gadgetlady

The information abounds; it's so voluminous I hesitate to post it all here. Just do a quick google search on "abortion child abuse studies" and read up. Even if you skip the vast right-wing conspiracy of pro-life sites, the information abounds. I also found this interesting article from a non-pro-life source (Alcoholism Home Page Abortion, Substance Abuse Linked Women who choose to end their first accidental pregnancy with abortion, instead of carrying their pregnancy full term, are much more likely to end up abusing drugs and alcohol, according to research published in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. Many studies have linked abortion to substance abuse, but this study is the first to compare women who terminated their first unintended pregnancy with those who did not. The research included woman who had no history of substance abuse prior to their first accidental pregnancy. According to the published study: 18.6 percent of women who got abortions used marijuana, compared to 7.9 percent of women who did not get abortions. Five percent of those who had abortions abused cocaine, compared to only two percent of women who did not. 8.4 percent who had abortions reported they thought they were becoming alcoholics, compared to 4.5 percent who did not have abortions. "This is obviously relevant information to give when considering options in the face of an unplanned pregnancy," co-author James Cougle told the Washington Times. "I know that some women can be ambivalent about the decision when coming in at first for an abortion, so learning about different risk factors which would make them more vulnerable to negative emotional consequences is important."

Well, that wasn't too hard; the first one is the aforementioned study, but the others are independent. I'll find more, but here's a start: PK Coleman, VM Rue, CT Coyle, CD Maxey, "Induced Abortion and Child-Directed Aggression Among Mothers of Maltreated Children," Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology, 6(2), 2007. http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ij... VM Rue et. al., "Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women," Medical Science Monitor, 10(10): SR5-16 (2004). PK Coleman et. al., "The Quality of the Caregiving Environment and Child Developmental Outcomes Associated with Maternal History of Abortion Using the NLSY Data," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(6): 743-57 (2002). DM Fergusson et. al., "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1): 16-24 (2006). Additional studies linking abortion to child abuse: PG Ney, T Fung, AR Wickett, "Relationship Between Induced Abortion and Child Abuse and Neglect: Four Studies," Pre- and Perinatal Psychology Journal, 8(1):43-64 (1993). M Benedict, R White, P Cornely, "Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse," Child Abuse and Neglect, 9: 217-224 (1985). E. Lewis, "Two Hidden Predisposing Factors in Child Abuse," Child Abuse and Neglect, 3: 327-330 (1979). P. Ney, "Relationship Between Abortion and Child Abuse," Canadian J. Psychiatry, 24:610-620 (1979).

I'll find some for you and post later. I've been reading about them for years; the first one I ever heard of was done at USC.

You have no idea how wrong you are. The words, thoughts, and feelings you have put in my mouth are so way off base they're laughable. If I only thought pro-life mothers and their babies were precious, why would I offer assistance to abortion-minded women who clearly are not pro-life? It appears it is YOU who have categorized ME as a satanic, heartless monster.

What gives society the right to protect anyone from being killed by anyone else? My goodness, I care if ANYONE suffers. If you could talk to some of the women I've worked with, you would know that. Mother and baby are BOTH precious. I never said they were, and I don't believe they are. I am amazed at how much venom you have for me, given that you don't even know me. Don't judge me based on your misconceptions about my political positions. I have friends who have chosen to abort and friends who have chosen to allow their children to live. Both groups consider me kind, compassionate, forgiving, and loving, and have expressed as much to me.

Because once a woman is pregnant, there are two people involved. While I am not unsympathetic to a woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be, I don't believe it is OK for her to kill someone to solve her problem.

What business do you mean when you spank? What is the purpose of spanking, or is it just that you've been driven to the end of your rope and you have nothing left to do but spank? What will you do if the spanking doesn't work? What about any kind of discipline gives a child power? When you ban television or dessert or take away a toy, isn't that leaving the child completely powerless as well -- at least as regards the regaining of the tv, dessert, or toy? I believe there are two types of consequences to behavior. Natural consequences, and imposed consequences. If my child touches a hot stove and gets burned, that's natural consequences. I don't want to see it happen, and I am certainly empathetic when it does. If my child touches a stove and it's cold, I will impose consequences so that child won't do it again in the future when the stove may be hot. I am equally empathetic to those consequences, even though applying them and helping the child avoid future pain is my goal. If I take away tv for a week from my child and she comes to me sobbing because she is missing her favorite show, I'm certainly not cold and unfeeling about her situation. I will hug her and hold her and tell her I'm sorry she's hurting, but I'll also make sure she understands that it was her behavior that caused the pain she's feeling. The pain inflicted with a spanking is both physical and emotional, and I will certainly comfort her afterwards. The reference to a man beating his wife is just offensive. Nothing of what I'm doing could even remotely be called a beating.

There have been numerous studies with the same results. This isn't the first and it won't be the last. As to post-abortion syndrome, I have never, ever met a woman who didn't suffer after her abortion. I know there are some on this board who have said they have, but IRL I have met many, many women who suffer after-effects of abortion, ranging from mild to extremely severe. Go to Silent No More Awareness Campaign or I Regret My Abortion to read about what some women have gone through -- not about what a magazine claims is a made-up syndrome.

Maybe if they hadn't aborted the first or first several children, they would have been less likely to have resorted to child abuse with later children? I certainly don't believe we should kill children just in case they might be abused later in life!

Oh NOOOOO!!!!!! It's a vast, right-wing conspiracy!!!! Actually, this information is from the Alan Guttmacher institute, the statistics arm of Planned Parenthood (not-Right-to-Life). Because statistics are easily manipulated and I wouldn't want anyone to just read the headline, I've highlighted the more salient parts from this webpage (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html). Don't be fooled by the first sentance: CONTRACEPTIVE USE Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.[/url] Forty-six percent of women having abortions did not use a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% perceived themselves to be at low risk, 32% had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had unexpected sex and 1% were forced to have sex. Eight percent of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated. About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who did not use contraceptives in the month they became pregnant. Most of these women had practiced contraception in the past. So it seems that even abortionists agree -- contraception is not used properly, if at all, among the majority of women who opt to abort. Of those poor girls who could possibly fit into the category of being carried away by passion, the number is 26% -- and only a percentage of those would be ones who opted not to use birth control because of the self-delusion you muse over.

Public humiliation causes resentment and shame, neither of which is the goal of discipline (or at least not my goal). I don't parent by guilt and shame and my kids don't resent me for their discipline. You may not "buy it", but it's the reality in our family.

I don't think any punishment is proper in public. It is humiliating to the child. I don't take the child to a private place because I'm ashamed of my behavior (if I was, I wouldn't have entered this discussion in a public forum), but rather to protect my child from embarrassment. Even when the discipline isn't spanking (i.e. removal of a privilege, etc.) I don't do it loudly for everyone to hear. It is quiet and private. There are a lot of things that happen in public that I don't think are proper. Husbands and wives arguing with each other -- belongs in private. Disciplining children -- belongs in private. Heck, going to the bathroom -- belongs in private. Just because I don't think something is for public consumption doesn't mean I'm ashamed of it.

I don't cold-bloodedly whip my children! I can't even believe that's what you've gotten out of all of these discussions. It seems to me you can't get the calmness of the discipline out of your head. Spankings, to you, have always been attached to emotion and are a rash reaction to behavior rather than a thought-out action. I don't need to apologize for calming myself and my children before administering discipline. I choose to discipline while calm -- you call it cold-blooded, which of course, has another implication altogether. Whatever. I don't need to justify my state of mind to you. If you put the two spanking options side-by-side, I believe you'd come to an entirely different conclusion than the one you have.

Thanks for not judging, Wheetsin. I agree that discipline should be immediate, or as immediate as possible. If our children misbehave in public, if the offense warrants a spanking, we try to take them to a bathroom or a private, quiet area. If no such area is available, we will get the child to as quiet a place as possible and then spank. The important thing is for the child to know that they can't get away with the offense in public, otherwise they will always act out in public knowing they won't be punished.

I've explained why I didn't describe the spanker properly. I've been looking for a photo of it so I can post it. Sorry about that. I don't use a paddle or a whip or a belt. I can't describe it any better. It seems to me that children try to block spankings after the first one when they don't know the first one is coming. If they know the first one is coming, they'll try to block it. So for our purposes, since they know the first one is coming, we try to prevent the blocking. Punishment is meant to inflict pain. The pain that we're aiming for is stinging, not bruising or welting. What can I say. I've seen the light. I'll stop doing it the way I do it and instead start slapping my children repeatedly in public. Does that make you feel better about it?

It very well might be because you've never seen or heard anything like it. I've been amazed at the vehement reaction to it. It really is very calm, much more so than most spankings that I've seen metered out in public places (or the ones I received as a child). And the child's reaction to it is significantly better than "spankings" others describe.

So all of what I do is OK with you except the implement? Let me explain a bit why I use the implement. The amount of force needed when using a hand is significantly more than when using the spanker. I would have to bring my hand back pretty far and hit pretty hard, whereas with the spanker (as we call it), it's a short, quick swat. To me, that's preferable. I don't want to have to draw my arm back and spank with force, because to do that I would have to get myself worked up. I have tested the spanker on myself and I know how hard to hit to elicit the stinging that I'm aiming for. It isn't arbitrary or forceful. BTW, I just asked my 9YO (who has had one or maybe two spankings in the past YEAR), whether she would prefer the type of spankings she's seen in public (in anger, causing humiliation, without warning and without reconciliation) to what we do at home. She said she prefers it our way. I pressed her for why (I didn't want want just the pat "you're right, Mommy" answer) and she said because the child knows it's coming and then the child doesn't get angry at the parent for doing it.

