Ms. Thomas...from research and the personal accounts I've read, it sounds like women who were mentally unstable to begin with, and who chose abortion, may tend to go off the deep-end afterwards and blame their continued mental problems on the abortion. These women need counseling and/or help for the problems they had PRIOR to having an abortion. The abortion seems to just exacerbate their mental illnesses, whether it is in the form of continuing their depression/self-loathing or destructive behavior like drug abuse.

POST ABORTION SYNDROME

The women I know who had abortions, were mentally stable and healthy prior to the procedure and went on to have normal lives, marriages and healthy children. I can understand when a woman who has mental problems, depression, drug/alcohol abuse has an abortion, this could send her over the edge. It's easier to blame continued mental illness on a past abortion than on ones own problems or instability. And it's a shame that the anti-choice crowd has exploited these women and put them on their own soapbox to spout off about how abortions ruined their lives, trying to make other women feel guilty for their own choices.

Muddle, I would love to see an article someday that focuses on why women/girls feel it is better to bring a baby to term in their bodies, birth the child, and then kill the infant by throwing it in a dumpster or drown it in a toilet. Why is this more humane than choosing to terminate their pregnancy early on, say within the first trimester? Is it because of all the guilt they feel, brought on by the anti-choice movement that preaches about the evils of abortion and PAS? Do these young girls feel so horribly guilty at the thought of having an abortion and so birthing the baby frees them from this evil deed, only to toss the baby into a garbage bag instead? This way they can say, "See, I didn't have an evil abortion... all is okay!"

Muddle, I would love to see an article someday that focuses on why women/girls feel it is better to bring a baby to term in their bodies, birth the child, and then kill the infant by throwing it in a dumpster or drown it in a toilet. Why is this more humane than choosing to terminate their pregnancy early on, say within the first trimester?

It would have to be by a psychiatrist as such thinking would be horribly confused if not depraved.

There is, of course, nothing about the belief that abortion kills human beings that suggests that such would be a reasonable practical inference.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

Thanks for this reply.

I would indeed like to talk with you some more. I do have some questions.

I went to the OO website and, though I found you listed as a state leader, I didn't see any contact info.

Perhaps you can use the contact link here on The Citizen to send me an email.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

Since you seem to value objectivity and independence, did you know (and just not mention) that Mr.Blum is past president of the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood's stat group) and he has received money from Planned Parenthood of Maryland?

Now that wouldn't bias his inclusion/exclusion of certain facts would it?? Nah, of course not.

Stop the Torture (of the American people)

I see you are regurgitating the talking points of the fringe group known as the Family Research Council.

Dr. Blum has specifically denied every receiving any funding from Planned Parenthood of Maryland.

He WAS the past president of the Guttmacher Institute, from 1999 to 2002. The Guttmacher Institute was a subsidiary of Planned Parenthood from 1968 until 1977, at which time it was spun off as an independent research entity. A twenty-two year (1999 - 1977 = 22 in most non-faith-based textbooks) gap makes for an extremely tenuous connection.

Don't stop flinging those "kill the messenger" tidbits, though! I enjoy making you look foolish!

Best,
Sniffles

This is an interesting observation that certainly helps to neutralize the findings given the fact that the pro-abortion people charge that "PAS" is a fabrication for political purposes. The knife cuts both ways, it seems.

Articles on PAS that I discovered in Ms. magazine and the NYT had such contempt for those claiming to find a correlation that they read like propaganda.

Also, Blum's study could not include three very recent studies--two in the British Journal of Psychiatry and one in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, that found strong correlations between abortion and mental health problems (as well as drug and alcohol abuse).

My jury is out. But it is utter nonsense to suppose up front that the pro-choice people are objectivity personified while the pro-lifers engage in scientific sleight of hand to achieve desired results.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

I read the Ms. article and found it to be very informative. I can see why people on the right might consider it to be "propaganda".

Insofar as those 3 new studies are concerned, you are correct, Blum's research could not have included them as Blum's study was submitted for peer-review prior to the publication of those studies.

