Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Details

Closed to new replies
January 1, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 399

Study Shows Abortion Not a Matter of Convenience After All?

:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
[link] [link] [link]

A five-year study which followed the fates of 956 women who sought abortions and what happened to the women denied them versus the woman able to get them, recently gave some results so far based on two years of monitoring. Anti-abortion folks often say women who seek abortions are just doing so because they find pregnancy inconvenient and want to dodge responsibility. They also often say abortion is more likely to cause health and mental problems in the woman. What does the study say? Here's the highlights:
----------
"The women in the Turnaway Study were in comparable economic positions at the time they sought abortions. 45% were on public assistance and two-thirds had household incomes below the federal poverty level. One of the main reasons women cite for wanting to abort is money, and based on the outcomes for the turnaways, it seems they are right.

"Most of the women who were denied an abortion, 86%, were living with their babies a year later. Only 11% had put them up for adoption. Also a year later, they were far more likely to be on public assistance 76% of the turnaways were on the dole, as opposed to 44% of those who got abortions. 67% percent of the turnaways were below the poverty line (vs. 56% of the women who got abortions), and only 48% had a full time job (vs. 58% of the women who got abortions).

"When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line. Another conclusion we could draw is that denying women abortions places more burden on the state because of these new mothers' increased reliance on public assistance programs."

"Unfortunately, when it comes to domestic violence, being denied an abortion makes a really big difference. Turnaways were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who got abortions. A year after being denied an abortion, 7% reported an incident of domestic violence in the last six months. 3% of women who received abortions reported domestic violence in the same time period. Foster emphasized that this wasn't because the turnaways were more likely to get into abusive relationships. It was simply that getting abortions allowed women to get out of such relationships more easily. So it's likely that these numbers actually reflect a dropoff in domestic violence for women who get abortions, rather than a rise among turnaways."

"In other words, the Turnaway Study found no indication that there were lasting, harmful negative emotions associated with getting an abortion. The only emotional difference between the two groups at one year was that the turnaways were more stressed. They were more likely to say that they felt like they had more to do than they could get done."

"The Turnaway Study found no indication that abortion could be linked with increased mental health disorders. There were no statistical differences between turnaways and women who had abortions when it came to developing clinical depression.

"But turnaways did face a greater health risk from giving birth. Even late stage abortions are safer than giving birth. The researchers said at the APHA meeting:

"We find physical health complications are more common and severe following birth (38% experience limited activity, average 10 days) compared to abortion (24% limited activity, average 2.7 days). There were no severe complications after abortion; after birth complications included seizure, fractured pelvis, infection and hemorrhage. We find no differences in chronic health conditions at 1 week or one year after seeking abortion."
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconvomitbear:
VomitBear Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
Nice work! A well written topic, unlike the usual shit we get about abortion here. :icontrophyplz:
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I love me some facts and scientific studies.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I don't know about that. They examine two non-randomly chosen group of people and make extrapolations from that. (After all, there's going to be a reason the women denied the abortion were in fact denied it.)

The conclusions would be a very useful point if valid, but the shitty methodology means the conclusions can't be trusted.
Reply
:iconvomitbear:
VomitBear Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
I'm all for better formatted abortion discussions and this one is in that direction.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Would you be of the same mind if the conclusions disagreed with your political beliefs?
Reply
:iconvomitbear:
VomitBear Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
Yes, if those conclusions were not religiously influenced or owned by the Koch Brothers or came from Pelosi's shattered mind and contained real information I'm okay with that.

Part of being in business includes changing the gameplan to survive. That can be applied to personal life too.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
This information was created/compiled by people who explicitly support these policies. You've stated you wouldn't accept data which could have been corrupted by motivated reasoning; well, this data exists in exactly the state, in the opposing ideology, as the data you said you wouldn't accept.
Reply
:iconvomitbear:
VomitBear Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
Is this information not a rebuttal to the "other side" of the discussion?
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Sure. But if you wouldn't accept parallel data from the other side, why would you expect them to accept this data from ours?

What I'm getting at is that this data doesn't actually add anything substantive to the debate. It looks great from where you're sitting, but you're not motivated to seriously question it. The most obvious question to me - what the difference between the control group and the test group was, given that they weren't sorted into these groups randomly, but on some policy basis - remains unanswered.

This data is perfect in one sense - because it has a serious unresolved issue, it allows both sides to convince themselves that its existence proves them correct. Those whose position it supports can take it as-is, and those whose position it contradicts can take the obviously poor methodology (unspecified policy-based sorting) to be proof that the output of the obviously good methodology (truly random sorting) was discarded by its creators.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconzagstrike:
ZaGstrike Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013
Once again reality reveals its liberal bias.
Reply
Add a Comment: