Women who get abortions are more likely to commit suicide.

[TheGreatGatsby]

Just for perspective, there were 41,000 suicides in America in 2011. More than 32,000 were men, more than 8,000 for women.

What pro-lifers fail to observe is that mental health related issues are far more prevalent among men than women (can you recall any female pilots intentionally crashing planes?).

Relevance....none.

The fact is that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide. Stick to the subject matter, kid..

 

[Political Junky]

Abortion and suicide the grim statistics Opinion LifeSite

LifeSite? .. what a crock of propaganda.

 

[Political Junky]

Abortion and suicide the grim statistics Opinion LifeSite

And there's a mountain of evidence that women who have abortions are much more likely to get breast cancer than women who don't.

Abortion A Human Tragedy and a National Disgrace

More propaganda from the Far Right.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Abortion and suicide the grim statistics Opinion LifeSite

LifeSite? .. what a crock of propaganda.

Yea....how dare they present facts that MSNBC or CNN won't report! Oh, wait___

Other statistics show that women have a higher rate of suicide after abortion. Suicide rates among women of childbearing age are approximately 11.3 out of 100,000.

Postabortion women have a rate of 34.7. Interestingly enough, women who have given birth have a suicide rate of 5.9 per hundred thousand. Birth, then, seems to give some protection against suicide. Perhaps women who have children discover they’ve something to live for, or do not want to hurt the children that depend on them by committing suicide. In any case, giving birth seems to be a detriment to suicide – whereas abortion increases the suicide rate.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

More propaganda from the Far Right.

So...if you're not for abortion, you're 'far right?' I call it just having some f'ing humanity.

 

[edthecynic]

Just for perspective, there were 41,000 suicides in America in 2011. More than 32,000 were men, more than 8,000 for women.

Relevance....none.

The fact is that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide. Stick to the subject matter, kid..

Actually relevance....total!

It proves what you call a "fact" is actually a "FALLACY." Clearly the 32,000 men who committed suicide did NOT have abortions, so suicide has other factors as its cause.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Just for perspective, there were 41,000 suicides in America in 2011. More than 32,000 were men, more than 8,000 for women.

Relevance....none.

The fact is that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide. Stick to the subject matter, kid..

Actually relevance....total!

It proves what you call a "fact" is actually a "FALLACY." Clearly the 32,000 men who committed suicide did NOT have abortions, so suicide has other factors as its cause.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.

No. What I called a fact is a fact, dumb ass. Is it not fact that women who had abortions committed suicide at a higher rate? If don't understand simple matters, you shouldn't be throwing around relatively advanced concepts like post hoc erco propter hoc....that goes for you and dumb asses like Pogo.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And women are more likely to die in childbirth or from complications thereafter than are likely to die from an abortion.

 

[Care4all]

Just for perspective, there were 41,000 suicides in America in 2011. More than 32,000 were men, more than 8,000 for women.

Relevance....none.

The fact is that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide. Stick to the subject matter, kid..

Actually relevance....total!

It proves what you call a "fact" is actually a "FALLACY." Clearly the 32,000 men who committed suicide did NOT have abortions, so suicide has other factors as its cause.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.

No. What I called a fact is a fact, dumb ass. Is it not fact that women who had abortions committed suicide at a higher rate? If don't understand simple matters, you shouldn't be throwing around relatively advanced concepts like post hoc erco propter hoc....that goes for you and dumb asses like Pogo.

Actually Gatsby, in this study in Finland, this is true....merely looking at the study's numbers... but I can't say the study was truly meaningful.

Were these mostly SINGLE women having the abortions vs. mostly married women, having their babies?

A better study would have been women who aborted compared to single women who had their babies out of wedlock.

And married women who aborted with husband's consent and without husband's consent, compared to married women who chose to have their child.

And 1 year following is too short of a study.

ALSO, where is Finland, regarding abortion? Is it liberal or conservative in their laws? That could factor in to the study's results as well....

I would presume that a 'harder' lifestyle of a good portion of those having abortions could be a factor in the suicide rates as well....

