Abortion Warnings?

[Stinger]

No response? Quite a lie there bud.

Yes or no should doctors be required, by law as with other medical proceedures, to fully inform women of the possible consequences?

As for this having nothing to do with religion, don't kid yourself.

This has to do with the medical consequences of abortion period, your trying to paint it otherwise is simply trying to deny the reality.

 

[Stinger]

Stop whatever medication you're on...my post #10 follows post #9...logic would tell MOST people it is in direct response to the previous post:roll:

The number doesn't matter it whose message you hit the response button to which determines whom the response is targeted to and in this case it was me, go look at the thread tree and learn how this works.

Here's my final response....you're a lousy thread starter and have no talent as a moderator. Don't give up the day job.:2wave:

Which shows you could not provide an intellectual response and only have such personal attacks to offer, how childish.

 

[Stinger]

Exactly what I expected

" A study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry has found that women who have abortions are more likely to suffer psychological problems than those who don't."

"Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors and substance use disorders," reports David Fergusson, a scientist at New Zealand's Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Science."

The study tracked 1,265 girls. Of the 14 perecent who sought abortions 4 in 10 later suffered from major depression, 35 percent higher than those who continued their pregnancies.

" The risk of anxiety disorders rose in a similar fashion, the study found. Women who had abortions, for instance, were twice as likely to drink alcohol at dangerous levels compared to those who did not."

"The New Zealand study echoed a 2003 report by the Elliot Institute, a nonprofit, pro-life corporation focused on post-abortion research and education. That study found that women who have abortions are 65 percent more likely to experience clinical depression than those who carry their pregnancies to term."


Should doctors be required to inform women of this before they perform an abortion? Any other medical procedure would require such a warning. If not for abortion why not?

What did I expect? Not one person who supports abortion would provide a reasonable and direct response to the questions. That they would first try to dismiss the facts out of hand and then engage in persons insults. That's exactly what happened. How telling.

 

[FallingPianos]

here is the abstract of the study itself:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jcpp/2006/00000047/00000001/art00003

Abstract:
Background: 

The extent to which abortion has harmful consequences for mental health remains controversial. We aimed to examine the linkages between having an abortion and mental health outcomes over the interval from age 15–25 years. Methods: 

Data were gathered as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 25-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand children. Information was obtained on: a) the history of pregnancy/abortion for female participants over the interval from 15–25 years; b) measures of DSM-IV mental disorders and suicidal behaviour over the intervals 15–18, 18–21 and 21–25 years; and c) childhood, family and related confounding factors. Results: 

Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors. Conclusions: 

The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.

Should doctors be required to inform women of this before they perform an abortion? Any other medical procedure would require such a warning. If not for abortion why not?

given that the study shows a correlation, but not a cause and effect reletionship, I dont think its necessary to inform women of this particular study. women should of course be informed of the risks of abortion before having one performed, but more study needs to be done to determain what those risks are.

 

[ngdawg]

The number doesn't matter it whose message you hit the response button to which determines whom the response is targeted to and in this case it was me, go look at the thread tree and learn how this works.



Which shows you could not provide an intellectual response and only have such personal attacks to offer, how childish.

IT WAS DIRECTED AT ANOTHER AS POSTED IN THE NUMERICAL ORDER POSTED!!!! MY GAWD, YOU'RE AN EGOTISTICAL MULE! You can't even fathom WHY the statement was made in the first place???? And you have the nerve to question MY intelligence when you can't even put two and two together.....

Four responses of opinion at least(and not one was unintelligent) and you shoot down every one. I'm not the childish one here. You'd be better off asking a bunch of lawyers. My statements as to your competence and understanding of what anyone is saying here still stand and it is not the respondents that lack intellectual prowess.

 

[Stinger]

IT WAS DIRECTED AT ANOTHER AS POSTED IN THE NUMERICAL ORDER POSTED!!!!

THE NUMBER OF THE MESSAGE MEANS NOTHING, look at the thread tree THAT tells you what message is being responded to. Click on display mode and choose threaded mode. If you don't get it I can't help you.

 

[Stinger]

given that the study shows a correlation, but not a cause and effect reletionship, I dont think its necessary to inform women of this particular study. women should of course be informed of the risks of abortion before having one performed, but more study needs to be done to determain what those risks are.

It's more than just a correlation and this is not the first, nor the only one cited, to show this. This clearly shows the risk, so should doctors be REQUIRED to inform women of these risk? Shouldn't women be fully informed?

