From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:55:19 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <1992Jul21.152018.67042@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>   (Susan Garvin) writes: >

>>The study of psychological aftereffects in members of Women
>>Exploited by Abortion (the Reardon study) is not worth refuting
>>again.  (Can you say biased sample?)

>Despite the bias of the study sample, should the adverse sequelae
>experienced by these women be relegated to insignificance because 
>such women seem to represent a minority?  Do these women deserve
>a hearing or should we simply infer a "pro-lie" political agenda?

Well, Phil Buckland certainly seemed willing to relegate antyhing
that didn't fit his political agenda to insignificance with the
phrase "It's not normative".

In any event, I don't think that Reardon's book has sufficient
information to make a judgement one way or the other.  In an
_impartial_ study commissioned by the Reagan administration, Dr.
Koop could not find enough evidence for the existence of this
so-called syndrome to consider it a statistically significant
occurence.

But there is sort of an unspoken assumption in your question, that
being that the only two alternatives are some sort of standing policy
believing that abortion leads to emotional trauma, or that we sneer
at anyone who has had an adverse reaction to an abortion and say
"Too bad babe, you made your CHOICE hahahahaha!"  These aren't the
only alternatives and you know it.

I would suggest that if an individual woman has an adverse
emotional reaction to abortion, she be treated as....an individual.
(What a concept!)  Reactions to such things as this rarely occur in
a vaccuum, ie, any woman who is mentally healthy and comfortable
with the decision she made is unlikely to be traumatized by the
abortion.  Nearly every woman I've seen quoted has listed any number
of other influences which affected her reaction.  In this sense, groups
such as WEBA may actually do women in this situation a disservice, if
they put subtle pressure on the woman to "admit" that the abortion 
was the cause of her problems, when in fact it may merely have been
the catalyst to an already-impending breakdown or even just a single
mote in an emotional dust storm.  Encouraging women to blame the 
abortion while ignoring any other influences would seem to encourage
dependency and an abdication of responsibility for her own role in
the situation.

>>The evidence which supports the safety of legal abortion is
>>overwhelming.  Unscrupulous anti-abortion people attempt to
>>fabricate evidence to refute it, but these attempts have been
>>exposed as frauds over and over again.  

>So are you saying that no one ever experiences any emotional trauma
>subsequent to abortion?  

Oh nonsense, Overpeck, people can be emotionally trautmatized by just
about anything.

In fact, I would venture to guess that normally, the negative emotional
reaction is likely to be much stronger from childbirth than from 
abortion.  Many women hide this negative reaction, knowing that society
expects "good mothers" to be just bursting with happiness following
birth, ignoring the chemical influence of severe hormonal swings.

Are you familiar with a disease called Post-Partum Psychosis?  It
occurs in approximately 10% of women who suffer from post-partum
depression.  Most instances of mothers killing young children are
directly attributable to this disorder.  It is caused by physical
processes, which lead to mental instability.

>Or just that those numbers are so few that
>it's an insufficient reason to restrict the practice?  

Yes, that's exactly what I would say.

Are you saying that the numbers of women who suffer PPP are so few
that it's an insufficient reason to restrict the practice of
childbearing?  Even though many of these women have been known
to kill their babies?

What would you suggest?  Pre-screening (if such is possible), or just
providing information on the symptoms and letting women know that help
is available?  (Most women I've seen who've suffered this knew well in
advance of any acts of violence that something was wrong,  but they were
often ignored or even ridiculed by those around them.)  Perhaps 
counseling help?  Perhaps the same help that we make available to
women who have had abortions, should they feel they need it?

Or do we just ignore PPP, since not every woman suffers from it?

>Even if the
>latter is true, we're still left with some number of women who do
>report serious emotional consequences.  

And the same thing goes for childbirth, and mastectomy, and breast
implantation, and most likely for almost any medical procedure.

>Should anything at all be
>done (prior to the procedure) to preclude the possibility of such 
>reactions?

Prior to the procedure?  What would you suggest?  Mandatory "counseling"
that tells women they should "expect" to be emotionally devastated?
Should such counseling be given prior to birth as well?

>Bill

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion