Keep abortion out of Ireland

qrrgprgua

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/expectant-mother-badgered-by-pro-abortion-co-workers-turns-to-advice-column/

Delirium

qrrgprgua wrote: »

koth wrote: »

Are you equally opposed to the pharmaceutical and private hospital industries?

No as long as they don't intentionally kill anyone.

But they're also medical industries that make profit, why aren't you complaining about them too? By your definition of life, they do intentionally kill.

qrrgprgua

koth wrote: »

But they're also medical industries that make profit, why aren't you complaining about them too? By your definition of life, they do intentionally kill.

There is a whole supply chain to the abortion industry. Yes there are companies who make a profit from it. But antibiotics supplied can be used for various ends. and so forth.

Delirium

qrrgprgua wrote: »

koth wrote: »

But they're also medical industries that make profit, why aren't you complaining about them too? By your definition of life, they do intentionally kill.

There is a whole supply chain to the abortion industry. Yes there are companies who make a profit from it. But antibiotics supplied can be used for various ends. and so forth.

why bring up that companies charge money/ make profit from abortion procedures? Unless you support a system where abortions are affordable or possibly free to all women, then has nothing to with the discussion.

From what I've read of your posts, you are totally opposed to abortions. I'm struggling to see what this does to help your side of discussion

qrrgprgua

koth wrote: »

why bring up that companies charge money/ make profit from abortion procedures? Unless you support a system where abortions are affordable or possibly free to all women, then has nothing to with the discussion.

From what I've read of your posts, you are totally opposed to abortions. I'm struggling to see what this does to help your side of discussion

Pro-Abortion groups say its about "Choice" when it reality its about money. Pro-Abortion groups fund contraception for teenagers.. knowing 20% will get pregnant.. the then help them get an abortion.

I don't need to argue this... There are many who will give their accounts from the inside how the system works. No too far off from tobacco companies do to get teenagers addicted. The problem with abortion is that it targets a person who has no say in the discussion.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Pro-Abortion groups say its about "Choice" when it reality its about money. Pro-Abortion groups fund contraception for teenagers.. knowing 20% will get pregnant.. the then help them get an abortion.

I know this is a futile question, but perhaps you could source this claim, instead of linking to stuff that is totally irrelevant

dyer

haven't seen this article posted previously :

Facts still sacred despite Ireland's spectrum of conflicting views on abortion

Sin City

Dont think anyone is really going to change their opinions on this one. After 119 pages the debate goes on.


Abortion

Better late than never








(I dont support abortion but couldnt resist)

qrrgprgua

dyer wrote: »

haven't seen this article posted previously :

Facts still sacred despite Ireland's spectrum of conflicting views on abortion

The study has numerous problematic elements and the results cannot be trusted for the reasons described below.


1) The sample is limited to women who had a first abortion or birth between 1994 and 2007. The oldest women in the population for whom the investigators had data were born in 1962, and many of the oldest women surely experienced their first abortion or birth well before 1994 (since they would have been 32 at the time), yet they are not included in the analyses and no explanation is provided for their exclusion.


2) There is a serious problem with the structuring of the birth and abortion groups that the authors openly acknowledge: out of the total sample of 8,131 women, 952 (nearly 12%) were in both groups! In order to conduct clean comparisons, these women should absolutely have been removed prior to conducting the analyses.


3) The authors only analyzed a very small fraction of all women with histories of mental illness, the most extreme forms requiring in-patient hospitalization. For every woman hospitalized for a mental illness after abortion, there are potentially 1000s of women suffering from disorders who received out-patient services, were never treated, of self-medicated with substances. The sample is very narrowly constructed.


4) The only control variables employed are age, calendar period, time since previous admission, reproductive history, and parental history of mental disorders. There were no controls for variables demonstrated in previous studies to be associated with the choice to abort and with post-abortion mental illness including marital status, education level, religion, income, relationship history variables including abuse, planning of the pregnancy, reasons women chose to undergo abortion, and pressure to abort, among other variables.


5) The authors conducted correlational analyses and inappropriately made inferences of causality, For example, in the first sentence in the conclusion section of the article they state: “In the present study, we found that first-time first-trimester induced abortion does not influence the risk of readmission to psychiatric facilities.” Such a statement is not permitted with the use of variables that cannot be controlled (like abortion status), particularly when so few control variables are incorporated.


