Posted on 02/23/2006 4:56:47 AM PST by Milltownmalbay
New studies show that women suffer serious side-effects after aborting a child, says Zenit.org. Many of these side-effects are psychological, and effect woman long after the abortion has taken place.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported the “most detailed long-term study to date into the divisive question.” The New Zealand study was done by David Fergusson, who describes himself as “an atheist, a rationalist and pro-choice”. The study tracked 1,265 girls born in the 1970s. 41% of these woman became pregnant by the age of 25, and 14.6% (90 women) sought an abortion. By the age of 25, 42% of those who procured an abortion also experienced a major depression. This number was 35% higher than those who had chosen to continue a pregnancy. The risk of anxiety disorders rose in a similar fashion. A woman who had procured an abortion was twice as likely to drink alcohol at dangerous levels compared to one who continued the pregnancy.
The Washington Times reported a study done by Priscilla Coleman that claimed that woman who aborted has a 144% greater risk of physically abusing their children compared to those who did not terminate their pregnancy. Coleman said that a “good number of women who have abortions” experience bereavement and guilt, which turn to anger.
Coleman also noticed that though women who have miscarriages also experience negative psychological effects, these effects last longer in women who have aborted. A study carried out at the University of Oslo supports this statement. The study looked at 40 women who suffered miscarriages and 80 women who terminated a pregnancy. Researchers questioned the woman at 10 days, six months, two years, and five years after the end of the pregnancy. Woman who had miscarriages suffered more negative effects at the 6 month period. However, those who had an abortion experience more mental distress at the two and five year period.
Abortion also effects having another baby. A French study of 2,837 births found woman who once had an abortion were 1.7 times more likely to give birth to a baby at less than 28 weeks gestation. Babies born at this point die soon after birth, or suffer serious disability if they survive.
The South Dakota Department of Health has accumulated statistics from the year 2003 regarding abortions in the state. In 814 out of the 819 procedures, the only information given to the pregnant mothers about the unborn children was the gestational age of the children. In 813 of the procedures, this information was provided by a recorded statement. Mothers never had a chance to question the doctor. According to witnesses from a Planned Parenthood clinic, the first time the women met their physician was in the procedure room. At that point, the woman has signed a consent form and committed to the procedure.
Selena Ewing, a researcher at the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Adelaide, has found that most abortions result from lack of support of pregnant women, from both men and the community. Abortions are also linked with domestic violence.
Not this pro-lifer. Murder is murder plain and simple. In fact, I'd argue that most women who have abortions should get the death penalty. They are often serial murderers with premeditated crimes. Same rules apply as in any other situation. A "crime of passion" gets punished less than premeditated murder.
Well, once abortion is confirmed to be murder by the government, obviously all previous offenders would be grandfathered in. The law would only apply to new offenders. You can't prosecute somebody for something that wasn't a crime at the time they did it.
And what politician will be willing to write THAT piece of legislation? :)
You still can't get past the fact that it's never been punished as murder, even when it was illegal. Why would the punishment be so much higher now? And why is legislation still being written that just mandates fines or a short jail sentence for the doctor, and is specific about NO punishment for the woman? That's exactly the way the Partial Birth Abortion Act, currently under consideration by the Supreme Court, reads.
Why is that, if it's murder?
Because not many pro-lifers have the guts to stand up and say, "It's murder, we should treat it like murder." I honestly wouldn't want them to include the death penalty in the law about it because I'm afraid it would never get voted into law that way.
Before you go and call me hypocritical for that, think of it this way:
If a law was on the books allowing us to murder all black people (or all people between the ages of 10 and 11, or all people with naturally brown hair, or all disabled people) just because of something they cannot do anything about (the color of their skin, their age, their hair color, being disabled) and we were attempting to get this law struck down, wouldn't it be a step in the right direction to call it a crime, even if the punishment was pretty low?
Now, I do think this no punishment for the woman thing is stupid. But if it gets a law that puts us on the road towards what is right, it's a good thing. We can use the slippery slope the other direction too.
Honestly, none. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't support it. But, truly, if a conceived child was considered a human being by the government, and therefore abortion was determined to be murder, there would be no need for laws about death penalty, etc, related directly to abortion. The laws about murder of another human being are already on the books. All it takes is finally getting abortion properly defined as the murder of a child.
Depression Significantly Higher Among Parents Compared To Adults Who Don't Have Children
Plenty are also pressured or bullied into NOT having an abortion, especially underage girls living with their parents. A few days ago, an FR poster told the story of his/her 15 year old sister who had been raped, gotten pregnant, and was forced by their parents to carry the baby to term (this was also pre-1973, so the parents didn't have any other legal option). It just destroyed her emotionally, and all she wanted was to get rid of the "thing" inside her, which is how she referred to it. The chance of a girl whose been through that ever being able to be normally happy about a future pregnancy is slim.
I don't put much faith in studies claiming that abortion causes sterility. Not to mention that with IVF, the type of infertility that could be caused by an abortion or other gynecological surgery, namely tubes blocked by scarring from infection or trauma, is no longer an obstacle to having babies -- just can't make them the natural way, which in the case of women who are prone to getting pregnant when they don't want to be, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
But the history of abortion-as-contraception in the Soviet Union, which had a pretty primitive medical system, suggests the claim is bunk anyway. Various studies found that during the 1970s the AVERAGE Russian woman had had somewhere between 9 and 11 abortions. If one abortion, under normal Western medical standards could make 10% of women infertile, there's no way that most women in a large population could still be getting pregnant after 8 or 9 Soviet clinic abortions.
The Lancet often covers topics on a global or regional basis, however. In 3rd world countries, where medical facilities practice virtually no infection-control measures, and most patients don't have access to antibiotics after any procedure, I wouldn't be surprised if natural fertility was lost in well over 10% of women having abortions there. But given that many women don't survive childbirth there, that wouldn't be much of deterrent. In addition, any place where abortion is illegal is likely to have a high rate of abortions performed in non-sterile makeshift facilities, with the patient not getting a prescription for antibiotics afterward. It's very easy to get blocked-tube infertility from any kind of gynecological infection, including those that are not sexually transmitted.
BTTT!
I wonder if this may not be why so many apparently healthy Hollywood actresses (eg., Nicole Kidman, Kirstie Alley, Jennifer Aniston) have so much trouble having children and experience miscarriages.
...the worst thing in the world if you don't...
And of course you have to look at who is doing the study and for how long on how many people and for what purpose
Surely you wouldn't claim that some of these studies are not bias in their agenda
The bottom line is abortion kills and over 22 million in the US so far over several decades.
So decades long "research" has shown abortion kills and that lots and lots of woman by their own testimony have suffered severe repercussions because of it
Futhermore lets not forget the millions of female babies aborted who never had a chance to discuss this or that study on FreeRepublic
Having to have a baby isn't what destroyed her emotionally but seeing a life as a "thing" surely did.
That doctors take the Hippocratic Oath is a myth. I was never asked to take it before I was given my diploma or license.
Here it is, though, translated from the Greek it's original form, and following that is a 'modern' version written by Louis Lasagna in 1964:
HIPPOCRATIC OATH (classic version):
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.
HIPPOCRATIC OATH (p.c. version)
swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I still stand by the general concept though. Doctors are not there to kill people, they are there to help people and save lives.
If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.
This is no longer true. With human parthenogenesis, a female oocyte can now be stimulated to grow into an embryo with absolutely no input material from a sperm. Does this mean that every female egg should now be considered a human being? The fact is that, as much as pro-lifers insist otherwise, fertilization is just as arbitrary a point to declare the beginning of a new person as is birth (as proven by the fact that, in parthenogenesis, there is no fertilization). And with technology advancing rapidly in this area we may soon see the possibility of creating embryos solely from sperm. Would anyone like to consider the moral implications for masturbation if this became a reality? This can easily slip into the realm of the absurd, where many of us believe the idea of zygote personhood is already.
And yes, some people who are not religious arrive at a pro-life position (just as some who are devoutly religious arrive at a pro-choice position). But the great majority of pro-lifers are religious, so it is impossible to argue that religion doesn't weigh heavily in pro-life views.
I agree completely with you, and prefer the classic version of the Hippocratic Oath, minus swearing to Apollo, etc.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2006/02/22/news/magazine/daily/13928829.htm
While I do agree that somme have been pressured into having the child, this point has been made many times over in the argument against parental notification. My point is not just that girls are being pressured into abortions, but that the feminists who claim to care so much about choice, are ignoring this fact. See the above link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.