Are there any non-lunatic, non-religious arguments against abortion?

since someone asked "Are there any non-lunatic, non-religious arguments against homosexuality?" I will ask "Are there any non-lunatic, non-religious arguments against abortion?"

Your thoughts are appreciated.

though it can be a slippery slope

One State's governor essentially said that (a country favored by offshoring companies) has far more working adults than the entire US population with more soon to be able to work and then blithered on about productivity, et cetera...

Maybe if Tim Pawlenty encouraged Americans to breed more, jobs would come back? :eyes:

I'm conflicted a little about this issue, and I am not nearly as pro-choice as I used to be. Hard to explain it, but I'd accept some restrictions on abortion.

I have a really disgusting story. We used to have a female guitarist in my band, and she'd get pregnant often, then wait a few months to have an abortion because she liked the way her boobs looked.

I mean, honestly, do you think someone who thought that way would be in any way a suitable parent for a CHILD? Please.

Your argument is not against abortion per se. But is is an argument FOR abortion. However, this is a decision that only the woman can decide, right?

I would fight to the death for Roe vs. Wade but I am not nearly as comfortable with abortion as I used to be. In fact, it is a life. My cousin was born at 6 months...a fully developed, two arms, two legs, etc. baby. I have had an abortion but I hate it when people just use it for birth control. I knew someone just like the person you know. I stopped being friends with a woman because she had four abortions just because she was too fucking lazy to use birth control.
Lee

entertainment???????

I have a problem with it being used as PRIMARY birth control, especially if it keeps happening, but it sure as hell needs to be available as BACKUP birth control. We really don't need to be going down the slippery slope of judging whether or not any given woman made a sincere enough attempt to avoid pregnancy in the first place, do we???????

but I'm perfectly comfortable judging someone who had unprotected sex on a more than freakishly infrequent basis.

II don't the woman you're judging so harshly; maybe she was a fuckup, maybe there was something going on she didn't feel comfortable discussing with someone so judgmental. In either case, since you deem her to be "too fucking lazy" would you have rather she had four children instead of four abortions? If she's "too fucking lazy" to use birth control, wouldn't she be "too fucking lazy" to go through all those prenatal visits, aand then tedium of infant/child care? I just don't get what's so bad about her not being pregnant if she's so beneath contempt. You'd really wish someone like that on helpless children? Help me understand.

sorry it came through twice

despicable actions of a single irresponsible WHORE? Get real.

what you mean?

The story is BULLSHIT...didn't happen, the storyteller is lying. The only "bashing" going on is the line of bullshit being spread knee-deep by the person i was responding to.

I was just having fun wit' 'im...wanting him to spread it a little deeper.

It was kinda like those stories about the Katrina refugees spending their assistance money on recreational abortions, cigarrettes and lottey tickets.

in my response to him. my apologies

Are you insulting me because it doesn't fit with what you want to be true?

It is a disgusting story, not an argument against abortion rights, it's just something that happened when we were on the road. But hey, thanks for the knee jerk, predictable response...

174. I have trouble believing your shock-value story.

Being pregnant isn't fun, and abortions are not enjoyable. Maybe she was trying to shock you guys with her comments, to make herself seem outrageous. I have trouble believing she was putting herself through all that just for a swollen bustline.

I've heard the same story from the anti-choice side under slightly different guises before.

I haven't hearrd this variant before, but pregnancy/abortion for boob beauty? Obviously made up by someone who doesn't understand what pregnancy does to the breasts (and when).

I don't believe someone would get pregnant to make her boobs look better because they really look worse in the long run.

Should she have had these babies? Should she have had mental health counseling? Should she have had access to hormones or breast enhancement surgery? Not sure what the point of this story is, even if it were true.

Being pregnant isn't fun, and abortions are not enjoyable. Maybe she was trying to shock you guys with her comments, to make herself seem outrageous. I have trouble believing she was putting herself through all that just for a swollen bustline.

But that seems, well, unlikely is the term I will choose. I could also put it "my arm is a human? Yeah fucken right"

:)

but your arm does not compare to a fetus.
Your arm doesn't have a brain and heart and lungs, if left in place for 9 months it would not become a breathing person apart from you.

A fetus is a human fetus. A fetus does have life, though it is a parasite on it's host.

I remember back in college I was the only one in my women's psychology class to say the fetus was alive. People were shocked because I was known as so "liberated" and strongly pro-choice.

But I don't think we win the debate by denying what it is. Let's say someone got in a bad accident and the prognosis was they'd have to be hooked to a machine for close to a year and then relearn things but they would learn and though it would take many years, even a couple decades, they'd be fully functional and able to care for themselves. Would unplugging them be ending a life? I think so.

The difference is the embryo is in another human and that human mother matters! Pregnancy has huge effects on health, well being, social status and so much else. She should never be forced to be the incubator for another being

But it is a being, even if independent life is only a potential. Ask those who grieve their miscarriages, they did not lose just a bunch of cells. The WANTED bunch of cells is not different physically than an unwanted bunch of cells.

But it the choice of the pregnant woman has to take priority, taking into account all the factors at that time and place in her life. To me that is "pro-life" to let people make their own best choice.

I was talking about the definition of human - and said that if human DNA were the criteria then my arm would be considered human, if it were seperated from me.

While I agree that there is potential in a fetus, I still do not think of anything without (as in, completely without) a brain is human. Heart and lungs? If I lose them, I remain human. It's only the brain - mind you, practically any brain will do. (As in, people with disabilities are no less human - there are not degrees or anything like that). Fetus is alive, yes, but not yet a human bieng.

A person who could relearn things is still alive, I agree.

I'm not denying a fetus has a heart, lungs, and enormous amounts of potential. But it's still not on equal standing just because it is alive.

On the rest of the stuff, I see we are in agreement.

And strange as I must seem, I won't start accusing you of being anti-choice.

it isn't equal standing, it can't be, it shouldn't be.

(Thanks for clearing up the arm thing)

I wish no one had to make the choice, life isn't perfect though.
The right to choose is a basic right

we did not need another flamewar to add to things.

Goodnight!

that a human fetus is ALIVE.

The real question is, is a fetus a PERSON with rights equal or superior to those of the woman whose womb it is residing in? IMHO, NO! Absolutely not, unless the women in question declares freely and without coercion that her fetus has equal or superior rights to her. No one else should ever be permitted to make that decision, unless the woman is truly unable to communicate her wishes due to coma or whatever.

I always thought there was a reason why the founders discussed natural-BORN citizens in the Constitution, rather than naturally-CONCEIVED citizens. But everyone just wants to overlook that petty detail.

In fact, I remember a Jewish couple whose fetus was lost at a late stage in the pregnancy. No service was held; it was not done in their religious community. Obviously that would not be the case with a baby that had been born. So there IS a difference that we recognize between fetalhood and life after birth.

If you don't want one, don't get one? Abortions are a minor surgery, with all the risks inherent. I am not balancing that with the risks of childbirth, just saying they do have risks. So does childbirth.

Make sure you have a reputable person doing it. But that is an argument about the provider, not the abortion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There is a point where the fetus becomes equally as important.

The argument is over where that point is.

than a kinetic one? How do you figure that? :shrug:

FYI, disclaimer to read first. I have worked hard most of my life to get abortions legal and keep them legal and well recognize the stupidity of talking about this late term abortions as their number is basically non-existent. I am only addressing the words "potential life" and "kinetic life".

If a fetus is 36 weeks along and able to survive outside the uterus, and does not threaten the life of the pregnant woman, does it have any sort of equality?

considering our circumstances on this earth today, for any unwanted live birth to occur. "Does not threaten the life of the pregnant woman," IN WHAT SENSE? Having a baby has the potential of threatening the life of the mother in many more ways than physical. Are you proffering the idea that women at 36 weeks flippantly decide they want out?

"A potential life, in your view, becomes more important than a kinetic one? How do you figure that?" I do not think 1 is more important, but at some point does a fetus have any sort of equality? This is a question. At what point?

Recognize also that childbirth can kill the baby too, and being born into a bad situation can also kill a baby.

Are you saying that a potential threat, in your view, becomes more important than a kinetic one? How do you figure that?


"Are you proffering the idea that women at 36 weeks flippantly decide they want out?" No. Did you read this part I wrote? I well recognize the stupidity of talking about this late term abortions as their number is basically non-existent.

To be clear, my view is NO. A fetus does NOT have the value of a live WOMAN who may have others who are dependent on her. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Childbirth can be FATAL to a MOTHER and bearing a child in hostile conditions can also be fatal to a MOTHER and/or her family.

All I am saying is that the choice to deliver a live birth is best decided by a woman, her significant others and her doctor. Everyone else needs to seek therapeutic help for indiscriminate crotch-sniffing obsessions.

I very much agree to this. "All I am saying is that the choice to deliver a live birth is best decided by a woman, her significant others and her doctor. Everyone else needs to seek therapeutic help for indiscriminate crotch-sniffing obsessions."

All I am saying is that at some point, the fetus does have importance.

Talking about late abortions being frivilously sought is silly. It must be assessed on an individual basis who has more rights to potentially continue to potentially live and the woman and her doctor are the ones who must decide. I know of no women seeking late term abortions unless there was a distinct need. "oh dear, I just don't feel like it today" type late term abortions may happen, as I try to never say never, but they sure as hell aren't common. Any type late term is uncommon.

I took care of a woman once who had gotten (oh hell, my words are slipping. Type of anaerobic bacteria that can grow in poorly canned foods, can't taste or smell, but can seriously harm/kill people who eat it) and was comatose in a hospital. Her fetus was doing ok. Doctor and family decided to maintain her on life support until baby was born. There was a posting elsewhere on DU yesterday about a woman who chose to not abort but continue pg to give birth, knowing that the hormones would harm her, make her cancer grow faster (she gave birth, did chemo, lived a while and died). A couple hard choices that each had to make.

Having worked in many aspects of this issue, I must say there are no easy answers, no right answer all the time, for many people involved. That said, I will continue to fight to keep choice legal, and affordable, and safely accessible.

i think i heard of a similar case

It was an odd thing, thinking about it more. The doctors wanted to try some sort treatment, but couldn't due to potential harm to fetus. So they had her highly sedated and on a respirator for 6 months. I left before baby was c-sectioned so don't know what happened. Hard choices to make.

I took care of a woman once who had gotten (oh hell, my words are slipping. Type of anaerobic bacteria that can grow in poorly canned foods, can't taste or smell, but can seriously harm/kill people who eat it) and was comatose in a hospital

when she has dependents or a spouse...............

I am single with no children. Does MY life have value?

are her business. As a living breathing human being it is SHE who is MOST affected by the fetus in her body. Her body. Her decision.

edit- using your rationale, there's nothing stopping a woman from having an abortion minutes before delivery.

All I am saying is that the choice to deliver a live birth is best decided by a woman, her significant others and her doctor. Everyone else needs to seek therapeutic help for indiscriminate crotch-sniffing obsessions.

I believe there is a stage in the pregnancy when both lives are of equal importance.

I am not certain where exactly that point is, but it exists.

:puke:

:eyes: In the acronym of the sainted Dear Abby: MYOB.

an unconcsious decision.

If you don't want to get preganant use birth control.
If you end up with an unwanted pregnancy get an abortion ASAP.

If the fetus is viable outside the womb... then the birth mother needs to accept responsibility for her own unconscious decision not to address the situation earlier.
If a female is 6 months preganant and doesn't want the child, society has an obligation to take care of the birth mother and unborn child.

As a woman who had an abortion much earlier in my life, I know how important an option it is. But there are consequences to the decisions we make in life. And Life doesn't always seem fair to us at every moment.

once it has been born (but then it's no longer a fetus, it's a PERSON).

I think this is pretty much the Jewish view (though I'm not Jewish).

Any other course equals reproductive slavery.

than one in the end of the 9th month?

I think it depends on when it can live independent of the mother.

if SHE doesn't want it?

A 12 year-old, living, breathing child DIED in PGC, MD for want of BASIC DENTAL CARE. Perhaps HE wasn't "innocent" enough. There is NO compelling reason for the "STATE" to involve itself in any woman's reproductive choice vis-a-vis abortion in the U.S.of A.

Wouldn't that display, at it's core, a profound hatred of men?

I disagree strongly with your premise that every argument against abortion has, at it's core, a profound hatred of women. That's just nonsense.

any way. HOW does saying that the church, the state, the zef, the sperm donor (because that is ALL that person is at that moment) is more important than the woman NOT indicate hatred of women?

I said I STRONGLY DISAGREE with you. It reduces the humanity of the male partner to nothing, in the same way it would reduce the humanity of the female to call her "the incubator" (which it can be argued is all SHE is at that moment).

I also didn't say it was more important. I said it was NONSENSE to call the male (in the case of the pregnancy, what he actually is would normally be termed THE FATHER) partner "the sperm donor" and indicates a certain hatred to males in general.

A father who is every bit as much tied to the child as the mother. Sperm donor. What a disgusting display that was.

I don't agree that the father is as tied to the child as the mother is. There is bound to be more connection when you actually carry a life in your body for nine months. However, I like it best when both parties concur on decisions for their unborn.

I am pro-choice but for pro-choicers to deny it's a life is disingenuous. People need to admit exactly what they are doing when they have an abortion. This is a complex issue and shouldn't be taken lightly or flippantly.

My cousin was born, a fully formed perfectly fine, with brain, arms, legs, etc., human being, at six months. That he was fully a viable human, at that point, makes his rights equal to his mother's. I don't support last trimester abortions. I know they are rare and that is usually just a knife for the Right to use to whittle away at Roe vs. Wade but it is also my personal belief.

I would fight for our right to self determination about our own bodies and I have but I hate it when either side simplifies it. I have had an abortion. Under the exact same circumstances, I would again. ...but I never see abortion as a reason for a party or reveling in the streets.

...and once again...in a real "grrrrrr" way, I HATE it when either side simplifies this.
Lee

My wife might've carried our children for 9 months, but you bet your ass that I was engaged with the pregnancy every damn day, talking to her belly every damn day, feeling it kick, listening for the heartbeat, staring at ultrasounds. I personally don't care that it technically was growing inside of her. When it came down through those 9 months we both were equally as excited and of equal love and bond for the child regardless. So I personally think the whole 'because the man isn't carrying it he can't possibly have an equal or stronger bond' argument is nothing but sexist garbage. Just my opinion though, and I fully expect us to not see eye to eye on it. :)

It was a physical PART of her. By definition you weren't as close. Still, you sound like you were as close as a man could be without climbing inside her.

You do realize, don't you, that on the whole, you are more involved with and wonderful about, your unborn, than a lot of dads.

Believe me, my preference would be if there was never a need or desire for abortion. ...and if one must be, I always think it would be preferable for both parties to agree but as long as you can't offer to carry it for her, it can't be 100% equal in the choice whether to carry it at all.

Lee

or fetus is a life. They just don't consider it a full person with all the rights that confers. Not until birth.

And I certainly don't know anyone who had an abortion flippantly.

I have heard plenty make the claim that it is not a life and I have known several that had abortions flippantly. But yes, I've known more that weighed the decision quite heavily and some of those who are still deeply affected by it to this day. But just because you don't know any who have said or done such things doesn't mean everyone else doesn't know any either.

just so I can see what it's like. Sounds fun!

Problem is, I'm thinking you might have some trouble finding someone willing to engage you in such ways.

When you are losing an argument with a woman, insult her! Call her unattractive! It's the oldest game in the book, and I don't play. You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you resort to it often?

BTW,I used birth control responsibly for 30 years and never once got pregnant. I sure had plenty of opportunities, mind you. Not that it's any of your goddamned business. I want abortion available for my less lucky sisters. It's not even about me anymore.

Is your esteem so low that you automatically assumed such things?

The point of the sentence was one of 'yeah, good luck finding a guy who will want to take part in a 'i'm gonna get pregnant and then later get an abortion cause it's fun' scheme.

Wasn't calling you unattractive or otherwise, so that must simply be a product of your own self esteem or somethin. But don't put that on me.

when you said it.

still ignorant as to its context, but whatever. Not really my problem. :hi:

It most certainly did sound like you were saying something about kestrel's looks or her essence of being, which is no better. Do you say that to all pro-choicers?

I think the majority of men do totally separate from their sperm and the damage it causes. You're either being naive or you're straight up not being honest.

Lee

But I explained exactly what I meant by it. If that's not good enough for you, then I really don't give a shit.

As far as your comment of "Do you say that to all pro-choicers", now there's a ridiculous comment, but not as ridiculous as your men separating from their sperm comment.

I've pretty much sided with you in this. So back off with the anger. Please.
Lee

And I'm sorry, but it pissed me off a bit to see you respond with two 'shame on you' type replies to my comment when I already had explained exactly what I meant by it. The comment said 'engage you in such ways'. Notice the word 'ways', plural, ways. Those ways were getting her pregnant and then aborting it. The point was in sarcasm to the poster's ridiculous comment that she wanted to get knocked up so she can abort it. My point was good luck finding a guy to consent to that plan.

Now if the statement was initially unclear (which I still don't think it was, but whatever), I can understand someone responding with 'how dare you say that' type post. But after I logically explained EXACTLY what I meant by it, then it is utter bullshit for someone to accuse me of lying and telling me I really meant something else. Sorry, but if you can't see why that would piss me off then I can't help ya.

...and am guilty of replying before I had read further.
Lee

**OMC...Problem is, I'm thinking you might have some trouble finding someone willing to engage you in such ways.**



That's a creepy thing to say to Kestrel. Is that how you debate?
Lee

I do. I quit being friends with a woman who had four abortions and simply treated abortion as a form of birth control. She was rich and frivolous and could afford as many abortions as she wanted. She was creepy, imo.

I don't just make statements for no reason. I have had an abortion and in the same situation I would again. I have been fighting for this right for women probably before you were even a thought. I've been around since the birth control pill was illegal and bathrooms said, "men", "women" and "colored". I never just make statements for no reason. In my opinion, once a life becomes viable it has all the same rights as any other life.
Lee

don't like being thought of that way. Far too many of them do.

to hear the bullshit. It's nothing but sexist hogwash in my opinion.

pregnancy to term or not is about as sexist as it can get. Or maybe the better term is misogynistic.

God are you narrow minded.

with individual rights. They are not appendages of the nearest male.

If a woman doesn't want to include the "loving father" in the decision, it's an indication of a pretty serious problem in the relationship, which isn't going to be solved by forced pregnancy.

by each.

from the uterus without harming it, and growing it elsewhere, then we don't have a problem. But that day is not likely to ever come. Until then, a woman must be allowed to own her own body without question, and the man is just going to have to trust her judgement.

Your poor wife, that you believe you have rights over her body superior to her own...........

I think those rights overcome the discomforts she'd face for 9 months. Like I said, it's matter of opinion. Where you see a line of 'it's her body period' I see a line of 'it's both of their babies and if there is a decision to kill it, both parents should have a say in it'.

But like I've said already elsewhere, we're obviously not going to see eye to eye on this. So goodnight.

If only a pregnancy were a matter of "discomforts" for 9 months. Only someone who is biologically incapable of becoming pregnant could type that so seriously ... or someone set on being as provocative as possible. Goodness, could it be?

I seek only to provide my position and opinion. I have mine and you have yours. That's ok.

Let's say you recklessly engage in unprotected intercourse with a woman whom you do not know well enough to know what she would do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. She gets pregnant; she wants to abort and you sue to keep her from doing so. If your case is even heard, that sets precedent, which places an undue burden on every other woman, just because you lost track of one sperm cell.

Try vomiting 40 + times/day so you actually lose weight during pregnancy and weigh 10 lbs less at delivery?

Or suffering with pre-eclampsia (which kills women ya know).

Or having a stroke from the high blood pressure caused by the pregnancy (which is also a killer of pregnant women).

Or having major post-partum bleeding which destroys the uterus and catastrophically endangers a woman's health (and also causes death).

Look, pregnancy isn't just some kinda walk in the park - it's a major ordeal (for some of us at least) and to reduce it to just a set of "discomforts" is staggering. Absolutely beyond belief is your "ASSumption" that YOUR right to being a father outweighs a woman's right to control her health and yes, perhaps even her life.

Most reasonable people also agree that if you have been vomiting 40x a day for several months and didn't want to contine the pregnancy you should have done something before month number 6.

don't be surprized if you're ever the Male partner of an unwanted pregnancy and the Woman disappears out of your reach.

doing something pro-active about it.

How should a responsible, honorable man respond when his significant other announces her intention to pay a visit to the clinic?

An honorable, responsible man does not want to force a woman to undergo a pregnancy she does not wish to continue. An honorable man does force a woman to do anything against her will, ever.

I'd say the logic to each declaration is comparable.

Good attempt at argument by handwaving. Seen it before; it never works. An honorable person wouldn't try that kind of tactic.

Killing children is not allowed in this country.

Personally, I consider a cake in the oven to still be a cake. It just simply isn't done yet.

But to each their own.

The difference between a z/e/f and a child is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. If you put a child in a uterus, it will quickly suffocate. Anyone can care for a child; a zygote/embryo/fetus is entirely dependent upon the body of the woman in which it is housed and no other can take over its needs.

Perhaps what you meant is that how you regard a z/e/f is a matter of opinion. It doesn't change the objective facts, but merely how you choose to regard them in your own mind. That, of course, is fine but has no bearing on reality.

You replied as if we were having a debate on the physical and textbook definition of a child as opposed to a personal and emotional one....

We weren't.

Being a responsible man, I would raise our baby myself; her obligations would cease soon after delivery.

On edit: Please note that my aborrence for ALL forms of killing is made implicitly clear upon entering what few relationships I've had. Wouldn't be fair to withhold something like that.

Anyone can die during childbirth.

In North America, 1 in 3700 die in childbirth. Tragic, but not so staggering as to be likened to Russian Roulette.

http://www.safemotherhood.org/facts_and_figures/maternal_mortality.htm

How generous of you (cough). :sarcasm:

I suppose you also don't give a shit about her odds of suffering a debilitating stroke, kidney failure, pre-eclampsia or diabetes either as a result of her pregnancy.... :puke:

It's HER life and she gets to decide.

It's nice that you make sure you let the few women you've had a relationship with know that you're anti-abortion, but that doesn't mean she has to play by your rules, or take an unacceptable risk to her life or health. As someone else has pointed out, EVERY single pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death and increases the risk of serious damage to health, which include but are not limited to: pre-eclamsia, eclampsia, kidney faiilure, gestational diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, heart failure, toxemia, obstetrical hemorrhage, ectopic pregnancy, puerperal sepsis, amniotic fluid embolus, etc. These can occur in any woman att any time with no previous indication. Who gets to decide for her how much risk is too much for her?

a misogynist is asinine. You are looking at this incredibly complex issue as black and white. I'm not saying there are not men who get their wives pregnant over and over again as a form of control. Hell, I was married to one. But painting all men as the same is really as sexist as it gets. The man I am married to now...would want to carry a child to term because of a desire to love that child and raise that child. But I also know he would not want me to carry a baby to term if it would mean my death.

It's not all one way or another. There are so many debates that end up being stated as black and white, when really there's thousands of shades of gray in there. But stating things this way really weakens your position and causes you to look quite foolish.

But more than enough Fathers scoot the minuted they find out.. That is where the difference is.. No matter what the man wants, it is the woman who is forced ultimately to deal with the pregnancy.

Married couples are the exceptional to the rule, however, a married man can be just as much against a pregnancy as for it, and will try to force the woman to have an abortion. Also many a woman have been murdered or beaten for being pregnant as well...

Not all men are like you.. Read the stats on murdered woman who are pregnant....

My point is that the man is far more than a sperm donor and is responsible for the child every bit as much as the woman is. They are equal partners in the well being of that child. Whether the man chooses to acknowledge or abuse that is irrelevant to the reality of the concept itself.

And for the record, the overwhelming majority of fathers do not run out on their children nor kill their wives.

The responsibility does not stop at birth although many families are ripped apart by divorce, it is the woman that ultimately cares for the child....

I am not buying what you are selling OMC, not today..

"although many families are ripped apart by divorce, it is the woman that ultimately cares for the child"

Yup. That's cause of the sexist fucking court mentality. Thankfully, we've seen those lopsided custody decisions towards the mother lessen, but it is still a HUGE problem that requires attention.

But in the meantime while fathers everywhere fight for those rights, their lack of custody does not dead beat dad make. Sorry.

These undervalued women are mothers, daughters, wives, sisters, even grandmothers, people.....
No one ever seems to be willing to consider the interruption to her life is an interruption to the lives of those other people who may rely on her.
Isn't it possible that they are people who enter her mind when her decisions are made?
When the zef is valued over the life of the woman the lives and well being of all of the other people and everything in her life circumstances are also devalued below the level of potential life.

dependents are full persons, too.

I just wanted to use those examples to point out that women don't take the decision lightly.

who at the age of 17 was ignored by my girlfriend, her mother and my parents I take offense to your statement. And I like the chicken-shit way you phrase it..."this is probably going to annoy some people"...well no shit?

You see as a "sperm donor" I had no say in the matter. My child was aborted against my wishes. I wanted to raise the child as was my responsibility. So please save me your drama and "hatered" of men or to take on another term...your malepobia:mad:

Personally, I've always felt that the father's choice should have some legal bearing when the choice is to keep the child and the outcome determined by a hearing if necessary. Unfortunately, that isn't yet reality but maybe some day it can be.

Regardless, I'm so sorry to hear about your loss.

When dabbling in one night stands, each partner should use as much birth control as is available.

What if the man doesn't want the child & states his intent in time for an early term abortion? If the woman goes ahead--he'll be free from paying child support! That's another plank in the Free Choice For Men Platform.

1. Whether it is a committed relationship or not is irrelevant.

2. In matters of birth control, that's really none of your business.

3. I'm talking about men who want the child. Not men who don't.

4. No idea where you get the child support argument from. There are tons of men ordered to pay child support though they didn't want the child carried to term.

5. I think it's a crime that a child can be killed when the father wants the child to live, with him having no recourse whatsoever to even be heard in stopping it from occurring.

I mean, why the fuck would you think she could possibly have some kind of control over her health and/or longevity??? :sarcasm:

There is no way a woman and even her doctors can predict the variables of every pregnancy and basically you are saying that your DESIRE to be a father outweighs the LIFE of the mother.

Are you willing to bet your "desire" against the potential that you could kill this woman?? Who is the "criminal" here?

Women are not your brood mares.

Ya know, how you like put some ridiculously silly strawman forth as if my argument means I think women are brood mares and stuff. That was like, really silly.

:crazy:

I'll stand by my statement.

(How can a Smilie User call someone else "cute"?)

That's just so silly how you twisted my sentiment to appear as if I said decent men and committed relationships were irrelevant. Awww Bridget, what will you come up with next I wonder?

Hey, maybe at some point we can discuss this seriously without actually twisting words and manufacturing false premise? If you don't want to that's ok I guess, there is a need for levity and silliness sometimes so if you want to keep replying in those ways I guess no harm done, but just let me know when you're ready to discuss this seriously ok? :hi:

That's just unfair.

I never said decent men and committed relationships were irrelevant. I said those concepts were irrelevant within the terms of context of when the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't. HUGE difference between the two, but I'd wager you know that full well. So it was just realllllly cute to me how you tried to put words in quotes out of context and twist them and the sentiment into different context to suit your own agenda. It's just so silly when people do that!

So like I said, when you want to discuss things seriously instead of playing word games, let me know ok? :hi:

"5. I think it's a crime that a child can be killed when the father wants the child to live, with him having no recourse whatsoever to even be heard in stopping it from occurring."

This is right along with what the RR wants: to make it a crime for a woman to "kill a child" (cough) without a man's permission.

her wishes, if I might ask?

Lack of self-control or forethought, pehaps?

Are you always this bitterly sexist or just tonight?

pregnancy? Why can't all these poor aggrieved men who "mourn" their lost "children" just keep their peckers in their pants until they enter a proper, permanent "Christian" marriage like Gawd intended?

Enquiring minds so want to know.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

misfortune because they shouldn't have spread their legs......

I have no idea what the point of your post was. It was almost as if you weren't even replying to context anymore, but instead are just blurting out random things.

getting angry over it. I am too tired to explain my posts if yo don't get them.

Goodnight and pleasant dreams.

"Malep{h}opbia" isn't even a word, and if it were, it wouldn't mean what you think it does.

Why should anyone give birth simply to please others?

I am pro-choice myself, but this one made me think: Who should abort: middle class married woman with a well cared for family, or a womam with syphilis with 8 kids several who are born deaf, blind and disabled. The answer is that the middle class woman describes Hitler's mother and the syphilitic woman describes Beethoven's mother.

I have thought about this some and yes, abortion does have a lot to do with economics with me, but I still think those people will be born anyway. The other night I saw the Jeffrey Dommer (sp?) special and they said he had a normal childhood, he was not abused or poor or raised in poverty. Yet some of the greatest, kindest and most caring people I know had terrible childhoods, so life is a chance. So I still think a woman should have the choice.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

you realize that you are carrying a life and it can't be a light decision for any woman. Personally I don't know if I would have ever had one even if something was 'wrong' with the baby, we would have had it anyway and done our best. It didn't happen that way though, I never had to make that decision and that is why I am pro choice. You can't assume to make a decision for anyone else. It's should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor without any one else butting in.

the Humanity argument--that we, as humans, have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable forms of human life (conception to deathbed) among us--simply because all human life has inherent value? Except for Ann Coulter.

see post#7 above.

at its core, a religious argument.

Why must we protect all human life from conception to deathbed? A 3 day old zygote is NOT deserving of the same protection as a 3 day old infant, UNLESS you believe a) it has a soul or b) God wants it that way.

I happen to believe this, by the way--I've never been able to figure out the root of the belief, whether religious or humane in nature. But I am Pro-choice, for all the rest of youze out there...that's your beeswax.

between a 3-day-old zygote and a 3-day-old infant lie 9 months of incubation

Maybe a 3-day-old zygote doesn't deserve the same protections, but what about an infant that could, if extracted via c-section at a certain point, have a viable chance at life -- even without its biological mother? (e.g. ward of the state) The rationale for preventing a 3rd-trimester abortion wouldn't necessarily be religious in nature, unless you believe the ethic that reserves a human degree of protection for the 3-day-old infant is also inherently religious.

It's just as the "compelling interest" portion of the RvW decision suggests: there comes a time in gestation when the state may indeed have a say in what a woman does with the fetus she carries, even if it means restricting availability of certain medical procedures. The revolution in RvW is the notion that this compelling interest does not persist throughout the entire pregnancy.

I think it's a well-considered, balanced, and thoughtful decision, on the whole. It's a pity the right-wingers have distorted its implications to the point of either neglecting or exaggerating the sensible leeway actually granted to lawmakers in regulating late-term abortions.

to protect vulnerable life in Iraq.

and we're off on the "don't complain about X unless you also complain about Y" argument. Don't try to protect 1 life unless you are going to protect all.

the idea that reproductive slavery is just plain wrong.

Some find reproductive slavery wrong, some find murder wrong (which they consider it to be) and yet others would find both wrong and would weigh the consequences of each to determine which one is right at any given time. There's definitely no perfect or right answer here as far as how everyone should feel, which is why it is largely left up to oneself to decide for oneself how to feel about it.

for a woman, to be worked out with the help of whoever else she wishes to include in the decision. Anything else is barbaric.

The father should be part of the decision by default, since the child is half his. You disagree with that and that's fine. But I don't think for a second that if one parent has chosen to kill the child while another parent deeply wants it to live, that the latter person carries no say in the decision whatsoever. I personally always found this part of the argument; that only the woman has any say whatsoever and the father's opinion means nothing; to be one of the most insane ones.

I can tell ya right now, if my wife ever wanted an abortion and I whole heartedly wanted the child, I would go through every legal avenue and court of law in the land I could to put a stop to it. Lord knows right now I'd lose, but I'd at the least try and make my mark and start a movement.

what goes on there.

It's called the right to bodily integrity. A concept completely alien to you, I see. More's the pity.

I and I alone own MY body.

It's an argument of having to weigh one's individual rights of their own being with the concept of killing a separate human being, and trying to figure out which argument holds more validity. Now we know how it stands today. But I'll still make clear my feelings on it that if I were ever in a situation where I wanted the child and she didn't, I'd go through whatever possible legal avenue I could trying to get the system changed.

But only in that scenario do I condone such acts. Other than that very personal involvement I am totally pro choice even if I'm anti-abortion myself, and think in all other cases it is up to the woman to choose. But I think it is no longer 100% once the father wholeheartedly wants the child.

We're definitely not gonna see eye to eye on this here. That's ok. Goodnight.

I'm with you 100%

It is very sad how so many refuse to believe the unborn child is a human being, with the same rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as the born enjoy.

And it is sad to see how so many supposedly enlightened liberals think the father of a baby has no rights or say in the child's life.

The natural thing in the world is to use your power over others to get what you yourself want - kind of like the lion who eats the zebra. He doesn't have any moral qualms about it because there is no other order than to the strong go the spoils.

We evolved, we are animals, and the only reason we have such moral issues is because we think too much.

You can tell me 'well, I think murder is bad due to X' - well the term bad has a moral connotation which comes from your own ideals and 'beliefs' - I may not share them so does it make me a 'sinner' or 'bad'?

Where do any morals come from and who is the enforcer of those morals (the strong are)?

You don't have to have religion to have moral values, humans can do what they want - but we start on a 'religious' ideology when we attached words like good/bad as they define goals (which may not be my goals but may be yours).

If the goal the majority attached is to preserve life than abortion could be seen to be something on the opposite side of that. Then you get into definitions of life etc. Some may simply want to draw an easy to see line - you're pregnant, you have a life in you. Others might want a different line - not until it's born, after X weeks, etc.

We don't need fear of an angry SkyDaddy slapping us around to keep us from raping, stealing or killing (if anything, disbelief in the judgment of an invisible being helps moral and ethical behavior, as atheists are underrepresented in American prisons compared to the general population) we don't do those things because they harm other people. Social and cooperative behavior is common in our closest primate relatives as well, so we likely evolved cooperative social structures long before we evolved the imagination to invent a god to tell us what to do.

Maybe it's evolutionary instinct, combined with the acknowledgment of a pregnancy, that leaves many women unwilling to abort regardless of their religious beliefs--even though their higher brain tells them pregnancy may not be in their best interests.

have retained a maternal/paternal instinct from our chimp ancestors that is very strong (which it must be to keep the species going)--and that even in this modern "do whatever you want" society, many women find this instinct difficult to override, once a pregnancy is known. An evolutionary thing.

thing to do, their maternal instinct, instinct to continue the species, over rides their rational thought? Instinctual vs societal?

people can, and will, find all sorts of reasons to oppose things without the input of religion.

We do lots of things without religion, from moral judgments to wars.

There comes a point in pregnancy where a fetus could be removed from the mother alive and have a decent chance at "normal" life outside the womb. At this time, the state's so-called "compelling interest" may outweigh the right of the birth mother to choose to end the pregnancy through abortion.

This is an essential part of the Roe v. Wade decision that must not be overlooked.

While I would guess most late-term abortions are not going to be of healthy fetuses that pose no danger to the mother's physical health, it is sensible that a state could regulate or even prohibit those that are, on the grounds that the fetus could be regarded as an internal infant.

We do not give prematurely-born babies less rights than those with standard 9-month gestations; those that live are afforded human rights. The same principle that grants them those rights (not a religious one, I'd argue) would apply while a fetus of comparable survivability was in the womb as well.

In the U.S. One is in the 14th Amendment (I think) and the other is in the fine print about the qualifications for president of the U.S. (must be "born" in the US). The "unborn" are nowhere visible in our Constitution.Therefore, we must speak of Constitutional rights only for those that are "born."

has ever once even responded. Seems logical to me.

The original question is, can one make a non-religious argument against abortion? Yes, indeed, one can. To point out that such exists is, of course, not to imply that it is above rebuttal -- IMHO, it must be rebutted on firmer grounds than omission in the constitution. But since you brought it up...

There are rights afforded through various means that appear nowhere in the Constitution. The 9th amendment itself expressly points out that the omission of any specific right is not to be construed as an implication that such a right does not exist -- indeed, that is an important part of the foundation for the Roe v. Wade decision. The people who wrote the constitution themselves understood that theirs was a temporal document, constrained by the knowledge and understandings of the day, and compromised by the desire to form a more perfect union. They were wise enough to understand their limitations and leave mechanisms in place for modifications to the framework, and leave room for a body of laws to grow to fit the society it facilitated.

Consider corporate personhood as a counterexample -- not that I'm a big fan of it, but it illustrates the point. If a non-biological entity conceived through contract alone, with no discernable will or sense of its own, can be considered to inherit certain legal rights such as privacy and speech, and granted such on the basis of caselaw, than can you really make the case that a viable late-term fetus could or should have none whatsoever? Not likely. The anti-choice side is wont to compare the current situation to that of the Dred Scott caselaw period; you will not out-argue that position by referencing the constitution -- indeed, based on what was in the constitution at the time ("three-fifths compromise", e.g.), the justices in Dred Scott v. Sanford were on as firm footing as those in Roe v. Wade.

It is important to remember, when interpreting our constitution, that it is a work of genius, but a work of genius in political philosophy from more than 200 years ago. Much has changed since that time in our understanding of matters biological. I doubt a rational person could observe a healthy 3rd-trimester fetus on a sonogram and tell me honestly that is not a human being capable of experiencing life to some degree, at least. As time moves on, we will likely reach a point where the original womb itself is replacable mid-term, and women in physical danger from their pregnancies will be able to keep a fetus alive rather than abort it. Given that alternative, I suspect the vast majority of mothers who carry the child as far as a 3rd trimester would opt for both lives rather than one or the other. The body of law will change inevitably to reflect that situation.

However, when we talk about the ethics of abortion, we speak not only of the legality of abortion in the USA since 1973. There is no question that it is legal. We're considering what's right. Those brought to the Americas in chains as slaves did not have the legal rights of free men, but that doesn't mean their human rights were not violated -- at least as we understand such rights today. Women gained the legal right to abort pregnancy in 1973, but that doesn't mean their human rights were not violated prior to 1973. Women gained the legal right to vote in federal elections in 1920, that doesn't mean they should not have had the human right to vote prior to that time. Thus does liberation proceed, a stepwise journey in discovery of that which already exists.

Courts and constitutions recognize rights, they do not exhaustively enumerate those rights, nor do they enumerate only "true" rights -- they don't always get it "right" the first time around, or even the first few times around. Laws change, but there may be certain self-evident truths that won't. Somewhere in the union of those rights which are recognized and those which are yet to be recognized lies an optimal ideal human condition, with all the right rights and none of the wrong ones.

There was a case in Virginia about 8 month ago or so, when a women within two weeks of delivering a healthy baby, shot herself in the abdomen, killing the fetus. Because of the way Virginia law is written, she could not be prosecuted for homicide or self induced abortion.

There's legal, and there's right.

The original post asks if there's a non-religious argument against abortion. I'd contend that there is, insofar as there is a non-religious argument against murder, and at some point prior to birth the fetus is very obviously more than a blastocyst, more than a lump of tissue, more than a parasite incapable of life beyond the womb. Whether or not the laws of our society can ever properly reflect that situation while also upholding the rights of a woman to sensible control of her own medical care is another question.

WRT the Virginia case, IIRC, it was dropped because she shot herself rather than someone else shooting the fetus or otherwise inducing an abortion. It's an interesting twist that the state law did make some effort to protect the unborn, but overlooked an obvious (if drastic) "loophole".

You are correct. Virginia abortion law did not apply because there is no statute against self induced abortions. Since berth had not taken place, Virginia law did not consider it a person.
This years general assembly failed to enact any legislation that would address the loophole.

unless its to save the life of the mother.

Which is basically what Roe says.

...and therein lies the question. When is that exactly. My cousin was born perfectly viable, after six months.
Lee

if medicine changes the point of viability, we should change it in the law. But to say because it is a moving target we should do away with abortion is too restrictive.

It's just that simple. :shrug:

The abortion debate is a highly complex multidimensional debate with various moral dilemmas that constantly has you tipping the scales back and forth once you get the religous nuts out of the room and simply discuss it on rational terms. Throw out the BS political rhetoric surrounding the issue, and open your mind. There is no danger in considering and noting the merits of an argument you disagree with, hell it's a major component of how you grow intellectually.

*Note: This is not a challenge to any sort of debate just a friendly tip from a DUer to another.

Sitting around and 'debating' what some unknown woman does with her body is, at best, arrogant mental masturbation. While the moral, religious, medical, economic, family, and other considerations might be pertinent to HER choice, and a matter for discussion with her husband, boyfriend, other immediate family, and whomever she seeks counsel, if she so chooses, the very notion that strangers might deprive her of ANY of a range of choices is ethically repugnant to me.


FWIW, I don't appreciate the condescending tone. The arrogant posturing of someone on the Internet who's knows NOTHING about me, advising "open your mind," is insulting. That someone would do this and presume to have anything to say on "how you grow intellectually" is laughable at best.

Like I said I don't care enough to get into this. You sure showed me.

But not a SINGLE one why it should ever be anything other than the woman's choice.

by thoughtful people. See the ones above. But the more important question here is whether government should have the power to enforce one argument over another. I haven't yet seen any good argument that would make me feel comfortable entrusting government, rather than the woman, with this decision.

the Government is not Constitutionally allowed to weigh in:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....

---------------------------------------------------------

And EVERY damn argument against allowing the freedom of choice in this matter has been religion based and therefore irrelevent and immaterial!!!

Secular leftists are not uniformly pro-choice, as evidenced by the following:

http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/left.html

This is a far stretch in my opinion from the homosexuality question. That one made perfect logical sense. This one really doesn't.

The question of whether or not abortion is or isn't killing a life isn't religion based or sanity based. It is simply up to one's opinion. Though the choice should most definitely remain with each individual or marriage unit (in my opinion), when dealing with each individual's opinion as to whether or not it is taking a life, no one opinion is more sane than another.

not the act itself. There is the potential life issue and you could hold the position that no life, not even that of a child-molesting murderer, should be taken by another -- ever. That's a moral and ethical decision, and may very well have nothing to do with religion or lunacy.

That having been said, the fact that one believes that to be true should have absolutely no bearing on governing others and mustn't be allowed to inflict upon them the effects and consequences of your conviction.

Homosexuality is a different issue, and there I can find no occurence of such a definitive basis for judgement as life or death. Therefore, I conclude a personal prejudice is the overwhelming cause of intolerance in that case.

So, the answer to the question I think you're really asking is "no".

Is it right to get an abortion the day before the baby is due for delivery?

It's not really against abortion in general, but its the whole philosophical when does life began question.

You are only allowed to think, read, watch, screw, enjoy yourself or otherwise use your mind, body, and bloodstream in ways that *we* approve of.

That's the logic that underpins the drug war, and all other manner of laws against private consenting adult behavior. Obviously, the origins of that kind of thinking are religious: "Your body belongs to god, not you".. But once you substitute "the state" for "God", you can essentially have a non-religious version.

Beyond that, I think that ALL arguments regarding life in the womb don't necessarily have to be religious; the axiom that "life" (really, the "soul") magically begins at the second of conception (whereas the sperm and unfertilized egg were, supposedly, not "alive") --- that is a religious argument IMHO. But I think when you're talking about abortion, you have to weigh the rights of the person whose body the pregnancy is taking place in against the rights of the potential person inside. Right-wing diatribes to the contrary, women are NOT running around in this country pregnant for 8 months, then aborting at the last minute because they "look fat". Most people- that is, most people on the left- make a distinction between a fertilized egg post conception and a baby at 9 months, about to be born. And the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester; the right wing, of course, has decided that fertilized eggs are "babies" from the minute of conception, and need rights under the 14th amendment-(written into law, this would make the birth control pill illegal as well)- not bothering to give a shit about the massive intrusive government apparatus required to force women to remain pregnant against their will.

That's the bottom line, for me- I trust individual women to make those calls more than I trust the government to do it. So it needs to be a woman's individual decision.

That's very individual though

Most of the women I know who have had abortions(granted, not all) talk about the GUILT the most. It's not just a guilt toward the fetus. I find it more of a guilt within themselves. They tend to mourn the lost opportunity. They mourn the loss of "what could have been". Generally, abortion is a very difficult decision for a woman to make. Even though they are councelled in advance on guilt issues, the women do not acknowledge the depth of that potential guilt until many years later. To me, this issue is severely overlooked by the pro-choice community and it really needs to be more vigorously addressed. For men and women.

who are just relieved and that's that. I suspect others may have really wanted the child but circumstances like school, money, support systems, etc.,force them into an abortion. Those latter are the ones who probably have real guilt issues that never go away. I have seen women talk about it too.
Think about the women in China. I think there the birth control is not that good ( at least the last time I read up on it, which was more than a few years ago) and the usual method is to just have abortions or put the baby girls on the sides of hills to die, etc.

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."

The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31

Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.


RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)

This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.




Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says



The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...

The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed

PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...


Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.

Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.

Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...


Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?

Koop CE.

What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.

PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.

Romans-Clarkson SE.

Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.

This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.

PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.

Handy JA.

The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

but I really dont't want to spend too much time on this.

I am pro-choice. But it is this sort of barage of "studies" citing "no psychological problems" after abortion that is so hurtful to women (and men). (Or else the woman was unstable to begin with -- now is that dismissive and belittling or what? Does that mean we can dismiss the guilt of those women?)I'm talking about "guilt". Not "psychological distress" or "emotional distress" or any of these other voluminous, non-specific phrases. Plain and simple guilt. Some women carry that much deeper than others.

Also an 8-year study of women still in child-bearing years is very different from asking a woman who is beyond those years and still childless how she feels about it. That doesn't mean that I think women should not have abortions.

I think the pro-choice community needs to address these issues. I refuse to dismiss it. I know too many people (mostly women, but some men as well)who live with the pain of their guilt. Some, who later cannot bear their guilt BECOME pro-life (I know two people very closely who feel this way). To address the potential negativites of abortion helps women. To politicize it and deny the problems is harmful.

we don't have a legal interest in protecting a woman from claiming that she feels "guilt," and in fact, there is no test that i'm aware of that climbs in a woman's mind and determines that she actually does feel "guilt"

as opposed to wanting to get attention/being accepted at a church full of whackjobs

guilt is only useful when it causes you take action and change your life, when it's about something you can't change it is just mental masturbation and attention seeking, and to demand that my right to abortion should be taken away so some drama queen will have to find something else to catastrophize about is pretty ridiculous

so "guilt" argument is not a valid one in my view

i've never known a mentally healthy woman to mention any "guilt" about her abortion, just relief or a wistful "what might have been," well, i "might have been" tinkerbell in the school play too but so what, life goes on


as a woman, i have less patience with women i consider ninnies who are a disgrace to the gender and i don't think the law should cater to the mentally ill by taking away the rights of the healthy

:woohoo:

"as a woman, i have less patience with women i consider ninnies who are a disgrace to the gender and i don't think the law should cater to the mentally ill by taking away the rights of the healthy"

:applause:

Guilt can be a very valid emotion but, like all other emotions, can be used and misused. Otherwise I agree, esp with your last sentence.

I'm always interested in seeing some creative handwaving. I prefer peer-reviewed science for information, but handwaving is always fun to watch.

I know people who became pro-choice after bearing a child unwillingly. There you go.

I even gave a right-wing, anti-abortion study (The Koop Report) that could find no serious psychological sequelae in emotionally healthy women who had had abortions. Study after study show that if a woman was troubled before the abortion, she will be troubled afterward but found no direct link to the abortion; serious damage was found when abortion was denied.

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."

The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31

Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.


RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)

This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.




Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says



The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...

The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed

PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...


Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.

Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.

Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...


Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?

Koop CE.

What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.

PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.

Romans-Clarkson SE.

Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.

This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.

PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.

Handy JA.

The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

guilt is a way of patting yourself on the back about how "sensitive" you are, it's pretty damn easy to live with

a lot easier to live with and pay for than an unwanted child

women who come back years later and claim to feel "guilty" are highly suspect to me, that's a hell of a cheap way to get attention, i can't respect it

I am a lesbian and a feminist. I am 100% pro-choice for the first six months of pregnancy. I think it would be nice if the father was consulted but until he can actually offer to carry it in his body, he should not have any decision making rights on this issue. We are not chattel as Ruth Bader Ginsberg, (my favorite Supreme Court Justice), said. The state cannot mandate that we carry babies.

That said, I had an abortion over 20 years ago and in the same situation I would again and I have NEVER stopped feeling guilty about it. You have less right than a father to judge a woman this way. According to shrinks guilt is one of the most destruction and overwhelming emotions a human can feel. How fucking dare you say my emotions are highly suspect because I feel guilt. Maybe you just don't feel.
Lee

for your beautiful and eloquent words. You have articulated so perfectly what I was trying to say. Sometimes a person's post will touch me to my core and bring a tear to my eye. You have just done that for me. :hug:

...and hugs back to you. I've never gotten over it.

Lee

Not having had an abortion but having worked in the field, some have guilt, some don't. Both are ok, both are valid, no one can or should say what another should feel as no one can except for yourself.

but guilt is about drama, it is not real unless it's about something you can change

what is the purpose of guilt, to change, if you feel "guilty" about something you can't change-- and an abortion falls in that category-- it's just wasteful

i don't romanticize guilt, the reality is that guilt is cheap, raising a child and putting her through college is expensive, so i don't pity people who feel guilt for having an abortion, let's be real, they are the lucky ones who can indulge in guilt

their friend w. the unwanted baby who has nothing to feel "guilty" about has a quarter million dollars in debt, i'll take guilt every time

if you say you made the right choice and would do it again, then wallowing in guilt is just a waste of time, i don't feel guilty for choices i made that i know were correct choices, at the point beating up on yourself is just trying to prove to yourself how sensitive you are, you don't have to tell me i'm a fucking insensitive bitch (you see, i've heard the argument before) i'm fine w. it

stop beating up on yourself, stop feeling guilty, you did the right thing...so...forward!

Don't get stuck in guilt because then you are stuck. However, guilt can serve a purpose, can help you do something differently next time if you wish. I felt guilty about stealing that candy bar back in 3rd grade. I didn't go to that store again for a long time and never stole again.