Big Lies for Abortion >>MOD WARNING<<

Onus is on you to provide credible substantiation for this canard.

 

Based on the timing I am going to guess that you want to defend the first item in your list as the strongest evidence to support your position.

I read that as "Gissler et al, 1996" which (since you did not post a link for it) I believe represents:
Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987&#8211;94: register linkage study by Gissler (and others)
http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7070/1431

First, I wonder why did they select this population instead of a population in the United States? Is prostitution legal there? Yes (excluding public areas). So let's look at the demographics.

Finland has a population of 5,500,000 from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland
Finland male/female ratio is approximately 1/1 which means about 2,750,000
Finland has about 4,000 prostitutes from: http://people.exeter.ac.uk/watupman/undergrad/aac/suomi.htm

That works out to about 1.45 prostitutes per 1000 women in Finland.

Prostitution is a significant issue in Finland.
Example: http://yle.fi/uutiset/teen_prostitution_a_silent_problem_in_finland/6671108

Does Gissler record information about the occupation of these subjects? Yes, occupation was included. Note this paragraph:
Low social class and poor social support have been connected with risk factors for suicide after birth. The risk for postnatal depression is greater for women with low income or with occupational instability, and puerperal psychoses are more common among young mothers and women with poor social support. Social class has also been found to be associated with all mental disorders after an abortion. Data from the abortion register showed that women in the lowest social class were highly over-represented among women who committed suicide. We did not, however, have complete information on social class in our data. No control group for social class after birth and miscarriage and for the general population was available. In addition, the social class was based only on the mother's occupation.

The author has information about mother's occupation in the data, but lumps it into one of three broad "social classes" (refering to Table 1). Note in Table 1 the author says "Social class in abortion register is based on its own classification and in medical birth register on mothers' education (in 1991 only); they are not comparable with each other."

There are no charts to show how abortions and suicides are distributed over the given social classes, but the author does mention in the text "Complete information on social class was available only for suicides associated with abortion: 61% of these women belonged to the lowest of three social groups, while 41% of all women who had had an abortion belonged to this group (P=0.06)"

Although social class is mentioned, the author fails to mention prostitutes, or the special risks associated with that occupation. He does not tell us enough about his three social classes to determine where prostitution might be classified.

In his conclusion, the author acknowledges that this study does not prove causality:
The relation between suicide, mental disorders, life events, social class, and social support is a complex one.23 Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully. Our data clearly show, however, that women who have experienced an abortion have an increased risk of suicide, which should be taken into account in the prevention of such deaths.
As the author suggests, there is no evidence that abortions caused any suicide, but it would be prudent to pay more attention to helping women who have had an abortion since the abortion itself might be a clue that they are at risk of suicide.

I would trust this study more than Reardon's Denmark study, but:
(1) it does not account for the increased risks associated with prostitution and
(2) it does not conclude that abortions cause suicides (assuming that was the reason you listed this study).

Do you want to explain what you think this study proves, or would you prefer to defend a different study?

If you are silent on the issue I will assume you concur with my analysis.

 

You object to Reardon and some others because you don't like the results. If only people without an opinion of the subject could be believed, then that leaves ALL of them out. Reardon is no more partisan than the APA or AGI. Only those who are pro killing innocent babies rufuses to accept any kind of valid study.

 

"""""As the author suggests, there is no evidence that abortions caused any suicide, but it would be prudent to pay more attention to helping women who have had an abortion since the abortion itself might be a clue that they are at risk of suicide.""""




<Mod Edit>

- - - Updated - - -

All of these difficulties were well illustrated by a recent and very public exchange that took place in the pages of the British Medical Journal. This dispute concerned the findings of two groups of researchers who had used data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY) to examine links between abortion and major depression in young women. The first paper was prepared by Reardon & Cougle (2002a), who were aligned with the US pro-life Elliot Institute. Their research found that married women exposed to abortion had odds of major depression that were 2.38 (95% CI 1.09-5.21) times of married women who had unwanted pregnancy but did not seek abortion. These findings held after control for a number of prospectively-measured covariates. In a second paper, Schmiege & Russo (2005) re-analysed the NLSY data and produced an analysis that purported to show that, when a different sample selection method was employed, there was no significant association between abortion and depression

 

Amazing, I list a biography of studies, and one does says that that study does not support suicide. So what? Each study addresses the subject with differient psychosis, yet they nit pick over one minor point. Wow! READ THEM ALL AND POINT OUT ANY THAT DO NOT SUPPORT MY ASSERTION TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER.

So one supports my position and one supports yours. Different groups of N always vary, based on the questions asked and the persons asking the questions. Those 30+ studies are more representative of harm, and they may be different issues studied. Like depression, PTSD, PAS, suicide, hallucinations et al. If you have any questions about any of those studies take it up with he who made the study. Abortions harms women from one study which says 20 to 30% and another states up to 60%. <Mod Edit>

 

Name one study that reports post abortion hallucinations. LOL

 

How can a reasonable person compare the murder of a million babies to execution of capital criminals or men who die in a just war? It is beyond me. Or if a man and woman have sex he owns the woman? Never heard of an instance of that. But if that sex results in pregnancy the child is half of each and BOTH should recognize the parenthood.

 

Silence does not mean concurrence, especially from such a biased comment you made. If the study showed psychosis (which it did) it is not up to anyone to judge the morality or sexual practices of the subjects. That study is valid on the surface on only those who believe in killing innocent children in the womb. None of the arguments presented are unbiased on this forum. My studies quoted, fall on the side of psychosis, period. Yours are just as partisan or biased and are political propaganda.

 

I can be happy that abortion is legal and safe.

I can celebrate that most Americans protect the rights of women and don't treat them like cattle or children who must be controlled.

I can celebrate that women don't need permission from anyone to have an abortion.

I can celebrate that the "father" cannot have a say so he can't force a woman to have a baby...... or force a woman to have an abortion

 

No... I object to Reardon because, instead of studying a population group in the United States, he goes to Finland or Denmark (where prostitution is legal, and more likely to result in abortions in a subgroup with higher risks), he fails to account for prostitution risks in his write-up, and then presents it as if it proves anything about the general population. If Reardon did that study as a graduate student, I would just say he was inept and needed to rework the study. However, Reardon is experienced and clearly knew that he needed to load the study with women who would both (a) have lots of abortions and (b) be exposed to increased risk of death (in ways that he could pretend he did not consider).

Maybe that does not reek of unethical behavior to you, but it would to an objective observer.

I fully expect that you will claim my analysis is biased. Show me where Reardon addressed the risks of prostitution. Other readers can see my post (just before yours) indicating that I have a better opinion of Gissler's study. That is because he did make an attempt to consider the social class (although he, too, neglected to consider the special risks of prostitution). Gissler also provided a more honest analysis in that he does not claim abortion causes suicide, but that it is a warning sign (If a woman has an abortion, she might be in one of these groups who is also at risk for suicide). Gissler's study is more honest (but does not prove what you seem to be trying to prove).

 

As I suggested before, pick the study that best supports your case. One that will knock out the pro-choice position. Provide a link to it and tell us what you think it proves, so we can discuss it. We can throw lists of references at each other all day but that does not move the discussion forward. It just proves we all know how to cut and paste.

 

I believe your post was in reference to this (the Reply with Quote function would help here):

You claim this study shows psychosis, but I can only find this text in the introduction:
Childbirth has an impact on the mental health of women. Short term postnatal &#8220;blues&#8221; are experienced by 45&#8211;70% of women. An increased risk of non-psychotic depression after a delivery has been reported. The incidence of puerperal psychosis is 1.7 per 1000 live births. The initial stress effect of having a child, however, is transitional, and overall having a child has positive effects on women's mental health.
Note that the author is just leading us into his thought process here. He starts out acknowledging that a lot is already known about:
(1) Short term postnatal &#8220;blues&#8221; are experienced by 45&#8211;70% of women. (applies to childbirth - not abortion)
(2) An increased risk of non-psychotic depression after a delivery (applies to childbirth - not abortion)
(3) The incidence of puerperal psychosis is 1.7 per 1000 live births (applies to childbirth - not abortion)

Then he goes on to say (getting closer to the purpose of his study):
Reports of mental complications after an induced abortion are controversial. Puerperal psychosis is rare (0.3 per 1000 abortions), but depression is more common (13&#8211;41%). Long term follow up studies, however, have documented more positive reactions and fewer undesirable feelings than short term studies.
According to Gissler,
(1) Puerperal psychosis is rare (0.3 per 1000 abortions)
(2) Depression is more common (13&#8211;41%)
(3) Long term follow up studies, however, have documented more positive reactions and fewer undesirable feelings than short term studies.
Note this is the only abortion-related reference to psychosis and it indicates a much LOWER rate than for birth mothers (0.3 versus 1.7).

At the end of his Introduction, Gissler explains what he plans to do in this study:
We determined the incidence of suicides up to one year after the end of a pregnancy by using national health registers. We analysed suicide rates by the type of pregnancy (birth, induced abortion, or miscarriage) and by background characteristics of the mothers.

Note: Gissler is not trying to evaluate the risk of psychosis. He accepts that as 0.3 per 1000 abortions. He is trying to determine if there is a correlation between women who have abortions and women who are at risk for suicide.

The only thing we learn about psychosis from this study is that the rate (0.3 per 1000 abortions) is lower than birth (1.7 per 1000 live births). If that is what you are trying to prove, you might want to select a different study to defend.

We do learn from this study that the same women (in Finland) who get abortions are more likely to commit suicide than their neighbors. However, as Gissler states in his conclusion:
Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons.

Regarding your comment: "it is not up to anyone to judge the morality or sexual practices of the subjects"
I was not judging the morality or sexual practices of the subjects and did not expect Gissler to do so. I merely point out that prostitution is an occupation that involves more risks (and possibly attracts women who are outside the norm). In a study that includes so many sex workers, it is irresponsible to ignore the impact on physical and mental health of the subjects.

I have explained why I believe this study does not support your claim that abortion causes significant psychosis. The ball is in your court. You may want to defend your position with this study, or select a different study to defend, or accept this analysis.

 

I could not have said it better. I think we can put this issue to rest. <Mod Edit>

 

But you guys could have said something more accurately. Your comments ignore MANY MANY studies which prove categorically that there is post abortion psychosis which backs up my personal experience as a psychologist when I spent working with a Psychiatrist in counseling post abortion psychosis. He worked with the more tragic cases while I worked with common depression and guilt feelings. They amounted to about 20% of our case load. <Mod Edit>

 

part about childbirth.Of course you read the entire study. Not! you only posted the part about live birth. Abortion is much more serious for psychosis. Keep reading, you have a long way to go. The link to that study SAID it was about birth, so nice to cherry pick. Typical of what has been going on since the beginning of this discussion.

 

If you read the next paragraph (in that same post) I continued on to discuss what Gissler said about abortions:
(1) Puerperal psychosis is rare (0.3 per 1000 abortions)
(2) Depression is more common (13–41%)
(3) Long term follow up studies, however, have documented more positive reactions and fewer undesirable feelings than short term studies.

Gissler only discussed psychosis in the introduction and I described what I found:
0.3 psychosis per 1000 abortions is lower than 1.7 psychosis per 1000 live births.

 

What Gissler said confirms my assertion. (2) Depression is more common (13&#8211;41%), which is a huge % of women having abortions. And you overlook his discussion about PTSD and PAS. Read the WHOLE study.

 

http://afterabortion.org/2002/abortion-clinical-depression-linked-in-major-study/ Abortion and Clinical Depression Linked in Major Study
"Springfield, IL (January 18, 2002) &#8212; This week the prestigious British Medical Journal published a study showing 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. Note, that 2 studies by Gissler, one about live birth and the other about post abortion psychosis. Quoting from one has nothing to do with the other. <Mod Edit>

For a start: Results: There were 73 suicides associated with pregnancy, representing 5.4% of all suicides in women in this age group. The mean annual suicide rate was 11.3 per 100 000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9) and the rates associated with miscarriage (18.1) and INDUCED ABORTION (34.7) were significantly higher than in the population. The risk associated with birth was higher among teenagers and that associated with abortion was increased in all age groups. Women who had committed a suicide tended to come from lower social classes and were more likely to be unmarried than other women who had had a completed pregnancy.

M. Gissler, &#8220;Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,&#8221; European J. Public Health 15(5):459 63,2005.

<Mod Edit>

 

Evil has nothing to do with it, evil is nothing more than a religious ideology and has no bearing on legality. BYW cherry picking posts just because you think it makes you right is dishonest.