6) Follow-up was limited to 12 months after the pregnancies were resolved. Prospective studies have shown that many women experience mental health problems associated with an abortion years after the procedure. By only measuring readmission for one year, women who have delayed responses, sometimes triggered by a later pregnancy, are not included in the analyses. The data are available in the Danish registries and there is no valid reason for cutting off the follow-up period so early.

dyer

you haven't cited evidence for any of the above.

28064212

dyer wrote: »

you haven't cited evidence for any of the above.

That's because it's a direct copy and paste from here: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/08/study-attempts-to-downplay-abortion-mental-health-risk-link/ (which also doesn't have cite any evidence for their claims)

Delirium

qrrgprgua wrote: »

dyer wrote: »

haven't seen this article posted previously :

Facts still sacred despite Ireland's spectrum of conflicting views on abortion

The study has numerous problematic elements and the results cannot be trusted for the reasons described below.


1) The sample is limited to women who had a first abortion or birth between 1994 and 2007. The oldest women in the population for whom the investigators had data were born in 1962, and many of the oldest women surely experienced their first abortion or birth well before 1994 (since they would have been 32 at the time), yet they are not included in the analyses and no explanation is provided for their exclusion.


2) There is a serious problem with the structuring of the birth and abortion groups that the authors openly acknowledge: out of the total sample of 8,131 women, 952 (nearly 12%) were in both groups! In order to conduct clean comparisons, these women should absolutely have been removed prior to conducting the analyses.


3) The authors only analyzed a very small fraction of all women with histories of mental illness, the most extreme forms requiring in-patient hospitalization. For every woman hospitalized for a mental illness after abortion, there are potentially 1000s of women suffering from disorders who received out-patient services, were never treated, of self-medicated with substances. The sample is very narrowly constructed.


4) The only control variables employed are age, calendar period, time since previous admission, reproductive history, and parental history of mental disorders. There were no controls for variables demonstrated in previous studies to be associated with the choice to abort and with post-abortion mental illness including marital status, education level, religion, income, relationship history variables including abuse, planning of the pregnancy, reasons women chose to undergo abortion, and pressure to abort, among other variables.


5) The authors conducted correlational analyses and inappropriately made inferences of causality, For example, in the first sentence in the conclusion section of the article they state: “In the present study, we found that first-time first-trimester induced abortion does not influence the risk of readmission to psychiatric facilities.” Such a statement is not permitted with the use of variables that cannot be controlled (like abortion status), particularly when so few control variables are incorporated.


6) Follow-up was limited to 12 months after the pregnancies were resolved. Prospective studies have shown that many women experience mental health problems associated with an abortion years after the procedure. By only measuring readmission for one year, women who have delayed responses, sometimes triggered by a later pregnancy, are not included in the analyses. The data are available in the Danish registries and there is no valid reason for cutting off the follow-up period so early.

Above text is copied and pasted from following link -> http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/08/study-attempts-to-downplay-abortion-mental-health-risk-link/

it's considered bad manners to use text without attribution, especially if you're essentially copying the article wholesale.

Delirium

qrrgprgua wrote: »

dyer wrote: »

haven't seen this article posted previously :

Facts still sacred despite Ireland's spectrum of conflicting views on abortion

The study has numerous problematic elements and the results cannot be trusted for the reasons described below.


1) The sample is limited to women who had a first abortion or birth between 1994 and 2007. The oldest women in the population for whom the investigators had data were born in 1962, and many of the oldest women surely experienced their first abortion or birth well before 1994 (since they would have been 32 at the time), yet they are not included in the analyses and no explanation is provided for their exclusion.


2) There is a serious problem with the structuring of the birth and abortion groups that the authors openly acknowledge: out of the total sample of 8,131 women, 952 (nearly 12%) were in both groups! In order to conduct clean comparisons, these women should absolutely have been removed prior to conducting the analyses.


3) The authors only analyzed a very small fraction of all women with histories of mental illness, the most extreme forms requiring in-patient hospitalization. For every woman hospitalized for a mental illness after abortion, there are potentially 1000s of women suffering from disorders who received out-patient services, were never treated, of self-medicated with substances. The sample is very narrowly constructed.


