A new understanding of the trauma of abortion

[grggngll]

In summary, it is not likely that the pro-life message will be persuasive to a woman who is focused on her perception of public shame, on her own career and future, and who either dehumanizes the unborn child, or justifies abortion as a way to avoid bringing a child into an unstable situation. It is also doubtful that pro-lifers need to spend their resources reaching out to women at the other extreme, for whom abortion is out of the question. The women who most need help and support are those who fall into the "conflicted middle," women for whom abortion is troubling but may appear to offer resolution. It is hoped that the insights uncovered in this research project can aid those who work to help such women, sparing those facing an unwanted pregnancy from making a decision that may haunt them for the rest of their lives.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/..._abortion.html

[sigmalady]

This is the link to the paper on which the article was based.

http://www.vitaefoundation.org/sites...g%202%2013.pdf

I may have something to say after I have read it.

[Steveg85321]

I would like to think it is possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice. I would prefer that women not choose to kill their unborn child, but I don't think it should be government's role to force it one way or the other. I favor educating women to the potential for medical risks and/or emotional trauma, parental involvement for minor-aged women, and promoting adoption (there are so many couples who are unable to conceive and would love to have a baby). But the final choice must be between the woman (and ideally the father as well), and her doctor.

[regularguy]

Seems like a surprisingly sensible article, considering it's published in "The American Thinker".

I support pro-life counseling as long as it is done honestly, without lies or deception, and acknowledges that abortion is an option. After all, Planned Parenthood makes referrals to pre-natal care and adoption resources.

I like this line from the article:

Pro-lifers may believe they have the high moral ground, but a woman in crisis will not turn to one if she perceives that person to be preachy, rigid, or manipulative.

[sigmalady]

I would like to think it is possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice. I would prefer that women not choose to kill their unborn child, but I don't think it should be government's role to force it one way or the other. I favor educating women to the potential for medical risks and/or emotional trauma, parental involvement for minor-aged women, and promoting adoption (there are so many couples who are unable to conceive and would love to have a baby). But the final choice must be between the woman (and ideally the father as well), and her doctor.

I agree with you.

[grggngll]

Seems like a surprisingly sensible article, considering it's published in "The American Thinker".

I support pro-life counseling as long as it is done honestly, without lies or deception, and acknowledges that abortion is an option. After all, Planned Parenthood makes referrals to pre-natal care and adoption resources.

I like this line from the article:

JOOC...

When states demand that women have an ultrasound before abortion, is that considered honesty too, or is there a different word you would like to use ?

[regularguy]

When states demand that women have an ultrasound before abortion, is that considered honesty too, or is there a different word you would like to use ?

When states demand that doctors perform an intrusive procedure (inserting a transvaginal probe into the woman's body) that the doctor and patient both consider unnecessary - for the sole purpose of discouraging the woman from exercising her constitutional right to terminate an early-term pregnancy - the word "honesty" does not spring to mind.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

Another breathless regurgitation from AmThunk? Has it been fifteen minutes already?!?!