- Status
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
I would suggest that the studies are tainted by politically correct desires of those doing the studies. University of California at Santa Barbara?! Give me a break! Studies have been conducted by other agencies, among which are the American Psychological Association. See the article here which cites other secular references and studies: lifenews.com/2010/05/03/int-1531/
J
JRKH
Guest
My suggestion is that both sides are highly susceptable to using “tainted” studies, or “tainting” data from studies that have tried dilligently to be unbiased. Politially it is simply the nature of the beast.
All the more reason for the Pro-life movement to make every effort to see that any data used is fully supportable.
Peace
James
J
johns58w
Guest
11/2/2010 another electoral doom and gloom. Political correctness, pro-choice supporters, leftists, liberalism, agnosticism, atheism, socialists ideologues that unfortunately keep Barbara Boxer in office
J
Julian0404
Guest
Despite the truth of the issue that “mental harm” does occurr in women who have had abortions (if they have consciensce) you always,always,always lose a good arguement once you insert your weakest “link - reason” if you have more than one. Those who disagree ignore the 1 ,2, or 3 great reasons “why” something should or should not be done, and focus on the one arguement that is “debatable - most data sensitive/lacking”. Just use the 1 or 2 reasons that “cannot” be refuted or argued away without incurring the stigma of being willfully desirous of that which is illogical, immoral or both, which is the bottom line for abortionist and their supporters.
Stick to LIFE-CONSTITUTION, stick to PAIN FELT AT 20 WEEKS, stick to SONOGRAMS, stick to “fetus” translate to BABY - not “blob of tissue”.
Stick to LIFE-CONSTITUTION, stick to PAIN FELT AT 20 WEEKS, stick to SONOGRAMS, stick to “fetus” translate to BABY - not “blob of tissue”.
M
mindlight
Guest
The studies quoted in this OP seem to indicate that there are mental health consequences to an abortion for the mother that makes this choice about her child.
But even there were not then it would still be wrong because óf the terminal damage done to the child.
Just as many atheists can successfully insulate themselves for a lifetime in closed bubbles of awareness that exclude the possibility of God a prochoice woman can deceive herself that the decisions she made were for the best and had no negative consequences for her. The real mental anguish comes later at Judgment Day when everyones eyes are opened to the reality of the lives lived.
God accepts the prayer of repentant sinners who confess murder but will He have mercy on those who deny the reality of what they have done?
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
The preponderance of the evidence is against abortion causing mental health problems at this point. Likewise, a massive review of medical literature concludes that fetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks
J
Julian0404
Guest
abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp
On the contrary you will read that “multiple studies” demonstrate pain and pain behavior as early as 8 weeks.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
My thoughts are similar. Even if abortion had no negative effect on the mother’s mental health, the outcome to the infant is unchanged. The child is still dead.And what does it say about a mother who feels no remorse, or states she feels “relief” as indicated in the article? Is it a healthier mental state to be in denial or to feel no remorse in the intentional death of your child? Come on. Sounds to me like the poor mom who is in anguish over the abortion has a healthier conscience & hopes for a better psychological outcome.At least she is dealing with reality and that’s the first step towards healing & forgiveness.
E
estesbob
Guest
A long time ago, pro-lifers realized that humanizing the unborn was not always an effective strategy, so they adopted other rhetorical and legislative strategies to protect the unborn. One such strategy has been to appeal to women’s self-interest by documenting the emotional pain that many women face after obtaining an abortion. (The Silent No More Campaign has been very effective at this.) In Sunday’s Washington Post, Brenda Major responded to this strategy by arguing that it is based on faulty science.
The article makes three specific points. First, Major argues that the best available research indicates that abortion fails to increase the likelihood of mental-health problems. Second, studies that do show a correlation between abortion and mental-health problems wrongly compare women whose pregnancies were unintended (and resulted in abortion) with women whose pregnancies were intended. Finally, the powerful testimonies of regretful post-abortive women cause people to overestimate the frequency with which post-abortive women suffer from depression.
