Anti-Life Website Fails to Rebut Pro-Life Argument
Last week I posted about how abortion-free Ireland has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. Kathleen Reeves of the anti-life activist website RH Reality Check seized on the post and responded.
The problem with her post is that it failed to directly address the main point of my post – that abortion increases risk in subsequent pregnancies and therefore increases the maternal death rate. Let’s look at the details of Reeves’ post:
- She fails to address or rebut my evidence that abortion raises subsequent pregnancy risks. I’ll include the research evidence below in the hopes Reeves will actually address my points instead of trying to spin:
50% increased risk of an ectopic pregnancy after a single abortion
“The investigators conclude that their findings support ‘an argument for the existence of a significant association between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy in France.’”
Serious emotional issues
“Our results indicate that over 25% of women who have had pregnancy losses feel they need professional help. Aborted women appear to require more and more sophisticated grief counseling than those who suffer other types of pregnancy loss.”
Increased future miscarriage rate
“Induced abortion by vacuum aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first-trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy.”
Increased rate of future premature births
“The investigators conclude from these data that previous elective pregnancy terminations should be considered a risk factor for premature birth in subsequent pregnancies.”
- Reeves claims that “Ireland is abortion-free like America is drug-free,” yet the reports that I hear from Ireland are that abortion truly is rare there. What evidence do you have that abortion is common in Ireland? Without evidence, your claims are baseless.
Embarrassingly, that is all the meat contained in Reeves’ shallow and meandering post. No research, no evidence, just personal opinion.
If you agree with the top medical and scientific research that shows that abortion increases future pregnancy risks, then I am correct and Reeves is misleading. If you reject the mainstream evidence and want to be scientifically backwards like Reeves, then understand that you are serving a selfish ideology at the rejection of truth.
I would also like to extend a warm invitation to Kathleen Reeves to debate this subject (whether induced abortion causes increased future pregnancy risks and therefore increased maternal death rate) in a public setting with me. A video of the debate would be made and posted in its entirety to YouTube. So Kathleen, I hope you will join me in putting our arguments up to the public spotlight, and may the truth win.
Popularity: 4% [?]
That would be a fun debate to watch! I wouldn’t hold my breath though!
“Schmidt’s claim that abortion causes women to die in childbirth (try to follow that one) is not the only hole in his argument.” – Reeves
If she really doesn’t understand this concept it will be a very short debate ;]
I would love to see this debate! I find that whenever a Pro-life person wants to debate topics like this the Pro-abortion people do exactly what Reeves is doing, throw shallow punches as personal opinions and people who don’t have a brain accept it as if it was proof enough. I always think that those who are Pro-choice don’t believe in God, don’t want to get religious but it honestly all comes down to that, humans continue to think that we have a saying on how things should be and all we end up doing is making things worst. Since pro-choice people can’t really argue that point without making themselves look ridiculous they aim for ” It’s our body”, “We have a saying to what happens to our body”, blah blah blah! Ignorance!
i dont like the assumption that all pro-life people are religious. not attacking anyone, but its always something ive heard. im “undecided”, but im extremely pro-life. although i do see why there’d be a correlation between religion and the value of life. but i agree with ciara.
Ciara,
Where their argument of “it’s my body I can do what I want it” breaks down is that many of them don’t believe their own line.
Here’s the thing- they don’t support the idea for example men can murder, assault, rape, kidnap, rob, etc., etc., another human being violent. Those cases after all involve men doing what they want with their own bodies. No amount of the pro-choicers saying that it’s at the expenses of others can take away from the fact those cases do involve actions of men doing something with their own bodies, be it using their hands to stab or fire a gun, etc., etc.
By their logic, they can’t condemn Roeder since after all he was doing what he wants with his body, or part of it, which is his hand used to fire the gun that killed Tiller.
The reason we can condemn Roeder is because he violated our principles of pro-life.
But what he did not do is violate the principle of “it’s my body I can do what I want free of legal repurcussions.”
That’s what happen when you take the pro-choice argument down to its logical conclusion. It is an absurd argument like you said.
Agreed, not all pro-lifers are religious. There are atheists/agnositcs for life, libertarians for life, feminists for life, gays for life, etc., etc.
I am religious though.
The other hypocrisy of the pro-choicers is their statement women can do what they want with their own bodies in choosing to be mothers or not, to be free or not from consequences of sex, yet they deny those rights to men saying if they have sex, and the mothers choose to give birth, they have no right to walk away from fatherhoods.
It is called “freedom to choose what I want to do with my own body free of consequences of having to have the child, but no freedom for thee.”
The whole idea that once the child is born both fathers and mothers are responsible to take care of that person, unless they give up the child for adoption, presumes on the fact the child is really a person in the womb, since both father and mother are responsible for conception of that child.
Rights and responsibility come hand in hand.
Beautiful! Just beautiful! Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease ms. kathy won’t you accept and settle this once and for all? In the name of all militant and feminist…btw, what does the rh stand for in rh reality check? real half-wit?
The truth shall withstand criticism, challenges, and scrutiny.
You have spoken the truth, Lila & Live Action.
Pro-abortionists only answer: “Don’t bother me with the truth, I’ve already made up my mind.”