the American Psychological Association has determined (PDF) that “abortion hurts women” rhetoric is bunk. The APA, which was to have adopted the new standard this morning, says in its draft language "the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy." In other words, forcing women to carry through with an unplanned pregnancy is just as risky for mental health as it is to have an abortion.
An extended study was performed to target the claim that having an abortion is dangerous to your psychological health. This is useful, but there is also a somewhat besides the point flavor to the whole affair. The fact there are people out there upset that they had abortions, in fact, wishing they had not (20/20 hindsight tends to lead to regrets, not always of a beneficial variety ... e.g., changing answers on tests very well might not be best) seems to be used by some to argue that "ah ha!" abortion is bad! It should not be performed! etc. The same, of course, can be said about marriage, and more to point, having children in various cases.
But, many abortion regulations (with the ill advised support of the Supreme Court) favor childbirth, allowing biased laws where neutral medical rules would be more legitimate. The most blatant being laws that selectively target funding, even in public health clinics, even when abortion might be medically indicated. See Harris v. McRae. On the immediate issue, abortion simply is not a great option. Surgical or medical (RU-486) invasion of the body to destroy developing life is not something a girl or woman likes to do, even though the stress level of an early abortion (especially if you think morning after pills cause them) can be rather low.
Childbirth can be worse, much worse. This even factoring in the "what might have been" factor. Consider Christiana Applegate, who had a double mastectomy because there was a more than likely chance her healthy breast would have been infected (and she saw how her mother suffered when pre-emptive action wasn't taken*), knows all about this. Her choice led to anger and sadness, and for some, it would lead to severe depression. But, this does not mean the choice was wrong. We make hard choices all the time in life, choices where no option might be ideal. As Alan Dershowitz says in an interesting book entitled Finding Jefferson (free speech letter), liberty is dangerous, but withholding them are more so.**
The failure to adequately recognize that life is complicated is a sign of immaturity. Children can be quite wise at times, but they tend to have immature reasoning processes. One online poster split this in two categories -- five year olds, who trust mommy and daddy, and teens who think they are always wrong. You know, "repugs" and those who toss that word out as the end of the conversation. As someone friendly (or more) with some conservative sorts, including those who beliefs on some issues aggravate me, I find this a troublesome path. Life is not so white/black. And, the fear that "give an inch, they will take a mile" can be self-defeating in the long run. After all, your opponents tend to know your side is complicated too, even if they do not always play fair, intentionally or unintentionally.
Judging what to do requires a fairly accurate sense of the evidence and likely possibilities of your actions. Thus, determining the "danger" of having an abortion is important. But, some bad results in no way ends the deal. Everything that matters has some bad stuff.
[The blog post citing the opening quote goes too far. "Just as risky" means that abortion is not MORE likely to lead to severe depression so forth than childbirth. But, it also means that BOTH might so lead in certain cases. Again, if you think having a child is immoral in certain cases, or abortion for that matter, the depression very well might not be the clincher.]
---
* The term calls to mind Iraq, and the cost/benefit analysis referenced (and the immature desire of some to elide past it) in the text clearly applies there too.
** Here is a negative review, that has a point -- I didn't find the letter as remarkable as AD, and in fact the money quote is pretty basic and repeatedly cited by various Supreme Court opinions, including the famous Whitney v. California ruling (a concurrence, btw) by Justice Brandeis. He cited the historian Charles Beard (who saw at least the text of the letter) while a later cite was the Jeffersonian Papers, which has a partially illegible "letter press" version.
The letter clearly has personal value for such a collector and a clear copy is useful for all of us, though I find it hard to believe that he didn't say the same thing in some other letter. More importantly, it provided a chance for AD to do what he does best -- muse and challenge, support basic liberties, but underline the complexities of the situation. A fact that he (and I) accepts as only making things more interesting in the long run. Anyways, the money quote (correct version):
But we have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors. And especially when the law stands ready to punish the first criminal act produced by the false reasoning. These are safer correctives than the conscience of a judge.