In any event, the Journal of Psychiatric Research paper was written by a Dr. Priscilla Coleman. It's worth pointing out that Dr. Coleman's last research paper, also dealing with abortion, was thoroughly discredited as having fatally flawed research procedures, which when corrected actually proved the reverse of Dr.Coleman's conclusions. As such, I would look at any purported "research" from Priscilla Coleman with an especially jaundiced eye, owing to her history of scientific sleight-of-hand!

My aim is eventually to arrive at a conclusion about where the research points; not settle on one in advance.

I wonder what you suppose an unassailable case for PAS would do to your pro-choice cause. Suppose that two or three or ten impeccable studies found strong and undeniable correlations. So what? As I suggested before, it would be grounds for pushing the banning of abortion only in the event that we were to accept laws that are paternalistic in nature.

For the record, I am inclined to say "So what?" should it turn out that most women are simply relieved by the whole procedure.

Consider this bit from the NYT piece I mentioned. It's from an interview with Frank Beckwith, a philosopher at Baylor and someone for whom I have a great deal of respect:

Francis Beckwith, a professor of church-state studies at Baylor University who is anti-abortion, has criticized abortion-recovery activists for their “questionable interpretation of social-science data” and for potentially undermining the absolutist moral argument against abortion. “For every woman who has suffered trauma as a result of an abortion, I bet you could find half a dozen who would say it was the best decision they ever made,” he told me. “And in any case, suffering isn’t the same as immorality.” Beckwith speaks at churches and colleges, and he says that most anti-abortion leaders don’t want the woman-protective argument to supersede the traditional fetus-centered focus, “because that’s where the real moral force is.”

I don't know yet whether I agree with Beckwith's apparent suggestion that people are playing fast and loose with the numbers in the interest of advancing a pro-life cause.

But I have come into this study with precisely the same instinct: the argument should be a moral one or nothing at all. As I said in the original post, Reardon's tactics strike me as pragmatic.

It is for sophists and rhetoricians to value persuasiveness over substance, based on the propensities of the audience. But this is unbecoming of philosophers.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

But I have come into this study with precisely the same instinct: the argument should be a moral one or nothing at all.

The 'moral' issue that I struggle with is 'when does life begin'? Is life an accumulation of cells - and material? Or is life the spiritual essence of a man? Is the accumulation of cells considered alive before it 'cries' - expressing the breath of life? I ponder the research done by the medical field as to when the fetus is capable of 'crying'. Looking forward to your article. I hope you share it with us.

I'll certainly take the Johns-Hopkins study into account.

But why would you think that my parenthetical note either "gratuitous" or "sophomoric"? My main point in that bulleted section of the post is that, even if there are hardwired instincts awaiting in the offing, whether they kick in depends upon a certain amount of cognitive input. My comment there is simply that the post-abortion syndrome likely requires certain background beliefs about the actual implications of the procedure, and if those background beliefs do not already involve a part of the pro-life agenda, then the "trauma" is far less likely. So, in a way, the pro-life "post-abortion syndrome" argument is question-begging. So the point is, at bottom, critical of this particular proposed pro-life strategy.

The parenthetical note is to indicate that I think that a good case may be made for the moral standing of the fetus. I assure you that, whether you find it convincing or not, the case is hardly "sophomoric." It is the result of years of reflection and involves more general tools acquired from doing moral philosophy and other areas of philosophical inquiry.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

The use of sophomoric to describe what you said is meant, I think, to indicate that you are faking it!
Maybe you are and maybe you are not, but the act of abortion isn't resolved as good or bad by any amount of reflection or study! It is either wrong or not wrong if done unnecessarily.

Whether a person thinks it is wrong or right---or doesn't think anything much about it one way or the other, another possibility, doesn't much matter.

We have had enough deciding by learned men over the last several thousand years to do us a life time, I think.
An example: a bunch of dudes decided once upon a time what to include in the New Testament and what not to include.
Now if we are dumb enough to think that all we have to do is allow such people as those "scholars" to tell us how to save our souls, then we are going to be lucky if we make it to the golden streets.