 

[FallingPianos]

It's more than just a correlation and this is not the first, nor the only one cited, to show this. This clearly shows the risk, so should doctors be REQUIRED to inform women of these risk? Shouldn't women be fully informed?

The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.

associated is the key word. that very clearly says correlation, and unknown causation.

I couldnt find the abstract to the New Zealand study, perhaps you've found it? but the article you provided was very clear that it was a correlational relationship, but not necessarily causal.

That study found that women who have abortions are 65 percent more likely to experience clinical depression than those who carry their pregnancies to term."

its quite possible that the type of women who seek abortions are already the type who are at higher risk for depression.

there just isnt enough information.

I dont think there is enough scientific evidence to justify making it law that docters have to explain studies. I believe you said before that docters are already required to explain the risks of any procedures before doing them. until there is more scientific evidence, I think its best to leave it up to the docters discretion to determain whether or not to meantion these studies.

I certainly think any docter ought to meantion them, but I dont think theres enough evidence to justify making it law.

 

[ngdawg]

THE NUMBER OF THE MESSAGE MEANS NOTHING, look at the thread tree THAT tells you what message is being responded to. Click on display mode and choose threaded mode. If you don't get it I can't help you.

I'm not the one that is so stupid she doesn't know who she's talking to. Good grief, you're dense.....why would I even say what I said to you? Read the posts in your own thread as they are written and make a small attempt to understand what is being said, when and to whom. Thread mode or not, nothing of my posts remotely related to yours. If you can't figure that out, I can't help YOU. Sheesh.....

 

[tecoyah]

Re: Exactly what I expected

What did I expect? Not one person who supports abortion would provide a reasonable and direct response to the questions. That they would first try to dismiss the facts out of hand and then engage in persons insults. That's exactly what happened. How telling.

Well....I dont "Support" abortion, so perhaps your reply simply didnt include this:

"Fine...I will rephrase my response. Yes, a doctor has an obligation to explain the plus and minus factor in any proceedure, before it is considered. This is the ....Duh....factor which I was refering to, and should be obvious, though it obviously is not to you. Thus we come to the intent of your post, and the aformentioned inflamatory aspect of this attempt at debate. I would think it unusual were a woman NOT to feel some level of depression/stress/trepidation, before and after undergoing elective surgery.....wouldnt you?"

seems a relatively direct response....though obviously not clear enough for you.

 

[jfuh]

Yes or no should doctors be required, by law as with other medical proceedures, to fully inform women of the possible consequences?

You don't think that women are already informed?
You don't think that a woman going into an abortion clinic knows damn well what they are doing?
This is not the same at all as with taking a perscription drug that most people have little knowledge of. This is a simple choice.
It's stressful enough with out the constant jamming of bloody pictures by activists outside the clinic with posters video cameras.

This has to do with the medical consequences of abortion period, your trying to paint it otherwise is simply trying to deny the reality.

The medical consequence of a woman getting an abortion is simple, termination of the pregnancy. If you think that a woman going into a clinic has no idea about that and feel that there should be additional information that is completely unrelated you're not dissimilar from the screaming religous fanatics outside the clinics.
You're entire point of this thread with your added posts thus far are nothing but for the purpose of shoving your own ideologies on suppressing a woman's right to choose.
Tell me, have you ever been to an abortion clinic before? Know anyone closly that has had an abortion? Don't think so.

 

[jallman]

Re: Exactly what I expected

Well....I dont "Support" abortion, so perhaps your reply simply didnt include this:

"Fine...I will rephrase my response. Yes, a doctor has an obligation to explain the plus and minus factor in any proceedure, before it is considered. This is the ....Duh....factor which I was refering to, and should be obvious, though it obviously is not to you. Thus we come to the intent of your post, and the aformentioned inflamatory aspect of this attempt at debate. I would think it unusual were a woman NOT to feel some level of depression/stress/trepidation, before and after undergoing elective surgery.....wouldnt you?"

seems a relatively direct response....though obviously not clear enough for you.

Tecoyah, you did a great job at responding to his question. Let me explain something about stinger...his debate tactic most always goes like this:

Step one: stinger makes an assertion.
Step two: the assertion is countered or rebutted.
Step three: stinger dismisses the rebuttal and makes his assertion again.
Step four: attention is called back to the rebuttal
step five: stinger dismisses the recall to the rebuttal as being irrelevant or stinger claims the assertion has not been responded two.
steps 6-15: lather rinse repeat
step 16: Stinger claims he is being abused or insulted and debate goes out the window.

