Post-abortion syndrome is not real, according to the APA. But, you know, who trusts the American Psychological Association? Women who experienced psychological issues after an abortion were likely to have exhibited symptoms prior to their abortion which means the abortion did not cause their psychological issues.
[Abort73.com] is a clearly biased pro-life website. Of course it’s going to manipulate information about abortions. Unbiased sources are important because it adds credibility to your argument. My sources are unbiased. The National Cancer Institute has nothing to gain by being pro-life or pro-choice. The Guttmacher Institute has nothing to gain by giving information on abortions, who gets them, and when they’re done. The American Psychological Associtaion has nothing to gain from being pro-life or pro-choice. The BBC has nothing to gain from being pro-life or pro-choice. The success of their websites and organizations do not rely on the support of one group of people (like pro-life advocates) so they are free to report the facts, unlike abort73.com which not only pan-handles to pro-life advocates, it requires their support to exist because it has no scientific or professional credibility out side of pro-life propaganda.
Being able to control what happens to your body is not pointless. When people try to take away your right to make decisions, it’s something to get pissed off about. Don’t act like CPCs don’t manipulate women when they do. Believe what you want but don’t blatantly ignore something that’s true. That’s just willingly ignoring reality.
Rabble, writing an excellent take-down of a born-again bigot’s anti-choice nonsense. My only quibble: Using the term “pro-life” for anti-choice groups implies that pro-choicers are anti-life when we’re not. The term also allows anti-choicers to stigmatize abortion, and that stigma advances their overall agenda. — Ryking (via ryking)
I and my fellow pro-choicers were using the term “anti-choice” back in the 80’s…I’m not sure why or when that was basically abandoned because I rarely hear it used anymore. But it is accurate, and puts any debate on a more level playing field - the subject really is “choice” about one’s own body. The mere term “pro-life” makes any counterargument begin at a disadvantage because of the psychological implications inherent in the term, which are very misleading.
Always appreciative of Rabble’s fearlessness, whichever term is used! ~whyinthehell