I look at life in a holistic perspective. I see that when I break life into fragments, I'm not seeing realistically, within the context of what is.
In a holistic comprehensive view, one can move in either direction, in time, seeing the physical beginning of the individual with it's DNA, to the other end of the spectrum, to the potential of it's life, which can be conceptualized at different places, like birth, first day of school, marriage, death, etc. In a holistic view, once conceived, this physical entity with it's unique DNA cannot be denied as a human being. To do so is merely to close one's perspective down to a limited and unrealistic perspective for reasons of personal bias, out of synch with the truth.
One can minimize the reality...one can call this unique individual a "bit of DNA", or cells, and yet, it is what it is in the big picture, within nature.
The perspective we choose will determine the choices we make on this subject, and the outcome we receive. And whether or not we experience life fully emotionally, spiritually, etc.
I spent many years living a fragmented and subsequently pained existence.
Seeing realisitically and being attuned to the big picture, including the depths and textures of life not only allows one to continually create a life of joy, but it also eliminates creating negative life consequences to learn from.
When you compare a DNA test, which has the intent to test something, while leaving it integrally intact and whole, with an abortion, where the intent is to completely and permanently terminate the entity in question, I see a minimization of the actual issue. When sloughing off cells, while leaving an integral being at-one and whole is being compared with terminating the integral entity, I see a minimization of the actual issue.
If this difference is not being comprehended, then the subject in question is not being comprehended.
Not to speak for Jeanie, but I believe the whole point is that some people don't see an embryo as an integral entity. Just because you do see it this way doesn't mean someone who disagrees is minimizing or failing to comprehend the issue.
And yet your so-called "holistic comprehensive view" seems itself to break life into fragments, making a distinction between human life and other life. So claiming to have a truly holistic, comprehensive, unfragmented view of life is what seems to me to be not seeing realistically and out of sync with the truth.
"seems" being the operative word.
Are you saying there is not a difference between human life and other life? Do you value the life of an ant as much as you value the life of your mother, for example? Is an ant a human?
Are you saying that women who have abortions or believe in abortion rights don't "experience life fully emotionally, spiritually, etc."? Are you saying they live a "fragmented and subsequently pained existence"? Are you saying they don't create lives of joy but instead create negative life consequences? That's what it sound like you're saying to me, so I would like to clarify.
When people detach from their spiritual nature or emotional nature, they detach from their spiritual and emotional nature.
When we reduce our vision to 3-dimensions and to science, being devoid of emotional/spiritual assessment, we are absolutely acting in a fragmented sense. By doing so, we minimize, interestingly, our symbolically feminine intelligences. Which is pretty common in the western world. And we will experience the consequences of such fragmented, un-whole, unattuned choice, whether we do this when choosing a mate, what to do with our time, or in having an abortion. It occurs from moment to moment, choice to choice. In myself as well. 100%.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
honestly....does it matter?
i truly could NOT care less what ANYone believes...as long as they do not try to infringe on MY, or other womens...personal rights to make their own choices. there will ALWAYS be those whose own thoughts will run counter to my own. i do not see the need, besides i think it would be utterly exhausting, as well as a waste of time..to try to make others see the world from MY perspective. i think it better to simply respect we all have unique views....and ALLOW others to make their own choices. that is ALL i ask of anyone. believe as you see fit, i shall do the same...but lets mutually respect each other to make our own choices.
btw - not speaking for anyone...was simply just sayin'....:)
i find many topics, this one most definitely...go round and round and round...where i think the heart of the matter simply is, respect for individual choice. as long as the law remains on the side of allowing women personal choice...than all is good imo.
I agree with you that not interfering with someone else's choice is what's important. But, legalities aside, I have a total pet peeve about people judging or looking down on women who have abortions or who support abortion rights. Since it seems to me like Angelica is doing that, I thought I should at least double-check before making that assessment.
we haven't talked much about abortion. This is the toughest issue I have ever pondered. In the end, I find myself being pro-choice even though by all counts abortion is bad and should be stopped. Yet, circumstances today in America seem to be such that the people need not to have this type of thing legislated.
Debate on such a tough issue is rendered impossible because of politics. Because of the misrepresentation of both sides. I'd like to start with one of the conservative sides.
Can we just talk about one thing for now?
The Conservatives use Pro-Life as their platform and the single greatest vote producer. They vow basically to appoint supreme court justices that will overturn Roe v Wade.
These are the same people that preach that they don't want these judges to "legislate from the bench". Yet that are going to pervert the Supreme Court by proudly proclaiming on the comapaign trail that they will select judges based on their desire to overturn one particular law.
Don't they owe respect to the constitution and our legal process? This is currently the law of the land. There are many reasons this is the law of the land. There is a process to challange laws.
This is one simple contradiction in a long list rendering our country incapable of even addressing something.
getting back on point.....
you are so right really! it had beomce such a devisive issue and too many do vote on this one issue, alone....and forget all else. it IS a contradiction, but how do you create change? is it possible to force them to look at other issues...or to own up to this discrepancy? and the power of judge selction...and the bias that can come into play...which in itself is such a discrepancy of what the law, and the supreme court are to be all about....what has happened to the objectivity? i AM thankful the law still stands....but there are those always trying to not so quietly chip away and chip away....and is this what we as a country want to see?
i don't have any answers there.
i can only hope we CAN overcome this..or at least counter it, and hope that in time...we see and believe again in individual freedoms and TRUE freedom OF religion, including the freedom to allow others to make decisions for thesmelves outside ANY religious interference.
and for now...i can only hope as an american that enough americans feel the same, as in...not allowing this to happen, and not electing a president who is in support of such ideads.
I agree with you that not interfering with someone else's choice is what's important. But, legalities aside, I have a total pet peeve about people judging or looking down on women who have abortions or who support abortion rights.
and i agree, to a degree.
i hate 'judgements'...but then again, it's all our own personal persepctives. as an individual, i have come to realize...i simply don't care...as long as whatever perceived judgements don't interfere with mine, or others' indivuduals rights. beyond that, there are only a few people who's ideas and judegments are a concern of mine....but they really are few and far between. on this board, there are very, very few who's opinions matter to such a degree...so that's all i was getting at. people believe, judge, whatever...as they wish. fuck all i can truly do about it...and i realizer, i just don't care. to me, that's their own shit...and their own loss...if they are to dismiss or 'look down' on those who make such decisions. those who i admire and drespect..would never do so...so it's a-ok by me.
Not to speak for Jeanie, but I believe the whole point is that some people don't see an embryo as an integral entity. Just because you do see it this way doesn't mean someone who disagrees is minimizing or failing to comprehend the issue.
I'm not debating the view of others at all. I am debating when the view of others seeks to counter the view I speak of.
It takes some mental gymnastics to not see an embryo as an integral entity, which basically means it's one thing. People see what they want to see. Unless they seek to see what is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you saying there is not a difference between human life and other life? Do you value the life of an ant as much as you value the life of your mother, for example? Is an ant a human?