4) The only control variables employed are age, calendar period, time since previous admission, reproductive history, and parental history of mental disorders. There were no controls for variables demonstrated in previous studies to be associated with the choice to abort and with post-abortion mental illness including marital status, education level, religion, income, relationship history variables including abuse, planning of the pregnancy, reasons women chose to undergo abortion, and pressure to abort, among other variables.


5) The authors conducted correlational analyses and inappropriately made inferences of causality, For example, in the first sentence in the conclusion section of the article they state: “In the present study, we found that first-time first-trimester induced abortion does not influence the risk of readmission to psychiatric facilities.” Such a statement is not permitted with the use of variables that cannot be controlled (like abortion status), particularly when so few control variables are incorporated.


6) Follow-up was limited to 12 months after the pregnancies were resolved. Prospective studies have shown that many women experience mental health problems associated with an abortion years after the procedure. By only measuring readmission for one year, women who have delayed responses, sometimes triggered by a later pregnancy, are not included in the analyses. The data are available in the Danish registries and there is no valid reason for cutting off the follow-up period so early.

Above text is copied and pasted from following link -> http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/08/study-attempts-to-downplay-abortion-mental-health-risk-link/

it's considered bad manners to use text without attribution, especially if you're essentially copying the article wholesale.

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Pro-Abortion groups say its about "Choice" when it reality its about money. Pro-Abortion groups fund contraception for teenagers.. knowing 20% will get pregnant.. the then help them get an abortion.

I don't need to argue this... There are many who will give their accounts from the inside how the system works. No too far off from tobacco companies do to get teenagers addicted. The problem with abortion is that it targets a person who has no say in the discussion.

I am curious on this one , why bother wasting money on contraception if 20% get pregnant, surely more than 20% will get pregnant without contraception and thus more opportunities for the ''abortion industry'' ?

qrrgprgua

koth wrote: »

Above text is copied and pasted from following link -> http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/08/study-attempts-to-downplay-abortion-mental-health-risk-link/

it's considered bad manners to use text without attribution, especially if you're essentially copying the article wholesale.

Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D. Published in British Journal of Psychiatry. Her study incorporates data from over 800,000 participants and is the largest study in the world on the mental health effects of abortion.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D. Published in British Journal of Psychiatry. Her study incorporates data from over 800,000 participants and is the largest study in the world on the mental health effects of abortion.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180

That paper was an analysis of 22 different studies, most of which were hers. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists came out and pointed out it contradicted 3 previous analyses, and that her paper fails to examine "if these women had pre-existing mental health complications such as dependency issues and mood disorders before the abortion" (http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-statement-bjpsych-paper-mental-health-risks-and-a). She's also been criticized by the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-sleuth/201111/more-review-claiming-abortion-hurts-womens-mental-health) because she "did not adequately control for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion"

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges found the same, that "previous mental health problems were not controlled for within the review" (http://aomrc.org.uk/publications/reports-a-guidance/doc_download/9432-induced-abortion-and-mental-health.html - PDF). They also found that "the Coleman review failed to provide any details about quality assessment, included a number of studies that were of low quality and failed to control for previous mental health problems". By the way, the conclusion of that report is enlightening: "Overall, we have therefore largely confirmed the findings of the APA and Charles reviews, both through our narrative review and meta-analysis. When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, rates of mental health problems will be largely unaffected whether she has an abortion or goes on to give birth."

When there was an attempt to replicate her findings (by researchers at the University of California, somewhat more reputable than Bowling Green State University), they found that her results were not replicable, and "We were unable to reproduce the most basic tabulations of Coleman and colleagues. Moreover, their findings were logically inconsistent with other published research -- for example, they found higher rates of depression in the last month than other studies found during respondents' entire lifetimes. This suggests that the results were substantially inflated" (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/12/study_disputes_abortion_mental.html).

It would be nice if, instead of just copy-pasting walls of text vaguely related to your argument, you actually explained what point you were trying to make, and how the sources related to it

qrrgprgua

The author herself responds to many various critics In BJP.
She covers all your questions there

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The author herself responds to many various critics In BJP.
She covers all your questions there

Link?

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

Link?

