When you crave authority, there is a simple way to get it. Simply claim that a respectable organisation agrees with you. If they don't, lie.
That is the stratagy of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institite.
They write:
There is only one sligt problem with this. The report, which they so conveniently link to (Thanks, C-FAM - at least you attribute your sources, unlike the FRC), doesn't say anything of the sort. In fact it mentions abortion only once, in a small note saying that unsafe abortion is one of the common causes of maternal death in developing countries.
C-FAM then goes on to cherry-pick data in a most unscientific way. Rather than attempt to perform a statistical evaluation, or even to quantify the abortion laws of countries in some way as a prelude to that evaluation, they have simply picked out a few individual countries that support their conclusion and held them up as proof.
This is not how science is done. C-FAM, you fail. You fail not only science and statistics, but professional conduct both in science and journalism for implying your own conclusions are those of another, more trustworthy organisation.
I also would like to point out a nice example of confirmation bias on the blog where I heard of this, Pro Woman Pro Life. Observe carefully how the pro-lifers there read the C-FAM article and, even though they seem to be aware that something is suspicious in the lack of a proposed cause for this claimed correlation, nontheless seem to accept without question that the conclusion is obviously correct.
That is the stratagy of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institite.
They write:
Permissive Abortion Laws May Be Hazardous To Mothers' Health, Per New Report
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A new report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) shows that countries with restrictive abortion laws are often the leaders in reducing maternal mortality, and those with permissive laws often lag.
There is only one sligt problem with this. The report, which they so conveniently link to (Thanks, C-FAM - at least you attribute your sources, unlike the FRC), doesn't say anything of the sort. In fact it mentions abortion only once, in a small note saying that unsafe abortion is one of the common causes of maternal death in developing countries.
C-FAM then goes on to cherry-pick data in a most unscientific way. Rather than attempt to perform a statistical evaluation, or even to quantify the abortion laws of countries in some way as a prelude to that evaluation, they have simply picked out a few individual countries that support their conclusion and held them up as proof.
This is not how science is done. C-FAM, you fail. You fail not only science and statistics, but professional conduct both in science and journalism for implying your own conclusions are those of another, more trustworthy organisation.
I also would like to point out a nice example of confirmation bias on the blog where I heard of this, Pro Woman Pro Life. Observe carefully how the pro-lifers there read the C-FAM article and, even though they seem to be aware that something is suspicious in the lack of a proposed cause for this claimed correlation, nontheless seem to accept without question that the conclusion is obviously correct.
Labels: abortion, C-FAM, Pro Woman Pro Life, statistics
posted by Suricou Raven at 6:13 AM
2 Comments:
Actually, you misread our story. The issue is whether abortion is necessary for low maternal mortality. The claim in made by proabortion advocates that it is in fact necessary for low mortality. We do not claim that laws against abortion lead to low maternal mortality. In fact, we claim that what is necessary is modern medicine including skilled birth attendants and medicines. The proabortion sides, on the other hand, makes the case that legal abortion is necessary for low maternal mortality. The problem with this, and what we point out from the report, is that two countries with illegal abortion, Ireland and Poland, have among the lowest maternal rates in the world.
Best,
Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM
Editor
Friday Fax
A response from the C-FAM president himself? I am honored to recieve such a response.
It might be more fitting for me to criticise the manner in which you present that claim. It's certinly an interesting claim, and one which merits an in-depth debate and analysis which I shall not go into right now - but your specific wording read "A new report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) shows that countries with restrictive abortion laws are often the leaders in reducing maternal mortality, and those with permissive laws often lag." The way in which you phrase this gives the obvious implication that it was the WEF who drew the mortality-abortion connection, when they did no such thing, but merely provided the mortality data upon which C-FAM based their own conclusions.
This isn't to say the conclusions of C-FAM, and the argument you just presented, are false - that would be the subject for much more complicated debate, involving a great deal of statistical analysis, and one I think better left to professional experts rather than myself. I only ask that C-FAM accurately claim credit for their own work, and be more careful to avoid assigning it to other organisations, even if only by poorly-chosen wording.
For example, rather than "A new report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) shows," you could have published "Examining new data on maternal mortality rates from the World Economic Forum, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute has determined..." This would make it more clear that WEF is responsible for the data, and C-FAM for drawing the conclusion from it regarding abortion.
I still think you're better than the FRC though, when it comes to attribution :> Even so, your analysis is rather lacking - at most, I would consider it grounds to conduct more detailed research, perhaps using my idea of quantifying abortion laws on a scale so that the correlation of the entire set of countries could be plotted - ideally compensating for economic factors. It's quite possible that your findings have merit, but two countries alone do not an argument make - they may be simply exceptions to the more general trend.
Post a Comment
<< Home