Of course I make a distinction between the life of my mother and the life of an ant - just like I may make a distinction between the life of my mother and the life of my embryo. I haven't said there's anything wrong with that.
But you said it's not right to break life into fragments and I'm merely pointing out that you DO in fact break life into fragments and so your so-called holistic comprehensive view is a farce.
When people detach from their spiritual nature or emotional nature, they detach from their spiritual and emotional nature.
When we reduce our vision to 3-dimensions and to science, being devoid of emotional/spiritual assessment, we are absolutely acting in a fragmented sense. By doing so, we minimize, interestingly, our symbolically feminine intelligences. Which is pretty common in the western world. And we will experience the consequences of such fragmented, un-whole, unattuned choice, whether we do this when choosing a mate, what to do with our time, or in having an abortion. It occurs from moment to moment, choice to choice. In myself as well. 100%.
Wow. What a way to avoid a question! :rolleyes:
If you are saying that women who choose to have abortions are "being devoid of emotional/spiritual assessment", I completely disagree.
Not to speak for Jeanie, but I believe the whole point is that some people don't see an embryo as an integral entity. Just because you do see it this way doesn't mean someone who disagrees is minimizing or failing to comprehend the issue.
Oh by all means, speak for me! You're doing a great job scb! Thank you.
It's not that I don't think dna is alive or even individual but it is not a person.
It is a building block to a person, or a cancer or a non malignant tumor, or a disease. It is a code to a potential person but many things can step in along the journey to end the journey at any time.
Do I think that a fully formed human female has more right to decide what happens to her body than a cluster of dna and cells that have yet to develop a body and cannot do so on their own? Yes.
I always remember my grandmother saying to me that she would always support a woman's right to an abortion because had she known that the government could conscript her son and send him off to the horrors of war to suffer permantly for the rest of his life, she'd have made the decision herself.
If we are going to say that all life is sacred, then I think there are far more important issues that we need to address to show that we are serious about the sanctity of life.
Of course I make a distinction between the life of my mother and the life of an ant - just like I may make a distinction between the life of my mother and the life of my embryo. I haven't said there's anything wrong with that.
But you said it's not right to break life into fragments and I'm merely pointing out that you DO in fact break life into fragments and so your so-called holistic comprehensive view is a farce.
I didn't say it's not right to break life into fragments. In the holistic view there is not "right" or "wrong". You've openly assigned numerous assumptions to me, that are innaccurate.
Wow. What a way to avoid a question! :rolleyes:
If you are saying that women who choose to have abortions are "being devoid of emotional/spiritual assessment", I completely disagree.
Your ongoing assumptions reveal your lack of perceiving my points.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Oh by all means, speak for me! You're doing a great job scb! Thank you.
It's not that I don't think dna is alive or even individual but it is not a person.
It is a building block to a person, or a cancer or a non malignant tumor, or a disease. It is a code to a potential person but many things can step in along the journey to end the journey at any time.
Do I think that a fully formed human female has more right to decide what happens to her body than a cluster of dna and cells that have yet to develop a body and cannot do so on their own? Yes.
I always remember my grandmother saying to me that she would always support a woman's right to an abortion because had she known that the government could conscript her son and send him off to the horrors of war to suffer permantly for the rest of his life, she'd have made the decision herself.
If we are going to say that all life is sacred, then I think there are far more important issues that we need to address to show that we are serious about the sanctity of life.
i think it comes down to their being MANY differing perspectives on life, living...and there IS no one 'right' way to see it. some may disagree with that...so be it. now someone's views may be VERY different from yours, mine, or anyone....doesn't make them 'wrong'...just different. the respect of those differences are key.
one can see a zygote, an embryo as a distinct human being. i see it as the possibility of a distinct human being. neither are right..or wrong.....and we are free to choose. and most especially in regards to 'the sanctity of life'...when exactly was this designated? truly? it gets bandied about a LOT....but just about every creature on this planet does not treat life as sacred. life simply is....and then it is not...and that IS the cycle of life. things die of their own accord ALL the time, things are killed all the time...cells...plants...animals...humans....and so it goes. if someone wants to place higher 'value' on humans....all fine and good. if they want to do so with a zygote...go for it. just do so for youself. animals of ALL kinds have killed off their own, throut existence....it is not really an 'unnatural' thing at all. humans ARE animals. i don't have a problem with it.
and i agree, to a degree.
i hate 'judgements'...but then again, it's all our own personal persepctives. as an individual, i have come to realize...i simply don't care...as long as whatever perceived judgements don't interfere with mine, or others' indivuduals rights. beyond that, there are only a few people who's ideas and judegments are a concern of mine....but they really are few and far between. on this board, there are very, very few who's opinions matter to such a degree...so that's all i was getting at. people believe, judge, whatever...as they wish. fuck all i can truly do about it...and i realizer, i just don't care. to me, that's their own shit...and their own loss...if they are to dismiss or 'look down' on those who make such decisions. those who i admire and drespect..would never do so...so it's a-ok by me.
And I agree... to a degree.
It's true that everyone has a right to their opinions and we shouldn't care what they think. But I see these negative attitudes & stereotypes have negative affects on women, particularly those who have had or are considering abortion. And I believe they collectively serve to stigmatize abortion, which in turn contributes to women feeling isolated, and to them not seeking timely abortion services and not knowing about their options and resources, etc. So, while I may never change anyone's judgement (and I'm not even saying that's my goal), it's hard for me to not speak up against these nagative judgements - or at least to clarify that someone is making a negative judgement before I form my opinion of them.
It takes some mental gymnastics to not see an embryo as an integral entity, which basically means it's one thing. People see what they want to see. Unless they seek to see what is.
I'm sorry, but that is so fucking condescending! :rolleyes:
It's true that everyone has a right to their opinions and we shouldn't care what they think. But I see these negative attitudes & stereotypes have negative affects on women, particularly those who have had or are considering abortion. And I believe they collectively serve to stigmatize abortion, which in turn contributes to women feeling isolated, and to them not seeking timely abortion services and not knowing about their options and resources, etc. So, while I may never change anyone's judgement (and I'm not even saying that's my goal), it's hard for me to not speak up against these nagative judgements - or at least to clarify that someone is making a negative judgement before I form my opinion of them.
i hear you.
it DOES and continues to have negative consequences...i just really meant in the purpose of this debate......b/c really, the only thing we really can ever possibly agree on is the right to disagree...to offer THAT respect to all. to me, that alone would remove the ideas of judgement and attitudes...sure they will continue to exist...but as long as they don't interfere.....then it should simply be a non-issue.
i think my biggest 'issue' with the whole situation is how some groups that support a pro-life stance also seemingly support LACK of education, diminshed or no access to birth control, etc. knowledge IS power, absolutely...and the power to limiting, maybe almost ending the necessity, of abortion lies in that knowledge. some seem to miss the bigger picture as it were...by focusing on the smalllest details. those agains the morning after pill...cmon....the morning after?! seriously....i just don't get that. access and education...that should always be the focus...and then no one would give a shite about judgements....b/c they'd be superfluous.
I didn't say it's not right to break life into fragments. In the holistic view there is not "right" or "wrong". You've openly assigned numerous assumptions to me, that are innaccurate.
I knew you were going to bust me for using the word "right". I'm sorry I didn't feel like finding and directly quoting what you said. But I know what you said. And you know what you said. And I'm saying that what you said is a farce.
Your ongoing assumptions reveal your lack of perceiving my points.
Haha. I didn't even make an assumption. I said "if" so as to suggest that I'm not sure I understood what you were saying. I would have asked straight up if that's what you were saying, but I had just done that and you completely failed to answer my question.
The following are sources that show the consequences of abortion on women:
- Thomas Strahan's Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion
. Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn.[/b
- "Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institutions Among Danish Women who Experienced Induced Abortion: An Analysis on National Record Linkage,"
- "Postpartum and Postabortion Psychotic Reactions,"
- "Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report", World Journal of Psychosynthesis
- The Long-Term Psychological Effects of Abortion, Portsmouth, N.H.:
- Herman, Trauma and Recovery
- Adler, "Sample Attrition in Studies of Psycho-social Sequelae of Abortion: How great a problem."
- Speckhard, "Postabortion Syndrome: An Emerging Public Health Concern," Journal of Social Issues,
- Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion
- "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Soc. Sci. & Med
- Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion
- "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine
- "Abortion in Adolescence," Adolescence,
- "Characteristics of Pregnant Women Reporting Previous Induced Abortions," Bulletin World Health Organization,
- "Outcome of First Delivery After 2nd Trimester Two Stage Induced Abortion: A Controlled Cohort Study," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica
- "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, 243:2495-2499, June 27, 1980.
- "Pregnancy Complications Following Legally Induced Abortion: An Analysis of the Population with Special Reference to Prematurity,"
- "An Overview: Maternal Nicotine and Caffeine Consumption and Offspring Outcome," Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Tertology, 4(4):421-427, (1982).
- "Sexual Experience and Drinking Among Women in a U.S. National Survey," Archives of Sexual Behavior,
- "Patterns of Alcohol and Cigarette Use in Pregnancy,"
- "Stressful Life Events and Alcohol Problems Among Women Seen at a Detoxification Center," Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
- "Perinatal Cocaine and Methamphetamine Exposure Maternal and Neo-Natal Correlates,"
- "Cocaine Use During Pregnancy Prevalence and Correlates,"
- "Drug Use Among Adolescent Mothers: Profile of Risk,"
- Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion,
- "Psychoses Following Therapeutic Abortion, Am. J. of Psychiatry
- Ritual Mourning in Anorexia Nervosa,"
- "Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse,"
- "Relationship between Abortion and Child Abuse," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,
- Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 129-30, describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger.
- "Contraceptive Practice and Repeat Induced Abortion: An Epidemiological Investigation," J. Biosocial Science,
- "First and Repeated Abortions: A Study of Decision-Making and Delay," J. Biosocial Science,
- "The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives,
- "The Abortion Experience in Private Practice," Women and Loss: Psychobiological Perspectives,
- "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Social Science and Medicine,
- "Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions," Obstetrics and Gynecology,
- "Repeat Abortion: Is it a Problem?" Family Planning Perspectives
- "The Social and Economic Correlates of Pregnancy Resolution Among Adolescents in New York by Race and Ethnicity: A Multivariate Analysis," Am. J. of Public Health,
- , "Repeat Abortions - Why More?" Family Planning Perspectives
- The Repeat Abortion Patient," Family Planning Perspectives,
- "Reflection on Repeated Abortions: The meanings and motivations," Journal of Social Work Practice
- "Repeat Abortion, Blaming the Victims," Am. J. of Public Health,
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
i think it comes down to their being MANY differing perspectives on life, living...and there IS no one 'right' way to see it. some may disagree with that...so be it. now someone's views may be VERY different from yours, mine, or anyone....doesn't make them 'wrong'...just different. the respect of those differences are key.
one can see a zygote, an embryo as a distinct human being. i see it as the possibility of a distinct human being. neither are right..or wrong.....and we are free to choose. and most especially in regards to 'the sanctity of life'...when exactly was this designated? truly? it gets bandied about a LOT....but just about every creature on this planet does not treat life as sacred. life simply is....and then it is not...and that IS the cycle of life. things die of their own accord ALL the time, things are killed all the time...cells...plants...animals...humans....and so it goes. if someone wants to place higher 'value' on humans....all fine and good. if they want to do so with a zygote...go for it. just do so for youself. animals of ALL kinds have killed off their own, throut existence....it is not really an 'unnatural' thing at all. humans ARE animals. i don't have a problem with it.
It has it's own unique individual DNA of a human, that no one ever has or ever will again have. It is not it's mother, or it's father.
Yes but it receives this DNA from its parents and until it's a viable fetus, cannot survive without its mother and wouldn't exist without her or its father.
I knew you were going to bust me for using the word "right". I'm sorry I didn't feel like finding and directly quoting what you said. But I know what you said. And you know what you said. And I'm saying that what you said is a farce.
And I'm saying that as long as you are replying to your misunderstandings and false assumptions about what I'm saying, you will continue to miss my actual points.
Haha. I didn't even make an assumption. I said "if" so as to suggest that I'm not sure I understood what you were saying. I would have asked straight up if that's what you were saying, but I had just done that and you completely failed to answer my question.
You didn't make an assumption?
I stated very clearly my response, in detail. You accused me of avoiding the question.
When I actually judge a woman for her choices, then you may condemn me for doing so, if you like.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I didn't say an embryo isn't one thing; I said your post was condescending.
But since you ask... an embryo is many things put together... and embryo is one small part of a larger thing... an embryo is connected... etc. (Why don't you try to suck an embryo out of a woman's uterus and see if you only get one thing. It won't work.)
(Aren't you the one who's always talking about how we're all one and to see us as individual reveals an unenlightened view?)
Yes but it receives this DNA from its parents and until it's a viable fetus, cannot survive without its mother and wouldn't exist without her or its father.
I am aware of this.
And still, it remains a unique individual with it's own DNA, even while dependent on it's mother.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yes but it receives this DNA from its parents and until it's a viable fetus, cannot survive without its mother and wouldn't exist without her or its father.
exactly.
and even as a 'viable fetus' it STILL cannot survive without it's mother until a certain period it time.
as to it's uniquness..that only matter if it actually matters to you. being unique, in and of itself...to me has no bearing, on ANYthing. many, many things are 'unique'....i said as much earlier:
as to 'unique DNA'...quite honestly, so what? that's it? b/c it's a unique cluster of cells...it 'deserves' to live? that's it, that's the arguement for it? 'unique DNA' dies off naturally, all the time.....even that unique DNA in the uterus. it is said that almost all sexually active woman have sponatneous abortion - aka miscarriage - once in their life...and it's so early on, she is unaware. 'unique DNA' alone does not 'deserve' anything imo.
and absolutely...there are MANY negative consequences with abortion. there are many negative consequences with MANY things in this world. there are also a LOT of 'positives'...for lack of a better term. i am sure there are some women who may regret abortion...no doubt. but there are just as many who don't. bottomline...it's still CHOICE. i personally have never met a woman who had an abrotion and regretted it...and almost all that i personally know went on to have families later on in their lives, and are happy and content with their life choices. as in all things in this world...there is good and bad , and mixed results. however, none should limit or do away with ones access and choice to make such decisions themselves.
anyhoooo...it's LEGAL....so i am good with that. i would really LIKE to see more education and access to BC and especially the morning after pill...and i think we would see a direct correlation with less abortion. to me, abortion is a last option...but an option i ALWAYS want to see avaialble. as long as it is...i couldn't care less what anyone else thinks. as long as a woman has the choice to make for herself...good.
i've had enough abortion talk for one evening i think ...it's been awhile......have a good one all wherever you are!
