My point is that you need to know your sources. The one "fact" you quoted from the CBR loses its weight when you do even the slightest bit of research into the CBR, into who these people are and how they are using --and misusing-- information to suit their needs.
I can quote a statistic to you that sounds
credible-- I could say, for instance, that according to nationwide polls, 75% of anti-abortion advocates do not care where their statistics come from and I could attribute this quote to a high-sounding organization such as the Philadelphia Bunnysound Coalition-- but when you do a bit of digging and discover that the PBC is an extremist group of pro-choice activists who squirt pro-lifers with water pistols outside City Hall, suddenly my statistic doesn't seem so valid, does it?
Of course bias exists on both sides, which is precisely why I don't go around quoting statistics. I've already pointed out that data on subjects like rape and abortion is nearly impossible to gather accurately due to the personal nature of these things-- many women simply do not want to speak openly to strangers about their most intimate traumas. Research findings on these subjects are interesting to peruse but should never be touted as fact. Even if they seem to support my views, I do not use them. It only serves to weaken an argument.
I asked for your sources precisely because I knew you would cite organizations of dubious credibility. Your statistics sounded overblown to begin with-- use your head, use common sense. Consider how this information could possibly be collected and what problems are inherent in that system. The only source of information on the motives behind a terminated pregnancy would be the testimony of the woman who terminated the pregnancy-- which would require, firstly, her consent, and secondly, her honesty. It would mean, also, that the sample is inherently inaccurate. An accurate sample reflects on the whole, leaving no subgroup out-- and a poll or survey would by its very nature exclude all women who do not feel comfortable speaking to researchers about their experiences with abortion.
You have accused me of making personal attacks, but it seems like you're laying it on pretty heavily yourself. I pointed out an unpleasant truth about the questionable reliability of your source-- a valid move-- and you've accused me of being delusional. Doesn't that seem a bit unnecessary?
[Edit: Here's a tip for determining the reliability of a source-- check the name of the organization funding the research or publishing the findings! Simple but effective. For instance, the bias of an organization called the "Central Illinois Right to Life" is "right" there in the name!
Edited by bunnysound, 29 October 2010 - 07:26 PM.