Abortion Clinics
Papa Jack
The following is an interesting collection of quotes about the
way abortion clinics work. There are more quotes on this page.
Go to:
http://www.fn.net/~bbrown/sr/clinic.html
I'm sure Maritza/Mab will have a hissy-fit over this awful
use of "secondary" sources. She will screech that I should
have personally interviewed each of those quoted. #8^)
I can only hope our readers will remember these quotes the
next time one of the PARs is claiming a sincere concern for
the women who have abortions.
=====================================================================
What Goes on in an Abortion Clinic?
Why do we need informed consent laws or mandatory counseling for women
having abortions? Don't the clinics give accurate information about
the fetus?
**************************************************
"Counselors are just to give the appearance of help. . . [They] think
of themselves as company for the women."--abortion counselor
**************************************************
"I have never yet counseled anybody to have the baby. I'm also doing
women's counseling on campus at Albany State, and there I am expected
to present alternatives. Whereas at the abortion clinic you aren't
really expected to."--abortion counselor. Rachel Weeping and Other
Essays About Abortion. James Tunstead Burtchaell, editor. New York:
Universal Press, 1982 pgs 42-43
**************************************************
"I was trained by a professional marketing director in how to sell
abortions over the telephone. He took every one of our receptionists,
nurses, and anyone else who would deal with people over the phone
through an extensive training period. The object was, when the girl
called, to hook the sale so that she wouldn't get an abortion some-
where else, or adopt out her baby, or change her mind. We were doing
it for the money." --Nina Whitten, chief secretary at a Dallas
abortion clinic under Dr. Curtis Boyd
**************************************************
"They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because
we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn't
want to have an abortion." -Dr. Randall 'Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons
in the Closet" by David Kuperlain and Mark Masters in "New Dimensions"
magazine
**************************************************
"Every woman has these same two questions: First, "Is it a baby?"
"No" the counselor assures her. "It is a product of conception (or
a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)" Even though these counselors
see six week babies daily, with arms, legs and eyes that are closed
like newborn puppies, they lie to the women. How many women would
have an abortion, if they told them the truth?" --Carol Everett,
former owner of two clinics and director of four - "A Walk Through
an Abortion Clinic" by Carol Everett ALL About Issues magazine
Aug-Sept 1991, p 117
**************************************************
"If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an
abortion, we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to
abort immediately." --Judy W., former office manager of the second
largest abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas
**************************************************
"We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always
wanted to know the sex, but we lied and said it was too early to tell.
It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.' -- Abor-
tion clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping p 34
**************************************************
"The counselor at our clinic would cry with the girls at the drop
of a hat. She would find their weakness and work on it. The women
were never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble
it is to have a baby."--former abortion worker Debra Harry, quoted
in the film "Meet the Abortion Providers" 1989
**************************************************
"When discussing the sonogram, you are supposed to tell the client
that it is a measurement as far as the pregnancy is concerned, but
not a measure of the fetal head or anything like that." --Rosemary
Petruso, on her training to be an abortion counselor. Her story
appeared in the St. Louis Review and was also quoted in "Women
Exploited: The Other Victims of Abortion" Paula Ervin, editor.
Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 1985
**************************************************
"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at
a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as
early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints,
turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's
not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot."--Kathy Sparks
told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson,
Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28
**************************************************
"It is when I am holding a plastic uterus in one hand, a suction
tube in the other, moving them together in imitation of the scrub-
bing to come, that woman ask the most secret question. I am
peaking in a matter-of-fact voice about 'the tissue' and 'the
contents' when the woman suddenly catches my eye and says 'How big
is the baby now?' These words suggest a quiet need for definition
of the boundaries being drawn. It isn't so odd, after all, that
she feels relief when I describe the growing buds bulbous shape,
its miniature nature. Again, I gauge, and sometimes lie a little,
weaseling around its infantile features until its clinging power
slackens." --abortion worker Sallie Tisdale "We Do Abortions Here"
Oct 1987 Harpers Magazine p 68
**************************************************
"Vital signs should be observed regularly, and a Doppler [for
listening to the fetal heartbeat] inaudible to the patient should
be used at intervals to determine the presence or absence of fetal
heart tones.. This [informed consent] is a controversial area, but
most professionals in the field feel that it is not advisable for
patients to view the products of conception, to be told the sex of
the fetus, or to be informed of a multiple pregnancy" --Abortionist
Warren Hern in "Abortion Practice" J.B. Lippincott Company, 1984.
**************************************************
"Sonography in connection with induced abortion may have psycho-
logical hazards. Seeing a blown-up, moving image of the embryo she
is carrying can be distressing to a woman who is about to undergo
an abortion, Dr. Sally Faith Dorfman noted. She stressed that the
screen should be turned away from the patient." --"Obstetrics and
Gynecology News" editorial February 15-28, 1986
**************************************************
"95 percent of women who have had abortions said that their Planned
Parenthood counselors gave them " . . . little or no information
about the fetus which the abortion would destroy." --From Aborted
Women- Silent No More by David Reardon, Crossway Books, 1987.
**************************************************
"Now, the baby I aborted was eleven weeks old, and can you imagine
what this did to me when I saw this baby with the hands and face,
sucking his thumb? And they told me it was a cluster of cells!"
-Carole K. State Director of Women Exploited By Abortion. From
Women Exploited, which is a sampling of the stories of WEBA (Women
Exploited by Abortion) chapter members .
**************************************************
"I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions
and were just lied to by the abortion counselor. Namely "This is
less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby." After-
wards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into
a major depression." --Psychologist Vincent Rue quoted in "Abortion
Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimemsions, October 1991.
**************************************************
--
{ Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36B06F9C...@geocities.com>...
>Papa Jack remarked:
>The following is an interesting collection of quotes about the
>way abortion clinics work. There are more quotes on this page.
>Go to:
>
> http://www.fn.net/~bbrown/sr/clinic.html
<snipped most of the secondhand information>
>"95 percent of women who have had abortions said that their Planned
>Parenthood counselors gave them " . . . little or no information
>about the fetus which the abortion would destroy." --From Aborted
>Women- Silent No More by David Reardon, Crossway Books, 1987.
> **************************************************
"95 percent of women who have had abortions?" That statement is
quoted out of context to give one the impression that 95% of ALL women
who go to PP don't get enough info about the fetus before their
abortions. I have a copy of the Reardon book with me. What he was
referring to was that 95% of the women in HIS SURVEY of 252 women, who
were provided to him by Women Exploited By Abortion (WEBA), stated
that they did not receive enough info. Actually, only 53 women who
received their abortions through PP answered this part of the survey.
Reardon claims that his sample is representative of the population as
a whole because of demographic similarities: "When compared to the
national demographic characteristics of the "typical" abortion women,
WEBA members roughly fit into the same 'typical' pattern." He's
right, but only demographically speaking. That's what his descriptive
survey was all about. However, what this sly little fox didn't tell
anyone--even though it is so obvious--was that this sample cannot ever
be a true representation of all women because these women sought the
help of WEBA due to their beliefs that they had been exploited.
So, we have 252 women who thought they had been exploited, and only 53
of these who answered the questions in his survey about PP. Are they
going to think differently about their abortion experience than the
MILLIONS of women who don't bother contacting WEBA because they don't
believe they have been exploited? You bet. The notion of Reardon's
that this sample of 53 is representative of all women in America who
have had abortions through PP is totally ludicrous.
<rest of secondhand testimonies snipped>
Papa Jack
>> The following is an interesting collection of quotes about the
>> way abortion clinics work. There are more quotes on this page.
>> Go to:
http://www.fn.net/~bbrown/sr/clinic.html
>> I'm sure Maritza/Mab will have a hissy-fit over this awful
>> use of "secondary" sources. She will screech that I should
>> have personally interviewed each of those quoted. #8^)
[Maritza snipped most of this message to concentrate on a
single quote by David Reardon, PhD]
**************************************************
>> Papa Jack quoted:
>> "95 percent of women who have had abortions said that their
>> Planned Parenthood counselors gave them " . . . little or no
>> information about the fetus which the abortion would destroy."
>> --From Aborted Women- Silent No More by David Reardon, Cross-
>> way Books, 1987.
**************************************************
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> "95 percent of women who have had abortions?" That statement is
> quoted out of context to give one the impression that 95% of ALL
> women who go to PP don't get enough info about the fetus before
> their abortions.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Do you, Maritza, have empirical evidence that more than 5% of
the women who had abortions at Planned Parenthood believed thay
received adequate information about the fetus which the abortion
would destroy.
Do you have a PRIMARY source that answers this question?
Have you personally conducted any research on the subject?
=====================================================================
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> I have a copy of the Reardon book with me.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Let's see -- that makes YOU a secondary source, and you told us
we should totally ignore secondary sources because they might
be biased. Are YOU biased, Marita? #8^)
=====================================================================
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> ...What he was referring to was that 95% of the women in HIS
> SURVEY of 252 women, who were provided to him by Women Exploit-
> ed By Abortion (WEBA),...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Well, if his book described HIS SURVEY, why wouldn't we naturally
expect the figures cited to be limited to his sample group?
Did he describe these accurately in his book? Did he tell the
reader that the survey group was provided by WEBA? If he did,
why do you try to convince us that there is something wrong
with that?
=====================================================================
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> ...stated that they did not receive enough info. Actually,
> only 53 women who received their abortions through PP answered
> this part of the survey....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
How many of the 252 women surveyed received abortions through PP?
If Reardon is correct, then 56 (95%) of the survey group who replied
to this question were dissatisfied PP customers.
=====================================================================
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> ...Reardon claims that his sample is representative of the popula-
> tion as a whole because of demographic similarities: "When
> compared to the national demographic characteristics of the
> "typical" abortion women, WEBA members roughly fit into the
> same 'typical' pattern." He's right, but only demographically
> speaking.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Huh? First, you say Reardon claims his sample is representative
of typical women who have abortions. Then, you end with: "he's
right, but only demographically."
Merriam Webster's On-line dictionary (a PRIMARY source) tells us:
Main Entry: de搶o搽raph搏c
[...]
Function: adjective
[,,,]
2 : relating to the dynamic balance of a population
especially with regard to density and capacity
for expansion or decline.
If Reardon's point is about how representative his sample is
of the general population, then the whole point is demographic.
What is your point, Maritza?
=====================================================================
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> ....That's what his descriptive survey was all about. However,
> what this sly little fox didn't tell anyone--even though it is
> so obvious--was that this sample cannot ever be a true repre-
> sentation of all women because these women sought the help of
> WEBA due to their beliefs that they had been exploited.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Do you realize what you're doing, Maritza. You harp and harp
about PRIMARY sources. Then, you get a PRIMARY source and --
instead of providing quotes and proper attributions -- you
proceed to give us your clearly biased version of what the
author meant to say. You do this knowing that the great
majority of our readers will not be interested enough to go
to a library and check out the book you claim to comment on.
Why don't you provide a series of specific quotes from the
book -- and then provide your comments on these direct
quotes. This summarizing of what you want to tell us about
Reardon's books is quite suspicious. Why should I believe
what you are writing?
=====================================================================
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> So, we have 252 women who thought they had been exploited,
> and only 53 of these who answered the questions in his survey
> about PP....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
How many of the 252 women had their abortions performed at PP?
If all 252 had an abortion at PP, then only 21% replied. But,
if less than 100% of the women surveyed had the abortions done
at PP, the 53% becomes more significant.
Can you confirm or deny that some of the 252 women had abortions
at locations other than Planned Parenthood (or associated
abortion clinics)?
=====================================================================
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> ...Are they going to think differently about their abortion
> experience than the MILLIONS of women who don't bother con-
> tacting WEBA because they don't believe they have been
> exploited? You bet....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Do you have empirical evidence that "MILLIONS of women ...
don't bother contacting WEBA because they don't believe they
have been exploited?" Or, is this just another wild guess
that fits your preconcieved notions?
=====================================================================
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> ...The notion of Reardon's that this sample of 53 is repre-
> sentative of all women in America who have had abortions
> through PP is totally ludicrous.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Please quote from the book in question where Reardon said or
clearly implied that this sample of 53 is "representative of
all women in America."
You know, Maritza, Mab used to write things very similar to
your comments in this message. You are claiming to have
access to information which most of us don't have. Then,
instead of quoting excerpts of the information, you tell
us IN YOUR WORDS what the author wrote -- and then you
criticize him. I shouldn't work that way and you know it.
First, you should give direct quotes -- and only then should
you make critical comments. This gives the reader a much
better understanding of the logic of the author as compared
to your own logic.
Keep trying, Girl, you'll get the hang of this yet. #8^)
Maritza Combes
Ramon Kiré wrote in message ...
>In article <78pte9$ol$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>, "Maritza Combes"
><maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>> However, what this sly little fox didn't tell
>> anyone--even though it is so obvious--was that this sample cannot
ever
>> be a true representation of all women because these women sought
the
>> help of WEBA due to their beliefs that they had been exploited.
>
>Having spoken with WEBA counsellors, I am aware that people don't
seek the
>help of WEBA because they believe that they have been exploited. They
have
>contacted WEBA because they have dreadful feelings about the
abortion.
Nevertheless, regardless of what YOU think about why women contact
WEBA, they would still be an inappropriate sample from which a
researcher can generalize to the general population of all women who
have had abortions. If you want to generalize to the entire
population of all women who have had abortions--think "probability
sample." WEBA women don't comprise a "probability sample," nor will
they ever.
C. A. Owens
Papa Jack wrote:
>
> Papa Jack remarked:
> The following is an interesting collection of quotes about the
> way abortion clinics work. There are more quotes on this page.
> Go to:
>
> http://www.fn.net/~bbrown/sr/clinic.html
So, do you think that a pro-life site is going to give an accurate
representation, PJ; or, one distorted to support their particular
viewpoint?
Chris Owens
Ramon Kiré
> However, what this sly little fox didn't tell
> anyone--even though it is so obvious--was that this sample cannot ever
> be a true representation of all women because these women sought the
> help of WEBA due to their beliefs that they had been exploited.
Having spoken with WEBA counsellors, I am aware that people don't seek the
help of WEBA because they believe that they have been exploited. They have
contacted WEBA because they have dreadful feelings about the abortion. This
is because, in spite of the pro-abortionists playing with the meanings of
words to describe abortion euphemistically, and denying the obvious
humanity of the unborn child, women really know exactly what the unborn
baby is or was, in their wombs. They get upset after they've had a chance
to cool off and think about what they've done.
Ramon Kiré
"This generation will have to repent, not so much for the evil deeds of the
wicked people, but for the appalling silence of the good people!"
- Martin Luther King
Ray Fischer
>Maritza Combes wrote:
>> "95 percent of women who have had abortions?" That statement is
>> quoted out of context to give one the impression that 95% of ALL
>> women who go to PP don't get enough info about the fetus before
>> their abortions.
>
>Do you, Maritza, have empirical evidence that more than 5% of
>the women who had abortions at Planned Parenthood believed thay
>received adequate information about the fetus which the abortion
>would destroy.
Ah well then by that standard of proof, Jackass is a pervert who
molests infant girls since he's posted no empirical evidence that
he doesn't.
--
Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world,
r...@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
Maritza Combes
Ray Fischer wrote in message ...
>Papa Jackass <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>Maritza Combes wrote:
>
>>> "95 percent of women who have had abortions?" That statement is
>>> quoted out of context to give one the impression that 95% of ALL
>>> women who go to PP don't get enough info about the fetus before
>>> their abortions.
Why did you snip the rest of my post, PJ? I EXPLAINED why that
statement is taken out of context--because it was Reardon's
conclusions about a part of a survey he gave to only 53 women in his
NON-PROBABILITY sample.
>>Do you, Maritza, have empirical evidence that more than 5% of
>>the women who had abortions at Planned Parenthood believed thay
>>received adequate information about the fetus which the abortion
>>would destroy.
Let's put it this way, PJ, so you can understand that one cannot
generalize from Reardon's sample of 53 women. Suppose I put together
an organization called "Women Very Satisfied With Their Abortion." I
gather from this organization a sample of 53 women. I then slap an
untested and unverified survey in front of them, and 100% of them say
that their abortion was a positive experience. I then go ahead and
publish my results, and tell the world that "100% of ALL women were
very satisfied with their abortion experience." What will you do?
You will (rightfully) cry wolf, because you will claim that this
sample cannot possibly represent American women as a whole due to the
fact that this sample, from which I am generalizing to all women who
have had abortions, was purposively pre-selected. Imagine, then, if I
tell you that this sample IS representative because the demographic
variables (race, income, education, etc.) are the same or similar to
that of American women who have had abortions as a whole. You will
STILL cry bloody wolf because the sample, although similar in
demographics to the population, consisted of women purposively
selected due to their having had a positive postabortion
experience--and not all women clearly feel that way, right?
That's exactly what Reardon did. See the big problem?
Ramon Kiré
wrote:
> Papa Jack wrote:
> >
> > Papa Jack remarked:
> > The following is an interesting collection of quotes about the
> > way abortion clinics work. There are more quotes on this page.
> > Go to:
> >
> > http://www.fn.net/~bbrown/sr/clinic.html
>
> So, do you think that a pro-life site is going to give an accurate
> representation, PJ; or, one distorted to support their particular
> viewpoint?
Of course, any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly be pro-life.
Maritza Combes
>> "95 percent of women who have had abortions said that their
>> Planned Parenthood counselors gave them " . . . little or no
>> information about the fetus which the abortion would destroy."
Books, 1987.
**************************************************
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> "95 percent of women who have had abortions?" That statement is
> quoted out of context to give one the impression that 95% of ALL
> women who go to PP don't get enough info about the fetus before
> their abortions.
> Maritza Combes wrote:> I have a copy of the Reardon book with me.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Let's see -- that makes YOU a secondary source, and you told us
we should totally ignore secondary sources because they might
be biased. Are YOU biased, Maritza? #8^)
=====================================================================
Let me clarify AND quote Reardon.
252 women were in his descriptive survey:
p. 4: "Thus, in order to perform a long-range evaluation of the
abortion experience, a survey was prepared and distributed throughout
WEBA chapters in 42 states to 252 women."
Only 53 of these 252 answered questions in a part of a survey about
PP:
p. 337: ",,,survey respondents who received counseling and/or their
abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics were sorted out and tabulated
separately...a total of 53 respondents fell into this subgroup."
About Reardon's concerns that his sample needed to be representative
of the entire population of aborting women in order for him to make
generalizations from his sample:
p. 4: "Before evaluating the survey responses dealing with the
abortion experience, however, it is necessary to see whether or not
WEBA members are typical of a random [probability] sample of aborting
women."
His claims that demographically speaking his sample is the same as the
demographics of the entire population of women in America who have had
abortions:
p. 7: "When compared to the national demographic characteristics of
the 'typical' aborting woman, WEBA members roughly fit into the same
'typical' pattern."
On his belief that the *attitudes* of the women in his sample are
representative of the attitudes of women in America who have had
abortions as a whole:
p.8: "How accurately their [the sample's] answers reflect the
long-term reactions of the general population of aborting women in
general must be judged on whether or not WEBA women represent the
attitudes of aborting women in general. We maintain that WEBA IS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ABORTING POPULATION AS A WHOLE [emphasis mine].
Therefore, PJ, it's pretty clear that Reardon is confident that
whatever percentages of bad attitudes towards PP Reardon finds in his
sub-sample of 53 women, it can confidently be applied using the same
percentages--or "generalized"--to the population of all women who went
to PP as a whole. That's what statistical analysis is all about.
Here what a peer reviewer said about Reardon's pre-selected sample
bias:
From: *Journal of Social Issues, 48*(3) 37-66.
Wilmoth and deAlteriis, p. 48:
"Prevalence rates cannot be determined from purposive samples or
samples based on self-selection. Attempts to document the similarity
of the purposive sample to characteristics of the aborting population
(Reardon, 1987, pp. 4-7; [Speckhard deleted]) do not increase our
statistical confidence in the results because the criterion for
selection into the sample causes it to deviate from the population on
an essential variable, namely, the outcome variable of interest."
In other words, PJ, if you're trying to find prevalence rates of
women's attitudes towards clinics (for example), you can't flirt with
data by picking a sample of women that you already know are already
dissatisfied with the abortion experience. It's common sense.
Now I've provided you with quotes from Reardon AND a peer review
journal article, all primary sources.
To summarize:
According to you, Reardon said:
"95 percent of women who have had abortions said that their Planned
Parenthood counselors gave them " . . . little or no information
about the fetus which the abortion would destroy." --From Aborted
Women- Silent No More by David Reardon, Crossway Books, 1987.
We can no longer use the phrase "...[all] women who have had
abortions...."
We CAN say that '95% of the women in his sub-sample of 53 who went to
PP said that they were given little or no information about the
fetus....'
The ball's in your court now. Please provide primary sources, and
their quotes, to verify that 95% of ALL women who go to PP don't get
enough info on the fetus. Reardon is out--you can't use him.
Better yet, admit that Reardon's statement is empirically
unsubstantiated tripe and recant this quote.
C. A. Owens
"Ramon Kiré" wrote:
>
> > However, what this sly little fox didn't tell
> > anyone--even though it is so obvious--was that this sample cannot ever
> > be a true representation of all women because these women sought the
> > help of WEBA due to their beliefs that they had been exploited.
>
> Having spoken with WEBA counsellors, I am aware that people don't seek the
> help of WEBA because they believe that they have been exploited. They have
> contacted WEBA because they have dreadful feelings about the abortion.
This couldn't POSSIBLY be because people whose businesss it is isn't in
the slightest insist on telling these women that they SHOULD have
dreadful feelings about the abortion, now could it?
Chris Owens
Osmo Ronkanen
Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>p. 7: "When compared to the national demographic characteristics of
>the 'typical' aborting woman, WEBA members roughly fit into the same
>'typical' pattern."
>
>representative of the attitudes of women in America who have had
>abortions as a whole:
>
>p.8: "How accurately their [the sample's] answers reflect the
>long-term reactions of the general population of aborting women in
>general must be judged on whether or not WEBA women represent the
>attitudes of aborting women in general. We maintain that WEBA IS
>REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ABORTING POPULATION AS A WHOLE [emphasis mine].
