Right to Life Ethical Considerations

quote:

---

obgynsurvey.com Click archives....Volume 58, 2003, January/ cme program volume 67) Long term physical and phsycholigical health consequences of induced abortion: Review of the evidence
This can be viewed directly by googling the tilte. I found you must be a member of the medical sight and purchase the publication.

---

quote:

---

A few others for refference:
abortionfact.com Post abortion stress disorder is discussed.

---

"Post Abortion Stress disorder" is a fake scientific-sounding moniker made up by anti-abortion people.It is not recognized as a syndrome or disorder by any of the major mental health professional associations such as the Amarican Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association.It's bogus.Of course, I'm not saying that some women don't have trauma and stress after an abortion, but your claim that abortion is a cause of long term mental health problems in many or most women who have them has yet to be supported.The first sentence from "PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTIONS REPORTED AFTER ABORTION": This shows that their sample is biased from the outset and that no effort was made to work with data from a representative sample of people who had abortions.Found this:

quote:

---

afterabortion.org Click on research

---

That is an anti-choice Christian-based site which provides false and misleading information, including that PAD exists.Do you have something specific at this site that you believe supports your view?

quote:

---

The Emotional Impact of Abortion and Post-Abortion Syndrome

---

This is also a Christian-based site which has New-Testament advice about sexuality for singles, and also claims that "many" women suffer long term spychological problems after abortion but provides absoluutely no citations to any evidence to support this bald assertion.Sorry, you'll have to do better than this.Remember what I said: You need to get much more picky about the websites and evidence you accept. Those Christian-based anti-choice sites are dishonest.In addition, the links you posted were pretty much naked. Can you please discuss what is at those links, indicating what, exactly, supports your claims?I'm not here to do your research for you.

quote:

---

Many claim to have had a lovely trouble free abortion experience. What contribution do you feel it makes to the discussion other than there are people who feel this way. What is your point in presenting this sight?

---

My point in presenting this site is to show you that if you are basing your opinion on the long term effects of abortion on the mental health of women on the couple of hundred negative affidavits you have read in the past, then the several hundred positive affidavits at that website should at least show you that there are just as many women who have had such positive experiences that they wanted to share them with others.So now your view of the sorts of affidavits that exist can be much more balanced and not so one-sided.

quote:

---

Yes yes...pot and kettle. Avoid the condescending nonsense and you'll do just fine.

---

This is unresponsive and avoidant.If you say that "data is meaningless", then you are saying that your affidavits are meaningless.Do you believe that "data is meaningless", including your own data?Yes or no?Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

I fail utterly to see how what you posted has anything but a extremely vague, barely-tangential relationship to anything I am discussing with 2ice.2ice has made the claim that many or most women who have had abortions suffer long term psychological damage based upon a couple of hundred negative affidavids he read in abortion clinic waiting rooms.I am discussing that, not "legal protection" for anybody.2ice has never said that he opposed legalized abortion, anyway, so that is a non-issue.So.Stop dragging the thread off topic. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

1) For a person who jumped in to criticize my use of the term CC, when I was discussing evidence regarding its effects, you are NOT one to be critizing anyone for pulling a thread off topic.2) This THREAD, if you look at the opening post, has NOTHING to do with the nature of affidavits, and really nothing to do with longterm emotional health of women having abortions. Excuse me for addressing an issue based upon something you ARE discussing, though as off topic as yours is from the thread's topic. I may be mistaken in 2's position, though it all leads to the same point. I mean why else are the sources he's pointing to making the claim they are unless it is to argue that legal protection should be given to prevent emotional harm to women? Why else are the sources you quoting making the point that most women do not suffer such problems, except as part of an argument that such laws should not be made?I think its a bit disingenuous to pretend these are not tied in at all, and that your soul interest in any of this discussion is whether 2 happens to have more than affidavits to support a position.Where would this move if he had more than that? Or are you claiming that would be the end of the discussion and no conclusions drawn on either side?And if that were the case, why did you thank crash for saying anything when the point he made is that the discussion was about abortion... which is exactly what I thought your conversation and this thread was about?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Since you don't seem to "get" what I am driving at, I'm going to take an alternate route to get to the same destination. I didn't see a response to his article reference at the obgyn site. He said you needed to be a member to get the full article, but the abstract was online. Intriguingly the authors also link the choice to abort with increased risk for breast cancer, which comes with a whole host of other psych consequences. But that is a side issue. What 2 gave you was a ref which states these researchers found a connection to mood disorders that could even lead to self-harm.So where is your rebuttal of that evidence? That could equally be described as a biased site and certainly didn't provide anything except for anecdotes from others, certainly not direct data or findings, and they all seem to have something to lose in this debate.What's intriguing is the sweeping under the rug that is done in the article itself... Uh... since when does rarity effect the ability to claim that a problem is real?The consistent message within your article is that severe trauma is low % wise (and so on a population scale), and others find abortion positive to their life, therefore sever trauma should not be addressed as if it is real consequence of abortion. Is that correct? If only 1% of gulf war veterans came down with a specified illness, and the rest of the soldiers or nation loved the war, would that make it NOT a syndrome they are suffering from, or that we should be concerned about?As I have already stated, you seem to be providing evidence that the Anti-Ab side is vastly inflating the issue, not that what they discuss doesn't exist to be considered.I might add that I have found no evidence to support the claims that those who do have problems, had them before they had the abortion. I'm not saying that can't be the case, just that I have not seen anything to support that position beyond speculation, assertion, and innuendo. And that means what exactly in terms of this thread's topic?In any case, from your own sources we can see that at the very least 1% are recognized as having had problems, and that from 2's ref some doctors found a direct connection to depression that could lead to self-harm (such that they recommend avoiding abortion to avoid that problem). His claim is supported in part, though not necessarily with regard to degree (prevalence).What does that mean to YOU with regard to the subject of abortion, or this the subject of this thread, if it is NOT abortion?Edited by holmes, : made paragraph more clearEdited by holmes, : another touch up

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

As should you. I have shown that many people have
negative psychological effects from the choice of abortion. If you are to off handedly dismiss information based soley upon bias then you will recieve no less consideration from others. I want you to remember very clearly what you just said. I will remind you of it and who you are. You are an inteligent human who is aware of the world around you. I do not believe for one second that you are that ignorant. Therefore you are simply playing the debate game. Quite disengenuously. Yes, Interesting how "Abortion under attack" By Cinthia L Cooper, is at the heading to your example. She is an abortion rights activist. As are all pro-choice sites? So now only sights that support your point of view are valid?
This was my point earlier. However I never said that there are not people who claim to have a positive abortion experience. What my point is and has been is that there are a significant number of people who have long term nagative effects from the choice of abortion. The majority of abortions are preformed on young adults or teens who have much to learn about themselves and who they are. For planned parenthood to advertise that the majority of people do not suffer long term affects and cite Russo's work is blatantly devisive and harmfuly misleading information. It speaks authortively. It does many young people who have much to learn about themselves a great diservice at a time of distress. I understand that a significant number of people are negatively impacted by the choice of abortion. I undertand that the majority of abortions are experienced by young adults or teens. How is this one sided? I never said people did not have positive coments.
Exactly what is one sided about my understanding? My purpose is to better inform teens and young adults that thier decission is not as simple as You and Russo and people like her would have them believe.If you want to include web based testimonials the number would be staggering. The number of sights alone is staggering. All with testimonial after testimonial that contradicts your position and that of most pro choice activist based sights that P.A.S.S. is nonsense.It is very sad when people get so caught up in the fight for the right to choose that they intentionally try to invalidate
the very real neggative impact the decission to abort has on countless people. Reminds me of how wonderful smoking used to be. A pro choice activist does a study. A pro life activist does a study.
Thier opinions can and do affect the outcome.When you are willing to go and talk to any group who helps people through crisis and give a presenation that P.A.S.S. is a made up term and there is no real justification for what they are experiencing then we will talk. Climb out of your box and do it. Face it directly. That is research.I would think that in order to satisfy this definitively one would have to have signed testimonial collected through an independant body agreed upon by public icons from both sides perhaps judicially mediated and so recorded. The signed testimonials would have to be accompanied by some measure of medical records as proof. Perhaps a media driven compilation of testimonials. A 60 minute or 20/20 based thing over time.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

I'm not the master of anything, Holmes. I just know you well enough to know that you regularly lie about what other people have said.Hey, prove me wrong by all means. Quote the statements you're referring to. But I'm not about to take the word of the likes of you on it. Supporting your claims is on-topic if the claims themselves are on-topic, which you've argued. It's incoherent for you to make claims that you argue are on-topic and then assert that the defense of those claims is not. If proving what Schraf said is off-topic, then your claim about what she said was off-topic in the first place. Sure. 200 hand-picked examples of harm are not, however, and don't make any sense to use as an answer to the question of how many are harmed. I just want to be sure, though it's off-topic. When you say "the science", are you referring soley to the methodologically flawed Rind et al study? I don't see that as the same argument at all. The choice in regards to sex with children is children having sex with adults vs. children not having sex with adults.But in this case, the choice isn't women having abortions vs. women not having abortions, it's women having abortions vs. women carrying a pregnancy to term. Not having sex with a child has no negative consequences for the child. Carrying a pregnancy to term has significantly more negative consequences than abortion.It's ridiculous that I have to explain that to you, of course. It's idiotic that you think there's any sort of equivalency here, and it's symptomatic of the fact that you have no particular committment to the truth insofar as it moves you towards your goal of appearing superior to posters like Schraf and myself.There's no inconsistency in Schraf's position. In each case it's the position of least harm. Oh, poor baby! It really is too much to be borne that we're not all on bended knee before your luminous intellect, isn't it? You're a truly brave and generous man, Holmes, the way you suffer us ungrateful wretches who simply don't have the decency to thank you for illuminating us with your glorious sun.

This is only true if you do not believe an unborn child is worthy of life and, or do not acknowledge it as human. If one believes otherwise one must acknowledge the murder of a child. Since the majority of people hold an opinion that is very different than yours and acknowledge the value and humanity of an unborn child, to say that less harm is done is only an opinion. One that comes from a person who believes all humanity spawns from a pesky zygote infestation. Are you sticking to this story? Unless you retract it I will hold you to it and remind you when needed.

Or, if you don't believe that the extinguishing of a living thing with no mind whatsoever isn't such a bad thing.I don't believe that it is. Certainly not as bad as an unwanted pregnancy. Since you're just making up stuff now, let me correct your misunderstanding: the majority opinion in the United States is that abortion should be legal and avaliable: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.moderatemajority.com/abortion.htmPerhaps not under every concievable circumstance, but certainly a majority of Americans hold the exact opposite opinion that you ascribe to them - that a fetus can be aborted without it being a moral outrage or the murder of a person. One of the things about being an intelligent person is the ability to examine a position outside of emotional feelings on the issue. I don't claim to be doing it all the time, and I don't think Holmes has ever done it, but I invite you to try it. Try to examine the physiology of pregnancy without your emotional feelings about babies and how cute they are. I dare you to do it.

quote:

---

I understand that a significant number of people are negatively impacted by the choice of abortion.

---

How many is a "significant number"?Define "negatively impacted".