And the security of being married with child, verses the insecurity of being unmarried with child.... I would presume being unmarried with child would have a higher suicide rate than married with child, but....I could be wrong???

I guess my bottom line is, this study, although it may be accurate as far as ''numbers'', it doesn't tell us much.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is hardly an argument against abortion rights, if that was the intent.

 

[edthecynic]

It proves what you call a "fact" is actually a "FALLACY." Clearly the 32,000 men who committed suicide did NOT have abortions, so suicide has other factors as its cause.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.

No. What I called a fact is a fact, dumb ass. Is it not fact that women who had abortions committed suicide at a higher rate?

And that is as meaningless as if women with hazel eyes committed suicide at a higher rate.

 

[The Professor]

What a horseshit study. It compares women who had abortions with "women who gave birth". That's not a comparison. A rational comparison would be between women who considered abortion and did it, versus women who considered abortion and did not. Not to mention any given woman could be defined in BOTH of the flawed study profiles.

Add to that, women who consider abortions are likely, if not necessarily, doing so as a result of major things in their lives going wrong. Those are undoubtedly contributing factors in later suicides.

Bogus conclusion based on completely false comparisons.

Fantastic analysis !!

Unfortunately, many people, including some contributors to this thread, do not understand the basic principles of statistical analysis. Allow me to give you my favorite misuse of statistics.

Some time ago, the American Medical Association (AMA) conducted two studies on the health effects of moderate drinking. These studies, which were about 15 years apart, were properly conducted and involved statistically significant sample sizes.

The studies showed that those people who drank one or two drinks every day were generally more healthy than those who did not drink at all. Specifically, moderate drinkers got sick less often and when they did get sick they recovered faster. They also lived longer.

For decades many people accepted the AMA's conclusion that moderate consumption of alcohol had significant health benefits. However, although the studies were flawless, the conclusion based upon these studies was ultimately questioned. The fact that those who drink moderately are healthier is beyond question, but that does not necessarily mean that alcohol is the reason. It seems that the AMA researches ignored the possibility of other factors and made the rather common mistake of assuming that when two situations occur simultaneously the one is the cause (or at least a contributing factor) of the other.

One particular study examined the personal characteristics of those who drank moderately. The study found that when compared to non-drinkers, they were more inclined to be sociable, far more likely to be extroverted rather than introverted and far less likely to internalize emotions. People with such traits tend to live less stressful lives than those who do not share these qualities. Of course, the entire medical community recognizes that stress is a major cause of sickness and premature death. So, the question is: does alcohol – taken in moderation – cause people to be healthier and live longer, or would such people enjoy healthier and longer lives even if they did not drink simply because they possess characteristics which result in less stressful lives? I don't have the answer.

 

[Politico]

Yeah, that's what the anti-choice zealots have been saying for years.

You didn't read the article, did you? Why don't you do that now? You might learn something.

What you need to learn is you have business in other people's lives.

 

[Pogo]

Just for perspective, there were 41,000 suicides in America in 2011. More than 32,000 were men, more than 8,000 for women.

Relevance....none.

The fact is that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide. Stick to the subject matter, kid..

Actually relevance....total!

It proves what you call a "fact" is actually a "FALLACY." Clearly the 32,000 men who committed suicide did NOT have abortions, so suicide has other factors as its cause.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.

No. What I called a fact is a fact, dumb ass. Is it not fact that women who had abortions committed suicide at a higher rate? If don't understand simple matters, you shouldn't be throwing around relatively advanced concepts like post hoc erco propter hoc....that goes for you and dumb asses like Pogo.

Actually Gatsby, in this study in Finland, this is true....merely looking at the study's numbers... but I can't say the study was truly meaningful.

Were these mostly SINGLE women having the abortions vs. mostly married women, having their babies?

A better study would have been women who aborted compared to single women who had their babies out of wedlock.

And married women who aborted with husband's consent and without husband's consent, compared to married women who chose to have their child.

And 1 year following is too short of a study.

ALSO, where is Finland, regarding abortion? Is it liberal or conservative in their laws? That could factor in to the study's results as well....

I would presume that a 'harder' lifestyle of a good portion of those having abortions could be a factor in the suicide rates as well....

And the security of being married with child, verses the insecurity of being unmarried with child.... I would presume being unmarried with child would have a higher suicide rate than married with child, but....I could be wrong???

I guess my bottom line is, this study, although it may be accurate as far as ''numbers'', it doesn't tell us much.

Good thoughts. And as noted earlier, the group defined as "women who had abortions" are by definition facing whatever their problems are that led to that abortion, which are themselves contributory influences to that suicide. Into which might also be thrown substance dependency, depression, employment instability, relationship instability, other health issues, any number of contributing factors. So cherrypicking the abortion out of the whole and pretending to see it as a cause is a blatant fallacy. Call it non sequitur, call it post hoc, whatever. I call it bullshit. Even the simple know what that means.

Moreover -- Finland has high suicide/depression rates anyway.
Know what they also have a lot of?
Guns.

I feel a satirical statistical analogy coming on...

 

[Pogo]

What a horseshit study. It compares women who had abortions with "women who gave birth". That's not a comparison. A rational comparison would be between women who considered abortion and did it, versus women who considered abortion and did not. Not to mention any given woman could be defined in BOTH of the flawed study profiles.

Add to that, women who consider abortions are likely, if not necessarily, doing so as a result of major things in their lives going wrong. Those are undoubtedly contributing factors in later suicides.

Bogus conclusion based on completely false comparisons.

Fantastic analysis !!

Unfortunately, many people, including some contributors to this thread, do not understand the basic principles of statistical analysis. Allow me to give you my favorite misuse of statistics.

Some time ago, the American Medical Association (AMA) conducted two studies on the health effects of moderate drinking. These studies, which were about 15 years apart, were properly conducted and involved statistically significant sample sizes.

The studies showed that those people who drank one or two drinks every day were generally more healthy than those who did not drink at all. Specifically, moderate drinkers got sick less often and when they did get sick they recovered faster. They also lived longer.

For decades many people accepted the AMA's conclusion that moderate consumption of alcohol had significant health benefits. However, although the studies were flawless, the conclusion based upon these studies was ultimately questioned. The fact that those who drink moderately are healthier is beyond question, but that does not necessarily mean that alcohol is the reason. It seems that the AMA researches ignored the possibility of other factors and made the rather common mistake of assuming that when two situations occur simultaneously the one is the cause (or at least a contributing factor) of the other.

One particular study examined the personal characteristics of those who drank moderately. The study found that when compared to non-drinkers, they were more inclined to be sociable, far more likely to be extroverted rather than introverted and far less likely to internalize emotions. People with such traits tend to live less stressful lives than those who do not share these qualities. Of course, the entire medical community recognizes that stress is a major cause of sickness and premature death. So, the question is: does alcohol – taken in moderation – cause people to be healthier and live longer, or would such people enjoy healthier and longer lives even if they did not drink simply because they possess characteristics which result in less stressful lives? I don't have the answer.

Thank you and back atchya -- more interesting thoughts.

I muse as to whether it has to do in a much broader way with the Western concept of seeing trees and not the forest -- the idea of "treating the symptom and ignoring the disease" as applied to political demagoguery.

 

[Mr.Right]

Yeah, that's what the anti-choice zealots have been saying for years.

You didn't read the article, did you? Why don't you do that now? You might learn something.

I read it. It's the same old shit.

So you're right, and three independent studies based on medical records are wrong? You might want to get some knee braces. The weight of being right all the time has to be hard on the knees.

You need to excuse her, white man caused her problems. What she don't realize, it's the colored babies that are aborted the most. A sorry truth.

More black babies are aborted than carried to term. If they keep it up, blacks will be an endangered species

What a horseshit study. It compares women who had abortions with "women who gave birth". That's not a comparison. A rational comparison would be between women who considered abortion and did it, versus women who considered abortion and did not. Not to mention any given woman could be defined in BOTH of the flawed study profiles.

