Last week, The Pro-Woman Pro-Lifer wrote about the concerns of a client she was pregnancy counseling. Was it her goals, dreams, and future? Her partner? Finances? Nope. She did have some concerns about her future, but she was able to work around those things. Her primary concern was her church. She's Catholic and lives in a small town. She expressed that she was concerned what others in her church would think of her and if they'd ridicule her for becoming pregnant outside of marriage. Most of the more conservative church's, including the Catholic Church, often teach and discourage sex outside of marriage, but that's not the issue. It's how they respond to women who've become pregnant....
A woman pregnant outside of wedlock may be shunned by those around her. I can understand why they wouldn't want to come off as condoning sex outside of marriage, but at the same time, they are essentially ostracizing and condemning woman who become pregnant out of wedlock. In the post, the PWPL pointed out to one of her pregnant clients, "how hypocritical it is for the church (Catholic or Protestant) to teach that abortion is murder and then shun women who decide not to have one." Eventhough the church teaches abortion is wrong, a woman may feel having an abortion is better than the shame and stigma of having the baby. It's no wonder that according to the Alan Guttmacher Institue, a large percentage of women who've had an abortion are Christian. According to the Pro-Woman Pro-Lifer, "The main focus should be to show them how helping pregnant women remain pregnant makes you feel good and does the work of Christ. That way, should she become pregnant, she'll know you won't ostracize her or judge her (or fire her). Preach the Gospel, and when necessary, use words. Teach them that children are a blessing that can be brought out of a bad decision, but abortion is a bad decision brought out of another bad decision."
Related Links of Interest:
U.S. and International Crisis Hotlines
If You Have An Adverse Pregnancy or Prenatal Diagnosis
If You're Facing an Unplanned or Unwanted Pregnancy
Various Religious Groups Beliefs on Abortion
Related Stories:
An unmarried Catholic school teacher named Michelle McCusker was fired after she told her employers that she was pregnant.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-teacher26nov26,0,1503042.story?coll=la-home-nation
My Life in Reflection
Monday, November 28, 2005
Thursday, November 24, 2005
The Search for A Perfect Baby in an Imperfect World
Perfect Baby Syndrome
by Gina R. Dalfonzo
Bill and Emma Keller had a terrible decision to make. The tests showed something was wrong with their unborn child. He wasn’t growing properly, and it appeared his organs weren’t developing well.
Bill and Emma were torn over what to do. But Emma’s obstetrician knew. “We know you can get pregnant easily,” she told Emma. “Why risk an unhappy outcome?” She suggested an abortion. Other doctors they consulted also expected them to abort.
Eliminating problems
The remarkable unanimity of the Kellers’ physicians demonstrates a subtle but important shift in the way our society thinks about those with disabilities. As technology improves, more and more women will be able to find out whether their unborn children have abnormalities.
Our culture has bought into the bizarre idea that the best way to eliminate certain illnesses is simply to eliminate people who are ill before they have a chance to be born. It’s like a passage out of Madeleine L’Engle’s famous novel A Wrinkle in Time, where three children discover a planet that has “conquered all illness, all deformity,” because they have decided that “it is so much kinder simply to annihilate anyone who is ill.”
Picking and choosing
But we’ve gone even further in our quest for perfection. New techniques enable couples to choose the sex of their children — and if the procedure accidentally produces the wrong gender, the parents can eliminate the results and start again. Genetic engineering is rapidly advancing so parents will be able to create stronger, smarter, better-looking babies, raising the possibility of a world where anyone who hasn’t been artificially enhanced is seen as inferior.
How have we reached the stage where such manipulation — and destruction — have become viable options for parents? Its roots go back to Roe v. Wade, which changed the way many of us view our children and those with disabilities. The legal right to end the life of one’s unborn child transformed the parent-child relationship in ways the Supreme Court justices probably never anticipated.
In many ways, we now treat the unborn child more as a piece of property than as a sacred human life — a piece of property that must meet the buyer’s standard or be thrown away.
In an April 2004 article for The Weekly Standard, Gordon College professor Agnes Howard puts it this way: “Already we act as though what gives moral standing to pregnancy is the choosing of it, preferably in advance, if necessary after the fact, but always the conscious determination to continue rather than end it. . . . To universalize genetic diagnosis is to entrench even more deeply than we already have the idea that a baby becomes a baby only when we choose to grant that status — if and when it passes genetic muster.”
Sadly, the story of Bill and Emma Keller perfectly illustrates this attitude. For a long time, they held out hope that their unborn child, whom they called “Charlie,” might be normal. But as time went on, it became less and less likely. They lost hope that their child’s life would be worth living, or that his life would be worth their time and energy, not to mention the risk to Emma’s health.
“Facing the prospect of a greater heartbreak, watching a child die or suffer inconsolably, or exhausting the emotional resources needed for two other children, we decided to end it,” Bill Keller wrote in The New York Times. “The last thing Emma was aware of before surrendering to the anesthetic was Charlie kicking madly.”
According to the article, the Kellers still mourn the loss of Charlie. But they have since had a baby girl, who is — fortunately for her — normal.
The search for the perfect baby may sound harmless enough on the surface. But Charlie Keller is only one of its countless victims.
By destroying children like him; by forgetting the words of the One who said, “Whatever you did to the one of the least of these . . . you did to Me” — we may defeat certain diseases, but the price is our own moral and spiritual health.
Gina R. Dalfonzo is a writer for Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint program.
This article appeared in Focus on the Family magazine.
Copyright © 2005 Focus on the Family.
All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
http://www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0035105.cfm
H/T to Luke'smom6 over at Baby Center's Carrying Pregnancy to Term Despite Fatal Prenatal Diagnosis Board
by Gina R. Dalfonzo
Bill and Emma Keller had a terrible decision to make. The tests showed something was wrong with their unborn child. He wasn’t growing properly, and it appeared his organs weren’t developing well.