I already gave it above. Open it an at the bottom are Responses to this article. Author gives her responses to critics.

qrrgprgua

Dear Professor Tyrer:

I appreciate your decision to publish my meta-analysis on abortion and mental health in the British Journal of Psychiatry, despite the controversial results and critical commentary that has predictably followed. In the barrage of recent letters, the sentiments have varied widely and the many supportive arguments presented are worthy of additional comment; however, given space limitations, I have decided to focus on the criticisms to help ensure the results are given the attention deserved.
Before I address the most salient issues, I should note how encouraging it is to have a scholarly forum for discussing the many complexities inherent in conducting systematic reviews on this topic. The optimist in me is hopeful that this dialogue will foreshadow a new era wherein the research community is able to move beyond agendas and polarized discussions to focus exclusively on the well-being of women, the centre of this academic debate that is so frequently obscured.

There are some comments that I believe are without basis and may not have been made with a more careful, less emotional read of the article. For example, Littell and Coyne suggested scientific standards for systematic reviews were not followed. The protocol employed is detailed in the methodology section and the strategy was in line with recommendations in the Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Rather than focus on these types of comments, I address criticisms requiring more information from me to allow readers to make informed decisions regarding the merit of the issues raised. I specifically address heterogeneity, publication bias, selection criteria, and personal bias in the text that follows.

Heterogeneity: The studies included in the meta-analysis have a relatively high degree of heterogeneity given the demographic and cultural differences in sampling, the variability in control groups and outcomes, and differences in third variable controls, etc. Counter to the claim by Polis and colleagues, heterogeneity was addressed by employing a random effects model. The random effects model yields an estimate of the mean of a distribution of true effects; whereas in the fixed effects model there is an assumption that all the included studies share one common effect. When assigning weights to studies in a fixed effects model, the smaller ones are afforded less importance, since the same effect is believed to be more precisely assessed in the larger studies. In contrast, in the random effects model, individual studies of varying sizes contribute data from distinct populations, all of which must be considered in the pooled estimate. Weighting is therefore more balanced in the random effects vs. fixed effects model with smaller studies given relatively more emphasis.In recognition of the heterogeneity, I not only employed the random effects model, but I ran separate meta-analyses based on distinct comparison groups and outcomes.

Publication Bias: Goldacre and Lee provided a funnel plot analysis and presented it as evidence of publication bias. However, the funnel plot is largely inappropriate for heterogeneous meta-analyses, wherein studies are not likely from a single underlying population [1-4], and several investigators have warned that use of funnel plots with meta-analyses derived from heterogeneous samples may result in false-positive claims of publication bias [1-4]. When funnel plot asymmetry is detected in a heterogeneous meta-analysis, the cause is likely due to essential differences between the smaller and larger studies. For example, the majority of the smaller studies included in my meta-analysis employed substance use outcome variables and these outcomes tend to yield the strongest, most robust effects [5,6]. In addition, the larger studies were more likely than the smaller studies to include actual diagnoses for disorders, rarer events than cut off scores on single surveys. In the context of this meta-analysis, the funnel plot most certainly does not provide evidence of publication bias.

My experience attempting to locate unpublished data/studies on abortion and mental health has been very disheartening over the last 15 years,with virtually all requests ignored. I suspect reluctance to share unpublished data is an attempt to keep results that challenge contemporary views on abortion, indicating significant increased risks for adverse psychological effects,out of the public domain. In contrast, I believe energy is likely invested in seeing to it that non-significant findings, suggesting abortion carries no increased psychological risks, find their way into the journals. If there is any topic wherein many editors, researchers, and professional organizations are highly motivated to publish non-significant effects, it is this one, rendering publication bias less common than in other areas. Support for this notion can be found in the American Psychological Association's 42 year history of abortion advocacy.

In 1969 the APA passed a resolution which made the pro-choice political position the organization's official stance and declared abortion a civil right. For decades the APA has aligned itself with major organizations with pro-choice social agendas, including the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, National Abortion Federation, National Abortion Rights Action League, Guttmacher Institute, and Planned Parenthood among others, frequently submitting amicus briefs and providing congressional testimony. Martel[7] recently discussed the APA's position on abortion, among other issues,noting that the organization's stance has led them to promote psychological research and disseminate data to lawmakers to inform the public and advocate for societal change. Martel further pointed out that the political stance of the APA lacks the strong backing of empirical data. With this long history of abortion advocacy by the strongest professional psychology organization in the world, politically motivated efforts to publish null findings to support and legitimize their position is logical.

Selection Criteria: As indicated under the methodology section of the meta-analysis, studies identified using the Medline and PsycINFO data bases were included based on sample size, comparison groups, outcome variables, controls for 3rd variables, use of odds ratios, and publication in English in peer-reviewed journals between 1995 and 2009. In an effort to isolate the effect of abortion on mental health, use of comparisons groups and controls for 3rd variables are basic methodological requirements consistent with the Bradford Hill criteria [8]. The majority of studies meeting these criteria and incorporated into the meta-analysis also had many other strong methodological features (multiple data points, nationally representative samples, etc.) I purposely avoided selecting from among the many more peripheral methodological criteria that could be argued as a necessary basis for including or excluding studies, when there is not universal agreement regarding strengths necessary to consider a study's results sufficiently reliable and valid, nor is there consensus on the particular deficiencies necessary for the wholesale dismissal of a study.

Using the criteria outlined above, a significant proportion of the included studies (11/22) were articles that I authored or co-authored. However, having published 33 peer-reviewed articles, I believe I am more widely published on this topic than any other researcher in the world. It makes sense, therefore, that I am a co-author on a significant proportion of the included studies. Moreover, no studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were left out of the analyses.

Curiously the issue of my not including a study by Danish researchers Munk-Olsen and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine[9] was raised despite the fact that the paper came out long after my meta-analysis was completed and submitted for publication. Incidentally, the NEJM paper is presented as offering more reliable conclusions than the meta-analysis. However, there are several problematic features of this study. To begin with, Munk-Olsen and colleagues note that previous studies lack controls for third variables, but the only third variables they consider are age and parity. There are no controls for pregnancy intendedness, pressure to abort, marital status, income, education, exposure to violence and other traumas, etc. Many studies have been deemed inadequate based on only one of these variables not being accounted for (see APA Task Force Report [10]). The data indicated that rates of mental health problems were higher after abortion compared to childbirth (15.2% vs. 6.7%); however, the generally comparable rates before and after abortion were used to negate a possible causal link between abortion and mental health. This reasoning is problematic as many women were likely disturbed to the point of seeking help precisely because they were pregnant and contemplating an abortion or they were involved in troubled relationships. These factors may have resolved, yet disturbance rates remained elevated due to the impact of the abortion. Further, the Danish Civil Registration System contains over 40 years of data, but the researchers curiously compressed the study period to 12 years. A more appropriate strategy would have been to include all women experiencing an abortion, a birth, or no pregnancy and then compare pre and post-pregnancy mental health visits with statistical controls for all psychiatric visits pre-dating conception and all other relevant third variables described above.

Personal Bias: A quote from a presentation I gave at the annual meeting of the American Association of Prolife Obstetricians and Gynecologists was used by Goldacre and Lee to label me an "anti-abortion campaigner." This out of context comment was part of a broader call for more concerted efforts to create environments wherein objective scientists are able to make the psychology of abortion a priority. Once strong synopses of the best evidence are published, the data can and should be used to intelligibly inform policy. I am opposed to professional organizations like the APA creating a culture wherein it is perfectly acceptable for any political position (in this case pro-choice) to drive data collection efforts, restrict grants to researchers committed to a political agenda, serve as journal gatekeepers to block publication of findings that are not consonant with the political agenda, and ultimately use the biased information assembled to back policy.

I do not hold membership in any political organizations and my work has never been funded by any pro-life group. My expertise tends to be called upon by the pro-life community and unfortunately I am never asked to present my research or perspective on the literature to groups committed to a pro-choice political position. As a professor at a public university, what motivates me is simply the desire to foster high quality research and reach as many people as one individual can with an accurate appraisal of the literature, given the biases that permeate the study of abortion and dissemination of information through the usual channels. I do not have many graduate students working with me or large grants, and it is alarming that a researcher with such modest resources was the first to conduct a major quantitative review.

Rather than hurling unfounded accusations of personal bias, we need to more effectively utilize the well-established methods of science to fairly scrutinize the methodologies of individual studies, expand the empirical investigation of abortion and mental health, and develop a consensus-based standardized set of criteria for ranking studies meriting inclusion in reviews. Without agreement, the selected standards may be used to manipulate conclusions. For example, the ranking system employed by Charles et al. [11] ignored two central methodological considerations in prospective research designs: 1) percentage consenting to participate (no information was provided by the authors of the Gilchrist et al. [12] study that this team ranked as "Very Good"); and 2) retention of subjects over time. In the Gilchrist et al. study, only 34.4% of the termination group and 43.4% of the group that did not request termination were retained. A major problem with nearly all the recently published narrative reviews was somewhat arbitrary exclusion criteria at best and the purposeful selection of specific criteria resulting in dismissal of large bodies of evidence with politically incorrect results at worst.

By raising concerns of publication bias and attempting to undermine the credibility of an individual researcher, who managed to publish in a high profile journal, several people have sought to shift attention from the truly shameful and systemic bias that permeates the psychology of abortion. Professional organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere have arrogantly sought to distort the scientific literature and paternalistically deny women the information they deserve to make fully informed health care choices and receive necessary mental health counseling when and if an abortion decision proves detrimental.

1. Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. The inappropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ l2007; 176 (3):1091-1096.

2. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 2007; 333:597-600.

3. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J, et al. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med 2003;22:2113-26.

4. Ioannidis JP. Differentiating biases from genuine heterogeneity: distinguishing artifactual from substantive effects. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments. Sussex: John Wiley and Sons; 2005. 287-302.

5. Coleman PK. Induced Abortion and increased risk of substance use: A review of the evidence. Current Women's Health Reviews 2005; 1: 21-34.

6. Mota NP, Burnett M, &Sareen J. Associations between abortion, mental disorders, and suicidal behaviour in a nationally representative sample. Can J Psychiatry 2010; 55(4):2 39-47.

7. Martel MM. The ethics of psychology's role in politics and the development and institution of social policy. Ethics & Behavior 2009; 19(2):103-111.

8. Hill BA. The environment and disease: Association or causation?Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.

9. Munk-Olsen, T., et al., Induced first-trimester abortion and risk of mental disorder. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:332-9.

10. American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion 2008, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

11. Charles VE, Polis CB, Sridhara SK, Blum RW. Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence. Contraception 2008;78:436-50.

12. Gilchrist A, Hannaford P, Frank P, Kay C. Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity. Br J Psychiatry 1995; 167:243-248.

Conflict of Interest:
None declared

... less

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I already gave it above. Open it an at the bottom are Responses to this article. Author gives her responses to critics.

She does not address the issue of pre-existing mental conditions not being accounted for. She does not address the issue of the fact that her results were not replicable.

You'll note that those were the two issues I (and the APA, AMA, RCOG and AMRC) raised. The issues she actually replied to were the accusations that the selected studies were too different to accurately compare, accusations of personal bias, and accusations of selection criteria, none of which I raised

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

She does not address the issue of pre-existing mental conditions not being accounted for. She does not address the issue of the fact that her results were not replicable.

You'll note that those were the two issues I (and the APA, AMA, RCOG and AMRC) raised. The issues she actually replied to were the accusations that the selected studies were too different to accurately compare, accusations of personal bias, and accusations of selection criteria, none of which I raised

So you already read the paper in full?

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So you already read the paper in full?

Where did I say that, or make a statement that suggested I had? Although given that you brought it into the discussion, I can only assume that you have. I'm sure you wouldn't want to make use of something to back up your argument without knowing all the details. Again.

The APA, AMA, RCOG and AMRC read it and raised the issues it had. I pointed out that those organisations had done that. You said she had responded to those issues. I pointed out that she had not, she had responded to totally different issues

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

Where did I say that, or make a statement that suggested I had? Although given that you brought it into the discussion, I can only assume that you have. I'm sure you wouldn't want to make use of something to back up your argument without knowing all the details. Again.

The APA, AMA, RCOG and AMRC read it and raised the issues it had. I pointed out that those organisations had done that. You said she had responded to those issues. I pointed out that she had not, she had responded to totally different issues

Facts remain it is the most extensive study. Also as the Author says virtually all her requests were ignored. The work is 15 years of research. The Author did her best to complete an objective piece of research on a Topic that many organisation have interests to bury.

I think the report of a women of such calibre is to be commended.

But it does not take research like this to tell us that of course killing your child will have after effects, there are countless accounts of this. Of women regretting having an abortion. I am sure there are women out there who get over it pretty quickly and never think about it again. But to say these are the majority is ludicrous. And if you try to do a study on Post Abortion depression do you think the abortion clinics or health service will hand you a list of contacts? Its not like they both with follow-up counselling?

