Letter 320

An abortion enthusiast's column yesterday dismissed the evidence of Post-Abortion Syndrome because the researchers who identified it are all opposed to abortion. He claims that if someone opposes abortion, their data must be bad. Couldn't it be just as true that these researchers oppose abortion because their data is good?

If hundreds of non-smoking researchers said that cigarettes were bad for you, would you dismiss them with a contemptuous, "Well, you're opposed to smoking so I'd expect you to say that?" Do we insist on getting data only from tobacco companies?

When Mothers Against Drunk Driving puts out statistics, do we dismiss them because, after all, these people oppose drunk driving? Do we claim that you can only get accurate data on the effects of drunk driving by those who actually drive drunk?

Why do we behave so stupidly with abortion? Why is it that the only data deemed trustworthy is data collected by people with a financial, personal, or political stake in abortion remaining legal and unregulated?

Maybe, just maybe, we don't have bad data because we oppose abortion. Maybe we oppose abortion because abortion is bad.