Abortion: What is an acceptable risk of maternal death?

[jallman]

It is based on when the majority of miscarriages occur. Natural miscarriages all most always happen within the first 3 months. If the body is to naturally abort during this time then the woman should have that option also.

Okay, I can see where you are coming from, most definitely.

 

[jallman]

:angel?: If you must....

Oh well...errr...I mean, I am done now....:3oops:

 

[OKgrannie]

First of all if abortion became only legal to protect the mother's life,that abortion should only be peformed in a hospital by a real doctors not abortionist and that determination should be made by a real doctor not a abortionist.

"REAL" doctors perform all abortions. Did you think that doctors who perform abortions are somehow "fake"?

As for percentage I think it would have to be one of those situations were multiple pro-life doctors are telling the woman that she has a strong chance of dieing or that she will die.But I think around a 1 in 3 chance is acceptable,unless that is a normal risk in many countries then it should be a 1 in 2 chance.

A bit cavalier with women's lives aren't you, what's wrong with a woman deciding what level of risk she is willing to undertake?

 

[1069]

What you say and what you communicate are entirely different birds. I don't give two curses about a middle ground. I care only about truth, advancement of that truth, and the maintaining of a productive dialog. This cannot happen when you taint every thread you touch with your hysterics, your lies, and your refusal to speak to what people said rather than what you "hear".



Oh you will tell your story time and time again...but it won't be for me. It will be to feed your martyr complex and grab the heart strings of the one emotionally vulnerable woman who will buy into your hysterics because of nothing more than that vulnerability. If you are content with your methods of emotional extortion and the predation of the emotionally vulnerable, that only speaks volumes of you and not pro-lifers. I am finally gaining the ability to separate you and your hysterics from the valid concerns of the genuinely pro-life contingent. It has made dialog exponentially better.



This alone proves my point that you do not read for comprehension; you simply read a post to see where you can fuel your hysteria the quickest.



I value life with a sanctity that you will never know. I appreciate the value of the life of both the woman and the fetus and I am most calculating in determining when who's rights trump the others. Do not confuse my reverence for the law and my reverence for humanity with your helter skelter emotional opining...it is truly you who places no value on life or humanity.



No one looks up to me for there are far greater champions to elevate in this cause. As to your assertion that I have no feelings...well, we do know you have a penchant for vilifying your opponent with lies and half truths. That is, when your hysterical verbal tremors calm enough to let you put the mental effort into creating a lie.



And I will just leave this hysterical rant with something I absolutely LOVE to do: expose you for the liar you are. You claim your niece was born at 21.5 weeks and survived. I call you to task for your deception right here, right now. How do you answer for this?

The world's most premature living baby. Story published on February 19th, 2007. And I would be remiss in my duties to the truth if I didn't point you to this:



I think the evidence speaks for itself and in condemnation of your deceit and lies. If your argument is so flimsy that you have to resort to that...perhaps it is time you gave it up. After all, if you want to help the pro life side, you have a funny way of showing it, lady.

I won't further embarrass you by speaking to the rest of your dishonest rant. You have been intellectually beaten down enough by your own hand for one day. :mrgreen:

This is exactly why the other 80 to 90% of us need to speak the fvck UP!
I'm talking about the millions of American women who have had abortions and do not regret them.
Although public personal disclosures about gynecological procedures are distasteful and embarrassing and put most of us outside of our comfort zones, and although propriety dictates that such things- along with graphic, blow-by-blow accounts of prostate exams, genital wart removals, and hemorrhoid surgeries- are perhaps best kept to oneself, it's important that legislators and voters hear our voices... because the miniscule minority of women who do regret their abortions are not shy about telling it to the world, and that is the only voice that the general public is hearing on any sort of a consistent basis, ergo it's hardly surprising that many people are developing a somewhat lopsided view of the issue.

I've found that telling my story often elicits hysterical reactions from prolifers, such as "you're obviously in denial" and "one day you're going to wake up and realize you murdered your child, and I wouldn't want to be you on that day".
I generally volley the ball back into their court with, "You're the one obviously in denial" and "One day you're going to wake up and realize that you actually don't regret your abortion at all, and that you're not one bit sorry that you declined to gestate a fetus you couldn't care for and didn't want, and that furthermore, abortion has actually given you an identity when you never had one before, even if it's only the sorry identity of 'victim', and that you've had more fun and received more attention pimping your sad story out like the miserable sympathy-hound you are than you ever would've if you'd never had an abortion in the first place."

