Skip to comments.Revealed: how an abortion puts the next baby at risk
Posted on 05/20/2005 1:17:24 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Having an abortion almost doubles a woman's risk of giving birth dangerously early in a later pregnancy, according to research that will provoke fresh debate over the most controversial of all medical procedures.
A French study of 2,837 births - the first to investigate the link between terminations and extremely premature births - found that mothers who had previously had an abortion were 1.7 times more likely to give birth to a baby at less than 28 weeks' gestation. Many babies born this early die soon after birth, and a large number who survive suffer serious disability.
Peter Bowen-Simpkins: 'termination may have late complications' The research leader, Dr Caroline Moreau, an epidemiologist at the Hôpital de Bicêtre in Paris, said the results of the study, which appear in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, provided conclusive evidence of a link between induced abortion and subsequent pre-term births.
Last night anti-abortion campaigners seized on the evidence to demand that all women seeking a termination be warned, routinely, that they are jeopardising the well-being of future babies. A series of earlier, smaller studies had failed to provide clear evidence of a link and so women currently opting for an abortion are not warned of the risk.
Dr Moreau said: "Clearly there is a link. The results suggest that induced abortion can damage the cervix in some way that makes a premature birth more likely in subsequent pregnancies."
Her study compared the medical histories of 2,219 women with babies born at less than 34 weeks with another 618 who had given birth at full term. Overall, women who had had an abortion were 40 per cent more likely to have a very pre-term delivery (less than 33 weeks) than those without such a history. The risk of an extremely premature baby - one born at less than 28 weeks - was raised even more sharply, by 70 per cent. Abortion appeared to increase the risk of most major causes of premature birth, including premature rupture of membranes, incorrect position of the foetus on the placenta and spontaneous early labour. The only common cause of premature birth not linked to abortion was high blood pressure.
Mr Peter Bowen-Simpkins, a spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a consultant obstetrician at the Sancta Maria Hospital in Swansea, said the study revealed that abortion might not be as safe as previously supposed. "This study shows that surgical termination of pregnancies may have late complications and may not be without risk," he said.
About 185,000 women have abortions in Britain each year, for social or medical reasons, and last night anti-abortion campaigners seized upon the new study as evidence that the risks have been underplayed.
Jack Scarisbrick, the chairman of the campaign group Life, said: ''We have been saying for years that surgical abortion inevitably increases the risk of later problems. It seems that the abortion procedure carries with it risks that women will know nothing about until they become pregnant with a 'wanted' child later on."
About 80,000 babies in the UK and Ireland are born prematurely each year; 17,000 of these need intensive care.
A spokesman for Marie Stopes International, which is the largest provider of abortions outside the NHS, said that women seeking terminations were not told of increased risks of premature births "because so far, they have not been established".
The study's findings are somewhat intuitive. When you start mechanically invading the depths of the human reproductive system it would naturally follow that there are lasting consequences.
Please share this information. Many lives will likely be saved by the widespread dissemination of this study, especially among women.
How good is the science in this? If they mixed in women who had "therapeutic" abortions (for a fetus that would have died in the womb anyway, died immediately after birth, had Down syndrome, etc.) with abortions that were done simply because they didn't want the baby, then it could skew results. Women who opted to abort one physically compromised fetus might be expected to have a higher risk next time for another compromised pregnancy, thus resulting in severely premature birth.
How in God's name do you lump in children with Down's Syndrome to children who would die of natural causes?
And I say that as an agnostic, mind you.
Good point - is there any evidence that having a Down's baby born normally has any impact upon future pregnancies?
That is a lie. A woman's right to choose is sacred. There are no health risks to women who have abortions.
This study is a reminder of the fraud of the pro-choice crowd when they talk about conservatives wanting to trample "reproductive rights". It's not reproductive organs that get removed during an abortion. If that were true a woman could never have another child, but the whole premise of this study is about children who follow the aborted child. It's the PRODUCT of a couple's reproductive organs that is killed during an abortion, i.e., a distinct human being.
Yes, I see that you are indeed in need of some reason. Abortion is wrong because it kills another human being (without the benefit of a trial like those who are executed). This is provable with DNA. Compare the DNA of the mother and the DNA of the child and you'll see I'm right.