Once again, how is a bit of DNA a "being"? And if it only becomes a being after a certain point, what's wrong with having an abortion before that point?
None of this really matters, though, as long as you continue to speak in the first person.
I understand angelicas point. The DNA you scrape off your face in the shower, is a lot different to the DNA of a forming embryo. For a start, the skin cells you wash away are already dead, they are not living tissue, nor are they complete DNA. An embryo is. It has all the DNA in place to form a new and unique human being. Dead skin cells don't.
The distinction though, is whether one considers an embryo a human being, or a potential human being. And if one considers it a potential human being, at what point does this become so. From a medical point of view, or biological one, it is a blastocyst from conception to around two weeks, a cluster of dividing cells. From two weeks to 12 weeks, it is an embryo. More than a cluster of cells, it has divided and grown to have tissue and partial organ systems. From 12 weeks to birth, it is a fetus. And medically, a fetus is not considered viable until 24 weeks. Thats not to say I agree with late abortions, which in my opinion, is beyond about 12 weeks.
The following are sources that show the consequences of abortion on women:
- Thomas Strahan's Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion
. Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn.[/b
- "Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institutions Among Danish Women who Experienced Induced Abortion: An Analysis on National Record Linkage,"
- "Postpartum and Postabortion Psychotic Reactions,"
- "Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report", World Journal of Psychosynthesis
- The Long-Term Psychological Effects of Abortion, Portsmouth, N.H.:
- Herman, Trauma and Recovery
- Adler, "Sample Attrition in Studies of Psycho-social Sequelae of Abortion: How great a problem."
- Speckhard, "Postabortion Syndrome: An Emerging Public Health Concern," Journal of Social Issues,
- Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion
- "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Soc. Sci. & Med
- Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion
- "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine
- "Abortion in Adolescence," Adolescence,
- "Characteristics of Pregnant Women Reporting Previous Induced Abortions," Bulletin World Health Organization,
- "Outcome of First Delivery After 2nd Trimester Two Stage Induced Abortion: A Controlled Cohort Study," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica
- "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, 243:2495-2499, June 27, 1980.
- "Pregnancy Complications Following Legally Induced Abortion: An Analysis of the Population with Special Reference to Prematurity,"
- "An Overview: Maternal Nicotine and Caffeine Consumption and Offspring Outcome," Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Tertology, 4(4):421-427, (1982).
- "Sexual Experience and Drinking Among Women in a U.S. National Survey," Archives of Sexual Behavior,
- "Patterns of Alcohol and Cigarette Use in Pregnancy,"
- "Stressful Life Events and Alcohol Problems Among Women Seen at a Detoxification Center," Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
- "Perinatal Cocaine and Methamphetamine Exposure Maternal and Neo-Natal Correlates,"
- "Cocaine Use During Pregnancy Prevalence and Correlates,"
- "Drug Use Among Adolescent Mothers: Profile of Risk,"
- Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion,
- "Psychoses Following Therapeutic Abortion, Am. J. of Psychiatry
- Ritual Mourning in Anorexia Nervosa,"
- "Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse,"
- "Relationship between Abortion and Child Abuse," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,
- Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 129-30, describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger.
- "Contraceptive Practice and Repeat Induced Abortion: An Epidemiological Investigation," J. Biosocial Science,
- "First and Repeated Abortions: A Study of Decision-Making and Delay," J. Biosocial Science,
- "The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives,
- "The Abortion Experience in Private Practice," Women and Loss: Psychobiological Perspectives,
- "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Social Science and Medicine,
- "Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions," Obstetrics and Gynecology,
- "Repeat Abortion: Is it a Problem?" Family Planning Perspectives
- "The Social and Economic Correlates of Pregnancy Resolution Among Adolescents in New York by Race and Ethnicity: A Multivariate Analysis," Am. J. of Public Health,
- , "Repeat Abortions - Why More?" Family Planning Perspectives
- The Repeat Abortion Patient," Family Planning Perspectives,
- "Reflection on Repeated Abortions: The meanings and motivations," Journal of Social Work Practice
- "Repeat Abortion, Blaming the Victims," Am. J. of Public Health,
The idea that abortion leads to psychological problems in women is a myth that has long-since been de-bunked. Just because someone has a website doesn't give credibility to the bullshit they post. As for the articles you listed, I'd like better sources, please.
Also, even if there was a correlation between high rates of abortion and high rates of psychological problems, that would in no way indicate causation. You could just as easily say that women with pre-existing mental instability are more likely to have abortions as you could say that women who have abortion are more likely to have mental instability.
I understand angelicas point. The DNA you scrape off your face in the shower, is a lot different to the DNA of a forming embryo. For a start, the skin cells you wash away are already dead, they are not living tissue, nor are they complete DNA. An embryo is. It has all the DNA in place to form a new and unique human being. Dead skin cells don't.
The distinction though, is whether one considers an embryo a human being, or a potential human being.
I appreciate knowing my point has been heard. Thank-you.
And if one considers it a potential human being, at what point does this become so. From a medical point of view, or biological one, it is a blastocyst from conception to around two weeks, a cluster of dividing cells. From two weeks to 12 weeks, it is an embryo. More than a cluster of cells, it has divided and grown to have tissue and partial organ systems. From 12 weeks to birth, it is a fetus. And medically, a fetus is not considered viable until 24 weeks. Thats not to say I agree with late abortions, which in my opinion, is beyond about 12 weeks.
I also appreciate your discernment and ability to see beyond bias.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
There are many legitimate scientific reasons why abortion has a pall cast over it, besides the moral judgments of people and society.
Women can go through major issues after.
Are you seriously quoting this BS as a legitimate medical source? A website that still says that abortion leads to breast cancer? That myth has been long-since de-bunked as well.
Here's what the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the National Cancer Institute have to say about it:
ACOG Finds No Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk
Washington, DC -- There is no evidence supporting a causal link between induced abortion and subsequent development of breast cancer, according to a committee opinion issued today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). ACOG's opinion is in agreement with the conclusion reached at the National Cancer Institute's Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, which met in March 2003.
ACOG's review of the research on a link between abortion and later development of breast cancer concluded that studies on the issue were inconsistent and difficult to interpret, mainly due to study design flaws. Some studies showed either a significant decrease in breast cancer risk after abortion or found no effect. The most recent studies from China, the United Kingdom, and the US found no effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk.
