Over at JoJo's, we have a thoroughly animated discussion in the comments section related to abortion and breast cancer, during which Canada Silent No More's Denise Mountenay takes her organization's name literally and simply refuses to shut the fuck up, but does redeem herself by contributing some of the most jaw-dropping hilarity I've seen in a while here:
That Denmark study Jay was RIDICULOUSLY FLAWED!!! Here are the facts!
World Net Daily reported ...
Yup, that's where I stopped reading, too.
DEEP AFTERTHOUGHTS: Not surprisingly, the quackerrific Dr. Roy stops by to dump a steaming load of misinformation regarding the (non-existent) abortion/breast cancer link:
The "prochoice" side like to ignore all this and dismiss any negative studies. They have a viewpoint and they don't care how many women and babies it hurts.
It is good that these women are speaking up.
Which leads me to wonder the following: Let's say a rabidly anti-choice doctor tries to counsel a pregnant woman out of having an abortion by scaring her with these fictitious links between induced abortion and breast cancer. The fear-mongering works and the woman -- who was fully prepared to have the abortion -- changes her mind and carries the fetus to term.
Shortly thereafter, she runs across some literature that clearly and unambiguously debunks the rubbish she'd been fed in that doctor's office, but it's too late now -- she's given birth. Does she have the right to sue the doctor for malpractice for giving her medical advice he either knew or should have known was utterly bogus?
Let's make the scenario even more clear-cut -- let's imagine that, early in the pregnancy, an ultrasound showed that the child would be severely mentally or physically handicapped (which is why the mother-to-be wanted to terminate the pregnancy), but she was so frightened by the breast cancer propaganda that she weighed the (alleged) risks and changed her mind. And now, she's saddled with raising a severely handicapped child, and now she realizes she was lied to by her doctor.
Malpractice? Can the doctor be held responsible for dispensing absolutely quack medical advice that will affect this mother perhaps for the rest of her life? Because if he could, that might inspire medical morons like Dr. Roy to shut the hell up about rubbish like this, and maybe stick to actual medicine rather than irresponsible Christian propaganda.
Thoughts? The lines are open.
BY THE WAY, a fairly thorough evisceration of the "ABC" propaganda appears here. I'm sure there are others.
HEH. Thank ya, thank ya very much.
BONUS TRACK: Related to the above, recall that CSNM's Denise Mountenay originally whined thusly:
Doctors never told me about the 28 studies linking breast cancer to induced abortion.
And that shouldn't surprise you, Denise, since those doctors might have understood that those studies were total crap and didn't want to take the chance of getting sued for pimping them irresponsibly. But that's just a wild conjecture on my part -- feel free to ignore it in favour of your delusional, conspiracy-drenched universe.
5 comments:
What? Do you doubt the irrefutable TRUTH® of Ron Strom writing for World Nut Daily? You vile heretic, you...
Hey, just for fun let's check out some of Ron Strom's other stories, shall we?
'Satanist' dances on Reagan's grave
Posts photos on Net, presidential library mum about incident
August 9, 2005
Rep. Ron Paul seeks to yank program, decries use of drugs on children
September 9, 2004
(This relates to an earlier story hilariously entitled: "Bush to screen population for mental illness" – June 21, 2004)
Polygamy in the Media
July 4, 2003
Radio Islam: The mother of all anti-Jew sites
May 27, 2002
Yep, that seems to be the sum total of output for Mr. Strom (who's Jewish. by the way... WND wants readers to know that for some bizarre reason). One story a year, or every few years... This appears to be an avocation of sorts between moderating comments at World Nut Daily.
Regarding your "Deep Afterthoughts"... it just goes to show how deeply dishonest and morally bankrupt rabidly ideological hacks like JoJo and dr. roy are. Notwithstanding their unctuously disingenuous prattling to the contrary, these vile creatures couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the women who might be subjected to their scare-mongering falsehoods.
so, lets say this risk does exist.
it STILL wouldn't come close to the risks involved with childbirth.
so i think if I hear this again I might scream.
Or sue the government for tricking us into reproducing with their "false" facts.
rosie:
It doesn't even matter if you can refute the breast cancer risk argument, since the loons will simply move the goalposts, which is exactly what's happening in that comments section of JoJo's.
First, there's the argument based on risk of breast cancer. Just as that argument is getting whapped thoroughly, the argument then turns to other possible physical risks. Then it's on to emotional or "spiritual" risks.
In short, every time you're on the verge of dismantling one of the bogus arguments, the wingnuts quickly jump to another one. The proper approach would be to demand that they stick with the breast cancer nonsense until it's been resolved one way or the other. Sadly, that'll never happen since those folks are pathological liars and wouldn't know an honest argument if it kicked them in the ass.
Quite simply, they're not worth arguing with because they don't argue in good faith. And, yes, JoJo is a worthless cunt.
Post a Comment