Is that Reardon really that stupid, or is he just incredibly dishonest?
By being a member of WEBA a woman has already answered true for the
question if she has had negative feelings because of her abortion. Now
asking that again should produce 100% response. To claim that this can
be generalized to all women because according to some demographic
indicators the WEBA women do not differ from all women having abortion
is either stupid or dishonest.
All that he has proven (assuming his findings are correct) is that one
cannot tell from various demographic indicators whether a woman is likely
to have negative feelings of her abortion (or contract WEBA).
Osmo
Adam Levenstein
wrote:
>Of course, any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly be pro-life.
Excuse me if I stray from my normally logical form of argument to a
more personal note.
Ramon, if you can post nothing other than arrogant, self-righteous
bullshit like this, shut the fuck up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Levenstein
Vice President, Penn State Skeptics Club
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/skeptics/
"You have to be open-minded enough to consider any new idea, but at the
same time completely ruthless in rejecting the idea if the evidence
is against it." -- Carl Sagan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Papa Jack
>
> Papa Jack wrote:
>>
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack remarked:
>> The following is an interesting collection of quotes about the
>> way abortion clinics work. There are more quotes on this page.
>> Go to:
http://www.fn.net/~bbrown/sr/clinic.html
=====================================================================
> Cris wrote:
> So, do you think that a pro-life site is going to give an
> accurate representation, PJ; or, one distorted to support
> their particular viewpoint?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Do you believe that the folks who were quoted lied about what
they saw and experienced? That is the real issue, Chris.
Do you believe SOME abortion clinics treat women like cattle
being rushed through a slaughter house?
I'm sure there are some who sincerely try to do a professional
job, but we keep hearing about the ones who disgrace the
entire medical field. Are you defending them? Or, perhaps
you want to deny that such places exist?
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36B251D7...@geocities.com>...
>Papa Jack remarked:
>Do you believe that the folks who were quoted lied about what
>they saw and experienced? That is the real issue, Chris.
Why don't you take back the Reardon quote since it is empirically
unsubstantiated? Why did you
all of a sudden abandon that part of the thread as if the matter was
never brought to your attention?
Papa Jack
>
> Ramon Kiré wrote...
>>
>> In article <78pte9$ol$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>> "Maritza Combes" <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>
=====================================================================
>>> Maritza Combes wrote:
>>> However, what this sly little fox didn't tell anyone--even
>>> though it is so obvious--was that this sample cannot ever
>>> be a true representation of all women because these women
>>> sought the help of WEBA due to their beliefs that they had
>>> been exploited.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Do you have a quote, Maritza, which demonstrates that Dr.
Reardon claimed his sample was a "TRUE REPRESENTATION OF
ALL WOMEN?" Have you read the article by Reardon I quoted
below? Are you sure you're not asking us to tilt at strawmen?
=====================================================================
>> Ramon Kiré wrote
>> Having spoken with WEBA counsellors, I am aware that people
>> don't seek the help of WEBA because they believe that they
>> have been exploited. They have contacted WEBA because they
>> have dreadful feelings about the abortion.
=====================================================================
> Maritza Combes wrote:
> Nevertheless, regardless of what YOU think about why women
> contact WEBA, they would still be an inappropriate sample
> from which a researcher can generalize to the general popu-
> lation of all women who have had abortions. If you want to
> generalize to the entire population of all women who have
> had abortions--think "probability sample." WEBA women don't
> comprise a "probability sample," nor will they ever.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Have you read the following article by Reardon? It seems he
identifies the very points you keep trying to claim that he
failed to consider.
Reardon is discussing the very issues you are accusing him
of violating. As a minimum, it shows he is well aware of
how to conduct proper scientific research -- and he is
recognizes the "probability sample" challenges you try to
accuse him of ignoring. Why did you fail to mention this
in your accusations against Reardon? Were you ignorant or
dishonest?
Go to:
http://www.afterabortion.org/limits.html
____________________________________________________________
Limitations on Post-Abortion Research: Why We Know So Little
David C. Reardon , Ph.D.
While there have been many studies regarding the emotional
aftermath of abortion, very little has been firmly estab-
lished. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
complete a study in this field that would be generally
conclusive and above reproach. Among other complications,
(1) the cooperation of the study population is
inconsistent and unreliable;
(2) the variety of negative reactions reported
by women is so broad that it is impossible to
encompass every claimed dysfunction in a single
study;
(3) the intensity of many reactions appears to be
time variant, with many women reporting delayed
reactions; and
(4) the use of questionnaires and other standardized
survey instruments may be inadequate for uncovering
deep-seated reactions.
In longitudinal and retrospective studies, approximately
50 percent of women who have had an abortion will conceal
their past abortion[s] from interviewers.(1) Even in short
-term follow-up studies, there are high sample attrition
rates, typically in the range of 20 to 60 percent. Demo
graphic comparisons of those who initially consent to
follow-up and subsequently refuse to be interviewed indi-
cate that those who exclude themselves from the final
sample are more likely to match the profile of women who
report the greatest post-abortion distress.(2)
There is also no agreement about which symptoms resear-
chers should attempt to quantify (relief, depression,
impacted grieving, intrusive recollections, self-
destructive behavior, etc.) nor what level of symptoms
should be considered significant. Some abortion reactions
may fit into the model of complicated bereavement or
pathological grief.(3) In other cases, clinicians have
reported that at least some women exhibit symptoms that
fall within the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD).(4) Still other therapists may
offer different schemes for categorizing and understand-
ing post-abortion reactions. Indeed, it appears likely
that women experience a wide variety of psychological
reactions to abortion.
Reactions also vary over time. Women who are initially
filled with grief and self reproach may subsequently find
emotional healing, whereas women who initially coped well
may subsequently find themselves shattered. In one study
of 260 women who reported negative post-abortion reactions,
63 to 76 percent claimed there was a period of time during
which they would have denied any negative feelings connected
to their abortions. The average period of denial reported
by the survey population was 63 months.(5)
The effectiveness of standardized questionnaires has also
been called into doubt, since these research instruments may
be inadequate for uncovering repressed feelings.(6) Kent
reports that in the course of psychotherapy for 50 women,
none of whom were originally seeking treatment for abortion-
related problems, deep feelings of pain and bereavement about
a prior abortion emerged during the time the patient was
recovering from the presenting problem.(7) Kent's subsequent
research with women who were not in psychotherapy led him to
conclude that an initial reaction of emotional numbness may
distort questionnaire based studies. He concluded that an
underlying sense of loss and pain can only be reliably iden-
tified in a clinical setting.(8)
Given such complexities, it is understandable that Surgeon
General C. Everett Koop concluded, in 1987, that the research
in this field is entirely inadequate for drawing any general
conclusions about either the efficacy or the dangers of
induced abortion.(9) The same criticism holds to this day.
There is progress, however, in
(1) a general acknowledgment that at least some women
experience negative post-abortion reactions, and in
(2) identifying characteristics that predict a higher
risk of a negative reaction.
In a special issue of the Journal of Social Issues dedicated
entirely to research relating to the psychological effects
of elective abortion, editor Gregory Wilmoth concluded:
"There is now virtually no disagreement among researchers
that some women experience negative psychological reactions
postabortion. Instead the disagreement concerns the following:
(1) The prevalence of women who have these experiences . . . ,
(2) The severity of these negative reactions . . . ,
(3) The definition of what severity of negative reactions
constitutes a public health or mental health problem ,
(4) The classification of severe reactions . . . "(10)
There are no clear answers to the issues identified by Wilmoth.
Opinions, especially regarding the prevalence of post-abortion
maladjustments, tend to be divided along ideological lines. If
there is any agreement among researchers, pro-choice researcher
Mary K. Zimmerman suggests, it exists in the consensus that
abortion is usually "stressful and emotionally difficult for
most women."(11)
Zimmerman may be too optimistic in claiming even this minimal
consensus, however, since a few abortion proponents continue
to insist that psychological sequelae post-abortion simply
"does not exist."(12) Critical analysis of these overly broad
claims, however, shows that the sweeping conclusions offered
by these authors are internally contradicted by the very
studies and data they cite.(13)
It should also be noted that the research obstacles discussed
above, concealment, attrition, multiple symptoms, time vari-
ance, and inadequate research tools, all tend to suppress the
reported rate of negative reactions in individual studies.
Reported rates of negative reactions, therefore, should
always be interpreted as low, conservative estimates.
Furthermore, great care should be taken to avoid overgeneral-
izing findings or advocating a "majority rules" perspective.
As an example of the latter, research reports showing that
15 to 20 percent of abortion patients experience certain
negative reactions have been reported in the media as proof
of the "fact" that "the majority of abortion patients" benefit
from abortion or that "post-abortion trauma does not exist."(14)
Such interpretations improperly dismiss the suffering of the
minority, neglect the limitations of the study population and
methodology, and project the unsubstantiated conclusion that
women who do not complain of a specific symptom within the time
frame of a study must necessarily have benefitted from their
abortions. Clearly, lack of injury does not necessarily equate
to therapeutic benefit, which is a separate issue that has been
the subject of even less research. Overly broad assertions about
the purported safety of abortion are often compounded by the
political motivations of both researchers and reporters. Such
false assurances may reduce appropriate circumspection of
abortion decisions and may make it more difficult for high risk
patients to refuse coerced abortions.
[snip]
References
1. Jones, E.F. & Forrest, J.D., "Underreporting of Abortion
in Surveys of U.S. Women: 1976 to 1988," Demography,
29(1):113-126 (1992).
2. Adler, N., "Sample Attrition in Studies of Psychosocial
Sequelae of Abortion: How Great A Problem?" J Applied
Soc Psych, 6(3):240-259 (1976).
3. Angelo, E.J., "Psychiatric Sequelae of Abortion: The Many
Faces of Post-Abortion Grief" Linacre Quarterly, 59(2):69-80,
1992; Brown, D., Elkins, T.E., Lardson, D.B., "Prolonged
Grieving After Abortion," J Clinical Ethics, 4(2):118-123 (1993).
4. Speckhard, A. & Rue, V., "Postabortion Syndrome: An Emerging
Public Health Concern," J Social Issues 42(3):95-119, 1992;
Barnard, C.A., The Long-Term Psychosocial Effects of
Abortion (Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990).
5. Reardon, D., "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion,"
The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8 (1994).
6. Lazarus, A. & Stern, R., "Psychiatric Aspects of Pregnancy
Termination," Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 13:125-134 (1986).
7. Kent, I., et.al., "Emotional Sequelae of elective Abortion,"
BC Med J, 20:118-9 (1978).
8. Kent, I. & Nicholls, W., "Bereavement in Post-Abortion Women:
A Clinical Report," World J Psychosyn 13:14-17 (1981).
9. Koop, C.E., Letter to President Reagan, January 9, 1989.
10. Wilmoth, G., "Abortion, Public Health Policy, and Informed
Consent Legislation," J Social Issues, 48(3):1-17 (1992).
11. Zimmerman, M.K., "Psychosocial and Emotional Consequences
of Elective Abortion: A Literature Review," Abortion:
Readings and Research ed. Paul Sachdev (Butterworths:
Toronto, 1981), 69.
12. Stotland, N., "The Myth of the Abortion Trauma Syndrome,"
JAMA 268:2078-9 (1992); Russo, N.F., "Abortion, Child-
bearing, and Women's Well-Being," Professional Psychology,
23(4):296-280 (1992).
13. Reardon, D., "JAMA Gymnastics: Jumping Through Hoops
to Prove Abortion is Safe," The Post Abortion Review,
1(2):3-5 (1993); Reardon, D., "Feminist Researcher
'Proves" Abortion Increases Self-Esteem" The Post-
Abortion Review, 3(2):4-7 (1995).
14. "Post-Abortion" USA Today Feb. 10, 1988; Brody, J. "Study
Disputes Abortion Trauma" New York Times Feb. 12, (1997).
C. A. Owens
"Ramon Kiré" wrote:
>
> > So, do you think that a pro-life site is going to give an accurate
> > representation, PJ; or, one distorted to support their particular
> > viewpoint?
>
> Of course, any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly be pro-life.
Ramon, you are having problems with the defitions of words again.
'Accurate' and 'agrees with me' are not synonyms.
Chris Owens
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36B26613...@geocities.com>...
>Papa Jack remarked:
>Do you have a quote, Maritza, which demonstrates that Dr.
>Reardon claimed his sample was a "TRUE REPRESENTATION OF
>ALL WOMEN?" Have you read the article by Reardon I quoted
>below? Are you sure you're not asking us to tilt at strawmen?
From *Aborted Women*:
p.8: "How accurately their [the sample's] answers reflect the
long-term reactions of the general population of aborting women in
general must be judged on whether or not WEBA women represent the
attitudes of aborting women in general. We maintain that WEBA IS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ABORTING POPULATION AS A WHOLE [emphasis mine].
Now you believe me?
See my COMPLETE evidence in the 01-29-99 6:18 a.m. reply. All of the
quotes are Reardon's.
I've also provided a peer review on his sampling methods.
>Reardon is discussing the very issues you are accusing him
>of violating. As a minimum, it shows he is well aware of
>how to conduct proper scientific research -- and he is
>recognizes the "probability sample" challenges you try to
>accuse him of ignoring. Why did you fail to mention this
>in your accusations against Reardon? Were you ignorant or
>dishonest?
What else do you think he's going to say? But, let's go on, since I'm
hungry to tear him up some more...
>Go to:
>
> http://www.afterabortion.org/limits.html
> ____________________________________________________________
> Limitations on Post-Abortion Research: Why We Know So Little
> David C. Reardon , Ph.D.
>
> While there have been many studies regarding the emotional
> aftermath of abortion, very little has been firmly estab-
> lished. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
> complete a study in this field that would be generally
> conclusive and above reproach. Among other complications,
>
> (1) the cooperation of the study population is
> inconsistent and unreliable;
And HE didn't report his refusal and attrition rates:
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). *Journal of Social Issues,
48*(3), 37-66:
"The studies by Reardon (1987)...cannot be evaluated for refusal rates
because they used purposive samples, and either did not report refusal
rates or only counted those who volunteered as part of the original
'sample.' Because they did no follow-up of a specified sample of women
who had abortions, no attrition rates can be presented for these
studies."
> (2) the variety of negative reactions reported
> by women is so broad that it is impossible to
> encompass every claimed dysfunction in a single
> study;
That's why Major and Cozzarelli used something that Reardon didn't: a
standardized assessment instrument, of high validity and high
test-retest reliability--and normed with the population--in order to
accurately measure
symptoms (I'm referring to the BDI, or Beck Depression Inventory):
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). *Journal of Social Issues,
48*(3), 37-66:
"...Major and Cozzarelli...used a standardized measure of depression."
> (3) the intensity of many reactions appears to be
> time variant, with many women reporting delayed
> reactions; and
That is HIS opinion only, based on HIS clinical findings:
*Aborted Women* p. 116:
"...the process of documenting the rate of post-abortion sequelae is
further complicated by delayed reactions."
Why do you think he uses the words "appear"?
And here's the peer review comment:
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). *Journal of Social Issues,
48*(3), 37-66:
"Although women in Reardon's (1987)...studies provided data on
reactions to abortions that occurred UP TO 39 YEARS PRIOR TO THE TIME
OF THE SURVEY, the times since abortion was not a sampling criterion
[emphasis mine]."
How does he know that the women's experiences occurred after the
abortion and not prior to it?
He doesn't:
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). *Journal of Social Issues,
48*(3), 37-66:
"...Reardon (1987)...did not take before-and-after measures; THUS
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER THE REACTIONS WERE ANTECEDENT TO
ABORTION OR CONSEQUENCES OF ABORTION [emphasis mine]."
What good are self-reports? No good:
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). *Journal of Social Issues,
48*(3), 37-66:
"Regardless of the percent of aborting women who reported these
reactions, such SELF-REPORT measures have no clear-cut clinical
meaning."
> (4) the use of questionnaires and other standardized
> survey instruments may be inadequate for uncovering
> deep-seated reactions.
Then why did the dude create his own untested survey? HUH?
He used the untested survey and self-reports. What good are
self-reports? No good.
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). *Journal of Social Issues,
48*(3), 37-66:
"Self-reported reactions..such as...'negative psychological effects'
(Reardon, 1987), obtained using instruments created especially for the
study, have no meaning without a standard of comparison. These special
instruments have not been normed...."
> In longitudinal and retrospective studies, approximately
> 50 percent of women who have had an abortion will conceal
> their past abortion[s] from interviewers.(1)
Don't worry. Reardon made sure he got a sample--pre-selected--of
women who admitted having had an abortion.
>Even in short
> -term follow-up studies, there are high sample attrition
> rates, typically in the range of 20 to 60 percent.
Some do , and some don't. Reardon did not report his attrition rates
(I already quoted that above).
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). *Journal of Social Issues,
48*(3), 37-66:
"...Zabin et al. (1989)...reported an attrition rate of only 4% for a
follow-up two years post-abortion."
>Demo
> graphic comparisons of those who initially consent to
> follow-up and subsequently refuse to be interviewed indi-
> cate that those who exclude themselves from the final
> sample are more likely to match the profile of women who
> report the greatest post-abortion distress.(2)
We don't know. Could be distrust with being interviewed, or not giving
a damn. Total speculation. Since you can't contact these women, you
can only guess.
<skipped stuff already answered in a myriad of quotes by peer review
articles>
> The effectiveness of standardized questionnaires has also
> been called into doubt, since these research instruments may
> be inadequate for uncovering repressed feelings.
And he used a questionnaire!! He's criticizing himself!!
> There are no clear answers to the issues identified by Wilmoth.
> Opinions, especially regarding the prevalence of post-abortion
> maladjustments, tend to be divided along ideological lines. If
> there is any agreement among researchers, pro-choice researcher
> Mary K. Zimmerman suggests, it exists in the consensus that
> abortion is usually "stressful and emotionally difficult for
> most women."(11)
So is any other surgical procedure...
> It should also be noted that the research obstacles discussed
> above, concealment, attrition, multiple symptoms, time vari-
> ance, and inadequate research tools, all tend to suppress the
> reported rate of negative reactions in individual studies.
> Reported rates of negative reactions, therefore, should
> always be interpreted as low, conservative estimates.
He quotes Wilmoth in his favor? Well, let me quote Wilmoth too:
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). *Journal of Social Issues,
48*(3), 37-66:
"...it is important also to emphasize that the quality of the research
cited by pro-choice advocates is much better than that cited by
pro-life advocates. Some studies (Mueller & Major, 1989; Zabin et
al.,1989) cited by
pro-choice advocates, were well-designed for their specific research
objectives. THE AVAILABLE U.S. STUDIES WITH CONTROL GROUPS [which
Reardon never used] HAVE CONSISTENTLY SHOWN THAT THE AMOUNT OF
NEGATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL RESPONSES FOLLOWING ABORTION IS EITHER THE SAME
OR LESS THAN POST-PARTUM....MORE OF THE RESEARCH CITED BY THE
PRO-CHOICE ADVOCATES WAS BETTER DESIGNED (WITH PRE-POST TESTS AND USED
SOUNDER METHODOLOGY, STANDARDIZED MEASURES WITH REPORTED RELIABILITY
AND VALIDITY, THAN THAT CITED BY PRO-LIFE ADVOCATES [emphasis mine]."
Sorry to scew up your eyes there a little. I just thought it was
hilarious he quoted Wilmoth!
> Furthermore, great care should be taken to avoid overgeneral-
> izing findings or advocating a "majority rules" perspective.
Why? Cause all of the good tests are going against him?
Rest has been answered in previous posts or this one.
Looks like ol' Reardon has nothing going for him, huh?
Ray Fischer
>"C. A. Owens" wrote:
>> So, do you think that a pro-life site is going to give an
>> accurate representation, PJ; or, one distorted to support
>> their particular viewpoint?
>
>Do you believe that the folks who were quoted lied about what
>they saw and experienced? That is the real issue, Chris.
Notice the assumptions Jackass makes in that statement.
He assumes that ANY real people were quoted (as opposed to
the quotes being merely fabricated propaganda), he assumes
that the quotes are accurate (if the quote actual people),
he assumes that even if accurately quoted that the people
are telling the truth, and he assumes that a few carefully
chosen quotes have any relevance.
>Do you believe SOME abortion clinics treat women like cattle
>being rushed through a slaughter house?
Do you belive that most CPCs would rather see a woman dead than be
allowed an abortion?
>I'm sure there are some who sincerely try to do a professional
>job, but we keep hearing about the ones who disgrace the
>entire medical field.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION IS NOTHING BUT PROPAGANDA. AS SUCH,
EDUCATED FOLKS NORMALLY TREAT IT WITH DISDAIN.
Papa Jackass in <323CC1...@express-news.net>
C. A. Owens
Papa Jack wrote:
>
> > So, do you think that a pro-life site is going to give an
> > accurate representation, PJ; or, one distorted to support
> > their particular viewpoint?
>
> Do you believe that the folks who were quoted lied about what
> they saw and experienced? That is the real issue, Chris.
I would contend that the majority of the quotes are not substansiable,
and, therefore, of questionable validity.
>
> Do you believe SOME abortion clinics treat women like cattle
> being rushed through a slaughter house?
Yes. So do some of ANY medical practice. It is wrong. To single out
abortion practitioners and pretend that this is not a medical
industry-wide flaw is deceptive.
> I'm sure there are some who sincerely try to do a professional
> job, but we keep hearing about the ones who disgrace the
> entire medical field. Are you defending them? Or, perhaps
> you want to deny that such places exist?
I am suggesting that the site doesn't present an ACCURATE viewpoint, PJ,
in that they wouldn't use a favorable quote.
Chris Owens
M is for Malapert
> Limitations on Post-Abortion Research: Why We Know So Little
> There are no clear answers to the issues identified by Wilmoth.
> Opinions, especially regarding the prevalence of post-abortion
> maladjustments, tend to be divided along ideological lines.
And given that Reardon's admitted primary concern is "the unborn," we
can dismiss everything produced by him as ideological.
> Zimmerman may be too optimistic in claiming even this minimal
> consensus, however, since a few abortion proponents continue
> to insist that psychological sequelae post-abortion simply
> "does not exist."(12)
What a liar Reardon is. That quote is from Nada Stotland's "The myth
of the abortion trauma syndrome," and what she said was "This is an
article about a medical syndrome that does not exist." She did not
say that "psychological sequelae post-abortion simply does not exist"
(she probably would have used correct grammar if she had, though).
Here is a long excerpt from the article to show how Reardon lied in
characterizing and dismissing it:
"[L]eaflets warning of deleterious physical and emotional consequences
of abortion have been distributed...Women who have undergone induced
abortion are said to suffer an 'abortion trauma syndrome' or
'postabortion trauma' that will cause long-term damage to their
health. One such leaflet states,
Most often a woman will feel the consequences of her decision
within days of her abortion. If they don't appear immediately,
they will appear as she gets older. Emotional scars include
unexplained depression, a loss of the ability to get close to
others, repressed emotions...[etc]
"News reporters from all sections of the United States have requested
information about abortion trauma syndrome from the American
Psychiatric Association [cites]. Unfortunately, it is impossible to
document the sources of the allegations that concern these journalists
because they are often not traceable through the media or found in the
scientific literature. It is to bring the discussion into the
scientific medical literature that this contribution has been
written...
"A critical examination of the psychiatric impact of abortion requires
the consideration of underlying realities and a summary of the
relevant scientific literature.
"An uninterrupted pregnancy eventuates in labor and delivery.
Therefore, any physical and psychological sequelae of legal abortion
can only be meaningfully understood in contrast with those of illegal
abortion or unwanted childbirth. After undesired childbirth, a woman
must face either the stresses of relinquishing a child for adoption or
those of rearing a child.
"Abortion is a consideration for women who become pregnant under
problematic circumstances, in which they feel that the birth of a
child might be untenable. Such circumstances commonly include the
threat or reality of abandonment by the woman's male partner or the
absence of an ongoing relationship with him, financial deprivation,
lack of social support, the need to care for other young children, the
possible loss of educational and career opportunities, the diagnosis
of fetal defect and/or an impregnation by rape or incest. A birth
control method may have failed; the woman may be unwilling or unable
to care for a child. She may be physically or mentally ill or
disabled. She may have suffered physical or psychiatric complications
after childbirth in the past. All of these circumstances may
influence subsequent psychiatric reaactions regardless of the woman's
decision to abort or to continue the pregnancy.
"Tbe outcome of any medical procedure is demonstrably shaped by the
general and individual social and psychological climate in which it is
performed. Criminalization of abortion and/or membership in a
religious or social group opposed to abortion can be expected to
increase a woman's feeling of distress, as can insensitive, negative,
or hostile behavior and remarks by health care professionals or others
she encounters in the process of considering or obtaining an abortion.
Meikle et al studied 100 women applying for abortions before and after
abortion was legalized and noted a comparative decrease in the
incidence of emotional distress related to the increased social
acceptance of the procedure.
"An extensive search of MEDLINE, [word obliterated on my copy] -mation
Data Base, Sociological Abstracts, Health Information Data Base, and
review articles and their bibliographies reveals that there is no
specific abortion trauma syndrome described--in survey populations or
as individual cases--in the psychiatric and psychological literature.
A small number of papers and books based on anecdotal evidence and
stressing negative effects have been presented and published under
religious auspices and in the nonspecialty literature.
"Significant psychiatric sequelae after abortion are rare, as
documented in numerous methodologically sound prospective [note:
PROSPECTIVE, thus not having any of the problems Reardon complains
about] studies in the United States and in European countries.
Comprehensive reviews of this literature have recently been performed
and confirm this conclusion.
[The cites here are to:
Blumenthal SJ. An overview of research findings. In: Stotland NL,
ed. _Psychiatric Aspects of Abortion,_ Washington DC: American
Psychiatric Association, 1987. (Not a religious press, but the press
of the APA, please note.)
Dagg, PKB. "The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--
denied and completed." Am J Psychiatry 1991;148:578-585. (Review of
the literature.)
Osofsky JD, Osofsky JH. "The psychological reaction of patients to
legalized abortion." Am J Orthopsychiatry 1972;48:48-60. (Review of
the literature.)
Adler NE, David HP, et al. "Psychological responses after abortion."
Science 1990 April;248:41-44.]
"The term 'unwanted pregnancy' indicates that the woman regrets the
fact that conception occurred. Abortion, whether spontaneous or
induced, entails loss. Both regret and loss result in sadness. The
word 'depression,' which of both a commpon term for a feeling of
sadness and the technical term for a psychiatric disorder, can be
especially confusing. A symptom or a feeling is not equivalent to a
disease...
"Abortion is a weighty issue and a medical procedure about which both
physicians and the lay public have a wide variety of feelings and
profound views...It would be preferable to use the resources of
society and medicine to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to decrease
the ensuing demand for abortions, but it is unlikely that the demand
will ever be eliminated. Therefore, physicians must provide patients
with accurate information about abortion's medical and psychological
consequences. Scientific studies indicate that legal abortion results
in fewer deleterious sequelae for women compared with other possible
outcomes of unwanted pregnancy. There is no evidence of an abortion
trauma syndrome."
JAMA, October 21, 1992, vol. 268, no. 15, p. 2078-2079.
In a subsequent issue of JAMA, several physicians wrote in expressing
their own abortion sentiments. Stotland responded as follows:
"The personal feelings of Drs [names] are telling, but their arguments
are not. As for feelings, I personally share their dismay about
abortion...Like Dr Blake, my feelings focus on the physical and
emotional health of women and their families, people who have already
been born. I do not lack feelings for the conceptus, but I have
stronger feelings about unwanted children, blighted lives, and the
morbidity and mortality of illegal abortion.
"However, scientific medicine is based on evidence, not on feelings.
The burden of proof for the designation of a disease lies on its
proponents. Dr Koop, who was an outspoken opponent of abortion when
selected as US Surgeon General, understood and observed this rule. No
doubt some women are unhappy and some become or continue to be
psychiatrically ill, following giving birth to and caring for a child,
giving their child away, or having an abortion. However, dysphoria or
psychiatric illness does not necessarily result from these outcomes of
pregnancy. Adverse sequelae may be related to the outcome of
pregnancy and/or to the circumstances under which that outcome
occurs....Women will continue to have abortions as they have
throughout history. Further studies should be aimed at optimizing
outcomes of all reproductive choices. As of now, no discrete
psychiatric syndrome caused by abortion has been substantiated in the
scientific literature.
"The so-called abortion trauma syndrome is a polemical designation
designed not to acknowledge the feelings and tribulations of women who
undergo abortion, but to force women to choose between unwanted
motherhood and criminal abortion.
"Opponents of reproductive choice yearn for the return of an imagined
time and place where both women and men were chaste, protected from
coercion, poverty and violation, and contentedly dedicated to parental
roles. That times and place, like the abortion trauma syndrome, is a
myth."
JAMA, May 5, 1993, vol. 269, no. 17, p. 2210.
> Critical analysis of these overly broad
> claims, however, shows that the sweeping conclusions offered
> by these authors are internally contradicted by the very
> studies and data they cite.(13)
And what is this "critical analysis" of the studies and data cited by
Stotland? Here it is:
> 13. Reardon, D., "JAMA Gymnastics: Jumping Through Hoops
> to Prove Abortion is Safe," The Post Abortion Review,
> 1(2):3-5 (1993); Reardon, D., "Feminist Researcher
> 'Proves" Abortion Increases Self-Esteem" The Post-
> Abortion Review, 3(2):4-7 (1995).
ROTFL! Anti-choice crusader for "the unborn" Reardon, in his own
"Post-Abortion Review!"
Post-abortion syndrome doesn't exist.
Melanie
C. A. Owens wrote in message <36B1B38A...@redsuspenders.com>...
>
>
>"Ramon Kiré" wrote:
>>
>> > However, what this sly little fox didn't tell
>> > anyone--even though it is so obvious--was that this sample cannot ever
>> > be a true representation of all women because these women sought the
>> > help of WEBA due to their beliefs that they had been exploited.
>>
the
>> help of WEBA because they believe that they have been exploited. They
have
>> contacted WEBA because they have dreadful feelings about the abortion.
>
>the slightest insist on telling these women that they SHOULD have
>dreadful feelings about the abortion, now could it?
>
>Chris Owens
You mean women feel dreadful about abortion only because someone tells them
they should? Gee...if women are such big puppets, maybe some of them are
having abortions because someone told them too.
Which is it? Are women really capable of coming to their own conclusions or
not? I have been in several crisis pregnancy situations. Long before I had
any opinion on abortion or knew much about it, I believe I would have felt
dreadful after having an abortion if for no other reason than I have and
have had in the past strong maternal feelings. They don't automatically go
away just because one has had an abortion. Even women who think it was the
"best" thing sometimes feel dreadful about it because it is a loss and their
smart enough on their own to recognize at least that much.
--Melanie
Melanie
Osmo Ronkanen wrote in message <78t86p$h...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
>In article <78s1ls$1or$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>p. 7: "When compared to the national demographic characteristics of
>>the 'typical' aborting woman, WEBA members roughly fit into the same
>>'typical' pattern."
>>
>>On his belief that the attitudes of the women in his sample are
>>representative of the attitudes of women in America who have had
>>abortions as a whole:
>>
>>long-term reactions of the general population of aborting women in
>>general must be judged on whether or not WEBA women represent the
>>attitudes of aborting women in general. We maintain that WEBA IS
>>REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ABORTING POPULATION AS A WHOLE [emphasis mine].
>
>By being a member of WEBA a woman has already answered true for the
>question if she has had negative feelings because of her abortion. Now
>asking that again should produce 100% response. To claim that this can
>be generalized to all women because according to some demographic
>indicators the WEBA women do not differ from all women having abortion
>is either stupid or dishonest.
>
>All that he has proven (assuming his findings are correct) is that one
>cannot tell from various demographic indicators whether a woman is likely
>to have negative feelings of her abortion (or contract WEBA).
>
>Osmo
>
Actually... the survey was not restricted to WEBA women. It was widely
publicized, and I suppose that those who did not oppose abortion in general
could have responded. I don't doubt that the
survey is more likely to reach certain groups of women, but not only women
affiliated with women took the survey. I have run across it in a number of
places, mostly, but not entirely prolife.
--Melanie
Osmo Ronkanen
Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>
>Osmo Ronkanen wrote in message <78t86p$h...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
>>In article <78s1ls$1or$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>>Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>Actually... the survey was not restricted to WEBA women. It was widely
>publicized, and I suppose that those who did not oppose abortion in general
>could have responded.
That does not make the sample unbiased. In general any study that is
based on subjects contracting the researches and not vice versa cannot
produce unbiased sample.
>I don't doubt that the
>survey is more likely to reach certain groups of women, but not only women
>affiliated with women took the survey. I have run across it in a number of
>places, mostly, but not entirely prolife.
>
>--Melanie
>
>
>
Osmo
Maritza Combes
Melanie wrote in message ...
>Actually... the survey was not restricted to WEBA women.
Yes, it was:
(p. 4 of *Aborted Women*): "...it is necessary to see whether or not
WEBA MEMBERS are typical of a random sample of aborting women
[emphasis mine]."
(p.4): "This sample suggests that WEBA MEMBERS are a relatively close
match to the national pattern discussed above, though WEBA'S
MEMBERSHIP tends slightly towards younger aborters [emphasis mine]."
I think it's pretty clear by now.
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
"Melanie" <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
More intellectual dishonesty from Magical Melanie(tm)
> You mean women feel dreadful about abortion only because someone tells them
> they should?
SOME women. The ones you are always whining about.
Not very many.
And if you understood anything about developmental psychology,
or any psychological theory, you would know that people -do-
in fact pick up a lot from what people tell them. Esp. people
with a significant role in their lives.
Like battered women or abused children, if you keep wearing
them down, insulting them, belittling them, criticizing
and accusing, GUESS WHAT? People start to beleive it themselves.
> Gee...if women are such big puppets,
You sure as fuck are. YOU whine about how you'd just LOVE to PROVE
how much you LOVE unwanted fetuses by ADOPTING one of the 40K
kids in CAlifornia with no homes, but HUBBY WON'T LET YOU.
Yeah, ragdollMellie.
> maybe some of them are
> having abortions because someone told them too.
Yeah, but you have to show that those women bear any negative sequelae.
Oftentimes a woman will try to lower the anxiety of cognitive dissonance
by projecting blame. But as you have been told, counselors do try to
women who are being coerced. Tricky, sure, kind of like how ER people
have to try to get an abused child or battered woman to admit abuse.
But they try. What is your alternative? NO abortions be some women
might be stupid enough to abort because someone told them to?
Honey, most of us are not doormats like you.
> Which is it? Are women really capable of coming to their own conclusions or
> not?
I am. You probably aren't. You won't even adopt an unwanted child,
in violation of your own "principals" because your hubby told you not
to.
> I have been in several crisis pregnancy situations.
and YOU GOT TO CHOOSE WHAT TO DO, DIDN'T YOU? OR DIDN'T YOU?
> Long before I had
> any opinion on abortion or knew much about it, I believe I would have felt
> dreadful after having an abortion if for no other reason than I have and
> have had in the past strong maternal feelings.
WELL ISN'T IT FUCKING GRAND YOU HAD A CHOICE IN THE MATTER.
Plenty of women have little or not "maternal feelins" whatever that means.
LOTS of people don't like kids and don't want to have any, even though
they face societal disaproval from the breeders like you.
> They don't automatically go
> away just because one has had an abortion.
Speak for yourself, Mellie. and only yourself.
> Even women who think it was the
> "best" thing sometimes feel dreadful about it because it is a loss and their
> smart enough on their own to recognize at least that much.
Or maybe they let people they love convince them they were murderers.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Papa Jack
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:12:22 +1000, kee...@zip.com.au
> (Ramon Kiré) wrote:
>>
=====================================================================
>> Ramon Kiré
>> Of course, any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly
>> be pro-life.
=====================================================================
> Adam Levenstein wrote:
> Excuse me if I stray from my normally logical form of
> argument to a more personal note.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
First, demonstrate to our readers that you are normally "logical."
Second, if you are straying from your logical form of argument,
does that mean that your message is illogical? I would agree
with that. #8^)
=====================================================================
> Adam Levenstein wrote:
> Ramon, if you can post nothing other than arrogant, self-
> righteous bullshit like this, shut the fuck up.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Uh ohhh -- Potty Mouth!!!
Like you and me, Ramon has the right to post just about anything
that enters his mind. Thank goodness we have a 1st Amendment to
protect Ramon from tyrants like you, Adam. Why do you try to
prevent Ramon from expressing his opinion? If you had ULTIMATE
POWER, would you hang Ramon -- or perhaps have him shot or thrown
off a tall building? Or, maybe you would show mercy and only
throw him in a dungeon for the rest of his life.
=====================================================================
>
> Adam Levenstein
> Vice President, Penn State Skeptics Club
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Why do you put this in your signature element? It looks silly.
Papa Jack
>
> In article <78s1ls$1or$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
> Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
=====================================================================
>> Maritza Combes
>> p. 7: "When compared to the national demographic characteristics of
>> the 'typical' aborting woman, WEBA members roughly fit into the same
>> 'typical' pattern."
>> On his belief that the attitudes of the women in his sample are
>> representative of the attitudes of women in America who have had
>> abortions as a whole:
>> p.8: "How accurately their [the sample's] answers reflect the
>> long-term reactions of the general population of aborting women in
>> general must be judged on whether or not WEBA women represent the
>> attitudes of aborting women in general. We maintain that WEBA IS
>> REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ABORTING POPULATION AS A WHOLE [emphasis mine].
=====================================================================
> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
> Is that Reardon really that stupid, or is he just incredibly dishonest?
> By being a member of WEBA a woman has already answered true for the
> question if she has had negative feelings because of her abortion. Now
> asking that again should produce 100% response. To claim that this can
> be generalized to all women because according to some demographic
> indicators the WEBA women do not differ from all women having abortion
> is either stupid or dishonest.
> All that he has proven (assuming his findings are correct) is that one
> cannot tell from various demographic indicators whether a woman is likely
> to have negative feelings of her abortion (or contract WEBA).
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Maritza either failed to do her homework or she is dishonestly
distorting what Reardon really said and meant.
Have you read the following article by Reardon? It seems he
identifies the very points she keeps trying to claim that he
failed to consider.
Reardon is discussing the very issues she accused him
of violating. As a minimum, it shows he is well aware of
how to conduct proper scientific research -- and he is
recognizes the "probability sample" challenges she tried to
accuse him of ignoring. Why did she fail to mention this
in her accusations against Reardon? Was she ignorant or
dishonest?
Go to:
http://www.afterabortion.org/limits.html
____________________________________________________________
Limitations on Post-Abortion Research: Why We Know So Little
David C. Reardon , Ph.D.
While there have been many studies regarding the emotional
aftermath of abortion, very little has been firmly estab-
lished. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
complete a study in this field that would be generally
conclusive and above reproach. Among other complications,
(1) the cooperation of the study population is
inconsistent and unreliable;
(2) the variety of negative reactions reported
by women is so broad that it is impossible to
encompass every claimed dysfunction in a single
study;
(3) the intensity of many reactions appears to be
time variant, with many women reporting delayed
reactions; and
(4) the use of questionnaires and other standardized
survey instruments may be inadequate for uncovering
deep-seated reactions.
In longitudinal and retrospective studies, approximately
50 percent of women who have had an abortion will conceal
their past abortion[s] from interviewers.(1) Even in short
-term follow-up studies, there are high sample attrition
rates, typically in the range of 20 to 60 percent. Demo
graphic comparisons of those who initially consent to
follow-up and subsequently refuse to be interviewed indi-
cate that those who exclude themselves from the final
sample are more likely to match the profile of women who
report the greatest post-abortion distress.(2)
There is also no agreement about which symptoms resear-
chers should attempt to quantify (relief, depression,
impacted grieving, intrusive recollections, self-
destructive behavior, etc.) nor what level of symptoms
should be considered significant. Some abortion reactions
may fit into the model of complicated bereavement or
pathological grief.(3) In other cases, clinicians have
reported that at least some women exhibit symptoms that
fall within the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD).(4) Still other therapists may
offer different schemes for categorizing and understand-
ing post-abortion reactions. Indeed, it appears likely
that women experience a wide variety of psychological
reactions to abortion.
Reactions also vary over time. Women who are initially
filled with grief and self reproach may subsequently find
emotional healing, whereas women who initially coped well
may subsequently find themselves shattered. In one study
of 260 women who reported negative post-abortion reactions,
63 to 76 percent claimed there was a period of time during
which they would have denied any negative feelings connected
to their abortions. The average period of denial reported
by the survey population was 63 months.(5)
The effectiveness of standardized questionnaires has also
been called into doubt, since these research instruments may
There are no clear answers to the issues identified by Wilmoth.
Opinions, especially regarding the prevalence of post-abortion
maladjustments, tend to be divided along ideological lines. If
there is any agreement among researchers, pro-choice researcher
Mary K. Zimmerman suggests, it exists in the consensus that
abortion is usually "stressful and emotionally difficult for
most women."(11)
Zimmerman may be too optimistic in claiming even this minimal
consensus, however, since a few abortion proponents continue
to insist that psychological sequelae post-abortion simply
"does not exist."(12) Critical analysis of these overly broad
claims, however, shows that the sweeping conclusions offered
by these authors are internally contradicted by the very
studies and data they cite.(13)
It should also be noted that the research obstacles discussed
above, concealment, attrition, multiple symptoms, time vari-
ance, and inadequate research tools, all tend to suppress the
reported rate of negative reactions in individual studies.
Reported rates of negative reactions, therefore, should
always be interpreted as low, conservative estimates.
Furthermore, great care should be taken to avoid overgeneral-
izing findings or advocating a "majority rules" perspective.
References
13. Reardon, D., "JAMA Gymnastics: Jumping Through Hoops
to Prove Abortion is Safe," The Post Abortion Review,
1(2):3-5 (1993); Reardon, D., "Feminist Researcher
'Proves" Abortion Increases Self-Esteem" The Post-
Abortion Review, 3(2):4-7 (1995).
14. "Post-Abortion" USA Today Feb. 10, 1988; Brody, J. "Study
Disputes Abortion Trauma" New York Times Feb. 12, (1997).
--
Papa Jack
PARs have made allegations against Dr. Reardon's techniques.
They have accused him of the very things he describes in the
article below.
By chopping bits and pieces of his articles and by quoting
obscure sources without verifying their credentials they
attempt to smear an honorable man. I find the tactics to
be quite dishonest -- a blatant attempt to "Bork" Reardon
-- or anyone else who finds any evidence whatsoever which
shows abortion in a negative light. This is why we have
so much difficulty to get any respectable researchers to
do objective studies of abortion related matters. The
only ones who prosper in such a poison atmosphere are the
AGI sort of hacks who perform studies made to order for
Planned Parenthood.
Adam Levenstein
<papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
> =====================================================================
>> Adam Levenstein wrote:
>> Excuse me if I stray from my normally logical form of
>> argument to a more personal note.
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack remarked:
>First, demonstrate to our readers that you are normally "logical."
It's been demonstrated quite nicely to anyone who reads my posts
regularly.
>Papa Jack remarked:
>Uh ohhh -- Potty Mouth!!!
>
>Like you and me, Ramon has the right to post just about anything
>that enters his mind. Thank goodness we have a 1st Amendment to
>protect Ramon from tyrants like you, Adam. Why do you try to
>prevent Ramon from expressing his opinion?
My goodness, you do like to overreact, don't you?
How did I prevent him from expressing his opinion? I told him to "shut
up." I have no power to enforce that. Hell, the closes I come to
government is the fact that I go to a state-run university.
I imagine, though, you're trying to pull a Miskell...Jumping on
anything I say and twisting my words to try and make me out to be some
sort of neo-fascist. It won't work.
> If you had ULTIMATE
>POWER, would you hang Ramon -- or perhaps have him shot or thrown
>off a tall building? Or, maybe you would show mercy and only
>throw him in a dungeon for the rest of his life.
Why do you ask, since I *don't* have "ultimate power?" Are you worried
that the situation might arise? (I find the idea laughable, myself)
> =====================================================================
>>
>> Adam Levenstein
>> Vice President, Penn State Skeptics Club
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack remarked:
>Why do you put this in your signature element? It looks silly.
Identification, if you must ask...I occasionally post to talk.origins
and sci.skeptic as well, and it's good to link up with like-minded
people. Also, it's amusing to watch people who have no better argument
claim that my opinions show me to not be "skeptical" enough because I
disagree with them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Levenstein
Vice President, Penn State Skeptics Club
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/skeptics/
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36B3E03D...@geocities.com>...
>Papa Jack remarked:
>Maritza either failed to do her homework or she is dishonestly
>distorting what Reardon really said and meant.
I have provided you ALL of the references you need to clearly and
unequivocally see that Reardon's research methods have bit the dust.
I'm not going to go over plowed earth again.
>Have you read the following article by Reardon? It seems he
>identifies the very points she keeps trying to claim that he
>failed to consider.
He may have identified them, but he did not PRACTICE them.
<snipped everything else because it has already been addressed>
Now, PJ, you say that you are well versed in research methods. Could
you please explain how Reardon's research METHODS can adequately
explain the presence and prevalence of PAS? I think that you should
"carry the load" a bit. I trust that you *will* be able to, as you
yourself said you could.
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36B3E6A8...@geocities.com>...
>Papa Jack wrote:
>PARs have made allegations against Dr. Reardon's techniques.
>They have accused him of the very things he describes in the
>article below.
DESCRIBES. DESCRIBES. DESCRIBES.
PRACTICES. PRACTICES. PRACTICES.
Do you see the difference, PJ, between the two words?????????????
>By chopping bits and pieces of his articles
Put your feet on the ground. Get up from your chair. Walk over to
the door. Go to your car. Drive your car to the nearest university
library. Ask the librarian to help you locate certain articles. Make
copies of articles.
Read the articles. Make notes of main points of the articles.
See???????
>and by quoting
>obscure sources
Like Wilmoth, whom Reardon unhesitatingly quoted.
> I find the tactics to
>be quite dishonest
See directions on how to get articles above...
<Ramon-like, repetitive, cut-and-paste job snipped. IT HAS ALREADY
BEEN ADDRESSED WITH PEER REVIEWS.>
Come up with new material, because all of that stuff has been
addressed and I will not repeat it.
Try Speckhard, Rue, Vaughn, Barnard, or your other PL psych cronies.
Trust me, Reardon's methods are the worst of all of them
Ramon Kiré
wrote:
> "Ramon Kiré" wrote:
> >
> > > However, what this sly little fox didn't tell
> > > anyone--even though it is so obvious--was that this sample cannot ever
> > > be a true representation of all women because these women sought the
> > > help of WEBA due to their beliefs that they had been exploited.
> >
> > Having spoken with WEBA counsellors, I am aware that people don't seek the
> > help of WEBA because they believe that they have been exploited. They have
> > contacted WEBA because they have dreadful feelings about the abortion.
>
> This couldn't POSSIBLY be because people whose businesss it is isn't in
> the slightest insist on telling these women that they SHOULD have
> dreadful feelings about the abortion, now could it?
No, they have the dreadful feelings when they've had time to think about
what they've done, and realise that they've killed their baby in their
womb.
Ramon Kiré
Levenstein) wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:12:22 +1000, kee...@zip.com.au (Ramon Kiré)
> wrote:
>
> >Of course, any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly be pro-life.
>
> Excuse me if I stray from my normally logical form of argument to a
> more personal note.
>
> Ramon, if you can post nothing other than arrogant, self-righteous
> bullshit like this, shut the fuck up.
The fact remains that any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly be
pro-life, whether I say so or not.
Ramon Kiré
wrote:
> "Ramon Kiré" wrote:
> >
> > > So, do you think that a pro-life site is going to give an accurate
> > > representation, PJ; or, one distorted to support their particular
> > > viewpoint?
> >
> > Of course, any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly be pro-life.
>
> Ramon, you are having problems with the defitions of words again.
> 'Accurate' and 'agrees with me' are not synonyms.
I mean exactly what I say. The fact that 'any viewpoint which is accurate
would certainly be pro-life', is true no matter who says it or who doesn't.
Ramon Kiré
> You mean women feel dreadful about abortion only because someone tells them
> they should? Gee...if women are such big puppets, maybe some of them are
> having abortions because someone told them too.
> Which is it? Are women really capable of coming to their own conclusions or
> not? I have been in several crisis pregnancy situations. Long before I had
> any opinion on abortion or knew much about it, I believe I would have felt
> dreadful after having an abortion if for no other reason than I have and
> have had in the past strong maternal feelings. They don't automatically go
> away just because one has had an abortion. Even women who think it was the
> "best" thing sometimes feel dreadful about it because it is a loss and their
> smart enough on their own to recognize at least that much.
>
> --Melanie
Yes, women usually suffer terribly when they lose a child, whether that
child has been born yet or not.
james g. keegan jr.
Ramon Kiré <kee...@zip.com.au> wrote in message news:keeray-ya02408000...@news.zipworld.com.au...
:I mean exactly what I say. The fact that 'any viewpoint which is accurate
:would certainly be pro-life', is true no matter who says it or who doesn't.
you don't understand how your comment refutes itself,
do you?
C. A. Owens
"Ramon Kiré" wrote:
>
> The fact remains that any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly be
> pro-life, whether I say so or not.
Fine. Then, you would have NO problem posting an objective proof of
that assertion. Remember, any premise you use must be universally
accepted to be considered true. Have fun.
Chris Owens
C. A. Owens
"Ramon Kiré" wrote:
>
> Yes, women usually suffer terribly when they lose a child, whether that
> child has been born yet or not.
Care to post some proof, Ramon?
Chris Owens
ew...@lexi.ewill.net
or is obsolete; alt.support.abortion has complained in the past (although
not to me personally :-) ).
On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:54:04 +1000, Ramon Kiré <kee...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>In article <36B279C6...@redsuspenders.com>, cao...@redsuspenders.com
>wrote:
>
>> "Ramon Kiré" wrote:
>> >
>> > > So, do you think that a pro-life site is going to give an accurate
>> > > representation, PJ; or, one distorted to support their particular
>> > > viewpoint?
>> >
>> > Of course, any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly be pro-life.
>>
>> Ramon, you are having problems with the defitions of words again.
>> 'Accurate' and 'agrees with me' are not synonyms.
>
>I mean exactly what I say. The fact that 'any viewpoint which is accurate
>would certainly be pro-life', is true no matter who says it or who doesn't.
>
>Ramon Kiré
>"This generation will have to repent, not so much for the evil deeds of the
>wicked people, but for the appalling silence of the good people!"
>- Martin Luther King
It gets complicated.
[1] Certain animal thinning techniques -- e.g., the shooting of deer --
may in fact promote other species, and hence be "pro-life".
(Albeit not pro-human-life.) They may also keep the species being
thinned out from dying out completely (e.g., by shortages of food).
[2] Pro-choicers can also be pro-life, if they promote for example
universal access of birth control devices such as the Pill (so that
if a woman doesn't want to unwittingly create life, she won't); that
way, the woman gets more control over her life, and better care for
the children she does decide to bear. Presumably, this is an
improvement over women generaly -- hence, pro-life.
[3] It is not clear to me how the concepts of "pro-life" and "anti-abortion"
interrelate. Obviously, if abortions are banned, there are certain
costs (monetary and non-monetary) to society at large; one of the
largest benefits may in fact be respect of human life -- or it may
not; it's simply not clear, especially with the vociferousness of
many pro-lifers vehemently objecting to certain procedures, which
may not even be accurately described in the popular press.
What precisely are pro-lifers objecting to? The death of the foetus,
or the manner of its death, or the fact that human activity caused
the death of the foetus, or the irresponsibility of people in
general by doing things of which they do not approve (e.g., wildly
consensual extra-marital sex, where he thrusts all night and she
orgasms continually -- OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration :-) )?
----
ew...@aimnet.com -- sex is natural; sex is good; if you don't have sex,
then you should! :-)
ew...@lexi.ewill.net
C. A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Ramon Kiré" wrote:
>>
>> child has been born yet or not.
>
>Care to post some proof, Ramon?
>
>Chris Owens
I have to agree, actually -- although if the woman thinks it's a child,
then she will suffer; if not, then I would guess that she does not
suffer quite as much; perhaps a pang of regret now and again, but such
is far from proven either way. I wouldn't call a "pang of regret now
and again" the same as "terrible suffering". :-)
----
ew...@aimnet.com
Ray Fischer
>PARs have made allegations against Dr. Reardon's techniques.
And provided proof of his dishonesty using his documented sources.
>By chopping bits and pieces of his articles and by quoting
>obscure sources without verifying their credentials they
>attempt to smear an honorable man.
But while Maritza has handily shown how Reardon has dishonestly
misrepresented the effects of abortion, you provide not one bit of
evidence. All you provide is another pathetic whine about how
people are proving you and your idols to be nothing more than pro-lie
propagandists.
Adam Levenstein
wrote:
>
>Yes, women usually suffer terribly when they lose a child, whether that
>child has been born yet or not.
Ah, then I assume you have some unbiased statistical studies that show
that women who've had abortions "usually suffer terribly" afterwards.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by accepting studies describing
physical or emotional suffering.
Adam Levenstein
wrote:
>> Ramon, if you can post nothing other than arrogant, self-righteous
>> bullshit like this, shut the fuck up.
>
>The fact remains that any viewpoint which is accurate would certainly be
>pro-life, whether I say so or not.
No, it's not a fact. It's your opinion - and your assumption that your
opinion is fact is incredibly arrogant and self-righteous. THAT is why
it's impossible to have a decent conversation with you - your
condescending attitude that if someone doesn't agree with you, they
must be wrong.
Ray Fischer
> kee...@zip.com.au (Ramon Kiré)
>>Yes, women usually suffer terribly when they lose a child, whether that
>>child has been born yet or not.
>
>Ah, then I assume you have some unbiased statistical studies that show
>that women who've had abortions "usually suffer terribly" afterwards.
Of course he does not. Any such evidence what be dismissed as being
"pro-abortion". And any woman who doesn't suffer is really suffering
and is in denial.
Don't you know that Ramon is omniscient?
Papa Jack
>
> Article <keeray-ya02408000...@news.zipworld.com.au>,
> Ramon Kiré <kee...@zip.com.au> writes
>>
>> Ramon Kire wrote:
>> I mean exactly what I say. The fact that 'any viewpoint which
>> is accurate would certainly be pro-life', is true no matter who
>> says it or who doesn't.
=====================================================================
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
> You might have a point except that many people who are not
> pro-life (re abortion) have perfectly accurate viewpoints
> which simply happen to clash with the pro-life viewpoints.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
I beg to differ with you, Pat. Much of the PAR case is built
on demonizing opponents (a la "Bork") and on making unsubstan-
tiated allegations. It seems to be the old "if-you-can't-out-
-reason-them-then-out-holler-them" approach which liberals so
dearly love.
A good example is your habit of repeating over and over that
there is no "CHILD" until AFTER birth -- or words to that
effect. Repeatedly I've posted numerous definitions from a
variety of medical, legal, and general dictionaries which
proved the word "CHILD" is properly used to refer to either
UNBORN or BORN children. You just ignore the facts and repeat
your assertion. You seem to be saying that YOUR definition
of the word "CHILD" is just as valid as the combined efforts
of a wide variety of dictionary writers -- placing yourself
in a very weak position.
=====================================================================
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
> Now... who exactly gets to judge which viewpoint is accu-
> rate? The person holding the viewpoint? The person holding
> the opposing viewpoint. The person with no view on the
> matter... who?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
If there were a controversy about the relationship between the
earth and the sun, who would get to judge which viewpoint is
accurate? One group contends that the earth orbits the sun.
Another group says, "No, the sun orbits the earth." I would
like to believe that the group which had the facts on its
side would try to present the facts to the public in an effort
to win. The side without the facts would have to resort to
name calling, unsubstantiated allegations, and emotional tirades.
In theory at least, the voters should make the final decision.
However, that hasn't worked in this major controversy. Instead
the liberal judges have seen this as one more opportunity to
extend their power over the details of day-to-day life.
We see the voters elect legislatures. In turn, majorities in
the elected legislatures vote for bills to limit rampant abor-
tion practices. State governors have signed the bills. But,
over and over, federal judges have overruled the bills --
usually for that old "catch-all" excuse: "It was too vague."
We seem to be at a place in our history to test the very precepts
of representative democracy. Do the phrases "freedom of speech"
or "freedom of religion" still mean what they used to mean? Or
do we need a judge to tell us what the Bill of Rights should
have said? This is the key question. The controversy over
abortion is just one symptom of that battle.
Ray Fischer
>I beg to differ with you, Pat. Much of the PAR case is built
>on demonizing opponents (a la "Bork") and on making unsubstan-
>tiated allegations.
Notice that Jackass is demonizing pro-choice people and is making an
unsubstantiated allegation.
[...]
>If there were a controversy about the relationship between the
>earth and the sun, who would get to judge which viewpoint is
>accurate? One group contends that the earth orbits the sun.
>Another group says, "No, the sun orbits the earth." I would
>like to believe that the group which had the facts on its
>side would try to present the facts to the public in an effort
>to win. The side without the facts would have to resort to
>name calling, unsubstantiated allegations, and emotional tirades.
Fact: The US Constitution explicitely prohibits involuntary servitude
and prohibits the government from commandeering the use of a woman's
body.
Fact: Personhood is defined by law to begin at birth and end at death.
>In theory at least, the voters should make the final decision.
Sure. Overturn the necessary sections of the Constitution. The
voters have not chosen to do so. That is also a fact.
>However, that hasn't worked in this major controversy.
Because some people refuse to accept the fact that the voters do not
want to make abortion illegal.
> Instead
>the liberal judges
Apparently anyone who disagrees with Jackass is a "liberal".
>have seen this as one more opportunity to
>extend their power over the details of day-to-day life.
Ah yes. It cannot be the will of the people (depite polls and
elections showing that people do not want to ban abortion). It must
be government tyranny.
Remaining whining deleted.
Doobie
>Fact: The US Constitution explicitely prohibits involuntary servitude
>and prohibits the government from commandeering the use of a woman's
>body.
Where does the Constitution (explicitly?) prohibit the government from
commandeering the use of a woman's body (or from holding her to
obligations voluntarily entered)? And, even if we pretend it does,
how come a woman isn't allowed to put marijuana into her body? And,
if she gets control of her body (and what's in it), let her body
perform the abortion.
>Fact: Personhood is defined by law to begin at birth and end at death.
Maybe in your state (if you have a clue about the laws in your state).
In mine, personhood is defined by law to begin at conception. Thus,
if you kill a fetus against the mother's wishes, you will be
prosecuted for murder. If you kill a fetus with the mother's wishes,
the top court protects you from prosecution by US authorities just as
if you had murdered your mother in Mexico. Abortion is murder.
>Because some people refuse to accept the fact that the voters do not
>want to make abortion illegal.
Voters have not had the opportunity to vote on it. Throw out RvW and
let's vote.
Is everything you believe based on lies?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make the world a better place, execute an abortionist.
And, put the hundred million on my tab.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:46:14 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Fact: The US Constitution explicitely prohibits involuntary servitude
>>and prohibits the government from commandeering the use of a woman's
>>body.
>Where does the Constitution (explicitly?) prohibit the government from
>commandeering the use of a woman's body (or from holding her to
>obligations voluntarily entered)? And, even if we pretend it does,
>how come a woman isn't allowed to put marijuana into her body? And,
>if she gets control of her body (and what's in it), let her body
>perform the abortion.
Where does it say she can be forced to give birth, precisely? Remember, that
HolyFetus isn't a person in the eyes of the law until it's born...something
the woman carrying it has already attained, thus giving her a few more rights
than you apparently think she should have.
>>Fact: Personhood is defined by law to begin at birth and end at death.
>Maybe in your state (if you have a clue about the laws in your state).
>In mine, personhood is defined by law to begin at conception. Thus,
>if you kill a fetus against the mother's wishes, you will be
>prosecuted for murder. If you kill a fetus with the mother's wishes,
>the top court protects you from prosecution by US authorities just as
>if you had murdered your mother in Mexico. Abortion is murder.
Do you read what you type? I'm assuming you live in Missouri, since that's
where dialnet.net is located -- but if personhood is defined as beginning at
conception as you say it is, why wouldn't you be prosecuted for killing the
fetus, period? Something tells me either you have no idea of what Missouri
law really says about personhood, or else you're deliberately lying.
>>Because some people refuse to accept the fact that the voters do not
>>want to make abortion illegal.
>Voters have not had the opportunity to vote on it. Throw out RvW and
>let's vote.
No one's had the opportunity to vote on it? You must be living in a cave
somewhere down there around Springfield, then -- what _were_ those
propositions in two states to ban so-called partial-birth abortions that were
rejected by the voters?
>Is everything you believe based on lies?
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it's a lie, son. Looks
like you haven't quite sussed that fact yet.
--PLH, aggressive ignorance like "Doobie"'s is nothing to be proud of, where
I'm from
Papa Jack
One more time, Maritza/Mab/Minxs. I find your tactics quite
boring. You are very biased in your determination to try to
destroy anything written by a Pro-Lifer. Your use of feminist
academics to pretend that they are objective is simply not
convincing.
I could do the research necessary to argue with you, but I
do not want to. That is one of the big advantages of being
retired, you get to do what you want to do.
I was particularly disappointed at the propaganda tactics
you used to reply to a recent detailed message I posted
quoting a Reardon article which said almost the exact same
things you had been accusing him of ignoring. Instead of
dealing with the points at issue, you simply ran off on
tangents -- quoting unknown liberals who claim to be
scientists, and skipping vital points.
I decided at that point that you simply are not worth the
trouble. I asked you to leave me alone. I cannot force
you to do so, but I will simply ignore much of what you
post.
If you want to claim "victory," be my guest. #8^)
******************************************************
Maritza Combes wrote:
>
> Papa Jack wrote in message <36B3E6A8...@geocities.com>...
>
> >Papa Jack wrote:
>
> >PARs have made allegations against Dr. Reardon's techniques.
> >They have accused him of the very things he describes in the
> >article below.
>
> DESCRIBES. DESCRIBES. DESCRIBES.
>
> PRACTICES. PRACTICES. PRACTICES.
>
> Do you see the difference, PJ, between the two words?????????????
>
> >By chopping bits and pieces of his articles
>
> Put your feet on the ground. Get up from your chair. Walk over to
> the door. Go to your car. Drive your car to the nearest university
> library. Ask the librarian to help you locate certain articles. Make
> copies of articles.
> Read the articles. Make notes of main points of the articles.
> See???????
>
> >and by quoting
> >obscure sources
>
> Like Wilmoth, whom Reardon unhesitatingly quoted.
>
> > I find the tactics to
> >be quite dishonest
>
> See directions on how to get articles above...
>
> <Ramon-like, repetitive, cut-and-paste job snipped. IT HAS ALREADY
> BEEN ADDRESSED WITH PEER REVIEWS.>
>
> Come up with new material, because all of that stuff has been
> addressed and I will not repeat it.
>
> Try Speckhard, Rue, Vaughn, Barnard, or your other PL psych cronies.
> Trust me, Reardon's methods are the worst of all of them
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36B6EE25...@geocities.com>...
>A good example is your habit of repeating over and over that
>there is no "CHILD" until AFTER birth -- or words to that
>effect.
A good example is your habit of repeating over and over that there is
a "CHILD" before birth--or words to that effect.
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36B8D2CA...@geocities.com>...
>One more time, Maritza/Mab/Minxs. I find your tactics quite
>boring.
Translation: I was sorely whipped.
>You are very biased in your determination to try to
>destroy anything written by a Pro-Lifer. Your use of feminist
>academics to pretend that they are objective is simply not
>convincing.
Translation: I was sorely whipped.
>I was particularly disappointed at the propaganda tactics
>you used to reply to a recent detailed message I posted
>quoting a Reardon article which said almost the exact same
>things you had been accusing him of ignoring. Instead of
>dealing with the points at issue, you simply ran off on
>tangents -- quoting unknown liberals who claim to be
>scientists, and skipping vital points.
Translation: I was sorely whipped.
>If you want to claim "victory," be my guest. #8^)
Okay: VICTORY!!!
Ray Fischer
>One more time, Maritza/Mab/Minxs. I find your tactics quite
>boring.
Plan A: Use ad hominem attacks to discredit people who post verifiable
refutations of Jackass's propaganda.
Plan B: Pretend boredom, suggesting that the rebuttals didn't actually
shred Jackass's claims.
> You are very biased in your determination to try to
>destroy anything written by a Pro-Lifer.
Whoops. Looks like we're not done with Plan A yet.
>I could do the research necessary to argue with you,
Bullshit. You couldn't do the necessary research to save your life.
M is for Malapert
>If there were a controversy about the relationship between the
>earth and the sun, who would get to judge which viewpoint is
>accurate? One group contends that the earth orbits the sun.
>Another group says, "No, the sun orbits the earth." I would
>like to believe that the group which had the facts on its
>side would try to present the facts to the public in an effort
>to win.
That probably explains why 61% of the people in one of the best recent
polls believed that women should have the right to decide on an
abortion without interference in the first trimester, 60% believed
that Roe v. Wade was a good decision, over half didn't think it was
necessary to know a public official's view on abortion, almost 60%
thought that the government should stay out of decisions on whether
abortion should be legal, and more than 75% opposed a constitutional
amendment banning abortion. (NYTimes/CBS poll, reported in the
NYTimes January 16, 1998.)
Pro-choicers must have done a good job in presenting the facts, since
they have won.
>The side without the facts would have to resort to
>name calling, unsubstantiated allegations, and emotional tirades.
They would have to call people "baby killer," make unsubstantiated
allegations about abortion, and resort to emotional tirades about the
slaughter of innocent unborn children, you mean?
>In theory at least, the voters should make the final decision.
The voters don't get to decide to violate the Constitution and
people's rights.
>However, that hasn't worked in this major controversy. Instead
>the liberal judges have seen this as one more opportunity to
>extend their power over the details of day-to-day life.
Explain to me how the right of the woman who lives down the street to
have an abortion affects ANY of the details of your day-to-day life.
>We see the voters elect legislatures. In turn, majorities in
>the elected legislatures vote for bills to limit rampant abor-
>tion practices.
Tough shit. Voters used to elect legislators who kept the nigras in
their place too.
>We seem to be at a place in our history to test the very precepts
>of representative democracy.
Like we're ever not there?
Ray Fischer
>Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>In theory at least, the voters should make the final decision.
>
>The voters don't get to decide to violate the Constitution and
>people's rights.
The people can choose to change the constitution. That they have
chosen not to is yet another indication that the abortion opponents do
not represent America.
ew...@lexi.ewill.net
*snicker*
Were I an unbiased (or new) poster, and were to come across this post, I
would be sorely confused.
As it is, I'm pro-choice, and side firmly with Maritza on
this one.
Now back to your regularly scheduled ... um ... whatever we're
doing here in this thread... :-)
----
ew...@aimnet.com
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
What *are* we doing here in this thread ???
HRG.
> ----
> ew...@aimnet.com
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Matt Pillsbury
> In article <slrn7bjkbb...@lexi.ewill.net>,
> ew...@lexi.ewill.net () wrote:
[...]
> > Now back to your regularly scheduled ... um ... whatever we're
> > doing here in this thread... :-)
> What *are* we doing here in this thread ???
I believe the word is "neenerfest" [*].
[*] As in "Pro-[choicers,lifers] suck! Neener, neener, neener!" for
those of you in the audience who aren't real 'Merkins.
--< Matt Pillsbury >--< p i l l s y [at] b r o w n [dot] e d u >--
"Happiness is a loaded weapon."
Sisters of Mercy, "Under The Gun"
ew...@lexi.ewill.net
>hrgr...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
>> In article <slrn7bjkbb...@lexi.ewill.net>,
>> ew...@lexi.ewill.net () wrote:
>[...]
>> > Now back to your regularly scheduled ... um ... whatever we're
>> > doing here in this thread... :-)
>
>> What *are* we doing here in this thread ???
>
>I believe the word is "neenerfest" [*].
I can see it all now. "Neenerfest '99" in big red letters hung
up between two trees near the original Woodstock site. Music!
Pop Tarts! A veritable array of drinks such as iced wine, beer
(real and American) :-), fruit drinks, and of course water.
Computers sitting out in the rain protected only by a plastic
sheeting, to be used to E-mail loved ones at home. Speaker systems
that are big enough to dwarf the Washington Monument and loud
enough to wake the dead.
And of course the music would be more or less along the lines of
children's "taunt songs" ("Neener Neener" being one of them,
but there are "My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad", "My Toy", and
"It's The Biggest House In The Neighborhood".)
Yeah, this will be the biggest thing since Fenster Aid (hosted
at the Addams house). :-)
>
>[*] As in "Pro-[choicers,lifers] suck! Neener, neener, neener!" for
>those of you in the audience who aren't real 'Merkins.
Hey, I'm not a 'Merkin! I'm a citizen of the United States! :-)
[.sigsnip]
----
ew...@aimnet.com
sae
pro-abort propaganda can do, I guess. Keeps them away from PP at least...
Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:78rkis$po3$1...@juliana.sprynet.com...
>
>Ray Fischer wrote in message ...
>
>>Papa Jackass <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>>Maritza Combes wrote:
>>
>>>> "95 percent of women who have had abortions?" That statement is
>>>> quoted out of context to give one the impression that 95% of ALL
>>>> women who go to PP don't get enough info about the fetus before
>>>> their abortions.
>
>
>Why did you snip the rest of my post, PJ? I EXPLAINED why that
>statement is taken out of context--because it was Reardon's
>conclusions about a part of a survey he gave to only 53 women in his
>NON-PROBABILITY sample.
>
>>>Do you, Maritza, have empirical evidence that more than 5% of
>>>the women who had abortions at Planned Parenthood believed thay
>>>received adequate information about the fetus which the abortion
>>>would destroy.
>
>
>Let's put it this way, PJ, so you can understand that one cannot
>generalize from Reardon's sample of 53 women. Suppose I put together
>an organization called "Women Very Satisfied With Their Abortion." I
>gather from this organization a sample of 53 women. I then slap an
>untested and unverified survey in front of them, and 100% of them say
>that their abortion was a positive experience. I then go ahead and
>publish my results, and tell the world that "100% of ALL women were
>very satisfied with their abortion experience." What will you do?
>You will (rightfully) cry wolf, because you will claim that this
>sample cannot possibly represent American women as a whole due to the
>fact that this sample, from which I am generalizing to all women who
>have had abortions, was purposively pre-selected. Imagine, then, if I
>tell you that this sample IS representative because the demographic
>variables (race, income, education, etc.) are the same or similar to
>that of American women who have had abortions as a whole. You will
>STILL cry bloody wolf because the sample, although similar in
>demographics to the population, consisted of women purposively
>selected due to their having had a positive postabortion
>experience--and not all women clearly feel that way, right?
>
>That's exactly what Reardon did. See the big problem?
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce Forest
<[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> that's something the bored housewives and unemployed college girls who churn
> pro-abort propaganda can do, I guess. Keeps them away from PP at least...
Are you aware that 90% of PPs work has nothing to do with abortion, but
PREVENTING the need for abortion and ensuring women's health?
I didn't think so.
--
"-Caution: cape does not enable wearer to fly."
-actual Batman costume tag
Remove obvious spamguard to mail me.
Papa Jack
>
> In article <ldTu2.3833$Xl5.5...@news1.mia>, "sae"
> <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
=====================================================================
>> sae wrote:
>> that's something the bored housewives and unemployed college
>> girls who churn pro-abort propaganda can do, I guess. Keeps
>> them away from PP at least...
=====================================================================
> Bruce Forest wrote:
> Are you aware that 90% of PPs work has nothing to do with
> abortion, but PREVENTING the need for abortion and ensuring
> women's health?
> I didn't think so.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Are you aware that PP performs more abortions than any other
American organization?
Since legislation normally prevents PP from getting tax dollars
to perform abortions, they put together the "family planning"
services to reap many $millions of tax dollars. Any first
year accountant can show you how to cheat when you are running
two sets of funding books like that.
I would be a lot more convinced that PP was benevolent if they
weren't one of the leads on so many lawsuits to fight any and
all controls and limitations on the abortion industry. Guess
who was one of the leads in the recent Portland, Oregon, case
which so seriously damaged our freedom of speech.
Why do you try to hide PP's real role in this country and in
the world. They actively promote the use of abortion for
millions.
Chris Chevalier de XENU Lyman
# Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote...
# >Let's put it this way, PJ, so you can understand that one cannot
# >generalize from Reardon's sample of 53 women. Suppose I put together
# >an organization called "Women Very Satisfied With Their Abortion."
# >I gather from this organization a sample of 53 women. I then slap
# >an untested and unverified survey in front of them, and 100% of them
# >say that their abortion was a positive experience. I then go ahead
# >and publish my results, and tell the world that "100% of ALL women
# >were very satisfied with their abortion experience." What will you
# >do? You will (rightfully) cry wolf, because you will claim that this
# >sample cannot possibly represent American women as a whole due to the
# >fact that this sample, from which I am generalizing to all women who
# >have had abortions, was purposively pre-selected. Imagine, then, if
# >I tell you that this sample IS representative because the demographic
# >variables (race, income, education, etc.) are the same or similar to
# >that of American women who have had abortions as a whole. You will
# >STILL cry bloody wolf because the sample, although similar in
# >demographics to the population, consisted of women purposively
# >selected due to their having had a positive postabortion
# >experience--and not all women clearly feel that way, right?
# >
# >That's exactly what Reardon did. See the big problem?
Pro-choicers have explained and explained and explained this to
anti-choicers for *years* and they (the anti-choicers) have proven
time and again to be too dense or too dishonest to acknowledge the
obvious flaws in Reardon's "research". Thanks for trying, though.
# that's something the bored housewives and unemployed college girls
# who churn pro-abort propaganda can do, I guess. Keeps them away from
# PP at least...
sae, you have to try harder; your response is about the most inept
non sequitor I've seen in a long time.
--
Chris Lyman; SP4, KoX
Send email to chris-dot-lyman-atsign-pclink-dot-com.
"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach
a man to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."
Ray Fischer
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>> Are you aware that 90% of PPs work has nothing to do with
>> abortion, but PREVENTING the need for abortion and ensuring
>> women's health?
>
>> I didn't think so.
>
>Are you aware that PP performs more abortions than any other
>American organization?
Which is like saying that members of the American Medical Association
kill more people than any other organization in the country.
>Since legislation normally prevents PP from getting tax dollars
>to perform abortions, they put together the "family planning"
>services to reap many $millions of tax dollars.
Family planning services which provide family planning and not
abortion.
> Any first
>year accountant can show you how to cheat when you are running
>two sets of funding books like that.
Jackass, you're a sleazebag. PP's books are open. They're a
non-profit and they're accountable to the government. If they ever
tried such trick the government would be all over them.
>I would be a lot more convinced that PP was benevolent if they
Jackass, you're a dumbshit bigot who hates PP and will lie about them
regardless of evidence proving you wrong.
Heywood Jabuzzoff
A mildy tiffed Ray Fischer wrote in message ...
(snips)
>>Are you aware that PP performs more abortions than any other
>>American organization?
>
>Which is like saying that members of the American Medical Association
>kill more people than any other organization in the country.
Which would technically be true, so where's the point? Manipulating facts
and figures are easy, as the folks down at PP are well aware. The promotion
of eugenics against poor, black and indigent folks on behalf of the liberal
landed gentry make the latter feel good, while doing inestimable damage to
the former.
>>Since legislation normally prevents PP from getting tax dollars
>>to perform abortions, they put together the "family planning"
>>services to reap many $millions of tax dollars.
>
>Family planning services which provide family planning and not
>abortion.
Money is fungible. The volunteers down at PP take away a good chunk of the
overhead, while the liberal causes and foundations prop up the abortion
industry headed by PP. The cause celebre of "abortion rights" is Title I of
the liberal manifesto. While I'm sure one could find some folks who
disagree with government funded contraception programs (Just Say No - Hah!),
very few want federal dollars spent on promoting abortion.
Mainstream contraception for ignorant teens, yes...rabid abortion promotion
and referrals, no.
>> Any first
>>year accountant can show you how to cheat when you are running
>>two sets of funding books like that.
>
>Jackass, you're a sleazebag. PP's books are open. They're a
>non-profit and they're accountable to the government. If they ever
>tried such trick the government would be all over them.
Sure. La Cosa Nostra's books are open, too. But who'd dare stick their
nose into 'em?
Ray Fischer
>>>Are you aware that PP performs more abortions than any other
>>>American organization?
>>
>>Which is like saying that members of the American Medical Association
>>kill more people than any other organization in the country.
>
>Which would technically be true, so where's the point?
The point is that Jackass is spewing sleazy propaganda.
> Manipulating facts
>and figures are easy, as the folks down at PP are well aware.
Evidence? Oh wait, that's right. You don't have any.
Just another sleazy propagandist.
>>>Since legislation normally prevents PP from getting tax dollars
>>>to perform abortions, they put together the "family planning"
>>>services to reap many $millions of tax dollars.
>>
>>Family planning services which provide family planning and not
>>abortion.
>
>Money is fungible.
Tell that to the IRS.
> The volunteers down at PP take away a good chunk of the
>overhead, while the liberal causes and foundations prop up the abortion
>industry headed by PP.
Pro-lie sleaze. In fact money given to clinics for family planning
cannot be spent an abortion services. Government accountants are more
then capable of spotting such tricks and don't allow them.
Don't assume that your ignorance of accounting is shared by the
professionals who have studied the subject for years.
>>> Any first
>>>year accountant can show you how to cheat when you are running
>>>two sets of funding books like that.
>>
>>Jackass, you're a sleazebag. PP's books are open. They're a
>>non-profit and they're accountable to the government. If they ever
>>tried such trick the government would be all over them.
>
>Sure. La Cosa Nostra's books are open, too.
What a stupid liar you are.
But when your ideology is indefensible, I suppose you have no other
recourse.
Heywood Jabuzzoff
Still a little miffed about who-knows-what Ray Fischer wrote in message ...
>Heywood Jabuzzoff <jaz...@home.com> wrote:
>Just another sleazy propagandist.
Sleazy? Oh, I see. No one can say anything against PP because it's Ray's
pet cause. Ane we just know that everyone involved with PP's liberal agenda
is pure at heart. Liberals don't have any hidden agendas, do they?
(snipped repetitive defenses without substantiation)
>>Sure. La Cosa Nostra's books are open, too.
>
>What a stupid liar you are.
My what an enlightened defense.
>
>But when your ideology is indefensible, I suppose you have no other
>recourse.
Who said anything about ideology? Planned Parenthood has intrinsic and
extrinsic agendas. Every corporation does. They're not above criticism
just because they're portrayed as defenders of the downtrodden.
The Hells Angels have that Toys for Tots ride every Christmas, but they're
also involved in the distribution of narcotics. I'm sure they'd like to
change their image, but just like PP, history is a damning thing to escape.
John Gilmer
Ray Fischer wrote in message ...
>>Bruce Forest wrote:
>
>>> Are you aware that 90% of PPs work has nothing to do with
>>> abortion, but PREVENTING the need for abortion and ensuring
>>> women's health?
>>
>>> I didn't think so.
>>
>>American organization?
>
>Which is like saying that members of the American Medical Association
>kill more people than any other organization in the country.
Well, we already know that doctors kill more people than guns!
>
>>Since legislation normally prevents PP from getting tax dollars
>>to perform abortions, they put together the "family planning"
>>services to reap many $millions of tax dollars.
>
>Family planning services which provide family planning and not
>abortion.
>
>> Any first
>>year accountant can show you how to cheat when you are running
>>two sets of funding books like that.
>
>Jackass, you're a sleazebag. PP's books are open. They're a
>non-profit and they're accountable to the government. If they ever
>tried such trick the government would be all over them.
>
>>I would be a lot more convinced that PP was benevolent if they
>
>Jackass, you're a dumbshit bigot who hates PP and will lie about them
>regardless of evidence proving you wrong.
>
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote in message ...
>>Just another sleazy propagandist.
>
>Sleazy?
People who make libellous allegations about people without a shred of
evidence to back them up are sleazy.
> Oh, I see. No one can say anything against PP because it's Ray's
Wrong, dipshit. You made claims about PP which you have not one
shred of evidence. Shall I go around telling people that you're
opposed to abortion because you want more little girls around to
molest and kill?
Papa Jack
>
>>
=====================================================================
> Ray Fischer wrote:
> ...you're a sleazebag. PP's books are open. They're a non--
> profit and they're accountable to the government. If they
> ever tried such trick the government would be all over them.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
About three years ago I found a news story which summarized
PP's annual statement. I've looked since then, but have not
found such a statement since.
Does anyone know if PP's annual financial report is on the web?
If so, where?
Ray Fischer
alt.support.abortion, I've set the followups accordingly again.
Papa Jackass <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote in message ...
>>
>> ...you're a sleazebag. PP's books are open. They're a non--
>> profit and they're accountable to the government. If they
>> ever tried such trick the government would be all over them.
>
>About three years ago I found a news story which summarized
>PP's annual statement. I've looked since then, but have not
>found such a statement since.
So you admit that you have NO evidence to support your sleazy
allegations.
Stop_The_Holocaust
Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:36BF9313...@geocities.com...
>Ray Fischer wrote in message ...
>>
>> Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>>
>
> =====================================================================
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> ...you're a sleazebag. PP's books are open. They're a non--
>> profit and they're accountable to the government. If they
>> ever tried such trick the government would be all over them.
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack remarked:
>About three years ago I found a news story which summarized
>PP's annual statement. I've looked since then, but have not
>found such a statement since.
>
Stop_The_Holocaust
is devoted to abortion issues??
Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:36BCED41...@geocities.com...
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>>
>> In article <ldTu2.3833$Xl5.5...@news1.mia>, "sae"
>> <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> =====================================================================
>>> sae wrote:
>>> that's something the bored housewives and unemployed college
>>> girls who churn pro-abort propaganda can do, I guess. Keeps
>>> them away from PP at least...
>
> =====================================================================
>> Bruce Forest wrote:
>> Are you aware that 90% of PPs work has nothing to do with
>> abortion, but PREVENTING the need for abortion and ensuring
>> women's health?
>
>> I didn't think so.
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack remarked:
>Are you aware that PP performs more abortions than any other
>American organization?
>
>Since legislation normally prevents PP from getting tax dollars
>to perform abortions, they put together the "family planning"
>services to reap many $millions of tax dollars. Any first
>year accountant can show you how to cheat when you are running
>two sets of funding books like that.
>
>I would be a lot more convinced that PP was benevolent if they
>weren't one of the leads on so many lawsuits to fight any and
>all controls and limitations on the abortion industry. Guess
>who was one of the leads in the recent Portland, Oregon, case
>which so seriously damaged our freedom of speech.
>
>Why do you try to hide PP's real role in this country and in
>the world. They actively promote the use of abortion for
>millions.
>
Ray Fischer
>if 95% of PP's work is not related to abortion, why then 98% of its website
>is devoted to abortion issues??
Easy. You're wrong. Another pro-lie propagandist who can't see
straight. Most of the site has nothing to do with abortion.
Melanie
C. A. Owens wrote in message <36B29E85...@redsuspenders.com>...
>
>
>Papa Jack wrote:
>>
>> > So, do you think that a pro-life site is going to give an
>> > accurate representation, PJ; or, one distorted to support
>> > their particular viewpoint?
>>
>> Do you believe that the folks who were quoted lied about what
>> they saw and experienced? That is the real issue, Chris.
>
>I would contend that the majority of the quotes are not substansiable,
>and, therefore, of questionable validity.
>>
>> Do you believe SOME abortion clinics treat women like cattle
>> being rushed through a slaughter house?
>
>Yes. So do some of ANY medical practice. It is wrong. To single out
>abortion practitioners and pretend that this is not a medical
>industry-wide flaw is deceptive.
Actually, when it comes to surgical practices, I have not seen this as a
medical
industry-wide flaw. Some abortion clinics grossly overschedule patients,
especially on the weekends. I haven't seen the same sort of patient load
say at an ENT clinic. I sure didn't see 30 people coming in one day to have
ingrown toe nails surgically removed, either.
I do think there are some HMO's, and medical clinics, that treat people
abominably, and that is a different sort of problem. However most medical
clinics do not perform outpatient surgery on a regular basis.
>
>> I'm sure there are some who sincerely try to do a professional
>> job, but we keep hearing about the ones who disgrace the
>> entire medical field. Are you defending them? Or, perhaps
>> you want to deny that such places exist?
>
>I am suggesting that the site doesn't present an ACCURATE viewpoint, PJ,
>in that they wouldn't use a favorable quote.
>
>Chris Owens
I would not expect Reardon's site to use favorable quotes just as I wouldn't
expect to get an accurate picture of a CPC from Planned Parenthood, although
I would imagine it's easier to get an unfavorable quote from a client about
an abortion clinic. They're too easy to find.
--Melanie
Melanie
Osmo Ronkanen wrote in message <78v7pm$o...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
>In article <ZCCs2.436$Oa3.4...@nnrp2.ni.net>,
>Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>>
>>Osmo Ronkanen wrote in message <78t86p$h...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
>>>In article <78s1ls$1or$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>>>Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>Actually... the survey was not restricted to WEBA women. It was widely
>>publicized, and I suppose that those who did not oppose abortion in
general
>>could have responded.
>
>That does not make the sample unbiased. In general any study that is
>based on subjects contracting the researches and not vice versa cannot
>produce unbiased sample.
Nowhere did I suggest or state that the sample was unbiased. Perhaps you
should go back and reread the entire response, because I believe I conceded
that the sample could be biased. I was just correcting the notion that it
was restricted to WEBA women. I found the survey somewhere else...not sure
if I recall where, but I it was long after I lost contact with anyone from
WEBA.
See my comments below:
>
>>I don't doubt that the
>>survey is more likely to reach certain groups of women, but not only women
>>affiliated with women took the survey. I have run across it in a number
of
>>places, mostly, but not entirely prolife.
>>
>>--Melanie
>>
>>
>>
>
>Osmo
>
It might do you some good to read the entire context...
--Melanie
Melanie
enumerations here that there are two "surveys" or one survey with
distinctions between those who were with WEBA and those that were not. There
appears to be separate statistics listed for those who were WEBA members
and compares it to the total. Obviously, there would be nothing to compare
if only WEBA members answered the survey. Seeing as I received a copy of
the survey questions, and it was not from WEBA, the survey was obviously
available to others. I am not saying that the survey sample is not or could
not be biased. I am only correcting the faulty notion that only those
affiliated with WEBA participated in Reardon's survey...which I believe was
the original topic.
--Melanie
Maritza Combes wrote in message <78vegh$gph$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
>
>Melanie wrote in message ...
>
>>Actually... the survey was not restricted to WEBA women.
>
>Yes, it was:
>
>(p. 4 of *Aborted Women*): "...it is necessary to see whether or not
>WEBA MEMBERS are typical of a random sample of aborting women
>[emphasis mine]."
>
>(p.4): "This sample suggests that WEBA MEMBERS are a relatively close
>match to the national pattern discussed above, though WEBA'S
>MEMBERSHIP tends slightly towards younger aborters [emphasis mine]."
>
>I think it's pretty clear by now.
>
>
Pat Winstanley
<Stop_The_...@usa.net> writes
>if 95% of PP's work is not related to abortion, why then 98% of its website
>is devoted to abortion issues??