I find it very disturbing that anti-abortion people can be so quick to discard actual medical science.
The idea that abortion leads to psychological problems in women is a myth that has long-since been de-bunked. Just because someone has a website doesn't give credibility to the bullshit they post. As for the articles you listed, I'd like better sources, please.
Also, even if there was a correlation between high rates of abortion and high rates of psychological problems, that would in no way indicate causation. You could just as easily say that women with pre-existing mental instability are more likely to have abortions as you could say that women who have abortion are more likely to have mental instability.
The vast wealth of scientific studies done have not been debunked. Politics has stepped in and spin has been put on abortion. See below article.
Did you check the "After Abortion" site, where real women go dealing with the emotional/spiritual/physical traumas they've endured due to their abortions? It can't be denied. They post about this on the message board. Can you debunk that? Why would you want to deny what these women experience if you are concerned for women?
from the afterabortion.com site:
"I just finished browsing the "Sarafem" (softer name for prozac) website http://www.sarafem.com, and learning about Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder, (PMDD) which is the new 'official' medically approved diagnostic name for pre-menstrual syndrome. The Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical company has unveiled a new advertising campaign to help women with this problem, (the help being their medication) and to promote understanding and awareness of PMDD as a real health issue for women.
So Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder joins Post Partum Depression, as another hormone - related illness for women, that is recognized as 'real' by the medical community, has a name, and can be treated. PMDD is estimated to affect 5 to 10% of women in their childbearing years. PPD is estimated to affect 20% of women who have given birth.
There's another similar condition for women, that affects an unknown number of women, called Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS). PASS is not medically recognized as a 'real' problem, nor does it have the backing of the at-large medical community.
Why not?
Because PASS is stuck in the political war of abortion. Because of politics and money, "PASS" is not recognized as real, yet PMDD and PPD are. Women suffering from PMDD and PPD are given help, support and treatment. Women with PASS are not, and are left to suffer alone, in silence.
Let's start with the politics angle. There's nothing political about PMDD or a menstrual period. Every woman, Christian, Atheist, prochoice, prolife, gets their period. And a prochoicer wouldn't complain about women getting treated for PMDD, or say that it hurts the cause of women's freedom of choice. A prolifer would not use Post Partum Depression as a way to try and discourage childbirth, and say that childbirth or menstruation 'hurts' women, or that childbirth is 'killing' women. (even though some women die from childbirth complications). Those issues are non-political women's health issues. There's no 'bad side' to be on with these problems.
Yet with Post Abortion Stress Syndrome, it's very different. If a woman suffers from PASS after an abortion, the concern for her actual health problem disappears, and she becomes a pawn in the rhetoric of the abortion war. She gets no official treatment or support for her health problem. She gets told what she is experiencing does not exist, or 'only happens to women with previous psychological problems'. (As if having a previous psychological problem would suddenly mean that you wouldn't need treatment, support or help for your new problem!?)
The prochoice majority says PASS 'does not exist', and that anti-abortionists are using it to try and scare women away from abortion, and to try to influence lawmakers that abortion is dangerous. The prolifers agree that PASS exists, but they use it (as the prochoicers fear) as a way to discourage abortion, and as a way to help revoke abortion rights. The woman who is suffering is left alone, as the two sides argue, and the medical community stays out of it.
The medical community does not acknowledge PASS as real, because they don't have enough scientific information from research. Where does the money to do research come from? Grants from pharmaceutical companies. The drug companies that fund medical research that allows a disorder to be diagnosed and 'medically accepted' will not go anywhere near research for PASS. Why? Because they don't want to touch the political suicide that anything related to abortion is. RU-486 is being manufactured in China, because no American drug company even considered making it.
The recent RU-486 FDA approval sparked ongoing protests and boycotts of the Searle company that manufactured only a 'partner' drug (Misoprostol aka Cytotec) that works with RU-486. RU-486 is normally used in combination with Misoprostol (Cytotec), an ulcer drug that also causes uterine contractions. RU-486 blocks progesterone, a hormone needed to maintain pregnancy, in a woman's body, and Cytotec, taken a few days later, causes her to miscarry the disrupted pregnancy. Even though Cytotec has been used successfully and safely with RU-486 in Europe over the past ten years, Searle could not take the political pressure. The protest was so strong that it prompted the Searle company to send a letter out warning doctors "not to prescribe the drug to induce an abortion, and only to use it for it's 'approved' use, ulcer treatments."
There is such an uproar over anything related to abortion, that drug companies don't want to fund any research into anything abortion related. Why jeopardize the profitability of all their base drugs, by looking into something controversial, that may bring them protests and boycotts from both sides of the abortion war, regardless of how their research turns out?
So without research dollars to fund the studies, the medical community must keep to it's current theory, that PASS 'does not exist'. Numerous medical illnesses never existed until companies thought they might be able to create a drug to treat them, and therefore make a profit. Once enough money was spent on research for them, the diseases became 'real', and were accepted and promoted as such. PMDD and PPD were two such illnesses. As in the past were schizophrenia, manic depression, high blood pressure and AIDS. But when these illnesses were not 'recognized' by the medical community, and did not have an official name or recommended treatment from the medical community yet, did that mean these diseases did not exist? Does that mean no one suffered, before an official name, treatment and official diagnosis was announced? Of course not.
Even though the causes and reasons for PASS are similar to those for PMDD and PPD, PASS is not recognized as a 'real' illness. The causes of PASS are theorized by me to be hormonal and situational. This has proven to be correct again and again, by women who come to the PASS website, (http://www.afterabortion.com) for help. So are the causes of PMDD and PPD.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The distinction though, is whether one considers an embryo a human being, or a potential human being. And if one considers it a potential human being, at what point does this become so. From a medical point of view, or biological one, it is a blastocyst from conception to around two weeks, a cluster of dividing cells. From two weeks to 12 weeks, it is an embryo. More than a cluster of cells, it has divided and grown to have tissue and partial organ systems. From 12 weeks to birth, it is a fetus. And medically, a fetus is not considered viable until 24 weeks. Thats not to say I agree with late abortions, which in my opinion, is beyond about 12 weeks.
exactly.
there is distinction to be made...at least for many of us.
i believe, my stats may not be entirely accurate but i am far too lazy to verify ...but i am pretty sure 89%, if not more, of abortions are performed under 12 weeks.
one can see a zygote, an embryo as a distinct human being. i see it as the possibility of a distinct human being. neither are right..or wrong.....and we are free to choose. and most especially in regards to 'the sanctity of life'...when exactly was this designated? truly? it gets bandied about a LOT....but just about every creature on this planet does not treat life as sacred. life simply is....and then it is not...and that IS the cycle of life. things die of their own accord ALL the time, things are killed all the time...cells...plants...animals...humans....and so it goes. if someone wants to place higher 'value' on humans....all fine and good. if they want to do so with a zygote...go for it. just do so for youself. animals of ALL kinds have killed off their own, throut existence....it is not really an 'unnatural' thing at all. humans ARE animals. i don't have a problem with it.
