Friday, 29 August 2008

New research links cycle helmets with abortion

In an astonishing new study, it has been suggested that women who wore cycle helmets when girls are more likely to have abortions than those who did not.

Apparently, the theory is that those who wear cycle helmets are more likely to have been raised in a prevailing ethos of fear.

That has long term consequences. Fear of losing a boyfriend may make girls scared to say no to a boy’s demands for intimacy. Also, the notion that with the right protective gear you are safer may lead such girls to think that condoms provide a secure protection against pregnancy (when all the data proves they don’t - particularly for young users).

Further, the girl whose world view is one of fearing the future is exactly the one whom the abortionists can most readily seduce into their mills.

Girls whose fathers are sufficiently counter-cultural to laugh at cycle helmets, and who view life as an adventure to be engaged on courageously and prudently, seem to grow into more secure and robust teenagers and adults, able to tell boys where to get off, or even cope with an unplanned pregnancy in a positive and life affirming way.

The research was conducted in a novel fashion: by arguing from first principles. It is not peer reviewed and has no scientific validity. In fact it is pretty fraudulent (aka a joke). But I hope it made you think!


owenswain said...

No, but it made me laugh out loud.

Ben Trovato said...

Glad to hear it!

The Dutchman said...

Are you on some kind of a crusade?

My friend Karl has brain damage from a crash. My kids talk to Karl, and they know he's not "right" anymore, and I don't have to tell them to wear helmets. Even if the risk is small, or over estimated, the consequences of a head crash are simply too great.

Ben Trovato said...

My only crusade is to get people to think.

I am truly sorry about your friend.

I guess we see risks differently. A mum died on our local mountain yesterday, and her husband and six year old daughter are in hospital. They fell several hundred feet from a route the kids and I sometimes take.

We will still take it.

The riskiest thing we do with the kids is drive them places: far more likely to die in a road accident than anything else we do, according to the stats. We'll still do that, too.

My serious point is that excessive risk aversion is a very risky way to bring kids up. You and I clearly disagree about what excessive might be - and that's fine.

owenswain said...

Encouraging people to think, to really think is excellent. It's a good serious point. But the implied reasoning always seems to be that people who have chosen to wear helmets (as but one example ) are not thinking people or at least they haven't thought that particular matter through. It's a revolutionary message that's gone old.

I will be driving one of my children to driving lessons today so, as far as that goes, point taken. However, we buckle up whereas I imagine you don't (unless it's the law then begrudgingly you probably do).

A woman in Vancouver was mauled by a bear in her back yard and narrowly lived to tell the story. People still garden in that neighborhood. It is said that Mama Cass Elliot died eating a sandwich. People still eat tuna fish sandwiches, well I do anyway.

People in crashes live and die wearing helmets. Like the lady in our city who was crushed by a bus. She's dead. Her head wasn't injured and she was wearing a helmet but the big wheels went elsewhere. I've crashed three times (more but three 'big ones). Two of those were quite serious and I was wearing a helmet each of those two times. The one time had little effect. The second time saved my life. As a result I am here to write about it. That doesn't impact you and your kids but it jolly well impacted me and mine :)

Everyman will do what seems right in their own eyes, so, as you like it mate. Non of this is salvific so tis time for me to peddle on.

George Carmody said...

Thinking clearly about risk is not something many people do, often because the possible unpleasant consequences of a given action produce an emotional response and the judgement becomes clouded. An acquaintance of ours has a 17-year-old daughter. The mother is obsessional about her daughter's diet (additives, processing, etc., not weight loss) and controls closely what is and is not allowed. Last summer she happily allowed said daughter to go with other female friends on holiday without adults around to Tenerife. She got drunk, slept around and generally embarrassed her friends. She didn't wind up pregnant, but that appears to have been by luck. Now, which had the highest risk? Harm from food or harm from predictably bad company and influences? The mother's risk assessment was severely hampered because she didn't think clearly, because she was making an emotional response. Dietary risks are fed to us (no pun intended) by the media; the risk of promiscuity is denied. That's what seems to have influenced her, but objectively it made no sense.