http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/15/nabort15.xml Revealed: how an abortion puts the next baby at risk By Michael Day (Filed: 15/05/2005) Having an abortion almost doubles a woman's risk of giving birth dangerously early in a later pregnancy, according to research that will provoke fresh debate over the most controversial of all medical procedures. A French study of 2,837 births - the first to investigate the link between terminations and extremely premature births - found that mothers who had previously had an abortion were 1.7 times more likely to give birth to a baby at less than 28 weeks' gestation. Many babies born this early die soon after birth, and a large number who survive suffer serious disability. The research leader, Dr Caroline Moreau, an epidemiologist at the Hôpital de Bicêtre in Paris, said the results of the study, which appear in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, provided conclusive evidence of a link between induced abortion and subsequent pre-term births. Last night anti-abortion campaigners seized on the evidence to demand that all women seeking a termination be warned, routinely, that they are jeopardising the well-being of future babies. A series of earlier, smaller studies had failed to provide clear evidence of a link and so women currently opting for an abortion are not warned of the risk. Dr Moreau said: "Clearly there is a link. The results suggest that induced abortion can damage the cervix in some way that makes a premature birth more likely in subsequent pregnancies." Her study compared the medical histories of 2,219 women with babies born at less than 34 weeks with another 618 who had given birth at full term. Overall, women who had had an abortion were 40 per cent more likely to have a very pre-term delivery (less than 33 weeks) than those without such a history. The risk of an extremely premature baby - one born at less than 28 weeks - was raised even more sharply, by 70 per cent. Abortion appeared to increase the risk of most major causes of premature birth, including premature rupture of membranes, incorrect position of the foetus on the placenta and spontaneous early labour. The only common cause of premature birth not linked to abortion was high blood pressure. Mr Peter Bowen-Simpkins, a spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a consultant obstetrician at the Sancta Maria Hospital in Swansea, said the study revealed that abortion might not be as safe as previously supposed. "This study shows that surgical termination of pregnancies may have late complications and may not be without risk," he said. About 185,000 women have abortions in Britain each year, for social or medical reasons, and last night anti-abortion campaigners seized upon the new study as evidence that the risks have been underplayed. Jack Scarisbrick, the chairman of the campaign group Life, said: ''We have been saying for years that surgical abortion inevitably increases the risk of later problems. It seems that the abortion procedure carries with it risks that women will know nothing about until they become pregnant with a 'wanted' child later on." About 80,000 babies in the UK and Ireland are born prematurely each year; 17,000 of these need intensive care. A spokesman for Marie Stopes International, which is the largest provider of abortions outside the NHS, said that women seeking terminations were not told of increased risks of premature births "because so far, they have not been established".
I don't really get it. Often the same people that oppose abortion also oppose welfare. So often these are young parents with no money and can't afford to save for education. These kids are doomed either way, from my perspective.
Hmmmm. From my perspective, that's exactly what an abortion is-- upon an absolutely defenseless, dependent life. Good point! Is denying someone the right to rape or murder someone a use of force?
This is a complex, unique issue. A black, underground abortion market would be worse than a regulated one, period. Prisons and threats of prison will solve nothing. I will never back that. Ever.
Good point. Pro-"life" people forget that banning abortion won't stop illegal abortion. There are PLENTY of ways to force an abortion.
Remember 'freakonomics'? The author(s) would like to disagree. And is it just me, or is anyone else slightly concerned that the full term pregnancies studied made only 21.8% of the total case studies? I think that there's a spin on this study somewhere. But then again, I'm a skeptic for anything I can't see the original data on.
No and that is a point that I "may" be willing to compromise on just to keep the more casually unwanted children alive.
Might as well add this story here...i'm ASSUMING Drudge will link the story, but here it is now: http://drudgereport.com/flash3uk.htm XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN MAY 15, 2005 20:42:35 ET XXXXX WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS AGAIN AND AGAIN; LADY HAD 6 IN A YEAR! A dramatic rise in repeat abortions has reinforced fears that women are increasingly having terminations for lifestyle reasons. One in three abortions is now carried out on women who have had at least one before. London's DAILY MAIL reports on Monday. MORE Figures from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service suggest that women who become pregnant at university or at the start of their careers see abortion as a means of delaying motherhood. Women between 20 and 24 have taken over from teenagers as the largest age group to have terminations-while only one in 100 abortions is carried out solely because of a medical risk to the baby. It was revealed that one woman from London had six abortions in just 12 months! MORE Campaigners warned that the emotional and physical risks of abortion were being 'swept under the carpet'. The procedure can make it more difficult for women to ever start a family and many later suffer depression. Researchers said the trend could be reversed if more support was available for mothers trying to juggle careers and families. The new figures from the BPAS, Britain's leading abortion provider, reveal that 181,582 terminations were carried out in England and Wales in 2003, a 3.2 per cent increase on the previous year and a 15 per cent rise since 1993. Among these some 57,241 - 32 per cent - were on women who had already undergone a termination at least once. This is almost a third higher than the 1993 figure. Developing...
I wasn't suggesting that. We've spent a lot of time talking about reasons for abortions. Here's what they found across the pond.
Typical Republican response. Simplify...simplify...simplify. Unfortunately...it ain't that easy. Here's the messy but reality based response to your oversimplification: 1. Women tend to get attached after birth. A certain portion of woman that intend to adopt change their mind after birth. Unfortunately, in 9 months mother still isn't earning more money to save for college. 2. Humans have a tendancy want to bear their own children. A relatively low proportion of Americans are interested in adopting as evidenced by the popularity of fertility drugs. 3. Even if an American were interested in adopting, we tend to want babies that look like us. If you are white, you want a white baby. We have plenty of black kids available for adoption but Russian adoptions are very popular because...well...we know why. So encouraging more adoptions would inevitably burden our foster care system. Beyond the increased financial tax burden to fund these programs, more and more children would be raised without parents. Inevitabely, a portion of these parentless kids will burden society with even more teen pregnacies, as criminals or otherwise living in poverty compounding the burden on government subsidized programs such as welfare. Want to simplify? Try recognizing that people have sex...we are sexual beings. Was that so hard? Now, we could increase safe sex programs in a proactive measure. Doing so would preempt abortions, foster care, welfare, overpopulation, etc etc etc. Naw, silly me. Education is bad. Lets keep them stupid.
Roll your eyes all you want...but let me try to explain what your argument just looked like to someone who sees the fetus as a living human being....particuarly after the first trimester. You just said people are sexual, and essentially can't control themselves. That in the US, a lot of people are having sex completely unaware that it might lead to pregnancy. That if we allow these women to actually give birth to these babies, the tax on our economy will be horrendous..the burden on us all, too much to bear. So we'd be better off if they just killed them all. I'm not saying that's how you see it...I'm saying that's how someone who views it as life would see your post. This is the disconnect we have in this discussion. It's the very heart of the issue. Policy questions are great...but you can't get to them until you have some conclusions or ideas about whether or not the fetus is worthy of protections. The Supreme Court seemed to understand that in Roe, banning all abortions that weren't medically necessary after the first trimester. They then eroded the words "medically necessary" to essentially provide a system where we have abortion on demand at this point. That's where the issue stands today. But the policy questions about the burden on society these children would pose rings absolutely hollow with one who perceives that the fetus is worth protecting simply because it's alive. The same reasons why your life is worth protecting...the same reasons why a newborn baby whose mother on welfare is worth protecting, no matter the drain on our resources.
1. I have known lots of women who were mothers and <b>invariably</b> they were attached <b>before</b> birth. 2. It's natural to want your own children but the inability to do that is stopping no one. Those who can't bear their own want someone else's baby and I understand that sometimes they have to wait years or go abroad because of the scarcity of infants available for adoption in the US. 3. Though I don't know the stats, I have a feeling that your observation is true although there are exceptional people who will want and love a child, any child, who needs a home-- even ones with profound emotional or health challenges. Those people are saints.
with the millions of "pro-life" people living in the US, I'm surprised there are still children in orphanages that aren't adopted.
