Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Revealed: how an abortion puts the next baby at risk
News Telegraph ^ | 05/15/2005 | Michael Day

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".


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; preemies; risks; statistics
I wonder how long it will take our liberal media to report on this study?

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.

1 posted on 05/20/2005 1:17:26 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?

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.


3 posted on 05/20/2005 1:29:52 AM PDT by Hetty_Fauxvert (http://sonoma-moderate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert

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.

Qwinn


4 posted on 05/20/2005 1:33:29 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Qwinn

Good point - is there any evidence that having a Down's baby born normally has any impact upon future pregnancies?


6 posted on 05/20/2005 1:39:32 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?

That is a lie. A woman's right to choose is sacred. There are no health risks to women who have abortions.

8 posted on 05/20/2005 3:36:33 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?

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.


9 posted on 05/20/2005 3:47:38 AM PDT by libertylover (Liberal: A blatant liar who likes to spend other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason

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.


10 posted on 05/20/2005 3:58:25 AM PDT by libertylover (Liberal: A blatant liar who likes to spend other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Abortion link to early birth risk, By Julie Robotham Medical Editor, May 16, 2005 [excerpt]
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.


11 posted on 05/20/2005 4:05:21 AM PDT by syriacus (Weird George Felos repeatedly flicked his tongue out his gaping mouth when lying to the press 3/31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?

Revealed: Search is your friend

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=Revealed%3A+how+an+abortion+puts+the+next+baby+at+risk+%5E&ok=Search&q=quick&m=any&o=score&SX=428decf86480f4c88318dc57ad730b3d896f1210


12 posted on 05/20/2005 5:29:49 AM PDT by sharktrager (The masses will trade liberty for a more quiet life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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 killing procedures.

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.

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Total Abortions since 1973

46,023,191

------------------------------------------------------------

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 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 women’s 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 let’s 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.

13 posted on 05/20/2005 6:29:43 AM PDT by TigersEye (Are your parents Pro-Choice? I guess you got lucky!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: needsomereason
. . and I think it really should be the absolute last option.

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!

15 posted on 05/20/2005 9:03:56 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Abortion kills more Americans every year than we have lost in all U.S. wars combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert
How good is the science in this?

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.

16 posted on 05/20/2005 9:22:03 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Abortion kills more Americans every year than we have lost in all U.S. wars combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
That is a lie. A woman's right to choose is sacred. There are no health risks to women who have abortions.

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.

17 posted on 05/20/2005 9:53:40 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Abortion kills more Americans every year than we have lost in all U.S. wars combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
It is awfully hard to die from an illegal abortion when all abortions are legal.

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.

18 posted on 05/20/2005 10:01:03 AM PDT by hopespringseternal (</i>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?

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.


19 posted on 05/20/2005 10:01:21 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertylover
Abortion should only be used to save the life of the mother.

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.

20 posted on 05/20/2005 10:01:40 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Abortion kills more Americans every year than we have lost in all U.S. wars combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
I can't tell if you are serious or playing Devil's advocate with sarcasm.

Look at the picture directly above the text of my post.

21 posted on 05/20/2005 10:02:31 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason
I don't think abortion is wrong in 100% cases, though I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control.

Safe, legal, rare? Pick any two. Anyone promoting the legality of abortion is promoting abortion. You can't promote the legality of abortion without dissembling on the fact that it is murder. Once you convince people it isn't murder, there is no reason to restrict its frequency or say it shouldn't be used as birth control.

I know people with Down's Syndrome. That anyone can fathom or justify murdering them because of it is incomprehensible to me.

I still remember seeing my first daughter's heartbeat on the ultrasound at just a few weeks. This morning she woke up and climbed into my lap while I was in a phone meeting. People who can clinically separate those two are psychopaths, dark hearted people for whom there is no good or blessing. They only know the desires of their dark, evil hearts.

22 posted on 05/20/2005 10:08:27 AM PDT by hopespringseternal (</i>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason

Even babies with Down's Syndrome deserve to come into this world. It's not their fault they have it. And there is worse in this world than having a child with Down's Syndrome. My younger brother has trisomy 9. Is his life worth less than mine because he's severely handicapped? No. Thank goodness my mother decided to bring him into this world. My brother has taught me more about patience and compassion than any other person. Handicapped people are just as special as "normal" people.


23 posted on 05/20/2005 10:20:01 AM PDT by Luna (Lobbing the Holy Hand Grenade at Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
Revealed: Search is your friend

You are right. I typically search for an article before I post it. In my zeal to inform, I forgot to look for the other posted stories. Question: would the 253+ views and the 20 replies have appeared on the other thread? I have to assume that my thread served the same purpose as the other threads. The posts, however, would probably be more valuable on a single thread.

24 posted on 05/20/2005 10:21:12 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Abortion kills more Americans every year than we have lost in all U.S. wars combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Great informative post! As I've said many times, abortion is a homicidal means to cover up the natural consequences of a procreational sex act.

In fact, aborting mothers have at least one thing in common with pedophiles who kill their victims. Both kill a child to protect themselves from the consequences of their sexual acts.

25 posted on 05/20/2005 10:44:20 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Abortion kills more Americans every year than we have lost in all U.S. wars combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
She went into a severe depression, . . . .[because all of the other babies she had aborted . .]

It must be bitter sweet for her to finally have a child she loves and wants, while knowing exactly what she has taken from her other children.

For those who have made that tragic choice: know that there can be healing and forgiveness after abortion. Admitting that abortion is wrong and pledging "never again" is the shortest path toward forgiving yourself.

26 posted on 05/20/2005 11:01:10 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Abortion kills more Americans every year than we have lost in all U.S. wars combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason
I consider myself to be largely pro-choice . . .

You really do needsomereason! I'm sorry. I could not resist. No hard feelings, I hope. ;~)

I am confidant that those who hold pro-choice predilections will somehow come to protect the means by which they were given life. My optimism is based on the vast human capacity to recognize fairness, hypocrisy, and the empathy that has given them life. The only way around that evolution is to deny reason and hold onto the very dark and evil notion that women can exercise a "legal right" to kill her offspring for her own of convenience. Such beliefs cannot survive the momentum of truth and reason over time.

27 posted on 05/20/2005 11:55:52 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Aborting mothers, like pedophiles, kill children to avoid the consequences of their sex acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: needsomereason
Seems you can't win either way.

Indeed. Abortion is legal and that's not ever going to change. It just angers me that women kill their unborn babies as a way to NOT pay for the consequences of their behavior. Pure selfishness.

29 posted on 05/20/2005 3:43:09 PM PDT by Luna (Lobbing the Holy Hand Grenade at Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?

The cheapening of sex as it has plunged from the pinnacle of marriage down to the dregs of dogging in the gutter, has something to do with it. As the tree is cheapened so is its fruit.


31 posted on 05/21/2005 1:46:14 AM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state and Georgia, the rotten peach, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason

OK, I'll bite. Under what circumstances is it OK to kill another human being without the benefit of a trial if your own life is not threatened?


32 posted on 05/21/2005 3:37:13 AM PDT by libertylover (Liberal: A blatant liar who likes to spend other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: needsomereason
I'm not a big fan of women dying on kitchen tables in back-alley abortions either.

The logic in this says "since murder is riskier for the murderer when it's illegal I'll accept making murder legal." So I just have to ask; why limit it to pre-natal victims? Of course that question has been partially answered by the increased acceptance and widened criterium for euthanasia but why stop there? I need a reason to find the limiting factor in your logic. Is it inability to hire a lawyer?

34 posted on 05/22/2005 7:47:02 PM PDT by TigersEye ("It's a Republic if you can keep it." - B. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: The Red Zone
The cheapening of sex as it has plunged from the pinnacle of marriage down to the dregs of dogging in the gutter, has something to do with it.

What does the liberal free sex ideology cost us? The costs are manifold and include 1.4 million human lives per year, a pandemic of STDs, and growing instability in the family.

Ask yourself these questions. Which political party is more likely to tell you that sin, as explained in the bible, has no costs? Who is most likely to proclaim that any moral lessons found in the bible have no place in schools, government, or public life?

36 posted on 05/23/2005 4:07:02 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Aborting mothers, like pedophiles, kill children to avoid the consequences of their sex acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: needsomereason
. . . what circumstances it is permissible to abort a pregnancy[?]

94% of the 1.4 million abortions preformed every year are purely elective, (i.e. for reasons other then the health of the mother or baby, rape or incest). Lets all agree that some legal restrictions should be enacted to limit some of the 1.3 million human lives destroyed in the name of convenience.

37 posted on 05/23/2005 4:17:05 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Aborting mothers, like pedophiles, kill children to avoid the consequences of their sex acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
ABORTION

One Dead, One Wounded!

38 posted on 05/23/2005 4:22:22 AM PDT by patriot_wes (papal infallibility - a proud tradition since 1869)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: needsomereason

I didn't ask you for agreement though did I? I asked you to explain your logic.


40 posted on 05/23/2005 1:36:09 PM PDT by TigersEye ("It's a Republic if you can keep it." - B. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson