Study: Abortions Cause Future Relationship Problems, More Domestic Violence

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juliee

Guest
Washington, DC – Some women decide to have abortions because they think having a baby will contribute to problems in their relationship with their husband or boyfriend. However, a new national study finds abortion causes more future relationship problems than carrying the pregnancy to term and parenting.

Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University headed up the study.

“For both men and women the experience of an abortion in a previous relationship was related to negative outcomes in the current relationship,” they write.

Full story at: LifeNews.com/nat4946.html
 
"We don’t have an abortion problem,
what we have is a LOVE problem."
 
Studies generally don’t prove CAUSES. The pro-life community needs to do a better job of using precise language in our educational efforts. CAUSE sounds nice and convincing.

But statistical studies cannot, by definition, show the cause of something. They show correlation. Correlation is good reason to be suspicious that it is the cause, but it is not proof.

It isn’t necessarily the abortion that causes the later effects. In fact, I’d say that choosing abortion and having relationship problems might BOTH be symptoms of a DIFFERENT problem: lack of a mutually strong relationship with God.
 
Interesting article, but please consider this:

"The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA)[5] A panel convened by the APA has written that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have “inadequate or inappropriate” controls and don’t adequately control “for women’s mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion.” [5]

Coleman, Cougle, Reardon and Rue have also been criticized by other researchers in the field. Jillian Henderson and Katharine Miller wrote to the Journal of Anxiety Disorders claiming, “We believe that Cougle, et al., operate with strong political views regarding abortion, and unfortunately their biases appear to have resulted in serious methodological flaws in the analysis published in your journal. [Reardon, Coleman and Cougle] are involved in building a literature to be used in efforts to restrict access to abortion.” [6]" (Wikipedia)

Considering this, we should be skeptical of what she is claiming in the article. Personally, I would refrain from comment one way or the other until I could read the actual journal article in full. If the study is methodologically or statistically flawed, using it to support pro-life arguments could leave one open to justifiable criticism from pro-choice advocates. One always wants to strength their argument, never should they introduce a potential weakness.
 
On the other hand, political biases work both ways.

If the critics are attempting to impose a control criteria that is virtually impossible to meet, then that too is damning evidence of biased assumptions influencing outcome.

Have such rigorous control criteria been imposed on other studies of less controversial subject matter?

It gets tricky.
 
…i don’t pretend to understand the plight of the person that willingly undergoes an abortion and will not judge them for it. I certainly have major issues with the “so-called” intelligent adult medical personnel that would partake in such a crime. All comprehensive studies that i have seen concur with the premise of this thread… There is nothing that cannot do more to destroy a person, their family and yes the entire community as abortion. I pray that one day we all see the light… before it’s too late…Peace:thumbsup:
 
manualman said:
On the other hand, political biases work both ways.

If the critics are attempting to impose a control criteria that is virtually impossible to meet, then that too is damning evidence of biased assumptions influencing outcome.

Have such rigorous control criteria been imposed on other studies of less controversial subject matter?

It gets tricky.
Click to expand...
I agree that political biases work both ways. This is why it is wise to be skeptical until you can read the original sources and look at the original data regardless of whether or not you agree with the political bias behind the work.

If the control criteria required for reliable results for ANY experiment cannot be met, then we should not accept the results as evidence for or against our hypothesis. The controls are either adequate or they are not. Any good scientist knows this. The political bias of a group does not change whether the controls used are adequate or not.

But we cannot even argue about whether or not the controls were adequate for this study until we see for ourselves what controls were used. I tried to look for the original article online and couldn’t find it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top