Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
There is no such thing as “post-abortion syndrome” or “post-abortion stress syndrome.”
Saying “Abortion Hurts Women” ignores the millions of people it doesn’t hurt. It decontextualizes and weaponizes the pain of those who are hurting.
sorry but fetuses feel pain and most are actually alive durring an abortion. but thanks for ignoring the truth.
Science actually says you’re wrong, but thanks for ignoring the truth!
ye no that’s all biased information. but
i’ll just sit here and watch you support something that hurts women and the future generations to come. lol.
You realise JAMA stands for The Journal of the American Medical Association right?
You realise they are ACTUAL doctors presenting their ACTUAL finds and that I have provided numerous unbiased resources to you for all of your claims and all you have said in response was “WAAHHHH I’M NOT LISTENING” and then accused unbiased sources of being too biased because you don’t like that science and facts don’t actually agree with you and that this does not make you look reasonable, educated or mature right?
You can say ‘Oh, sorry, I guess I was wrong’ which would have made you look adult like and mature, but instead you haven’t bothered to consider that maybe, just maybe, you’re actually really incorrect and you’re failing miserably at the whole ‘facts’ thing that you insisted you had?
Present me an unbiased site then with ANY of your claims, about abortion causing psychological stress, about it ‘hurting’ about fetuses feeling pain, about any of your claims, support just one of your claims with actual, unbiased facts and I will take you a lot more seriously than I do now.
FYI any site with ‘life’ or ‘angel’ in it’s url has a clear an obvious bias, likewise if they use emotionally manipulative terms like ‘baby’ instead of fetus and ‘murder’ instead of abortion.
In the mean time I’ll be waiting here, watching you unable to back anything you have said thusfar up and make a complete fool of yourself.
You just ignored a scientific source because it was “biased” and then cited life news??? Is this real life?!
Prime example of prolife ‘research’ lmao - Rachel
I saw this late last night and was going to ask what they thought an unbiased source was. I didn’t think it would be this bad.
I need to go lie down.
Tomorrow is the annual March for Life in my city of Ottawa, and though I am not able to participate this time around I thought I would take the opportunity to have a frank discussion on the issue of abortion.
It seems as though the debate is making some serious rounds in media right now, the likes of which I have not seen in a long time. Whether we are hearing about fetal remains being burned for fuel, wannabe-celebrities pursing an abortion so they can continue their dream of being a reality TV star, or abortion clinic councillors filming their abortions for the fun of it – We seem to have stepped in it big time as a supposedly humane civilization.
What is abortion? I think that’s a primary question that needs to lead into any discussion. What is it, really? It is ending a viable life from continuing. [The medical definition is deliberately ending a pregnancy, but okay.] Pro-abortionists can say whatever they’d like, but ultimately, even without bringing the word ‘human being’ into it, that’s what it is. It is the conscious ending of a viable life from continuing. I think even the most hardline pro-abortionist would be willing to admit that a fetus grows into a baby which is born. We were all ravioli-like at one point, and it’s because of the fact that someone was willing to let us continue to grow that we are here right now.
You were a vagina ravioli.
I was a vagina ravioli.
We were all vagina raviolis. [What. The fuck. Is a vagina ravioli. Embryos live in the uterus. I don’t even.]
But the entire point of being a ravioli is that it is a rather humble start for every single human being. But here, I’ll give the pro-abortionists a free pass. I’ll work my arguments around their claim that you only become a human being after being born – Because as far as I am concerned, that is a scientific argument that I will defer to people who know more than me for the answer to. It’s true that pro-abortionists don’t seem to be interested in finding out the answer to when, exactly, life begins – They are always the ones trying to block the scientists from looking into that. [Citation needed.]
Ultimately, it would come down to this: Does anyone have the right to decide when someone else should have the opportunity to live a life, and on what basis?
The answer for most pro-abortionists is that any woman should have that right, and on the basis of convenience. If a life will cause inconvenience to the woman, that is reason enough to end it. [Yeah, 9 months of pregnancy to give birth to an entirely new human being is totally just about “convenience.” Do you disrespect your mother like that?]
Suddenly one can see how life and its value becomes a mere suggestion, only valid if it causes no harm or inconvenience and is explicitly wanted. I find it ironic that this disregard for the vulnerable is coming from the same crowd that would be quick to condemn the perceived disregard for the vulnerable in a lack of social programs aimed at assisting people who are unable or unwilling to live their lives.
It’s worth noting that the inconvenience of life was behind the initial push for abortion by Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margret Sanger. To her, the lives of African-Americans and persons with disabilities was very inconvenient.
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” (April 1932 Birth Control Review, P. 108)
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Woman, Morality, and Birth Control, 1922 P.12)
Of course, we are supposed to forget the words that came from the horse’s mouth, and pretend like the premise behind abortion did a complete 180 and, despite its roots in deception and the active elimination of human beings, is just all about women’s rights and fun, cute things like that. [Abortion was initially condemned because society decided too many white, upper-class women weren’t having enough children sooner in their lives and people of color were having too many, and when men started taking over reproductive care from midwives.]
