What pro-choicers are up against

This is the Roe v. Wade anniversary press release from Operation Rescue:

I might say that this is what the anti-choice brigade is up against. ;)

Watched a re-run of a documentary on Phelps a couple of weeks ago. (Thought it was on CBC, but it seems not, so I can't link to it.) As far as I can tell, he's never had a convert outside his (unusually large) family.

So he must be doing something wrong!

Seriously, I know, he's an integral part of the ongoing threat to the life and safety of anyone involved in providing abortion services in the US as long as he breathes. But in terms of public policy, he's a wiener. And he makes a fine poster boy.


edit ... oh, oops. Fred Phelps, Flip Benham. Westboro Baptist, Operation Rescue, Army of God ... . I'm supposed to know how to distinguish them? ;)

would not name their child "Flip".

I've run into this one in debating anti-choicers. They are using both the bible and some secular sources. I gave a real weak response to this statement:

"The fact is that many women who have an abortion go on to have emotional/psychiatric problems later on, if not immediately, afterword."

My response was basically that you can't cast many women with such a blanket statement because an equally true statement would be that many would be secure enough in the decision not to have such a response.

The response I got was "heartless killers". I was at a loss as to where to go from here without slipping into angry rants.

Does anyone have a better retort to these statements?

The response I got was "heartless killers".

-- you might decide that attempting to debunk anything at all was a complete waste of time.

Others here can provide you with a plethora of links to studies (of the "real" variety) showing that no link can be demonstrated between abortion and any of the variety of ills and woes that the anti-choice brigade attributes to it.

Even if there could ... what then? Outlaw bicycling because some people will break a leg?

I think your right about needing the references. They claimed to be backing their claims with data. I know its a waste of time, but debating these people isn't for mine or their benefit its for the audience lurking around.

Thanks!

debating these people isn't for mine or their benefit its for the audience lurking around.

It didn't click that you had an audience.

But don't forget, there are sometimes better ways -- generally offered up by them on a plate -- of making them look like fools and evildoers than just proving them wrong. More fun, too. ;) They've been proved wrong over and over again, so don't feel too responsible for doing it yet again.

btw, their data will come from sources like David Reardon. Google reardon abortion and you'll find him and his coterie of poor sad victims of abortion ("post abortion something-or-other syndrome": PASS). Here's a fun one:

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Anxiety/news/lorena_bobbitt.asp

"All the evidence presented at Lorena's trial supports the view that her psychiatric symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder were precipitated by a coerced abortion three days before their first wedding anniversary," explains David Reardon, author of the report.

You remember Lorena.

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association:

"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."

A study published in

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-49SFDFT-2&_user=1098731&_handle=B-WA-A-A-WV-MsSAYWA-UUA-AUEWWYEACU-AUYEYZEECU-CAZAZCDUV-WV-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235925%232004%23999419987%23493171!&_cdi=5925&view=c&_acct=C000051593&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1098731&md5=d2f2f678220fdabfb4c18e9d195aa90a showed the dominant feeling a year after an abortion is relief.

"The fact is that many women who have an abortion go on to have emotional/psychiatric problems later on, if not immediately, afterword."

It is also a fact that many women who bear children go on to have emotional/psychiatric problems later on, if not immediately afterword. Do they want us to stop giving birth?

Emotional/psychiatric problems also occur after heart surgery, cancer treatment, etc. The list goes on and on. The difference is that it is not as common in women after abortion as it is in the other instances.

Wot the heck, why not drag it into this thread too?

The thing is, though, that it's more relevant here than anywhere.

I mentioned David Reardon in my earlier reply to izzybeans. Well, here's David Reardon's latest effort:

http://www.afterabortion.org/MAR/MAR_linkpage.htm



All the big guns are there singing his praises: Willke, Crutcher ...

Well fuck me ... it's on teevee too:
http://www.afterabortion.org/MAR/schedule.htm
Lots of times this month, on a network called EWTN. And damned if that isn't on my own teevee, at least I think. I've seen it in the digital listings, but since I hadn't had any urge to subscribe to it, I hadn't thought much about it. Didn't realize it was just an exporter of fascist crap into my Canadian living room. And what luck, this is free preview month, so I may be able to catch a little of Rearson'd oeuvre ... and see what I can find to complain to the CRTC (equivalent of your FCC) about. ... Oh, damn damn damn. It was January 2004. Never mind.

Anyhoo. The Series, like the book, is called Making Abortion Rare. And episode 1 is called "Understanding the Keys to Ending Abortion". Huh. Rare just isn't good enough, I guess. He still wants us barbecued through and through.

You might not have known it, but "a non-judgmental love for those who have had abortions" is "the key to ending abortion for this and future generations".

Noooo, folks. Not accessible affordable birth control. Noooo, not economic equality for women. Not providing pregnant women with supports so that they could have a child if they wanted. Not creating jobs and funding post-secondary education and services for victims of sexual and physical abuse. Noooooooo. Unconditional love for them after they have abortion.

I know, it sounds crazy. I guess we'll all just have to buy the book.

In the meantime, my point. There comes a time when the words you want to use, because you think they are the best way of expressing what you mean, just don't work any more.

Now, I don't begrudge homosexual men the word "gay". They'd been denied quite enough stuff; it would be unseemly of me to fight them for control over three little letters they want for their very own. Use it in good health, I say.

You all might not feel as charitable toward the David Reardons of the world when it comes to "rare" as a modifier for "abortion". But you've lost the battle. Everybody may have known what Bill meant when he said it -- that he really did mean ensuring that women had ways of avoiding abortion, whether by not being pregnant or by not being impoverished and isolated and without resources, not because abortion is nasty, but because no one should ever have to have one.

But the anti-choice brigade has taken the motto away from you, has all but won a total victory in its efforts to portray people who want abortion to be "rare" because they want women to have better lives and not have pregnancies they are unable or unwilling to continue as people who think it is wrong for women to have abortions.

There's a point at which one cuts one's losses. Begrudge them the motto. Despise their dishonesty. Grieve that yet another nail has been hammered into the coffin of civil discourse. But walk away from abortion should be rare. It's a rotting corpse at this point, and hauling it around with you is just going to drain your energy and make you look like the ghouls who cut off its head and are now waving the skull around on a pole with your name on it. It's a word. Let it go and hope that it may rest in peace some day.

Many women (PLEASE take this in the spirt in which it is meant) have these issues anyway.
A lot of people who have unexpected pregnancies have other problems in their lives. So, if you are looking at a population of people who may be very young, lacking in education and wealth, you get these problems anyway(disclaimer- Obviously this doesn't apply to EVERY woman who has an abortion).

Also, what sort of emotional issues would she have if were forced to raise a kid she didn't want?

First of all, NOT having an abortion is NOT a guarantee that a woman won't develop emotional/psychiatric problems. Have they ever heard of post partum depression? Have they heard of the cases in Texas where women had children that they later went on to murder?

Speaking of which, what about the fact that some emotional/psychiatric problems are completely hereditary?

What about the women that have children that they go on to abuse because they are ill-equipped mentally, emotionally, and financially to care for the children on their own?

What about the women that are addicted to drugs or alcohol and they give birth to children that live short lives of misery, pain and addiction? Or the ones that live longer lives but are completely problematic because they have such severe emotional issues (because of the drug and alcohol addiction of the child)? Children that no one wants, because no one can control them or their behavioural issues?

And what about all the children that have AIDS, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or are born minority that no one wants to adopt? I bring this up because they seem hell bent on recommending adoption. The truth about adoption is that most children of color DO NOT get adopted. Moreover, any child that is not pristine, healthy, white and an infant gets adopted. Not every couple that adopts wants to parent a child with such issues, and most DO NOT get homes.

Are those enough reasons to counter the argument for you? ;)

I was looking for some more ammo to add to the arsenal. I just keep hearing this argument and don't want to be caught without an adequate number of words.

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."

If they mean it, then they're terrorists; and if they don't, they're posers.

It has been 32 years since that day of infamy on Jan. 22, 1973, when our Supreme Court unleashed the floodgates of hell and murder upon this nation.

You see what happens when you get all hysterical?

One opens floodgates, and one unleashes Hell's dogs. And I think that the stuff the floodgates are meant to hold back would be something other than Hades itself (which is not normally imagined to be a liquid).


:dunce:

You read it! Fortunately you did, or I'd have missed that little gem altogether.

*shudder* these people are insane

he's planning some violent operations in the near future. I can't prove that's what it meant though.