You think so? Look at the below and find 98% of this lot devoted to
abortion issues....
Taken at random from the IPPF site this morning 08.15 GMT
========================================================================
http://www.ippf.org/charter_.htm
The International Planned Parenthood Federation's Charter on Sexual and
Reproductive Rights was approved by its governing body and 127 member
associations in 1995.
The Charter provides an ethical framework for IPPF's work in the field
of sexual and reproductive health and rights (see Vision 2000 -
Strategic Plan ). A brief summary of the 12 Rights is given below.
The full document defines 12 Rights identified from international human
rights are also additional rights to which IPPF commits itself.
A second section gives extracts from UN conferences and other documents
agreed by governments which support the rights, and against which the
upholding of the rights can be measured.
For an example of how a Family Planning Association can promote the
rights defined by the Charter, see Sexual & reproductive rights: within
everyone's reach.
Summary of the Charter:
The Right to Life
IPPF claims that the right to life applies to, and should be invoked to
protect, women whose lives are currently endangered by pregnancy.
The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person
IPPF claims that the right to liberty and security of the person applies
to, and should be invoked to protect, women currently at risk from
genital instruments. For each, there is a list of rights related to
sexual and reproductive health which flow directly from the Right. In
some cases there mutilation, or subject to forced pregnancy,
sterilization or abortion.
The Right to Equality and to be Free from all Forms of Discrimination
IPPF claims that the right to equality and to be free from all forms of
discrimination applies to, and should be invoked to protect, the right
of all people, regardless of race, colour, sex, sexual orientation,
marital status, family position, age, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status, to equal access to information, education and services related
to development, and to sexual and reproductive health.
The Right to Privacy
IPPF claims that the right to privacy applies to, and should be invoked
to protect, the right of all clients of sexual and reproductive health
care information, education and services to a degree of privacy, and to
confidentiality with regard to personal information given to service
providers.
The Right to Freedom of Thought
IPPF claims that the right to freedom of thought applies to, and should
be invoked to protect, the right of all persons to access to education
and information related to their sexual and reproductive health free
from restrictions on grounds of thought, conscience and religion.
The Right to Information and Education
IPPF claims that the right to information and education applies to, and
should be invoked to protect, the right of all persons to access to full
information on the benefits, risks and effectiveness of all methods of
fertility regulation, in order that any decisions they take on such
matters are made with full, free and informed consent.
The Right to Choose Whether or Not to Marry and to Found and Plan a
Family
IPPF claims that the right to choose whether or not to marry and to
found a family applies to, and should be invoked to protect, all persons
against any marriage entered into without the full, free and informed
consent of both partners
The Right to Decide Whether or When to Have Children
IPPF claims that the right to decide whether or when to have children
applies to, and should be invoked to protect, the right of all persons
to reproductive health care services which offer the widest possible
range of safe, effective and acceptable methods of fertility regulation,
and are accessible, affordable, acceptable and convenient to all users.
The Right to Health Care and Health Protection
IPPF claims that the right to health care applies to, and should be
invoked to protect, the right of all persons to the highest possible
quality of health care, and the right to be free from traditional
practices which are harmful to health.
The Right to the Benefits of Scientific Progress
IPPF claims that the right to the benefits of scientific progress
applies to, and should be invoked to protect, the right of all persons
to access to available reproductive health care technology which
independent studies have shown to have an acceptable risk/benefit
profile, and where to withhold such technology would have harmful
effects on health and well-being.
The Right to Freedom of Assembly and Political Participation
IPPF claims that the right of freedom of assembly and political
participation applies to, and should be invoked to protect, the right to
form an association which aims to promote sexual and reproductive health
and rights.
The Right to be Free from Torture and Ill Treatment
IPPF claims that the right to be free from torture and inhuman or
degrading treatment applies to and should be invoked to protect
children, women and men from all forms of sexual violence, exploitation
and abuse.
========================================================================
http://www.ippf.org/newsinfo/index.htm
International news highlights in the field of sexual and reproductive
health including family planning
4 FEBRUARY 1999
Click here for Cairo+5 at The Hague: Latest News
UN Scientists Discover HIV Protection for Babies
A simple, relatively inexpensive drug treatment, which can reduce
mother-to-infant transmission of the AIDS virus, has been discovered by
scientists working for the United Nations. Though the results are not as
good as those from the standard treatment in Western countries, the
standard treatment is too expensive and complicated for the poor
countries of the world, where HIV, the AIDS virus, is spreading fastest.
The new strategy significantly reduces the treatment period and is about
as effective whether the women start taking the pills about three weeks
before delivery or at the onset of labour, which is the first time
expectant mothers seek medical help in many poor countries. Dr Joseph
Saba, a UN official in the AIDS programme, expressed hope that the
treatment would sharply reduce the number of babies born infected. (4
February 1999, International Herald Tribune)
Table of Contents
Ultrasound, Tradition and One-Child Policy in China
Between 500,000 and 750,000 unborn girls are aborted in China every year
as a result of couples having access to the ultrasound scanner that
reveals the sex of a fetus. The imagery that identifies birth defects
also allows sex-selective abortions, which have become commonplace in
the countryside where sons are in highest demand. China has outlawed sex
screening for a decade, yet it remains accepted. In most of rural China,
birth control regulators have tried to assuage the peasants' anger over
the 1979 "one child" regulations by adopting an unstated "one son"
policy instead. A couple giving birth to a son is allowed one child. But
a rural family that has a girl first is permitted a second child.
Parents will often keep the first girl, then repeatedly abort subsequent
pregnancies until an ultrasound shows a male heir. (29 January 1999, Cox
News Service/Lexis-Nexis)
Table of Contents
Implants Plan to cut Teenage Pregnancies
A family planning expert yesterday suggested that girls as young as 12
could be fitted with long-term contraceptive devices at school, when
they have their rubella vaccination, as a way of tackling Britain's high
teenage birth rate. Professor John Guillebaud, Medical Director of the
Margaret Pyke Centre in London, said a new device that will prevent
pregnancy for three years could be used in areas with high teenage birth
rates. Professor Guillebaud said a highly effective hormonal implant
that has just received its European licence was "ideal" for young girls
who are more likely than older women to forget to take the Pill or use a
condom. But his proposal was attacked by anti-abortion and conservative
family organisations, who accused him of recommending "chemical
castration". It also caused alarm within the family planning movement.
Ann Weyman, Chief Executive of the Family Planning Association said: "It
is more a question of young women having the self-confidence to take
control of their lives and make responsible decisions about
relationships." "Contraception has to be viewed within this broader
context." (3 February 1999, The Times, The Independent, The Daily
Telegraph, The Guardian)
Table of Contents
China's Reforms Hit Women Hardest
According to the New York-based Human Rights in China (HRIC) group,
China's economic reform programme is hitting women hardest, depriving
them of access to jobs, health care and basic human rights. "Women have
suffered disproportionately from unemployment resulting from economic
restructuring," HRIC said in a statement, adding that while women made
up less than 40 per cent of the formal urban workforce, they had
suffered 60 per cent of the layoffs in the sector. HRIC also said: "The
lower status of girls and women means that they are less likely to
receive care which is increasingly expensive. This is particularly so
for rural women, whose access to health care is severely inadequate."
(27 January 1999, Agence France Presse/Lexis-Nexis)
Table of Contents
Women will get Abortions even if they are Illegal
According to an international report by the New York-based Alan
Guttmacher Institute, one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion,
even where the procedure is illegal and unsafe. Nearly 80,000 women die
from abortion complications each year, mostly in poor countries where
abortion is illegal, the Alan Guttmacher Institute found. From these
findings the message is that women will find a way to abort, even at
risk to their own lives, if they do not want to carry a pregnancy to
term. The report also showed that making abortion available is far from
promoting it. The Netherlands, which has liberal abortion laws, has the
third-lowest abortion rate, with just more than 10 per 1000 women of
childbearing age per year. (31 January 1999, San Francisco
Chronicle/CCMC)
Table of Contents
Algerian Government Silent on Violence Against Women
According to the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) the
Algerian government has been "totally silent" regarding violence against
women, who face abduction, murder and rape at the hands of insurgents as
well as "institutionalised discrimination". A report submitted by the
FIDH to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) said: "While an armed conflict has been ravaging the
country for more than seven years, official Algerian reports have
remained totally silent regarding violence against women." The report
said Algerian women, already "victims of institutionalised
discrimination in the legal system ... have seen their situation worsen
with the conflict" in which at least 60,000 people have lost their
lives, mostly civilians. FIDH said Algeria's Family Code, in effect
since 1984, allowed the "organised subordination of women" and should be
amended. According to the report, domestic violence was "sadly a daily
reality" and a taboo subject in the country where working women and
those living alone are also subject to abuse. (21 January 1999, Agence
France Presse/LEXIS-NEXIS)
Table of Contents
Source of HIV Virus Tracked to Endangered Chimpanzee
An international team of scientists has traced the roots of the AIDS
virus to a related virus in a subspecies of chimpanzee in Africa. Since
the chimpanzees are genetically almost identical to humans and because
the primates are able to live with the virus without falling ill, the
scientists expressed hope that their discovery would eventually help
improve therapies and develop an effective vaccine against the AIDS
virus. But the chimpanzee is endangered as a result of hunting for human
consumption, and the scientists hope, from both a medical investigation
standpoint and a conservation point of view, that their discovery will
renew international conservation efforts to save the subspecies. The
scientists believe that HIV-1 was introduced into the human population
through exposure to the chimpanzee blood during hunting. (1 February
1999, The Independent, The Times, International Herald Tribune, The
Daily Telegraph, The Guardian)
Table of Contents
Women have Greater Acceptance of Religious Activism in Politics, Poll
According to a poll released last Wednesday by a feminist group,
American women accept more religious activism in politics. Respondents
were split 50-50 when asked whether elected officials should be guided
by religious values and whether "religion and politics shouldn't mix".
In a comparable survey done in 1992, 63 per cent of women picked the
latter choice. On abortion, 53 per cent of those surveyed in the poll
conducted in mid-1998 said it should be illegal except for rape, incest
and saving a woman's life, or else forbidden in all cases. This showed
an eight per cent shift away from abortion rights in a poll done two
years ago. (27 January 1999, Associated Press/CCMC)
Table of Contents
Students in Brazil to Receive Information on STDs and Sexuality
Starting in September, Brazil's 10 million public school students will
be provided with information on sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases
(STDs), drugs and the prevention of AIDS. The project, called "Growing
Well with Life", was developed by the country's Ministry of Health,
following a sharp increase in pregnancies and cases of AIDS in young
adolescents. (December 1998, International Family Planning Perspectives,
Vol 24, No 4)
Table of Contents
New Abortion Law in Brazil
A new abortion law in Brazil is expected to keep abortion illegal, but
will reduce penalties and allow new exceptions for the procedure. Under
the new law, punishments for abortion will be reduced from one to three
years to nine months to one year. Additionally, judges will be allowed
to suspend punishment. "Genetic defects that make life of the fetus non-
viable" will also become a cause for legal abortion, added to the two
others that already exist: risk to the mother's life or incest. (29
January 1999, CWN/The Catholic Herald)
Table of Contents
Chaplains Condemn Student Sex Guide
University Chaplains are furious at the publication of an article in
Grapevine - the official magazine of the Catholic Student Council of
England and Wales. The article, in the latest issue of the magazine,
gives advice on pre-marital sex, lists the telephone number of the Brook
Advisory Centres and advises readers to "have a condom handy". Chaplains
told The Catholic Herald this week that their students had complained
about the article, written by Katherine Evans of the Health Education
Authority. They said they would consider removing the magazine from
circulation among students. But Fr Fabian Radcliffe, the National Co-
ordinator of university Chaplains in England and Wales and Chaplain to
the Catholic Student Council, backed the editors after they released a
statement in which they expressed regret at causing offence. Fr
Radcliffe said that it was "absurd" to suggest that the students had any
"rebellious" or "anti-Catholic" intent in publishing the article. (29
January 1999, The Catholic Herald)
Table of Contents
Hen's Eggs Used in Battle to Stop Unwanted Pregnancies
Dozens of schools in London, UK are encouraging teenage girls to care
for a hen's egg for a week as if it were a baby. The initiative,
organised by local health authorities and the Brook Advisory Centres,
aims to give the girls a taste of life as carer and guardian. A Family
Planning Association spokeswoman said the recent storm about teenage
mothers and adoption had highlighted the problem of unplanned babies.
The association wanted improved and more widespread sex education. Young
mothers and fathers also talk in schools about the realities of being a
teenage parent. (29 January 1999, The Independent)
========================================================================
--
Pat Winstanley
Maritza Combes
Melanie wrote in message ...
>Actually, you have failed to make your point. It looks from your
>enumerations here that there are two "surveys" or one survey with
>distinctions between those who were with WEBA and those that were
not.
No, there was ONE survey, with a SUB-SURVEY for women (53 of them) who
had had their abortions through PP or were referred by PP to a clinic.
The purpose of the subsample was to determine these women's
experiences with PP. They were not used as a comparison group, and
they couldn't be used as such.
>There appears to be separate statistics listed for those who were
WEBA members
>and compares it to the total.
There's nothing in *Aborted Women* that shows that there was a
comparison group. Reardon never mentioned any comparison group, and
peer reviewers Wilmoth and deAlteriis (1992) concurred:
Table 1. Characteristics of the Research Design Used in Studies
Reviewed (p. 42-43)
Reardon, 1987:
"Type of Comparison Group: NONE"
>Obviously, there would be nothing to compare
>if only WEBA members answered the survey. Seeing as I received a
copy of
>the survey questions, and it was not from WEBA, the survey was
obviously
>available to others. I am not saying that the survey sample is not
or could
>not be biased. I am only correcting the faulty notion that only
those
>affiliated with WEBA participated in Reardon's survey...which I
believe was
>the original topic.
Let's look at Reardon's (1987) own words in his book *Aborted Women*.
Then we will look at Wilmoth and deAlteriis's (1992) research review
of Reardon's sample. (Wilmoth and deAlteriis are both social science
analysts from the U.S. General Accounting Office):
Let's begin with Reardon's OWN ADMISSION that these women were
actually *members* of WEBA:
"Before evaluating the survey responses dealing with the abortion
experience, however, it is necessary to see whether or not *WEBA
MEMBERS* are typical of a random sample of aborting women. This can
be done by comparing the demographic characteristics of the WEBA women
surveyed with the national abortion statistics which describe the
'typical' aborter [emphasis added]." (p. 4)
Here Reardon himself calls these women "members" of WEBA. What
constitutes membership, he did not say. However, he was confident
that they were such, and called them such.
Let's look at what Wilmoth and deAlteriis (1992) said about Reardon's
sample:
"Although Reardon (1987) reported that his surveys were distributed
through WEBA chapters TO WEBA MEMBERS....[emphasis added]" (p.48)
Here Wilmoth and deAlterris confirm, in their research review, that
these women were indeed "members" of WEBA.
Therefore, your question that they were not necessarily members of
WEBA contradicts not only Wilmoth and deAlteriis, but even Reardon's
own words. Reardon was not about to shoot himself in the foot by
calling them "WEBA members" if not all of them truly were.
That answers your first part of the argument. Now for the
second--about a comparison group:
Reardon DID NOT use comparison groups in his study. He claimed to
have confidence that his sample was representative of the aborting
population as a whole--so why the need for a comparison, right?
Table 1. Characteristics of the Research Design Used in Studies
Reviewed (p. 42-43)
Reardon, 1987:
"Type of Comparison Group: NONE"
However, demographic similarities in his sample notwithstanding, one
cannot generalize with a PURPOSIVE sample. One MAY use a haphazard
sample--or even better, a random sample, but you can't do it with a
self-selected sample. That's Research Methods 101:
Wilmoth and deAlteriis (1992): "Prevalence rates cannot be determined
from purposive samples or samples based on self-selection. Attempts
to document the similarity of the purposive sample to characteristics
of the aborting population (Reardon, 1987, pp. 4-7; Speckhard, 1987,
pp. 36-38) do not increase our confidence in the results because the
criterion of selection into the sample causes it to deviate from the
population on an essential variable, namely, the outcome variable of
interest. " (p. 48)
In other words, if you're trying to find out the postabortion outcomes
of women in America as a whole, you can't flirt with the study by
flirting with the sample and pre-choosing women are members of an
organization of women who have expressed dissatisfaction with their
abortion experience.
You may have received a survey, but I guarantee you that if you were
not one of those women who had had an extremely negative postabortion
experience, he would not have picked you as part of his sample of 252
women. Why? Let's look at Wilmoth and deAlteriis (1992) again:
"Reardon's (1987) [research] objective was to understand the problems
and needs of aborting women....In both these studies [Reardon's and
Speckhard's] and in Vaughan's [another PL researcher], the
researchers' objective of learning more about women who had
psychological problems postabortion LED THEM TO STUDY ONLY WOMEN
IDENTIFIED AS HAVING A PROBLEM RATHER THAN ALL WOMEN HAVING ABORTIONS
[emphasis added]." (p. 44)
So, to sum up:
1. Reardon admitted that these women were WEBA "MEMBERS" in his own
words.
2. Wilmoth and deAlteriis agreed they were WEBA "MEMBERS."
3. There were no comparison groups, no "two" surveys.
4. Reardon's sample was pre-selected, and thus invalid for making any
generalizations to the whole population of women who have had
abortions, demographic similarities notwithstanding.
There's more about Reardons' sampling, but I'll stop right here.
References
>>>>>Reardon, D.C. (1987), Aborted women: Silent no more.
Westchester, IL: Crossway.
>>>>>Wilmoth, G.H., deAlteriis, M., & Bussell, D. (1992). Prevalence
of psychological risks following legal abortion in the U.S.: Limits of
the evidence. *Journal of Social Issues, 48*(3), 37-66.
Osmo Ronkanen
Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>Let's begin with Reardon's OWN ADMISSION that these women were
>actually *members* of WEBA:
>
>"Before evaluating the survey responses dealing with the abortion
>experience, however, it is necessary to see whether or not *WEBA
>MEMBERS* are typical of a random sample of aborting women. This can
>be done by comparing the demographic characteristics of the WEBA women
>surveyed with the national abortion statistics which describe the
>'typical' aborter [emphasis added]." (p. 4)
That is total lie. Such comparison can only show that WEBA membership
(or regretting abortion) does not correlate with such demographic
characteristics. One cannot prove that the sample is not biased by
such a comparison.
IMO this should be obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense. How can
it be that some people do not see it?
This is same as asking "Do you regret having abortion" and then
choosing those who answered YES and then asking the same question
again. Naturally one should get 100% regret rate.
Osmo
Pat Winstanley
<wmn...@ns.net> writes
>>abortion practitioners and pretend that this is not a medical
>>industry-wide flaw is deceptive.
>
>Actually, when it comes to surgical practices, I have not seen this as a
>medical
>industry-wide flaw. Some abortion clinics grossly overschedule patients,
>especially on the weekends.
When, do you think, is the time that a woman can most conveniently
attend for an abortion (her convenience)?
If they are packed in then presumably there is a shortage of facilities.
That is, demand is outstripping supply. Should some women be left to
have late abortions because there was no room for them to have early
ones?
--
Pat Winstanley
Papa Jack
>
> In article <79u4v7$89g$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
> Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
=====================================================================
[typical Maritza strawman deleted]
=====================================================================
> Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
> IMO this should be obvious to anyone with a bit of common
> sense. How can it be that some people do not see it?
> This is same as asking "Do you regret having abortion" and then
> choosing those who answered YES and then asking the same question
> again. Naturally one should get 100% regret rate.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Osmo, I've asked Maritza to quit trying to "trap me" with such
strawmen. Her technique is simply to demonize any Pro-Life
source that might seem respectable. When she first offered
these simple "ABC" observation -- claiming Reardon either
ignored or was ignorant of these basic research principles --
I posted the below article by Reardon which clearly makes a
lie of Maritza's phony claims. Instead of replying to the
points at issue, she went off on a tangent -- with new
claims and new radiacal feminist authorities to quote. The
primary point is that Dr. Reardon is well aware to the
limitations and weaknesses of current research. Thus, it
is dishonest to try to pretend to the world that he is some
sort of ignorant farmboy who doesn't understand the ways
of the world.
*******************************************************************
Limitations on Post-Abortion Research: Why We Know So Little
David C. Reardon , Ph.D.
While there have been many studies regarding the emotional aftermath
of abortion, very little has been firmly established. It is extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to complete a study in this field that
would be generally conclusive and above reproach. Among other compli-
cations, (1) the cooperation of the study population is inconsistent
and unreliable; (2) the variety of negative reactions reported by
women is so broad that it is impossible to encompass every claimed
dysfunction in a single study; (3) the intensity of many reactions
appears to be time variant, with many women reporting delayed reac-
tions; and (4) the use of questionnaires and other standardized
survey instruments may be inadequate for uncovering deep-seated
reactions.
In longitudinal and retrospective studies, approximately 50 percent
of women who have had an abortion will conceal their past abor-
tion[s] from interviewers.(1) Even in short-term follow-up studies,
there are high sample attrition rates, typically in the range of
20 to 60 percent. Demographic comparisons of those who initially
consent to follow-up and subsequently refuse to be interviewed
indicate that those who exclude themselves from the final sample
are more likely to match the profile of women who report the
greatest post-abortion distress.(2)
There is also no agreement about which symptoms researchers should
attempt to quantify (relief, depression, impacted grieving, intru-
sive recollections, self-destructive behavior, etc.) nor what level
of symptoms should be considered significant. Some abortion reac-
tions may fit into the model of complicated bereavement or patho-
logical grief.(3) In other cases, clinicians have reported that at
least some women exhibit symptoms that fall within the diagnostic
criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).(4) Still other
therapists may offer different schemas for categorizing and under-
standing post-abortion reactions. Indeed, it appears likely that
women experience a wide variety of psychological reactions to
abortion.