I met a women from New York some weeks ago on a Pilgrimage. She was about 55, single and Alone. She became pregnant from an Affair she had. Had an abortion some 25 years ago. Her marriage subsequent broke down, but her husband did not find out about the affair. We got talking and she told me the story, 2 strangers walking across spain on the camino.

She said her biggest regret in life was to have aborted. She did not feel the regret after the abortion, but as he life progressed and she did not have kids, her husband left, She regretted having aborted the only child she could have had.

Her words... "at some level women who abort will always regret it,,, to be human means to feel. "

The study above just states the obvious for me.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Facts remain it is the most extensive study.

According to the author. That is not a fact

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Also as the Author says virtually all her requests were ignored. The work is 15 years of research. The Author did her best to complete an objective piece of research on a Topic that many organisation have interests to bury.

So you're now accusing the AMA, APA, RCOG and AMRC (all objective organisations) of conspiring to suppress research, despite all of them publicising it (and the issues surrounding it).

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I think the report of a women of such calibre is to be commended.

Yes, a professor in the School of Family and Consumer Sciences in the 7th-biggest university of Ohio is definitely a sign of her calibre

qrrgprgua wrote: »

But it does not take research like this to tell us that of course killing your child will have after effects, there are countless accounts of this. Of women regretting having an abortion. I am sure there are women out there who get over it pretty quickly and never think about it again. But to say these are the majority is ludicrous. And if you try to do a study on Post Abortion depression do you think the abortion clinics or health service will hand you a list of contacts? Its not like they both with follow-up counselling?

The AMA, APA, RCOG and AMRC all agree that having an unwanted pregnancy has psychological repercussions. All of them agree that abortion does not have any greater risk of mental health problems developing

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The study above just states the obvious for me.

So you found a study that fits your world-view, and now refuse to accept the large problems with it. Not unlike Dr Coleman then

qrrgprgua

Its not my world view.. Its reality. or are you saying women don't get depressed after an abortion?

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its not my world view.. Its reality. or are you saying women don't get depressed after an abortion?

what is the relevance ? women get depressed after giving birth also .

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its not my world view.. Its reality. or are you saying women don't get depressed after an abortion?

Some women's mental health suffers after an unwanted pregnancy. Whether they have an abortion after that has no further repercussions. If they were going have mental health problems, they will have them regardless of whether they have an abortion or carry it to full term.

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Yes we know pro-choice is entirely Subjective. You can't apply subjectivity to humanity. You need to apply objectivity. Objectively life begins at conception.

It's not as obvious as that. Zombrex has given an excellent argument as to why it's difficult to objectively define what constitutes "life" (as a concept, not a word). There is no consensus in biology, in law or in medicine and that's exactly why this issue proves so divisive.

You choose to define "life" as beginning at conception and therefore, abortion is murder. That is your prerogative. Not everyone agrees with you. And all the more confusingly, some people will agree with you but get abortions anyway. Or agree with you at some points in their life and disagree at others. Or agree with you under certain circumstances and not others. If that doesn't encapsulate the subjective nature of this issue, what does?

eviltwin

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its not my world view.. Its reality. or are you saying women don't get depressed after an abortion?

Women do sometimes suffer mental trauma after an abortion. Its called PASS ( post abortion stress syndrome ) and I had it myself after my abortion.

Studies have shown though that its more commen in women who are pressured or forced to have an abortion against their will or who do it without thinking their options through. In cases where the woman is able to explore her options and make what she feels is the right choice then its unlikely to be an issue.

For me, it nearly killed me, I attempted suicide but with a lot of help and support and with the passing of time I am doing really well. I know in my case the problem was down to the fact I rushed into things, I was unable to access proper counselling here, I was not really thinking clearly as I was trying to sort out work, get cheap flights etc. But I know I made the right choice and ultimately have no regrets about it.

Had abortion been an option here I would have had more time to think it through and would have been sure I was doing the right thing. But it can be overcome, its not something that has to blight a woman's life forever.

Its also worth noting that PASS can be compounded by the fact many women who have abortions are unable to get decent post abortion counselling here - its pretty crap to be honest, they are not able to be open about it because of the fear of the comments they might get and the general stigma.

Its not just abortion though, getting pregnant when you didn't plan it can mess you up no matter what path you choose.