Re: A possible case of abusing science

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:19:14 -0600 John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com>
writes:
> I received the email below (snipped propaganda from it) from the
> FRC.
> Does anyone know if this study compensated for demographics, age, or
> any
> other possible linking factor?
>
> I suspect that the findings are true. I'm less sure that the work
> contributes to rational discussions of the gut issues.
>
> Possible reasons for the findings (among many):
>
> 1. Drug users make poorer decisions
> 2. Drug users have more deformed babies
> 3. Drug users have less financial resources
>
> etc.
>
> Burgy
>
> From: Family Research Council
> Date: June 24, 2004
>
> New Study Exposes Abortion's Risks
>
> "... this month The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse
> published
> the latest study of post-abortive women. Women who aborted had rates
> of
> substance abuse that were approximately twice as high as those of
> women
> who chose to give birth to their babies. ...."
>
>
Something that came to mind is the bit of doggerel: Candy is dandy,/but
liquor is quicker. I am quite confident that alcoholics and binge
drinkers are more likely to have intercourse, especially unprotected
intercourse, because they are less likely to be fully aware and in
control of what they are doing. Reports I read also indicate that addicts
are more likely to engage in prostitution to support their habit.
Consequently, alcoholism and addiction are more likely to cause unwanted
pregnancies and subsequent abortions. This runs counter to what is
suggested, that abortion causes alcoholism and addiction.

As to your question, why would any propagandist qualify a report that
fits their agenda? In this vein, let me pass along a warning to you. I
know for a fact that 100% of those who drink alcohol die. So I earnestly
hope that you are a teetotaler, and have been all your life. You've been
warned.
Dave
Received on Sat Jun 26 19:15:17 2004