Comments | abortiondebate: Post-abortion syndrome

jakshadows in abortiondebate

Post-abortion syndrome

Dec 05, 2008 08:25

I've heard the argument of "post-abortion syndrome" in the past, and wondered if it was still being used. It's particularly interesting in light of the most recent look into the supposed affliction.

Were there any prolifers here who used this as an argument against abortion? Does this change any minds?

Comments 32

nemo_wistar January 27 2009, 18:57:44 UTC

I've seen this argument used a number of times, regardless of the number of studies that fail to show any conclusive (statistically significant) link. Since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it's my belief that pro-lifers will never be convinced that there is no such thing.

See also "The Pill causes abortions", "abortions cause sterility", and others.

snackbreak January 27 2009, 19:05:52 UTC

Well, there are abortive pills and possibly non-abortive pills. I don't use them so I haven't had to find out. I would not use an abortive pill, and the problem is that doctors don't give full information sometimes because they might not think it counts as long as it doesn't implant on the uterine wall, which I disagree with, so.

Anyway, you didn't provide links, so I am not sure what you are referring to with "the pill causes abortions" but there are pills that essentially do. Maybe not by definition - does it not count if it hasn't implanted? - but the result is the same, so I see their point if that's what they're getting at.

jakshadows January 27 2009, 19:07:54 UTC

I understood the comment to refer to the Pill, i.e. a contraceptive used often by women.

snackbreak January 27 2009, 19:09:58 UTC

Right. So what I am saying is it does cause abortions, unless certain things don't count as abortions.

Thread 22

snackbreak January 27 2009, 19:02:39 UTC

I don't use that as an argument. I don't think I ever have, but I can't be 100% certain about that.

Honestly even if it was real, I wouldn't use it as an argument, because that's not the point. As far as I am concerned, the issue is whether bodily autonomy justifies killing someone else - someone that you put in that position (of dependency) in the first place. I don't think it does.

Even with that article, I don't doubt that some women regret choosing abortion, but I wouldn't argue that it applies to all or even most women. I'm sure having children is also a source of regret for some women - it would be for me if I ever end up with that unfortunate turn of events.

cutout18 January 27 2009, 19:11:43 UTC

Back when I was a wee neophyte (i.e. like 16) I had considered this argument and used it. I still consider my use of it fair game when it was used against arguments like "abortion should be legal because you're not a woman!"

I've long known, however, that it's a myth, even before I became sort of pro-choice.

If it were true, it would be worth considering, i.e. it would weigh in like any other side effect of a medical procedure in determining the ethics of that procedure. Thankfully it doesn't. Abortion debates are complicated enough as is.

jakshadows January 27 2009, 19:30:00 UTC

I agree. It would be one more bit of info a woman should have to become more informed when it comes to making a decision.

likeawoman January 27 2009, 21:31:40 UTC

despite the best efforts of pro-life advocacy groups, no one has ever produced data that held up in support of so-called "post-abortion syndrome" and the scientific consensus as of the last time I saw this discussed in class is that the vast majority of post-abortive women state that their experience was, on the whole, a positive and correct one.

not that that necessarily matters to those pushing this supposed syndrome, but I'm inclined to favor solid, peer reviewed research, myself.

lavendersparkle January 27 2009, 22:05:02 UTC

Medical diagnoses are always going to involve a degree of constructedness. This is because our ideas about what counts as 'normal' and pathology or constructed and liable to change over time. It is also because our knowledge of the working of the human body is imperfect so collections of symptoms which at one time are viewed as one illness, may at a later time be attributed to a number of different illnesses. This is particularly true of psychological problems, where different people all have different responses to different things but we group them together as part of the same syndrome because they seem to have enough in common for that classification to be descriptively useful ( ... )