| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2007 10:42:27 PM |
| Object: |
Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=8f156de4-fea1-4c74-a1c3-17da80126cd3
Abortion is one of the most common surgeries performed on women in
Canada. Roughly 105,000 are performed annually, 70% of them on women
between the ages of 10 and 29.
Yet Canadian medical research into the health risks associated with
abortion is virtually non-existent. This is in part because Canada's
debate about abortion became dominated by legal-rights talk after the
Supreme Court's Morgentaler decision in 1988.
Despite this, new medical research continues to emerge on the subject
in other nations -- research that Canadian women need to consider
before they put themselves at risk of unwanted pregnancy.
The American Psychological Association (APA) recently removed an old
statement about abortion and mental health from its Web site, a
statement that declared abortion to be largely benign. They have
convened a task force on the subject, and will issue a new statement
in 2008.
David Fergusson, a New Zealand psychologist, is the author of a
longitudinal study on abortion published in 2006. He tends to garner
media attention because he is a self-described pro-choice atheist, not
a social conservative. His work showed negative mental-health outcomes
for women post-abortion, while controlling for their pre-abortion
mental health.
Dr. Fergusson's results did not just show an increase in general
depression. They showed increased effects across a wide array of
outcomes, including substance-abuse disorders, anxiety, suicide and
suicide ideation. According to Dr. Fergusson's work, post-abortive
women show increased risk of phobia, panic attacks and fears "or just
a generalized feeling of concern and anxiety at a level deemed to be
clinically significant."
He describes the irony: "99% of abortions in New Zealand are conducted
on mental-health
grounds. And our study suggests that this procedure may increase
mental-health risks."
Then there is Priscilla Coleman, a psychologist at Bowling Green State
University in Ohio. She thinks there is an unwillingness to consider
new research done throughout the 1990s, largely because the results of
that research were not in line with today's pro-choice political
environment. The topic is so volatile that many academics fear not
gaining tenure if they take it on.
Since 2002, 15 of Ms. Cole-man's studies have showed negative health
outcomes for women post-abortion. Some of these outcomes include the
following: an increased likelihood to use drugs generally (one study
showed increased drug use during subsequent pregnancies), increased
trouble sleeping and increased general levels of anxiety.
These are well-designed studies that have overcome prior flaws such as
a failure to control for existing psychological problems, high
participant dropout rates and a lack of wide-scale representation. Ms.
Coleman also has conducted two studies controlling for the wanted-ness
of the pregnancy, showing increased odds of psychological and
emotional problems amongst women who aborted versus those who carried
to term, even controlling the data such that all the pregnancies were
unwanted and unplanned in the first place. Her work has appeared in a
number of reputable journals, but has yet to be widely publicized.
The earlier "pro-choice" consensus that abortion's impact on women was
mostly benign was formed by six psychologists who studied the topic
for the American Psychological Association by reviewing literature
from the 1970s and 1980s. Their results were published in 1990 in
Science, a highly-regarded American journal. Some women did show
negative health effects. But, they asserted, those were attributable
to prior mental health problems.
There was a caveat, however: There needed to be further research on
longer term implications. "No definitive conclusions can be drawn
about longer term effects," the article stated.
A truly definitive study -- one that no one could ignore, regardless
of the political environment -- would require major funding and would
take years. But despite the cost, there are compelling reasons to do
it, and soon. We owe it to women to learn exactly what risk they face
when they have an abortion. - Andrea Mrozek is manager of Research and
Communications at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
.
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
22 Sep 2007 06:09:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:03:08 -0700, "agsf_57@yahoo.com"
<agsf_57@yahoo.com> wrote:
If his wife terminates, perhaps, otherwise it is none of his business.
I wasn't talking about it being someone's business as to what another
person does. I was referring to the emotional impact of one's actions
upon another person, specifically a man, and whether that subject ever
came up.
Only as a "Poor me" whinge from some anti choice male.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
22 Sep 2007 06:41:26 PM |
|
|
On Sep 22, 3:09 pm, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:03:08 -0700, "agsf...@yahoo.com"
<agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If his wife terminates, perhaps, otherwise it is none of his business.
I wasn't talking about it being someone's business as to what another
person does. I was referring to the emotional impact of one's actions
upon another person, specifically a man, and whether that subject ever
came up.
