Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

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

:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit 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
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit 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
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit 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
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit 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
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Eyup.
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
That's a stance that is good in theory, but impossible in practice.
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
Not really, for some people who don't try I guess. But I do know people who aren't going to have sex until they know it's the right guy and they know all about kids. You can never be fully prepared to have kids because it's so crazy, but you should at least realize that fucking=kids. And keep that in mind... just saying
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
It's a good idea on a personal level, and even though humans are a species that has sex for pleasure it's still an ideal to go for since having kids when you're super young and poor is a bad idea, but... unfortunately it doesn't work out practically on a wide enough scale. :(
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
Yep yep:/
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
And also don't have sex with someone you don't want to father your child.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
No, that is a stupid stance for dolts.
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
It's a logical stance some people take.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
No it is not.
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
Yep...
Reply
:iconmagusthelofty:
MagusTheLofty Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
If we were robots without biological urges then yes it would be that easy. I don't know about you, but I am human, and as a human I love sex because it's fun. Having children; not as much fun.
And both humans and dolphins are the only two animals on the planet who have sex for both procreation and fun.
Reply
:iconqwertywithak:
qwertywithak Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
But if that's your belief why should the government try and enforce it?
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Never said the government should try and enforce anything.
Reply
:iconqwertywithak:
qwertywithak Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Then it's useless for you to bring up that you don't like it, it's non-constructive to the whole discussion.
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that.
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
How about I'll keep having sex with birth control and condoms and you mind your own goddam business, it's really easy to tell people to not have sex when you yourself can't obtain sex
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
I can state my opinions wherever I want, you don't have to read them if you don't like it
Reply
:iconqwertywithak:
qwertywithak Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
It's not as easy as that, your implying that the reason to have sex is to have kids. When in the real world people also have sex for fun, joy, and out of love. Put on your big boy pants and step the fuck into the real world.
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
The reason to have sex is NOT to have kids (most of the time), but, if you are not ready to have a kid, then you should not be doing something that produces a kid. If you can't feed it, don't breed it. Yes the government should encourage smart mating habits. Kids born without supporting parents end up just being a leech on society
Reply
:iconqwertywithak:
qwertywithak Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I think we should keep abortion legal, but educate kids on safe sex. You know, birth control, condoms and the like? Side note, when people say things like "leech on society" I'm reminded of Hitler.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
So basically everyone should stay single and never fall in love or have relationships unless they want a kid.

Meanwhile over here in reality land...
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
So "actually extremely fucking complicated" = "easy". Got it.
Reply
:icondoctorv23:
DoctorV23 Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Good post. My understanding of abortion is that it really is a "necessary evil" and most importantly a right. To me that's the point too often missed.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Until we tackle the problem of having any unwanted pregnancies at all, abortion is always going to be a necessary evil that it's up to the woman whether she wants to take it or not.

And yeah, I really don't get how people can say the rights and needs of the fetus matter... but the rights and needs of the living, breathing, feeling, already-existing human are apparently irrelevant. Especially since the rights and needs of the fetus often magically stop mattering to many folks in the pro-life movement once it's born.

I have a hard time accepting the overall pro-life movement as being anything other than an attempt to control women. Anyone genuinely pro-life would be over with the pro-choicers trying to do their damndest to increase access to birth control and increase support to struggling mothers who choose to keep the child.
Reply
:iconpokecat:
pokecat Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Of thost turnaways, how many of them seek harmfull and/or illegal methods of abortions?
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I'm more curious to know what difference existed to cause them to be turned away to begin with.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
None, seeing as how it was conducted with official abortion clinics, not back-alley doctors.
Reply
:icontinoculars:
Tinoculars Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
I don't mean to take any side but I stopped taking that study seriously when you said the number "956". 956 individuals doesn't make up a significant enough part of the fertile female population to give anyone a good enough argument pro- or against abortion or make such ridiculous general statements.

Out of the billions of women able to get pregnant and of those, probably hundreds of millions who get abortions, 900 women out of one country in the world have about as much to say about the reasons women get abortions as a fart in the wind.

