I wonder how much of what the article attributes to giving the baby up for adoption is actually a result of going through a Catholic adoption agency when the writer was not Catholic. It sounded to me like most of the issues were a fundamental mismatch between the beliefs of the woman affected and the agency whose 'assistance' was so counterproductive. This certainly points to problems with the way some agencies handle the needs of the mother, but I'd really like to see the non-existent peer-reviewed studies before accepting this anecdote as strong evidence of a problem with the unwanted-pregnancy outcome of adoption.
That aside, carrying an infant to term, whether or not it is in the mother's custody, may trigger post-partum depression. This may, when the mother retains custody, be partly or completely blamed on the stresses of having a newborn in one's care. Another problem with comparing unwanted-pregnancy outcomes; whenever they do get around to evaluating them, they will have quite a challenge doing so. Procedural difficulties mean that a lay person may find it easy to exclude whichever studies don't fit their beliefs.
Emergency contraceptives work by preventing ovulation. So if they work at all, there never is a zygote.
Odd. Planned Parenthood does list only an 89% effectiveness rate for "Plan B" emergency contraception started within three days of intercourse, for the reason you stated, but they do claim that having a ParaGuard IUD inserted within five days of intercourse is 99.9% effective. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm#effective))
Are they incorrect, or am I misunderstanding?
Anybody who goes for abortion goes *because* she noticed the parasite.
Clearly, but why didn't she notice when she was infected with it? Early treatment, if the 99.9% statistic for an IUD is correct, would sidestep the whole issue of the painful, inconvenient, and expensive abortion. If it's a subtle contraceptive failure, where the woman has every reason to believe she cannot be pregnant, wouldn't she be less likely to notice it (attributing early pregnancy symptoms to a viral infection rather than a parasite) until the fetus is theoretically a viable person if you could just get it out of where it's encysted without hurting either it or the host?
Nobody would use abortion as birth control in the first place unless they have no other alternative; abortions are painful, inconvenient, and expensive. It would be like using root canals as a way of cleaning your teeth.
I agree with you fully on the "conceived on purpose and born in joy" aspect. I am very much in favour of reducing elective abortions by increasing the availability of birth control and accurate sexuality information. That's part of the reason that when I hear of a woman getting into a situation where she needs an abortion, I want to know how she got there. What can we do to prevent other women from falling into the same traps?
Abortion is harmful to a fetus and also to a woman. The original article argues that adoption is also harmful to a woman. Unprepared parenting is harmful to a woman. Restricting female sexual behaviour is harmful to a woman. We've got a whole frustrating boatload of sexuality-resulting situations that conspire to be harmful to a woman, and a handful of basic preventative measures that are minimally so. Yes, sole responsibility for contraception is, on a level of liberty and dignity, likely to be somewhat harmful to a woman, but all the other options look worse from here. :-/
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Strange how peer-reviewed studies are near non-existent
Date: 2009-03-20 04:10 am (UTC)That aside, carrying an infant to term, whether or not it is in the mother's custody, may trigger post-partum depression. This may, when the mother retains custody, be partly or completely blamed on the stresses of having a newborn in one's care. Another problem with comparing unwanted-pregnancy outcomes; whenever they do get around to evaluating them, they will have quite a challenge doing so. Procedural difficulties mean that a lay person may find it easy to exclude whichever studies don't fit their beliefs.
Emergency contraceptives work by preventing ovulation. So if they work at all, there never is a zygote.
Odd. Planned Parenthood does list only an 89% effectiveness rate for "Plan B" emergency contraception started within three days of intercourse, for the reason you stated, but they do claim that having a ParaGuard IUD inserted within five days of intercourse is 99.9% effective. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm#effective))
Are they incorrect, or am I misunderstanding?
Anybody who goes for abortion goes *because* she noticed the parasite.
Clearly, but why didn't she notice when she was infected with it? Early treatment, if the 99.9% statistic for an IUD is correct, would sidestep the whole issue of the painful, inconvenient, and expensive abortion. If it's a subtle contraceptive failure, where the woman has every reason to believe she cannot be pregnant, wouldn't she be less likely to notice it (attributing early pregnancy symptoms to a viral infection rather than a parasite) until the fetus is theoretically a viable person if you could just get it out of where it's encysted without hurting either it or the host?
Nobody would use abortion as birth control in the first place unless they have no other alternative; abortions are painful, inconvenient, and expensive. It would be like using root canals as a way of cleaning your teeth.
I agree with you fully on the "conceived on purpose and born in joy" aspect. I am very much in favour of reducing elective abortions by increasing the availability of birth control and accurate sexuality information. That's part of the reason that when I hear of a woman getting into a situation where she needs an abortion, I want to know how she got there. What can we do to prevent other women from falling into the same traps?
Abortion is harmful to a fetus and also to a woman. The original article argues that adoption is also harmful to a woman. Unprepared parenting is harmful to a woman. Restricting female sexual behaviour is harmful to a woman. We've got a whole frustrating boatload of sexuality-resulting situations that conspire to be harmful to a woman, and a handful of basic preventative measures that are minimally so. Yes, sole responsibility for contraception is, on a level of liberty and dignity, likely to be somewhat harmful to a woman, but all the other options look worse from here. :-/