A absolutely excellent balanced article that was a relief to read.

My feeling that the original article by Tsitas was in a way mirroring what the anti-abortion lobby was doing, that is trying to claim ownership of women's feelings and using them for the purpose of pushing your own world view. Tsitas to me seemed to be saying that there is a correct way to react to such a situtation and anyone who didn't react in the approved way was a fault. Human beings of course respond emotionally in a wide range of ways to events in their life and there is no one correct way of feeling.

I can imagine that a woman who experienced grief after an abortion and who reached out to say she was experiencing these feelings and was more or less told 'to get over it', that she was at fault for feeling this way might be more at risk of slipping into a real depression. Having her grief acknowleged and sympathy given I think would help her come to terms more with it.

So if women are told that they may have a adverse pyschological reaction to their abortion and then they experience it, are maybe better placed to seek help for it. At the same time women considering abortion should be told that the great number of women do not experience any impact what's so-ever and that would insulate them from people who are telling them that they should be exhibiting some form of emotional distress. It may be that even women who thought that they were at risk of grieving after an abortion would still proceed as that was the best choice in their situtation. They would just be aware of this possibility and be prepared to accept that too.

The author spent most of the article denying that abortion can be traumatic. She only added "the pro-choice feminist movement has to work to provide a space for all women to share their stories of abortion, and not to disregard those we think give a platform to the anti-choice lobby." right at the very end, as an afterthought. No-one is claiming that all abortions create psychological damage, only that some do. Some people are so worried about women's freedom of choice that they will not discuss the consequences of those choices.

Excellent informative article, and a very appropriate response to the Tsitas piece, thank you for this.

Only one comment - the pro choice goal to work towards a situation in which no woman regrets her choice - that might be unrealistic, regret can be normal, for all kinds of reasons. Maybe helping a woman through and past that regret to acceptance of herself and her decision?

Briar:” Only one comment - the pro choice goal to work towards a situation in which no woman regrets her choice - that might be unrealistic, regret can be normal, for all kinds of reasons. Maybe helping a woman through and past that regret to acceptance of herself and her decision?”

Unless the decision was wrong then they have to accept that and live with it like a grown up. Is living with a regret something to be protected from? But I don’t think it is something others should use as a weapon either.

Why would pro-choice people want no women to regret their choice? It seems perfectly natural that some might at some point afterwards.

There is a deep philosophical dilemma here which has to be resolved with intellectual honesty before real progress can be made in assisting women who are hurting after an abortion.

We have to ascertain the nature of what is being removed from a woman's body when she is subjected to an abortion procedure.

This article uses the terms "abortion" and "termination" some 38 times without once naming what is aborted or terminated.

Is it as some say "just a bunch of cells" over which a woman has ownership and disposal rights?

The closest this article comes to an answer on this is that "a serious maternal or fetal health problem" is aborted or terminated.

But is that what is being aborted or terminated--"a problem"? A piece of problematical rubbish, 'a parasitical growth’ to be removed and incinerated? Is that all that is being aborted or terminated?

Or is it a tiny human being, the young of the human species, a human child already conceived, already alive and growing, being protected and nurtured in his/her mother's womb?

Medical science confirms the real presence of a small genetically unique human being. From first knowledge of the pregnancy, we can identify the child's father, and whether the child is a son or a daughter.

If the science is right about this lively little presence in the mother's womb, then the grief of mothers after aborting or terminating is both genuine and understandable.

Authentic medical procedures do no intentionally lethal harm to either patient, the mother or her unborn child.

Lethal violence against these tiniest and most defenceless of all children is never 'necessary'. All violence against children is preventable.

Before as well as after birth, children should never receive less protection than adults.

Their mothers' personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.

Jewely, I just meant that sometimes people can get stuck in regret (or any other emotion) and it can be hard to move on if that happens. Just because we regret something doesn't mean we have to live with that regret forever, we can learn to let it go and move on, like, as you say, grown ups.