But that’s the next issue: Parenthood. It’s true that no one should be forced to be a parent or to raise a child they do not want to raise. But ending a viable life is not the only way to avoid being a parent, other options do exist. Adoption is my favorite. [Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy. “Adoption advocacy should not be positioned against abortion.” Family Research Council]
Pro-abortionists like to note that there are already lots of children up for adoption and waiting for a good family, but they neglect to include any kind of variables. oh-snap-pro-lifers posted a great chart not too long ago which showed that for every one newborn released into the adoption system, there are almost 40 couples waiting to adopt one. By and large, adoptive parents want a baby, not an older child. That is unfortunate, and I’m glad to see that the amount children waiting to be adopted is near an all-time low, but don’t try and disregard the fact that babies are welcome into the system and are snatched up almost immediately. Couples are often driven to look overseas as a result of the lack of babies available for adoption in the west. [“Pregnant women who choose not to continue their pregnancy do NOT owe it to the infertile to choose adoption. They are not brood mares for those who cannot bear their own children.” (x) Oh, and take some time to research evangelical adoption and read The Girls Who Went Away. Get some perspective.]
“Well what about being pregnant?”
That’s generally what happens when you have unprotected sex.
“What about women who are raped! Should they be forced to be pregnant?”
According to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, only about 1% of abortions are performed on women who were pregnant as a result of rape or incest. In fact, two separate studies were done which concluded that women who were impregnated as a result of rape chose to keep their babies in 70% of cases, and of the remaining percent who had an abortion, almost 80% of them felt like they made the wrong decision. [Anti-abortion logic: What works for some works for everybody!]
“Well, still, women shouldn’t have to be pregnant.”
Then don’t have unprotected sex, be safe, and if you get pregnant, weigh the inconvenience of being pregnant against the potential to give a beautiful life to a child wanted by someone else but you.
I’ve had conversations with anti-life activists before that have always deteriorated into a strange explanation of how having the baby and putting it up for adoption is somehow emotional abuse for the would-be-mother that they should not have to endure. That’s the same reasoning behind the outrage pro-abortionists show when faced with abortion clinics that opt to provide ultrasounds to the mother before they are allowed to make a decision on the abortion. It’s almost like they are afraid of women opting out of having an abortion… There can be no other explanation for why they are so intent on trying to shill out the notion that having an abortion is a more positive, fulfilling experience than having a baby. [Again, read The Girls Who Went Away. In the meantime, consider what it’s like to bond with your baby for nine months, then give it away forever.]
As I mentioned at the beginning of the article, there is a New Jersey abortion clinic worker who came out today with an ‘abortion selfie’… A video she took of herself having an abortion, releasing it with the intention of showing women who want to have one that it’s ‘no big deal’. She is seen giddy and giggling throughout the procedure, later calling the doctors her ‘heroes’. It remains to be seen whether or not she intentionally got pregnant simply for the purposes of having an abortion, but she has suggested that this was the case. [No she hasn’t, but you sure are all having a lot of fun putting words in her mouth.]
I believe this woman is selling a very dangerous shtick. Abortion is not a good time like she tried to demonstrate in the video.
Having an abortion doubles your risk of mental illness, and a major 2011 study of over 800,000 UK women showed that almost one in every ten mental health problems was the result of an abortion. [Not according to the APA, and next time you want to play with science, leave Priscilla Coleman and her junk science out of it. Here’s some actual science.] To suggest to already emotionally vulnerable women that they should experience no ill effects is to hand them a death sentence when the effects to inevitably come.
Desperate women in a desperate situation need more than just a desperate choice. [Oh, you mean like coat hangers and turpentine and broken glass and throwing themselves down stairs?] It’s always surprised me how unwilling anti-lifers are to object to a variety of options for an unplanned pregnancy [I’m pretty sure we advocate for three options, whereas you advocate for two, so who’s really promoting variety?], but I think it shows well and good what their intentions are: To promote their politics. But what are those politics? Is it really about women’s rights?
Pro-abortion sources that are willing to admit that there are negative side effects try to chalk them up to hormone imbalances and other trivial factors… As if the bodies of women, though designed especially for the purposes of carrying life, were infinitely disposable and regenerative.
To me, it’s interesting that the same pro-abortionists who say that abortion is a woman’s choice are usually the ones complaining about the oversexualization and objectification of women. Once again, irony strikes because absolutely nothing is more successful in turning women into purely sexual creatures than removing the primary function that makes them more than just a sexual object to begin with.
You’d think a push for women’s rights would include embracing everything that is feminine, and holding it up as being great, worthy, and beautiful. Instead, everything that has ever defined women has been crumpled up and tossed to side as disgusting, pathetic, and weak.
You’d think a push for women’s rights would include embracing everything that is feminine, and holding it up as being great, worthy, and beautiful. Instead, everything that has ever defined women has been crumpled up and tossed to side as disgusting, pathetic, and weak. A woman is only valuable when she is taking life, not giving it. [You clearly don’t know the first thing about feminism or social justice. Perhaps reading my blog will give you a better insight!]
I remember when I was ‘pro-choice’. I remember that one of the biggest things that pulled me over to the side of the pro-lifers was when I recognized how arbitrary the value of life seemed to be when it came to abortion. A great example of that is the recent news that came out of British Columbia where it was revealed that hundreds of thousands of pounds of fetal remains were shipped to Oregon to use as fuel.
At 19 weeks, they are fuel or permitted to be disposed as garbage… But at 20 weeks, they are given a full burial.
Here in Canada, abortions are permitted into the 9th month.
tl;dr: “Once again, irony strikes because absolutely nothing is more successful in turning women into purely sexual creatures than removing the primary function that makes them more than just a sexual object to begin with.”
Childbirth is the primary function that makes women more than a sexual object? Women who can’t give birth are just sexual objects? My God.
I’ve heard this whole “giving women the freedom to prevent/end pregnancy eliminates their womanhood” from multiple anti-abortion activists and I’d really love someone to explain it to me in a way that won’t make me puke from misogyny.
Anyway, I added some things in brackets because I didn’t feel like addressing this in such a way that people would have to be scrolling up and down through this rant to figure out what I’m replying to. Have fun doing some real research!
Hey, do you know where I can find a source on the stat that one in 3 women will have an abortion? It seems so high and I want to know if it's in the US or in the world or by a certain age or what.
The Guttmacher Institute’s Fact Sheet: Induced Abortion in the United States is probably one of my most-visited pages, and it has the source of that quote. It’s more accurate to say that 3 in 10 women in the United States will have an abortion by age 45, which is a little before the average onset of menopause.
The statistic comes from a 1998 article (I know, old!) called Unintended Pregnancy in the United States. A more up-to-date study from 2008, Changes in Abortion Rates Between 200 and 2008 and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion, found the same number.
Definitely keep in mind the differences between socioeconomic groups, though. It’s something that’s often overlooked. I don’t want to get too rambly, but man. Affordable, accessible long-acting reversible birth control is so important.
Why do you use facts and figures from the Guttermacher institute? I feel like if we void pro-life arguments for using biased sources that we should do the same to avoid them as well
Guttermacher may be biased, but if you go through their sources, they are not. I only fault pro-lifers for using biased sources, if their source does not provide an unbiased source as to where they got their information from. - Paige
The Guttmacher Institute frequently collaborates with the World Health Organization, has collaborated with Johns Hopkins University, multiple international OB/GYN and women’s health organizations, international universities, and the United Nations, and it’s namesake was a director for two of the National Health Institute’s centers (the Institute recently received a large 5-year grant from the NIH as well). Their review on Philanthropedia states “Guttmacher is repeatedly heralded as the leading research and data provider in the field of reproductive rights.”
Someone should do a study or something on the effects that are had on people who are denied abortions. Not that we need yet more evidence that the pro-life side is constantly pulling facts from mid-air, but hey. I know being denied an abortion sure would do a lot of harm to myself. More than having the abortion would do. (I'll be honest and say that I'm not even sexually active and my boyfriend and I still have already decided we'd likely be aborting an accidental pregnancy.)
I’m the kind of person who would be harmed by my own actions if I were to be denied an abortion.
I would absolutely find a way to self-abort. I would find pills. I would do anything.
What I think is likely to happen, with all these restrictions, is the sudden uprising of black market abortion inducing medicine. It’ll be obscenely expensive. And what’ll happen then? They’ll start investigating miscarriages. You know, it’s not like they’re not ALREADY doing that (in case you missed the news, some states are now setting in motion the plans to make all miscarriages events that MUST be reported by doctors).
I think studies like that would be extremely hard to do, because honestly, many people who wanted an abortion and didn’t get it do end up loving their child, and would therefore have a hard time answering, “So do you wish you had been able to get that abortion?”
Though it is certainly interesting and, I think, necessary, to hear from people who were denied abortions. Their point of view is important - it is important for people to hear that denying an abortion is just as bad as forcing one.
There is an ongoing study on this very topic! It’s called the Turnaway Study, and you can read about it on the New York Times. The findings so far indicate a greatly increased risk of poverty for those turned away, compared to women who got the abortions they were seeking. (The NYT article also talks about your second-to-last paragraph!)
Participants will continue to be interviewed twice a year for five years after their abortion, so we won’t see the complete study for a few more years.
Reminder that there is no scientific evidence to prove fetal pain exists at 20 weeks. Even the scientists behind the studies used by pro-lifers to push this argument have said their work has been misinterpreted and misused.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Statement on HR 3803 (fetal pain unlikely before third trimester)
Fabrizi et al. (2011). A shift in sensory processing that enables the developing human brain to discriminate touch from pain. Current Biology, 21(18), 1552-1558. (fetal pain at 35-37 weeks)
Lee et al. (2005). Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(8), 947-954. (fetal pain at 29-30 weeks)
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists updates its guidance (fetal pain after 24 weeks)
Page 1 of 9