Only as a "Poor me" whinge from some anti choice male.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/mental_health_expert_highlight.php
or
http://tinyurl.com/357fck
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
So I have noticed.
Regards...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
23 Sep 2007 12:22:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:41:26 -0700, "agsf_57@yahoo.com"
<agsf_57@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:09 pm, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:03:08 -0700, "agsf...@yahoo.com"
<agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If his wife terminates, perhaps, otherwise it is none of his business.
I wasn't talking about it being someone's business as to what another
person does. I was referring to the emotional impact of one's actions
upon another person, specifically a man, and whether that subject ever
came up.
Only as a "Poor me" whinge from some anti choice male.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/mental_health_expert_highlight.php
Did you read this line,(The study on men's responses to abortion was
not conducted by a mental health professional, but rather a
sociologist)?
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
23 Sep 2007 01:16:41 PM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 9:22 am, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:41:26 -0700, "agsf...@yahoo.com"
<agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:09 pm, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:03:08 -0700, "agsf...@yahoo.com"
<agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If his wife terminates, perhaps, otherwise it is none of his business.
I wasn't talking about it being someone's business as to what another
person does. I was referring to the emotional impact of one's actions
upon another person, specifically a man, and whether that subject ever
came up.
Only as a "Poor me" whinge from some anti choice male.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/mental_health_expert_highlight.php
Did you read this line,(The study on men's responses to abortion was
not conducted by a mental health professional, but rather a
sociologist)?
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Is that relevant to you? I'm sure the data collected would have been
the same (men were affected by the abortion), but the interpretation
of the results would vary.
Regards...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
23 Sep 2007 03:31:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:16:41 -0700, "agsf_57@yahoo.com"
<agsf_57@yahoo.com> wrote:
Did you read this line,(The study on men's responses to abortion was
not conducted by a mental health professional, but rather a
sociologist)?
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Is that relevant to you?
Yes, horses for courses, and all that.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
22 Sep 2007 10:36:53 PM |
|
|
On Sep 22, 7:09 pm, Dubh Ghastly <p...@pissed.hysterical.fish>
screeched::
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:03:08 -0700, "agsf...@yahoo.com"
<agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If his wife terminates, perhaps, otherwise it is none of his business.
I wasn't talking about it being someone's business as to what another
person does. I was referring to the emotional impact of one's actions
upon another person, specifically a man, and whether that subject ever
came up.
Only as a "Poor me" whinge from some anti choice male.
Only a we-got-ours-*****-you disdain from some anti choice for MEN
sexist bigot *****.
" Whats the difference between NOW and the KKK ? "
" The KKK has a dress code. "
Andre
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
18 Sep 2007 12:54:59 PM |
|
|
On Sep 15, 11:56 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:47:32 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Ranting" <r...@rant.com> wrote in
<sH1Hi.177171$BF6.115...@fe02.usenetserver.com>:
"J Young" <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189914147.684743.145960@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=8f156de4-fea1-4...
Abortion is one of the most common surgeries performed on women in
Canada. Roughly 105,000 are performed annually, 70% of them on women
between the ages of 10 and 29.
Yet Canadian medical research into the health risks associated with
abortion is virtually non-existent. This is in part because Canada's
debate about abortion became dominated by legal-rights talk after the
Supreme Court's Morgentaler decision in 1988.
Despite this, new medical research continues to emerge on the subject
in other nations -- research that Canadian women need to consider
before they put themselves at risk of unwanted pregnancy.
The American Psychological Association (APA) recently removed an old
statement about abortion and mental health from its Web site, a
statement that declared abortion to be largely benign. They have
convened a task force on the subject, and will issue a new statement
in 2008.
David Fergusson, a New Zealand psychologist, is the author of a
longitudinal study on abortion published in 2006. He tends to garner
media attention because he is a self-described pro-choice atheist, not
a social conservative. His work showed negative mental-health outcomes
for women post-abortion, while controlling for their pre-abortion
mental health.
Dr. Fergusson's results did not just show an increase in general
depression. They showed increased effects across a wide array of
outcomes, including substance-abuse disorders, anxiety, suicide and
suicide ideation. According to Dr. Fergusson's work, post-abortive
women show increased risk of phobia, panic attacks and fears "or just
a generalized feeling of concern and anxiety at a level deemed to be
clinically significant."
He describes the irony: "99% of abortions in New Zealand are conducted
on mental-health
grounds. And our study suggests that this procedure may increase
mental-health risks."
Then there is Priscilla Coleman, a psychologist at Bowling Green State
University in Ohio. She thinks there is an unwillingness to consider
new research done throughout the 1990s, largely because the results of
that research were not in line with today's pro-choice political
environment. The topic is so volatile that many academics fear not
gaining tenure if they take it on.
Since 2002, 15 of Ms. Cole-man's studies have showed negative health
outcomes for women post-abortion. Some of these outcomes include the
following: an increased likelihood to use drugs generally (one study
showed increased drug use during subsequent pregnancies), increased
trouble sleeping and increased general levels of anxiety.
These are well-designed studies that have overcome prior flaws such as
a failure to control for existing psychological problems, high
participant dropout rates and a lack of wide-scale representation. Ms.
Coleman also has conducted two studies controlling for the wanted-ness
of the pregnancy, showing increased odds of psychological and
emotional problems amongst women who aborted versus those who carried
to term, even controlling the data such that all the pregnancies were
unwanted and unplanned in the first place. Her work has appeared in a
number of reputable journals, but has yet to be widely publicized.
The earlier "pro-choice" consensus that abortion's impact on women was
mostly benign was formed by six psychologists who studied the topic
for the American Psychological Association by reviewing literature
from the 1970s and 1980s. Their results were published in 1990 in
Science, a highly-regarded American journal. Some women did show
negative health effects. But, they asserted, those were attributable
to prior mental health problems.
There was a caveat, however: There needed to be further research on
longer term implications. "No definitive conclusions can be drawn
about longer term effects," the article stated.
A truly definitive study -- one that no one could ignore, regardless
of the political environment -- would require major funding and would
take years. But despite the cost, there are compelling reasons to do
it, and soon. We owe it to women to learn exactly what risk they face
when they have an abortion. - Andrea Mrozek is manager of Research and
Communications at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
They could have summed up that entire article by saying "No one wants to
know because of political correctness, abortion is perfect, nothing is wrong
with abortion, ignore the man behind the curtain".
The 'pro-life' people, of course, want to continue to make their
unsupported assertions that having an abortion will cause great trauma.
If there is a properly done study, what will they do if it turns out
that abortion is better for mental health than an unwanted child?
What do you mean "what will they do"? Opposition to abortion has
never been about the woman, it's about the fetus. Would it be extra
ammunition in the fight if it turned out abortion was bad for mental
health? Sure. But either way, it doesn't change anything. Saving
the life of the fetus is the point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
18 Sep 2007 04:49:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:54:59 -0700, in alt.atheism
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote in
<1190138099.009737.189090@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
On Sep 15, 11:56 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:47:32 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Ranting" <r...@rant.com> wrote in
<sH1Hi.177171$BF6.115...@fe02.usenetserver.com>:
"J Young" <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189914147.684743.145960@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=8f156de4-fea1-4...
Abortion is one of the most common surgeries performed on women in
Canada. Roughly 105,000 are performed annually, 70% of them on women
between the ages of 10 and 29.
Yet Canadian medical research into the health risks associated with
abortion is virtually non-existent. This is in part because Canada's
debate about abortion became dominated by legal-rights talk after the
Supreme Court's Morgentaler decision in 1988.
Despite this, new medical research continues to emerge on the subject
in other nations -- research that Canadian women need to consider
before they put themselves at risk of unwanted pregnancy.
The American Psychological Association (APA) recently removed an old
statement about abortion and mental health from its Web site, a
statement that declared abortion to be largely benign. They have
convened a task force on the subject, and will issue a new statement
in 2008.
David Fergusson, a New Zealand psychologist, is the author of a
longitudinal study on abortion published in 2006. He tends to garner
media attention because he is a self-described pro-choice atheist, not
a social conservative. His work showed negative mental-health outcomes
for women post-abortion, while controlling for their pre-abortion
mental health.
Dr. Fergusson's results did not just show an increase in general
depression. They showed increased effects across a wide array of
outcomes, including substance-abuse disorders, anxiety, suicide and
suicide ideation. According to Dr. Fergusson's work, post-abortive
women show increased risk of phobia, panic attacks and fears "or just
a generalized feeling of concern and anxiety at a level deemed to be
clinically significant."
He describes the irony: "99% of abortions in New Zealand are conducted
on mental-health
grounds. And our study suggests that this procedure may increase
mental-health risks."
Then there is Priscilla Coleman, a psychologist at Bowling Green State
University in Ohio. She thinks there is an unwillingness to consider
new research done throughout the 1990s, largely because the results of
that research were not in line with today's pro-choice political
environment. The topic is so volatile that many academics fear not
gaining tenure if they take it on.
Since 2002, 15 of Ms. Cole-man's studies have showed negative health
outcomes for women post-abortion. Some of these outcomes include the
following: an increased likelihood to use drugs generally (one study
showed increased drug use during subsequent pregnancies), increased
trouble sleeping and increased general levels of anxiety.
These are well-designed studies that have overcome prior flaws such as
a failure to control for existing psychological problems, high
participant dropout rates and a lack of wide-scale representation. Ms.
Coleman also has conducted two studies controlling for the wanted-ness
of the pregnancy, showing increased odds of psychological and
emotional problems amongst women who aborted versus those who carried
to term, even controlling the data such that all the pregnancies were
unwanted and unplanned in the first place. Her work has appeared in a
number of reputable journals, but has yet to be widely publicized.
The earlier "pro-choice" consensus that abortion's impact on women was
mostly benign was formed by six psychologists who studied the topic
for the American Psychological Association by reviewing literature
from the 1970s and 1980s. Their results were published in 1990 in
Science, a highly-regarded American journal. Some women did show
negative health effects. But, they asserted, those were attributable
to prior mental health problems.
There was a caveat, however: There needed to be further research on
longer term implications. "No definitive conclusions can be drawn
about longer term effects," the article stated.
A truly definitive study -- one that no one could ignore, regardless
of the political environment -- would require major funding and would
take years. But despite the cost, there are compelling reasons to do
it, and soon. We owe it to women to learn exactly what risk they face
when they have an abortion. - Andrea Mrozek is manager of Research and
Communications at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
They could have summed up that entire article by saying "No one wants to
know because of political correctness, abortion is perfect, nothing is wrong
with abortion, ignore the man behind the curtain".
The 'pro-life' people, of course, want to continue to make their
unsupported assertions that having an abortion will cause great trauma.
If there is a properly done study, what will they do if it turns out
that abortion is better for mental health than an unwanted child?
What do you mean "what will they do"? Opposition to abortion has
never been about the woman, it's about the fetus. Would it be extra
ammunition in the fight if it turned out abortion was bad for mental
health? Sure. But either way, it doesn't change anything. Saving
the life of the fetus is the point.
That's the claim and I'm sure that some of the people who claim to be
'pro-life' are concerned with the fetus. The ones who don't care what
happens to the fetus once it is born are the ones I have no respect for.
The ones who claim to be 'pro-life' yet want to cut funding for food,
clothing, shelter, health care and child care are people who can only be
described as hypocrites. I am not pro-life because I find that far too
many of the supposedly pro-life leaders are proud and loud hypocrites
who care nothing about the fetuses, who care nothing about what happens
when the baby is born. Unless the truly pro-life folks start to get
those selfish power-mad individuals out of the movement, there will be
no change. That suits the hypocrites. Does it suit you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ranting" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
18 Sep 2007 06:08:19 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:fmh0f35hbgth0a6uml4od4p5l8j0o0h64k@4ax.com...
That's the claim and I'm sure that some of the people who claim to be
'pro-life' are concerned with the fetus. The ones who don't care what
happens to the fetus once it is born are the ones I have no respect for.
The ones who claim to be 'pro-life' yet want to cut funding for food,
clothing, shelter, health care and child care are people who can only be
described as hypocrites. I am not pro-life because I find that far too
many of the supposedly pro-life leaders are proud and loud hypocrites
who care nothing about the fetuses, who care nothing about what happens
when the baby is born. Unless the truly pro-life folks start to get
those selfish power-mad individuals out of the movement, there will be
no change. That suits the hypocrites. Does it suit you?
That is a rather bizarre perspective on things quite frankly. You aren't pro
life because some of its supporters are hypocrites. Then you must not be pro
abortion , or pro choice either because there are some rather hypocritical
people in that movement as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
18 Sep 2007 07:08:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:08:19 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Ranting" <rant@rant.com> wrote in
<GTYHi.71487$f35.2053@fe194.usenetserver.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:fmh0f35hbgth0a6uml4od4p5l8j0o0h64k@4ax.com...
That's the claim and I'm sure that some of the people who claim to be
'pro-life' are concerned with the fetus. The ones who don't care what
happens to the fetus once it is born are the ones I have no respect for.
The ones who claim to be 'pro-life' yet want to cut funding for food,
clothing, shelter, health care and child care are people who can only be
described as hypocrites. I am not pro-life because I find that far too
many of the supposedly pro-life leaders are proud and loud hypocrites
who care nothing about the fetuses, who care nothing about what happens
when the baby is born. Unless the truly pro-life folks start to get
those selfish power-mad individuals out of the movement, there will be
no change. That suits the hypocrites. Does it suit you?
That is a rather bizarre perspective on things quite frankly. You aren't pro
life because some of its supporters are hypocrites. Then you must not be pro
abortion , or pro choice either because there are some rather hypocritical
people in that movement as well.
I'm quite moderate on it. I am completely willing, under other
circumstances, to consider supporting tighter regulations of abortions.
As long as the 'pro-life' movement is riddled with hypocrites, I have
no problem supporting the more outspoken abortion rights groups, even
though I don't generally agree with what they say.
The 'pro-life' hypocrites are the ones who keep abortion laws from
changing. They like being the victims and they don't care if the law
changes.
If you want to see abortions decrease, support laws that make it easier
for people to decide to keep the child. That means things like universal
health care, stronger welfare programs, and child care programs that
include subsidies. If you don't support those things, you are supporting
more abortions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ranting" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
18 Sep 2007 08:57:44 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nrp0f3hmttjsjbrf0lpghvs0kbbeothmtd@4ax.com...
The 'pro-life' hypocrites are the ones who keep abortion laws from
changing. They like being the victims and they don't care if the law
changes.
If you want to see abortions decrease, support laws that make it easier
for people to decide to keep the child. That means things like universal
health care, stronger welfare programs, and child care programs that
include subsidies. If you don't support those things, you are supporting
more abortions.
You want to talk about hypcrites, have a look at all the western society
womens groups who are protesting sex selective abortions.
Think about it for a second. They are claiming "PRO CHOICE", "Not a baby
while in the womb", "Only a fetus". YET, when that fetus is going to turn
out to be a girl they are all up in arms if it is terminated for that
reason, but if the mother were to want to abort that same fetus because she
is poor, or raped or just about any other reason, voila, they are all for
it. That is true hypocracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "elizabeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
19 Sep 2007 12:57:45 PM |
|
|
On Sep 18, 6:57 pm, "Ranting" <r...@rant.com> wrote:
You want to talk about hypcrites, have a look at all the western society
womens groups who are protesting sex selective abortions.
I don't. I think it's great. It will mean that women will have a lot
more choice on who, and if, they marry.
A lot of men, OTOH, won't find any women desperate enough!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pandora" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
21 Sep 2007 08:30:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:57:44 -0400, Ranting wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nrp0f3hmttjsjbrf0lpghvs0kbbeothmtd@4ax.com...
The 'pro-life' hypocrites are the ones who keep abortion laws from
changing. They like being the victims and they don't care if the law
changes.
If you want to see abortions decrease, support laws that make it easier
for people to decide to keep the child. That means things like universal
health care, stronger welfare programs, and child care programs that
include subsidies. If you don't support those things, you are supporting
more abortions.
You want to talk about hypcrites, have a look at all the western society
womens groups who are protesting sex selective abortions.
Think about it for a second. They are claiming "PRO CHOICE", "Not a baby
while in the womb", "Only a fetus". YET, when that fetus is going to turn
out to be a girl they are all up in arms if it is terminated for that
reason,
Perhaps you would prefer it if ONLY boys were aborted?
Think about it.
but if the mother were to want to abort that same fetus because
she is poor, or raped or just about any other reason, voila, they are all
for it. That is true hypocracy.
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ranting" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
22 Sep 2007 08:40:46 AM |
|
|
"pandora" <pandora@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Chaddock" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
24 Sep 2007 07:15:23 AM |
|
|
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pandora@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
....Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
24 Sep 2007 10:02:12 AM |
|
|
On 24 Sep., 14:15, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Where exactly do you get the above? Choice means exactly what it
says, i.e the woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or to
not do so; and there is nothing that says it is wrong for a woman (or
a man for that matter) to choose to stay home.
...Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Chaddock" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
25 Sep 2007 07:01:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 24 Sep., 14:15, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Where exactly do you get the above? Choice means exactly what it
says, i.e the woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or to
not do so; and there is nothing that says it is wrong for a woman (or
a man for that matter) to choose to stay home.
You haven't read a whole lot of feminist theory/literature have you ?
....Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
26 Sep 2007 01:36:50 AM |
|
|
On 25 Sep., 14:01, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 24 Sep., 14:15, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that y=
ou
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have pl=
enty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as hap=
pens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly wh=
at
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Where exactly do you get the above? Choice means exactly what it
says, i.e the woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or to
not do so; and there is nothing that says it is wrong for a woman (or
a man for that matter) to choose to stay home.
You haven't read a whole lot of feminist theory/literature have y=
ou ?
...Ken- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
- Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
Unless you are going to claim that certain organisations own the term
"choice", so what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
26 Sep 2007 01:47:57 AM |
|
|
On Sep 26, 2:36 am, retarded:
On 25 Sep., 14:01, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 24 Sep., 14:15, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Where exactly do you get the above? Choice means exactly what it
says, i.e the woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or to
not do so; and there is nothing that says it is wrong for a woman (or
a man for that matter) to choose to stay home.
You haven't read a whole lot of feminist theory/literature have you ?
...Ken
Unless you are going to claim that certain organisations own the term
"choice", so what?
The point that your comment is *pregnant* with, is your ASSumption
that the term and concept of " choice " can ONLY apply to WOMEN.
Thats what Ken was hinting at.
As we have said, thats... SEXIST of you.
Andre
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
24 Sep 2007 10:35:33 AM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 11:02 am, moronises:
On 24 Sep., 14:15, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Where exactly do you get the above? Choice means exactly what it
says, i.e the woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or to
not do so;
No, Choice is a NON sexually specific word. YOUR use of it as
a sexually specific claim for privilege proves George Orwell quite
correct.
and there is nothing that says it is wrong for a woman (or
a man for that matter) to choose to stay home.
Other than the nutbag utterings of most Feminists.
But, we are now familiar with your propensity for making false
and self servings claims, NONE of which you can back up.
So, you're a LIAR, a bad one, and now, a known one.
Got it.
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
24 Sep 2007 02:16:24 PM |
|
|
On 24 Sep., 17:35, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Sep 24, 11:02 am, moronises:
On 24 Sep., 14:15, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Where exactly do you get the above? Choice means exactly what it
says, i.e the woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or to
not do so;
No, Choice is a NON sexually specific word. YOUR use of it as
a sexually specific claim for privilege proves George Orwell quite
correct.
What special privilege are you talking about?
and there is nothing that says it is wrong for a woman (or
a man for that matter) to choose to stay home.
Other than the nutbag utterings of most Feminists.
But, we are now familiar with your propensity for making false
and self servings claims, NONE of which you can back up.
Beyond the meaning of the words being used of course, and then there
is your failure to show that I have ever said anything else. Instead
you create a position for me and demand that I prove that it isn't
mine.
So, you're a LIAR, a bad one, and now, a known one.
Got it.
I have understood that you are incapable of discussing the issue
itself and throw out absurd insults instead. That is your problem not
mine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
24 Sep 2007 03:04:43 PM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 3:16 pm, retarded:
On 24 Sep., 17:35, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Sep 24, 11:02 am, moronises:
On 24 Sep., 14:15, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Where exactly do you get the above? Choice means exactly what it
says, i.e the woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or to
not do so;
No, Choice is a NON sexually specific word. YOUR use of it as
a sexually specific claim for privilege proves George Orwell quite
correct.
What special privilege are you talking about?
Choice For Women WITHOUT Equal Choice For Men.
and there is nothing that says it is wrong for a woman (or
a man for that matter) to choose to stay home.
Other than the nutbag utterings of most Feminists.
But, we are now familiar with your propensity for making false
and self servings claims, NONE of which you can back up.
Beyond the meaning of the words being used of course, and then there
is your failure to show that I have ever said anything else. Instead
you create a position for me and demand that I prove that it isn't
mine.
<Lunatic Projection>
So, you're a LIAR, a bad one, and now, a known one.
Got it.
I have understood that you are incapable of discussing the issue
itself and throw out absurd insults instead. That is your problem not
mine.
<Lunatic Sexist Bigot Projection>
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
25 Sep 2007 05:36:51 AM |
|
|
On 24 Sep., 22:04, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Sep 24, 3:16 pm, retarded:
On 24 Sep., 17:35, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Sep 24, 11:02 am, moronises:
On 24 Sep., 14:15, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you =
that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you h=
ave plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls=
as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting=
this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exac=
tly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NO=
T the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Where exactly do you get the above? Choice means exactly what it
says, i.e the woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or to
not do so;
No, Choice is a NON sexually specific word. YOUR use of it as
a sexually specific claim for privilege proves George Orwell quite
correct.
What special privilege are you talking about?
Choice For Women WITHOUT Equal Choice For Men.
and there is nothing that says it is wrong for a woman (or
a man for that matter) to choose to stay home.
Other than the nutbag utterings of most Feminists.
But, we are now familiar with your propensity for making false
and self servings claims, NONE of which you can back up.
Beyond the meaning of the words being used of course, and then there
is your failure to show that I have ever said anything else. Instead
you create a position for me and demand that I prove that it isn't
mine.
<Lunatic Projection>
So, you're a LIAR, a bad one, and now, a known one.
Got it.
I have understood that you are incapable of discussing the issue
itself and throw out absurd insults instead. That is your problem not
mine.
<Lunatic Sexist Bigot Projection>
Andre- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
- Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
Poor little boobie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
25 Sep 2007 10:33:34 AM |
|
|
On Sep 25, 6:36 am, had NOTHING:
On 24 Sep., 22:04, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Sep 24, 3:16 pm, retarded:
On 24 Sep., 17:35, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Sep 24, 11:02 am, moronises:
On 24 Sep., 14:15, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Where exactly do you get the above? Choice means exactly what it
says, i.e the woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or to
not do so;
No, Choice is a NON sexually specific word. YOUR use of it as
a sexually specific claim for privilege proves George Orwell quite
correct.
What special privilege are you talking about?
Choice For Women WITHOUT Equal Choice For Men.
and there is nothing that says it is wrong for a woman (or
a man for that matter) to choose to stay home.
Other than the nutbag utterings of most Feminists.
But, we are now familiar with your propensity for making false
and self servings claims, NONE of which you can back up.
Beyond the meaning of the words being used of course, and then there
is your failure to show that I have ever said anything else. Instead
you create a position for me and demand that I prove that it isn't
mine.
<Lunatic Projection>
So, you're a LIAR, a bad one, and now, a known one.
Got it.
I have understood that you are incapable of discussing the issue
itself and throw out absurd insults instead. That is your problem not
mine.
<Lunatic Sexist Bigot Projection>
Andre
Poor little boobie.
<Massive Clueless Projection>
Your repeated concessions are appreciated. Thank you, once
again, PROVING that you CANNOT refute my points.
Andre
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andre Lieven" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
24 Sep 2007 10:22:11 AM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 8:15 am, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Ranting wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22.01.30.46.822081@peak.org...
No, it's called *personal* choice. I'm terribly sorry for you that you
don't understand that concept. Many around here don't so you have plenty
of company.
Wouldn't personal choice include the desire to abort ONLY girls as happens
in many countries, and yet feminists in the west are protesting this
practise.
No, no no, you don';t understand !CHOICE means doing exactly what
feminist dogma says you should do...nothing else...that's feminist
"choice"...like the "choice" for women to go out to work...but NOT the
"choice" to be stay at home wives...got it now ?
Again, of course. Its not like that crowd uses the word " Choice "in
any accepted meaning of the word. Rather, it means, as you say,
" what we, your Feminist Overlords, want it to mean ".
Rather totalitarian of them. But, they're not the first Evil Political
Movement to re-write the language. " Soviet democracy ", anyone ?
Andre
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Honest Ted" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
18 Sep 2007 10:14:18 PM |
|
|
Ranting <rant@rant.com> wrote:
You want to talk about hypcrites, have a look at all the western society
womens groups who are protesting sex selective abortions.
Think about it for a second. They are claiming "PRO CHOICE", "Not a baby
while in the womb", "Only a fetus". YET, when that fetus is going to turn
out to be a girl they are all up in arms if it is terminated for that
reason, but if the mother were to want to abort that same fetus because she
is poor, or raped or just about any other reason, voila, they are all for
it. That is true hypocracy.
