Family Edge looks at news and trends affecting the family in the light of human dignity. Our focus is the inspiring, creative, humorous, annoying, ridiculous, and dangerous ideas in the evening news. Send tips and brainwaves to the editor, Tamara Rajakariar, at tamara.rajakariar@ mercatornet.com - See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/normalising-abortion-wont-make-it-hurt-less/17513#sthash.4vqW5g8R.dpuf
THURSDAY, 28 JANUARY 2016
Normalising abortion won’t make it hurt less
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/normalising-abortion-wont-make-it-hurt-less/17513#sthash.O8Bbog0W.dpuf
The News Story - 'I Had A Sense of Relief': Livestreaming Our Abortion Stories
22 January 2016 marked the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and also the closest the U.S. has perhaps ever come to federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. But new efforts are fighting such pro-life victories.
On Tuesday of that week, the 1 in 3 Campaign, a project of the nonprofit Advocates for Youth, hosted a six-hour livestream wherein women shared their personal abortion stories. The purpose? “Running away from abortion and not talking about abortion and acting like there’s something wrong with abortion does a disservice to everyone who’s had one and does a disservice to those who provide them,” Lizz Winstead of the Daily Show, who was one of the participants, told The Daily Beast. Abortion, these women believe, is a subject that has been forced into the shadows. Winstead believes that until the day comes when women can open up about their abortion experiences, “those of us who feel like we have the strength, the privilege, to tell our stories . . . give [abortion] a context that makes sense, that normalizes it, [and] that takes the shame away.”
The general tone of such stories was that abortion allowed these women to be happy, to lead fulfilling lives, and that there was no reason for regret. But research suggests that, in spite of such rhetoric, “normalizing” abortion will lead to more and more unhappy women.
The general tone of such stories was that abortion allowed these women to be happy, to lead fulfilling lives, and that there was no reason for regret. But research suggests that, in spite of such rhetoric, “normalizing” abortion will lead to more and more unhappy women.
The New Research - The Dark Shadow of Abortion
For years, feminist activists have been congratulating themselves on having won for American women a nearly unfettered right to abortion. That these activists ignore the unborn lives snuffed out has deeply troubled many Americans. But new research is raising troubling questions even for Americans willing to focus exclusively on the well-being of the women who seek abortions.
Recently published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, a study conducted by researchers at Christchurch Health and Development Study indicates that when young women abort their unborn children, they often subsequently suffer from a range of serious psychological problems. Examining data collected from 520 New Zealand young women for the first 25 years of their lives, the Christchurch scholars adduce evidence that “young women reporting abortions had elevated rates of mental health problems when compared with those becoming pregnant without abortion.” The litany of psychological problems associated with abortion includes “depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours, and substance use disorders.”
The association between abortion and psychological vulnerability persists in statistical models that take into account differences in psychological history and disparities in economic and social circumstances. The researchers interpret the persistence of this linkage as strong evidence of “a possible causal linkage.” Further statistical analysis clarifies the direction of causation, with the data indicating that “abortion leads to increased risk of mental health problems.” The data do not support the view that “mental health problems lead to increased risk of abortion.”
The Christchurch scholars acknowledge that their findings are “inconsistent” with a statement published by the American Psychological Association (APA) assuring Americans that “risk of psychological harm is low” for women who undergo abortions. However, the Christchurch scholars complain that the APA’s “relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more . . . [methodological] limitations.” Underscoring their skepticism with regard to the APA’s assurances, the Christchurch scholars find it “difficult to disregard the real possibility that abortion amongst young women is associated with increased risk of mental health problems.”
(Source: Bryce J. Christensen, “New Research,” The Family in America, February 2007, Vol. 21 Number 2. Study: David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder, “Abortion in Young Women and Subsequent Mental Health,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47 [2006]: 16-24.)
Recently published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, a study conducted by researchers at Christchurch Health and Development Study indicates that when young women abort their unborn children, they often subsequently suffer from a range of serious psychological problems. Examining data collected from 520 New Zealand young women for the first 25 years of their lives, the Christchurch scholars adduce evidence that “young women reporting abortions had elevated rates of mental health problems when compared with those becoming pregnant without abortion.” The litany of psychological problems associated with abortion includes “depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours, and substance use disorders.”
The association between abortion and psychological vulnerability persists in statistical models that take into account differences in psychological history and disparities in economic and social circumstances. The researchers interpret the persistence of this linkage as strong evidence of “a possible causal linkage.” Further statistical analysis clarifies the direction of causation, with the data indicating that “abortion leads to increased risk of mental health problems.” The data do not support the view that “mental health problems lead to increased risk of abortion.”
The Christchurch scholars acknowledge that their findings are “inconsistent” with a statement published by the American Psychological Association (APA) assuring Americans that “risk of psychological harm is low” for women who undergo abortions. However, the Christchurch scholars complain that the APA’s “relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more . . . [methodological] limitations.” Underscoring their skepticism with regard to the APA’s assurances, the Christchurch scholars find it “difficult to disregard the real possibility that abortion amongst young women is associated with increased risk of mental health problems.”
(Source: Bryce J. Christensen, “New Research,” The Family in America, February 2007, Vol. 21 Number 2. Study: David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder, “Abortion in Young Women and Subsequent Mental Health,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47 [2006]: 16-24.)
This article has been republished with permission from The Family in America, a publication of The Howard Center. The Howard Center is a MercatorNet partner site.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/normalising-abortion-wont-make-it-hurt-less/17513#sthash.O8Bbog0W.dpuf
There’s a well-worn saying about statistics that suggests we should put very little faith in them. Yet in the big controversies of the day, numbers really count, even when the people using them apparently cannot.
That is the gist of today’s article by sociologist Walter Schumm on the fraught subject of same-sex parenting. It summarises part of a much longer journal article dealing with other controversial topics as well, and illustrates how scientists can count and weigh the same things differently depending, it appears, on the results they want.
Researchers on both sides of the gay parenting debate have been accused of this, but only those with negative findings have been pilloried in the press. Read Dr Schumm’s piece and see what the other side have been up to.
There's a great video on the front page of the annual Right to Life March in Washington a few days ago. Courtesy of Mary Cooney.
There's a great video on the front page of the annual Right to Life March in Washington a few days ago. Courtesy of Mary Cooney.
Carolyn Moynihan
Deputy Editor,
MERCATORNET
 | Skating on thin ice Walter R. Schumm | FEATURES | 28 January 2016 Some of the potential pitfalls of science applied to same-sex parenting. Read more... |
 | Flint’s water crisis is a blatant example of environmental injustice Robert D. Bullard | FEATURES | 28 January 2016 Is dirty water good enough for poor and coloured Americans? Read more... |
 | Ethics for the citizen journalist Denyse O'Leary | CONNECTING | 28 January 2016 If you write for online publications today,you are a citizen journalist Read more... |
 | Normalising abortion won’t make it hurt less Nicole M. King | FAMILY EDGE | 28 January 2016 Research shows that abortion increases the risk of psychological problems. Read more... |
MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia
Designed by elleston
New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario