Women rarely regret decision to get abortion
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Reuters
Women rarely regret decision to get abortion
(Reuters Health) -
Five years after an abortion, most women still say it was the right decision even if they struggled with their choice at the time, a U.S. study suggests.
Researchers surveyed 667 women who had abortions in 21 states a week after they had the procedures and then once every six months for five years. By the end of that period, 84% of women had either positive or neutral feelings about their choice.
"We found no evidence of emergent negative emotions about the abortion over the five years," said study leader Corinne Rocca of the University of California, San Francisco.
"In fact, of all the emotions we looked at, relief remained the most commonly reported one at all times, even five years out," Rocca said by email.
Opponents of abortion have argued against legal access to these procedures in part because of concerns that abortion harms women by causing negative emotions and regret, researchers note in Social Science and Medicine. This idea has contributed to state laws and court decisions limiting abortion as well as state policies requiring women seeking abortions to be warned it might cause lasting emotional or mental health harm, the study team notes.
For the current analysis, researchers asked women who got abortions the degree to which they felt emotions like relief, happiness, regret, guilt, sadness and anger. They also asked women whether they still thought the choice they made was the right one.
At the start of the study, participants were 25 years old, on average, and 62% were already raising children.
Slightly more than half felt the decision to have an abortion was "very difficult" or "somewhat difficult." Women were more likely to feel this way when they perceived higher levels of stigma surrounded the decision to get an abortion.
One week after their abortions, 51% of women felt mostly positive about their decisions, while 17% felt mostly negative and 12% felt a mix of both emotions. Another 20% reported feeling few emotions, or none at all, related to their decision.
After five years, anger was the only emotion that was more common among women who perceived high levels of stigma about abortion, the study also found.
One week after the abortion, 98% of women felt they had made the right decision, as did 99% of women five years later.
One limitation of the study is that asking women about their emotions may have prompted them to report stronger feelings than they might have otherwise experienced, the study team notes.
Even so, the results offer fresh evidence that concerns about women's emotional health after an abortion shouldn't factor into policies about legal access to these procedures, said Julia Steinberg, a researcher at the University of Maryland, College Park, who wasn't involved in the study.
"Abortion does not lead to decision regret or negative emotions, negative emotions or regret do not emerge over time after the abortion, and women overwhelmingly feel the decision was the right one initially and over the entire five years after an abortion, even if they had difficulty making it," Steinberg said by email.
Just because women struggled with the decision to get an abortion doesn't mean it was the wrong choice for them, said Nada Stotland of Rush University in Chicago.
"It's reassuring to women contemplating abortion that they are very unlikely to regret it, but there is no valid evidence whatever that women, including adolescents, can't make the best decisions for themselves, their circumstances, and their families," Stotland, who wasn't involved in the study, said by email.
SOURCE: https://bit.ly/2RqECEW Social Science Medicine, online January 13, 2020.
Tags
Who is online
119 visitors
Banning abortion is all about control...how dare women think for themselves, make decisions for themselves without a man telling her what she is going to do.
Exactly, 100% true.
Right on the money!
"Opponents of abortion have argued against legal access to these procedures in part because of concerns that abortion harms women by causing negative emotions and regret, researchers note in Social Science and Medicine."
I guess the words "in part" are the great qualifiers. Iv'e never heard opponents argue based on concerns of such a woman having regrets later. I only hear arguments that a life has been terminated via the fancy of a woman. (despite how she might feel about it years later.)
I've heard arguments about women having regrets. They're lame arguments and based more on emotion. But they're there. But then, most arguments against abortion tend to rely on appeals to emotion.
That would be a lame argument, which belongs in the same basket as all the radical arguments for women having a decision over life or death.
A woman has a decision and legal right over her body and health issues. There's nothing radical or lame about that.
So you've said many times
Some things bear repeating. Especially since it still seems to be an issue.
Indeed it is
But for some reason, they want to make it their business.
[deleted]
Not the issue but no, I dont have a problem with it. I'm all for assisted suicide.
Off topic (per comment deleted) and context
[deleted]
I'm not the one who brought up removed for context
[deleted]
You did, in your now deleted post. Do you not remember or are you just being obtuse about it?
If mine was off topic so was his reply. And I am referring to Gordy
Thank Tess. That is becoming abundantly obvious, as evidenced by their subsequent replies.
My reply 4.1.9 to your prior post, which mentioned assisted suicide and to which my reply refers. Do you remember now? Or are you going to continue to be dishonest about it?
You brought up something that was off topic, not me. I simply responded to it. If you think my reply is off topic, then flag it as such.
[deleted]
Not up to me pal. That's the author/seeders job. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. You and I could have had a decent convo but alas.................
A decent convo maybe. But then you decided to engage in dishonest tactics. So you only have yourself to blame.
I believe the sub topic was choice. You know, as written here ad nauseum, pro CHOICE. I guess it depends on the poster (does that whine sound familiar?) Carry on and do have a good day.
The topic was choice, ad then you veered off topic with a strawman argument.
Merely an example of choice. Guess we are done.
I really have no concern over how happy women are to have abortions, or whether or not they want to have an abortion, the issue is whether they should have legal access to terminate a pregnancy. Let's not lose track of the issue [deleted] Again that is not the issue and a divisive thing to even say. The issue is whether the GOVERNMENT is going to restrict your access to the right to have an abortion. Has nothing to do with men as there are women and men in the government.
Ever notice how many state legislatures that try to restrict or prohibit abortion tend to be mostly male members?
Are you saying that most women are pro-abortion? That would require some evidence.
I never said nor even suggested any such thing.
That is inconsequential. There are likely women who voted for those men so that is the consequence of their vote.
You were implying that if there were more women in state legislatures there might be a difference on restricting abortions.
You're missing the point. State's that attempt to limit abortion tend to have male dominated legislatures. Sure women can be either for or against. But it's clearly more men that are against abortion.
That is not what I was implying at all.
Who put those males there? Are there more males in their voting district? Those males may be doing the bidding of the women who elected them. Ever think of that?
Let's see who put an abortion bill up for consideration, or if a vote was done to determine if abortion was a consideration before the legislature. Then you even have states that are "repeat offenders" with unconstitutional atempts to restrict abortion, only to be struck down by higher courts.
Prove it!
... or pro-individual freedom of choice guaranteed by the Constitution and upheld by the SCOTUS?
so sorry, the 14th amendment (and the 1st and 4th) is just as valid as all the other amendments. it's enough of a difficult, personal, and private decision for a woman and her doctor to make without the additional stigma applied by hypocritical religious fanatics that insist on meddling in situations that are none of their concern.
A disingenuous term. Who's "pro-abortion" exactly? I don't hear of anyone going around telling, much less mandating, women should or must have abortions. Unlike pro-lifers or "anti-choicers" who try to prohibit women from having abortions.
But, but, they're "saving" us from sin. Especially from the "sin" of abortion. >sarc <
Kinda like what everyone else does ?
Again that doesn't make sense. Pro gun people don't go around forcing people to by guns. It's a choice, but we don't emphasis it's a choice. It seems to just boil down to gun owners are proud to buy guns, and women are not so proud of having abortions. It's an emotional appeal to call it pro choice, instead of calling it what it factually is which is pro abortion. Again by "pro choice" what are we talking about? Choices in general? No, the specific choice to have an abortion.
They are elected officials carrying out the will of their electorate. Men and women alike. If they were not, they likely wouldn't be re-elected.
I'm not so sure about that.
Strawman argument. The issue is about abortion, not guns. "Pro-abortion" is still a disingenuous and misleading term for the reason I stated.
I agree it's settled law. But it seems some have no worries other than what a woman (and probably a total stranger) does with her body and therefore makes an issue out of something that's settled.
Religion seems particularly good at that.
So are "The Others" !
No Difference !
That's not good enough. Explain why pro abortion means people are forced to do something, but pro gun does not mean that? They are both rights I don't see why it's different in any way. I would even accept pro-reproductive rights before pro choice. The only reason people want to call it pro choice is to keep the focus on women, and not the action they want the choice to pursue. It's pathetic word games for people who have never been able to own up to their actions.
I already explained "pro-abortion" and how it's disingenuous. Continuing to utilize the same Strawman is a poor tactic. And pro-choice is reproductive rights in the context of abortion. Pro choice is just that: the right to choose, either to continue a pregnancy or not. How is that misunderstood? The rest of your rant is irrelevant tripe.
What "others?"
OK let's go a differen't route. Here is the dictionary definition of being "pro" something
pro 1
(prō)
[deleted]
No, since no one is pro abortion.
Intellectually honest people wouldnt dodge simple questions posed to them.
Great, you can quote a dictionary. Too bad you continue to ignore the context in which the word is applied.
Intellectually dis-honest people would ask a STUPID question !
Then it should be easy for you to answer. Well?
You need to repeat that a few more times. It still won't sink in with them, but it still bears repeating.
[deleted]
Why won't you answer mine?
I don't see how context matters. I don't see one single abortion rights activist trying to mandate that all women have an abortion. That's absurd and no one is even calling for that so why would that imply that in any context, therefor negating the literal use of the word? Being pro abortion means you support the abortion rights side of any debate. That's literally what it means by the dictionary definition. If you want to abide by some partisan "made up to make women feel better" definition of the word go ahead.
