Abortion

[Follarch 326]

 

Originally posted by: manticorefan

 

Originally posted by: Archean

 All she has to do is wait nine months and then she can say goodbye. quote>

 

That's "all" she has to do?   Pregnancy is not a trivial thing.  It is a complex, physically dangerous process that changes her body and her life forever.

 

Giving a baby up for adoption is not the same as saying goodbye.   Adoptees and biological parents of adoptees go through a lot during their lives.  It's not like the adoption is the end of it.quote>

Okay, so i admit I didn't clarify enough, but I can't agree that the woman's body is changed forever, the body recovers after birth, everyone knows that. Of course yes, she will need to treat it like a wanted pregnancy to assure the safety development of the baby, which might be hard if she hates it for her pregnancy. Still saying, all girls who accidentally get pregnant need to give the child a chance and let it live, even if the mother doesn't want it...pray to god the child never realizes that.

[fukuda 351]

By doing this they get other people to become blinded from the truthquote>

Uh oh *eyeroll* the "truth"

If she has the child and throws it away or abandons the child then it is neglect or murder. If a doctor preforms the abortion or partial brith then everything is fine and dandy. How can the exact same things have 2 different outlooks from the law. If in one case it is a human life then it has to be a human life all the way around.quote>

Exact same things? How is a 2 months old fetus the same thing as a newborn baby? Your fetus has no central nervous system, is puny-sized and barely looks human. It's as alive as a mollusc, excepting than molluscs can live autonomously, it's not even the case of your fetus. A newborn baby has a relatively developed brain and is autonomus (relatively, he doesn't use his mother's heart or direct systems).

but the point is we can not definitively determine when that point is...as the little girl i know proves, it could be at 3 and a half months...and definitely at 4...i don't know anyone who had a premature baby before that,quote>

Well, you hit on the nail there. Fetuses are fully mother-dependant while babies are relatively autonomous, have an own heart and brain. There is a limit to the age of premature babies as you have guessed, fetuses are unable to survive for their own. That's where the line is usually drawn.

[hamsterTK 93]

I basically agree with Fukuda.

 we need to take into account the woman's choice and the interests of society first

[Meg 368]

First off, let's remember to discuss the issues, not each other.

Moving on . . .

Originally posted by: ShortStraw

There's something inherently messed up about considering parenthood to be a "consequence" of having unprotected sex. quote>

err . . . why?  What is messed up about that?   There is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between having sex and becoming a parent.

The sad fact is, the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are trivial for a man compared to what a woman faces in dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.  It's certainly poor behavior but a man has the option to just walk away from the whole mess and not look back.   quote>

Is there some reason we want to keep these guys in the gene pool?

I can't help but think that if men could also get pregnant there wouldnt even be a debate over whether or not abortion should be a legal option.   It would likely be the most common and readily acceptable way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. quote>

That's sad.   But I can't argue with your reasoning here.

Originally posted by: Archean 

Okay, so i admit I didn't clarify enough, but I can't agree that the woman's body is changed forever, the body recovers after birth, everyone knows that. quote>

You "can't agree"?  I would ask about your experience that has lead to that conclusion but that would be discussing you, not the issues so let's not go there.  

Instead, I will just suggest that you google "after pregnancy" and do some research on your own.

Of course yes, she will need to treat it like a wanted pregnancy to assure the safety development of the baby, which might be hard if she hates it for her pregnancy. quote>

Might be hard?  It's difficult even if you do want the baby!

Still saying, all girls who accidentally get pregnant need to give the child a chance and let it live, even if the mother doesn't want it...pray to god the child never realizes that.quote>

 

Of course the child will realize that.  There is no way that can remain a secret.

[sepsis 17]

A pregnant woman should have full autonomity of her body up to the point of birth, when the child separates from her. Until then the fetus is a part of the woman's body and it's fate should be decided by her and her alone. Only after birth the child is its own entity and should be regarded as such.

And yes, my true opinon is that it should be allowed to kill one's child before birth. (I can't be bothered with not calling things what they are)

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: ShortStraw

There's something inherently messed up about considering parenthood to be a "consequence" of having unprotected sex.quote>

err . . . why?  What is messed up about that?   There is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between having sex and becoming a parent.quote>

I should have said "Negative consequence".  What I was getting at is the suggestion that you must "pay to play", as someone else put it, by becoming a parent is all messed up.    Parenthood shouldn't be considered a reasonable form of punishment for promiscuous or irresponsible behavior.  It's naive to assume that forcing someone to have children as punishment for irresponsible behavior is going to turn them into responsible people and make the world a better place.   I would even go a step further and say that having an abortion is a much more appropriate form of punishment for irresponsible behavior than forced parenthood.

Sorry, I'm not articulating my thoughts very clearly. 

To answer this question,

Is there some reason we want to keep these guys in the gene pool?quote>

No, I cant really think of a good reason.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Duke87 whereas the abortion would be relatively quick and easy to get over.quote>

Having known (at least) 2 women who have had them, I can promise you it is no such thing. The pyschological trauma in both women lasted for years, manifested by profound depression, nightmares, flashbacks, and even auditory hallucinations of crying babies. The boyfriend of one of them was driven to attempt suicide by the loss of his child without his consent or foreknowledge.

I'm surprised that you did no research before making that statement, seeing as how you demand source citations from others on other subjects. Not trying to be an ass, but I had to call you on it.quote>

I was talking about for me, personally. I'd rather see the fetus aborted than have to put the baby up for adoption. I cannot claim to be all-knowing about what others think.

I am aware that there have been women who have had abortions and then been "traumatized" by it... but such is surely not the case with all women who do so. 2 women is hardly a representative sample of the population. You can't draw any conclusions from such a small group.

I would say that those women are suffering from some sort of mental problem and are just being overdramatic. I can't help but roll my eyes at such things and think "Jeez, build a bridge and get over it already."

Might seem like trivializing the issue but that's how I see it.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy Big pile o' textquote>

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that:

1.) My experiences with those damaged by it didn't count at all. My bad.

2.) I had to do the research that no one else wants to do.

So, just for your personal edification, here you go:

From: http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=1226

A studyof all pregnant women in the entire population of Denmark comparing women within three months post abortion with pregnant women who declined abortion, showed that psychiatric hospitalisation was higher amongst postabortion women (1.84/1000) than in those who declined abortion and delivered (1.2/1000).

An American study linked 173,000 women who had abortions or gave birth in 1989 to death certificates. Women who had abortions were 2.6 times more likely to die from suicide compared to those who delivered their babies. This is backed up by a recent study in Finland looking at the death certificates of all fertile-aged women (1987-1994). Those who had had an abortion in their last year of life ... were also almost twice as likely to harm themselves after the abortion than before.

Another study from Wales showed that in women with unplanned pregnancies and no history of psychiatric illness, deliberate self-harm was more common in those who had abortions than in those who did not request an abortion. A further study on unplanned pregnancies showed that those women who aborted the pregnancy had more depression than those who gave birth and who had the social support of a marriage.

 

From the Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-371392/Abortion-trauma-years.html

The study compared a group of 40 women who suffered a miscarriage with 80 women who chose to have an abortion, questioning them 10 days, six months, two years and five years after the event.

The team from Oslo University, found that women who had a miscarriage suffered more mental distress up to six months after losing their baby compared with those who had an abortion.

But women who had an abortion experienced more mental distress long afterwards - at two and five years - compared with the miscarriage group.

The researchers said that women who lost a baby through abortion should be given information about the psychological effects of losing a baby.

Richard Warren, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy were often profound.

"Most women who request termination of pregnancy do so after careful consideration and with appropriate counselling," he said.

"It has always been considered, and this study also shows, that the decision to terminate may bring with it long-standing feelings of anxiety and guilt.

http://www.bvafoundation.org/healthprofessionals.html

March 29th 2005 Toronto Psychiatrist Dr Joseph Berger attests that, "In more than 30 years of clinical practice as a psychiatrist, I have not come across an adult woman who, years after having had an abortion, has not had deep regrets, sadness and often a profound sense of loss, especially if she has not had any children."

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2003_2_Psychological_Impact.htm

Theresa Burke, PhD, has been counseling women in her role as a psychotherapist. In her recently published book, Forbidden Grief, she has documented the many ways that abortion can torment women for years. This problem is aggravated because professional counselors usually reject the concept that abortion can be emotionally and psychologically detrimental. Burke provides many personal accounts and quotes that offer more than sufficient evidence to dismiss the politically correct viewpoint that abortion is a non-event. She notes that 65-70% of women who undergo abortion have a negative opinion of the procedure.

also, a couple more links to add,

BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4520576.stm

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/high_risk_abortion_patients.asp

American Psychosomatic Society  

There is plenty more, but it's not like anyone will let the facts change their mind.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: fukuda

but the point is we can not definitively determine when that point is...as the little girl i know proves, it could be at 3 and a half months...and definitely at 4...i don't know anyone who had a premature baby before that,quote>

Well, you hit on the nail there. Fetuses are fully mother-dependant while babies are relatively autonomous, have an own heart and brain. There is a limit to the age of premature babies as you have guessed, fetuses are unable to survive for their own. That's where the line is usually drawn.quote>

Whether "dependent" or "independent" from the mother, the fetus isn't an inanimate object. It will hopefully eventually become a baby and then possibly a full-grown adult. Why should someone take away another possible life just so they can live more conveniently? A mother is supposed to put her child first before her own needs.

[ShortStraw 1]

Oh, I just wanted to mention that I agree with Manticore that abortion is a traumatic procedure and it seems to me that there are very real risks for psychological damage following such a profound choice. If this were strictly a matter of enforcing moral responsibility I would also agree that abortions should be if not illegal then at least very difficult to get.

The thing is, this isn't just about enforcing moral responsibility. People need to decide this kind of thing for themselves. Despite the ugliness of abortion, I still feel that it is better for society as a whole for abortion to remain legal. There are too many circumstances where abortion is the most reasonable choice to just outlaw the whole thing and close the book on it.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Again Manticore, as in previous debates, you have using . . . quote>

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that:

1.) My experiences with those damaged by it didn't count at all. My bad.

2.) I had to do the research that no one else wants to do.

So, just for your personal edification, here you go:  quote>

 

Okay, guys.  Let's have this discussion with the snideness.

Discuss the issues, not each other.

 

[spa 970]

Not a single source from your list Manticore is an actual medical journal. The closest you get is a letter to the editor in a medical journal. All of the rest are Christian sites, anti-abortion groups or newspapers. Undoubtedly abortion traumatizes some (as does becoming a parent!), but you're vastly overstating the case and relying on biased material or reporting of biased material... Sadly this is an issue that has more than enough inflammatory nonsense masquerading as fact on both sides of the coin.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: ShortStraw Oh, I just wanted to mention that I agree with Manticore that abortion is a traumatic procedure and it seems to me that there are very real risks for psychological damage following such a profound choice. If this were strictly a matter of enforcing moral responsibility I would also agree that abortions should be if not illegal then at least very difficult to get.

The thing is, this isn't just about enforcing moral responsibility. People need to decide this kind of thing for themselves. Despite the ugliness of abortion, I still feel that it is better for society as a whole for abortion to remain legal. There are too many circumstances where abortion is the most reasonable choice to just outlaw the whole thing and close the book on it.quote>

 

They also have to deal with the guilt of having the abortion for the rest of thier lives.

That being said, I support the leagality of abortions. I think there is a reality that a lot of people

are ignoring and there will be those who want them if its legal or not.

It still becomes a choice for each person if thier legal or not,based on each persons situation.

Do we realy want to go back to finding young girls dead from self inflicted abortions, or from 

infections from unsafe conditions in some unsanitary basement?

[giomedicci 17]

Originally posted by: FukudaExact same things? How is a 2 months old fetus the same thing as a newborn baby? Your fetus has no central nervous system, is puny-sized and barely looks human. It's as alive as a mollusc, excepting than molluscs can live autonomously, it's not even the case of your fetus. A newborn baby has a relatively developed brain and is autonomus (relatively, he doesn't use his mother's heart or direct systems)quote>

Not totally true. The heart starts beating 22 days after conception, about the same time as the central nervous system starts to form. By the 8th week your embryo becomes a fetus until it's born, this means that by this time all of its systems are formed, only in the process of maturing. A fetus is a completely different person than the mother, different genes, different blood, different mind. How do you know it doesn't have a concience yet? How much different is the abortion of a fetus to throwing your new born baby to the garbage to starve to death or plain killing it?

[fukuda 351]

Whether "dependent" or "independent" from the mother, the fetus isn't an inanimate object. It will hopefully eventually become a baby and then possibly a full-grown adult. Why should someone take away another possible life just so they can live more conveniently? A mother is supposed to put her child first before her own needs.quote>

I fail to see how the interests of a "possible" life come before a real and long life ones's. A mother is not supposed to put her child first if she's unable to maintain or care him, it would be a hell for the both of them.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Do we realy want to go back to finding young girls dead from self inflicted abortions, or from 

infections from unsafe conditions in some unsanitary basement?

quote>

 

EB, I think you and I are the only ones in this discussion who actually remember those times.

 

 

[TheSixCents 0]

We do not have the right to put OUR morals on the morals of others.

That being said, I think abortions are unfortunate, but they are a right just the same.

All of the developed nations in the world allow abortions to some extent.

[craizedmanic 0]

Fukuda: What I meant was the women purposly causing a miscarriage,to the doctor aborting it thats 1 (same thing1)

when the women throws the baby away, to the doctor doing partial brith thats 2 (same thing 2)

I did not mean the over all as 2 excat things.

[fukuda 351]

sorry for the misunderstanding

[belfastuniguy 18]

My experiences with those damaged by it didn't count at all. My bad.quote>

No when you attempt, as in previous debates, gay adoption/parents being one, to pawn it off as wider fact...which it is clearly not. Everyone has an opinion, but not all those opinions are valid.

Not a single source from your list Manticore is an actual medical journal. The closest you get is a letter to the editor in a medical journal. All of the rest are Christian sites, anti-abortion groups or newspapers.quote>

Exactly...so I still await your scientific evidence. The very fact the Daily Mail was used had me literally LOL, as I'm sure it would most British people....you ever read the paper?

Do we realy want to go back to finding young girls dead from self inflicted abortions, or from

infections from unsafe conditions in some unsanitary basement? quote>

I completely agree. Though we have to endure a more modern consequence here in Ireland both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. Where girls and women must spent thousands of pounds to travel to Great Britain to have an abortion, a cost that many cannot afford and often further compounds the difficulty of the decision.

A pregnant woman should have full autonomity of her body up to the point of birth, when the child separates from her. Until then the fetus is a part of the woman's body and it's fate should be decided by her and her alone. Only after birth the child is its own entity and should be regarded as such.

And yes, my true opinon is that it should be allowed to kill one's child before birth. (I can't be bothered with not calling things what they are)quote>

I completely agree with you on that aspect Sepsis

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ShortStraw

 

 Parenthood shouldn't be considered a reasonable form of punishment for promiscuous or irresponsible behavior.  It's naive to assume that forcing someone to have children as punishment for irresponsible behavior is going to turn them into responsible people and make the world a better place.   quote>

   

There is some evidence that the opposite happens.

 

Back before Roe v Wade, when I was in civics classes, we studied the escalating US crime rate and how there was no end in sight to the rate of increase.  Then, suddenly, years later, the crime rate started dropping.  It took a while for people to come up with a theory why.

 

Then someone noticed that the decrease in crime began roughly 14 years after abortion became legal.  The theory is that unwanted children are more likely to grow up to be teenaged criminals and, since there had been fewer unwanted children starting 14 years earlier, there were fewer teenaged criminals around.   (The book Freakonomics goes into this theory in detail.)   Not surprisingly, this theory is not universally popular.