Only because you're a complete and utter wackjob who as you did, distorts
the facts about the situation in order for things to fit your totally
absurd argument. Either that, or you're simply too feeble minded to
understand the truth so you make things up.
You must be another mentally ill religious fanatic. Anyone who believes in
a supernatural ghost in the sky is accustomed to being lied to and
therefore allows their delusions to become of their version of the truth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
22 Sep 2007 10:30:42 PM |
|
|
On Sep 18, 4:08 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:08:19 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Ranting" <r...@rant.com> wrote in
<GTYHi.71487$f35.2...@fe194.usenetserver.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:fmh0f35hbgth0a6uml4od4p5l8j0o0h64k@4ax.com...
That's the claim and I'm sure that some of the people who claim to be
'pro-life' are concerned with the fetus. The ones who don't care what
happens to the fetus once it is born are the ones I have no respect for.
The ones who claim to be 'pro-life' yet want to cut funding for food,
clothing, shelter, health care and child care are people who can only be
described as hypocrites. I am not pro-life because I find that far too
many of the supposedly pro-life leaders are proud and loud hypocrites
who care nothing about the fetuses, who care nothing about what happens
when the baby is born. Unless the truly pro-life folks start to get
those selfish power-mad individuals out of the movement, there will be
no change. That suits the hypocrites. Does it suit you?
That is a rather bizarre perspective on things quite frankly. You aren't pro
life because some of its supporters are hypocrites. Then you must not be pro
abortion , or pro choice either because there are some rather hypocritical
people in that movement as well.
I'm quite moderate on it. I am completely willing, under other
circumstances, to consider supporting tighter regulations of abortions.
As long as the 'pro-life' movement is riddled with hypocrites, I have
no problem supporting the more outspoken abortion rights groups, even
though I don't generally agree with what they say.
The 'pro-life' hypocrites are the ones who keep abortion laws from
changing. They like being the victims and they don't care if the law
changes.
If you want to see abortions decrease, support laws that make it easier
for people to decide to keep the child. That means things like universal
health care, stronger welfare programs, and child care programs that
include subsidies. If you don't support those things, you are supporting
more abortions.
The flaw in your logic is that you place the responsibility on the
government to make sure that children are well provided for where the
focus and responsibility should rest on the parents. Therefore you see
pro-lifers as hypocrites, which is not true. Just because one believes
in anti-abortion laws, doesn't mean they should accept socialism as a
form of government. After all, society functioned well 100 years ago,
prior to social security, welfare, government programs and assistance.
Regards...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
22 Sep 2007 11:10:35 PM |
|
|
<agsf_57@yahoo.com> wrote:
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
If you want to see abortions decrease, support laws that make it easier
for people to decide to keep the child. That means things like universal
health care, stronger welfare programs, and child care programs that
include subsidies. If you don't support those things, you are supporting
more abortions.
The flaw in your logic is that you place the responsibility on the
government to make sure that children are well provided for where the
focus and responsibility should rest on the parents.
In other wortds, you don't really care whether children live or die so
long as other people are forced to care for them.
Therefore you see
pro-lifers as hypocrites, which is not true.
Of course it's true.
Just because one believes
in anti-abortion laws, doesn't mean they should accept socialism as a
form of government.
You promote fascism as a form of government instead, where people are
enslaved to the dictates of government.
After all, society functioned well 100 years ago,
prior to social security, welfare, government programs and assistance.
You are an idiot who obviously knows very little of history.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion and mental health: The link we cannot ignore |
23 Sep 2007 12:06:10 AM |
|
|
On Sep 22, 8:10 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
If you want to see abortions decrease, support laws that make it easier
for people to decide to keep the child. That means things like universal
health care, stronger welfare programs, and child care programs that
include subsidies. If you don't support those things, you are supporting
more abortions.
The flaw in your logic is that you place the responsibility on the
government to make sure that children are well provided for where the
focus and responsibility should rest on the parents.
In other wortds, you don't really care whether children live or die so
long as other people are forced to care for them.
Do you ever debate an argument without creating straw men? Did Free
Lunch or I ever state such a claim?
Therefore you see
pro-lifers as hypocrites, which is not true.
Of course it's true.
C'mon Ray, spit it out. Can't make a blanket ignorant statement
without backing it up.
Just because one believes
in anti-abortion laws, doesn't mean they should accept socialism as a
form of go | | | | | | | |