[deleted]
I don't want you to pick up that dog turd and eat it. I am not pro-fecal mastication. However I don't think it's my right to infringe on your right to eat that piece of shit. That means I'm pro-choice, not pro-shit eating. You are accusing people who would likely never even consider getting an abortion or recommending one to a close friend or family of being "pro-abortion" simply because they are pro-choice. If your very life depended on eating that dog poo, would it be right for me to deny you the right to eat it and survive? I don't want you to ever be in that situation, but if you are, don't let me and some privileged sense of self righteousness deny you your right to survive no matter how distasteful I find your method. I have no rights over your body and the choices you make with it. But i'm certainly not pro-crap munching just like I'm not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice in both cases. Is that really too hard for some religious conservatives who are mindlessly anti-abortion to understand?
Even if I want YOU....to pay for it ?
I see you're not interested in actually discussing anything and just want to play your usual games and tactics. Thanks for proving me right.
[deleted]
That's just it: no one is calling for women to have abortions. So using the term pro-abortion is false and misleading.
As you've said "pro" means "An argument or consideration in favor of something" and can also mean "One who supports a proposal or takes the affirmative side in a debate".
But what about the definition of "abortion"?
Abortion: noun - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
So "pro-abortion" means you are making an argument in favor of getting an abortion. Those who are pro-choice are not doing this.
What you're arguing is that the term "pro-abortion" is synonymous with "pro-abortion rights" but it's not. Words matter, and no one is making anything up to "make women feel better". You, and many others, are being completely dishonest in your labeling of others. And it's intentional. The anti-abortion crowd want to demonize, want to label any who are pro-choice as violent pro-abortion baby killers who revel in the number of abortions each year. Those type of folk would be saddened by the fact that through progressive policies and education abortions are decreasing in number each year in the US. However, those labeled "pro-abortion" are ecstatic at the fact that the numbers are dropping. I don't know of a single pro-choice person who wants abortions to occur, I don't want a single woman to have to go through that if avoidable. Better education, easy access to birth control for even the poorest communities, and access to family planning are the foundation of a healthy society.
So if you must, you're welcome to say "pro-abortion rights", which is what you're apparently claiming you mean when you say "pro-abortion". But expect continued rejection and derision of your claims if you keep framing your debate with such intentionally inflammatory labels.
Totally erroneous argument. No tax dollars are being spent to fund abortions. You're not paying for anything, you're simply using a bullshit argument to infringe on others rights. And don't bother with the tired useless argument of "fungibility". It's total hogwash and you know it.
Nope !
"No tax dollars are being spent to fund abortions."
Really ?
Whom is it that pays for the "Un-Insured" ?
It's funny you have to equate abortion to eating dog fecal to help people understand why they wouldn't want to be associated with it, but pro choice became obsolete once Roe vs Wade took affect. Women HAVE a choice. Now it's all about the access and logistics of having an abortion should they choose to exercise that right. That doesn't mean they have to have an abortion just like they don't have to vote or buy a gun or remain silent or anything. And I like how people also believe women have some kind of right to do anything they want to their bodies. I know I can't. I can't just go to the local CVS and pick up antibiotics when I feel I need them. Some doctor has to prescribe them to me and I have to pay him just to take care of myself. Poor me. Maybe I should join the pro choice crowd.
It is a red herring argument for them. We already have laws restricting womens to choice. Abortions past viability are illegal.
No One ?
Then who is "Calling" for it then ?
Martians ?
No one is pro abortion
[deleted]
[deleted]
You don't have to like it, and no one is making you eat it, so why stand in the way of others rights? Do you really think you're that superior to others? Do you really believe your feelings about how nasty something is should override others right to do it? I don't really care if you think it's "funny", all I care about is whether you got the point or not.
Yes, and I support that choice, that doesn't mean the term "pro-choice" has become obsolete, or are you so totally blind you can't even see that you and others like you seem to be desperately trying to take that choice away?
Well access is key to actually being able to exercise a right.
Nearly 1.2 million people die each year in car accidents globally. If you were a "pro-lifer" that number should bother you. However, do you think we should attempt to ban automobiles?
Of course not. But what if in your State, you had a large group of pro-lifers who were attempting to effect a ban on autos by making the requirements for the autos allowed on their roads unrealistic? What if the new laws said that only autos hand crafted in Crewe, England are allowed to drive on your States roads? That means auto's aren't "banned", your States just has a very high requirement for them and thus only those who can afford to buy Bentleys are allowed to drive. I'm sure that would cut down on the highway deaths, but I suspect there would be many black market vehicles or faux Bentleys without any safety features, possible death traps, that would appear on the roads making driving for those folk even less safe, even though all they were trying to do is get to work to survive.
So making something virtually inaccessible by the vast majority is also "anti-choice" because even though someone can say "You have the choice to buy a Bentley", they don't really, do they, not unless they're in the top 2% of earners.
Instead, perhaps making autos safer would have been a better option to select if you were really upset by the million who die each year in auto accidents. Perhaps putting your resources toward driving courses and other educational programs would actually lower the number of deaths instead of simply being "anti-car".
