Comments on: APA appoints task force on abortion and mental health

By: ken

ken — Thu, 17 May 2007 19:00:02 +0000

I don’t think the criteria should be whether someone is pro-choice or pro-life, but whether they are more likely to use the findings to advance medical knowledge and help the women in question or use the findings to attempt to push their own personal, political agendas.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:06:57 +0000

Whether pro-life or pro-choice, if you have already made up your mind about an issue, it seems there would be a need for a balancing perspective on a task force designed to review a controversial issue. If no truly neutral people can be found then a task force should be constructed in such a way that evidence for all points of view can be offered.

The issue is not exclusively pro-life v. pro-choice. It is possible to be pro-choice politically (David Fergusson) but believe there are negative mental health consequences to abortion for some number of women.

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 16 May 2007 05:56:33 +0000

Since the panel will be inquiring into abortion and associated mental health outcomes, that is to say into those conditions which follow on from abortion, why, logically should pro-lifers be included? Their position, surely, would preclude any possibility that there would be consequences for abortion, since they would not countenance it happening anyway.

By: Justina Powers

Justina Powers — Tue, 15 May 2007 21:05:46 +0000

“If you wish to have a say in APA issues, join. . .”

Yes, this is a difficult issue. I hear you, and I respect the idea that change comes from within. But, if I join, my fees will go toward funding issues that I do not agree with. . .

Dr. Justina Powers

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 08 May 2007 22:56:49 +0000

urgg…

“… final report will have been subjected…”