The Myth that No Women Regret Abortions
Social Science & Medicine recently published a scientific paper which made the claim that 99% of women in a study felt relief, and not regret, five years after having an abortion. This purpose of the study was to question the scientific validity of having a state-mandated waiting period before an abortion is performed in order to allow women not to suffer the regret of a irreversible choice. I believe that, regardless of the scientific rigor that went into producing this study, it is fundamentally flawed on numerous levels and its results are statistically impossible...unless the judges had their thumb on the proverbial scale.
An answer looking for a question
The study was funded by grants from three foundations with a history of promoting abortion, as well as a fourth anonymous foundation. The five authors/scientists who produced the study each are associated with the an organization that supports abortion on demand called "Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health." The lack of neutrality both in funding and operating the study sends a clear message: "The results are predetermined. Now how do we get there?"
No exceptions? How can that be?
Science, philosophy, and common sense all tell us that finding 99% of people who agree on a subject, much less a controversial and deeply personal subject, is virtually impossible. And yet the study's authors would have us believe it.
I am fairly certain that you cannot find that 99% of people believe the sky is blue, that the earth is round, or that we even exist.
So how did the study arrive at finding 99% of women who, five years before, had an operation that resulted in the termination of their progeny, and yet all believe that it was the right decision? Simply put, the scientists influenced the subjects (perhaps unknowingly).
Not only did a number of women fail to complete the five-year study (perhaps because some of them no longer wanted to speak with scientists seeking to justify an immoral act?), but the ones who did complete it were undoubtedly swayed by their examiners.
For example, if I did something that I know was wrong, and yet one week after I did it—as well as every six months for five years—I am asked how I feel about it by people who I know want to hear me justify my own actions, I will likely tell them what they want to hear. Whether I truly believe it, intentionally suppress my true feelings, or fool myself into believing something that is not the way I truly feel, I will probably give them what they want.
Furthermore, I very well may, over time, become more at peace with my decision. And this dynamic—feelings of either guilt or justification becoming buried/leveling off over time—is at the heart of the study.
The stated and unstated goals of the study
The study was designed to give ammunition to abortion proponents to use in the political arena. Specifically, the messaging is focused toward state legislators and governors: “Science says there is no reason for a waiting period when a woman seeks an abortion. She won’t feel any regret, only relief. If you insist on a waiting period for the sake of the mother’s psychological well-being, you are guilty of not following the science.”
But there is a much more impactful, albeit unstated, consequence (and likely goal) of the study: to impress the general public and especially women seeking an abortion with the false narrative that having one is of no emotional consequence. Headlines in major news outlets include, “Years after abortion, women say they made the right decision,” and, “Abortion: The Majority of Women Don’t Regret the Procedure.” The propoganda is clear.
“If you’re okay with it, it must be okay.”
The entire purpose(s) of the study is a smokescreen to the truth: a level of comfort is no determiner of right and wrong. If it were, then Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Joseph Stalin would all be morally blameless, for each of them seemed to be perfectly comfortable commiting their crimes against humanity.
Now, I'm not saying that a woman who seeks an abortion is like Hitler, et. al. Of course she is not. The point is simply that even if it were true that no woman ever suffered regret after having an abortion—again, an absurd and patently false proposition—it would have no bearing on whether the act of aborting a human life is immoral.
“Comfort is no determiner of right and wrong.”
To be sure, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was very comfortable in her intentional and racist efforts to diminish the population of Blacks in the United States. Her philosophy even had a very scientific sounding name: eugenics. The word literally means "good genes." With a word like that, who could be against it? But that's what pro-abortion advocates have done for years: obscure immoral and vile actions behind neutral or even positive terminology.
The reality is that right and wrong are not determined by those who do wrong. Abortion on demand is wrong in every way: biologically (every preborn baby has his/her own DNA; therefore he/she is a human), naturally (the birth of children is the way our species continues), and theologically (every human is made in the image of God).
And whether those who have benefitted from their own mothers' choice of life and yet now have decided to promote death want to admit it or not, it all eventually goes back to that last point: the theological. Every human life is a gift from God. There are no accidental children. All of them are made in his image, and the entire breadth of their life is sacred.
