AFP Fact Check used the same equivocal argument other fact-checking organizations have used in answering whether abortion is ever medically necessary.
The fact-checking organization under Agence France-Presse uses a form interface instead of email submission of correction requests. After submission, we received confirmation of submission and a message that the email was not sent. We’re not sure what that means in practical terms.
Our documentation shows a visible portion of the form interface before hitting the “submit” button, then the text of the complaint, followed by the combination confirmation/error message. Lastly, we tweeted at AFP Fact Check and employee about the wonky submission form. We included a screen grab of that tweet.
The central argument in the fact check represents a fallacy of equivocation. The video explains the term “abortion” as “there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion.” In other words, the video defines “abortion” as elective abortion and AFP fact check obscures that truth from its audience. The fact checker takes the video’s claim out of context, substituting its own definition for the one in the video. That’s precisely the fallacy of equivocation.
No fact check worthy of the name bases its argument on equivocation.
AFP might have bothered fact-checking one of the experts it quoted at length:
**Nicole Freehill, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Louisiana, told AFP on July 7: “Anytime we as physicians say abortion, that just means the ending of a pregnancy -- whether that is medication, a procedure, whether that is a natural process like a miscarriage. Ending a pregnancy other than a regular delivery is considered an abortion.”**
Is a cesarean section a “regular delivery”? If not, then your expert has portrayed a live birth via cesarean section as an abortion. Congratulations?
“10 delivered by Cesarean section and 7 by regular delivery”
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpts/23/5/23_5_745/_pdf
“death risk based on cesarean section is around 1/2500, which is 4 times more than regular delivery”
http://www.ijwhr.net/pdf/pdf_IJWHR_162.pdf
In fact, the same expert source apparently warned you that more than one meaning was in play. If only AFP Fact Check had heeded the warning:
**Freehill added that the term often gets used to only describe “terminating pregnancy when you don’t want one.” However, she said the terminology refers to “medically necessary and spontaneous things like miscarriage” as well.**
Change definitions in the course of an argument and the fallacy of equivocation results. Weird that so many fact checkers are using the same fallacy of equivocation on this topic, right?
