It's babies lost, not born, that tend to shorten a mother's life

It's babies lost, not born, that tend to shorten a mother's life

www.mercatornet.com

In a study published last week in the European Journal of Public Health, Priscilla Coleman and colleagues report that mothers who have experienced natural pregnancy loss or induced abortion are more likely to die over a 25-year period than those who have experienced only giving birth. Dr Coleman, a Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, responds here to MercatorNet’s questions about the study.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.lifesitenews.com
www.lifenews.com
www.sacbee.com

This is something I have been wondering about for years. The biggest arguments over the right to abort has always been about the health of the mother over the health of the child. But if abortions/miscarriages, or even more likely: chronic abortions/miscarriages results in a higher chance of death, then this aspect of the debate is something that truly needs to be addressed before we come to our personal conclusions.

to me, changing hormones drastically, such as an abrupt termination of pregnancy, intentional or not, should have some repercussion. I always assumed that it had some affect, but not necessarily this much.

Early this year a US study reported that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion -- and it received a lot of attention. But your study suggests that birth is protective of the life of mothers compared to abortion. How do you explain the difference?

In arriving at their conclusion that abortion is many times safer than childbirth, Raymond and Grimes relied on data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to secure numbers of deaths related to childbirth and induced abortion. The authors acknowledged underreporting, but they made no attempt to address the factors associated with this shortcoming, nor did they discuss the magnitude of the problem: “Weaknesses include the likely under-reporting of deaths, possibly differential by pregnancy outcome (abortion or childbirth.)”

Apparently, there has been a study stating the opposite, earlier this year. I agree with the fault that the doctor finds in the study. Merely pulling data that is known to have some flaws, without even attempting a correction is not the best thing to bring forward like this.

But: it does show that there's still a lot of room for debate.

www.mercatornet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I would never trust any study that has such a biased outcome and could fuel a certain campaign.

I will say this, of course there would be evidence that live births had higher stats. There have been studies for years on such things as women who breast feed, versus those who don't, and having children reducing cervical cancers, that kind of stuff used to be published in the newspaper decades ago. So if these things were true, it would stand to reason that having children in modern days, where nearly every woman makes it, would raise life expectancy. Childless, or not nursing, would be more akin those who abort.

But if they're saying someone who has had children, and then aborts for whatever reason, lets say either life threatening or already having 3 or ore children, then I would disagree with the study. This would be a study that would fall into special interests.

In my opinion the debate is not whether it benefits anyone more or less than anyone else. This whole discussion is a land mine though, I hope you are ready for it.

Good luck, strap your helmet on.

Well, found the study:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Risk of death was more than six times greater among women who had never been pregnant compared with those who only had birth(s). Increased risks of death were 45%, 114% and 191% for 1, 2 and 3 abortions, respectively, compared with no abortions after controlling for other reproductive outcomes and last pregnancy age. Increased risks of death were equal to 44%, 86% and 150% for 1, 2 and 3 natural losses, respectively, compared with none after including statistical controls. Finally, decreased mortality risks were observed for women who had experienced two and three or more births compared with no births.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the second study.

Personally I see no connection.

Life is a gamble, despite natural childbirth vs abortion..when your time is up, its up.

I would only see the correlation between the two as them assuming that a woman who gets an abortion is more prone to risky behavior....but even that is a stretch....a woman having a early passing wouldn't be a side effect of abortion, I can hardly believe that.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

This is something I have been wondering about for years. The biggest arguments over the right to abort has always been about the health of the mother over the health of the child. But if abortions/miscarriages, or even more likely: chronic abortions/miscarriages results in a higher chance of death,

My view of the issue of abortion always extended to rights for women over their own bodies, and the government not forcing them to go through labour. I think the arguments for abortion in the case of a mothers life has always been one of the lesser factors debated. Infact I know of many pro-lifers who do not object to abortion in the case to save the mothers life.

I hardly believe that forcing a rape victim (some of whom are still kids themselves) to go through with a pregnancy is "thinking of their best interests", I don't think you only make their lives worse by forcing them into another situation. You're right though, this opens up alot of debate, especially for those who choose to take on abortions merely for convenience, not for legitimate reasons. It may have an impact on your body long term.

The way studies are cranked out and touted as absolute truth these days, only to be refuted later, makes me not pay much attention to them.

My only contribution to this thread is, how short of a life would it be for a single mom to pop out a bunch of kids she cannot afford, mentally, emotionally, or financially, and then have to deal with them all?

I turned gray in my 40s thanks to my kids, and I only had two. Somehow, those teenage years take off a lot of years from the parent's life.

Maybe there's something to this study, maybe not. I wouldn't suggest to some women to have children just because they might live a few more months, though.

Let's not ignore a fundamental issue here; what about the EMOTIONAL impact as well as stress / trauma that goes along with an abortion?

I really hate seeing people talk so 'clinically (black & white), when abortion issues come up.

I can only imagine that for many women that decide or are encouraged to terminate, suffer all sorts of emotional / mental issues, at the time and following years. Hence this could be a factor that's relevant to the report, as those issues are known to shorten ones life expectancy,

No doubt GUILT could play a big part in ongoing issues. As against having the child and giving up for adoption.

Of course, for a rape victim, it's a double-whammy!

I feel that what might be missing is some sessions of 'after' abortion counseling, to help ease all the emotions that might be going on.

BTW, my first wife decided to have an abortion with no consultation with me, and she was a wreck afterwards, but I've since had two wonderful children (9 & 11), to my 2nd wife of 18 years, and can't imagine all the potential BEAUTIFUL LIFE that's been prematurely snuffed out in this world.

TUT TUT Statistics with only 2 results, yes or no.

From what I have been studying about hormones and interruptions in bodily processes, I would have to agree that this needs further research. In the natural miscarriage it may just mean the mother has a problem in the body that both miscarries the baby and shortens her life expectancy. This could be a problem with proper processing of nutrients which equates to not being able to carry full term. The loss of the baby could steer her to possible changes in diet to make up for her shortfalls and cause an extension of her life. Everyone is different, there are not two people in this world that can process all food the same. If a diet change is made the results of this research are void.

I don't think an abortion would have long term results but could mess up a person long term just because of a guilt feeling carried throughout the life. Personal guilt is something that makes people punish themselves. Sort of a self destruct mode. The time for the hormone cycle to clear up and re-normalize could cause minor long term changes to the body, I haven't studied much on these kind of effects yet. I'll probably get to that kind of stuff in a few years. I'm studying long term effects of some foods right now. Seems like not much studying is done on long term effects of anything.

As for the validity of the article, I would have to say it's inconclusive. They have to look at more things that are associated with this and actually consider that not all people have the same physiology.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


True science does not make definitive statements unless a pile of parameters and exclusions are listed. Most people reading the article also don't pay attention to exclusions and parameters, taking just the conclusion. The usability of the research may be explained in the article.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1


Guilt doesn't play as big a factor as one might think, if one doesnt' belive that soul is body, and if one remembers, entering the body, like I did, shooting in like a ray of light, and taking the womb in the later stage of pregnancy. I believe in complete free and quick abortions for all, completely covered, like it is in Canada, with perhaps an 8 week cut off, so just before massive brain growth starts to take place in the AI Body Suit, that could house a soul, that does come in, it should be done only in the time when many pregnancies terminate naturally via miscarriage and the fetus is tiny and passes easily.

There is no guilt when you don't buy into the same belief system as fundamentalists due to personal memories.

I don't believe most souls would ever come to be aborted. Some enter after birth. I don't say all because there are some negatives around too and who knows what they may be doing if someone has harmed others and fallen into some of the soul traps in a past life. But, that is still at a later stage in the pregancy, and very few abortions take place then, most are not that uniformed.

If negatives were not in charge of the legislation process and in the court systems, there could have been a far better abortion law written up than the one the Supreme Court overturned.

This study is far too partisan, to be taken seriously, except if the other studies were real and those who delivered and nursed babies were less likely to contract cancer, then its possible, but probably not more possible than those without children.

reply to post by Unity_99


It's not just fundamentalist beliefs. You have an abortion, and are fine. Then you have a kid and emotionally bond to this little imp, then you have to constantly stop yourself form wondering what the other one would have been. Not everyone, irrelevant of their beliefs, can leave that "what if" alone.

The unexplained mechanisms of procreation sees that a unit that cannot reproduce has lost its usefulness. Having the unit attempt to create another unit from a unit that cannot reproduce properly, nature see the lineage as unfit and marks the dna for deletion, hence dying earlier or not being able to have babies ever.

reply to post by Unity_99


The following (8 week cutoff you mention) is the area I have a problem with, as some terminations are taking place as late as 23 weeks, and using shocking methods. In Canada the standard is 13 to 19 weeks. In the USA anything from 13 to 21 weeks.

Guilt doesn't play as big a factor as one might think, if one doesnt' belive that soul is body, and if one remembers, entering the body, like I did, shooting in like a ray of light, and taking the womb in the later stage of pregnancy. I believe in complete free and quick abortions for all, completely covered, like it is in Canada, with perhaps an 8 week cut off, so just before massive brain growth starts to take place in the AI Body Suit, that could house a soul, that does come in, it should be done only in the time when many pregnancies terminate naturally via miscarriage and the fetus is tiny and passes easily.

Basically I'm not sure where you get your 8 week period from, and given your 'soul' theory, would you be condoning abortions that are as late as 13 to 21 weeks?

Numbers can easily mislead...

A recent study conducted by yours truly indicates that at least 100% of all people will die at some point in their life. Highly controversial it has been suggested that this study shows being born is extremely hazardous to your health and should be avoided at all costs. A large sect of humanity has now devoted themselves to the Suppression of Life (SOL) movement, they believe that in order to protect life from death all life must be forcibly averted.

The article fails to present how large of a sample was used in the study, and as even the author states in the article - the higher risk of deaths due to not having children, has no medical backing, beyond the mother who has an abortion being more prone to risky behaviors.

reply to post by Evil_Santa

Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).

-Jones RK, Finer LB and Singh S, Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2010. www.guttmacher.org...

I dunno... something doesn't seem quite right about this study, I can't put my finger on it though.

I can say that my children are going to drive me to an early grave, and I know lots of other mothers that feel the same way as I do about that. Raising a child (much less multiple children) is one of the hardest and (also rewarding) body damaging thing ever known in this day and age.