I don't know how you could write the stupid generalising title that you wrote.
Reply
:iconnovuso:
Novuso Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
There is a scientific argument for distrusting studies such as these. Mainly correlation does not equal causation in a study that contains multiple variables.

Scientific burden requires that there be double blind testing done against various control groups to determine a bias when assessing certain individuals.

Example

Variable-A: A woman gets an Abortion.
Variable-B: The same woman develops Breast Cancer.

Variable-C: Statistically, African American women develop breast cancer more often than white women.
Variable-D: Sample woman who gets an Abortion was African American.

Statistics like these introduce a certain bias into the study that can be left open to interpretation that can be used to skew the data one way or another. Ultimately these studies don't prove much and real statisticians don't trust them either outside of propaganda value.

It is like the old saying goes there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I suggest you do research on how scientific studies and representative samples actually work, then return when you have a scientifically informed critique.

Science typically does not work the way pop culture skeptics claim it does, and the common mistake that you need huge samples to have a scientifically valid study is one example.
Reply
:icontinoculars:
Tinoculars Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
So you're deliberately ignoring the needs of, what, 99.999% of the population just to get your point across? You're not researching anything, you're just cherry-picking out of the skimpy study information that you find on news and gossip websites. What you linked to there isn't "research on scientific studies", it's two skimpy paragraphs that had less effort put into them than an article about Angelina Jolie's new haircut.

But like I said, you're ignoring all other genuine research and day-to-day truths and any form of reason whatsoever just to get your point of glorifying abortion across. Cause if you do a bit more research on, what, DailyMail or PerezHilton.com, you might find that abortion is actually healthy for you and there's really no reason not to have one, and why would women be so stupid as to subject their bodies to 9 months of parasitical torture just for a crying little bag of shit, right?

Well why don't you let women make that decision for themselves rather than push your beliefs of what they should do with their lives?
Reply
:iconmosobot64:
mosobot64 Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013  Student General Artist
Ignoring the needs of 99.999% of the population? Do you have statistics? Studies? Anything other than YOU pushing YOUR beliefs on women who just want to have an abortion and then continue bettering their lives so that they can actually raise a happy, healthy child later?

Also, please note that no in-depth study can review EVERY SINGLE WOMAN IN THE COUNTRY. If you want every woman to vote on whether abortion should be allowed or not, why don't you make a poll and ask every woman in the country yourself? Oh wait. You can't. You don't have the resources.

Did you even bother to actually read the links? Even the i09 link (i09 being the closest of the links to an actual gossip site) used well over a dozen paragraphs! Oh, and the other links are from the American Health Organization, which brings together doctors and medical scholars and professionals from throughout the country. Clearly, this is not the work of gossip columnists.

You realize you sound like a hypocrite, right?

Also, don't ever, ever compare the American health organization to gossip tabloids again, or I will personally punch you through the internet.
Reply
:icontinoculars:
Tinoculars Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
Also, don't ever, ever compare the American health organization to gossip tabloids again, or I will personally punch you through the internet.

The American health organisation and everyone running it is shit.
Reply
:iconwandereratheart:
WandererAtHeart Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013
Just because you feel that way, doesn't make it true. Besides, I'm relatively sure, you don't know all if any of the people running it.
Reply
:icontinoculars:
Tinoculars Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
Right, well you go on blindly believing everything that the people in white coats are telling you, I'm sure you know all of them and you know everything about anything ever cause you've read it on the internet. You go on.
Reply
:iconwandereratheart:
WandererAtHeart Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
Both of my parents are doctors. I've grown up learning about medicine and science my entire life. I would really like to know your medical background and what justification you have for calling everything you've seen on that sight crap.

And as I thought you don't know anyone. So please, you go on.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmosobot64:
mosobot64 Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013  Student General Artist
It's still an academic, professional organization. It is NOT to be confused with a fucking gossip column.
Reply
:icontinoculars:
Tinoculars Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
Well that wasn't much of a punch.
Reply
:iconmosobot64:
mosobot64 Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Student General Artist
Fuck off and go stuff some sense down your throat, hypocrite.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: