home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!acd4!TEFS1!wdo
- From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
- Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
- Message-ID: <1992Jul22.185747.3417@acd4.acd.com>
- Sender: news@acd4.acd.com (USENET News System)
- Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:57:47 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In <1992Jul21.152018.67042@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu
- (Susan Garvin) writes: >
-
- >The study of psychological aftereffects in members of Women
- >Exploited by Abortion (the Reardon study) is not worth refuting
- >again. (Can you say biased sample?)
-
- Despite the bias of the study sample, should the adverse sequelae
- experienced by these women be relegated to insignificance because
- such women seem to represent a minority? Do these women deserve
- a hearing or should we simply infer a "pro-lie" political agenda?
-
- >The evidence which supports the safety of legal abortion is
- >overwhelming. Unscrupulous anti-abortion people attempt to
- >fabricate evidence to refute it, but these attempts have been
- >exposed as frauds over and over again.
-
- So are you saying that no one ever experiences any emotional trauma
- subsequent to abortion? Or just that those numbers are so few that
- it's an insufficient reason to restrict the practice? Even if the
- latter is true, we're still left with some number of women who do
- report serious emotional consequences. Should anything at all be
- done (prior to the procedure) to preclude the possibility of such
- reactions?
-
- Bill
- Bill
-