It really is time women put propriety on the back burner and told their stories so that voters and legislators could understand the other side of it.
Because no one is speaking up for women.
Women- the only ones who are talking at all- are speaking up for fetuses.
I don't speak for fetuses.
I speak for human rights.

 

[Felicity]

It is based on when the majority of miscarriages occur. Natural miscarriages all most always happen within the first 3 months. If the body is to naturally abort during this time then the woman should have that option also.

I am sorry if my attempt at clarifying doughgirl's question was also unclear. I see jallman figured out a way to make it clearer. However, I take a bit of issue with your reasoning in that women can spontaneously abort (miscarry) at any point in pregnancy. So, if that's your position, it isn't very precise and obviously, if woman was to miscarry, the abortion would be moot. Abortions are only performd on unborn lives that do NOT spontaneously abort. It seems very twisted reasoning, IMHO, to justify killing a life by rationalizing the odds against its survival--odds it beat by remaining living. Very twisted indeed.

 

[Just Me 2]

I am sorry if my attempt at clarifying doughgirl's question was also unclear. I see jallman figured out a way to make it clearer. However, I take a bit of issue with your reasoning in that women can spontaneously abort (miscarry) at any point in pregnancy. So, if that's your position, it isn't very precise and obviously, if woman was to miscarry, the abortion would be moot. Abortions are only performd on unborn lives that do NOT spontaneously abort. It seems very twisted reasoning, IMHO, to justify killing a life by rationalizing the odds against its survival--odds it beat by remaining living. Very twisted indeed.

Yes woman can miscarry at any time but the majority of miscarrages happen in the first 3 months. I think you are mistaking what I am saying. Someone asked me why I chose the first trimenter to allow abortions. My response was because natural miscarriages almost always happen within the first 3 months. If the body is to naturally abort during this time then the woman should have that option also. I'm not sure how you were reading this but nothing twisted about it.

 

[Felicity]

Yes woman can miscarry at any time but the majority of miscarrages happen in the first 3 months. I think you are mistaking what I am saying. Someone asked me why I chose the first trimenter to allow abortions. My response was because natural miscarriages almost always happen within the first 3 months. If the body is to naturally abort during this time then the woman should have that option also. .

That wasn't the question that didn't get answered. The question that didn't get answered was not about "abortion" or about the "mother" at all--it was about what makes a 12 week old (and under) unborn kill-able? What is inherently true about a thirteen week old fetus, that is not about a twelve week old fetus? Or is your position concerning life in the womb COMPLETELY related to the mother's perception/responsibility and not at all related to the inherent value of human life?

I'm not sure how you were reading this but nothing twisted about it

It seems very twisted reasoning, IMHO, to justify killing a life by rationalizing the odds against its survival--odds it beat by remaining living.
I'm not sure how to say it differently. It requires contorted gyrations of half-logic, half rationalization, and half denial to arrive at a conclusion that that is reasonable. (yes--I know half-half-and half doesn't "add up"--that's my point! )

 

[Just Me 2]

That wasn't the question that didn't get answered. The question that didn't get answered was not about "abortion" or about the "mother" at all--it was about what makes a 12 week old (and under) unborn kill-able?

I feel that because during the first trimester the body will naturally abort the fetus more than during any other time, so if a woman were to make the choice to have an abortion it should be during the time when natural abortion is likely.

What is inherently true about a thirteen week old fetus, that is not about a twelve week old fetus?

Nothing as I said I do believe abortion should be an option for woman but should be done as soon as possible.

Or is your position concerning life in the womb COMPLETELY related to the mother's perception/responsibility and not at all related to the inherent value of human life?

I value human life but I also think a woman is the best judge of her situation and body. I can't sit and judge whether a woman is mentally, physically and emotionally ready to be a mother only she knows that. So while yes human life is valuable so is having control over that life.

 

[1069]

I feel that because during the first trimester the body will naturally abort the fetus more than during any other time, so if a woman were to make the choice to have an abortion it should be during the time when natural abortion is likely.




Nothing as I said I do believe abortion should be an option for woman but should be done as soon as possible.



I value human life but I also think a woman is the best judge of her situation and body. I can't sit and judge whether a woman is mentally, physically and emotionally ready to be a mother only she knows that. So while yes human life is valuable so is having control over that life.