Major’s analysis is flawed. It is true that a task force commissioned by the American Psychological Association found that abortion does not increase the incidence of mental-health problems. However, the policy positions put forward by professional academic organizations don’t necessarily reflect a scholarly consensus or even the best available research. In many cases, it is relatively easy for a small group of academics with a specific agenda to influence the decisions made by an academic organization.
Additionally, while some studies show that abortion does not increase the likelihood of depression, many of them suffer from selection bias. Namely, women who do not regret their abortions may be more likely to admit having had an abortion than those who do regret them. Furthermore, one of the specific studies Major cites, the Oregon State study, appeared in a journal published by the Guttmacher Institute and analyzed only 69 girls who’d had abortions, too small a sample to make definitive conclusions.
Major also underestimates the quality of the research contradicting her conclusion. In the past year alone, studies analyzing the mental-health effects of abortion have appeared in a number of peer-reviewed journals, including The Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, Journal of Pregnancy, and The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. These studies find evidence that women who have had abortions are at greater risk for health problems ranging from PTSD to depression, alcoholism, and drug abuse.
And the article’s second claim is incorrect. Many of these studies do not simply compare women who have had abortions to the rest of the population but rather hold constant a range of factors including income, marital status, and previous mental-health problems. It may be impossible to make perfect comparisons between women who resolved unintended pregnancies through abortion and women who carried their unintended pregnancies to term, but some of the differences between these cohorts can be held constant and meaningful insights can be obtained.
As for Major’s final claim – that “emotionally evocative” stories by a minority of women who regret their abortions cause people to overestimate the frequency of these experiences – I would note first of all that she fails to subject the websites and blogs of women who do not regret their abortion experiences to the same criticism or scrutiny. Furthermore, even if severe emotional or psychological difficulties are relatively uncommon, the powerful testimonies of post-abortive women, many of whom had no serious psychological problems prior to their abortions, should give Major and other abortion proponents pause.
As usual, the pro-life movement cannot seem to get a fair shake from the mainstream media. This piece comes on the heels of a New York Times Magazine puff piece on new fellowship programs designed to encourage young physicians to perform abortions. However, the pro-life movement should take heart. The fact that the mainstream media is willing to invest a considerable amount of energy into mainstreaming abortion and abortion providers nicely demonstrates the quiet effectiveness of the pro-life movement in turning public opinion away from abortion.
— Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J.
The article makes three specific points. First, Major argues that the best available research indicates that abortion fails to increase the likelihood of mental-health problems. Second, studies that do show a correlation between abortion and mental-health problems wrongly compare women whose pregnancies were unintended (and resulted in abortion) with women whose pregnancies were intended. Finally, the powerful testimonies of regretful post-abortive women cause people to overestimate the frequency with which post-abortive women suffer from depression.
Major’s analysis is flawed. It is true that a task force commissioned by the American Psychological Association found that abortion does not increase the incidence of mental-health problems. However, the policy positions put forward by professional academic organizations don’t necessarily reflect a scholarly consensus or even the best available research. In many cases, it is relatively easy for a small group of academics with a specific agenda to influence the decisions made by an academic organization.
Additionally, while some studies show that abortion does not increase the likelihood of depression, many of them suffer from selection bias. Namely, women who do not regret their abortions may be more likely to admit having had an abortion than those who do regret them. Furthermore, one of the specific studies Major cites, the Oregon State study, appeared in a journal published by the Guttmacher Institute and analyzed only 69 girls who’d had abortions, too small a sample to make definitive conclusions.
Major also underestimates the quality of the research contradicting her conclusion. In the past year alone, studies analyzing the mental-health effects of abortion have appeared in a number of peer-reviewed journals, including The Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, Journal of Pregnancy, and The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. These studies find evidence that women who have had abortions are at greater risk for health problems ranging from PTSD to depression, alcoholism, and drug abuse.
