Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Post Abortion Syndrom or Relief?

What really are the consequences of abortion on a woman's psychological/spiritual health?

Who actually sees and speaks and cries with the women who have had abortions? Who actually spends countless hours and times speaking to the woman about God's love and forgiveness? Amanda and Pastor Erickson speak to this today a couple of posts back from their own experiences.

How could possibly what they write not be true? What pastor does not encounter this? What care center does not deal with the aftermath and the crushed women, men and grandparents? How many more never talk to anyone about it?

We've all listened to this song and been moved by it: "He would be sixteen." When I hear this song on the radio I always think: "If that is how the woman who placed for adoption and does not know her child feels (though open adoption is now widely available and records have opened up all around),--how does the woman feel who submitted to an abortion? More relief, or more stress in comparison?" Surely, it will depend on the individual person, but, how can this not haunt very many? They would be made from stone not flesh and blood. What is more embedded in most women's make-up than to nurture and love and be loved back? Why does this song resonate with everyone?

And why this vehemence about someone getting a last minute pause before taking an irreversible step they may have been pressured into or panicked themselves into? What if a cookie delays the decision or changes the course of events? What about it? Do you care about women? The only difference a delay makes is that the abortion clinics schedule was thrown off and maybe not as profitable. What other difference does it make? Whose interests are at heart in this complaint about cookies, of all things? Those "pesky, stupid" "anti-choice" idiots with their "fucking God" ruined our nice schedule for the day? This is not only "irrational", it is perverse and inhumane. Can't you see that? You are toying with things related to life and death, a woman's most natural instincts and needs and her psychological and spiritual well-being.

But this is where God does come in. If there is none then perhaps all the things listed in the last sentence are irrelevant illusions. Hence it can all be dismissed and denied. Still, human beings are not like that and the spirit does grieve and those individuals racked by guilt need a spiritual solution.

Rabble? Anyone else? What would you say to post abortion distress? What do you hear, see and counsel?


Rabble said...

I have posted a comment about this, but I'll sum it up here:
The people Amanda and other PAS advocates are talking to are not what we call a random sample.
Countless studies that are statistically sound have shown that not enough women suffer grief for it to be considered a psychological condition.
The APA, The governing body of psychology and psychiatry have denied PAS for so long. In 1988 the got a panel of 8 experts and investigated the myth of PAS. The result: Busted.
Yes, that was 21 years ago, but even now, the DSMV (the manual for diagnosing, naming and other statistics on psychological conditions) has no such entry. Why? Because it doesn't exist.
Some women do suffer grief, but many, many more don't.
More women suffer Post-Partum Depression, that condition is acknowledged in the DSMV.
What one or two people see is not proof of a psychological condition.

Brigitte said...

Rabble, what is supposed to be a PAS advocate? We are talking here about people who speak and cry with people who are suffering after their abortions. That does not make them advocates of anything. It makes them human beings with real human experiences.

Both Amanda and Pastor Erickson are young and I bet they have not seen anything, yet, that there will be much more from where their experiences have come from so far.

Somehow "firebombers" are not a random sample, everyone who does not agree with you is accused of atrocity. But when people talk about talking with aborted women you can just write that off as a skewered sample? Sorry, Rabble, they have not conducted a scientific study, they only have talked with people who have sought them out. That does not make it any less real. You can't just dismiss that because you don't like it.

Yes, I agree, studies form 30 years ago, are ridiculous to cite.

If it is left out of manuals now, there could be a number of reasons for that. It might include people like yourself standing up accusing them of all kinds of things including: "firebombing", "murdering", "feeding cookies to unwitting victims", "punishing people for having sex", being "stupid", having a "fucking God", faking "compassion", "depriving women of necessary surgeries", and what else.

Just a half a minutes worth of googleing produces links such as this one:

It does make one wonder whose research is more up-to-date and more correct. And it does make one wonder why you ignore it.

Rabble said...