Add to that, women who consider abortions are likely, if not necessarily, doing so as a result of major things in their lives going wrong. Those are undoubtedly contributing factors in later suicides.

Bogus conclusion based on completely false comparisons.

Fantastic analysis !!

Unfortunately, many people, including some contributors to this thread, do not understand the basic principles of statistical analysis. Allow me to give you my favorite misuse of statistics.

Some time ago, the American Medical Association (AMA) conducted two studies on the health effects of moderate drinking. These studies, which were about 15 years apart, were properly conducted and involved statistically significant sample sizes.

The studies showed that those people who drank one or two drinks every day were generally more healthy than those who did not drink at all. Specifically, moderate drinkers got sick less often and when they did get sick they recovered faster. They also lived longer.

For decades many people accepted the AMA's conclusion that moderate consumption of alcohol had significant health benefits. However, although the studies were flawless, the conclusion based upon these studies was ultimately questioned. The fact that those who drink moderately are healthier is beyond question, but that does not necessarily mean that alcohol is the reason. It seems that the AMA researches ignored the possibility of other factors and made the rather common mistake of assuming that when two situations occur simultaneously the one is the cause (or at least a contributing factor) of the other.

One particular study examined the personal characteristics of those who drank moderately. The study found that when compared to non-drinkers, they were more inclined to be sociable, far more likely to be extroverted rather than introverted and far less likely to internalize emotions. People with such traits tend to live less stressful lives than those who do not share these qualities. Of course, the entire medical community recognizes that stress is a major cause of sickness and premature death. So, the question is: does alcohol – taken in moderation – cause people to be healthier and live longer, or would such people enjoy healthier and longer lives even if they did not drink simply because they possess characteristics which result in less stressful lives? I don't have the answer.

I don't believe your reasoning applies here. The study clearly shows that the increase in the suicide rate has one common factor. Abortion. The same study also shows that women who actually give birth are less likely to commit suicide. So you actually have a double confirmation here.

 

[Sarah G]

Abortion and suicide the grim statistics Opinion LifeSite

LifeSite? .. what a crock of propaganda.

I know, it seems like a lie right from the name of the site on through.

 

[Mr.Right]

Abortion and suicide the grim statistics Opinion LifeSite

LifeSite? .. what a crock of propaganda.

I know, it seems like a lie right from the name of the site on through.

The results of three separate studies, in two different countries. These studies were based on medical records. There is no room for bias here.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, that's what the anti-choice zealots have been saying for years.

You didn't read the article, did you? Why don't you do that now? You might learn something.

I read it. It's the same old shit.

So you're right, and three independent studies based on medical records are wrong? You might want to get some knee braces. The weight of being right all the time has to be hard on the knees.

You need to excuse her, white man caused her problems. What she don't realize, it's the colored babies that are aborted the most. A sorry truth.

More black babies are aborted than carried to term. If they keep it up, blacks will be an endangered species

What a horseshit study. It compares women who had abortions with "women who gave birth". That's not a comparison. A rational comparison would be between women who considered abortion and did it, versus women who considered abortion and did not. Not to mention any given woman could be defined in BOTH of the flawed study profiles.

Add to that, women who consider abortions are likely, if not necessarily, doing so as a result of major things in their lives going wrong. Those are undoubtedly contributing factors in later suicides.

Bogus conclusion based on completely false comparisons.

Fantastic analysis !!

Unfortunately, many people, including some contributors to this thread, do not understand the basic principles of statistical analysis. Allow me to give you my favorite misuse of statistics.

Some time ago, the American Medical Association (AMA) conducted two studies on the health effects of moderate drinking. These studies, which were about 15 years apart, were properly conducted and involved statistically significant sample sizes.

The studies showed that those people who drank one or two drinks every day were generally more healthy than those who did not drink at all. Specifically, moderate drinkers got sick less often and when they did get sick they recovered faster. They also lived longer.

For decades many people accepted the AMA's conclusion that moderate consumption of alcohol had significant health benefits. However, although the studies were flawless, the conclusion based upon these studies was ultimately questioned. The fact that those who drink moderately are healthier is beyond question, but that does not necessarily mean that alcohol is the reason. It seems that the AMA researches ignored the possibility of other factors and made the rather common mistake of assuming that when two situations occur simultaneously the one is the cause (or at least a contributing factor) of the other.

One particular study examined the personal characteristics of those who drank moderately. The study found that when compared to non-drinkers, they were more inclined to be sociable, far more likely to be extroverted rather than introverted and far less likely to internalize emotions. People with such traits tend to live less stressful lives than those who do not share these qualities. Of course, the entire medical community recognizes that stress is a major cause of sickness and premature death. So, the question is: does alcohol – taken in moderation – cause people to be healthier and live longer, or would such people enjoy healthier and longer lives even if they did not drink simply because they possess characteristics which result in less stressful lives? I don't have the answer.

I don't believe your reasoning applies here. The study clearly shows that the increase in the suicide rate has one common factor. Abortion. The same study also shows that women who actually give birth are less likely to commit suicide. So you actually have a double confirmation here.

Once again, and maybe we'll just try spelling it out in blue this time...

(1) "Women who had an abortion" ... and
(2) "Women who gave birth"

--- are not two mutually exclusive groups, number one...

and number two, "women who gave birth" would by definition comprise ALL women who gave birth including:
-- women whose circumstances have never suggested any reason or need for abortion anyway;
-- women who sought an abortion but could not get one and ended up giving birth;
-- and women who have experienced both birth AND abortion as noted above

And moreover, the fatal fallacy is here: women seeking abortion are by definition taking a drastic step. This means they have OTHER (meaning utterly unrelated to the abortion since they precede it) factors in their life circumstances that suggest such drastic step is necessary, i.e. that led to the decision that said abortion is necessary. THESE pre-existing factors are far more likely causal factors that might lead to suicide. So when you cherrypick "they had an abortion" out of their entire life history, you are completely IGNORING all other factors which could have led to both the abortion AND the suicide.

Understand?
As I said you're ignoring the forest and going "look -- a tree!"

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Just for perspective, there were 41,000 suicides in America in 2011. More than 32,000 were men, more than 8,000 for women.

Relevance....none.

The fact is that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide. Stick to the subject matter, kid..

Actually relevance....total!

It proves what you call a "fact" is actually a "FALLACY." Clearly the 32,000 men who committed suicide did NOT have abortions, so suicide has other factors as its cause.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.

No. What I called a fact is a fact, dumb ass. Is it not fact that women who had abortions committed suicide at a higher rate? If don't understand simple matters, you shouldn't be throwing around relatively advanced concepts like post hoc erco propter hoc....that goes for you and dumb asses like Pogo.

Actually Gatsby, in this study in Finland, this is true....merely looking at the study's numbers... but I can't say the study was truly meaningful.

Were these mostly SINGLE women having the abortions vs. mostly married women, having their babies?

A better study would have been women who aborted compared to single women who had their babies out of wedlock.

And married women who aborted with husband's consent and without husband's consent, compared to married women who chose to have their child.

And 1 year following is too short of a study.

ALSO, where is Finland, regarding abortion? Is it liberal or conservative in their laws? That could factor in to the study's results as well....

I would presume that a 'harder' lifestyle of a good portion of those having abortions could be a factor in the suicide rates as well....

And the security of being married with child, verses the insecurity of being unmarried with child.... I would presume being unmarried with child would have a higher suicide rate than married with child, but....I could be wrong???

I guess my bottom line is, this study, although it may be accurate as far as ''numbers'', it doesn't tell us much.

I'm not disputing that a single unwedded vs. single wedded comparison wouldn't be useful. But the women who did abort vs. women who did not abort is valid jumping off point. I have no doubt that women who abort are more likely to not be married. Why should it surprise anyone that unresponsiblie people who unresponsibly kill are not responsibly married?

But all the same, you have a lot of valid points of how it could be more adequately studied; and I'm not treading upon your opinion. I'm more speaking to the idiots who are SHAMELESSLY trying to claim that the study is invalid b/c it doesn't mesh with their politics.