Bill and Emma were torn over what to do. But Emma’s obstetrician knew. “We know you can get pregnant easily,” she told Emma. “Why risk an unhappy outcome?” She suggested an abortion. Other doctors they consulted also expected them to abort.
Eliminating problems
The remarkable unanimity of the Kellers’ physicians demonstrates a subtle but important shift in the way our society thinks about those with disabilities. As technology improves, more and more women will be able to find out whether their unborn children have abnormalities.
Our culture has bought into the bizarre idea that the best way to eliminate certain illnesses is simply to eliminate people who are ill before they have a chance to be born. It’s like a passage out of Madeleine L’Engle’s famous novel A Wrinkle in Time, where three children discover a planet that has “conquered all illness, all deformity,” because they have decided that “it is so much kinder simply to annihilate anyone who is ill.”
Picking and choosing
But we’ve gone even further in our quest for perfection. New techniques enable couples to choose the sex of their children — and if the procedure accidentally produces the wrong gender, the parents can eliminate the results and start again. Genetic engineering is rapidly advancing so parents will be able to create stronger, smarter, better-looking babies, raising the possibility of a world where anyone who hasn’t been artificially enhanced is seen as inferior.
How have we reached the stage where such manipulation — and destruction — have become viable options for parents? Its roots go back to Roe v. Wade, which changed the way many of us view our children and those with disabilities. The legal right to end the life of one’s unborn child transformed the parent-child relationship in ways the Supreme Court justices probably never anticipated.
In many ways, we now treat the unborn child more as a piece of property than as a sacred human life — a piece of property that must meet the buyer’s standard or be thrown away.
In an April 2004 article for The Weekly Standard, Gordon College professor Agnes Howard puts it this way: “Already we act as though what gives moral standing to pregnancy is the choosing of it, preferably in advance, if necessary after the fact, but always the conscious determination to continue rather than end it. . . . To universalize genetic diagnosis is to entrench even more deeply than we already have the idea that a baby becomes a baby only when we choose to grant that status — if and when it passes genetic muster.”
Sadly, the story of Bill and Emma Keller perfectly illustrates this attitude. For a long time, they held out hope that their unborn child, whom they called “Charlie,” might be normal. But as time went on, it became less and less likely. They lost hope that their child’s life would be worth living, or that his life would be worth their time and energy, not to mention the risk to Emma’s health.
“Facing the prospect of a greater heartbreak, watching a child die or suffer inconsolably, or exhausting the emotional resources needed for two other children, we decided to end it,” Bill Keller wrote in The New York Times. “The last thing Emma was aware of before surrendering to the anesthetic was Charlie kicking madly.”
According to the article, the Kellers still mourn the loss of Charlie. But they have since had a baby girl, who is — fortunately for her — normal.
The search for the perfect baby may sound harmless enough on the surface. But Charlie Keller is only one of its countless victims.
By destroying children like him; by forgetting the words of the One who said, “Whatever you did to the one of the least of these . . . you did to Me” — we may defeat certain diseases, but the price is our own moral and spiritual health.
Gina R. Dalfonzo is a writer for Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint program.
This article appeared in Focus on the Family magazine.
Copyright © 2005 Focus on the Family.
All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
http://www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0035105.cfm
H/T to Luke'smom6 over at Baby Center's Carrying Pregnancy to Term Despite Fatal Prenatal Diagnosis Board
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Abortion: A Solution to Pregnancy from Rape?
I've seen some interesting commentary going on in reply to a post over at Abortion Clinic Days which got me thinking about my own stance on rape and abortion. I understand and sympathise with the woman who has been raped and support theraputic abortion in the case of rape. However, I'm concerned that societal stigma and well-meaning families and doctors are pressuring women who've become pregnant as a result of rape to have abortions and it's not a decision freely chosen by women. Also, I'm concerned that women are being mislead into believing that having an abortion and erasing the pregnancy will help bring them healing or closure from their rape, which they may not so easily find.
Caution: This post is an expression of my own personal opinions and views. This post is of a contraversial and sensitive topic, and may be a trigger for those who have experienced rape and/or abortion. I only recommend continuing to read this post and responses if you feel that you're at a place where you've found healing/peace and you are ready for often strong and opposing political views. If this posts upsets you or makes you feel uncomfortable in any way, this may not be the right time for you to read this and you may want to come back at a later time. Thank you.
A woman who has been raped has been physically assaulted, personally violated, and left with her an enormous and long-lasting trauma. In the case of rape and abuse, where she has been violated against her will, understandably there is a sense of loss of control over one's life. There are several essential needs at this point 1) address her physical needs by providing adequate medical care in the post-rape physical exam to treat for possible STDs and to prevent pregnancy, while respecting her privacy and the sensitivity of the situation 2) to address her emotional needs by providing non-judgmental support, understanding, and encouragement to seek professional counseling. 3) to stand by women and encourage them to report the rape early so that she can receive immediate medical treatment and so the rapist can be prosecuted so he won't trouble her or someone else again. We should provide a huge amount of support to help the woman report the rape. Only about 40% of rapes sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement in 2003(1).
In 2003, there were 198,850 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault sccording to the 2003 National Crime Victimization Survey. Unfortuantly, up to 4,065 pregnancies may have resulted from these attacks(1). Both sides of the debate typically accept the notion that women with a pregnancy resulting from a sexual assault would want an abortion and the abortion will some how help her heal or recover from the assault. "But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion."(2)Having an abortion is a major life event which is almost always stressful and sometimes even traumatic. Will an abortion truly help her, or will it only cause further hurt? "In answering this question, it is helpful to begin by noting that many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape"(3). Abortion involves an often intimate and painful examination of a woman's sexual organs. Also, once she is on the operating table, she must temporarily give up control of her body. This experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an assault(4).Second, research shows that after any abortion, it is common for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being "dirty," resentment of men, and lowered self-esteem. What is most significant is that these feelings are identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds to them."(6) Also, a woman may find that the emotional and physical hurts may still be there even after an abortion and she will still need lots of love, support, counseling, and time to heal.