And the article’s second claim is incorrect. Many of these studies do not simply compare women who have had abortions to the rest of the population but rather hold constant a range of factors including income, marital status, and previous mental-health problems. It may be impossible to make perfect comparisons between women who resolved unintended pregnancies through abortion and women who carried their unintended pregnancies to term, but some of the differences between these cohorts can be held constant and meaningful insights can be obtained.
As for Major’s final claim – that “emotionally evocative” stories by a minority of women who regret their abortions cause people to overestimate the frequency of these experiences – I would note first of all that she fails to subject the websites and blogs of women who do not regret their abortion experiences to the same criticism or scrutiny. Furthermore, even if severe emotional or psychological difficulties are relatively uncommon, the powerful testimonies of post-abortive women, many of whom had no serious psychological problems prior to their abortions, should give Major and other abortion proponents pause.
As usual, the pro-life movement cannot seem to get a fair shake from the mainstream media. This piece comes on the heels of a New York Times Magazine puff piece on new fellowship programs designed to encourage young physicians to perform abortions. However, the pro-life movement should take heart. The fact that the mainstream media is willing to invest a considerable amount of energy into mainstreaming abortion and abortion providers nicely demonstrates the quiet effectiveness of the pro-life movement in turning public opinion away from abortion.
— Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J.
T
tgm21234
Guest
T
tgm21234
Guest
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Its nice that you can find references from doctors 15-40 years ago (hardly any were peer reviewed studies), but few have any research behind them, and many do not even reference the age of the fetus.
What I posted was a summary of a great deal of literature, up to date as of 2010.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Then point out a clear example of such bias, it is not as though their findings are secret. I myself have posted it several times.
This is likely both true and controlled for in the better analyses. It is true that some studies have small sample sizes, but they build on each other. It is not as if the entire conclusion rests on the sample of 69 girls.
This demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of how science works. Correlation does not imply causation. The author cleverly tries to make it sound as if the studies show that abortions lead to violence, drug use and depression. However, it has been known for quite some time that in reality people who have these problems are more likely to get abortions. This is why, even studies that purport to find a link between abortion and depression admit that when history of violence is taken into account, the link between abortion and depression weakens. Moreover it has been shown that people who get abortions are more likely to have suffered violence in their past.
This last part is shamelessly anti-intellectual. Of course she subjects the blogs of those who regret abortions to greater scrutiny, her opponents are actually using them as some sort of proof. She does not need to use blogs to support her position (she has science) and so does not bother scrutinizing them. The pro-life movement will get their fair share of press coverage at the same time UFO enthusiasts do: when they have solid proof.
No, what you posted was a red herring.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
I suggest you review the definition of red herring. This report was what the news article was about, the link was included in the article.
rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance
"The main findings from each document are listed below.
Fetal Awareness
Code:
* The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed
* Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious
* The Working Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it feel pain, the use of analgesia is of no benefit
* More research is needed into the short and long-term effects of the use of fetal analgesia post-24 weeks."OK,
Red Herring:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
The original post specified an article pertaining to the mental health of the women who have had abortions. Fetal awareness is not mentioned, nor is there a link to any other article then the study of these women.
So tell me, in a thread on mental health, where exactly does fetal pain fit?
where within the confines of the OP is it referenced at all?
Perhaps you are getting your threads mixed up.
This one has to do with the mental instability of those that are comfortable with the choice to have an abortion.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
But getting back to the topic at hand…
The article cited in the OP has a major flaw in it.
The self biasing of the subjects themselves.
Those that regret an abortion and have been hurt from it are less likely to talk about it then those that do not regret it.
So from the start their sample is going to be heavily biased towards women that do not regret their abortions.
A fact conveniently left out.
The article cited in the OP has a major flaw in it.
The self biasing of the subjects themselves.
Those that regret an abortion and have been hurt from it are less likely to talk about it then those that do not regret it.
So from the start their sample is going to be heavily biased towards women that do not regret their abortions.
A fact conveniently left out.
- Status