Really?

Here's something from the afterabortion's website:

Tell me that's not biased.

And it took me a bit to discover this, but afterabortion.org IS the Elliot Institute (or vice-versa).

The TITLE of Elliot's home page is "Who Should Play God?"

Would you accept me quoting something form the Guttmacher Institute? (In case you don't know who they are, they do get funding from Planned Parenthood)

Tell you what. It's been a long time since I've done this debate - I avoid it becuase of the intense emotional responses that happen. But I'll see if I can find reference to some of what you've quoted in peer-reviewed medical journals. I don't have much time for it this weekend but I'll keep this in mind.

So far, this has avoided the name-calling and vitriol that usually walks in the door with an abortion argument - but it's still emotionally charged. After all, we're talking about the number one purpose of our DNA - reproduction.

Funny thing about funding and opinions. The Warmists get all their ammunition for their side of the Global Warming debate from organizations that take government money. Very few organizations are actually unbiased in some way. They all need money.

Why would I call you a name other than djplong? I will tell you that it is not as biased as you claim. I get the impression that the website people gathered the information from reputable sources. Did you miss these references at the bottom of my post?
1 Southern Medical Journal 2002
2 Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987 - 1994, M. Gissler At All Acta Obstet. Gynecal. Scandi 76, 1997, p. 651-657, graphs from Elliot Institute.
3 British Medical Journal 2002
4 American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2000
5 American Journal of Ortho Psychiatry 2002
6 Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2002
7 American Journal of Ob-Gyn 2002
8 Medical Science Monitor 2003

djplong~ Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood has vested interest in the results of any research...money to be made. I, and the anti-abortion.org people, make no money either way.

Katz - It's easy to believe at face value that you certainly make nothing from the debate. However, just because someone claims to be a non-profit doesn't mean there's no profit there. Let me stress I'm not making accusations but we've all see enough cases where the non-profit status is abused that it doesn't mean anything at face value (Churches, anyone?)

And, no, I wasn't saying you were or WOULD name-call. I was appreciating the fact that you didn't as I've gotten into these discussions on other forums and it DOES have a tendency to degenerate quickly.

To be honest, it's one of the reasons I stick around here. Despite the expected frustrations, there's a lot more civility here than in other places and that's something to be applauded.

Katz: Just for the heck of it, I started looking at your first reference.

First, it's hard to find the actual article, but I did. I'm a bit curious as to why they limited the study to women who's first pregnancy was either an abortiion or live birth. I mean, why not include more for a bigger sample?

Either way - I found the following passage very enlightening:

Once again, abortion looking like the SYMPTOM, not the disease. I'd love to know what the numbers would be for those who had abortions AND live births.

To it's credit, the study DOES say that there are a lot more factors they would have liked to have been able to include in their study.

For this study to make any sense it would have had to compare death rates of those who first had a live birth and then had an abortion with those who had an abortion without a live birth.

Not sure who can refute these stats...The data that I presented on my earlier post had referenced footnotes as follows:
1 Southern Medical Journal 2002
2 Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987 - 1994, M. Gissler At All Acta Obstet. Gynecal. Scandi 76, 1997, p. 651-657, graphs from Elliot Institute.
3 British Medical Journal 2002
4 American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2000
5 American Journal of Ortho Psychiatry 2002
6 Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2002
7 American Journal of Ob-Gyn 2002
8 Medical Science Monitor 2003

Are you saying that all of these medical journals are in error?

No, I said I took a look at the first one, for starters, and I'll take a look at more over time.

I even quoted from the study. I think ladydoc's point is that the sample was a bit restrictive - concentrating on "first and only" pregnancies. Remember, the study hypothesized why the numbers came out the way they did - because of other factors before the abortion or live birth.

OK, I understand after a good nights sleep! Sorry djplong...I replied after a few Killian's and a ridiculous ND loss to USC...:(


What are Ladydoc's credentials that she can state "for this study to make any sense it would have had to (do something different than what was done)..." ??? The fact remains that this study is a valid study that was deemed worthy to be published by Southern Medical!

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.short

Recently published study found that 81 percent of women experienced a higher risk of mental health issues following an abortion...
"British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP), a journal published by Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists released Coleman’s study entitled “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” that critically reviewed the results of 22 previous studies on abortion and mental health published between 1995-2009. These 22 studies included data on 877,181 women from six countries, 163,831 of whom had experienced an abortion.

The results revealed moderate to high increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Women with a history of abortion had an 81% higher risk of subsequent mental health problems. More specifically, the study found that women with a history of abortion had an increased risk of anxiety (34% higher), depression (37% higher), alcohol (110% higher), marijuana use (220% higher), and suicidal behavior (155% higher)."

...it's not like giving birth is a guarantee against mental health issues. I can't tell you the hell I went through with my ex-wife's post-partum depression.

In all seriousness, even the other study presented the idea that the increase in depression, alcohol use and other things might have been because of pre-existing circumstances. In other words, they were depressed, so they got an abortion instead of carrying to term, etc.. And, not doubting the findings, but I wonder what the term "history of abortion" means - one, two, many? Just to clarify what their frame of reference was.

OK...I will drop the subject then. I won't take it personally since it appears that you are not open to even what documented valid medical reseach, and findings published in established medical journals have to say. :oops: Thanks!

I just finished reading this article AND ALL THE ASSOCIATED reviews and comments on it. Flawed methodology, bias (the authors of the study used a lot of THEIR OWN studies in the review), flawed analysis, poorly defined groups, etc.

WOW...Maybe you should write to the British Journal of Psychiatry and let them know that they don't know what the heck they are doing! :oops:...You have opened my eyes and I will no longer believe any links that are posted on this forum. If the BJP can't get it right, who can?!?!?