Let’s just say I can relate. Both to the little ones running wild and the morning sickness.
Even so, it seems to me that some women may regret their abortions to the point that it interferes with their lives to a degree later. I don’t think most of us would disagree with that.
Women can also regret having children to the point where it not only interferes with her life but the child’s life as well. I think most of us would not disagree with that.
This was really my point…any of these things can cause regret of a profound nature. I think that it’s important not to downplay the risks of some of these choices for political motivations (by both sides…pro-choicers might downplay the risks of abortion, pro-lifers might downplay the risks of adoption, and so forth).
Yup.
In the US, abortion laws are written by each State. Some states require pre-abortion counseling–including the “risk of breast cancer” claim that has no clinical basis. And some require the counseling be done 24 hours before the procedure. Which means two days off work and/or caring for dependants.
Some states have few abortion providers–so travel time needs to be considered. And maybe an overnight stay in a motel.
ETA - sorry, that was a bit more brusque than I intended. I live in the UK, but am a US citizen, so I know the reason why this is important in the US. It’s less so here, is all I am saying.
Since we all know (thanks to their persistent assertions and substantially bolstered by saturation advertising from the pharma companies) that mental illness is a chemical imbalance in the brain and is not a human reaction to traumatic life events or other such things best addressed by changing someone’s freaking life situation, and is instead best addressed by modifying the sufferer’s biochemistry so that what was bothering them so much will cease to bother them so much,
a) We must find the right pills to cause women who have had abortions and then [del]go bonkers[/del] experience disabling and undesirable mental and emotional states to no longer feel that way or think those troubling thoughts;
b) Except that, as much as we like that strategy, it lets abortion off the hook, dangit! As much as we do like [del]blaming the victim[/del] attributing severely negative mental and emotional states to something, anything, other than actual trauma, we may need to make an exception here. Will anyone notice if we elide the difference between “mental illness is a chemical imbalance that should not be addressed by therapy or, god forbid, social change of some sort, but by drugs” and “participation in this or that marginal social behavior could lead to mental illness”?
c) Hormones! That’s it! There’s got to be a clever way to say that being pregnant and then experiencing postpartum hormonal change without the offsetting presence of hormones associated with mother-infant bonding constitutes a chemical imbalance that we can call ‘mental illness’ which no female person, being frail & all that, should be allowed to choose to weather.
d) See prior memo on why Killing is Wrong and Evil (if a female person does it and it’s not war or self-defense or any of those situations where male people kill other people and we say it’s sometimes necessary and not necessarily murder & all that).
What is your point?
My point is the main argument or concept that I am advancing. But that’s not important right now. And quit calling me Shirley
Seriously, what part of what I said did you find incomprehensible?
All of it. I fail to see how it has any bearing on the topic at hand.
It’s quite relevant. Women are counseled prior to abortion as to the side effects they may experience, and PPD-like symptoms are included in that list. It would not surprise me to learn that the number of women who experience those symptoms closely mirrors the number of women who experience PPD. Should we take that to mean that reproduction is bad for women’s mental health and they should cease and desist immediately?
What has that argument to do with AHunter3’s post?
IOW - I understand your argument, and it’s a valid point. And I don’t think I’m the dumbest cat around. But I fail to see anything in AHunter3’s post that I questioned that says anything resembling what you said or anything else I can make sense of. Hence the question.
To answer your argument, I will say I don’t know. PPD is a routine risk for any birth, and is part of what midwives / Doctors counsel women about whilst they are pregnant. Are you suggesting that knowing this possibly holds true in some cases with abortions, that women should not be counseled about this risk?
I don’t think anyone (except perhaps Der Trihs) is suggesting that women stop getting pregnant. But making an informed choice, with all the right information, is everyone’s right and I fail to see how the Royal College of Psychiatrists saying that some medical (mental and physical) problems may occur after abortion is anything like a bad thing.
Whoosh.
My question was rhetorical. No one is going to seriously put forth the suggestion that women stop having babies.
I believe AHunter3’s post points out (and rightly) that the RCS put forth an alarmist statement designed to frighten, which fails to point out that the emotional reactions women experience are (in all likelihood) temporary, and to further entrench the thought that women should have no control over their own bodies once they’re in such a “delicate condition.” Because that’s how it reads.
As to your question: Yes. Hormonal fluctuations are normal in pregnancies; why should the early termination of a pregnancy be any different? And yes, of course women should be and are counseled to that effect. But is there any reason to NOT make those women aware that it’s normal, and that even were they to carry on with that pregnancy, they would in all probability still experience those side effects? Read the quote again:
DANGER WILL ROBINSON! YOU WILL BE MENTALLY DAMAGED FOR LIFE IF YOU DO THIS!
And precisely what would that counseling entail that it does not already? Our clinic counsels women that they may experience some mood swings following the procedure, and that if those mood swings become severe, to contact their physician immediately. Is more needed? If so, what?
Alarmist designed to threaten? Not how I read it at all. I read it that they were concerned that the risks were not being adequately discussed prior to the procedures being done.
I believe the point the psychiatrists raise is that there is insufficient counselling now, as in women are not told of ANY risks. I don’t see anything in the statement that is saying anything close to life-long damage.
Frighten. Alarmist designed to frighten. And yes, it’s sensationalistic and alarmist.
Then they’re not only misleading, it’s a flat out falsehood. For the third time: women who obtain abortions receive counseling as to side effects.
All that aside, however: exactly what is the risk to a woman’s mental health if she has an abortion? If the RCP feels so strongly that this risk exists, then perhaps they should make that risk more clear. Because the vague nebulous warning seems, as it’s currently worded, nothing less than an attempt to frighten women away from the procedure. Please be so kind as to define the risk. Is it negligible? Substantial? How likely are young women to go stark raving bonkers from the procedure? Because as you point out…without knowing these risks, it’s impossible to make an informed decision. I will posit again that the risk is likely approximate to the number of women who suffer PPD. That does not make it insignificant, nor do I think it shouldn’t be addressed, but it does lead me to believe that this “new” risk is not being presented in the proper context.
I am not a Doctor or Psychiatrist. My take on this is the RCP is saying risks exist that are not being properly discussed with patients before procedures are carried out. The risks highlighted may be the same as any early-term termination of a pregnancy and may be the same as those experienced by some mothers after birth.
I read nothing to suggest that it is false, alarmist, or unreasonable.
Are people generally ordered to have counselling prior to major surgery in England?
I can see the logic of making counselling available, but making it compulsory or having cooling off periods seems inconsistent with how we allow people to make many other life decisions that can have a significant impact on a person.
Otara
In the first place, the very title of the article itself is alarmist:
Secondly, the article is alarmist because it does not detail the risk in clear, non medical language which explains what the reactions might be, other than the heart wrenching story of a woman who killed herself because she had an abortion. I think you’re being a bit disingenuous to claim it isn’t sensationalistic.
Finally, you stated that:
That is a falsehood.
What they said, or what their agenda is or is not has nothing to do with my answer. You asked the question, “Why should abortion be treated any different than any major medical procedure?”; I answered it. Then you pretended I was talking about something else.
And I’m not “jumping to conclusions” about “the Evil Religious Moonbats”; they’ve demonstrated their evil and moonbatism for a very long time. Regardless of the motives of the RCP, their claim will be used as a club against women, as a weapon against abortion, and any “counseling” about the dangers of abortion will seldom amount to anything other than attempts to terrorize and deceive women. THAT is why abortion is and has to be treated differently; because it’s opponents won’t let it be treated as a scientific or medical matter, but as a religious and misogynistic one.