So I was following Abortion.com for a while on Facebook because it is a good way to keep up with the news and actions on the rights campaigns. Recently, they posted an article about easing adoption laws in Ohio and the relation of that to the restriction of access to abortion services in that state. The status line they gave to their post was this, "The problem is that it has been historically proven that Forced Birthers do not desire to adopt and take (care) of children."
And that is something I was curious about so I asked them where I could find evidence of this claim. Now, I am pro-abortion; anyone who wants access to services should get access without question or interference. But I don't like unsupported statements, even if they make a point that supports my views on an issue.
They suggested I look at what the GOP is doing right now and pasted in a picture of the face of Jesus. Which was strange to me and I asked if the GOP was really post-carding Jesus online, to which they took offense. And then they asked me to "Please explain how the GOP presently choosing to not cover 40,000,000 americans with healthcare is a humane and pro life concept . . ."
In fact, I never made any mention of that and my views on GOP interference in health care is not relevant to whether or not Abortion.com will provide me the statistical surveys that prove their conclusion that forced birthers do not adopt or care for children. I pointed this out and persisted in my singular question.
They responded by stating, ""We have asked over a million Christian Anti Abortion Pro Death Anti Lifers if they have adopted a frozen embryo that they believe to be a baby , and zero in absolute numbers, and zero percent have adopted a frozen embryo." And that's pretty extensive on their part so where can I find the link to the stats to see that evidence? Any good skeptic won't simply take your word for it; just offer up the substantive proof that you have done this and quantified the numbers.
I probably shouldn't be that bent but it really rubs me the wrong way that any organization thinks they can ignore this basic level of exchange of facts, particularly when much of what that organization is concerned about is the false and unsubstantiated claims of their opposition. By not revealing their statistical analysis for this, Abortion.com's statements appear hyperbolic.
Here's the thing: Abortion.com made a statement and it carries authority because it is a statement made by a legitimate, organized agency. They have an obligation to provide evidence to support such claims if they are questioned, specifically because of the authority their group commands. Interestingly, the comment I made pointing this out to them was deleted from their thread.
They have also informed me that to identify as pro-abortion because I support access to services is "inaccurate". Also a claim they cannot verify. I imagine most people who support the right to these services will identify as pro-choice, fair enough. I do not because even pro-life is a choice and I find "choice" an apologetic view. To this, I should ask if Abortion.com thinks there is a correct personality and perspective required of all persons who support this right. I haven't asked; they clearly aren't capable of answering such a thing. I did ask if the web exchange was with the same person or if everyone in the organization is that feeble minded. That's my fault and their defensive avoidance became frustrating for me.
So now they have let me know that their site is for those who are educated at the graduate level and who work in the ob/gyn profession. Well, that's news to me -- and if you've ever seen the persuasive and emotional types of posts they share, that should be news to you. In fact, their website exists to help you get in touch with a provider if you are seeking services and their Facebook page posts just as much opinion as they do news, much of which is in the social/political realm, not the medical. And if someone never finished college, she isn't smart enough to follow the information or want to be in touch with the news?
"Our guess from what you have written is you do not have the graduate level education and experience in OB, Gyn, Reproductive Endocrinology, and Maternal Fetal Medicine, needed to discuss these complicated issues. Please tell us if we are mistaken." Now, I am not trained in women's health but I do have a master's degree, though I don't know what that has to do with anything. What complicated issues? Women's rights over their own health is a conversation best left to the medical community and not open to all women? That's news.
And how complicated can it be to provide one answer to one question -- a link to the survey analysis that proves forced birthers do not adopt or care for children? Not having training in women's health means I simply am too incompetent to look at that information and make sense of it? Thank you very much for trusting me, a woman, with information.
Here's the post.
And here's their website, in case you know anyone who needs it.