Abortion should only be used to save the life of the mother.
BTW, speaking of DNA, I saw an interesting program on TV last night called "I am my own twin". It seems that rarely, very rarely two embryos (very small children) can merge in the womb within a few days of fertilization and become just one person with two sets of DNA. In one case, a male and female fused and had parts of both genitilia.
Having an abortion can increase the risk of premature birth in subsequent pregnancies by as much as 70 per cent, a study has shown.
The French study suggests terminations could trigger infections or damage the lining of the uterus.
The link is strongest for babies born earlier than the 28th week of the pregnancy, when the risk of physical and developmental complications is much higher than for babies born nearer to their due date.
The study was based on medical notes and interviews with 2837 women who had a premature baby in 1997, or about a third of the pre-term births in France that year.
Those who gave birth between 28 and 32 weeks were 40 per cent more likely to have had an abortion, compared with mothers who gave birth within two weeks of the due date.
Women whose babies arrived between 22 and 27 weeks were 70 per cent more likely to have had a termination.
Caroline Moreau, of France's National Institute of Health and Medical Research, said low-level infections contracted at the time of an abortion might resurface in pregnancy, or the cervix might seal the uterus less effectively after an abortion, allowing bacteria to enter.
It was possible surgical instruments might damage the lining of the uterus and affect the embryo's ability to implant in the best position, said Dr Moreau, whose results were published last month in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
Revealed: Search is your friend
That's killing procedure. A medical procedure, by definition, is a procedure that saves a life or heals an injury or impedes a disease process. The only aim of abortion is to kill the baby and almost never has a beneficial effect on the mother's health. This story shows one of the many ways abortion routinely harms the mother's health.
Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)
The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.
· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby
· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
· 7.9% of women want no (more) children
· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health
So how many womens lives have been saved by abortion?
Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be due to a risk to maternal health. A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But lets say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.
Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.
In the U.S., women abort more than 1,300,000 children per year or 1 out of every 4 pregnancies. Of those abortions, 94% are preformed for reasons other than the health of the child, health of the mother, rape, or incest. The well established facts are that women everywhere now use abortion as birth control in the vast majority of cases.
Collectively, we have allowed, through apathy and inaction, a "legal" method of obliterating "unwanted" human beings so draconian that our demographics and long term economic health will be profoundly impaired. More importantly, we have devised a method of destroying human beings on a scale the world has never seen. What end is so compelling as to blind so called civilized people to a human genocide? The answer is one that we all know and should feel ultimate shame. Though the progression of modern medicine, we have devised homicidal means to cover up the natural consequences of our recreational sex.
None of us should stand for it!! I won't!
I think the point of the study is that women who have invasive abortions have a much higher risk of a premature birth in subsequent pregnancies. The study does not delve into the specific reasons for the abortions. Simply put, mechanically penetrating the cervix does violence to its ability to bring the next child to term.
I can't tell if you are serious or playing Devil's advocate with sarcasm. You are correct on one point. The risks to the mother are about as small as child birth. The risks to the child are nearly 100% fatal. Those of you that are pro-choice need to look at the photos of aborted children. Doing so might draw you out of the willful state of denial about the human costs of abortion. Those who wish jealously guard their predacious views in this area should not view the photos. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html They are likely to change your mind.
The truth is that women routinely die from "legal" abortions, but since it no longer serves a political purpose it is an unreported nonevent.
The inescapable truth is that anyone unscrupulous enough to kill a baby isn't going to be all that concerned about killing an adult. The abortionists concern for the woman is rooted only in what is good for business.
I know a woman who had, had atleast 3 abortions before she became pregnant in 1995. I talked her into keeping this baby. She carried it for about 6 months before she miscarried. She watched as the EMTs tried to save her baby. She went into a severe depression, and when I went to see her she told me it was not so much because of the miscarriage, but because all of the other babies she had aborted were older unborn children then the one she had just miscarried. She did have another child who was born prematurely and has many health problems from it. This woman loves this child so much and can have no more.
It seems that you have a firm grasp on reason and a healthy respect for the conditions that gave you life. I agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.