I admire your dignity and restraint.

 

[Just Me 2]

It seems very twisted reasoning, IMHO, to justify killing a life by rationalizing the odds against its survival--odds it beat by remaining living.
I'm not sure how to say it differently. It requires contorted gyrations of half-logic, half rationalization, and half denial to arrive at a conclusion that that is reasonable. (yes--I know half-half-and half doesn't "add up"--that's my point! )

Any reason for killing a human life is twisted to you so why should I even bother answering?

Why ask questions you already know you will disagree with, you don't really want an answer you want to back me into a corner in saying that I think it is ok to kill, that is your objective not to learn anything.

 

[Just Me 2]

I admire your dignity and restraint.

Don't admire me yet read my last post.

 

[1069]

Don't admire me yet read my last post.

Your last post is fine.
The fortunate thing about the existence of people like Felicity is that they unwittingly incite resistance in moderates and centrists.
The stridence and extremism ("Hormonal contraception kills babies!") are such that even the most passive and mild-mannered of fencesitters (not to say you are that) are ultimately compelled to object.

 

[DeeJayH]

This is exactly why the other 80 to 90% of us need to speak the fvck UP!
I'm talking about the millions of American women who have had abortions and do not regret them.
Although public personal disclosures about gynecological procedures are distasteful and embarrassing and put most of us outside of our comfort zones, and although propriety dictates that such things- along with graphic, blow-by-blow accounts of prostate exams, genital wart removals, and hemorrhoid surgeries- are perhaps best kept to oneself, it's important that legislators and voters hear our voices... because the miniscule minority of women who do regret their abortions are not shy about telling it to the world, and that is the only voice that the general public is hearing on any sort of a consistent basis, ergo it's hardly surprising that many people are developing a somewhat lopsided view of the issue.

amusing
when a pro-life says that the majority of women who have abortions not only have regret but a large portion need counseling
the pro-choicers demand a link to document it, because those statistics can not be found due to privacy protecting medical files

but 1069 can spout off whatever garbage she wants with no links to back it up
:roll:

 

[1069]

amusing
when a pro-life says that the majority of women who have abortions not only have regret but a large portion need counseling
the pro-choicers demand a link to document it, because those statistics can not be found due to privacy protecting medical files

but 1069 can spout off whatever garbage she wants with no links to back it up
:roll:

Research studies indicate that emotional responses to legally induced abortion are largely positive. They also indicate that emotional problems resulting from abortion are rare and less frequent than those following childbirth (Adler, 1989; Kero et al., 2004).
The vast majority of studies conducted in the last 25 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect, except when pre-abortion emotional problems exist or when a wanted pregnancy is terminated, such as after diagnostic genetic testing (Adler, 1989; Adler et al., 1990; Russo & Denious, 2001).
For most women who have had abortions, the procedure represents a maturing experience, a successful coping with a personal crisis situation (DeVeber et al., 1991; Kero et al., 2004; Lazarus, 1985; Russo & Zierk, 1992; Zabin et al., 1989). In fact, the most prominent emotional response of most women to first-trimester abortions is relief (Adler et al., 1990; Armsworth, 1991; Kero et al., 2004; Lazarus, 1985; Miller, 1996).
Up to 98 percent of the women who have abortions have no regrets and would make the same choice again in similar circumstances (Dagg, 1991).
More than 70 percent of women who have abortions express a desire for children in the future (Torres & Forrest, 1988). There is no evidence that women who have had abortions make less loving or suitable parents (Bradley, 1984).
Women who have had one abortion do not suffer adverse psychological effects. In fact, as a group, they have higher self-esteem, greater feelings of worth and capableness, and fewer feelings of failure than do women who have had no abortions or who have had repeat abortions (Russo & Zierk, 1992; Zabin et al., 1989). A recent two-year study of the psychological effects of abortion confirmed that most women do not experience psychological problems or regrets two years after their abortion. (Major et al., 2000).
A study of a group of teenagers who obtained pregnancy tests at one of two Baltimore clinics found that the young women who chose to have abortions were far more likely to graduate from high school at the expected age than those of similar socioeconomic status who carried their pregnancies to term or who were not pregnant. They showed no greater levels of stress at the time of the pregnancy and abortion and no greater rate of psychological problems two years after the abortion than did the other women (Zabin et al., 1989).
The positive relationship of abortion to well-being may be due in part to abortion's role in controlling fertility and its relationship to coping resources (Russo & Dabul, 1997; Russo & Zierk, 1992).