Right. Killing a mindless infestation and throwing it in the trash would not be such a bad thing.So is this living thing human or not? Is it the intentional ending of a human or not and if not please make it clear where you draw the line and why. At what point does the unborn child cease to "be" or "become" a human? At what point should a human have the right of protection under law? At what point does it become a "bad thing"...a crime? Is what the rest of society considers an unborn child simply an infestation to you? You have not made this clear yet. What does that have to do with my comment? Try promoting your view that unborn children are simply infestations and therefore people should feel no remorse. Then run for any public office with this view.
See how far you get. You would be hung out to dry before you started. This sight says nothing of the kind. It does not indicate in any way for what reasons people will accept abortion or if it is accepted whole heartedly. It does not address morality. It picks the middle road to a very difficult moral issue by removing the moral question and compromising between to extremes. It is clearly done to keep the peace. It is a view I share. The acknowledgement of a gray area indicates that people have reservations and do not share your view that unborn children are infestations. So intllignence in your mind gives you the ability to remove your associations of humanity with the physiological function of a pregnancy and an unborn child. Yes I can see how once you remove the human factor a person becomes a thing. A thing is easier to deal with.
It removes all those pesky moral issues. That is psychological and emotional detachment.
I am intlelligent enough to know the paradox it creates. It is the reason why there is such a thing as P.A.S.S.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : A word change for clarification. In the sentence At what point does a human have protection under the law: does is changed to should to better clarify that I am asking for crashes personal opinion.

Even if I use the example of 1% that is roughly 13,000 people per year over the last 30 years. 390,000 women. It does not account for any men.
This is for people with long lasting severe emotional problems. For my purpose this includes all people who define it as carrying a burdon. If it move you to tears it affects you.If it forces you to become detached it affects you. It requires energy and time to deal with it. I personally find it no different than experiencing the loss of another family member and all the emotions one can go through except that I was party to thier demise. That is a choice I have to live with. You can now extapolate 390,001 by my definition.

I don't want to belabor this point, but that is EXACTLY the question I posed to you, and you said is not a pertinent discussion to this thread. Since you clearly believe it is, then you need to address the argument I made, at the very least the last post I made to you which drew out the numbers involved.From your own material we see that 1% face severe trauma, and from 2's we see that there is enough that at least two doctors are pushing a reduction in abortions in order to reduce the risk.In a clear analogy, if 1% of soldiers from the Gulf War suffer a malady, despite the fact that most did not and in fact felt great about what we did, does that mean that 1% does not suffer from a syndrome or that it should not be taken seriously as having come from the war? Your own source said severe trauma, and the doctors in 2's source said likelihood to engage in selfharm to an extent they recommend reducing abortions to avoid that outcome. That certainly reads as negatively impacted.What is YOUR definition of negatively impacted, and is there a point where the negative impacts on a small proportion of a society legitimates the proscription of an activity despite the majority having a positive outcome?I will also note that twice seems to be making the argument I suggested he was, or was available from the evidentiary argument he was appealing to.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