and i point this out again b/c it is true...it is NOT 'unnatural'...it is man-made 'law'....or religious belief...or whatever else...that we arbitrarily may make the distinction of the 'sanctity' of life. and many may argue that's what makes us 'better' than animals and fine if that is what you believe...but it's still an arbitrary destinction...and a choice.
interestingly...i think it was outofbreath? who a long while ago had placed some quiz here and it dealt with different cultures, and scenarios...and what is acceptable or not and would we agree or not on the rightness or wrongness of certain issues...based on knowing what different groups viewed. it IS a choice we all make, and partly b/c we can...b/c we are human......but it's a distinction we MAKE...and choose....and it certainly is not right or wrong...or going against nature, etc. it's just a choice.
and again.......lots of women may have problems after abortion...and lots of women may not. the statistics go both ways...depending on what you choose to read.....so neither is 'definitive' for what experience a woman may or may not have. neither scenario should factor into ever disallowing each individual woman the CHOICE to make for herself. lots of people go thru traumas after deaths, divorce, numerous life events...some of their choosing, some totally out of their control.....such is life.
Comments
Pass the dutchie
Not to speak for Jeanie, but I believe the whole point is that some people don't see an embryo as an integral entity. Just because you do see it this way doesn't mean someone who disagrees is minimizing or failing to comprehend the issue.
Are you saying there is not a difference between human life and other life? Do you value the life of an ant as much as you value the life of your mother, for example? Is an ant a human?
When people detach from their spiritual nature or emotional nature, they detach from their spiritual and emotional nature.
When we reduce our vision to 3-dimensions and to science, being devoid of emotional/spiritual assessment, we are absolutely acting in a fragmented sense. By doing so, we minimize, interestingly, our symbolically feminine intelligences. Which is pretty common in the western world. And we will experience the consequences of such fragmented, un-whole, unattuned choice, whether we do this when choosing a mate, what to do with our time, or in having an abortion. It occurs from moment to moment, choice to choice. In myself as well. 100%.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I agree with you that not interfering with someone else's choice is what's important. But, legalities aside, I have a total pet peeve about people judging or looking down on women who have abortions or who support abortion rights. Since it seems to me like Angelica is doing that, I thought I should at least double-check before making that assessment.
getting back on point.....
you are so right really! it had beomce such a devisive issue and too many do vote on this one issue, alone....and forget all else. it IS a contradiction, but how do you create change? is it possible to force them to look at other issues...or to own up to this discrepancy? and the power of judge selction...and the bias that can come into play...which in itself is such a discrepancy of what the law, and the supreme court are to be all about....what has happened to the objectivity? i AM thankful the law still stands....but there are those always trying to not so quietly chip away and chip away....and is this what we as a country want to see?
i don't have any answers there.
i can only hope we CAN overcome this..or at least counter it, and hope that in time...we see and believe again in individual freedoms and TRUE freedom OF religion, including the freedom to allow others to make decisions for thesmelves outside ANY religious interference.
and for now...i can only hope as an american that enough americans feel the same, as in...not allowing this to happen, and not electing a president who is in support of such ideads.
and...
and i agree, to a degree.
i hate 'judgements'...but then again, it's all our own personal persepctives. as an individual, i have come to realize...i simply don't care...as long as whatever perceived judgements don't interfere with mine, or others' indivuduals rights. beyond that, there are only a few people who's ideas and judegments are a concern of mine....but they really are few and far between. on this board, there are very, very few who's opinions matter to such a degree...so that's all i was getting at. people believe, judge, whatever...as they wish. fuck all i can truly do about it...and i realizer, i just don't care. to me, that's their own shit...and their own loss...if they are to dismiss or 'look down' on those who make such decisions. those who i admire and drespect..would never do so...so it's a-ok by me.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It takes some mental gymnastics to not see an embryo as an integral entity, which basically means it's one thing. People see what they want to see. Unless they seek to see what is.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Of course I make a distinction between the life of my mother and the life of an ant - just like I may make a distinction between the life of my mother and the life of my embryo. I haven't said there's anything wrong with that.
But you said it's not right to break life into fragments and I'm merely pointing out that you DO in fact break life into fragments and so your so-called holistic comprehensive view is a farce.
Wow. What a way to avoid a question! :rolleyes:
If you are saying that women who choose to have abortions are "being devoid of emotional/spiritual assessment", I completely disagree.
It's not that I don't think dna is alive or even individual but it is not a person.
It is a building block to a person, or a cancer or a non malignant tumor, or a disease. It is a code to a potential person but many things can step in along the journey to end the journey at any time.
Do I think that a fully formed human female has more right to decide what happens to her body than a cluster of dna and cells that have yet to develop a body and cannot do so on their own? Yes.
I always remember my grandmother saying to me that she would always support a woman's right to an abortion because had she known that the government could conscript her son and send him off to the horrors of war to suffer permantly for the rest of his life, she'd have made the decision herself.
If we are going to say that all life is sacred, then I think there are far more important issues that we need to address to show that we are serious about the sanctity of life.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Your ongoing assumptions reveal your lack of perceiving my points.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i think it comes down to their being MANY differing perspectives on life, living...and there IS no one 'right' way to see it. some may disagree with that...so be it. now someone's views may be VERY different from yours, mine, or anyone....doesn't make them 'wrong'...just different. the respect of those differences are key.
one can see a zygote, an embryo as a distinct human being. i see it as the possibility of a distinct human being. neither are right..or wrong.....and we are free to choose. and most especially in regards to 'the sanctity of life'...when exactly was this designated? truly? it gets bandied about a LOT....but just about every creature on this planet does not treat life as sacred. life simply is....and then it is not...and that IS the cycle of life. things die of their own accord ALL the time, things are killed all the time...cells...plants...animals...humans....and so it goes. if someone wants to place higher 'value' on humans....all fine and good. if they want to do so with a zygote...go for it. just do so for youself. animals of ALL kinds have killed off their own, throut existence....it is not really an 'unnatural' thing at all. humans ARE animals. i don't have a problem with it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
And I agree... to a degree.
It's true that everyone has a right to their opinions and we shouldn't care what they think. But I see these negative attitudes & stereotypes have negative affects on women, particularly those who have had or are considering abortion. And I believe they collectively serve to stigmatize abortion, which in turn contributes to women feeling isolated, and to them not seeking timely abortion services and not knowing about their options and resources, etc. So, while I may never change anyone's judgement (and I'm not even saying that's my goal), it's hard for me to not speak up against these nagative judgements - or at least to clarify that someone is making a negative judgement before I form my opinion of them.