A Summary of the Scientific Research

Since the early 1980s, groups opposed to abortion have attempted to document the existence of "post-abortion syndrome," which they claim has traits similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) demonstrated by some war veterans. In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this field to review the data. They reported that the studies with the most scientifically rigorous research designs consistently found no trace of "post-abortion syndrome" and furthermore, that no such syndrome is scientifically or medically recognized.1

The panel concluded that "research with diverse samples, different measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress."2 While some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and happiness.3

In another study, researchers surveyed a national sample of 5,295 women, not all of whom had had abortions, and many of whom had abortions between 1979 and 1987, the time they were involved in the study. The researchers were able to learn about women's emotional well-being both before and after they had abortions. They concluded at the end of the eight-year study that the most important predictor of emotional well-being in post-abortion women was their well-being before the abortion. Women who had high self-esteem before an abortion would be most likely to have high self-esteem after an abortion, regardless of how many years passed since the abortion.4

Psychological responses to abortion must also be considered in comparison to the psychological impact of alternatives for resolving an unwanted pregnancy (adoption or becoming a parent). While there has been little scientific research about the psychological consequences of adoption, researchers speculate that it is likely "that the psychological risks for adoption are higher for women than those for abortion because they reflect different types of stress. Stress associated with abortion is acute stress, typically ending with the procedure. With adoption, as with unwanted childbearing, however, the stress may be chronic for women who continue to worry about the fate of the child."5

What the Experts Say

In a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Nada Stotland, M.D., former president of the Association of Women Psychiatrists, stated:

"Significant psychiatric sequelae after abortion are rare, as documented in numerous methodologically sound prospective studies in the United States and in European countries. Comprehensive reviews of this literature have recently been performed and confirm this conclusion. The incidence of diagnosed psychiatric illness and hospitalization is considerably lower following abortion than following childbirth...Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example, abandonment."6

Henry P. David, PhD, an internationally known scholar in this area of research, reported the following at an international conference.

"Severe psychological reactions after abortion are infrequent...the number of such cases is very small, and has been characterized by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop as 'minuscule from a public health perspective'...For the vast majority of women, an abortion will be followed by a mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive feelings. This holds immediately after abortion and for some time afterward...the positive picture reported up to eight years after abortion makes it unlikely that more negative responses will emerge later."7

Russo and Dabul reported their conclusions of an eight-year study in Professional Psychology:

"Although an intensive examination of the data was conducted, controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent: The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any, independent role in women's well-being over time, regardless of race or religion. The major predictor of a woman's well-being after an abortion, regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming pregnant...Our findings are congruent with those of others, including the National Academy of Sciences (1975), and the conclusion is worth repeating. Despite a concerted effort to convince the public of the existence of a widespread and severe postabortion trauma, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of such trauma, even though abortion occurs in the highly stressful context of an unwanted pregnancy."8

References

1. American Psychological Association. "APA research review finds no evidence of 'post-abortion syndrome' but research studies on psychological effects of abortion inconclusive." Press release, January 18, 1989.
2. Adler NE, et al. "Psychological responses after abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.
3. Adler NE, et al. "Psychological factors in abortion: a review." American Psychologist, 1992, 47(10): 1194-1204.
4. Russo NF, Zierk KL. "Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992, 23(4): 269-280.
5. Russo NF. "Psychological aspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution." In J.D. Butler and D.F. Walbert (eds.), Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (4th Ed., pp. 593-626). New York: Facts on File, 1992.
6. Stotland N. "The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268(15): 2078-2079.
7. David HP. "Commentost-abortion trauma." Abortion Review Incorporating Abortion Research Notes, Spring, 1996, 59: 1-3.
8. Russo NF, Dabul, AJ. "The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference?" Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1997, 28(1): 1-9.


Impressive, n'est ce pas?
So, let's see your "sources".
C'mon, lay em on the table. What've you got?
Let me guess: luvthatfetus.org? godhatesbabymurderers.com? :roll:

 

[DeeJayH]

all i see is alleged sources
not links
if the info is so readily available were are teh links to them?
this looks like a very nicely prepared paper
but it proves nothing because i do not have a library in my Living room to read each of your 'references'

A for effort
F for substance

 

[1069]

i do not have a library in my Living room to read each of your 'references'

No doubt you have internet service, though. look them up.
To view articles and studies on JAMA, you have to be a registered member, but registration is free.
The APA website is free; you just go there.
C'mon, do your own homework.
Just think of the prestige and the number of brownie points that would be involved if you actually managed to discredit me. Let that be your incentive to actually do this research yourself.
You don't stand much of a chance of doing that if I provide you with links, now do you?

 

[DeeJayH]

.
C'mon, do your own homework.
Just think of the prestige and the number of brownie points that would be involved if you actually managed to discredit me.

on my list of motivations that rates about 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
you made the allegation you back it up without pasting somebody elses thesis

 

[DeeJayH]

exposed for the bullshit you are
1069s eloquent post is a copy and paste.........................from
National Abortion Federation: Post-Abortion Issues

Research studies indicate that emotional responses to legally induced abortion are largely positive. They also indicate that emotional problems resulting from abortion are rare and less frequent than those following childbirth (Adler, 1989; Kero et al., 2004).
The vast majority of studies conducted in the last 25 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect, except when pre-abortion emotional problems exist or when a wanted pregnancy is terminated, such as after diagnostic genetic testing (Adler, 1989; Adler et al., 1990; Russo & Denious, 2001).
For most women who have had abortions, the procedure represents a maturing experience, a successful coping with a personal crisis situation (DeVeber et al., 1991; Kero et al., 2004; Lazarus, 1985; Russo & Zierk, 1992; Zabin et al., 1989). In fact, the most prominent emotional response of most women to first-trimester abortions is relief (Adler et al., 1990; Armsworth, 1991; Kero et al., 2004; Lazarus, 1985; Miller, 1996).
Up to 98 percent of the women who have abortions have no regrets and would make the same choice again in similar circumstances (Dagg, 1991).
More than 70 percent of women who have abortions express a desire for children in the future (Torres & Forrest, 1988). There is no evidence that women who have had abortions make less loving or suitable parents (Bradley, 1984).
Women who have had one abortion do not suffer adverse psychological effects. In fact, as a group, they have higher self-esteem, greater feelings of worth and capableness, and fewer feelings of failure than do women who have had no abortions or who have had repeat abortions (Russo & Zierk, 1992; Zabin et al., 1989). A recent two-year study of the psychological effects of abortion confirmed that most women do not experience psychological problems or regrets two years after their abortion. (Major et al., 2000).
A study of a group of teenagers who obtained pregnancy tests at one of two Baltimore clinics found that the young women who chose to have abortions were far more likely to graduate from high school at the expected age than those of similar socioeconomic status who carried their pregnancies to term or who were not pregnant. They showed no greater levels of stress at the time of the pregnancy and abortion and no greater rate of psychological problems two years after the abortion than did the other women (Zabin et al., 1989).
The positive relationship of abortion to well-being may be due in part to abortion's role in controlling fertility and its relationship to coping resources (Russo & Dabul, 1997; Russo & Zierk, 1992).

A Summary of the Scientific Research

Since the early 1980s, groups opposed to abortion have attempted to document the existence of "post-abortion syndrome," which they claim has traits similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) demonstrated by some war veterans. In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this field to review the data. They reported that the studies with the most scientifically rigorous research designs consistently found no trace of "post-abortion syndrome" and furthermore, that no such syndrome is scientifically or medically recognized.1

The panel concluded that "research with diverse samples, different measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress."2 While some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and happiness.3

In another study, researchers surveyed a national sample of 5,295 women, not all of whom had had abortions, and many of whom had abortions between 1979 and 1987, the time they were involved in the study. The researchers were able to learn about women's emotional well-being both before and after they had abortions. They concluded at the end of the eight-year study that the most important predictor of emotional well-being in post-abortion women was their well-being before the abortion. Women who had high self-esteem before an abortion would be most likely to have high self-esteem after an abortion, regardless of how many years passed since the abortion.4

Psychological responses to abortion must also be considered in comparison to the psychological impact of alternatives for resolving an unwanted pregnancy (adoption or becoming a parent). While there has been little scientific research about the psychological consequences of adoption, researchers speculate that it is likely "that the psychological risks for adoption are higher for women than those for abortion because they reflect different types of stress. Stress associated with abortion is acute stress, typically ending with the procedure. With adoption, as with unwanted childbearing, however, the stress may be chronic for women who continue to worry about the fate of the child."5

What the Experts Say

In a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Nada Stotland, M.D., former president of the Association of Women Psychiatrists, stated:

"Significant psychiatric sequelae after abortion are rare, as documented in numerous methodologically sound prospective studies in the United States and in European countries. Comprehensive reviews of this literature have recently been performed and confirm this conclusion. The incidence of diagnosed psychiatric illness and hospitalization is considerably lower following abortion than following childbirth...Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example, abandonment."6

Henry P. David, PhD, an internationally known scholar in this area of research, reported the following at an international conference.

"Severe psychological reactions after abortion are infrequent...the number of such cases is very small, and has been characterized by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop as 'minuscule from a public health perspective'...For the vast majority of women, an abortion will be followed by a mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive feelings. This holds immediately after abortion and for some time afterward...the positive picture reported up to eight years after abortion makes it unlikely that more negative responses will emerge later."7

Russo and Dabul reported their conclusions of an eight-year study in Professional Psychology:

"Although an intensive examination of the data was conducted, controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent: The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any, independent role in women's well-being over time, regardless of race or religion. The major predictor of a woman's well-being after an abortion, regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming pregnant...Our findings are congruent with those of others, including the National Academy of Sciences (1975), and the conclusion is worth repeating. Despite a concerted effort to convince the public of the existence of a widespread and severe postabortion trauma, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of such trauma, even though abortion occurs in the highly stressful context of an unwanted pregnancy."8

References

1. American Psychological Association. "APA research review finds no evidence of 'post-abortion syndrome' but research studies on psychological effects of abortion inconclusive." Press release, January 18, 1989.
2. Adler NE, et al. "Psychological responses after abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.
3. Adler NE, et al. "Psychological factors in abortion: a review." American Psychologist, 1992, 47(10): 1194-1204.
4. Russo NF, Zierk KL. "Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992, 23(4): 269-280.
5. Russo NF. "Psychological aspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution." In J.D. Butler and D.F. Walbert (eds.), Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (4th Ed., pp. 593-626). New York: Facts on File, 1992.
6. Stotland N. "The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268(15): 2078-2079.
7. David HP. "Commentost-abortion trauma." Abortion Review Incorporating Abortion Research Notes, Spring, 1996, 59: 1-3.
8. Russo NF, Dabul, AJ. "The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference?" Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1997, 28(1): 1-9.


Impressive, n'est ce pas?
So, let's see your "sources".
C'mon, lay em on the table. What've you got?
Let me guess: luvthatfetus.org? godhatesbabymurderers.com? :roll:

impressive? NO
pathetic to pass it off as your own? YES
or maybe 1069 is only a bot :2wave:

 

[1069]

on my list of motivations that rates about 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
you made the allegation you back it up without pasting somebody elses thesis

Do you actually believe this is a convincing rebuttal?
The sources for this information are right there, and they are prestigious, reputable, nationally and internationally renowned medical journals and organizations, and you can access them as easily as I can.
So can anybody else on this forum.

 

[1069]

exposed for the bullshit you are
1069s eloquent post is a copy and paste.........................from
National Abortion Federation: Post-Abortion Issues


impressive? NO
pathetic to pass it off as your own? YES
or maybe 1069 is only a bot :2wave:

Hardly; I've posted this information twice before on this forum, with a link to NAF. I didn't link to NAF this time, because the first half of the studies didn't come from NAF.
There's nothing to "pass off as my own", because there's nothing there except references to various studies, which you continue to deny the validity of, while insisting you will not even look at them unless I provide the links.
You couldn't access the links if I did provide them, without registering first.
If you register with JAMA, and if you're truly incapable of utilizing their search feature and finding these studies yourself, then I suppose I will provide you with the links.
Although I don't think it will do much good; you seem like the type who would be likely to discount all of the most prestigious medical organizations in the US as being part of a left-wing conspiracy, and seek medical information instead at shouldakeptyourlegsshut.net. :roll:

 

[DeeJayH]

Hardly; I've posted this information twice before on this forum, with a link to NAF. I didn't link to NAF this time, because the first half of the studies didn't come from NAF.
There's nothing to "pass off as my own", because there's nothing there except references to various studies, which you continue to deny the validity of, while insisting you will not even look at them unless I provide the links.
You couldn't access the links if I did provide them, without registering first.
If you register with JAMA, and if you're truly incapable of utilizing their search feature and finding these studies yourself, then I suppose I will provide you with the links.
Although I don't think it will do much good; you seem like the type who would be likely to discount all of the most prestigious medical organizations in the US as being part of a left-wing conspiracy, and seek medical information instead at shouldakeptyourlegsshut.net. :roll:

actually i discount posters who post info as if it were there own
like it was sooooooooooo hard to copy the web address while you posting 'your reply'
:rofl

