|
WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 5
SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW
Are our old scientific studies obsolete and useless?
Are our new scientific studies relevant and useful? Must we reject the old? Must we
rely primarily only on the new? What is the balance here?
Some old studies need to be replaced by newer, more accurate, more detailed, more
relevant studies. That is obvious. What serious students of this or any other issue have
to keep in mind, however, is that certain older studies are classics, and do not need
repeating. What is also obvious is that some new studies may prove to be inaccurate and
will not stand the test of time.
Let us use a medical example. If a pregnant woman contracts Rubella or German Measles
in her first trimester, there is a chance that her baby will be born with a fetal
abnormality. In the early 1960s, there was an extensive rubella epidemic in the U.S. Many
pregnant women were infected and there was a tragic harvest of fetal abnormality. Many
studies were done at that time. This book includes a report on a summary of the results
obtained from that rather extensive research through an article in the Lancet. Note
that there have been no major studies on this since that time. Why not? One reason has
been that there has not been another rubella epidemic, and with rubella vaccine, the
chance for another one is not too likely. The other and quite relevant reason is that the
studies done back then were thorough, well done, and came up with definitive answers. In
the light of this, there is little stimulus to repeat all of those studies. Therefore, the
Lancet article from 1964 stands as a classic. It is an "old" study, but
unless there are major medical changes in this field, the studies are as valid today, as
when they were first made.
What about knowledge of fetal development? When Hamblin published in the Journal of
the American Medical Association in October of 1964, a study showing that brain waves
had been recorded forty days after fertilization, it was a scientific breakthrough. We
note a second study twenty years later in the New England Journal of Medicine confirming
this information. Since that time the threshold has not been pushed back any further. Is
there need then to do repeat studies to rediscover what has already been discovered and to
re-re-port on what has already been reported? Apparently, fetal researchers do not think
so, as we find no further studies of this nature in the literature. Accordingly, we print
these two studies mentioned, along with other well-researched studies on fetal
development, which are "old," but factual. The reader will note that most of the
information and studies in this book on fetal development are classics (i.e., old) and
will remain our guides unless and until proven false. When something new occurs, there is
a flurry of excitement and dozens, sometimes hundreds of studies are done exploring that
area. One example in recent years has been the French abortion pill, RU 486. An-other has
been the relationship of abortion to breast cancer. We can be confident that new studies
in both of these areas will continue until the evidence is firm and definitive conclusions
can be drawn. These demonstrate the value of new studies where new information is needed.
The evidence is explored and the newest facts gleaned from the research continues to be
reported.
Conclusion: The reader of Love Them Both will find many new facts between
the covers, many new interpretations of previously reported facts, and in a few places
questioning of old assumptions. The reader will also find a significant number of
questions and answers from previous editions of this book’s predecessors, Handbook
on Abortion and Abortion: Questions & Answers. Some of these facts were
analyzed and reported on earlier and remain unchallenged. Hence, we offer you some known
facts along with some fascinating new information.
We hope all of it will be of value to you.
|
