pjMom
backyardconservative
Carol
fuzislippers
iainswife
Obi's Sister
nicedeb
Pat Austin
Jill
Quite Rightly
retrieverheart
Sherry
just a conservative girl
Zilla
Can abortion make you suicidal?
Feminists played on the sympathies of earlier generations by raising the specter of the back-alley abortion with a hanger. Since then we’ve seen millions murdered in the womb, and the horror of the Philly clinic for mothers and babies alike.
But what of the social pathology associated with the act? Even Norma McCorvey/Jane Roe herself regretted her abortion, though it took years. Now women can see the baby develop in the womb early on. Preemies are born at younger ages than those aborted. How can this all be denied by a thinking person?
Now British researchers have concluded a major study, upending prevalent American ones:
An important meta-analysis published today in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry demonstrates that nearly 10% of mental health problems in women are directly attributable to abortion. “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green University, shows that women with an abortion history have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and 155% increased risk of suicide. This meta-analysis combines 22 studies of 877,181 women, 163, 831 of whom have had abortions. A meta-analysis is an especially powerful type of study because it includes a large number of subjects, and by combining studies is much more reliable than a single study.
This review, which is larger than any study to date, contradicts the recent and biased and less systematic review by the American Psychological Association, which fails to find a relationship between mental health problems and abortion. The new meta-analysis also contradicts the stance of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which has been silent on the mental health impact of abortion in its official publications despite overwhelming evidence over the last two decades of abortion’s adverse effects.
Ignore the evidence at the risk of even women’s health, the gaping loophole of the abortion at all costs crowd.
P.S. And while giving the Black Panthers a pass at the polling place–where they were actually blocking access and brandishing billy clubs, the Obama Justice Dept. is aggressively going after pro-life protesters at abortion clinics.
telltaleimages, and 
just a conservative girl are discussing. 
KP California, 
Carol, 
Potluck 
telltaleimages 3:22 PM on 09/01/2011 Permalink |
I suggest you go back and read this paper thoroughly. The authors are not nearly so sure of the strength of the findings as you appear to be. They describe the link as statistically ‘modest’ and ‘small’.
If you are as familiar with this study as you claim to be, in the interests of fairness you should also mention that the study has been heavily criticised for including data from abortions performed for ANY reason at all – including abortions performed on embryos that were simply not viable, i.e., had no chance of living to birth or after birth, and embryos that, had they been allowed to continue developing, would have resulted in the death of the mother. It is unsurprising that women who found themselves in these situations would report an increased incidence of poor mental health and so skew the data in the direction of the effect found.
You should also mention, in the interests of honesty, that the authors also noted that the effect size they found for increased mental health disorders after abortion was similar to that found in women who had suffered miscarriages!
backyardconservative 5:23 PM on 09/01/2011 Permalink |
They did find it statistically significant though. Perhaps more studies will be done–but this was a meta, more reliable than a single study.
I think it’s fair to include abortions for any reason. It’s difficult to get into the WHY of the suicidal beyond that. I can posit an opposite explanation to the ones you come up with. That will take more study but this one is on the record.
just a conservative girl 6:05 PM on 09/01/2011 Permalink |
I find it very interesting that you seem to find a big difference between an abortion and a miscarriage. It is all the same thing, the baby is dead.
Also, there are plenty of mothers who carry to term children with health issues and some even go ahead with a pregnancy even when told it endangers their health. Tim Tebow’s mother’s for example. So to say that skews the numbers really doesn’t make sense. The only way it makes sense is to someone who thinks that abortion in those circumstances is the correct way of dealing with the problem.
telltaleimages 8:15 PM on 09/01/2011 Permalink |
I think the difference in approaches (between myself and yourselves) lies in the fact that I’m not American, I live in Europe. In Europe abortion is simply not the issue it is in some parts of the US If you were to hold a referendum with a view to banning abortion in any western European country it would be defeated very heavily, no question.
Medical procedures always incur risk. If you were to look at mental health outcomes after any type of invasive procedure, whether elective or not, you would, I’m sure, find negative mental health outcomes compared to pre-procedure. So the question I would ask is, why on earth single out terminations for comment?
backyard conservative – You state that meta studies are more reliable than single studies. This is wholly incorrect and I doubt if you would find a researcher in any scientific field or a statistician that would agree with you. Meta analyses are famously unreliable because no matter how you select the studies for the analysis you will always be adding large amounts of independent variables or ‘noise’ to the dataset. Meta analyses are used to identify possible trends for future research and not causal pathways. For example, there is no way that you could say that the increased risk of suicide found in the meta analysis is due to women having had a termination (and the authors make this point).
The reason that including abortions performed for any reason is an error is because women who have abortions by choice might have differing underlying personalities and/or mental health histories than women who have abortions reluctantly, i.e., they have comorbidities such as cancer or severe diabetes and need a termination to save life. Or, women who have a termination due to rape or incest. Or, without reference to the age of the woman or girl. The many differing groups and subgroups may each react differently psychologically to the procedure.
To put it another way, people who have surgery due to an underlying congenital condition may react differently psychologically to people who require the same surgery as a result of poor lifestyle choices. They may react differently is the surgery is performed as children, or adults. Or if they had children of their own etc etc There is no way you would include data from all groups in a study of mental health outcomes for liver transplant or cardiac valve replacement, for example. It just wouldn’t be good science. You’re trying to tease apart the effect that the surgery has – independent of the effects of age, history, marital status, lifestyle or genes.
With a similar study of abortion, you’re trying to ascertain the effect that the procedure has, independent of the reasons that women present for the procedure. Otherwise you might as well just get a group 14 year-old girls who’ve become pregnant after being raped by their brothers and study them, or a group of women in their 30s who are happily married and have high status careers and don’t want children to interfere with their lifestyles, and study them – then confidently assume that all females who have terminations for any reason, and from any background will respond the same. They wouldn’t I’m sure – and so it wouldn’t be good science, would it? So you study all the available groups in isolation and make your conclusions accordingly.
just a conservative girl – you refer to the subject of abortion and miscarriage as a ‘baby’. this is not medically true. The vast majority of terminations and miscarriages occur to a clump of nondifferentiated or semi-differentiated cells. In no way is this stage of development a ‘baby’. It is potentially a baby if a large number of physiological conditions are met. The fact that the majority of conceptions end in miscarriage, ususally at a very early stage with the mother unaware, shows that those physiological conditions are met comparitively rarely. You simply cannot call the product of a conception, a zygote, later an embryo, a baby, it is medically incorrect.
backyardconservative 9:15 PM on 09/01/2011 Permalink |
Interesting. Firstly, abortion is not health care. It is a lifestyle choice. Secondly, no one is talking about banning abortion. If Roe v. Wade were repealed by the Supreme Court the decision would then be left to each of the states. They can then pass the law that suits their values. Hopefully most would choose to protect innocent life. I myself am in favor of abortion for rape and incest, others may differ. As for saving the life of the mother, if she has a chronic condition she needs to be responsible in the first place. I know couples who have adopted for that reason. Abortion should not be used as birth control.
As far as being from Europe, well, you have a unique situation there. Not enough population growth to sustain you as Europe. Immigration is another matter.
Yes, meta analysis must be handled carefully. But I’d say this was significant and a trend identified.
We are talking about life here and the taking of it.It’s not something that should be parsed as a procedure. That’s dehumanizing.
And that’s the point.