Feelings of guilt, shame, devaluement, humiliation, and dirtiness are common reactions following a sexual assault. These may be further perpetuated by stereoptypes and myths about rape. A victim or rape may be stigmatized by her peers, friends, and even family. They may subtlly or not so sutly push for an abortion. "Feelings of guilt and shame are common reactions following a sexual assault. Because of misconceptions about rape, some victims blame themselves, doubt their own judgment, or wonder if they were in some way responsible for the assault. Feelings of guilt and self-blame may be reinforced by the reactions of others, who, because of prevalent myths about rape, may blame the victim or criticize his or her behavior."(6) Those encouraging abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with rape victims, or perhaps out of prejudice against victims whom they see as being "guilty for letting it happen. 'Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a "quick and easy" way to avoid dealing with the woman's true emotional, social and financial needs'(5). Keep in mind rape is usually a pre-meditated act of violence, of control and domination.
Also, those surrounding the woman (friends, co-workers, family) may harbor a sense of animosity towards a child concieved in rape and/or the child may be looked down upon unfavorably because of the circumstances surrounding her conception. The woman may be strongly pressured by those close to her and around her to have an abortion. Some may see wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. Another concern is that of will carrying to pregnancy to term cause the woman more emotional damage and serve as a reminder of the rape? The child of a rape will not necessarily cause further emotional damage to the mother. It may be in fact beneficial to her healing. Should she continue with the pregnancy, she may sense that if she can get through the pregnancy, she will have conquered the rape. Also, she might feel that she wants to rise above the violence done to her by protecting her child, has the ability to show compassion to her child, and prove to herself that she is brave and loving where the rapist was cowardly and hateful, that she is peaceful where he was violent, that she respects life where he tried to ruin hers. And so from that she may heal and grow stronger and prove to all that she is an infinitely better person that he could ever be(5). Also, by carrying the pregnancy to term, she would reveal the abuse which has happened to her.
A child conceived in rape may be labeled "the rapist's spawn" and even blamed for the rape or ruining the woman's life. No, harm was already done when he violated her. No one is to blame but the rapist for forcing the pregnancy on her. The child had no control over how he/she was conceived and is a second victim of the rape. Describing a child concieved in rape as
Regardless of the pregnancy outcome, a victim of rape still needs lots of love, support, and counseling, and time to heal.
If you have ever been raped, it's not too late to get help:
Call the RAINN hotline at 1.800.656.HOPE It's free and confidential.
or see my listing of hotlines for a complete list and international numbers.
State Laws on Statutes of Limitations
Books Suggested by Survivors
Understanding the Impact of Rape
Drugs Used in Rape
Works Cited: 1. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest Network's Statistic's page.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html
RAINN's "two and a half minute" calculation is based on 2003 National Crime Victimization Survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
2. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69
3. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978) 84-95, 167.; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 51, 126.
4. 3. Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987).
5. David C. Reardon, Ph.D. in Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths.
http://afterabortion.org/rape.html
6. Rape Treatment Center, Santa Monica - UCLA Rape Treatment Center
Impact of Rape: Self-Blame and Shame
http://66.216.123.69/RTC/Impact+of+Rape/Self-Blame+and+Shame/
I would like to thank the following sites for providing valuable insight and information: http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
http://www.rape-awareness.freewebspace.com/
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2402/
Caution: This post is an expression of my own personal opinions and views. This post is of a contraversial and sensitive topic, and may be a trigger for those who have experienced rape and/or abortion. I only recommend continuing to read this post and responses if you feel that you're at a place where you've found healing/peace and you are ready for often strong and opposing political views. If this posts upsets you or makes you feel uncomfortable in any way, this may not be the right time for you to read this and you may want to come back at a later time. Thank you.
A woman who has been raped has been physically assaulted, personally violated, and left with her an enormous and long-lasting trauma. In the case of rape and abuse, where she has been violated against her will, understandably there is a sense of loss of control over one's life. There are several essential needs at this point 1) address her physical needs by providing adequate medical care in the post-rape physical exam to treat for possible STDs and to prevent pregnancy, while respecting her privacy and the sensitivity of the situation 2) to address her emotional needs by providing non-judgmental support, understanding, and encouragement to seek professional counseling. 3) to stand by women and encourage them to report the rape early so that she can receive immediate medical treatment and so the rapist can be prosecuted so he won't trouble her or someone else again. We should provide a huge amount of support to help the woman report the rape. Only about 40% of rapes sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement in 2003(1).
In 2003, there were 198,850 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault sccording to the 2003 National Crime Victimization Survey. Unfortuantly, up to 4,065 pregnancies may have resulted from these attacks(1). Both sides of the debate typically accept the notion that women with a pregnancy resulting from a sexual assault would want an abortion and the abortion will some how help her heal or recover from the assault. "But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion."(2)Having an abortion is a major life event which is almost always stressful and sometimes even traumatic. Will an abortion truly help her, or will it only cause further hurt? "In answering this question, it is helpful to begin by noting that many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape"(3). Abortion involves an often intimate and painful examination of a woman's sexual organs. Also, once she is on the operating table, she must temporarily give up control of her body. This experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an assault(4).Second, research shows that after any abortion, it is common for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being "dirty," resentment of men, and lowered self-esteem. What is most significant is that these feelings are identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds to them."(6) Also, a woman may find that the emotional and physical hurts may still be there even after an abortion and she will still need lots of love, support, counseling, and time to heal.
