I have no issue with people stating accurate and reinforced information. This is how intellectual stimulation occurs. People providing outdated, biased information is propaganda, which is generally frowned upon by society.

     A spectacle of this was displayed by the Human Life Alliance on the morning of Monday, October 20, with their anti-abortion brochure, titled iCare.

     This is the point where I throw in my usual disclaimer that this article is in no way intended to say people should believe one specific side of a controversial issue. Therefore I refuse to go into subjects revolving around the ethics or morality of abortions and whether the practice should be considered legal.

     Instead my theme concerns why misinformation is generally bad, especially when handed out en masse to a public school.

     I suppose the two biggest arguments to this that people have, and often exercise, are that students have the right to not take the brochure and that there is no real opposite view that’s widely accepted.

     Yes, there is a pro-choice movement but that’s a state of neutrality more than anything. There is no pro-abortion group (to my knowledge) who frequently and intentionally get pregnant for the sole purpose to abort a fetus. If there is a nationally recognized group acting in that manner, well, my perspective of the world has been entirely redefined.

     Regardless, it is not as easy to produce a pro-choice pamphlet unless it says you have a constitutional right of choice over and over again.

    That being said, the first major issue the iCare brochure presents can be found at the bottom of every page: advertising supplement.

     As much as a company can go on about the preservation of life and the sanctity of the living, in the end the profit margin is really what it all boils down to.

     I suppose the advertising part is best complemented with the phrase, “Saving our planet’s resource, people.”

     Well, there are a few things wrong with that. Primarily, resources are energy or material used until a point of exhaustion. The byproducts are then discarded appropriately. A valuable resource is a resource that a user can use less of to produce more.

     To say humans are merely resources is to place profit above human rights.

     Saying this goes against Articles I, VI, XVIII, XXIII, XXIX and XXX of the Declaration of Human Rights, an internationally recognized document providing unalienable human rights.

     Even with the negligence of human rights, humans are a fairly invaluable resource. Yes, one person is capable of achieving enough to advance the race as a whole within one lifetime, though more often than not, humans tend to act contrastingly.  If anything, the destructive and entropic nature of humans could be considered detrimental to progress.

     The most common example of this can be seen with the ever-growing “green” movement, a movement designed to prevent humans from tearing down rainforest, global warming and the like. They attempt to prevent humans from inhibiting natural and global progress.

     Speaking of the green movement, the iCare brochure features several allusions to saving the planet, saying the paper was made from soy, 100% recyclable and so on.

     Without trying to stray too far off topic, my perception of the green movement is that the closest group they relate to is the Spanish Inquisition: anyone supporting their views are immediately upheld as heroes and rewarded promptly, whereas anyone questioning their views are generally burned at the stake.

     Using this idea to their advantage, the Human Life Alliance labels every page with green friendly markings in search of glorification.

     However, a more important issue revolves around the actual content.

     According to the brochure, abortions are damaging to a female’s body as well as her mental status. Similarly, abortions are also directly linked to breast cancer. I would also like to point out that a number of the statistics cited date as far back as 1965. Both the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute have publicly denied that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer.

     To start, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an institute aimed at the advancement of reproductive studies and a commonly cited source in iCare, less than .03% of abortion patients experience complications of any sort.

     In fact, according to a study preformed by Harvard School of Public Health, this figure is dramatically lower than the percent of annual surgical complications and even lower than percent of surgical deaths annually.

     Another study, intended to dissuade women from abortion, stated that the pain experienced by abortion patients is similar to an ear pain or tooth pain.

    The birthing process is often compared to passing a kidney stone.

    In regards to the negative mental affects of an abortion, iCare claims that women may fall subject to “post-abortion syndrome,” most commonly associated with depression.

     However, a study done by the American Psychological Association in 1990 says abortion patients rarely have severe negative reactions, and that the stress induced is similar to everyday stressors. Furthermore, no psychological or medical institute recognizes post-abortion syndromes.

    Again, given the controversial nature of this subject, I feel it is right to say that I am all for people voicing their opinions and generally I hold respect for individuals who do so.     

     I am in no way trying to say what I think is what everybody, or for that matter anybody, should think. Similarly, I am in no way trying to say everyone should think either pro-choice or pro-life. What I am saying is that in the end truth should hold a higher place than accusation.