The more I think about it, the more I realize you are absolutely right. The SDMB has spoiled me a great deal. When a controversal topic is presented, I have come to expect a fair, honest debate from both sides. I guess the combined shock of seeing this unexpected ad in the school newspaper, as well as seeing so many examples of what I consider to be poor debating technique kinda threw me.
I do intend to still write a letter to the editor of the newspaper, but my anger has cooled and I’m seeing this from a more rational stand point. It wasn’t an editorial with the school’s stamp of approval, it was an advertisement.
Well, Pep, I agree that it was tacky, albeit legal. But it’s the kind of thing that when I encounter it, I just give it a big " :rolleyes: " and throw it away.
I will also point out, on the subject of, “well, they had photos of the contributors, so it must be reputable”, that the Weekly World News also has photos of the contributors on its masthead.
I don’t think anybody’s arguing that the photos alone make the advertisement reputable. However, if one is to accuse these people of being liars, one should present specific evidence to that effect. Asking “How do we KNOW they’re telling the truth???” does not constitute an effective argument, in my mind.
Besides, did they actual cite post-abortion syndrome as a disorder? Nothing in the aforementioned quotes says such a thing. Rather, they merely said that post-abortive women frequently go through deep depressions and other symptoms – which is not the same as calling it a disorder.
And even if they did, that would not be dishonest per se. After all, there were researchers who identified Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Attention Deficit Disorder, even before these terms were recognized by the medical community. If the authors genuinely believe that Post-Abortion Syndrome should be officially recognized, then there’s nothing dishonest about using this term.
Rick already covered the remaining points quite well. Thank you, Mr. Bricker.
Well, considering the article I pulled a few of the quotes from was entitled “The reality of post abortion syndrome” seems to be saying to me that they are citing it as a genuine, recgonized, disorder.
Another thing they said from the same article
That hardly implies that PP is affirming the fact that PAS exists. This kind of thing is what I’m talking about.
The way they presented this made it sound like that PP actually agreed that PAS is a “reality”.
Fair enough… but that wasn’t evident from the excerpts that you posted. More importantly, the mere usage of the term “post-abortion syndrome” doesn’t make the authors dishonest, for reasons already explained.
I think you’re reading too much into that. The excerpt you posted merely said,
Obviously, this is not the same as saying that Planned Parenthood recognized post-abortion syndrome as a reality.
In other words, if we pay attention to what the ad actually said, without injecting any hasty extrapolations, there’s no reason to believe that the ad was being dishonest.
Besides, even here in the SDMB, people aren’t obligated to include citations everytime they make a claim – and we certainly don’t call them liars for this. Rather, we feel free to challenge each others claims, and ask for cites as necessary. If someone routine fails to substantiate something, then that person might be considered a liar – or that person could be considered to be genuinely mistaken.
