However, facts are minute, philosophy comes first, and there are numerous cases of double standards.
Cancel society is coming after pro- career professionals.
Last month, three papers about complications brought on by abortion drugs were removed in one book, which resulted in the researchers filing a lawsuit. After the philosophical received “racism” complaints online, another blog put a philosopher’s post making a moral case against abortion on hold.
Scientists are now requesting the corrections of four more research that they claim falsely implicate abortion in mental health issues.
According to States Newsroom, Professor Julia Littell of Bryn Mawr College is in charge of this endeavor.
She and 16 additional “experts on biological and emotional health and medical methods” gave justifications for their opinions, according to the report.
They argue the study, published between 2002 and 2011, “erroneously attributed children’s mental health issues to pregnancies they had, in some cases by confusing correlation with causation and failing to correct for components that explained the relationship”, the document says.
According to Littell,” It turns out that people who have miscarriages may be more likely to experience mental health issues right away.” ” … Abortion is n’t really predicting that. Contraception is co- occurring with that”.
The studies were characterized by the report as being “authored by a handful of long-standing anti-abortion campaigners.”
When study is discovered to be flawed, there is no harm in doing so. But their visit, coupled with the other new misstatements, raises red flags.
Initially, there seems to be a triple standard when it comes to academics ‘ biases. Pro-life researchers are frequently referred to as “anti-abortion activists,” while pro-life researchers are professors and “research experts on sexual health.” However, the pro-life experts who wrote the research in question are also professors and researchers at respectable higher education institutions.
Second, it appears that little thought is given to the concerns of pro-life experts about the shortcomings of pro-abortion scientists ‘ research. For instance, Priscilla Coleman, a retired professor of human development and home studies at Bowling Green State University, published an article , questioning the practices of the commonly- cited” Turnaway Study”, which concluded women are better off having pregnancies than not.
One of the analysts who is now calling for corrections of Coleman’s studies, which contradicts her own, is University of California San Francisco Professor Diana Foster, the head writer of that research. However, Coleman’s case against Foster’s study has received little attention.
Third, all of the corrections involve studies into the psychological and physical risks of pregnancy. And it’s odd that these threats are often discussed outside pro-life organizations. Academicians like Foster and Littell frequently refute the claim that having an abortion is one of the safest medical treatments and that not having one poses risks.
However, there are risks associated with every medical treatment. What are they? Who is studying them? Is it accurate to say that some people think pregnancy is secure? For ladies, that is, because it’s not healthy for the unborn child.
These crucial issues may be investigated by researchers honestly and fairly. No matter where one views on the issue, knowing the risks are and how techniques can be improved for the welfare of women is crucial.
Pregnancy is undoubtedly the subject of the most heated debate in contemporary society. However, the rising demands for misstatements suggest that there is no longer room for discussion.
As seems to be happening with so many places of scientific research today, philosophy comes first, information following.
And double standards abound.
MORE: Journal faces ‘ legal action’ for pulling pro- life papers
IMAGE: Lightspring/Shutterstock
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