Reactions also vary over time. Women who are initially filled with
grief and self-reproach may subsequently find emotional healing,
whereas women who initially coped well may subsequently find them-
selves shattered. In one study of 260 women who reported negative
post-abortion reactions, 63 to 76 percent claimed there was a
period of time during which they would have denied any negative
feelings connected to their abortions. The average period of denial
reported by the survey population was 63 months.(5)
The effectiveness of standardized questionnaires has also been
called into doubt, since these research instrument may be inade-
quate for uncovering repressed feelings.(6) Kent reports that in
the course of psychotherapy for 50 women, none of whom were
originally seeking treatment for abortion-related problems, deep
feelings of pain and bereavement about a prior abortion emerged
during the time the patient was recovering from the presenting
problem.(7) Kent's subsequent research with women who were not
in psychotherapy led him to conclude that an initial reaction of
emotional numbness may distort questionnaire based studies. He
concluded that an underlying sense of loss and pain can only be
reliably identified in a clinical setting.(8)
Given such complexities, it is understandable that Surgeon General
C. Everett Koop concluded, in 1987, that the research in this field
is entirely inadequate for drawing any general conclusions about
either the efficacy or the dangers of induced abortion.(9) The same
criticism holds to this day.
There is progress, however, in (1) a general acknowledgment that at
least some women experience negative post-abortion reactions, and
in (2) identifying characteristics that predict a higher risk of a
negative reaction.
In a special issue of the Journal of Social Issues dedicated
entirely to research relating to the psychological effects of
elective abortion, editor Gregory Wilmoth concluded: "There is
now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women
experience negative psychological reactions postabortion. Instead
the disagreement concerns the following: (1) The prevalence of
women who have these experiences . . . , (2) The severity of these
negative reactions . . . , (3) The definition of
what severity of negative reactions constitutes a public health
or mental health problem . . . , [and] (4) The classification of
severe reactions . . . "(10) There are no clear answers to the
issues identified by Wilmoth. Opinions, especially regarding the
prevalence of post-abortion maladjustments, tend to be divided
along ideological lines. If there is any agreement among resear-
chers, pro-choice researcher Mary K. Zimmerman suggests, it exists
in the consensus that abortion is usually "stressful and emotion-
ally difficult for most women."(11)
Zimmerman may be too optimistic in claiming even this minimal
consensus, however, since a few abortion proponents continue to
insist that psychological sequelae post-abortion simply "does not
exist."(12) Critical analysis of these overly broad claims,
however, shows that the sweeping conclusions offered by these
authors are internally contradicted by the very studies and data
they cite.(13)
It should also be noted that the research obstacles discussed
above, concealment, attrition, multiple symptoms, time variance,
and inadequate research tools, all tend to suppress the reported
rate of negative reactions in individual studies. Reported rates
of negative reactions, therefore, should always be interpreted
as low, conservative estimates.
Furthermore, great care should be taken to avoid overgeneralizing
findings or advocating a "majority rules" perspective. As an
example of the latter, research reports showing that 15 to 20
percent of abortion patients experience certain negative reactions
have been reported in the media as proof of the "fact" that "the
majority of abortion patients" benefit from abortion or that
"post-abortion trauma does not exist."(14) Such interpretations
improperly dismiss the suffering of the minority, neglect the
limitations of the study population and methodology, and project
the unsubstantiated conclusion that women who do not complain of
a specific symptom within the time frame of a study must neces-
sarily have benefitted from their abortions. Clearly, lack of
injury does not necessarily equate to therapeutic benefit, which
is a separate issue that has been the subject of even less
research. Overly broad assertions about the purported safety of
abortion are often compounded by the political motivations of
both researchers and reporters. Such false assurances may reduce
appropriate circumspection of abortion decisions and may make it
more difficult for high risk patients to refuse coerced abortions.
Predictive Factors of Post-abortion Sequelae
The above discussion explains why it is currently impossible to
estimate how many women are negatively affected by their abortion
experience, or how significant these negative reactions may be.
There is however one area in which there is considerable certainty:
predictive factors of post-abortion sequelae.
In the course of many attempts to quantify post-abortion reac-
tions, researchers have consistently found that some portion of
women, usually a minority, report negative symptoms within the
time frame of the study. In an attempt to understand why and how
these women react differently from those who do not report the
difficulties under study, researchers have naturally attempted
to identify the individual characteristics or situational factors
that are statistically associated with negative post-abortion
reactions. In this respect, studies that are otherwise weak in
predicting the overall incidence of post-abortion reactions over
time, are very valuable in identifying the factors that place
women at higher risk of a negative reaction. It should also be
noted that most of these studies have been undertaken by
researchers who profess a pro-choice perspective.
The table in Identifying High Risk Abortion Patients is a
preliminary attempt to classify and summarize the predictive
risk factors of post-abortion emotional sequelae. This list is
certainly incomplete, but includes all the most widely reported
risk factors as well as several less widely recognized factors.
The references provided for each high risk factor include cita-
tions for both original research and review articles. The latter
citations are provided as useful for identifying authorities
who have agreed that the identified risk factor is significant
and as references to additional citations.
References
1. Jones, E.F. & Forrest, J.D., "Underreporting of Abortion in
Surveys of U.S. Women: 1976 to 1988," Demography, 29(1):113-126
(1992).
2. Adler, N., "Sample Attrition in Studies of Psychosocial Sequelae
of Abortion: How Great A Problem?" J Applied Soc Psych, 6(3):
240-259 (1976).
3. Angelo, E.J., "Psychiatric Sequelae of Abortion: The Many
Faces of Post-Abortion Grief" Linacre Quarterly, 59(2):69-80,
1992;
Brown, D., Elkins, T.E., Lardson, D.B., "Prolonged Grieving
After Abortion," J Clinical Ethics, 4(2):118-123 (1993).
4. Speckhard, A. & Rue, V., "Postabortion Syndrome: An Emerging
Public Health Concern," J Social Issues 42(3):95-119, 1992;
Barnard, C.A., The Long-Term Psychosocial Effects of Abortion
(Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990).
5. Reardon, D., "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion,"
The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8 (1994).
6. Lazarus, A. & Stern, R., "Psychiatric Aspects of Pregnancy
Termination," Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 13:125-134 (1986).
7. Kent, I., et.al., "Emotional Sequelae of elective Abortion,"
BC Med J, 20:118-9 (1978).
8. Kent, I. & Nicholls, W., "Bereavement in Post-Abortion Women:
A Clinical Report," World J Psychosyn 13:14-17 (1981).
9. Koop, C.E., Letter to President Reagan, January 9, 1989.
10. Wilmoth, G., "Abortion, Public Health Policy, and Informed
Consent Legislation," J Social Issues, 48(3):1-17 (1992).
11. Zimmerman, M.K., "Psychosocial and Emotional Consequences
of Elective Abortion: A Literature Review," Abortion:
Readings and Research ed. Paul Sachdev (Butterworths:
Toronto, 1981), 69.
12. Stotland, N., "The Myth of the Abortion Trauma Syndrome,"
JAMA 268:2078-9 (1992); Russo, N.F., "Abortion, Child-
bearing, and Women's Well-Being," Professional Psychology,
23(4):296-280 (1992).
13. Reardon, D., "JAMA Gymnastics: Jumping Through Hoops to
Prove Abortion is Safe," The Post Abortion Review, 1(2):3-5
(1993); Reardon, D., "Feminist Researcher 'Proves" Abortion
Increases Self-Esteem" The Post-Abortion Review, 3(2):4-7 (1995).
14. "Post-Abortion" USA Today Feb. 10, 1988; Brody, J. "Study
Disputes Abortion Trauma" New York Times Feb. 12, (1997).
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36C36FE6...@geocities.com>...
>Papa Jack remarked:
>Osmo, I've asked Maritza to quit trying to "trap me" with such
>strawmen.
It is NOT a strawman. I don't need research to disprove the PAS lies
you put forth. Reardon's research methods are his own undoing. The
truth is that you know nothing about research methods, which makes you
a poor debater on this topic. Unfortunately, you are the best of the
PLs here on this issue, and that is NOT a complement.
>Her technique is simply to demonize any Pro-Life
>source that might seem respectable. When she first offered
>these simple "ABC" observation -- claiming Reardon either
>ignored or was ignorant of these basic research principles --
>I posted the below article by Reardon which clearly makes a
>lie of Maritza's phony claims.
And which of his "concerns" did he follow in PRACTICE?
1. He used pre-selected (purposive) samples of WEBA members, claiming
that he could generalize from this sample only because of demographic
similarities to the entire population of women who have had abortions.
2. He used an assessment instrument with no reported validity or
reliability;
3. He used no comparison groups.
4. He took no pre-test of symptoms so that variables antecedent to the
women's abortions, which may have led to their postabortion distress,
could be identified.
5. And we do know that he intends to "sanctify" PAS and slap it onto
the DSM-IV so that emotionally vulnerable women can sue their abortion
providers.
This stuff is not very kosher, PJ.
>Instead of replying to the
>points at issue, she went off on a tangent -- with new
>claims and new radiacal feminist authorities to quote.
I replied to all of the points that have not been addressed before.
Reardon did nothing about what he claimed were his concerns. The
bottom line is that his research methods suck and you know it.
> The
>primary point is that Dr. Reardon is well aware to the
>limitations and weaknesses of current research.
The most rigorous and best-designed studies have shown that for the
overwhelming majority of women, there is no short-term or long-term
negative postabortion sequelae. These are the studies that are
methodologically sound because they used assessment instruments with
reported reliability and validity; comparison groups; pre- and
post-tests; and non-purposive samples. And the "feminist radical"
Gregory Wilmoth of the U.S. General Accounting Office, who did a
research review of 15 of the best studies done, concurred without
hesitation.
>Thus, it
>is dishonest to try to pretend to the world that he is some
>sort of ignorant farmboy who doesn't understand the ways
>of the world.
Oh, he's very well aware. However, when you're trying to get women
who have had abortions to sue their providers on the grounds of their
getting PAS as some type of postabortion disorder, you've got to get
it approved by the DSM-IV committee first. No DSM-IV-approved
disorder means no lawsuit. Reardon isn't stupid; he knows that the
DSM-IV folks aren't very picky when slapping on their hundreds of
disorders, most of them being--outside of truly brain-based disorders
such as schizophrenia and clinical depression--methodologically
unverified. His goal is to get PAS approved as a "legitimate"
syndrome so that the lawsuits can begin, and so that doctors will
consequently be afraid to do abortions:
He's got to have PAS approved, or his "goal of protecting the unborn
will never be achieved." (From *Making Abortion Rare*, 1997, Acorn
Books).
Papa Jack
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
[snip]
=====================================================================
> ========================================================================
http://www.ippf.org/charter_.htm
> Summary of the Charter:
[snip]
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
What a crock! Here is an organization which is the largest seller
of abortions in the world. The acknowledged leader of an industry
which kills many millions of unborn living humans on a worldwide
basis is pretending to worry about the "RIGHT TO LIFE" of the
very people who are hiring them to slaughter millions of living
human being for the convenience of the customers.
80% of Pro-Lifers agree that abortion should be a legal alterna-
tive in cases where the pregnant woman's life is in grave danger.
That is NOT the issue. The issue is why some people want to
pretend it is morally acceptable to kill living human lives for
convenience.
It is not the women's right to life which is in danger -- it is
the unborn children's right to life which is in mortal peril.
There are about 3,288 unborn children killed every day in the
U.S. alone by the abortion industry. Let's talk about their
right to life.
Unlimited abortions are a national shame of huge proportions.
Melanie
there were women in the survey that did not claim to be having problems. I
am wondering why those women would be members of WEBA.
And, just for the record, I have not had an abortion.... unless you are
counting the DNE for a miscarriage.
--Melanie
Maritza Combes wrote in message <79u4v7$89g$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
Melanie
There is actually a surplus of abortion clinics in my county. They are
quite competitive. Planned Parenthood here schedules about 20 appointments
on a Saturday morning although a couple are usually for ultrasounds. PCC
schedules more, generally, although I think the number has dropped somewhat
since their last move. Feminists mix their Sat. appointments with other
patients, so numbers are hard to tell there for abortions.
--Melanie
Pat Winstanley wrote in message ...
Pat Winstanley
<wmn...@ns.net> writes
>Actually, not all clinics overbook, just a couple of them in this area.
>There is actually a surplus of abortion clinics in my county. They are
>quite competitive. Planned Parenthood here schedules about 20 appointments
>on a Saturday morning although a couple are usually for ultrasounds. PCC
>schedules more, generally, although I think the number has dropped somewhat
>since their last move. Feminists mix their Sat. appointments with other
>patients, so numbers are hard to tell there for abortions.
Feminists????
--
Pat Winstanley
M is for Malapert
>Unlimited abortions are a national shame of huge proportions.
Good thing we don't have them, isn't it?
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36C36FE6...@geocities.com>...
>Instead of replying to the points at issue,
Okay, PJ, I'm going to help you feel better, and break this stuff down
bit by bit, "replying to the points at issue." However, I'm not going
to do it all at once, since you have a very low attention span. I
will use research reviews, as well as knowledge about
research methods from research methods textbooks. ALL that I
quote will be from primary sources, with the exception of specific
points that come from research methods texts. Highlights of
quoted material are all mine except when noted as otherwise.
Let's begin:
> Limitations on Post-Abortion Research: Why We Know So Little
> David C. Reardon , Ph.D.
First of all, you don't use professional titles anymore when quoting
researchers. It is APA (4th edition) protocol to eliminate all titles
when writing publishable material. If you look at all of the latest
journals, you will see that no one puts his or her title next to his
or her name--not David, nor Russo, Major, Cozzarelli, or anyone
else.
>While there have been many studies regarding the emotional aftermath
>of abortion, very little has been firmly established.
That is not true at all. More on that later...
>It is extremely
>difficult, if not impossible, to complete a study in this field that
>would be generally conclusive and above reproach.
That's a stupid statement. Scrap everything because no study is
perfect? No study will EVER be perfect.
That's why you look at ALL of the available studies, with various
samples taken from various populations; as well as with different
assessment instruments measuring various types of outcomes.
Put them all together, and you will see that negative psychological
postabortion sequelae in women is rare. More on that later...
>Among other compli-
>cations, (1) the cooperation of the study population is inconsistent
>and unreliable;
That's why Russo and Zierk (1992) took their data for their
longitudinal study from the NLSY, which was primarily a labor
market survey which ALREADY HAD ALL MEASURES
COMPLETED. They didn't need to worry about the
"cooperation" of anyone. Zabin, Hirsch, and Emerson (1989)
reported an attrition rate of only 4%. Bracken (1978), Cohen
and Ruth (1984), and Osofsky and Osofsky (1972) reported
0% attrition rates. David et al. (1981) reported an attrition rate
which was never above 2%. Schusteman (1979) had an attrition
rate of 16%, and Major, Mueller, and Hildebrandt (1985) had a
very high attrition rate of 60%. However, Schusteman and
Major et al. are the only major, newer studies with high
attrition rates. These two studies, however, HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH PREVALENCE RATES. They merely
examined the relationship of antecedent variables to
postabortion outcomes. All in all, the participants were quite
cooperative, especially in the studies that mattered
as far as determining prevalence rates.
(2) the variety of negative reactions reported by
>women is so broad that it is impossible to encompass every claimed
>dysfunction in a single study;
Precisely why we have multitudes of studies that examine different
outcome variables, with different kinds of samples, and with different
postabortion time periods. Some instruments measured depression
(Zabin et al., 1989), while others measured well-being variables such
as self-esteem (Russo and Zierk, 1992) . All the good studies say the
same thing--it's rare when a woman has negative postabortion
psychological problems.
>(3) the intensity of many reactions
>appears to be time variant, with many women reporting delayed reac-
>tions;
He's talking about delayed postabortion reactions due to repression of
emotions. This is old hat, and has never been empirically proven. The
Russo and Zierk (1992) study, moreover, countered any notion that
repressed, postabortion emotions will show up sooner or later to
wreak havoc in a woman's life. This psycho-speak about postabortion
"repression" of thoughts and feelings comes from the Freudian
psychoanalytic school, and is based on Reardon's Freudian-like,
unfounded assumption and expectation that women who don't report
postabortion negative sequelae on an assessment instrument have
repressed their thoughts or symptoms.
Unfortunately, the Freudian school dominated postabortion studies in
the early part of this century, before methodologically sound
empirical studies began to show results that countered the Freudians'
preconceived notions of how women *should* act after an abortion.
This is what Turell, Armsworth, and Gaa (1990) had to say about the
history of postabortion research and why the Freudian school
of "repressed women's emotions" was quickly debunked:
"From 1935 to 1964, research conclusions confirmed expectations that
were influenced by Freudian psychological theory which PREDICTED that
a denial of pregnancy [loss] would be unnatural for women, resulting
in severe, emotional trauma [skip cite]. Methodological problems
were also prevalent, including such practices as using
subjects who had illegal abortions, clinical case reports with no
pretest measures, and an absence of uniformity in defining and
evaluating emotional states. By the late 1960's and 1970's, some of
the earlier methodological problems WERE ADDRESSED, AND
THE RESULTS SEEMED TO REVERSE THE PREVIOUS
CONCLUSIONS, finding mild, short-term effects from abortion if any.
The EXPECTATION of traumatic response to abortion, however, is still
evident today. "
Notice the word 'expectation' and you're going to see why Reardon
comes from the Freudian school of
'expecting-women-to-suffer-from-an-abortion-experience-because-doggone
-it-they-should' thinking. This is why he loves his pre-selected
samples, so that he can find what he knows he *should* look for,
findings from reliable assessment instruments be damned.
But is it wrong to EXPECT postabortion negative responses from women
when these responses don't show up on a reliable instrument? After
all, they may be repressed and thus not show up until later, just like
Reardon claimed. Let's see:
Adler et al. (1992): "Fingerer (1973) demonstrated the operation of
such [Freudian predictive] bias in traditional psychoanalytic theory.
She asked postdoctoral psychology students in psychoanalytic training
programs to predict responses of women following abortions. They
predicted severe sequelae, significantly greater than those predicted
by women before undergoing an abortion or by men and women who
accompanied women to the abortion clinic. The responses predicted by
the postdoctoral psychologists were significantly more negative then
those actually reported by 324 women following their abortions. The
BIAS in EXPECTING severe negative responses inherent in a number of
studies had been exacerbated by the inappropriate generalization of
conclusions FROM CLINICAL OR CASE STUDIES that are of limited
scientific merit and tell little about the vast majority of abortion
patients." (p. 1197)
Therefore, the "repressed emotions" Freudian theory is based on the
belief that if we cannot see suffering in women on a standardized
assessment instrument it somehow MUST be buried deep within their
psyche, and so we act accordingly with our expectations, trying to
help women "unlock". Symptoms, therefore, don't have to show
up--they're "just there."
So, to go back, how does Reardon know that these emotions are
repressed (since they don't show up on an standardized assessment
instrument)? He doesn't--he just EXPECTS them to be there. And,
judging from the Fingerer study of Freudian expectations, Reardon has
used a highly faulty evaluation method.
To sum up:
1. Most postabortion studies have reliable and cooperative
participants as a whole.
2. The idea that postabortion reactions may not show up on an
assessment instrument because they may be time-delayed due to
repression of feelings and thoughts comes from the unproved Freudian
school based on EXPECTATIONS that women who get abortions are supposed
to feel bad about it, sooner or later, regardless of whether or not
assessment instruments pick them up. Studies have yet to prove any
of this.
TO BE CONTINUED...
References
>>>>>Adler, N.E., David, H.P., Major, B.N., Roth, S.H., Russo, N.F., &
Wyatt, G.E. (1992). Psychological factors in abortion. *American
Psychologist, 47*(10), 1194-1204.
>>>>>Bracken, M.B. (1978). A causal model of psychosomatic reactions
to vacuum aspiration abortion. *Social Psychiatry, 13,* 135-145.
>>>>>Cohen, L., & Roth, S. (1984). Coping with abortion. *Journal of
Human Stress, 10,* 140-145.
>>>>>David, H.P., & Rasmussen, N., & Holst, E. (1981). Postpartum and
postabortion psychotic reactions. *Family Planning Perspectives, 13,*
88-92.
>>>>>Fingerer, M. (1973). Psychological sequelae of abortion: Anxiety
and depression. *Journal of Community Psychology, 1,* 221-225.
>>>>>Major, B., Mueller, P., & Hildebrandt, K. (1985). Attributions,
expectations, and coping with abortion. *Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 48,* 585-599.
>>>>>Osofsky, J.D., & Osofsky, H.J. (1972). The psychological
reactions to patients to legalized abortion. *American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 42,* 48-60.
>>>>>Shusterman, L.R. (1979). Predicting the psychological
consequences of abortion. *Social Science and Medicine, 13A,* 683-689.
>>>>>Russo, N.F., & Zierk, K.L. (1992). Abortion, childbearing, and
women's well-being. *Professional Psychology, 23,* 269-280.
>>>>>Zabin, L., Hirsch, M.B., & Emerson, M.R. (1989). When urban
adolescents choose abortion: Effects on education, psychological
status, and subsequent pregnancy. *Family Planning Perspectives, 21,*
248-255.
Melanie
"Feminist Women's Health Center" is still part of the "subtitle" or whatever
you want to call it.
Look them up... they are online.
--Melanie
Pat Winstanley wrote in message ...
Pat Winstanley
<wmn...@ns.net> writes
>Feminists = Feminist Women's Health Center recently renamed, although
>"Feminist Women's Health Center" is still part of the "subtitle" or whatever
>you want to call it.
Got you... the trading name/title of the clinic(s) rather than anything
particularly to do with the mores of the feminist movement(s).
Sorry... I couldn't figure out where that word came into it! ;-))
>Look them up... they are online.
>
>--Melanie
>
>Pat Winstanley wrote in message ...
>>In article <FEKw2.955$Oa3.12...@nnrp2.ni.net>, Melanie
>><wmn...@ns.net> writes
>>>Actually, not all clinics overbook, just a couple of them in this area.
>>>There is actually a surplus of abortion clinics in my county. They are
>>>quite competitive. Planned Parenthood here schedules about 20
>appointments
>>>on a Saturday morning although a couple are usually for ultrasounds. PCC
>>>schedules more, generally, although I think the number has dropped
>somewhat
>>>since their last move. Feminists mix their Sat. appointments with other
>>>patients, so numbers are hard to tell there for abortions.