Whether the fetus is innocent or not does not change the reality that it cannot impose onto another person without consent, the innocence in this case merely means it cannot be prosecuted for any injury it causes due to it's lack of mens rea (guilty mind) that in no way changes the right of the female to stop the unborn from injuring her if she so wishes .. just as you can stop a mentally incompetent person from injuring you, even though they have no intent and are innocent.

Where would you like to start?

Lie number 1. You claim abortion is murder, murder is a legal definition and means "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.", the last I looked abortion is legal and as such CANNOT be murder as murder is an "unlawful" action.

Lie number 2. You claim that the unborn are "babies", baby is in essence a medical definition that refers to born people aged between birth and approx 1 year old, the unborn have numerous designations including zygote, enbryo and fetus . .baby is not one of them. What ever common use language calls the unborn is not relevant and as a self-proclaimed profession you should know that anything other is nothing more than dishonesty.

Lie number 3. You claim people who support the females right to choose are abortionists, and abortionists is a person that has been trained and qualified as a doctor, unless you are asserting that ALL pro-choice people are trained and qualified doctors then you are lying by calling them abortionists.

Lie number 4. You claim that pro-choice people "dehumanize" the unborn, and yet it is not us that lie about their designation, it is not us that keep trying to project that the unborn are not human . .that would be pro-lifers and again are lies.

Any more things you would like to have pointed out as lies?

 

What you will never understand is that women will always have abortions.

It doesn't matter what studies you put forth ...even if you could actually prove abortion has a mental health affect on women SO WHAT?

What are you going to use this "proof" for? Taking away women's rights to live like everyone else? That won't happen


You will never get abortion banned...and even if it was banned abortions will still happen


Soldiers who go to war and women who give birth suffer from depression and other mental illness......are you going to try to ban war and pregnancy???

 

If you see a child drowning you have no obligation to save that child in the first place, you have jumped the gun by attempting to place the act of rescue above the act of deciding whether to rescue or not.

It is her body that is being used by another person, whether that life is "defenceless" (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant, or are you suggesting that a defenceless person who attaches themselves to you over rules your right to disconnect them, even if it means their death?

It isn't just "law", it is one of the fundamental foundations of your country that the state cannot force you to allow your body to be used by another person REGARDLESS of the circumstances involved, so unless you want to rip up your constitution and start again it is one thing that will NEVER change.

and yet you have failed on every count to refute a single thing ... ego not withstanding.

- - - Updated - - -

It is immoral to you, what other people think doesn't have to aline with your desires .. but no doubt you would like to force them to.

- - - Updated - - -

already done.

- - - Updated - - -

Another lie.

 

LOL . .the whole of that has been debunked numerous times.

For one there is no comparison with data concerning births ie it is a biased report.

 

Again no inclusion of any pre-existing mental issues prior to abortion.

 

You cite official records concerning abortion BEFORE abortion was legal tell me how many women were seriously injured or died that did not attend a hospital so that it could be recorded. This comparison is almost as inane as the much spouted "abortion sky-rocketed after Roe" one.

1. The ethics of abortion, there are a range of ethical considerations concerning abortion, just because you consider it ethically wrong does not mean you can force that opinion onto all others. You consider it ethically wrong for a woman to elect to have an abortion, I consider it ethically wrong for the state or any other person to force a woman to remain pregnant. I also consider it ethically wrong to force another person to sustain injuries they have not consented to.

2. Laws against abortion, wrong. Extrapolation of records prior to Roe show that there were 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

3. there is no evidence that illegal abortions are more dangerous than legal abortions. One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women&#8212;nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.

It makes no sense either for the state to take control over peoples bodies in order to further the agenda of others. The ethics of abortion are many and varied, just because your ethical ideology points one way does not mean you have the right to force that onto others, and neither does the state, as to the unborn being defenceless that is a pile of horse crap, if the unborn were defenceless none would be born, the unborn has to suppress the local immune reaction of the female in order to maintain the pregnancy, if it didn't her immune system would attack and destroy the embryo even before it implanted.

- - - Updated - - -

<Rule 2>

 

PAS is a myth, it is not a recognised condition by any accredited organisation, such as the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association.

ALL the research that points to PAS has been shown to be unreliable due to many factors, including no inclusion of prior mental issues and biased reporting.