ABORTION: The science is wrong

[estesbob]

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.

Enough women have come forward that we know that abortion can cause major mental health problems. It is interesting that if one is to look at the drug interaction warnings on routine prescriptions or the release form they signed for routine surgery it warns them of every conceivable problem that might occur. However this is not true for abortion-as it is covered what what Justice Scalia ironically calls the abortion exception. Abortion is covered by a whole different set of rules in this country, it is a medical procedure that does not regulated anywhere near is strictly as other medical procedures and far from being required to warn women of all the possible complications doing so is derided as trying to limit a woman’s right to choose.

And of course in the legal field abortion is covered by so many twisted , contradictory and often nearly incomprehensible rulings and laws that it escapes legal scrutiny almost entirely.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Enough women have come forward that we know that abortion can cause major mental health problems. It is interesting that if one is to look at the drug interaction warnings on routine prescriptions or the release form they signed for routine surgery it warns them of every conceivable problem that might occur. However this is not true for abortion-as it is covered what what Justice Scalia ironically calls the abortion exception. Abortion is covered by a whole different set of rules in this country, it is a medical procedure that does not regulated anywhere near is strictly as other medical procedures and far from being required to warn women of all the possible complications doing so is derided as trying to limit a woman’s right to choose.

And of course in the legal field abortion is covered by so many twisted , contradictory and often nearly incomprehensible rulings and laws that it escapes legal scrutiny almost entirely.

Do you think that enough people have come forward to prove that vaccines cause autism?

What proof do you have that abortion is less regulated than, say, an appendectomy?

I propose that the alleged legal tangle is the result of well intentioned pro-life activists trying to implement regulations that make it harder for women to get abortions. In other words, if pro-lifers did not make it into such a political issue, the procedure would not have such special legal and regulatory status.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

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.

That would be a problem, but most of the better studies reviewed medical histories. So unless you think that people who regret their abortions are more likely to have had them in secret clinics, studies based on verifiable patient histories (not self-reporting) conclusively find no link.

 

[vz71]

That would be a problem, but most of the better studies reviewed medical histories. So unless you think that people who regret their abortions are more likely to have had them in secret clinics, studies based on verifiable patient histories (not self-reporting) conclusively find no link.

Why would a medical history indicate a mental problem for those that have not gone to a doctor for a medical problem?

The rubber still meets the road at the patient.
Without interviewing the people, the study is no good. And you are still only going to be able to interview those willing to talk.

 

[vz71]

Do you think that enough people have come forward to prove that vaccines cause autism?

No. The incidence of such anecdotal evidence is very low.

What proof do you have that abortion is less regulated than, say, an appendectomy?

Other then being one of the few major surgery procedures that does not need to be done in a hospital OR?

I propose that the alleged legal tangle is the result of well intentioned pro-life activists trying to implement regulations that make it harder for women to get abortions. In other words, if pro-lifers did not make it into such a political issue, the procedure would not have such special legal and regulatory status.

And your evidence for this?

 

[BobCatholic]

We still got pro-aborts who deny the humanity of the unborn child despite the facts that science says they are human. Who cares about medical science, embryology, microbiology, DNA, and what not. Gotta kill da babies.

Why not continue denying more science? Just part of the pro-abort pattern.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

We still got pro-aborts who deny the humanity of the unborn child despite the facts that science says they are human. Who cares about medical science, embryology, microbiology, DNA, and what not. Gotta kill da babies.

Why not continue denying more science? Just part of the pro-abort pattern.

We still got anti-aborts who believe they are entitled to their own scientific facts because of the immorality of abortion. Who cares about medical science, embryology, microbiology, DNA, and what not; gotta get peoples attention even if it means being dishonest.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

No. The incidence of such anecdotal evidence is very low.

I would say it is about as common as anecdotal evidence for the abortion-depression link.

Other then being one of the few major surgery procedures that does not need to be done in a hospital OR?

Birth does not need to take place in an OR either. I think this speaks to both the simplicity and popularity of the procedure rather than any strange conspiracy.

And your evidence for this?