 

I’ve heard it described this way:  take a woman who doesn’t want, or believes she is unprepared, to be a mother and force her to have the baby.  Then deny her all forms of societal support.  Then act surprised when the baby turns out to be criminal and sentence him to death row.

 

I find it a little odd that the people who are pro-life tend to be in favor of capital punishment and the people who are pro-choice tend to be against capital punishment.  It seems like many believe we have to weed people out at some point along the line but disagree as to when. 

 

Originally posted by: Duke87

1) There are a lot of orphans, foster kids, etc. out there for whom finding guardians is a problem. As it is, there are more children up for adoption than people looking to adopt them. So having the baby and then putting it up for adoption only makes that worse. quote>

 

How does that bumper sticker go?  if you are against abortion, adopt an unwanted child.

 

2) Abortion gives you something adoption does not: psychological closure. You abort, it's over and done with, and that's that. quote>

 

That’s extremely debatable.   Some studies show that many women in that situation always know how old the kid would have been at any particular time.  They watch other kids that age. They know when his birthday would have been.  It can haunt women.  Or not, depending.

  

You adopt, and you know that your child is out there somewhere, but you don't know where they are or how they're doing. And you'll probably never know. For me, that not knowing would be an endless emotional torture quote>

 

And, for many women it is.  Same thing.  They watch other kids that age.  They know when his birthday is.  Some hope the kid will find them one day.   Others are glad it’s over and done with.

 

The issue of it saving you months of pregnancy exists, too, but it's less of an issue, at least how I see it. A woman might see differently, I'd imagine.quote>

  

Well . . . yeah.

 

 

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I'm going to just give my opinions on the matter, and not respond to previous comments at this time.

---

                 

Which is a member of the species Homo sapiens? The life form on the left, or on the right?

The answer is the right one. The left one is a growth of cells in a liquid. There is a very high probability that that cell growth, in about 9 months, will develop into a Homo sapiens, like the one on the right.

There is no denying that human adults and children possess all the characteristics which define the species Homo sapiens. Chief among them is sapience, along with conformity to human anatomical structure. Every human possesses these characteristics, so they are human.

On the other hand, the only similarity that that growth of cells has with a human is that it has DNA and is made up of cells. How can two life forms that are so different from each other be a part of the same species, as these pro-life people say? The answer is that they are not.

Despite this clear difference between a sapient human and a non-sentient growth, pro-life people have aggressively campaigned the government to confer special protections to these growths. Complicating this is that the growth is inside a person's body.

If the government confers protection to these cells, then they are in effect taking over the person's body, and turning it into government property, for them to do with it as they please. This denies to pregnant people the most basic of human rights -- ownership of one's body.

The root of this position, I have found, is religion, as well as a strain of anti-intellectualism, which spawns an anti-science streak. The Christian religion teaches that the body has a soul attached to it. Some Christians believe that the aforementioned cell growths have a soul attached to them, and are therefore human.

The state of being human is not dependent on a supernatural life force -- it is dependent on the person's anatomical characteristics, as it is with any species, with or without a soul. Any scientist knows that.

There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, which would indicate that cell growths have a supernatural life force contained within them. Therefore, I issue a challenge to the pro-life position: validate scientifically the idea that fetuses have contained within them a supernatural life force (a soul). If this is validated, then I may be inclined to take up the pro-life position. But it has not been tested, and no one intends to do so.

Pro-lifers often support capital punishment, and the killing of literally trillions of cell growth across the world every day, ranging from bacteria to protists to tumors.

If the pro-life position is to be consistent, protecting cell growths from killing, why not ban antibiotics, antiviral drugs, disinfectent wipes, chlorine in swimming pools, removal of parasites, treatment of tapeworms, stepping on the ground, or even eating? All of these activities kill cells, which they are trying to protect.

The pro-life position is inconsistent and biased towards a belief in the Christian religion, and a desire to "protect" and to perpetuate traditional gender roles, and to a lesser extent to perpetuate the subjugation of women, which more extreme Christians endorse explicitly.

To supply furthur evidence for legalizing abortion, consider the number of back-alley abortions performed before Roe v. Wade. These abortions are dangerous, and may result, in pro-lifers' opinions, two lives being lost instead of one. Modern legal abortion is safer even than childbirth, and preserves the life of the pregnant person. If the government takes up the pro-life position, and illegalizes abortion, expect an increase in back-alley abortions, and unwanted children who will be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives, which may last for 100+ years.

All of these consequences will be caused by backwards-looking traditionalists seeking to desperately uphold and perpetuate the status quo of the past, whether the people the government is supposed to serve want it or not.

This goes against another principle many pro-lifers say they believe in -- republican government, and government by the people, for the people, and of the people.

Human embryos and fetuses are not a part of the human species, are not sapient, and are non-sentient. They are only a growth of cells in a person's body.

Let the people with those cells in their bodies make the decision on what to do with them themselves, since they know best what to do with their own body.

In other words, give them a choice. That is the essence of the pro-choice position.

- Patricius Maximus

[Danlikebooks 6]

Well put, Patricius Maximus.

I say leave it up to the women. They're the ones having the babies, so leave it up to them.

If men could get pregnant (well, first of all, none of us would because I don't think that any of us could bear the pain of having something the size of a pineapple coming out of a hole THAT SMALL) then we could debate about this. Having men debate about abortion is like having someone with no legs debate on whether running should be legal.

I am pro choice, but it should be left up to women.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Very well put Maximus, so nice to see someone shine a light on the total hypocrisy of the Pro-life lobby.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Vandy 110]

Hello, All.

It is with some trepidation that I decided to post in this thread not being entirely sure I want to "put myself" and my thoughts / beliefs / morals (call them what you will) "out there" on display for all to see and on which to comment.  Nonetheless, "out there" I am and here is my post.

Ah, abortion.  Certainly a subject worthy of being in the same company as religion and politics when it comes to discussions.  I've read through this entire thread two or three times and am quite impressed with the general civility that remains throughout the posts.  I must say that the subject of abortion certain is a polarizing one in which there are three general "sides - vehemently in favor, vehemently opposed and an uncomfortable middle ground.  I find myself in the third group.

As a Christian (and just left of center, politically), I adhere to and believe in the generally accepted Christian beliefs, principles and morals, however; I also believe that I should "work out" my "salvation with fear and trembling".  (Philippians 2:12).  This "fear and trembling" is what puts me in the "uncomfortable middle ground" group.

In summary, here are my beliefs (in no specific order of importance) with whatever further explanations I deem necessary:

1)  First and foremost, I believe that -- on the surface -- abortion is wrong.

2)  I equally believe that it is not my place nor is it the government's place to demand a woman have or not have an abortion.

3)  The decision to abort should be the woman's own personal choice.  This should include instances of rape, danger to physical health, genetic issues, etc.

4)  I believe children (under the age of 18) should be under the control of the parent when it comes to a decision to abort or not.  I further believe that extenuating circumstances (economics, health, responsibility, etc.) should factor into the parent's decision.

5)  I believe that the father SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE and either be compelled to help defray any costs of the abortion or, in the case of a birth, be accountable for child support REGARDLESS as to whether or not the father remains in the child's life.

6)  I believe a woman who chooses to abort should be offered counceling before and after the abortion as well as be provided medical help to ease any physical or emotional pain and suffering.

7)  I believe that a responsible, open and honest program of sex education should be a part of the school curriculum from the (at least) 5th grade through college. 

I'm sure there are other avenues I could explore and beliefs on which I could expound but I shall complete my post with the following summary.

I believe abortion to be wrong, however; I believe the ultimate decision should rest with the woman.  Counceling should be provide before and after the abortion as well as medical care as needed.  The father should be held accountable and help to defray the expense of the abortion or, if the child is born, be compelled to provide child support.  Finally, I believe that a responsible program of sex education should be provided to our children in the hopes of avoiding ever having to make the decision to abort.