>>
>>Feminists????
>>
>>--
>>Pat Winstanley
>
>
--
Pat Winstanley
C. A. Owens
Stop_The_Holocaust wrote:
>
> if 95% of PP's work is not related to abortion, why then 98% of its website
> is devoted to abortion issues??
Because it is, by far and away, the most politically contentious of its
services.
Chris Owens
Osmo Ronkanen
Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>Actually, not all clinics overbook, just a couple of them in this area.
>There is actually a surplus of abortion clinics in my county. They are
>quite competitive. Planned Parenthood here schedules about 20 appointments
>on a Saturday morning although a couple are usually for ultrasounds.
I wonder how do you know that?
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> *******************************************************************
> Limitations on Post-Abortion Research: Why We Know So Little
> David C. Reardon , Ph.D.
>
>While there have been many studies regarding the emotional aftermath
>of abortion, very little has been firmly established. It is extremely
>difficult, if not impossible, to complete a study in this field that
>would be generally conclusive and above reproach. Among other compli-
>cations, (1) the cooperation of the study population is inconsistent
>and unreliable; (2) the variety of negative reactions reported by
>women is so broad that it is impossible to encompass every claimed
>dysfunction in a single study; (3) the intensity of many reactions
>appears to be time variant, with many women reporting delayed reac-
>tions; and (4) the use of questionnaires and other standardized
>survey instruments may be inadequate for uncovering deep-seated
>reactions.
>
>In longitudinal and retrospective studies, approximately 50 percent
>of women who have had an abortion will conceal their past abor-
>tion[s] from interviewers.(1)
Now you cannot claim anymore that abortion causes breast cancer as if
50% of women conceal the past abortion that nicely explains why the
control groups in the case.-control studies show a lower abortion rate.
And how how was this relevant?
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>
>Osmo Ronkanen wrote in message <78v7pm$o...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
>>In article <ZCCs2.436$Oa3.4...@nnrp2.ni.net>,
>>Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Osmo Ronkanen wrote in message <78t86p$h...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
>>>>Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually... the survey was not restricted to WEBA women. It was widely
>>>publicized, and I suppose that those who did not oppose abortion in
>general
>>>could have responded.
>>
>>That does not make the sample unbiased. In general any study that is
>>based on subjects contracting the researches and not vice versa cannot
>>produce unbiased sample.
>
>Nowhere did I suggest or state that the sample was unbiased. Perhaps you
>should go back and reread the entire response, because I believe I conceded
>that the sample could be biased. I was just correcting the notion that it
>was restricted to WEBA women. I found the survey somewhere else...not sure
>if I recall where, but I it was long after I lost contact with anyone from
>WEBA.
>
As the stample is biased the study is worthless.
Osmo
Patrick L. Humphrey
>show me a PP worker/volunteer/guide and all I see is an accessory to murder
You should lay off the hallucinogens, then.
--PLH, obviously, StH is no lawyer, either
Papa Jack
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack remarked:
>> Osmo, I've asked Maritza to quit trying to "trap me" with such
>> strawmen.
=====================================================================
> Maritza/MINXS/Mab wrote:
> It is NOT a strawman....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
I think it is. #8^)
=====================================================================
> Maritza/MINXS/Mab wrote:
> ...I don't need research to disprove the PAS lies you
> put forth.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Nope, just your usual propaganda tactics.
The only thing I've said about PAS is that it needs more
attention and research. I don't know if it is a valid
syndrome or not, but there is certainly enough evidence
for us to agree that it deserves further study by OBJECTIVE
scientists -- not those "feminist" tools you so dearly love
to quote.
Your panic to try to stomp out any interest in the possi-
bility that abortion may have negative side effects for
some women proves you don't give a damn about the health
and welfare of women -- you only care about the radical
feminist goals to remake society by human engineering
experiments.
Point: there are thousands and thousands of women who need
therapy following abortion. Some need it in the months
immediately following the abortion. Others suppress the
strong emotions for several years. That is a fact. You
and I know that thousands of such women exist. So, you
can quote all the phony studies you want to, it doesn't
change the fact that thousands of women need professional
help following abortions. The reasons for these women's
mental/emotional problems is not yet totally clear. It
needs more study. That is all I am saying. Why does THAT
cause you such a terrible problem?
=====================================================================
> Maritza/MINXS/Mab wrote:
> ...Reardon's research methods are his own undoing. The
> truth is that you know nothing about research methods,
> which makes you a poor debater on this topic....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Reardon at least told the truth. He frankly discussed the
many significant limitations to the proper scientific study
of PAS. But, you want to nitpick the man to death simply
because you feel politically threatened by the very concept
that abortion might not be the greatest thing since sliced
bread for ALL women, their health and their welfare.
If I'm such a poor debater, why do you follow me all over
talk.abortion after I asked you to leave me alone? Have
you no shame, Woman?
=====================================================================
> Maritza/MINXS/Mab wrote:
> Unfortunately, you are the best of the PLs here on this issue,
> and that is NOT a complement.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
I think you are clearly wrong. There are several other PLs who
I greatly admire. A few months ago we had a PL poster who
worked daily with both men and women suffering from PAS. He
was working with men who were shattered by the fact that their
wives/girlfriends had their unborn child killed. When you
read his posts, there was no doubt that this was real life
(not some academic exercise to prove a political point).
I have tried to avoid you, Maritza/MINXS/Mab. I saw your
usual tactics and I found them time consuming and boring.
I believe the long-winded "grad school" ego exercises you
post are not the sort of discussion which will attract
significant numbers ofreaders. You ARE good at it, but it
is boring and will do little to influence the hearts and
souls of others.
Don't worry, I don't take your comments as a complement. If
you wanted to complement me, you would simply respect my
wishes and leave me alone.
Maritza Combes
Papa Jack wrote in message <36C4B607...@geocities.com>...
>>Maritza Combes/MINXS/Queen Mab wrote:
> Papa Jack wrote in message <36C36FE6...@geocities.com>...
>> ...I don't need research to disprove the PAS lies you
>> put forth.
>
>
=====================================================================
>Papa Jack remarked:
>Nope, just your usual propaganda tactics.
That's a lie. That makes you a liar. I looked at many past posts and
noticed
that many posters, many of which are still here, have implicitly
warned that
you do not look at any facts, even when they stare at you in the face.
>The only thing I've said about PAS is that it needs more
>attention and research. I don't know if it is a valid
>syndrome or not, but there is certainly enough evidence
>for us to agree that it deserves further study by OBJECTIVE
>scientists -- not those "feminist" tools you so dearly love
>to quote.
Like the "feminist" Gregory Wilmoth of the U.S. General Accounting
Office.
>Your panic to try to stomp out any interest in the possi-
>bility that abortion may have negative side effects for
>some women
Liar, I never said that. See how you operate?
>proves you don't give a damn about the health
>and welfare of women
Liar. I DO care, so much in fact, that I would never slap web sites
to
instill the belief in emotionally vulnerable women that their
abortions
were what made them emotionally distraught.
> you only care about the radical
>feminist goals to remake society by human engineering
>experiments.
Lie.
>Point: there are thousands and thousands of women who need
>therapy following abortion.
And there will probably be more due to the pro-liars' goals of trying
to instill in women shame and guilt for their having an abortion.
However, prevalence of postabortion problems are no more--
and studies show even less--than POSTPARTUM problems.
Do you forget that purposely? No, because it will rock your
rickety little apple cart of trying to save the "unborn."
Also, you have never addressed why on earth the number
of total children is INDEPENDENTLY and NEGATIVELY
related to a woman's well-being, and why women with many
children have the LOWEST self-esteem of all.
>Some need it in the months
>immediately following the abortion. Others suppress the
>strong emotions for several years. That is a fact.
No, it's not, and that is a Freudian notion that has long been
dismissed.
If you EXPECT women to feel a certain way after an abortion, and you
lead
them to believe such in a clinical setting, trust me, they will
believe it.
>You
>and I know that thousands of such women exist.
That repressed their postabortion reactions? You've yet to provide
ANY PROOF. What you provided was quickly shred with
a research review by the "feminist" Gregory Wilmoth.
>So, you
>can quote all the phony studies you want to,
Anything that dosn't agree with you is phony. I have offered you a
challenge,
but you backed down. I even let you have the first word. But you
knew that the PAS crap rested on a foundaiton of sinking sand,
so you backed down like a good little coward.
>it doesn't
>change the fact that thousands of women need professional
>help following abortions.
Thousands of women need professional help after having births.
But you forget that, conveniently so.
>The reasons for these women's
>mental/emotional problems is not yet totally clear. It
>needs more study. That is all I am saying. Why does THAT
>cause you such a terrible problem?
Because I know that your one GREAT goal is to prey
upon emotionally vulnerable women in order to
close up the "chop shops" in America. I can see through you
more than through a jellyfish.
>
=====================================================================
>> Maritza/MINXS/Mab wrote:
>> ...Reardon's research methods are his own undoing. The
>> truth is that you know nothing about research methods,
>> which makes you a poor debater on this topic....
>
>
=====================================================================
>Papa Jack remarked:
>Reardon at least told the truth.
HOLY COW!!!!!! Here you go again!!! Tell me, what is it about his
methods that
you so confident about....JESUS!!! Tell me how his research methods
make you so confident he is telling the truth. What are you afraid
of?
>He frankly discussed the
>many significant limitations to the proper scientific study
>of PAS. But, you want to nitpick the man to death simply
>because you feel politically threatened by the very concept
>that abortion might not be the greatest thing since sliced
>bread for ALL women, their health and their welfare.
Abortion IS the GREATEST THING THAT HAPPENED TO WOMEN.
All women? NO, just the overwhelming majority of them, but only
because it enables them to control for fertility, which is the ONLY
variable
that is independently related to well-being.
>If I'm such a poor debater, why do you follow me all over
>talk.abortion after I asked you to leave me alone?
I am not going to let anyone in talk.abortion who mentions PAS
or other related but unsubstantiated hype to get away with it.
>Have
>you no shame, Woman?
Look who's talking.
>
=====================================================================
>> Maritza/MINXS/Mab wrote:
>> Unfortunately, you are the best of the PLs here on this issue,
>> and that is NOT a complement.
>
>
=====================================================================
>Papa Jack remarked:
>I think you are clearly wrong. There are several other PLs who
>I greatly admire.
With no facts and--if they do post facts--no ability to back them
up.
>A few months ago we had a PL poster who
>worked daily with both men and women suffering from PAS.
Yeah <snicker>
>He
>was working with men who were shattered by the fact that their
>wives/girlfriends had their unborn child killed.
<snicker>
>When you
>read his posts, there was no doubt that this was real life
>(not some academic exercise to prove a political point).
<snicker> Emotionalism.
>I have tried to avoid you, Maritza/MINXS/Mab. I saw your
>usual tactics and I found them time consuming and boring.
>I believe the long-winded "grad school" ego exercises you
>post are not the sort of discussion which will attract
>significant numbers of readers.
I don't care if anyone reads my posts or not. What I do care
about is if anyone might spot your lies, read them, and not
know what atrocious methods were used to "verify" them.
>Don't worry, I don't take your comments as a complement. If
>you wanted to complement me, you would simply respect my
>wishes and leave me alone.
Just obey me and stop posting stuff about PAS, or I will
huff and puff and blow away all those little lies so surely that
even the vultures will not find them.
Maritza Combes
addressed Reardon's "concerns":
Papa Jack wrote in message <36C36FE6...@geocities.com>...
> Limitations on Post-Abortion Research: Why We Know So Little
(4) the use of questionnaires and other standardized
>survey instruments may be inadequate for uncovering deep-seated
>reactions.
This has already been answered in #3. Again, the idea that women who
have had abortions tend to repress their thoughts and feelings is a
Freudian myth that has never been proved.
>In longitudinal and retrospective studies, approximately 50 percent
>of women who have had an abortion will conceal their past abor-
>tion[s] from interviewers.(1)
>1. Jones, E.F. & Forrest, J.D., "Underreporting of Abortion in
> Surveys of U.S. Women: 1976 to 1988," Demography, 29(1):113-126
> (1992).
Elise Jones was referring to the NLSY surveys that Russo and Zierk
(1992) used for their study. However, even if there were women who
underreported their abortions, we still saw that even among women who
DID report their abortion--including more than one abortion--there
was still no evidence of severe psychological trauma. The only
variable, in fact, that showed an independent, negative
relationship to self-esteem was the total number of children.
And what about the women who reported having no abortions?
IF this group included women who had had abortions but
concealed them, we would have seen low self-esteem.
However, we didn't. In addition, the findings of Russo and Zierk
concur with studies where underreporting was very unlikely--that
women who have had an abortion do not suffer from
long-term negative psychological sequelae.
>Even in short-term follow-up studies,
>there are high sample attrition rates, typically in the range of
>20 to 60 percent.
That has already been addressed and there is no basis for any concern.
Again:
Zabin, Hirsch, and Emerson (1989) reported an attrition rate of
only 4%. Bracken (1978), Cohen and Ruth (1984), and Osofsky
and Osofsky (1972) reported 0% attrition rates. David et al. (1981)
reported an attrition rate which was never above 2%. Schusteman
(1979) had an attrition rate of 16%, and Major, Mueller, and
Hildebrandt (1985) had a very high attrition rate of 60%. However,
Schusteman and Major et al. are the only major, newer studies with
high attrition rates. These two studies, however, HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH PREVALENCE RATES. They merely
examined the relationship of antecedent variables to
postabortion outcomes. All in all, the participants were quite
cooperative, especially in the studies that mattered
as far as determining prevalence rates.
>Demographic comparisons of those who initially
>consent to follow-up and subsequently refuse to be interviewed
>indicate that those who exclude themselves from the final sample
>are more likely to match the profile of women who report the
>greatest post-abortion distress.(2)
>2. Adler, N., "Sample Attrition in Studies of Psychosocial Sequelae
> of Abortion: How Great A Problem?" J Applied Soc Psych, 6(3):
> 240-259 (1976).
This is an old source. These problems have already been addressed.
This is why Zabin et al. only had a 4% attrition rate, and Russo and
Zierk (1992), when they looked at the 1987 data, reported
a 90% retention rate, and this survey was NOT an abortion
survey primarily, but a labor market survey. Again, the best
studies had low attrition rates, and those few that did
were not studies dealing with prevalence rates.
>There is also no agreement about which symptoms researchers should
>attempt to quantify (relief, depression, impacted grieving, intru-
>sive recollections, self-destructive behavior, etc.) nor what level
>of symptoms should be considered significant.
Again, that's why we have different studies looking at varied
pre- and postabortion responses. Zabin et al. (1992) examined locus
of control, anxiety, and self-esteem--and with assessment
instruments of high reliability and validity. Russo and Zierk
(1992) looked at self-esteem with the RSE;
David et al. (1981) looked at psychiatric hospitalization rates;
Athanasiou (1973) et al. examined psychopathology with
the MMPI. Still other studies looked at other outcomes.
There is no need to worry about which symptoms to quantify,
UNLESS the results are differing significantly--and
the best studies show that they are NOT. As far as what level of
symptomatology to consider pathological, there is no need
to do this if one is looking at RELATIVE rates among various
groups, and most studies have done that.
>Some abortion reac-
>tions may fit into the model of complicated bereavement or patho-
>logical grief.
Only from clinical case studies, which are not generalizable and are
highly questionable as to its methods.
>(3) In other cases, clinicians have reported that at
>least some women exhibit symptoms that fall within the diagnostic
>criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Again, from ungeneralizable case studies.
>(4) Still other
>therapists may offer different schemas for categorizing and under-
>standing post-abortion reactions. Indeed, it appears likely that
>women experience a wide variety of psychological reactions to
>abortion.
And that is perfectly normal. However, a feeling is not indicative
of a mental disorder.
>Reactions also vary over time.
And the Russo and Zierk (1992) study looked at postabortion reactions
EIGHT years after women's abortions. Is there a possibility of a
postabortion reaction past eight years after the event? Not likely:
Adler et al. (1990) : "Moreover, research on other life stresses
suggests that women who do not experience severe negative
responses within a few months after the event are unlikely to
develop future significant psychological problems related to
the event."
>Women who are initially filled with
>grief and self-reproach may subsequently find emotional healing,
>whereas women who initially coped well may subsequently find them-
>selves shattered.
Blah, blah, blah...He is not saying anything here that
can be quantified.
>In one study of 260 women who reported negative
>post-abortion reactions, 63 to 76 percent claimed there was a
>period of time during which they would have denied any negative
>feelings connected to their abortions. The average period of denial
>reported by the survey population was 63 months.(5)
>5. Reardon, D., "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion,"
> The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8 (1994).
Since Reardon uses pre-selected samples of women
who already reported having had dissatisfaction with their having had
an abortion, we can dismiss this on the grounds of his biased sample
ALONE.
>The effectiveness of standardized questionnaires has also been
>called into doubt, since these research instrument may be inade-
>quate for uncovering repressed feelings.
Freudian...as well as unproved. I've already addressed this.
(6) Kent reports that in
>the course of psychotherapy for 50 women, none of whom were
>originally seeking treatment for abortion-related problems, deep
>feelings of pain and bereavement about a prior abortion emerged
>during the time the patient was recovering from the presenting
>problem.
Again, the Fingerer study (1973) showed what happens when a
clinician EXPECTS women to feel bad after an abortion. All he has to
do is lead them back to the abortion experience and...THAT'S IT!
It was the abortion that made you feel that way! See?
Utter nonsense.
>(7) Kent's subsequent research with women who were not
>in psychotherapy led him to conclude that an initial reaction of
>emotional numbness may distort questionnaire based studies.
But it wouldn't last eight years (Russo and Zierk, 1992).
>He concluded that an underlying sense of loss and pain can only be
>reliably identified in a clinical setting.(8)
Aha!!! See??? Clinical case studies are HIGHLY unreliable:
Wilmoth, deAlteriis, and Bussell (1992):
"Although they may provide clinical insights, case studies of 'severe
mental illness' following abortion do not tell us anything
about the incidence of the problem." (p. 45)
>Given such complexities, it is understandable that Surgeon General
>C. Everett Koop concluded, in 1987, that the research in this field
>is entirely inadequate for drawing any general conclusions about
>either the efficacy or the dangers of induced abortion.(9)
Oh, did he say that? Well, that was 1987, before many of the other,
newer studies came out. Let's see what he also said two
years later [cited in Adler et al. (1992)] :
"As former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop (1989) testified before
Congress regarding his review of research on psychological effects
of abortion, emotional responses may be overwhelming to a
given individual, but the problem of the development of
significant psychological problems related to abortion is
'miniscule from a public health perspective'. (p. 211)"
So much for governmentally mandated pre-screening...
>The same
>criticism holds to this day.
No, it doesn't.
>There is progress, however, in (1) a general acknowledgment that at
>least some women experience negative post-abortion reactions,
No one ever denied that.
>and
>in (2) identifying characteristics that predict a higher risk of a
>negative reaction.
Gee, crap, why is he reading the "feminist radical" studies
to acknowledge that? Yes, that's what they said.
>In a special issue of the Journal of Social Issues dedicated
>entirely to research relating to the psychological effects of
>elective abortion, editor Gregory Wilmoth concluded: "There is
>now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women
>experience negative psychological reactions postabortion. Instead
>the disagreement concerns the following: (1) The prevalence of
>women who have these experiences . . . ,
Exact numbers will be inpossible to determine. GENERALLY speaking,
the numbers are VERY FEW.
(2) The severity of these
>negative reactions . . . ,
>(3) The definition of
>what severity of negative reactions constitutes a public health
>or mental health problem . . . ,
Again, Koop said not to worry. There is no
"public health" risk.
>[and] (4) The classification of
>severe reactions . . . "(10) There are no clear answers to the
>issues identified by Wilmoth. Opinions, especially regarding the
>prevalence of post-abortion maladjustments, tend to be divided
>along ideological lines.
Wilmoth, deAlteriis, and Bussell (1992):
"...the quality of the research cited by pro-choice advocates
[skip examples] is much better than that cited by pro-life
advocates [skip examples]." (p. 62)
>If there is any agreement among resear-
>chers, pro-choice researcher Mary K. Zimmerman suggests, it exists
>in the consensus that abortion is usually "stressful and emotion-
>ally difficult for most women."(11)
But only because, in the words of Russo and Zierk (1992),
and through their EMPIRICAL findings:
"...it is important to recognize that the effects of abortion
cannot be separated from the effects of the experience
of an unwanted pregnancy." (p. 277)
Women in their study who had the LOWEST self-esteem were
those with unwanted births.
>Zimmerman may be too optimistic in claiming even this minimal
>consensus, however, since a few abortion proponents continue to
>insist that psychological sequelae post-abortion simply "does not
>exist."(12)
NO ONE ever said that it 'does not exist.'
>Critical analysis of these overly broad claims,
>however, shows that the sweeping conclusions offered by these
>authors are internally contradicted by the very studies and data
>they cite.(13)
No, they are NOT.
>It should also be noted that the research obstacles discussed
>above, concealment,
Addressed by Russo and Zierk (1992).
>attrition,
Few.
multiple symptoms,
Addressed with various studies using various instruments.
>time variance,
Freudian, unproved nonsense.
>and inadequate research tools,
You mean his? Certainly not instruments such as the STAI, RSE, Rotter
Locus of Control Scale, etc. These have stood the test of time.
>all tend to suppress the reported
>rate of negative reactions in individual studies.
NOPE. Thay have been dealt with.
>Reported rates
>of negative reactions, therefore, should always be interpreted
>as low, conservative estimates.
Nope. They are more on target than off.
>Furthermore, great care should be taken to avoid overgeneralizing
>findings or advocating a "majority rules" perspective.
HE should have taken the precaution of not stating that
WEBA women were representative of the "aborting
population as a whole." Speaking of overgeneralizations.
TO BE CONTINUED...
So far, he doesn't have ONE leg to stand on...
References already cited in previous posts.