 

[Stinger]

What folly. Go read the warnings that accompany prescription drugs where a 1% occurance require a warning, here we have over 50% increased chance and you still see it as merely a correlation. What folly.

 

[Stinger]

I'm not the one that is so stupid she doesn't know who she's talking to. Good grief, you're dense.....why would I even say what I said to you? Read the posts in your own thread as they are written and make a small attempt to understand what is being said, when and to whom. Thread mode or not, nothing of my posts remotely related to yours. If you can't figure that out, I can't help YOU. Sheesh.....

LOOK, YOU screwed up. I tried to be nice about it. If you are too stupid to know how threads work that's YOUR problem not mine. YOU responded DIRECTLY to MY post without citing who you were responding to or supplying a quote and the thread number has NOTHING to do with. Learn how it works around here so your ignorant post don't make you look so foolish, you've just been added to my ignore list.

 

[FallingPianos]

What folly. Go read the warnings that accompany prescription drugs where a 1% occurance require a warning, here we have over 50% increased chance and you still see it as merely a correlation. What folly.

on those prescription drugs, does anything more than a correlation need to be shown for the warning to be placed there? it was my understanding, that the drug needs to be shown to actually cause the side effect, rather than just be associated with it, but im no expert on the topic.

 

[jallman]

LOOK, YOU screwed up. I tried to be nice about it. If you are too stupid to know how threads work that's YOUR problem not mine. YOU responded DIRECTLY to MY post without citing who you were responding to or supplying a quote and the thread number has NOTHING to do with. Learn how it works around here so your ignorant post don't make you look so foolish, you've just been added to my ignore list.

ooh-ho-ho...the ignore list...watch out ngdawg, you are on notice. :rofl

 

[Stinger]

on those prescription drugs, does anything more than a correlation need to be shown for the warning to be placed there? it was my understanding, that the drug needs to be shown to actually cause the side effect, rather than just be associated with it, but im no expert on the topic.

Shown less that than with the abortion studies.

But the thread has shown preciesly what I expected. Abortion gets special consideration, special exceptions.

 

[Stinger]

ooh-ho-ho...the ignore list...watch out ngdawg, you are on notice. :rofl

Not on notice for anything, I don't have time to deal with such nonsense.

 

[FallingPianos]

Shown less that than with the abortion studies.

the abortion studies have not shown any causual so thats quite impossible. of course, we could continue debating whether the abortion studies showed a causual rather an mearly correlational relationship, but thats pretty irrelevant if doctors are required to warn of correlational relationships rather than just causual ones.

so, i'll ask again. is the general rule that doctors must warn of known correlations and causations, or just causations?

 

[jallman]

Not on notice for anything, I don't have time to deal with such nonsense.

I'm right there with you man...not ngdawg specifically, but I understand where you are coming from. I'm just in a silly mood today, dont take any offense. I actually rather enjoy our debates cuz you put up a real fight as opposed to some.

 

[Stinger]

the abortion studies have not shown any causual so thats quite impossible. of course, we could continue debating whether the abortion studies showed a causual rather an mearly correlational relationship, but thats pretty irrelevant if doctors are required to warn of correlational relationships rather than just causual ones.

Actually it is clear you would rather engage in a semantical arguement, the studies clearly show a direct correlation, and yes correlations are warned against (just listen to the warnings in drug advertisements), so once again should they be in this case or does abortion get special treatment?

http://www.afterabortion.info/news/depressionbmj.html
Springfield, IL -- This week's prestigious British Medical Journal reports that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an unintended first pregnancy to term. Publication of the study coincides with anniversary events related to the Supreme Court's January 22, 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Data from a national study of American youths, begun in 1979, was used to conduct the research. In 1992, a subset of 4,463 women were surveyed about depression, intendedness of pregnancy, and pregnancy outcome. A total of 421 women had had their first abortion or first unintended delivery between 1980 and 1992.
An average of eight yeas after their abortions, married women were 138 percent more likely to be at high risk of clinical depression compared to similar women who carried their unintended first pregnancies to term.

http://www.afterabortion.info/news/depression_msm.html
Springfield, Ill. — Women with a history of abortion are at significantly higher risk of experiencing clinical depression compared to women who give birth, according to a nationally representative study of 1,884 women published in the latest issue of Medical Science Monitor. Researchers compared data for women from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) who experienced their first pregnancy between 1980 and 1992. They found that, on an average of eight years later, women whose first pregnancies ended in abortion were 65 percent more likely to be at high risk of clinical depression after controlling for age, race, marital status, history of divorce, income, number of years of formal education, and a pre-pregnancy measure of psychological state.