If you don't know whether she is lying, you cannot draw any conclusion as to whether I am lying or not regardless how often I might. As it is I have already made this moot by allowing her to make her position clear, regardless of whatever she has said in the past. She has declined to answer yet continues to argue the man, which while not conclusive is rather suggestive.Given that I am setting an olive branch out to you in another thread, I am not going to respond to any of the personal commentary. So 200 hand-picked exampled of soldiers that do not like the Iraq War and think it has hurt their life does not mean anything? I agree that statistically it doesn't. That is why I stated at the outset that I agreed in a general sense with schraf's position against 2.However there are greater complications than that, especially for her. And the way I have constructed my last 2 posts to her remove your need to defend her against suggestions of anything she may have previously said... let's concentrate on your position.Within schraf's own material we see that 1% do face severe trauma. Just because a majority do not and may even feel good, does that mean the 1% does not exist or should not be considered worthwhile. The testaments 2 read could very well be great in number, the only point being not in %. His point would stand, or at least need to be addressed. Holy smokes! No I am not. But I feel compelled to address your rather bizarre assertion.1) While not perfect, and in the thread I mention some of my own criticisms, Rind was forced into peer review beyond what other studies normally get and was accepted at each turn. A totally independent and highly credited science organization (AAAS IIRC) found NO problems with the study and chastised people for making the sort of claim you just did. If you have any evidence that it is considered "flawed" such that its findings are in dispute, by all means share it in the proper thread.2) Even if Rind were flawed, that does not suggest science has data to support social norms. And in such a case, lack of support really does stand as a counter to social norms. The prediction based on norms is something we find no support for in anything EXCEPT anecdotal studies (the kind of which you just pissed on) and clinical studies (which are discredited as being justified for drawing conclusions on behavior). If you have positive evidence to support social norms on that issue, by all means present them in an appropriate thread. As advanced notice I already went through this with someone in the clinical field at EvC, and the result was an admission there was no such evidence. The best which could be said is that I cannot claim there is NO POSSIBLE harm, which was not my position anyway. There begins to be a bit of absurdity when one claims that children should have the right to have someone manipulate their genital area and do physical damage (and perhaps psych damage) to remove a product of sexual behavior, yet at the same time argue that those same children should NOT have the right to have someone manipulate their genital area in ways that do not do physical or emotional damage.I might add that I NEVER said children having sex with adults. The proscription remains for children having sex with children as well. The POINT was MINORS HAVING SEX. You have read into my argument something that wasn't there. Actually prohibiting children from sexual contacts has been shown to lead to psych problems. So no specific sex is warranted at any particular time, but clearly sexual play as a child is necessary for sexual development of any person.And I don't think you can make the claim regarding negative consequences of abortion. You can certainly prove me wrong, but younger people may face worse results from abortion than carrying to term. In any case, that does not address the point here which was that abortion itself would cause harm. If there is any, should that lead to protections? Its nice that you have such a saintly image of her. Given her direct position on prostitution, which is that it should not be legalized, when all evidence indicates that illegality causes MORE HARM (this is even backed up by findings by police and feminist orgs) I find your claim disputable.I have found that her position is to protect certain groups from the potential of harm, regardless of what can be shown about actual existence of harm... including potential.But lets stop arguing about her position. All I did was ask you to deal with the argument or stop arguing with me. I don't see that its that egotistical to ask a person to stop arguing the man, and does not allow one to read into my request all the above. I certainly didn't mean anything like that.As I said, I've offered an olive branch in another thread (the humanity one), or at least a practical mechanism to remove the animosity. Lets move forward in that way please.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

All kinds of things are "human". Hairs can be human. Cheek scrapings and nail clippings can be human. A hair from my head, follicle attached, has more cells, more DNA, than I did before the 5th week of pregnancy. According to the law, at birth. What part of that do you find ambiguous? It refuted your comment. Clearly, Americans recognize the right of women to make determinations about who gets to live in their bodies at any given time. I'm not surprised you can see it, given that that's exactly your attitude towards pregnant women.

...nobody has that right, Holmes. Nobody has the right to demand sexual activities from others. Children have no right to demand sexual favors from other children, or from anybody else. Nobody does.I'm surprised that I have to tell you that, in fact. What on Earth is wrong with you? What proscription? I'm not familiar with anybody here who's asserted that it's harmful for minors to have consensual sex with each other. In fact, considering how frequently minors do that, and how obviously all adults were once minors, it would be pretty stupid indeed to argue such a point. Sexual contact with adults? Really? With adults? Try to remember that's what we're talking about - sex with adults and minors. No, it wasn't. It was about adults having sex with minors; that's the point now, and it's been the point all along. Do I have to impeach you with your own statements again? Who said anything about prostitution? Jesus, try to stay on the topic, Holmes! Or is that impossible for you? You can take your "olive branch" and cram it up your ass, and you're a real piece of work for bringing up Jazzn's experience like it's relevant to you and I - and distorting it while you do so. At least I had the decency to apologize to him. I noticed that's a courtesy that is apparently beneath you.