I don’t think your original contention is true, that abortion is a legal tangle. Why don’t you give an example of such a tangle then we can see if it is due to pro-life forces.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Why would a medical history indicate a mental problem for those that have not gone to a doctor for a medical problem?

The rubber still meets the road at the patient.
Without interviewing the people, the study is no good. And you are still only going to be able to interview those willing to talk.

So now you are saying that people who regret abortions are less likely to seek psychiatric care?

 

[bbarrick8383]

We still got anti-aborts who believe they are entitled to their own scientific facts because of the immorality of abortion. Who cares about medical science, embryology, microbiology, DNA, and what not; gotta get peoples attention even if it means being dishonest.

Reminds me of a child repeating everything someones saying to annoy them.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Reminds me of a child repeating everything someones saying to annoy them.

Since he evidently does not understand complicated science-talk, I figured my best bet at saying something he could comprehend would be to emulate his own speaking style.

 

[vz71]

So now you are saying that people who regret abortions are less likely to seek psychiatric care?

I am saying that those that suffer some mental disorder are likely to go undiagnosed for a period of time before seeking treatment.

In those that have a profound sense of regret, grief, or guilt this period of time will likely be longer then otherwise.

And my point still stands.
The article leaves out facts. The study is flawed by the self bias of its own subjects.

 

[BobCatholic]

We still got anti-aborts who believe they are entitled to their own scientific facts because of the immorality of abortion. Who cares about medical science, embryology, microbiology, DNA, and what not; gotta get peoples attention even if it means being dishonest.

Wow, I really touched a nerve didn’t I?

When someone rails against me for being anti-abort, I wonder what to think.

 

[BobCatholic]

Reminds me of a child repeating everything someones saying to annoy them.

It reminds me of another story.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once held a retreat for his priests. One priest kept railing against the Vatican’s vast ‘wealth’ and Sheen politely answered his objections. Later when he was alone with that priest, that priest kept railing. Sheen looked at him directly in the eye and asked him “so how much were you stealing” The priest admitted to stealing from the collection plate. Busted.

So when someone wants to rail against me for being anti-abort, I’m reminded of that story, and wonder what conclusion I should reach.

 

[vz71]

When someone rails against me for being anti-abort, I wonder what to think.

I don’t. I consider it high praise.

 

[BobCatholic]

I don’t. I consider it high praise.

Amen.

When dehumanizers of the unborn want to dehumanize me, I know I’m doing something right.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Wow, I really touched a nerve didn’t I?

When someone rails against me for being anti-abort, I wonder what to think.

The issue is not your position on the morality of abortion, but your non-sequitur: “abortion is immoral therefore it must cause health problems for the mother”

Maybe you think anyone willing to believe abortion is neutral with respect to certain health risks is like this:
picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=261

 

[vz71]

The issue is not your position on the morality of abortion, but your non-sequitur: “abortion is immoral therefore it must cause health problems for the mother”

No one has provided any such non-sequitur.
What has been provided were perfectly reasonable reasons why the study provided in the OP is wrong.

Thus far no one seems able to answer for them.
All that I can see here are multiple studies done connecting abortion to mental health issues, and another study that has serious flaws in it that claims otherwise.

I will take the solid research over the flawed study any day.

 

[BobCatholic]

The issue is not your position on the morality of abortion, but your non-sequitur: “abortion is immoral therefore it must cause health problems for the mother” ]

Please show me where I said that. One link.

I never said that.

Abortion is immoral because it is murder. Period.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

No one has provided any such non-sequitur.
What has been provided were perfectly reasonable reasons why the study provided in the OP is wrong.

Thus far no one seems able to answer for them.
All that I can see here are multiple studies done connecting abortion to mental health issues, and another study that has serious flaws in it that claims otherwise.

I will take the solid research over the flawed study any day.

Which studies have not been refuted?
apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf

None have been posted since OP. The Lifenews post doesn’t provide any way to find the better studies it claims have been conducted since the APA conclusion, and the links in the article lead nowhere.

The report mentioned in Lifenews is by this woman:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_K._Coleman
Who has been criticized for working on papers with poor methodology.