So with such compelling evidence of such a strong correllation should doctors be required to disclose such dangers to women seeking abortion, if not why not?

 

[Stinger]

Re: Exactly what I expected

Well....I dont "Support" abortion, so perhaps your reply simply didnt include this:

"Fine...I will rephrase my response. Yes, a doctor has an obligation to explain the plus and minus factor in any proceedure, before it is considered. This is the ....Duh....factor which I was refering to, and should be obvious, though it obviously is not to you. Thus we come to the intent of your post, and the aformentioned inflamatory aspect of this attempt at debate. "

seems a relatively direct response....though obviously not clear enough for you.

So only if he feels like it, but not like with other medical proceedures or drug therapies and full disclosure as required by law of the dangers.

"I would think it unusual were a woman NOT to feel some level of depression/stress/trepidation, before and after undergoing elective surgery.....wouldnt you?"

No, absolutely no. As I said I've known many women including my wife who have had elective surgery and been quite eleated but if you care to cite a similar study, as opposed to your assumptions, that shows such a high rate of depression after all elective surgeries please do so.

 

[doughgirl]

Jfuh said, “You don't think that a woman going into an abortion clinic knows damn well what they are doing?”

I have worked with hundreds of woman, I have talked to thousands of woman and believe you me, the majority do NOT know about fetal development. They have no clue.

You are right when you said, “This is a simple choice.” It’s fairly simple to march into an abortion clinic…….hand over 400 bucks, wait your turn, have the abortion then march out. Then you have to live forever with the decision you have made. Might not bother you at all………but then it might. Might take one week to start bothing you, then it might take 20 years. It might be simple at the time…….but it might become quite complicated and serious.

“It's stressful enough with out the constant jamming of bloody pictures by activists outside the clinic with posters video cameras.”

:rofl I find this hilarious. What is wrong with those pictures? Why don’t the pro-choicers like them? Little to close to the truth? Yea the truth flashing before their little pro-choice eyes and the real reality of just what abortion looks like.
I say to bad……….

“The medical consequence of a woman getting an abortion is simple, termination of the pregnancy.”

It is easy for the woman…………..SHE ISN’T THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN DISMEMBERED ALIVE. It just doesn’t faze you pro-abortionists one bit, the childs body being torn apart does it. How the hell do you live with yourselves?

“…..the screaming religous fanatics outside the clinics.”

Oh please this shows your ignorance totally. I work for Silent No More and Right To Life………….are policy is not to scream or yell……….we walk silently in front or down the street from clinics and hand out literature……..we pray and we read our Bibles. You have no clue.

”You're entire point of this thread with your added posts thus far are nothing but for the purpose of shoving your own ideologies on suppressing a woman's right to choose.”

I’d much rather have someone ranting and raving what they believe then be the doctor or nurse standing by as the unborn child is dismembered. Think ya could stomach that honey?

STINGER IS RIGHT………He it totally right. Bottom line he has every right to cry out for the unborn child as you do for clapping and cheering every time a child is DISMEMBERED. That turns you guys on………doesn’t it?

”Tell me, have you ever been to an abortion clinic before? Know anyone closly that has had an abortion? Don't think so.”

Well maybe he hasn’t but I have……….I was the one who murdered my child. Been there, done it, I’ve seen it all……..How about you, ever seen a dismembered child before?

Stinger you keep it up babe……………they HATE THE TRUTH WATCH THEM CRINGE…….

 

[ngdawg]

LOOK, YOU screwed up. I tried to be nice about it. If you are too stupid to know how threads work that's YOUR problem not mine. YOU responded DIRECTLY to MY post without citing who you were responding to or supplying a quote and the thread number has NOTHING to do with. Learn how it works around here so your ignorant post don't make you look so foolish, you've just been added to my ignore list.

YAY!!!!!!! I love it when a plan comes together
Jallman, so true...can we say

 

[FallingPianos]

Actually it is clear you would rather engage in a semantical arguement, the studies clearly show a direct correlation, and yes correlations are warned against (just listen to the warnings in drug advertisements), so once again should they be in this case or does abortion get special treatment?

gah, I hate it when people debate semantics. :shock: what you were saying was unclear to me, I wasnt picking at your wording without reason.

and yes correlations are warned against

that right there is the part that was not clear.

So with such compelling evidence of such a strong correllation should doctors be required to disclose such dangers to women seeking abortion, if not why not?

if its law for docters to warn patients of these things in general, there's absolutely no reason that these studies (or anything relating to abortion) should be an exception.