Feelings of guilt, shame, devaluement, humiliation, and dirtiness are common reactions following a sexual assault. These may be further perpetuated by stereoptypes and myths about rape. A victim or rape may be stigmatized by her peers, friends, and even family. They may subtlly or not so sutly push for an abortion. "Feelings of guilt and shame are common reactions following a sexual assault. Because of misconceptions about rape, some victims blame themselves, doubt their own judgment, or wonder if they were in some way responsible for the assault. Feelings of guilt and self-blame may be reinforced by the reactions of others, who, because of prevalent myths about rape, may blame the victim or criticize his or her behavior."(6) Those encouraging abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with rape victims, or perhaps out of prejudice against victims whom they see as being "guilty for letting it happen. 'Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a "quick and easy" way to avoid dealing with the woman's true emotional, social and financial needs'(5). Keep in mind rape is usually a pre-meditated act of violence, of control and domination.
Also, those surrounding the woman (friends, co-workers, family) may harbor a sense of animosity towards a child concieved in rape and/or the child may be looked down upon unfavorably because of the circumstances surrounding her conception. The woman may be strongly pressured by those close to her and around her to have an abortion. Some may see wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. Another concern is that of will carrying to pregnancy to term cause the woman more emotional damage and serve as a reminder of the rape? The child of a rape will not necessarily cause further emotional damage to the mother. It may be in fact beneficial to her healing. Should she continue with the pregnancy, she may sense that if she can get through the pregnancy, she will have conquered the rape. Also, she might feel that she wants to rise above the violence done to her by protecting her child, has the ability to show compassion to her child, and prove to herself that she is brave and loving where the rapist was cowardly and hateful, that she is peaceful where he was violent, that she respects life where he tried to ruin hers. And so from that she may heal and grow stronger and prove to all that she is an infinitely better person that he could ever be(5). Also, by carrying the pregnancy to term, she would reveal the abuse which has happened to her.
A child conceived in rape may be labeled "the rapist's spawn" and even blamed for the rape or ruining the woman's life. No, harm was already done when he violated her. No one is to blame but the rapist for forcing the pregnancy on her. The child had no control over how he/she was conceived and is a second victim of the rape. Describing a child concieved in rape as
the rapist's babyimplies that he has some sort of ownership of the child that he forced upon the mother, and so implies that she can never truly take guardianship of the child and despite nurturing the child in her womb; that the child will always somehow be his or a monster like him in some way beyond mere genetics. The preborn child is an individual person in existence at fertilization and is not an extension of the father's body and is not a part of the mother's body. The child is more than just a product of rape, this is also her baby and individual human being. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding a child's conception, each child has worth and is deserving of love. How the child began is not what matters as much as a child raised with love, nuturing care, and encouragement so she can make the most of her life.
Regardless of the pregnancy outcome, a victim of rape still needs lots of love, support, and counseling, and time to heal.
If you have ever been raped, it's not too late to get help:
Call the RAINN hotline at 1.800.656.HOPE It's free and confidential.
or see my listing of hotlines for a complete list and international numbers.
State Laws on Statutes of Limitations
Books Suggested by Survivors
Understanding the Impact of Rape
Drugs Used in Rape
Works Cited: 1. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest Network's Statistic's page.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html
RAINN's "two and a half minute" calculation is based on 2003 National Crime Victimization Survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
2. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69
3. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978) 84-95, 167.; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 51, 126.
4. 3. Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987).
5. David C. Reardon, Ph.D. in Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths.
http://afterabortion.org/rape.html
6. Rape Treatment Center, Santa Monica - UCLA Rape Treatment Center
Impact of Rape: Self-Blame and Shame
http://66.216.123.69/RTC/Impact+of+Rape/Self-Blame+and+Shame/
I would like to thank the following sites for providing valuable insight and information: http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
http://www.rape-awareness.freewebspace.com/
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2402/
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Study Compares Depression with Abortion and Carrying to Term
Long-term Study Compares Depression with Abortion and Carrying to Term
Quoting from this site:
I do not have a response to this at this time; however, The Pro-Women Pro-Lifer has written a well-thought-out response to this study.
http://theprowomanprolifer.blogspot.com/2005/11/abortion-and-depression.html
David C. Reardon, Ph.D and author of the previous study responds to the new study and findings:
His response is the 5th one down and is called, "Study fails to address our previous findings and subject to misinterpretation."
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38623.532384.55v1
Also, After Abortion has a listing of medical research about the psychological aftermath of abortion
http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/08/medical-research-about-psychological.html
Quoting from this site:
Abortion doesn't raise depression risk: study showsThe complete study can be found at: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38623.532384.55v1.pdf
Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:53 PM BST
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Among women with an unwanted pregnancy, those who carry the pregnancy to term are more likely to experience later depression than those who terminate the pregnancy with an abortion, new study findings suggest.
Well-designed studies have generally shown that abortion does not contribute to an increased risk of depression, Dr. Sarah Schmiege and Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo note in their report in BMJ Online First, published October 28.
However, one previous study examining these associations among women with an unwanted first pregnancy found that induced abortion was associated with a higher risk of depression than a pregnancy carried to term.
But Schmiege, from the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Russo, from Arizona State University in Tempe, believe this analysis was flawed.
For their study, they identified a large group of women ages 14 to 21 in 1979 who had an unwanted pregnancy between 1970 and 1992 and for whom personal and outcome data were available. The women were interviewed over several years to examine the relation between pregnancy outcome and later depression.
The authors found that terminating compared to delivering an unwanted first pregnancy was not directly related to risk of depression. Instead, women who delivered before 1980 had a much higher risk of depression than all other groups.
These findings "directly contradict the claim that terminating an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression, particularly for younger women," Schmiege and Russo contend.
Their analysis also showed that women who had aborted a pregnancy had significantly higher mean education attainment and income and lower total family size. These factors could explain the higher risk of depression among women who don't abort an unwanted pregnancy.
"This suggests that if the goal is to reduce women's risk for depression, research should focus on how to prevent and ameliorate the effect of unwanted childbearing, particularly for younger women," the authors conclude.
I do not have a response to this at this time; however, The Pro-Women Pro-Lifer has written a well-thought-out response to this study.
http://theprowomanprolifer.blogspot.com/2005/11/abortion-and-depression.html
David C. Reardon, Ph.D and author of the previous study responds to the new study and findings:
His response is the 5th one down and is called, "Study fails to address our previous findings and subject to misinterpretation."
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38623.532384.55v1
Also, After Abortion has a listing of medical research about the psychological aftermath of abortion
http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/08/medical-research-about-psychological.html
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Hurricane Katrina - How You Can Help the Victims
Now in the aftermath and ruins of Hurrican Katrina, the victims need your help in re-building their lives. The following is a list of agencies providing relief efforts. Volunteer agencies provide a wide variety of services after disasters, such as clean up, childcare, housing repair, crisis counseling, sheltering and food.
Here is a list of phone numbers set up solely for cash donations and/or volunteers.
Donate cash to:
American Red Cross
1-800-HELP NOW (435-7669) English,
1-800-257-7575 Spanish;
America’s Second Harvest
1-800-344-8070
Humane Society of the United States
1-888-259-5431
Operation Blessing
1-800-436-6348
United Jewish Communities
1-877-277-2477
Donate Cash and/or Volunteer:
Adventist Community Services
1-800-381-7171
B'nai B'rith International
1-888-388-4224
Catholic Charities, USA
1-800-919-9338
Christian Disaster Response
941-956-5183 or 941-551-9554
Christian Reformed World Relief Committee
1-800-848-5818
Church World Service
1-800-297-1516
Convoy of Hope
417-823-8998
Corporation for National and Community Service Disaster Relief Fund
(202) 606-6718
Disaster Psychiatry Outreach
1-212-598-9995
Feed the Children
1-800-525-7575
Lutheran Disaster Response
800-638-3522
Mennonite Disaster Service
717-859-2210
Nazarene Disaster Response
888-256-5886
Presbyterian Disaster Assistance
800-872-3283
Salvation Army
1-800-SAL-ARMY (725-2769)
Southern Baptist Convention -- Disaster Relief
1-800-462-8657, ext. 6440
UJA Federation of New York
212 836-1880
Union for Reform Judaism
United Methodist Committee on Relief
1-800-554-8583
Advice Regarding Charitable Giving
Helping Victims of Hurricane Katrina: Your Guide to Giving Wisely
Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance: Tips on Giving
Also there are other ways you can help:
Operation Share Your Home
Hurricane Help for Schools (Ed.Gov site)
List from http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18473
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina_resources.html
Here is a list of phone numbers set up solely for cash donations and/or volunteers.
Donate cash to:
American Red Cross
1-800-HELP NOW (435-7669) English,
1-800-257-7575 Spanish;
America’s Second Harvest
1-800-344-8070
Humane Society of the United States
1-888-259-5431
Operation Blessing
1-800-436-6348
United Jewish Communities
1-877-277-2477
Donate Cash and/or Volunteer:
Adventist Community Services
1-800-381-7171
B'nai B'rith International
1-888-388-4224
Catholic Charities, USA
1-800-919-9338
Christian Disaster Response
941-956-5183 or 941-551-9554
Christian Reformed World Relief Committee
1-800-848-5818
Church World Service
1-800-297-1516
Convoy of Hope
417-823-8998
Corporation for National and Community Service Disaster Relief Fund
(202) 606-6718
Disaster Psychiatry Outreach
1-212-598-9995
Feed the Children
1-800-525-7575
Lutheran Disaster Response
800-638-3522
Mennonite Disaster Service
717-859-2210
Nazarene Disaster Response
888-256-5886
Presbyterian Disaster Assistance
800-872-3283
Salvation Army
1-800-SAL-ARMY (725-2769)
Southern Baptist Convention -- Disaster Relief
1-800-462-8657, ext. 6440
UJA Federation of New York
212 836-1880
Union for Reform Judaism
United Methodist Committee on Relief
1-800-554-8583
Advice Regarding Charitable Giving
Helping Victims of Hurricane Katrina: Your Guide to Giving Wisely
Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance: Tips on Giving
Also there are other ways you can help:
Operation Share Your Home
Hurricane Help for Schools (Ed.Gov site)
List from http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18473
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina_resources.html
Monday, September 5, 2005
Moving Beyond Politics to Assist Women Facing an Unplanned Pregnancy
Each side of the abortion debate is quick to find fault with the other as to what they need to do to assist women facing unplanned pregnancy. However, persons in the pro-life movement as well as the pro-choice movement are working to reduce the number of abortions and provide assistance to women in an unplanned pregnancy situation. Family planning clinics on the pro-choice side offer low-cost prenatal care, gynelogical care, and general health care. However, their services are limited in scope and the focus is primarily on contraceptive and abortion services, while a woman may occasionaly be referred out for adoption and practical assistance for continuing the pregnancy. On the pro-life side there's various pregnancy resource center agencies who are able to offer limited practical needs care including materinity clothes, baby clothes, formula, baby blankets, diapers, cribs, and strollers/car seats as well as parenting preperation courses and refferals to community and government organizations. However, pregnancy resource centers largely rely on donations are there's a strong stigma surrounding them because some centers have stepped out of line in religous evangelism and politics. The Nuturing Network, an independent organization unrelated to PRCs, has over 42,000 volunteer members, in all 50 states and 25 nations, whom form an extensive employment, medical, educational, counseling and residential network which enables a mother to continue her pregnancy without sacrificing her own hopes and dreams. Services include: counseling (by licensed nurses, counselors and social workers), maternity homes, medical assistance, financial assistance, assistance in continuing her education, employment assistance, adoption counseling, adoption services, and parenting prepardness education. Feminist for Life lobbys for higher mininum wages, against domestic violence, and for equal employment opportunities rights for women with children. Both sides are contributing in a way that supports their political views and each has something to offer. But each side is unable to move past seeing their opponents only for their idealogical views, and unable to work together. Political differences are keeping women from being able to completely explore avenues of resources. Will we be able to set politics and rhetoric aside to really be able to focus on and assist women in an unplanned pregnancy situation?
Original Comments Made for This Entry...
The Pro-Woman Pro-Lifer wrote on 09-06-2005:
I think it goes deeper than the "politics and rhetoric" for many who are pro-life, because we believe that abortion clinics are wrong on a moral level and that they harm women (and children) on a routine basis.
I'm glad that they are able to care for some of the women who aren't there for abortion services, but that doesn't mean that I support them. I cannot, because that would mean that I would support something I believe harms women. I'd much rather see a woman who needs basic medical care go to a community health center. Some pre-natal care can be given from medical pregnancy centers, and the rest really should be from an OB/GYN anyway.
Can you see how there might be more to this than mere politics and rhetoric? Do you agree that some might think that sending a woman to PP gets her one step closer to choosing abortion if she were to become pregnant, since she is aware of the clinic, has been indoctrinated with thier information, etc. Can you see how referring a woman elsewhere would be better? What do we need to work together on? Why can't we just be sure that we offer all the support a woman needs?
Looking forward to your reply. ;) Interesting topic!
Rachael wrote on 09-09-2005 (01:34:03):
Unfortuantly, the focus of the mainstream pro-life and pro-choice movement seems to be focused on influencing legislation, rather than assisting the woman facing the unplanned pregnancy. The debate has become so polarized, abortion rights versus the rights of the unborn that often times the woman with the unplanned pregnancy is forgotten. And at the same time, for the most part, both sides feel hostility towards each other. Most pro-choice persons wouldn't refer a woman to a PRC for aid because they don't share their ideological views. At the same time, as you make a point of, most pro-lifers wouldn't send a woman a woman to a health clinic unless they were pro-life. Well, not all family planning clinics provide abortions (such as community health clinics) and may provide necessary health services that may be otherwise unaffordable for the low-income and uninsured. No, I'm not advocating PP's since their political agenda is their priority. However, as mentioned above, community health clinics are usually a good place, since they are usually run by the local health department or hospital. Yes, some PRCs provide health care services, however it's usually limited to pregnancy tests, ultrasound and prenatal care (no immunizations, STD testing and treatment, or regular preventive screening) and these centers are few and far between. Rather than blaming the other side for inaction, both sides need to refocus and find common ground in addressing the social issues that led women to have unplanned pregnancies and drive women to have an abortion. Only then we can begin to care for the woman's needs and reduce the abortion rate.
The Pro-Woman Pro-Lifer wrote on 09-09-2005 (09:24:54) :
So you're talking about groups like NARAL and RTL rather than the local pregnancy centers and family clinics. Yes, the legislative groups are more interested in getting laws passed that further their beliefs. I don't think that will change, and I do agree that that is unfortunate. But this isn't only occuring in the abortion debate - all issues have people that lobby and people that work hands-on.
The pregnancy centers around here make referrals to the community health department. I don't think there's a problem with that, but they aren't going to refer to PP, which is what you were wondering about. This isn't due to hostility as much as out of concern for the woman...we want to make sure that women are helped and not hurt. They, conversely, think that the pregnancy centers will hurt and not help. That's the reason for the divide.
You're not going to find common ground within the abortion clinic/referral agency and the pregnancy center the way things are now. They are on polar opposites for a reason. Instead, I think it'll take a new "breed" of support.
Original Comments Made for This Entry...
The Pro-Woman Pro-Lifer wrote on 09-06-2005:
I think it goes deeper than the "politics and rhetoric" for many who are pro-life, because we believe that abortion clinics are wrong on a moral level and that they harm women (and children) on a routine basis.
I'm glad that they are able to care for some of the women who aren't there for abortion services, but that doesn't mean that I support them. I cannot, because that would mean that I would support something I believe harms women. I'd much rather see a woman who needs basic medical care go to a community health center. Some pre-natal care can be given from medical pregnancy centers, and the rest really should be from an OB/GYN anyway.
Can you see how there might be more to this than mere politics and rhetoric? Do you agree that some might think that sending a woman to PP gets her one step closer to choosing abortion if she were to become pregnant, since she is aware of the clinic, has been indoctrinated with thier information, etc. Can you see how referring a woman elsewhere would be better? What do we need to work together on? Why can't we just be sure that we offer all the support a woman needs?
Looking forward to your reply. ;) Interesting topic!
Rachael wrote on 09-09-2005 (01:34:03):
Unfortuantly, the focus of the mainstream pro-life and pro-choice movement seems to be focused on influencing legislation, rather than assisting the woman facing the unplanned pregnancy. The debate has become so polarized, abortion rights versus the rights of the unborn that often times the woman with the unplanned pregnancy is forgotten. And at the same time, for the most part, both sides feel hostility towards each other. Most pro-choice persons wouldn't refer a woman to a PRC for aid because they don't share their ideological views. At the same time, as you make a point of, most pro-lifers wouldn't send a woman a woman to a health clinic unless they were pro-life. Well, not all family planning clinics provide abortions (such as community health clinics) and may provide necessary health services that may be otherwise unaffordable for the low-income and uninsured. No, I'm not advocating PP's since their political agenda is their priority. However, as mentioned above, community health clinics are usually a good place, since they are usually run by the local health department or hospital. Yes, some PRCs provide health care services, however it's usually limited to pregnancy tests, ultrasound and prenatal care (no immunizations, STD testing and treatment, or regular preventive screening) and these centers are few and far between. Rather than blaming the other side for inaction, both sides need to refocus and find common ground in addressing the social issues that led women to have unplanned pregnancies and drive women to have an abortion. Only then we can begin to care for the woman's needs and reduce the abortion rate.
