Killing child in womb safer than delivering it

So states Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists:

Pregnant women should be told that having an abortion is safer than having the baby, according to medical chiefs.

The advice, which would be given to women considering terminations, has caused anger, with anti-abortion campaigners accusing doctors’ leaders of forcing an “absurdly liberal agenda” on women in a vulnerable situation.

The draft guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is for all doctors, nurses and counsellors advising women contemplating terminations.

Its first recommendation on “what women need to know” instructs health professionals: “Women should be advised that abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term.”

The guidance also says that women who are deciding whether to have an abortion must be told that most do not suffer any psychological harm. Until now, their advice has been that while rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who had an abortion, there was no evidence that termination itself was likely to trigger psychological problems.

Children in the womb could not be reached for comment.

H/T to Scott at Verum Serum who adds:

The current advice page on the Royal College site, which appears to have been updated in 2004, also offers this tidbit:

Some studies suggest that women who have had an abortion may be more likely to have psychiatric illness or to self-harm than other women who give birth or are of a similar age. However, there is no evidence that these problems are actually caused by the abortion; they are often a continuation of problems a woman has experienced before.

Isn’t this just a creative use of language to avoid the actual question as to whether abortion has psychiatric/psychological affects on the women.

This is a bit like saying that there is no proof that jumping off a 20 story building kills you since the sudden stop complicates that determination.

Little New Under The Sun
Louis Farrakhan: "you'd better prepare because it will be coming to your door"
  • DaveD

    Just remember this is end of life counseling, not a death panel.

  • jim m

    The act is that having an abortion reduces long term costs to the NHS. These doctors are paid by the NHS, their livelihood depends upon being in the good graces of the NHS. So it is not surprising hat these doctors come out in favor of a policy that is financially appealing to a cash strapped and oft criticized NHS.

    The side benefit is that aborted babies won’t grow up to criticize socialized medicine. Consider abortions to be prophylaxis against political opposition.

  • Constitution First

    This death cult advice coming from the same side, ideologically, who try every way possible micro manage our lives, “for our own safety!”

    Proving once again, Liberalism is a disease.

  • Sarah the Impaler

    Posting negs while not delivering a comment is a lot safer for liberals..

  • Jim Addison

    @ #4 ~ The lefties are very busy, Sarah. Why, there are whole countries and billions of lives they haven’t ruined yet!

    And they have less than two years to finish the job on this one . . .

  • hcddbz

    Self inflicted genocide. A few years ago in the name of being green there was an article about how some people are not having children. Now they will encourage others and soon China’s One child policy will become the no child policy and people will be punished first economically then legally.

  • James H

    Posting negs while not delivering a comment is a lot safer for liberals..

    I have offered nothing positive or negative in this regard. In point of fact, I am quite in agreement that an abortion is often safer than having a baby.

    Then again, so is living inside a small glass box with filtered air and eating only painstakingly sanitized meals.

    The lowest-risk option is seldome the most desirable option.

  • Caesar Augustus

    Like other nations of Europe the Brits are in a real bind.

    The public costs of socialized medicine are so staggering they need to cull their own population by advocating for abortions. On the other hand, the public costs of their pension/welfare state programs are so staggering they’ll need vast quantities of younger workers to support their older, entitlement generation.

    Between a rock and a hard place is not a recipe for prosperity.

    What’s really scary is that with Obama in office the U.S. is heading down that same path.

  • DJ Drummond

    I disagree, James. Granted, I am not a doctor (though anyone advocating the deliberate killing of an unborn child/fetus/inconvenient-biological-event is hardly in compliance with the first law of Hippocrates), but complications from abortions seem to be every bit as serious as those from childbirth, and I note also that there is usually a very small medical team working an abortion relative to the obstetrics teams which perform births, so in the event of a heart stop, breathing crisis, or other imemdiate medical emergency, the mother having the child will receive more and better medical care than most women having an abortion can expect, should they have a medical emergency.

    That’s just one perspective of many, and we have not even breathed on the emotional and psychological trauma of knowingly causing the death of your own child, a fact which can be denied and talked over, but sooner or later has to be faced – even when unavoidable or justified by the woman making the decision, an abortion by character is to choose death for an innocent, which cannot fail to cause damage to the spirit and heart. Unless, of course, one has already killed those things in one’s self.

  • James H

    DJ: I’m afraid you and I have an unbridgeable gap on this aspect of the issue; you argue, with conviction, that abortion is infanticide. I argue, with conviction, that prohibiting abortion is an unconscionable intrusion into individual dignity and individual liberty.

    As much as I have enjoyed sparrring with you in the past, I am going to decline on this issue; my previous statement was less a rational statement of position, and more a sarcastic statement on odds and risk. Additionally, I don’t think anything productive can come of our discussion, given our radically different approaches to the issue at hand.

  • DJ Drummond

    Actually James, you and I seem to be arguing different points. You are arguing for a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, while for this post I am arguing that an abortion – for any reason – creates hazards and psychic costs which are unique and unedniable. The question I raise is not whether an abortion should happen, but a protest against the claim that an abortion should be considered a riskless or normal procedure. Yes, I hold strong moral objection to abortion itself, but the question here is teh veracity of the claim that abortion is ‘safer’ than giving birth. I argue that even without medical experience, the claim is clearly false on its face.

  • Patricia

    Back in the Enlightened Age we gals accepted the FACT that we were pregnant with a BABY, and went on from there. It was so simple! Now we’re confronted with the abortionists and the feminists who have a pathological hatred for BABIES (I have developed a patholigical hatred for the word fetus). I wish someone would take a poll of moms and dads while they are holding a just-born BABY. BTW, I’m the very proud mother of five sons who are in professions that serve mankind – oops, personkind. I can die knowing I have done something useful and noble! My heart aches for those who opted to do it their way and are now old and lonely – I know some folks like this….