Correct, no one is being forced to get an abortion, but there are people effectively being forced not to get them by conservatives limiting their access and making onerous rules intentionally designed to shut down women's access to that option. If there were progressives passing laws on gun dealers that effectively closed down all but one gun store in the State you KNOW you would be vehemently protesting such actions. If they required a full surgical room and surgeon on staff at each gun store just in case someone shot themselves or someone else while buying a gun, how many gun stores would be left in your State and how would you feel about those who passed such a piece of crap law?
So you're saying you should have some right over a woman's body instead?
True, and women who make that heart wrenching decision to get an abortion don't just go down to the pharmacy and terminate a 12 week pregnancy. They go to a doctor, or at least they'd like to, though with conservatives effectively cutting off millions of women's access by their piece of crap laws that's getting harder and harder to do. And while many don't have the ability to pay for such care from a doctor, Planned Parenthood was able to help even those without funds when they were in dire need of care through donations, and those donations that are used for abortions never come from the government or our tax dollars.
I highly recommend it as it's really the only logical position to take. Those on the anti-choice side of the debate are fueled by nothing more than their "feelings" which interestingly enough, they often deride and accuse those on the left of caring too much about.
[deleted]
And yet, some pro-lifers are still not satisfied with that.
Well yes, but this rhetoric about freedom and choices are merely empty words. If that was true, then an abortion at any stage of pregnancy would be acceptable for the pro-choice crowd.
But, maybe it is and they just don't want to say it out loud.
I'm OK with abortion at any stage. It's simply not my call to make for anyone else. But I'd wager most pro choice people will meet pro-life people halfway on the issue and agree to settle on viability as an acceptable compromise. I doubt most pro-lifers would be as willing to accommodate. But no one seems to be calling for elective late term abortions either.
I would think the pro-choice advocates would be. Wonder why not?
Is it not about a woman's right to choose and her freedom? Do you not see the words "pro-choice"? Why should her rights and freedom be restricted at any stage of pregnancy? [deleted]
That was not Gordy's comment. [deleted]
Here is Gordy's response at 5.1.63...
Good, glad you understand.
Calling for abortions would be akin to pro-abortion. That's not what's happening.
No one is calling for the choice of late term abortions. That is what is not happening with the pro-choice advocates.
Pro choice wants to allow choice (go figure). Anti choicers do not, either before or after viability.
Well no, only under certain conditions, or they would be acceptable to late term abortions as you are.
Whether someone is acceptable to late term abortions is up to them. The law allows up to viability, and then health issues after. Most pro choicers are OK with that as is the law, as it's an acceptable compromise. But ive already said that. So what's your point?
No it isn't. There is no late term abortion on demand, no choice, whether acceptable or not. As I said, the rhetoric about a woman's rights and freedom is a red herring for pro-choice advocates. Seems you can't grasp the idea or have knowledge of the laws.
I never said there were late term abortions on demand. Pro choice advocates want to protect a woman's legal right to choose abortion. Hence, it's a choice. Pro life advocates want to restrict or eliminate that right. It's funny that you equate a woman's rights as mere rhetoric.
I think the current legal standard of the fetus being able to survive outside the womb without the mother, aka "viability" is the most reasonable line drawn between when a fetus is considered part of its host and when it becomes its own "person". Of course, there should always be exceptions allowed even after viability for extreme cases of the mothers health being at risk.
While I agree, I believe it was important for the law to define and draw that line. It's one of the reasons I believe 92% of abortions occur at or before 12 weeks, long before any possible viability and women who decide on an abortion are rarely waiting to the last minute to make that choice. If the anti-choice crowd wanted to focus on what they see as possible elective, unnecessary "on demand" late term abortions then they should present their supposed evidence of such and prosecute those engaging in such illicit activity. Instead all we hear are nonstop nearly unintelligible screaming about "baby killers!".
I wonder if the anti-choice groups would be as large or as enraged if their leaders were screaming "kidney bean killers!" and were handing them all picket signs or putting up billboards showing the kidney bean sized zygotes or smaller that 92% of all abortions actually are. The fact is they know they can't do that because they'd lose large numbers of supporters who were really just angry about the lie told them that "liberals, progressives and the left" love to murder babies. They can't debate honestly, logically or reasonably. Most anti-choice folk I've spoken to have no problem lying, cheating and stealing if they thought it would achieve their goal of the majority bending to their will and accepting their religiously motivated opposition to abortion from the moment of conception on. For them, the ends justify the means.
I'm in agreement with you DP. Viability is indeed a reasonable compromise between both sides of the debate. It's too bad some pro lifers don't think so and/or try to further restrict when abortions are allowed. Even after viability has been defined and established by science & the law, some abortion opponents still refuse to accept that.