The Pro-Woman Pro-Lifer wrote on 09-09-2005 (09:24:54) :
So you're talking about groups like NARAL and RTL rather than the local pregnancy centers and family clinics. Yes, the legislative groups are more interested in getting laws passed that further their beliefs. I don't think that will change, and I do agree that that is unfortunate. But this isn't only occuring in the abortion debate - all issues have people that lobby and people that work hands-on.
The pregnancy centers around here make referrals to the community health department. I don't think there's a problem with that, but they aren't going to refer to PP, which is what you were wondering about. This isn't due to hostility as much as out of concern for the woman...we want to make sure that women are helped and not hurt. They, conversely, think that the pregnancy centers will hurt and not help. That's the reason for the divide.
You're not going to find common ground within the abortion clinic/referral agency and the pregnancy center the way things are now. They are on polar opposites for a reason. Instead, I think it'll take a new "breed" of support.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Abortion Rights Threatened By Ultrasound
An abortion rights activist admits that the availability of elective ultrasounds leds women to re-consider abortion. This is from message 2113 (Tue Aug 16, 2005) in the Yahoo! Group: Abortion Celebration:
"I believe it was the invention of the ultrasound that is killing the right to choose. Now that people have the ability to see their baby while it's inside your body, it makes it harder to go through with the procedure. Don't get me wrong, I think the ultrasound is wonderful for those who wish to have their baby and it's a great way to see your baby and get excited about it but for those who just want to have an abortion and are already having enough problems with the whole thing, seeing the ultrasound is like twisting the dagger that's already in your stomach."
This poster, and many other pro-choice activists perceive the availability of elective ultrasound to be a threat to abortion rights. Why? While some laws seek to make viewing of the ultrasound mandatory, I don't believe women should be forced to see an ultrasound if they don't want to; however she should be given the option of viewing it if she so desires. If anything ultrasound isn't taking away a woman's ability to choose, but allows her to make an informed decision with information on the development of her pregnancy. Rather the threat is to abortion rights. They acknowledged what we've known all along, there's a developing human child in there and it's not just tissue, and a woman seeing her child on ultrasound could have a profound impact on her decison. A woman may see her developing child in the ultrasound and become emotionally attached, deciding to not have an abortion. But for the woman who's decided to have an abortion, she may have rationed that this decision is for the best, and emotionally seperated herself from her unborn child. To see the ultrasound, she would face that reality the abortion would be ending the life of her unborn child (or potential life) within her, and coming to terms with death is nothing any person wants to do. It's a tough call, because while viewing ones ultrasound may have its benefits, it has negatives as well.
"I believe it was the invention of the ultrasound that is killing the right to choose. Now that people have the ability to see their baby while it's inside your body, it makes it harder to go through with the procedure. Don't get me wrong, I think the ultrasound is wonderful for those who wish to have their baby and it's a great way to see your baby and get excited about it but for those who just want to have an abortion and are already having enough problems with the whole thing, seeing the ultrasound is like twisting the dagger that's already in your stomach."
This poster, and many other pro-choice activists perceive the availability of elective ultrasound to be a threat to abortion rights. Why? While some laws seek to make viewing of the ultrasound mandatory, I don't believe women should be forced to see an ultrasound if they don't want to; however she should be given the option of viewing it if she so desires. If anything ultrasound isn't taking away a woman's ability to choose, but allows her to make an informed decision with information on the development of her pregnancy. Rather the threat is to abortion rights. They acknowledged what we've known all along, there's a developing human child in there and it's not just tissue, and a woman seeing her child on ultrasound could have a profound impact on her decison. A woman may see her developing child in the ultrasound and become emotionally attached, deciding to not have an abortion. But for the woman who's decided to have an abortion, she may have rationed that this decision is for the best, and emotionally seperated herself from her unborn child. To see the ultrasound, she would face that reality the abortion would be ending the life of her unborn child (or potential life) within her, and coming to terms with death is nothing any person wants to do. It's a tough call, because while viewing ones ultrasound may have its benefits, it has negatives as well.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Rights and Responsibilities
I'm soo tired of hearing the "the fetus is an unwanted intruder" or "forced gestation" argument from pro-choicers. Pregnancy is a normal, biological result of human sexual function and the natural occurance resulting from intercourse. There is no forced gestation -- no outsider's impregnating her against her will (except rape) -- pregnancy is a naturally occuring process resulting from the actions of the two individuals having sexual relations and would most likely develop to term if not interrupted. This is a fact of basic human biology. The fact is, when there is intercourse and/or reproductive bodily fluids are exchanged, even with contraception, there is always a risk that pregnancy may occur. This is how the human body is biologically programed, regardless of whether the woman and her partner have made a conscious decison to not have children. If you're going to have sex, you need to accept the possibility that it could lead to pregnancy or even STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections), regardless of how careful you are. It is incredibly rediculous to claim the embryo/fetus is an unwanted intruder that appeared there suddenly without their willingness or involvement. However our culture has divorced the association between sex and pregnancy, leading to individuals developing the unrealistic idea that pregnancy won't happen to them. And when they do, they're surprised, and not ready to accept the responsibility of the pregnancy or raising the child. This is why the risks and potential consequences of casual sex need to be considered and realistically weighed beforehand.
"With great rights comes great responsibility" - Unknown
"With great rights comes great responsibility" - Unknown
Monday, August 8, 2005
Feminists Views of Abortion as Beneficial Experience for Women
Quoting from Pinko Feminist Hellcat:
I'm not one of those people who decry abortion as a necessary evil. I'm not one of those self-righteous misogynists who would pass judgement on pro-choicers, pregnant women, or women who chose to abort. I don't hate abortion.I think it's wonderful. I think it's wonderful because it frees women from unwanted pregnancies, it keeps women from enduring the risks and complications that can arise from pregnancy, and it gives them say over when they will have children. If ever.
H/T to JivinJehosphat
It seems Pinko Feminist Hellcat has this notion that opposing the act of abortion is passing judgement on women who've had an abortion (not necessarily true). And by condoning abortion, she is supporting the women who've had one. It's an abstract thought. Showing real support for a woman who's had an abortion would be physically, in person taking care of her after the procedure and comforting her, regardless of whether or not her feelings support your political agenda. Her utopian idea that abortion is always a wonderful experience is a little off. First of all, having an abortion doesn't magically solve the issues or circumstances surrounding the unplanned pregnancy. Also, it's important to note that not all women experience life-threatening pregnancy complications, just like not all women have a complicated abortion. In addition, rather than abortion as the pat treatment, prenatal care and early diagnosis and treatment of pregnancy related complications is the key to a positive woman's health and childbearing. Also, it's misleading to portray all women as happily skipping out of the abortion clinic, happy with their decision. For every positive abortion story out there, there's a difficult abortion and reverse, because every women's individual situation and experience may be different. Also, most women don't take the decision to have an abortion lightly.
I'm not one of those people who decry abortion as a necessary evil. I'm not one of those self-righteous misogynists who would pass judgement on pro-choicers, pregnant women, or women who chose to abort. I don't hate abortion.I think it's wonderful. I think it's wonderful because it frees women from unwanted pregnancies, it keeps women from enduring the risks and complications that can arise from pregnancy, and it gives them say over when they will have children. If ever.
H/T to JivinJehosphat
It seems Pinko Feminist Hellcat has this notion that opposing the act of abortion is passing judgement on women who've had an abortion (not necessarily true). And by condoning abortion, she is supporting the women who've had one. It's an abstract thought. Showing real support for a woman who's had an abortion would be physically, in person taking care of her after the procedure and comforting her, regardless of whether or not her feelings support your political agenda. Her utopian idea that abortion is always a wonderful experience is a little off. First of all, having an abortion doesn't magically solve the issues or circumstances surrounding the unplanned pregnancy. Also, it's important to note that not all women experience life-threatening pregnancy complications, just like not all women have a complicated abortion. In addition, rather than abortion as the pat treatment, prenatal care and early diagnosis and treatment of pregnancy related complications is the key to a positive woman's health and childbearing. Also, it's misleading to portray all women as happily skipping out of the abortion clinic, happy with their decision. For every positive abortion story out there, there's a difficult abortion and reverse, because every women's individual situation and experience may be different. Also, most women don't take the decision to have an abortion lightly.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Mercy, Compassion, and Forgiveness for the Post-Abortion Woman
I came across this awesome quote from a pro-life visitor to the contraversial website of Operation Rescue West (don't even get me started on their negative impact on the pro-life movement):
Sunflower wrote:
"judge and you shall be judged" [Bible]
'Ultimately we should not be judging anyone for their sins or actions, but we should however be forgiving them and hope they can forgive themselves. We should be compassionate for whatever their "sins" might be, especially in the case of abortion, where no one knows what might bring a "mother to be" to come to such decision!'
I completely agree with this. It is not our place to judge. Especially if she is feeling hurt, loss, regret, or sorrow, she doesn't need salt rubbed into her wounds (metaphorically speaking) But nor do we have to condone the sin to love the sinner. "Hate the sin but not the sinner" [Bible, I need to look up the verse) I reassure you that we don't have to condone abortion to give compassion and mercy to the woman facing an unplanned pregnancy or who have chosen abortion. This is the attitude more of the pro-life movement needs to take on.
On an additional note, there's a grieving post-abortion woman on Feminist Forum needing support. As I was following a referral link to my web journal from a Google search of abortion regrets, I found a grieving post-abortion woman's post at feminist forum in the UK.
She originally wrote: "I already have a nine year old daughter and have a very good job and am still with my daughters father, but i fell pregnant in feb and had a abortion and now i feel so gulity. I was given the injection that last three months and it will be over may 12 i want i have a baby now because i now feel that ishouldnt have done it. what shall i do?"
She received a lot responses from pro-choicers and prolifers condemning to indefferent (telling her to "seek forgiveness" and to "get over it").
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/about21348-0-asc-0.html
Her original post is a few months old, however another greiving post-abortion woman posted in June. These ladies could use some supportive and encouraging words among the highly political responses.
Sunflower wrote:
"judge and you shall be judged" [Bible]
'Ultimately we should not be judging anyone for their sins or actions, but we should however be forgiving them and hope they can forgive themselves. We should be compassionate for whatever their "sins" might be, especially in the case of abortion, where no one knows what might bring a "mother to be" to come to such decision!'
I completely agree with this. It is not our place to judge. Especially if she is feeling hurt, loss, regret, or sorrow, she doesn't need salt rubbed into her wounds (metaphorically speaking) But nor do we have to condone the sin to love the sinner. "Hate the sin but not the sinner" [Bible, I need to look up the verse) I reassure you that we don't have to condone abortion to give compassion and mercy to the woman facing an unplanned pregnancy or who have chosen abortion. This is the attitude more of the pro-life movement needs to take on.
On an additional note, there's a grieving post-abortion woman on Feminist Forum needing support. As I was following a referral link to my web journal from a Google search of abortion regrets, I found a grieving post-abortion woman's post at feminist forum in the UK.
She originally wrote: "I already have a nine year old daughter and have a very good job and am still with my daughters father, but i fell pregnant in feb and had a abortion and now i feel so gulity. I was given the injection that last three months and it will be over may 12 i want i have a baby now because i now feel that ishouldnt have done it. what shall i do?"
She received a lot responses from pro-choicers and prolifers condemning to indefferent (telling her to "seek forgiveness" and to "get over it").
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/about21348-0-asc-0.html
Her original post is a few months old, however another greiving post-abortion woman posted in June. These ladies could use some supportive and encouraging words among the highly political responses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)