A look at science and ideology in the dispute over post-abortion syndrome.
And another look at science and ideology in the dispute over post-abortion syndrome. This post claims that the roughly one thousand affidavits filed in the Rule 60 motion to overturn Roe v Wade have no significance, since an equal or slightly greater number of women could file affidavits asserting the opposite--namely, that their abortion was emotionally neutral or beneficial. (See the second comment.)
I've written on the blog before that if abortion is a moral wrong that should be legally prohibited, that's because of what happens to the baby, not what may or may not happen to the mother in the aftermath of the abortion. The legal reasoning behind the Rule 60 motion, if I understand this correctly, doesn't agree with me on that point. Feel free to try to persuade me.
One way of looking at post-abortion emotional trauma is that some women are vulnerable to it (and experience it) and others aren't vulnerable (and don't experience it). For some women, an abortion is not problematic. It isn't emotionally, spiritually or morally problematic. For others, it is problematic in one or more of these ways and for some of them, a profound psychological trauma reaction sets in. This reaction can last shorter or longer times, and cause more or less emotional and relational damage.
If we think about any other medical procedure, we recognize that some people are at-risk for a negative reaction to just about any procedure. Some people die of reactions to penicillin, while others benefit from it.
If I have an optional medical procedure that benefits me, and learn that another woman was harmed by it, how would I respond to her? Suppose I had successful breast reduction surgery with great results, while a friend's similar surgery is a medical disaster because of facts about her physical makeup that weren't true of me.
Would I happily point out to her that my surgery was a resounding success? I hope not.