings.

Does that mean it's anecdote and not worth mentioning as data? Judging by the number of times it comes up I highly doubt it, but since medical records are private and doctors tend to be strict about keeping confidence (even before HIPAA) I can't really suggest a way to frame it so that those who don't want to believe it won't simply use the "it's anecdote and not proven" excuse to disregard it.

Wow, an appeal to popularity, really?

Constant repitition of an extraordinary claim do not make it an ordinary claim. Credible supporting evidence is what makes an extraordinary claim ordinary.

Constant repitition that therm_te brought down the WTC towers doesn't make that claim ordinary. Constant repitition that aliens crashed at Roswell doesn't make that claim ordinary. Constant repitition that the Apollo Program was hoaxed on a sound stage in Burbank doesn't make that claim ordinary. Why should constant repitition of this claim, in total disregard to all the customary conventions of rational debate, make it ordinary and credible without supporting evidence?

Your source's anecdotal essay doesn't go very far towards supporting the claim. It doesn't appear that the author has interviewed any anti-abortion activists--only abortion providers. This seems somewhat one-sided. Additionally, there's a difference between someone who actively pickets abortion clinics and then allegedly gets an abortion from the very same doctor she was picketing (as Tiller claims), and a woman who believes that abortion is morally wrong, but nevertheless chooses to have one for whatever reason.

I find the latter claim--that some women choose to have an abortion even though they believe the procedure is wrong--quite ordinary. People make decisions like this all the time.

I find the former claim--that some women picketed Tiller, then went to him for an abortion, and then resumed picketing him--extraordinary. I will remain skeptical until more substantial evidence comes to light.

 

[GreNME]

Wow, an appeal to popularity, really?

Intentionally reducing the argument to ridiculous degrees is not very impressive or amusing, and is every bit a fallacy of its own. You should check your incredulous attitude.

Constant repitition of an extraordinary claim do not make it an ordinary claim. Credible supporting evidence is what makes an extraordinary claim ordinary.

Your source's anecdotal essay doesn't go very far towards supporting the claim. It doesn't appear that the author has interviewed any anti-abortion activists--only abortion providers. This seems somewhat one-sided. Additionally, there's a difference between someone who actively pickets abortion clinics and then allegedly gets an abortion from the very same doctor she was picketing (as Tiller claims), and a woman who believes that abortion is morally wrong, but nevertheless chooses to have one for whatever reason.

I find two things wrong with your defensive dismissals. The first thing I find wrong with your dismissal is the obvious fact that you don't seem to have actually read the article or looked at the sources:

Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." A 1994/95 survey (2,3) of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians. Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic. (4)

Granted, the third link Miss Arthur provides is no longer valid (from plannedparenthood.com ), but the other two are still present. Based on the data that is available to be studied, the fact that nearly a fifth of the abortions performed were Evangelicals and that Catholics were 29% more likely to have an abortion is significant toward supporting the claims that there are very likely anti-abortion people who decide to abort anyway. Those two figures alone account for a substantial number of studied cases, and to disregard those particular cases as having no individuals who were opposed to abortion prior to their own procedure is ludicrous.

You're ignoring real data in order to accuse the author of making unsupportable claims, despite the fact that she is supporting her claims with credible data. Either you didn't bother to read the article or you have a reading comprehension problem that often accompanies ideological fervency-- you can dispute whether the data she presented in support of her claims were credible, but to argue that no data was presented is just plain stupid.

I find the latter claim--that some women choose to have an abortion even though they believe the procedure is wrong--quite ordinary. People make decisions like this all the time.

I find the former claim--that some women picketed Tiller, then went to him for an abortion, and then resumed picketing him--extraordinary. I will remain skeptical until more substantial evidence comes to light.

You're demanding evidence that cannot legally be provided. At this point it seems like you're just shifting your goalposts: data has been provided supporting the anecdotes. Exactly what would be substantial enough data for you to consider that the claims about Tiller's office had merit? Is information showing how these sorts of instances come up in many different places with similar (though not the same) circumstances, backed up by surveys showing that people belong to certain groups known for being strictly anti-abortion not enough to cause you to reconsider the nuances of these claims? You're dealing with an issue where the very people where such data could be had either have legal restrictions on disclosure or have a dog in this fight (or, honestly, both)-- which is a no-win situation as far as expecting any kind of open sources of unbiased data.

At the risk of repeating myself (but ensuring against lack-o-link-clicking), the data supporting the probability of the claims comes from a survey performed where it was found that:

1. Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women
2. one in five women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians

Considering that both Evangelicals and Catholics tend to be strictly against abortion (though the latter may have a higher leeway), this information is not insubstantial toward the claims that anti-abortion individuals have periodically (at the very least) gone against their own protests to have abortions themselves. Additionally, considering this high probability, the likelihood that this was not the case in Tiller's practice while it's fairly regularly reported elsewhere is an even more extraordinary claim than the one you are accusing the OP of containing, theprestige. What is being presented here is not significantly or extraordinarily different than what pops up regularly in many different places with people who have worked in or are familiar with abortion clinics and practices-- the fact that you are arguing that Tiller's office was an exception, however, is an extraordinary claim.

I'm not saying that your skepticism is completely unwarranted-- I'm sure that there is at least some massaging or exaggeration of the circumstances involved that have skewed the more nuanced reality of "what actually happened"-- but I am saying that your being so ardently incredulous in the face of information that implies a social trend regarding the issue of who and what type of people may have gotten abortions at Tiller's clinic is not as logical as you seem to be arguing. What I posted wasn't an appeal to popularity, and you yourself admitted that people having abortions even though they believe it's wrong is entirely plausible, so unless you are suggesting something about Tiller's case that sets it apart from what would otherwise be plausible, then you're overstepping skepticism and landing in the realm of irrational incredulousness.

 

[godless dave]

The first site to which you linked ( http://www.prolifeacrossamerica.org/ ) doesn't even have the goal of making any abortions illegal. Thir goal is to discourage women from having abortions and encourage adoption through advertising. There mission statement is as follows:


I couldn't find a mission statement on the second site, http://www.nrlc.org/ . That site has positions on many items of proposed legislation, but I could find nothing that indicates they're opposed to abortion to protect the life of the mother. Could you point me to where on that site you found that position?

I didn't find it on their websites, I pay attention to abortion legislation that comes up and who lobbies for what. I also pay attention to who lobbies to appoint judges who they hope will overturn Roe v. Wade. Since Roe v. Wade already allows states to heavily restrict third trimester abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and a danger to the mother's health, it doesn't make sense to want it overturned unless you oppose one of those exceptions or want states to be able to restrict first and second trimester abortions.

 

[fuelair]

Few abortion protestors are against people getting abortions if they are going to die with out one.

I believe you are wrong about that. But the reason is of complete unimportance to me. No woman should be disallowed an abortion for any reason- except if it can be shown the abortion itself would kill or permanently harm her (not spiritually, actual harm).

 

[theprestige]

You're demanding evidence that cannot legally be provided.

The fact that the supporting evidence is not available doesn't excuse the argument from requiring support.

At this point it seems like you're just shifting your goalposts:

At this point it seems like you're entirely misunderstanding what I thought was a very clear point.

data has been provided supporting the anecdotes.

Yes, and I accept the anecdotes as perfectly ordinary claims. Even without supporting evidence, I'd be inclined to view the anecdotes as entirely plausible.

But all the anecdotes claim is that some women who think abortions are wrong, go ahead and have abortions anyway.

Tiller's claim is, I think, substantially more extreme. His claim--which actually we only get second-hand from a reporter who alleges she got it from him--is that of the subset of anti-abortion women who also participated in protests of his clinic, some of those women went to him for an abortion, and then returned to protesting his clinic.

It's an easy claim to make, but--as you keep pointing out--an extremely difficult claim to verify. I don't see any problem in remaining skeptical about claims that are difficult to verify.

Exactly what would be substantial enough data for you to consider that the claims about Tiller's office had merit?

Corroboration by a known Tiller-protestor who actually did what the reporter claims Tiller claimed she did.

Is information showing how these sorts of instances come up in many different places with similar (though not the same) circumstances backed up by surveys showing that people belong to certain groups known for being strictly anti-abortion not enough to cause you to reconsider the nuances of these claims?

It's exactly the nuances that I'm considering.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if what Tiller is alleged to have claimed actually did happen from time to time. But the premise strikes me as sufficiently unlikely that without evidence that it repeatedly happened to him, I'm skeptical of the claim.

You seem to be making a big leap from "some women who believe abortions are wrong have an abortion anyway" to "therefore Tiller's alleged claim is plausible". I don't think the leap is justified without corroboration.

For one thing, not all women who believe abortion is wrong get involved in picketing abortion clinics.

For another thing, the specific nuances of the case are what make me skeptical: Picketers engaging the services of the person they're picketing, and then going right back to the picket line. I'd just like to see more evidence of this kind of behavior (which your essay doesn't actually address), before I accept the second-hand claim of it.

You want to use the essay as a stand-in for Tiller's claim. And I would have no problem with using the essay in that way, except that the one part of Tiller's claim that I'm skeptical about is precisely the one part of the claim that the essay does not actually stand in for.

It's the old Conspiracy Theory Shuffle, really: As a general rule, people are often hypocritical. (As a general rule, we know governments are often corrupt.) We have good evidence of specific instances of people being hypocritical. (We have good evidence of specific instances of governments being corrupt.) Therefore, we can allege additional specific instances of people being hypocritical, without having to provide good evidence to support these specific allegations. (Therefore, we can allege additional specific instances of governments being corrupt, without having to provide good evidence to support these specific allegations.

This line of reasoning doesn't fly in the Conspiracy Theories section. I don't see why it should fly here.

You're dealing with an issue where the very people where such data could be had either have legal restrictions on disclosure or have a dog in this fight (or, honestly, both)-- which is a no-win situation as far as expecting any kind of open sources of unbiased data.

Help me understand: Because the evidence is either inaccessible or unreliable, skepticism is inappropriate and the reasonable attitude is credulity?

At the risk of repeating myself (but ensuring against lack-o-link-clicking), the data supporting the probability of the claims comes from a survey performed where it was found that:

1. Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women
2. one in five women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians

Thank you, but I'm actually well aware of what the survey found. I'm also well aware of what the survey didn't find:

• The abortion rate among abortion picketers.
• The likelihood that an abortion picketer would get an abortion from the very abortionist she was picketing.
• The likelihood that such a picketer would then return to picketing the very same abortionist who had just performed her abortion.

Considering that both Evangelicals and Catholics tend to be strictly against abortion (though the latter may have a higher leeway), this information is not insubstantial toward the claims that anti-abortion individuals have periodically (at the very least) gone against their own protests to have abortions themselves.

Really? How did you calculate this "not insubstantial" likelihood? How did you determine how many women who don't believe in abortion are also abortion-clinic pickters?

Additionally, considering this high probability,

What high probability? You keep referring to it, and you keep not supporting it.

the likelihood that this was not the case in Tiller's practice while it's fairly regularly reported elsewhere

Bolding mine.

is an even more extraordinary claim than the one you are accusing the OP of containing, theprestige.

Fair enough. Show me corroborating evidence that this really happens, and I'll be happy to renounce my skepticism on the matter.

What is being presented here is not significantly or extraordinarily different than what pops up regularly in many different places with people who have worked in or are familiar with abortion clinics and practices--

Correction: It's not significantly or extraordinarily different than what is claimed to pop up regularly elsewhere. Do you have evidence corroborating these claims from "elsewhere"? Such evidence would go a long way towards curing my skepticism of these claims.

the fact that you are arguing that Tiller's office was an exception, however, is an extraordinary claim.

I'm not arguing that Tiller's claim was an exception. I'm expressing skepticism of Tiller's claim in this thread because this thread is about Tiller's claim. If you want to start another thread about similar claims "elsewhere", similarly lacking any corroboration, I'd be happy to express skepticism about those claims as well.

On the other hand, I'd be just as happy to let this claim stand in for the others, and accept corroboration of any such claim as corroboration of all such claims.

I also note that you seem to be reverting once again to an appeal to popularity.

I'm not saying that your skepticism is completely unwarranted

I'm glad that we can find at least a little bit of common ground.

-- I'm sure that there is at least some massaging or exaggeration of the circumstances involved that have skewed the more nuanced reality of "what actually happened"--

To me it seems like most of the massaging or exaggeration going on here is on your part: trying to have survey data about one target demographic stand in for (apparently nonexistent) survey data about another target demographic. I don't doubt that the two demographics overlap. But I am skeptical that the overlap is such that the existing survey data by itself corroborates Tiller's claims (and claims elsewhere).

but I am saying that your being so ardently incredulous

I think you are attributing to my written words emotions that I did not intend to convey, and that I do not actually feel. My only "ardor" (such as it is), is for the process of skeptical inquiry, and for the principle of skepticism (not incredulity).

in the face of information that implies a social trend regarding the issue of who and what type of people may have gotten abortions at Tiller's clinic is not as logical as you seem to be arguing.

The information implies that some women who are against abortions get them anyway. And it does more than simply imply: it corroborates, with evidence. What it doesn't corrobrate (but implies to you, obviously), is that some women who picket abortion clinics get abortions from the very same clinics they're picketing. And it's precisely that aspect of Tiller's claim that I'm skeptical of.

What I posted wasn't an appeal to popularity,

What is it, then, when you claim something is credible because a bunch of people claim it, but none of them corroborate it with evidence?

and you yourself admitted that people having abortions even though they believe it's wrong is entirely plausible,

Indeed I did, and that claim even seems to be well-corroborated.

so unless you are suggesting something about Tiller's case that sets it apart from what would otherwise be plausible,

Indeed I am suggesting such a thing: One thing about Tiller's case that sets it apart from the essay's claim is that it specifically alleges that picketers came to him for abortions, and then went back to picketing him. Another thing that sets it apart is that the claim comes not first-hand from Tiller, but rather second-hand from a reporter, without any kind of corroboration.

then you're overstepping skepticism and landing in the realm of irrational incredulousness.

Good thing I'm suggesting something about Tiller's case sets it apart, then, isn't it?

I find the claim sufficiently interesting and unlikely that I'd like to see some corroborating evidence before I accept it at face value. Even some corroboration that Tiller actually made the claim would be a good start.

I dunno. Maybe I'm going about this all wrong. Would you have been more tolerant of my skepticism if I'd expressed it thusly?

Picketers getting abortions from the very clinics they're picketing? Sounds wacky. I wonder if that really ever happens. Does anybody know where I could find some supporting evidence?

 

[GreNME]

You want to use the essay as a stand-in for Tiller's claim.

I'm done trying to argue with an obvious mind reader. Thank you for working so diligently (and pedantically) to not get the point of what I was saying that you were willing to create a labyrinth of nonsense to avoid it. How ironic that you bring up conspiracy theorist method, since you follow their model of ridiculous expectations and lack of nuance to hold tight to your conclusions.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

*Sigh*

Is an acorn a tree?

It contains one, along with other material intended to nourish it until it has grown enough to support itself.

 

[sphenisc]

... "You'd be surprised who shows up for abortions"...

Ummmm,... men?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Is an acorn a tree?

Yes, it is, the same way firewood is a fire, a yolk is a chicken, dough is a bread, and a blank sheet of paper about to have a pencil applied to it is a painting.

 

[BenBurch]

It contains one, along with other material intended to nourish it until it has grown enough to support itself.

No. *sigh* it contains a PATTERN for a tree.

The only reason anti-abortion people can't see this is that they refuse to because they know it would destroy their argument and they would have to fall back to theology.

Its fundamentally intellectually dishonest, bit appears in most cases they are psychologically damaged enough to be unaware of that fact.

EDIT: And the REASON they fear falling back to theology? Because they subconsciously know THAT TOO is a fairy tale they tell themselves so they will not have to fear death.

 

[patrick767]

It contains one, along with other material intended to nourish it until it has grown enough to support itself.

Whaaaa? If I crack open an acorn, I'll find a little tree in there? Sweet!

 

[Morrigan]

It contains one, along with other material intended to nourish it until it has grown enough to support itself.

But it's not a tree. QED.

 

[BenBurch]

Whaaaa? If I crack open an acorn, I'll find a little tree in there? Sweet!

Early on, people thought that if you could look inside human a sperm or a human egg you would actually see a tiny person.

 

[oldhat]

Interesting op-ed about Ann Lohman from about a week ago:

Zealous prosecutors pursued Lohman almost from the start, even though abortion laws were weak and violations difficult to prosecute, as witnesses were reluctant to come forward and early pregnancy could not be proved. Even so, from 1839 to 1877, Lohman was arrested at least five times and jailed for months without bail. She spent countless hours and dollars defending herself against charges and rumors (that there was a special sewer built between her house and the Hudson River, to dispose of corpses; that she was responsible for the unsolved murder of a cigar girl, a case that Edgar Allan Poe used as the basis for a story, “The Mystery of Marie Rogêt”).

She was convicted only once, however, and served a year in the penitentiary on Blackwell’s (now Roosevelt) Island on misdemeanor charges. It was widely believed that she escaped harsher punishment by threatening to reveal the names of her patients — the mistresses, daughters and wives of the rich and powerful.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/opinion/06manning.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Whaaaa? If I crack open an acorn, I'll find a little tree in there? Sweet!

Am I the only one in this thread who has ever taken a botany class, and in the course of it, have dissected a seed and seen with my own eyes the miniature plant contained therein?

Yes, it's true. Inside of every fertile seed, from every seed-bearing plant, there is a structure which is clearly identifiable as a miniature, immature form of a plant.

You might not easily recognize the plant inside of an acorn as an “oak tree”, but that is what it is; and you would clearly recognize it as a plant.


Next time you're eating peanuts, take the time to separate the two halves of a peanut kernel, and take a careful look. Near one end of one of these halves, you will see something that is very clearly a very small plant. It's got a stem, and it's got leaves. That's a peanut plant.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Doesn't matter, Bob, an acorn is NOT a tree. It's a seed with the potential to become a tree. If it's never planted, it will never become a tree.

http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/images/4872

Hmm.. this cross section of an acorn certainly doesn't appear to contain a miniature tree in there.