I had difficulty describing the implement I use the first time around, and clearly I didn't do it well. My apologies. I think the word "flexible" threw everyone. It is not flexible in the sense that it is a whip, or even remotely close. I was trying to convey that it is not a hard item, like a wooden spoon or a wood paddle, and yet it is not a "whip" item, like a belt or something that will inflict welts. I used the word "leather" (although it is no actual leather) so you wouldn't get the idea that I was using a wood paddle. Unfortunately, I think "leather" conveyed "belt". <sigh> I wish I could just show it to you. I could pretty much guarantee that what I do to discipline my kids wouldn't cause security to be called. And personally, I think security should be called far more often -- when I see a parent violently dragging a child off by one arm, or screaming at their child uncontrollably, or getting right in their face and yelling and shaking them, THAT'S scary. Why is an angry response to a child acceptable to some of you but a calm one isn't? Should we be disciplining our children in anger? Why is it wrong for me to explain discipline to my child before the discipline comes, and then love them afterwards? What are you objecting to? The hands out of the way so they don't get hurt? The implement that we use? The calm manner? The hug afterwards? Would this all be OK if I used my hand instead and didn't tell them to get their hands out of the way? Or if I did it quickly, in front of others, didn't explain it to the child, and allowed them (or me) to stomp off in anger when it was done?

BTW, I wouldn't have a problem doing what I do in public. It is very calm, metered, one or two swats at the most, and it's not out of control. It doesn't cause wailing or screaming on the part of either adult or child. I generally don't do it in public (or even with other family members in the room) because I think it can be humiliating to the child. Any type of discipline, whether acceptable or unacceptable (yelling, flailing, etc.), is humiliating to a child if done in front of other children or adults. Whether I'm spanking, removing priviliges, reasoning with, or otherwise disciplining my children, I try to always take them aside to a quiet place to do it.

Sorry, Laurend, no. I would never use a belt, a strap, a lash, a riding crop, or anything of the sort. Those things inflict welts and bruises. I don't strike repeatedly. Once or twice is sufficient. What I find scary is people who react violently in anger towards their children. If the parent is flailing about trying to strike his child and the child is flailing about trying to block the spanking, there's more liklihood of injury to the child. The lesson learned from such behavior is that when we get angry it's OK to lash out, flail around, and express our anger with uncontrolled violence. Furthermore, having the child flailing about trying to twist and turn and block the spanking leads to more, repeated spankings as the angry parent repeatedly tries and fails to hit his mark. He hits the side, the back, the arm, the hand, and then finally gets to the bottom, angrier than ever that he had to hit so many times, and just hits more. That's how most people spank -- and that's OK with everyone? I think perhaps the reason people are objecting to what we do is because they've never seen anything like it -- an adult administering discipline after explaining it to the child, the child accepting and understanding it, and then the resolution of healing afterwards. Most people here have expressed that they spank the other way -- out of control and in anger -- or that they were spanked in anger. Some think that's OK, and some don't. I personally don't. It's not thought out, it's not administered consistently, it encourages the child to push the limits to see how far he can go before mom or dad gets out of control, and it doesn't help the child understand the concept of consistent actions eliciting consistent consequences.

Absolutely. We probably hang out with different people, then. I don't see discipline as physical violence. Again, agree to disagree. BTW, I find violence against children particularly abhorrent. I think parents who yell and scream and demean their kids, as well as parents who beat or otherwise lash out physically at their kids in anger, do a lot of damage. What is a professional parent? There's a difference between "smacking", "slapping" and spanking, IMO. Most people smack or slap out of anger or frustration, which I find unacceptable. What led you to believe I physically discipline "the majority of the time"? Perhaps you weren't implying that I did -- if you were, I'm sorry I misunderstood. I don't do it "the majority of the time", nor even close. Privileges are removed far more frequently than spanking, which is reserved, especially at my kids' ages (6 and 9), for particular offenses.

I hope you're not saying you read that I whip my children. If you did read that from what I said, I am sorry that I misstated what I do. I certainly know the difference, as do my kids.

LOL! You don't typically feel it "around your stomach" in the sense that you know it's there 24/7. You feel it when you overeat, eat too fast, or eat the wrong things. We call it restriction. It kind of feels like you ate something too big and it won't go down to your stomach. It's uncomfortable (sometimes painful but you learn to control it so it doesn't get to that point), but it's basically a tool that, when properly used, requires you to stop eating. When you have restriction and your pouch is full, you just plain can't eat any more. So you have to eat slowly, chew well, and choose your meals carefully -- all of which lends itself to weight loss when properly done (if you drink milkshakes all day they don't get "stuck" in your pouch and you defeat the purpose). The band is much less invasive than gastric bypass, is easier to reverse, and has fewer complications. GB has lifelong Vitamin deficiency issues and dumping issues that the band does not. HTH!

Generally, greater than than 50% of women who choose abortion report not having used any birth control in the month they got pregnant.

I haven't been following this thread because I've been out of town, but someone mentioned a while ago that it's better for children to be aborted than to be abused later in life because they're unwanted. I was researching something else and came across this study: Study: Women Having Abortions More Likely to Engage in Child Abuse - Study: Women Having Abortions More Likely to Engage in Child Abuse While the article is at a pro-life website, don't claim bias: the study was done by the Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology. Seems like the reverse may be true about child abuse, eh?