 

[1069]

actually i discount posters who post info as if it were there own
like it was sooooooooooo hard to copy the web address while you posting 'your reply'
:rofl

Deejay, I've posted this same list of studies at least two and probably more like four other times on this forum.
Always with a link.
See?

link

I would hardly be trying to pass off something (what? A list of scientific studies available for anyone to read at JAMA and the APA site?) as "my own", when I've already posted it numerous times on this very forum, with a link. Duh. :roll:

If you really think this behavior of yours is distracting people from the impact of the information I've posted (again), I believe you are mistaken.

 

[FallingPianos]

First of all if abortion became only legal to protect the mother's life,that abortion should only be peformed in a hospital by a real doctors not abortionist and that determination should be made by a real doctor not a abortionist.

As for percentage I think it would have to be one of those situations were multiple pro-life doctors are telling the woman that she has a strong chance of dieing or that she will die.But I think around a 1 in 3 chance is acceptable,unless that is a normal risk in many countries then it should be a 1 in 2 chance.

thats one of the only straight forward answers I've recieved.

 

[Felicity]

I don't think that is fair. I'm not pro-life or pro-choice. I am Pro-informed. ............
Now I am not sure what group you would put me in but not all pro-choice people want "on demand abortions".

This is why I've been hassling you about being clear about what you actually support. I wanted to see what your position really was.

Per your own position, you would be "classified" as Pro-choice and despite your apparent objection to the notion, you also are in support of "abortion on demand" though you would limit a woman to 12 weeks based upon the statistical odds of miscarriage. The problem with that logic is two-fold, and I pointed that out already.
1. women "naturally" miscarry at all stages of pregnancy--not just in the first 12 weeks.
2. it is convoluted and flawed reasoning to rationalize killing unborn life that is surviving based upon the number of unborns that do not survive. The two are not related except by gestational age. A parallel would be to justify killing a human being over 80 years old because statistically, most humans do not live past that age.

After trying to pull out what you "actually" think about the issue (and that is why I was questioning you), one has to come to the conclusion that you are in favor of abortion, but also harbor a distaste for what abortion is--after the questioning, I conclude that you haven't thought much beyond what you "think is fair" at first blush. It works for you and you accept it and don't try to think more deeply about the implications of your conclusions because (and I'm speculating--but this is usually how it is with people who claim to be both for and against abortion and I'm not trying to be insulting so I hope you don't take offense) then you may have to change the way you act, or confront something about yourself you don't particularly like.

That is an extremely common practice. As with many "fence-sitters" (as 1069 termed it), your conclusions concerning the life of the unborn are lost amid your desire to allow women to kill their unborn offspring. And you think no further than your seemingly "practical" conclusion. I was trying to get you to look at what it is about the pre-12 week fetus that would allow a logical conclusion that his life was of less "value" than a 13 week fetus, but you were obviously very resistant and continued to justify arbitrarily devaluing the 12 week old life based on criteria that is logically flawed. --Why not? It works for you. You can claim a moral high ground by claiming to value life, while at the same time avoiding the issues in abortion that go to the root of what makes life valuable. It is a way to RATIONALIZE abortion and morality.

 

[Felicity]

Your last post is fine.
The fortunate thing about the existence of people like Felicity is that they unwittingly incite resistance in moderates and centrists.

Obviously, 1069, I am not so much concerned about people being on "my side" as I am about the reality of the issue. "People like Felicity" are interested in exposing the TRUTH--whether it suits their political stripe or not. It's not about politics. If a "moderate's" logic is lacking, I'll discuss that just as fully as if some whacked out liberal has flawed logic.

The stridence and extremism ("Hormonal contraception kills babies!") are such that even the most passive and mild-mannered of fencesitters (not to say you are that) are ultimately compelled to object.

Rationalization is no excuse for an illogical argument. BTW--please quote me where I said "...kills babies"--I know your silly games and don't play into that emotional appeal crap. Nice try:roll: --it is evidence of your insencerity and your need to mischaracterize my position to attempt to make your point.