Abortion may be less traumatic than childbirth, study finds.

[Monte_RCMS]

“Researchers compared the rate of mental health treatment among women before and after a first abortion. Within the first year after an abortion, 15 in 1,000 women needed psychiatric counseling --”

"Within the first year after an abortion, 15 in 1,000 women needed psychiatric counseling, similar to the rate seeking help nine months before an abortion. "Although first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems overall -

-" Wait a minute, what’s the point of the story, then? Study says abortion is not a mental health risk but that having a child is, and yet first time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems than first time aborters.

So how do we arrive here? Again, it’s the AP. “Although first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems overall, the proportion of those seeking help after giving birth was dramatically higher. About 7 in 1,000 women got mental health help within a year of giving birth, compared with 4 in 1,000 women pre-delivery.” Seven out of 1,000 who delivered sought treatment versus 15 out of 1,000 who aborted.

I mean the headline is wrong, the details of the story prove the headline is wrong, and the opening lead is wrong. But how about that opening lead? “Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does.” But the dirty little secret is that having the abortion causes mental health problems, not leads to. That’s what they didn’t tell us.

WOMEN WHO ABORTED HAD TWICE THE RATE OF MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AS WOMEN WHO HAD LIVE BIRTHS.

 

[dcdurel]

.

WOMEN WHO ABORTED HAD TWICE THE RATE OF MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AS WOMEN WHO HAD LIVE BIRTHS.

Thus you prove again, that the headlines about the story were false and misleading, proof that the media overall are anti-Christian and don’t tell the truth. Over and over they show they cannot be trusted.

 

[JaneGrey]

Umm let’s see…

Doctor, I killed my baby and I can’t get the sights and sounds out of my head. I am haunted day and night! Help!
vs.
Doctor, I am so tired from my new baby and my mother-in-law won’t stop coming by un-
announced to see her new grandchild. And my husband gags over poopey diapers. Help!

With respect, I feel your post slightly patronises women who find childbirth and caring for a child traumatic in its own way. I m sure that was not your intention, but I just wanted to point it out as it reinforces something I ve felt about these boards.

I dont disagree with the Church’s teaching on abortion, however I feel that people in this forum sometimes, in their well meaning quest to end abortion, look down on women who do not wholeheartedly embrace motherhood. Or people do not appreciate that for many unlucky women, childbirth and what happens after does not go smoothly. I will not list all the things that can go wrong but for example, a woman who has suffered from depression is that much more likely to suffer from post natal kind, which is no small matter folks.

I think and I believe that others might agree with me that many times, childbirth will be more physically traumatising than an abortion. Does this point in itself make abortion any more permissible? I think not.

Before I end my rant, I d like to say that I think we can go do well to understand other people better, even if we vehemently disagree with their views and actions. I think the struggles women can go through should be taken into account and not be made light of. Pregnancy and childbirth can be horrifying on so many levels. I can understand why some women have abortions. This is however not a statement agreeing with abortion.

God bless

 

[Marie682]

The criticisms listed in this article are important:

• Researchers did not study a person’s diagnosis, only whether they sought help. This (seeking help only) in and of itself doesn’t necessarily indicate mental illness of any kind.
• The study also does not include any women who hid their abortions. Who would also be less likely to avoid psychological care related to the abortion.
• The long term effects of having an abortion can be more adverse than in the short run.

I think it’s comparing apples to oranges, really. People who had children are dealing with very different issues than people who had abortions. “Seeking mental help” does not really measure “trauma” and is a poor choice of an indicator. The conclusion that abortion is less “traumatic” to a mother than childbirth is ridiculous. Comparing the two groups of women makes no sense whatsoever.

To determine how traumatic abortion is, studies could be conducted at several points in time afterward. In fact I believe there are several studies that have done so. Comparing this type of psychological pain to that of childbirth recovery is unhelpful and makes no sense.

 

[Spirithound]

Was curious as to the board’s responses/thoughts to this study.

It’s basically irrelevant.

Philosophically, and before we even consider the study, the moral thing to do may result in intensely unpleasant results for oneself, while the immoral action may be temporally pain-free.

Utilitarianistically, this study should lead to the end of the human race. If women who give birth to their babies “suffer more”, the utilitarian-logical end is for no one to give birth anymore. However, having children is the greatest joy in many people’s lives.

I would like to echo murphjos’s point that trauma cannot be measured by incidence rate. CS Lewis deals with this in The Problem of Pain. There is no such thing as the sum total of pain of a population. Pain is an individual experience.

I would also like to echo lax16’s point that the trauma experienced by a woman who aborted and a woman who gave birth is qualitatively different. It would be real nice if we could go in and quantify each woman’s pain, but that is really not possible due to the difference in quality.

Finally, it is entirely improper to say that because a greater proportion of women experienced trauma after birth compared to before, when compared to the women post- and pre-abortion, the women who gave birth suffered more. Yes, giving birth seemed to raise the number of women seeking help by over 100%, while abortion only raised it 50%, but take a look at the actual numbers of the percentages. 0.4% of women who gave birth sought help after giving birth while 0.5% of women who had an abortion sought help.

 

[mdrummer5]

I didn’t and won’t bother reading the study for the simple fact that for every study you find that says one thing you can find another that states the opposite.

But to the OP… I’m curious… since you brought it here what are YOUR thoughts on it? You came to a Catholic forum to find out what the response to a study like this would be when if you think on it for a minute you can make the safe assumption that you’re going to get the responses you’ve gotten so far.

What’s really funny (in a morbid way) is the idea that someone can measure how traumatic an abortion (murder) or any death is… how are you going to know when the subject is FREAKING DEAD?!

 

[NeedImprovement]

We should ask ourselves how (if the argument held any credibility at all - which I believe it doesn’t) is it that adoption, which by abortionists own standards should be the most humane option, has been totally left out ?

However, if some states decide pregnant women must view their ultrasound images, let us also require these women to learn about the mental health risks that may confront them if they have an unwanted child.

To present that “argument” as a basis to substantiate abortion reveals the depravity and lack of logic ( I hear you Spirithound) which takes hold when we refuse to acknowledge that the child in the womb is a human person.

Furthermore, abortionists don’t like adoption very much because it confirms that the child in the womb is a human person.

The author also fails to include the reality of Post-Abortive Syndrome - from Abortion - The Lie That Keeps On Hurting

"Post-Abortive Syndrome—the reality that is finally showing up in the research. Women who have had an abortion are suffering from deep depression, suicidal thoughts, grief, remorse, stuffed guilt, drugs, alcohol, etc. etc…and it is killing them.

Women are just now beginning to realize that their depression and emotional problems are rooted in an abortion they had, in some cases, over 30 years ago."

Consider this part of the quote again : “…the mental health risks that may confront them if they have an unwanted child.” To attempt to make her point, the writer refers to the one who potentially or should have bee aborted ,as a “child” . Yet if that were so, then it follows that it would be murder to kill a “child.”

But the first part of the quote says, “, if some states decide pregnant women must view their ultrasound images…” instead of the more logical “ the ultrasound images of the child growing in their womb the child in the womb and the mother each have different DNA so each one is a human person].” The article was very carefully worded. The author claims to be presenting the results of a study, however her wording clearly says , “That is not a child and not a human person until it has come out of the womb.” Call it what you like – slanted, tainted, - always tragic.

When we wish to consider the argument of the abortionist or *abortion rights *(ughh it hurts to write that) crusader, rather than considering what they have written, it can reveal much when we consider what is missing … what they haven’t written. Because they defy logic every time by sidestepping the question of “who” is in the womb. They avoid that question like the plague.

“Who” only becomes a convenient designation for their argument when “it” has exited the womb … as an unwanted “who” ; in other words, they place themselves in the seat of God and tell the unwanted child: "You shouldn’t have been a ‘who’ " … So they pretend it’s a “what” instead, and they kill “it”.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell has become a major source of disgrace for abortionists because he demonstrates quite clearly, vividly, precisely what abortionists are doing in the womb. The only difference is that he induced birth prematurely and did it in the light of day rather than in the hidden shadows of the womb or in the uterus. That abortionists don’t “get” that or can’t see that, confirms that they remain in dire need of our prayers.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There really isn’t much based on medical science in the slanted argument presented - only a few people stumbling around in the dark, attempting to make the lie of abortion more palatable.

The scientific facts say that the child in the womb is a human person from the moment of conception. Modern medical science says the child in the womb is a human person from the moment of conception. As far back as 30 years ago, incontrovertible evidence was given by the foremost scientific experts that the child in the womb is a human person from the moment of conception. This information has been posted before, but for the benefit of anyone who isn’t aware :

Almost 15 years ago, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS , explains that through genetics and forensics …

“The question as to when human life and personhood begins has been made a controversial issue because the proponents of abortion do not want it to begin at least before the first 24 weeks of gestation. There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible…”

Imagine the technological advances which are at our disposal today, even within those last 15 years, which support unequivocally the scientific testimony of human personhood in the womb from the moment of conception. Now contrast that against what experts from the scientific community were saying as far back as 1981 (April 23-24) when they appeared before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to provide their testimony ,responding to the question : **When does human life begin **?

• Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.
• “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”
• Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
• Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”
• Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being.”
• Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”
• Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization” notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”
• Professor Eugene Diamond: “…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.”

30 years ago … ! …… with the technology available at that time , medical science stood up to say, “Abortion is a lie.”

Where are today’s abortionists being educated ?

All the OP’s linked article proves is that abortionists are still desperately trying to lie to themselves. We don’t buy it… There’s nothing to buy…

The very last words of that article are, “We can and must debate abortion rights in our country and what role – if any – government financing for abortions ought to play.
But let’s base that debate on facts, not fiction.”

Well, you have the real medical facts confirmed for you by the experts directly above in this post.

 

[manualman]

Here’s an unasked question:

If a study found that unhappily married men who murdered their wives (and got away with it) had a lower incidence of stress and mental health issues later in life than those who struggled for decades to make the marriage work, would that be a good argument for murder?

Just askin’

 

[balt_orioles54]

Giving birth is less traumatic than passing a kidney stone.

Sudden death is less traumatic than living a full life?

Another stupid study to promote ethnic cleansing (abortion clinics pervasive in ghettos, like liquor stores).

toomanyaborted.com

 

[manualman]

Giving birth is less traumatic than passing a kidney stone.

Speak for yourself! I dunno about yours, but MY kidney stone was done in 3 hours lying in a fetal position on the floor of my office with 4 Advil in me. As a guy, I’ve obviously never been pregnant, but having been present during the pregnancy and birth of all three of my girls, I will say this: Given the chance, I’ll take my kidney stone experience! (and you girls all have my admiration! )

 

[Big_Dummy]

The study narrows its definiton of who had a traumatic experience to one who gets committed in a hospital. It ignores, early deaths, suicides, psychatric care, those who seek out couseling, etc.,

hopeafterabortion.com/aftermath/index.cfm?page=reardon

Abortion Increases
Women’s Mortality Rates
New Study Shows Women’s Death Rate Following Abortion Much Higher than Previously Known
afterabortion.org/news/deaths_smj.html

Here is 105 studies that study ignored,
physiciansforlife.org/content/category/5/144/49/

physiciansforlife.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/