Sorry folks, but I can’t not respond to something as absurd as this point by point rebuttal, complete with chopping up quotes to make them look like they’re saying something they’re not! Hooray, facts! :-D

alexholzbach:

1. Apparently, something is a terrible source if they show pictures, videos or music. I guess almost all news outlets are terrible sources, then, yes?
2. My personal experiences at GAP are quite the opposite, and videos posted show them having intellectual conversations about the topic. Evidential proof defeats your personal experiences as they cannot be proven. They don’t just shove pictures in people’s faces, but they have rational discussions on the topic. Stop trying to ignore this.
3. You are deceptive again. In posts like this, people within the group profess that “family planning, for instance, is sin — and I see no evidence that a disinclination to create life necessarily leads to an inclination to destroy it.”
4. Some Plan-B pills are different than others. If the pill prevents a living, fertilized zygote from implanting, the child is killed. This action is wrong. If you disagree, that’s your opinion. But that doesn’t make the facts on GAP’s website wrong.
5. This post explains how abortion is genocide. If you disagree, that’s your opinion. But again, you can’t say “THEIR FACTS ARE WRONG THEY’RE A BAD SOURCE” just because you disagree. Just because I dislike The New York Times’ viewpoint doesn’t mean they’re a bad source for factual information.
6. Again, the fact that they use pictures doesn’t mean their facts are incorrect or that they’re a bad source.
7. You are incorrect here again. As I showed earlier, they are not against the use of contraceptives.
8. If you believe they’re wasting money, that’s your opinion. But just because you think they’re bad money-handlers doesn’t mean they’re a bad source for information.
9. Again, your opinion holds no water in a debate over facts. Billboards that show abused animals fail to show their attackers, and police billboards that show attackers often fail to show their victims. This doesn’t mean GAP is a bad source for information.
10. All of GAP’s pictures are 100% factual and real. Don’t believe me? They’re willing to take action against those who falsely accuse them of being inaccurate. Just because someone accuses them doesn’t make their evidence any less true, it just makes the accuser a liar.
11. Just because they’re a religious organization doesn’t mean their facts are wrong. That’s a pretty ignorant thing to say.
12. Just because it isn’t recognized by organizations doesn’t mean it’s not real. Let me clarify: post-abortion anxiety may occur in some women. Enough women to label it a “syndrome” by those organizations? Apparently not. But, coming from the person who claimed that although rape abortions are statistically small doesn’t mean they aren’t relevant, why aren’t women that have such anxieties relevant? Sure, it may not be an accepted syndrome. But this happens to some women, as rape abortions do, and these tiny statistical groups are not to be ignored. Again, this is no way makes GAP a bad source for facts.
13. The GAP study does not say that abortion causes breast cancer, but that it increases probability. Many different organizations have taken a different stance on this matter and we cannot be sure about either side. But is GAP a bad source for taking one side? Nope. Neither are the other organizations.
14. GAP is not the group that does the Planned Parenthood stings. Your lack of research to realize that point only makes you look bad; you are falsely pinning those videos on a group that is uninvolved in the matter. Just because they’ve posted the videos (as have I) does not mean that they were involved (as I wasn’t either).
15. The thought that Planned Parenthood has saved lives is true. Of course, their family planning options have convinced women to keep their children. On the flip side, many other women have been convinced to kill their children instead. The fact that they save lives doesn’t make much of a difference when they make their money killing kids; if it were not for abortion, many would be forced to close down because that’s a large chunk of their profits.

Look, I know you don’t like GAP. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t a good source for information about abortion. They post statistics, information and pictures about abortion that are all accurate.

And no matter how much you dislike them, they aren’t suddenly going to be a bad source. Your opinion doesn’t make them a bad source; proving them wrong does. That’s something you’ve blatantly failed to do.

15 reasons off of the top of your head? More like 15 opinions. Your opinions don’t tear down facts.

1. A graphic video with what sounds like the theme from Requiem for a Dream? Um, if a news organization had to do that to get ratings, yeah, uh, I don’t think I would find them to be super reputable. We’re talking graphic images that include prettymuch only a cervix as a hint that a woman might be present when an abortion takes place. 

2. Ahahahahaha surely you jest. You’re seriously going to send me a video from their own site as proof that supersedes my personal experience of them not allowing folks from a pro-choice counter group to have the mic for longer than they’re comfortable with? A “debate” that’s solely on their terms? Sorry, but that’s not a debate nor an honest discussion. I’m not ignoring anything, but you can keep on ignoring that when one group is supplying the mic, there can be no true “debate”.

3. WOW. Do you really think no one is going to click that link and see that you deliberately cut the sentence off so it didn’t read “NATURAL family planning”, which is basically a fancier rhythm method and is not the birth control pill? Way to lie, kiddo. Too bad I know better, huh? 

4. No no no, you misread me. They say that Plan B is ABORTION, which deliberately ignores what the majority of scientists agree is the start of pregnancy. Thus, they try to change definitions of scientific terms to meet their own ends. That’s factually incorrect as well as disingenuous. Pregnancy starts at implantation, and an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. You can’t just change those definitions willy-nilly and then say your viewpoint relies on science. If you think Plan B kills someone, that’s one thing. Say that. But don’t use a term that doesn’t fit, which in this instance would be abortion. And hey, even so, being against Plan B is still ridiculously cruel for rape victims who do not wish to become pregnant.

5. Their explanation is insufficient, yet they’ve named an entire campaign on their ill-thought out, still culturally insensitive “argument” (not proof!) that abortion is genocide. That’s irresponsible, especially if they want to call themselves a “public education campaign”. The “genocide” thing would also be CBR’s opinion, wouldn’t it? So why do they get to spread it around like fact? 

6. No, the fact that they don’t actually give a shit about born women shows their true colors as an organization, which casts doubt on their ability to give unbiased, factual information.

7. It’s almost unbelievable that you would try to use that lie on me twice. Sad state of affairs, mang.

8. It shows their motivations, again. Why say abortion is genocide and so terrible, yet do nothing to stop it? Not one BIT of their money goes toward common sense solutions to ending unwanted pregnancy - the ONLY reason abortion even exists. 

9. They don’t include the most heavily involved player in the abortion situation. I think if you want to be a resource for information on abortion, you might want to start with “Women get pregnant” rather than making it seem like fetuses exist in wonderful fetusloving lala lands until people come kill them and put their body parts on US coinage.

10. They can sue anyone they want to, until the case has been proven we won’t know either way. I can sue someone for saying that my drawing of a camel isn’t a giraffe, but that doesn’t mean that my camel is, in fact, a giraffe. 

11. No, that’s not the reason their facts are wrong, but why does religion even need to be involved in the abortion debate that supposedly relies on science? 

12. If they turn it into a syndrome when it’s not in order to dissuade women from abortion or to make abortion illegal, then they are a bad source of facts, because IT’S NOT A SYNDROME. You can’t even tell me right there it’s actually a syndrome, yet for some reason you still want to defend that misinformation by implying that becuase I know it’s not a legitimate syndrome, I don’t think women who feel post-abortion anxiety aren’t worth caring about. They certainly are. But hey, I’m not going to tell them they have a syndrome that doesn’t exist, because that would be unethical. I hope they get the help that they need (which usually means getting help for whatever what making them depressed and anxious before they obtained their abortion), but making up some kind of syndrome and passing it off as “fact” when no outside, unbiased source can prove that is unethical and just shows the misinformation passed along by this group. Yet you’re totally ok with that misinformation. It’s ridiculous.

13. Let’s see how many groups I can get that have decided abortion doesn’t cause breast cancer, and then we’ll see how many say that it does. I bet the “No, it doesn’t increase the risk of breast cancer” sources come from, oh I don’t know, actual Cancer research organizations. But hey, it’s just “differing opinion” that the GAP passes off as fact, right? What’s unethical about that? I mean, hey, look at this link, the first sentence reads like this: “There’s now been a number of studies that have examined this question — and based on the studies that have been done to-date, it doesn’t appear that abortion increases risk of breast cancer.” But hey, let’s keep saying it. It’s just a “side” that the majority of scientists don’t take (And aren’t you the dude who thinks pro-choicers are baby-killers because they don’t comply with what you call the majority of embryologists?)! Say it enough times and maybe it’ll become true. Who needs facts to be a good source? Obviously not Abortionno.com!

14. When you post them, you lend credence to them. They have a section of their website dedicated to something called “Planned Parenthood Exposed”. Really, tell again how I didn’t do my research, it’s so lulzworthy.

15. You realize Planned Parenthood is a NON-profit, right? So maybe you could not use the word “profits” to describe the money they take in? Also, I know in Florida, abortion is only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services, and I think it’s a similar statistic nationwide. If that’s the case, well golly, they must either provide a huge amount of other services, or they’re just really not good at lining women up to give them abortions. Either way, if it’s true that Planned Parenthood saves the lives of 800,000 children (according to you) every year, even if they also perform abortions, why would you need to expose them? They’re doing the work you claim you want to see done, at least part of the time! Or, better yet, why not start up a non-profit that does similar work but doesn’t perform abortions (If you point me in the direction of CPC’s I will do nothing but laugh at you, btw, CPC’s tell women that birth control and condoms don’t work, I’ve been to at least one and been told that myself)? Why work against an organization that does what yours should do if saving babies is really your goal?

You know why I don’t like GAP? Because they DON’T stick to facts. 

The point of the fifteen things I posted, aside from pointing out blatant inability to stick to facts (i.e. the breast cancer/abortion link, birth control being abortion, etc.) is to point out the dubious nature of the organization itself. They don’t even try to stop what they claim they hate, but they’re supposed to be reputable? How does that work? So that combined with their inability to use actual facts and science to back up their assertions just goes to show that they’re not a reliable source of unbiased information. It’s not an opinion when I’ve made it as plain as I have, and when you can’t even show that they do stick to facts, and instead want to pretend like what I’ve posted is merely “opinion”, yet them passing off the “side” that says abortion increases risk of breast cancer as fact is a-okay, that’s an inconsistency. 

Whoops. Looks like you’ve shown yourself to be not only a liar, but also a hypocrite. 

(via alexholzbach)