I'm sorry, but that is so fucking condescending! :rolleyes:
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i hear you.
it DOES and continues to have negative consequences...i just really meant in the purpose of this debate......b/c really, the only thing we really can ever possibly agree on is the right to disagree...to offer THAT respect to all. to me, that alone would remove the ideas of judgement and attitudes...sure they will continue to exist...but as long as they don't interfere.....then it should simply be a non-issue.
i think my biggest 'issue' with the whole situation is how some groups that support a pro-life stance also seemingly support LACK of education, diminshed or no access to birth control, etc. knowledge IS power, absolutely...and the power to limiting, maybe almost ending the necessity, of abortion lies in that knowledge. some seem to miss the bigger picture as it were...by focusing on the smalllest details. those agains the morning after pill...cmon....the morning after?! seriously....i just don't get that. access and education...that should always be the focus...and then no one would give a shite about judgements....b/c they'd be superfluous.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I knew you were going to bust me for using the word "right". I'm sorry I didn't feel like finding and directly quoting what you said. But I know what you said. And you know what you said. And I'm saying that what you said is a farce.
Haha. I didn't even make an assumption. I said "if" so as to suggest that I'm not sure I understood what you were saying. I would have asked straight up if that's what you were saying, but I had just done that and you completely failed to answer my question.
http://www.afterabortion.com/
The following are sources that show the consequences of abortion on women:
- Thomas Strahan's Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion
. Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn.[/b
- "Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institutions Among Danish Women who Experienced Induced Abortion: An Analysis on National Record Linkage,"
- "Postpartum and Postabortion Psychotic Reactions,"
- "Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report", World Journal of Psychosynthesis
- The Long-Term Psychological Effects of Abortion, Portsmouth, N.H.:
- Herman, Trauma and Recovery
- Adler, "Sample Attrition in Studies of Psycho-social Sequelae of Abortion: How great a problem."
- Speckhard, "Postabortion Syndrome: An Emerging Public Health Concern," Journal of Social Issues,
- Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion
- "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Soc. Sci. & Med
- Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion
- "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine
- "Abortion in Adolescence," Adolescence,
- "Characteristics of Pregnant Women Reporting Previous Induced Abortions," Bulletin World Health Organization,
- "Outcome of First Delivery After 2nd Trimester Two Stage Induced Abortion: A Controlled Cohort Study," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica
- "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, 243:2495-2499, June 27, 1980.
- "Pregnancy Complications Following Legally Induced Abortion: An Analysis of the Population with Special Reference to Prematurity,"
- "An Overview: Maternal Nicotine and Caffeine Consumption and Offspring Outcome," Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Tertology, 4(4):421-427, (1982).
- "Sexual Experience and Drinking Among Women in a U.S. National Survey," Archives of Sexual Behavior,
- "Patterns of Alcohol and Cigarette Use in Pregnancy,"
- "Stressful Life Events and Alcohol Problems Among Women Seen at a Detoxification Center," Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
- "Perinatal Cocaine and Methamphetamine Exposure Maternal and Neo-Natal Correlates,"
- "Cocaine Use During Pregnancy Prevalence and Correlates,"
- "Drug Use Among Adolescent Mothers: Profile of Risk,"
- Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion,
- "Psychoses Following Therapeutic Abortion, Am. J. of Psychiatry
- Ritual Mourning in Anorexia Nervosa,"
- "Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse,"
- "Relationship between Abortion and Child Abuse," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,
- Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 129-30, describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger.
- "Contraceptive Practice and Repeat Induced Abortion: An Epidemiological Investigation," J. Biosocial Science,
- "First and Repeated Abortions: A Study of Decision-Making and Delay," J. Biosocial Science,
- "The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives,
- "The Abortion Experience in Private Practice," Women and Loss: Psychobiological Perspectives,
- "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Social Science and Medicine,
- "Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions," Obstetrics and Gynecology,
- "Repeat Abortion: Is it a Problem?" Family Planning Perspectives
- "The Social and Economic Correlates of Pregnancy Resolution Among Adolescents in New York by Race and Ethnicity: A Multivariate Analysis," Am. J. of Public Health,
- , "Repeat Abortions - Why More?" Family Planning Perspectives
- The Repeat Abortion Patient," Family Planning Perspectives,
- "Reflection on Repeated Abortions: The meanings and motivations," Journal of Social Work Practice
- "Repeat Abortion, Blaming the Victims," Am. J. of Public Health,
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Agreed.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Yes but it receives this DNA from its parents and until it's a viable fetus, cannot survive without its mother and wouldn't exist without her or its father.
You didn't make an assumption?
I stated very clearly my response, in detail. You accused me of avoiding the question.
When I actually judge a woman for her choices, then you may condemn me for doing so, if you like.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I didn't say an embryo isn't one thing; I said your post was condescending.
But since you ask... an embryo is many things put together... and embryo is one small part of a larger thing... an embryo is connected... etc. (Why don't you try to suck an embryo out of a woman's uterus and see if you only get one thing. It won't work.)
(Aren't you the one who's always talking about how we're all one and to see us as individual reveals an unenlightened view?)
And still, it remains a unique individual with it's own DNA, even while dependent on it's mother.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There are many legitimate scientific reasons why abortion has a pall cast over it, besides the moral judgments of people and society.
Women can go through major issues after.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
exactly.
and even as a 'viable fetus' it STILL cannot survive without it's mother until a certain period it time.
as to it's uniquness..that only matter if it actually matters to you. being unique, in and of itself...to me has no bearing, on ANYthing. many, many things are 'unique'....i said as much earlier:
and absolutely...there are MANY negative consequences with abortion. there are many negative consequences with MANY things in this world. there are also a LOT of 'positives'...for lack of a better term. i am sure there are some women who may regret abortion...no doubt. but there are just as many who don't. bottomline...it's still CHOICE. i personally have never met a woman who had an abrotion and regretted it...and almost all that i personally know went on to have families later on in their lives, and are happy and content with their life choices. as in all things in this world...there is good and bad , and mixed results. however, none should limit or do away with ones access and choice to make such decisions themselves.
anyhoooo...it's LEGAL....so i am good with that. i would really LIKE to see more education and access to BC and especially the morning after pill...and i think we would see a direct correlation with less abortion. to me, abortion is a last option...but an option i ALWAYS want to see avaialble. as long as it is...i couldn't care less what anyone else thinks. as long as a woman has the choice to make for herself...good.
i've had enough abortion talk for one evening i think
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I understand angelicas point. The DNA you scrape off your face in the shower, is a lot different to the DNA of a forming embryo. For a start, the skin cells you wash away are already dead, they are not living tissue, nor are they complete DNA. An embryo is. It has all the DNA in place to form a new and unique human being. Dead skin cells don't.
The distinction though, is whether one considers an embryo a human being, or a potential human being. And if one considers it a potential human being, at what point does this become so. From a medical point of view, or biological one, it is a blastocyst from conception to around two weeks, a cluster of dividing cells. From two weeks to 12 weeks, it is an embryo. More than a cluster of cells, it has divided and grown to have tissue and partial organ systems. From 12 weeks to birth, it is a fetus. And medically, a fetus is not considered viable until 24 weeks. Thats not to say I agree with late abortions, which in my opinion, is beyond about 12 weeks.
The idea that abortion leads to psychological problems in women is a myth that has long-since been de-bunked. Just because someone has a website doesn't give credibility to the bullshit they post. As for the articles you listed, I'd like better sources, please.
Also, even if there was a correlation between high rates of abortion and high rates of psychological problems, that would in no way indicate causation. You could just as easily say that women with pre-existing mental instability are more likely to have abortions as you could say that women who have abortion are more likely to have mental instability.
I also appreciate your discernment and ability to see beyond bias.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Are you seriously quoting this BS as a legitimate medical source? A website that still says that abortion leads to breast cancer? That myth has been long-since de-bunked as well.
Here's what the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the National Cancer Institute have to say about it:
I find it very disturbing that anti-abortion people can be so quick to discard actual medical science.
Did you check the "After Abortion" site, where real women go dealing with the emotional/spiritual/physical traumas they've endured due to their abortions? It can't be denied. They post about this on the message board. Can you debunk that? Why would you want to deny what these women experience if you are concerned for women?
from the afterabortion.com site:
"I just finished browsing the "Sarafem" (softer name for prozac) website http://www.sarafem.com, and learning about Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder, (PMDD) which is the new 'official' medically approved diagnostic name for pre-menstrual syndrome. The Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical company has unveiled a new advertising campaign to help women with this problem, (the help being their medication) and to promote understanding and awareness of PMDD as a real health issue for women.
So Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder joins Post Partum Depression, as another hormone - related illness for women, that is recognized as 'real' by the medical community, has a name, and can be treated. PMDD is estimated to affect 5 to 10% of women in their childbearing years. PPD is estimated to affect 20% of women who have given birth.
There's another similar condition for women, that affects an unknown number of women, called Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS). PASS is not medically recognized as a 'real' problem, nor does it have the backing of the at-large medical community.
Why not?
Because PASS is stuck in the political war of abortion. Because of politics and money, "PASS" is not recognized as real, yet PMDD and PPD are. Women suffering from PMDD and PPD are given help, support and treatment. Women with PASS are not, and are left to suffer alone, in silence.
Let's start with the politics angle. There's nothing political about PMDD or a menstrual period. Every woman, Christian, Atheist, prochoice, prolife, gets their period. And a prochoicer wouldn't complain about women getting treated for PMDD, or say that it hurts the cause of women's freedom of choice. A prolifer would not use Post Partum Depression as a way to try and discourage childbirth, and say that childbirth or menstruation 'hurts' women, or that childbirth is 'killing' women. (even though some women die from childbirth complications). Those issues are non-political women's health issues. There's no 'bad side' to be on with these problems.
Yet with Post Abortion Stress Syndrome, it's very different. If a woman suffers from PASS after an abortion, the concern for her actual health problem disappears, and she becomes a pawn in the rhetoric of the abortion war. She gets no official treatment or support for her health problem. She gets told what she is experiencing does not exist, or 'only happens to women with previous psychological problems'. (As if having a previous psychological problem would suddenly mean that you wouldn't need treatment, support or help for your new problem!?)
The prochoice majority says PASS 'does not exist', and that anti-abortionists are using it to try and scare women away from abortion, and to try to influence lawmakers that abortion is dangerous. The prolifers agree that PASS exists, but they use it (as the prochoicers fear) as a way to discourage abortion, and as a way to help revoke abortion rights. The woman who is suffering is left alone, as the two sides argue, and the medical community stays out of it.
The medical community does not acknowledge PASS as real, because they don't have enough scientific information from research. Where does the money to do research come from? Grants from pharmaceutical companies. The drug companies that fund medical research that allows a disorder to be diagnosed and 'medically accepted' will not go anywhere near research for PASS. Why? Because they don't want to touch the political suicide that anything related to abortion is. RU-486 is being manufactured in China, because no American drug company even considered making it.
The recent RU-486 FDA approval sparked ongoing protests and boycotts of the Searle company that manufactured only a 'partner' drug (Misoprostol aka Cytotec) that works with RU-486. RU-486 is normally used in combination with Misoprostol (Cytotec), an ulcer drug that also causes uterine contractions. RU-486 blocks progesterone, a hormone needed to maintain pregnancy, in a woman's body, and Cytotec, taken a few days later, causes her to miscarry the disrupted pregnancy. Even though Cytotec has been used successfully and safely with RU-486 in Europe over the past ten years, Searle could not take the political pressure. The protest was so strong that it prompted the Searle company to send a letter out warning doctors "not to prescribe the drug to induce an abortion, and only to use it for it's 'approved' use, ulcer treatments."
There is such an uproar over anything related to abortion, that drug companies don't want to fund any research into anything abortion related. Why jeopardize the profitability of all their base drugs, by looking into something controversial, that may bring them protests and boycotts from both sides of the abortion war, regardless of how their research turns out?
So without research dollars to fund the studies, the medical community must keep to it's current theory, that PASS 'does not exist'. Numerous medical illnesses never existed until companies thought they might be able to create a drug to treat them, and therefore make a profit. Once enough money was spent on research for them, the diseases became 'real', and were accepted and promoted as such. PMDD and PPD were two such illnesses. As in the past were schizophrenia, manic depression, high blood pressure and AIDS. But when these illnesses were not 'recognized' by the medical community, and did not have an official name or recommended treatment from the medical community yet, did that mean these diseases did not exist? Does that mean no one suffered, before an official name, treatment and official diagnosis was announced? Of course not.
Even though the causes and reasons for PASS are similar to those for PMDD and PPD, PASS is not recognized as a 'real' illness. The causes of PASS are theorized by me to be hormonal and situational. This has proven to be correct again and again, by women who come to the PASS website, (http://www.afterabortion.com) for help. So are the causes of PMDD and PPD.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
exactly.
there is distinction to be made...at least for many of us.
i believe, my stats may not be entirely accurate but i am far too lazy to verify
and i point this out again b/c it is true...it is NOT 'unnatural'...it is man-made 'law'....or religious belief...or whatever else...that we arbitrarily may make the distinction of the 'sanctity' of life. and many may argue that's what makes us 'better' than animals and fine if that is what you believe...but it's still an arbitrary destinction...and a choice.
interestingly...i think it was outofbreath? who a long while ago had placed some quiz here and it dealt with different cultures, and scenarios...and what is acceptable or not and would we agree or not on the rightness or wrongness of certain issues...based on knowing what different groups viewed. it IS a choice we all make, and partly b/c we can...b/c we are human......but it's a distinction we MAKE...and choose....and it certainly is not right or wrong...or going against nature, etc. it's just a choice.
and again.......lots of women may have problems after abortion...and lots of women may not. the statistics go both ways...depending on what you choose to read.....so neither is 'definitive' for what experience a woman may or may not have. neither scenario should factor into ever disallowing each individual woman the CHOICE to make for herself. lots of people go thru traumas after deaths, divorce, numerous life events...some of their choosing, some totally out of their control.....such is life.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
But those that do get support, help, and recognition of their problem.
Not every woman who has a baby suffers from PPD
But those that do get support, help, and recognition of their problem.
Not every woman who has an abortion suffers from PASS
But those that do get nothing. They are ignored.
We are out here. Don't ignore us any more."
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!