I look forward to the continuation of this thread and all of your comments.

Regards,

Gary (Vandy)

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy and spa

Not a single source from your list Manticore is an actual medical journal. The closest you get is a letter to the editor in a medical journal. All of the rest are Christian sites, anti-abortion groups or newspapers.quote>

The CFM site does reference The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology's journal, as well as the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Journal. You should look better before being dismissive. The links are listed in order at the bottom of the page I linked.

Or this, from *gasp* The NY Times article about this subject:

Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Reardon found a higher risk of clinical depression in a group of married women who had abortions, and published the results in a 2002 article in The British Medical Journal; using California Medicaid records, he and Coleman found a higher risk of psychiatric hospital and clinic admissions among poor post-abortive women, which they reported in 2003 in The Canadian Medical Association Journal; two years later, using the National Survey of Family Growth, they found a higher risk of generalized anxiety disorder post-abortion and published their results in The Journal of Anxiety Disorders.

Or the findings of the US Supreme Court...

The United States Supreme Court stated in:

Gonzales v. Carhart  that “it is unexceptionable that some women will come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained … severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.”

Or the multi-page list of doctors, psychiatrists, medical studies, etc. listed by this *gasp* Christian group that *double gasp* supports my contention.[link] These would never be referenced by a pro-abortion group... you have to find them where they are at.

That good enough? Probably not, as I know it conflicts with what you already 'know'.

It's not like NARAL or IFPA would reference anything that conflicts with their position. The studies involved are linked on the websites, I suppose that the studies done by medical professional don't count because they are referenced on a site from one point of view? Seriously, all information on the subject comes from one side or the other. 

It's easy to dismiss information that one disagrees with, as I knew you would. But if you want to make the case that abortion never causes psychological distress, good luck. Everyone in a normal frame of mind knows that it's farcical to suggest that there is never trauma (either psychological and/or medical) involved in ending a pregnancy via D&C, as the pro-infanticide groups do. They just wave it all away as "those women were already disturbed". Go ahead and look for yourself, the information is all available.

Am I being too snide? Possibly. But I tend to get that way when I am treated that way.

[fukuda 351]

But now that I think about it.. I shouldn't be endorsing choice.. The actual situation suits our gynecologists pretty well, with all these people coming here to abort 

[Vandy 110]

Hello, Barbarossa.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Wow, Vandy!  We agree on this, mostly.  I think you put it much better than I did, as well.quote>

Thank you for commenting.  Whenever I post on a subject that is as personal as this one, I try and be honest with not only myself but with my reader.  After all, what good is a word if it is said either in error or in dishonesty? 

There are only two differences I can see.  1)  I would say abortion is distasteful and unpleasant, but I cannot say it is wrong (mainly because this is a philosophical difference dependent on worldview, I think),quote>

I can certainly respect your opinon concerning the "rights and wrongs" of abortion.  I believe that my statement that abortion is wrong comes mostly from my own family values growing up as well as those values I've embrassed as an adult.  Further, however, I'm honest enough to admit that my definition of abortion being wrong doesn't mean you are wrong for not agreeing with me.

2) I am ambivalent towards counseling... it can be both helpful (supportive and informative) and unhelpful (coercive and undermining).  it all depends on who does the counseling and how it is approached.

Take Care,

Barbarossaquote>

 

You've made a very good point here concerning counseling.  Certainly, a counselor should be empathetic towards to individual being counseled BUT should present unbiased information as to ALL aspects of the decision to abort.  It is hard to not allow personal beliefs and morals to enter into a counseling session and, to an extent, there isn't a problem with a counselor stating their own beliefs and opinions.  BUT (again, the big but...) the counselor MUST not go beyond offering said beliefs and opinions.  Offer, counsel, discuss with the individual BUT (there it is again...) the ultimate decision is the woman's and the woman's alone.

Regards,

Gary