It seems to me that organized religion (go to church, pray, sing, etc.) every week, is a bunch of rules to follow so that we all will be in the same boat!

I think most of us know in our own mind whether we are deserving.

Two common fallacies appear in your post:

I am a male so my thinking here is irrelevant in my opinion.

People say this confidently as though it is axiomatic. But it's downright silly.

What in the world could a person's gender have to do with whether they are able to think well about these issues? Suppose you read someone's post on such things and you think, "This makes a lot of sense." Later, you learn the the author was male. Must you suddenly discount the ideas there?

Either an argument has true premises and a valid form or it does not. Whether this is so has nothing to do with the anatomical undercarriage of the person offering it.

What I don't really understand is where this situation becomes something relevant to having laws regulating it, or to hundreds of church groups pounding upon those making such decisions!

Isn't it a personal decision, as is to get pregnant?

It never ceases to amaze me how people--usually those of a pro-choice persuasion--blithely assert that it is a personal choice. The assertion involves question-begging. It is an intensely personal choice and no one else's business just in case the pro-lifers are mistaken in their belief about the moral status of the fetus.

Here's an answer to your question. Ready? Those who are opposed to abortion believe, most of them, that it involves the unjustified taking of human life. If they are right, then there is splendid reason for thinking that there is more going on here than a "personal decision."

It is reasonable to argue with them and seek to show that they are mistaken in believing that the fetus has moral standing, rights or dignity.

And it is also relevant to seek to argue that even if the fetus has a right to life, certain of the woman's rights trump the rights of the fetus.

But it is irresponsible to continue, as so many do, simply to ignore the grave claim that abortion kills human beings.

(The above applies in the same way to those who claim to see a "contradiction" between the "republican desire for smaller government and less governmental intervention," on the one hand, and a desire to have abortion regulated or banned. Consistency is found in the belief that abortion kills human beings and that individual liberties can and should be curtailed when it is to prevent harm to people.)

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

That you are to make an argument that the whole problem involves whether a pregnant woman allows murder or not!

As to gender, I can't get pregnant muddle! I have no real argument since I disagree with your premise that reading others opinion, literate or not, is what I should make my judgement upon. As I said before such literate people made many mistaken decisions in the past; don't eat pig, fish on Friday, twenty wives, etc.

I do realize the value of research and study. It is especially helpful in medicine and war. But when it comes to morals and government I have my doubts.

Want to give me your researched opinion on death concerning the approximate 100,000 innocent deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq by bombs, rockets, bullets, and poison and torture? Necessity, I suppose, justifies murder?

Stay out of a woman's womb. They know whether they will start a fad or whether they will go to hell or not!
How does it effect you or not?
Do you wish to adopt maybe several thousand in just South Atlanta?

Who starved 3 million 1800s Irish?
England took everything else fit to eat!
This argument can not be won! It is private as is shooting an enemy.

Main's suggestion is a good one. If your article is for a conservative-leaning magazine - I'm sure 'post-abortion syndrome' will meet their editorial needs. I don't think ‘PAS’ is a fallacy, based on my limited knowledge of friends and acquaintances that have had abortions. I strongly feel that families, religious leaders, and others who have an influence on young lives need to do a better job of teaching principled behavior; sex education; etc. I do not believe that government control/punishment is the answer to the 'abortion' issue. I would hate to see the return of 'hanger' abortions for those who can't afford a medical solution. A scientific study based on research of women who have experienced the 'abortion' procedure might shed more light on the subject. Women can 'abort' without an invasive surgical procedure. Is that included in the 'murder' indictment of one who causes an abortion?
According to the Bible– it was the breath of life when man became a living soul. Is ‘man’ a living soul without the breath of life? The Catholic Church and the medical profession have spoken on this issue. Bearing a child is a marvelous gift – which has great emotional and physical joy and stress. I do understand a woman’s feeling of relief if she finds she is NOT WITH CHILD. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.