A New York Times op-ed today offers the chance to explore the liberal fallacy of “abortion is good, pollution is bad”.
Katie Stack complains in a disturbing op-ed that when she wanted an abortion she got “propagandized” instead about abortion causing breast cancer and mental health problems. But if liberals insist on imposing junk epidemiology on the rest of us, is it too much to ask that they endure it as well?
Weak association epidemiology, which has been used to falsely claim that everything from secondhand smoke to air pollution to you-name-it causes every health problem under the sun, also associates abortion with increased incidence of breast cancer and mental health problems.
But the political correctness of abortion has excused it (See e.g., this National Cancer Institute “explanation”) from the same sort of junk science used to convict the less politically correct.
But what is really disturbing about Ms. Stack’s piece is this:
Two years ago, as a junior in college with ambitious career goals, I knew that continuing the pregnancy wasn’t an option for me. I called the local Planned Parenthood and made an appointment for an abortion for a week and a half later.
Aside from Ms. Stack’s “ambitious career goals” having so far amounted to being a “graduate student in gender and women’s study’s at Minnesota State”, it’s worth noting that for all the liberal hysteria about children allegedly losing an insignificant IQ point or two to wealth-and-health-creating industrial emissions, it is apparently quite acceptable to liberals to wantonly execute children in the name of personal convenience.
Maybe the reason that epidemiology doesn’t link abortion with subsequent mental problems, as Ms. Stack asserts, is because the mental problems are pre-existing conditions?