RIDICULOUS AWARD FROM THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION FOR "EXCELLENT SCIENCE" TO H.P. DAVID AND WASTE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS SUPPORTING
A REVIEW OF
|Psychiatric controls & hospitalization||28.3% 24.2%||15.0% 18.3%|
|Crime registration||8.3% 11.7%||2.5% 6.7%|
|Public assistance||14.2% 16.7%||2.5% 14.2%|
|No registered problems||48.3% 61.7%||68.3% 74.2%|
The data of the Göteborg Cohort does not support the claim of the authors that the trends for the unaborted-unwanted are bad. To the contrary, the trends favor them. This is a positive finding.
10.On page 85, the authors state:
No single test, no individual item, and no indicator in the case history was capable by itself of distinguishing the UP children from the AP children so as to enable an experienced clinician to identify an "unwanted" child easily and reliably.
This is a positive finding.
11.On page 85-86, the authors state:
In sum, the findings around age nine suggested that a woman's originally rejecting attitude toward her pregnancy does not inevitably lead to behavioral difficulties in the child. The belief that every child unwanted during pregnancy remains unwanted is not necessarily true. It is equally untrue that the birth of an originally unwanted child causes a complete change in maternal attitude. Not every woman who becomes a mother will love her child. The child of a woman denied abortion appears to be born into a potentially handicapping situation. At the same time, some factors in the life of the mother and child have a positive impact.
Here the authors seem to be struggling hard to avoid the conclusions which they do not want. They are equivocating to a surprising degree and are in fact preaching what their data did not provide. They do not want to accentuate the positive findings.
12.When asked at age 20 about life (line 29 -- "life: close to what wanted with few problems" -- 60.0% vs. 83.0% and line 30 -- "life: satisfied on the whole or better" -- 64.0% vs. 86.0%), the positive attitudes of the unwanted UP's towards life are not as high as the approved AP's, but when one considers the situation into which these children had been born, the 60% and 64% satisfaction level is a clear indication that most of these individuals are certainly entitled to be alive. This is a positive finding.
A Couple of Puzzles Among Many
Among the reasons women chose abortions (which were twice denied) at the time of the request were:
Unmarried - 29.3%
b) Threatened or actual family disintegration - 16%
c) Housing shortage - 36.3%
These figures should be kept in mind when other data are provided, such as at eight years of age when the child was said to be a "fairly complete family" (line 10) in 83.2% of the unwanted and 90% of the approved. Yet the abortion request was because of "unmarried in 29.3%. This figure does not confirm the number of "complete families" for those with unwanted pregnancies or the stability equivalence between the two groups.
Of interest is the number of abortions which had occurred to the mothers (lines 31, 32, 33). Obviously, 27.6% of the UP mothers had one or more abortions vs. 18.9% in the AP mothers at the time of birth. Nine years later, the UP women had 42.7% with one or more abortions while the AP mothers had almost doubled to 36.5%. What is not stated but seems a reasonable hypothesis to this observer is that previously aborted women have more trouble raising children and whatever the problems were which created the unwanted pregnancies in the first place had not yet been helped.
Examples of Observer Bias
1.The authors frequently qualify their positive statements and accentuate the negative findings. For example, on page 57 the authors state:
If the UP and the AP groups do not represent either extremes on the continuum (of wantedness/unwantedness), then whatever significant differences are found are likely to be of even greater importance.
This is a transparent effort to enhance their predetermined negative conclusions regardless of the data. This reviewer responds that the authors are right but the children's end states were positive considering the more insecure environments into which they had been born.
2.The manipulation of breast-feeding data has already been discussed, which is an obvious example of observer bias.
3.On page 79 is stated:
The UP mothers do not constitute any "special" or "marginal" group of the general population. At the time the child was to be born, they were definitely not threatened by any material deprivation. In later years, they were not "overburdened" by children, having largely one, two, and, at most, three. (A fourth child or more appeared in only ten cases, which is 4.6%.)
To write: ". . . at most, three (children) . . ." and then add parenthetically that ten cases had "a fourth child" is an example of grammatical confusion at least and wanting scholarship at worst.
As has already been shown, a close look at the data reveals material deprivation and a handicapping situation which explains the differences in outcome. This is the "more insecure environment" to which these children were exposed: The mothers were younger; the fathers were younger and fewer; there were more step-parents; the children had more siblings; the families had less resources in terms of owning their own flats; more grandparents' help was needed; and the mothers had been through more abortions already before the birth of these children.
4.The authors' description of the Maladaptation Scores on pages 80 and 81 of the text reveal that their mission was to warp the data. They focused on the negatives for both the children and mothers, pretending objectivity but such is naught. Given this negative emphasis, the outcome was extremely skewed for those more deprived. In actual fact, the outcome was far from a disaster.
5.The text states on page 85:
The unconditional acceptance of the child by the mother is the essential prerequisite for an effective mutual psychological interaction.
This is generally accepted by mental health experts around the world. Nevertheless, these authors did not test this statement. It remains a theoretical concept and a desideratum, but by no means did the authors prove it valid. What is apparent in the total picture is that the mothers compensated and people tried to do what was right. The so-called "born unwanted" turned out indistinguishable from the so-called wanted.
6.On page 91 is stated:
In the social integration and competence of UP subjects as a group and in their school achievements, it is the lack of pluses rather than surplus of marked minuses that becomes most apparent. Still, perhaps most important, the fact that differences between UP subjects and AP controls persist and have actually widened after nearly 18 years of family life suggests that "unwantedness" during early pregnancy constitutes a not negligible factor for the child's subsequent life. Socially handicapping characteristics in UP subjects seem to have an accelerating momentum.
This is just not confirmed by their own data nor by the Göteborg Cohort already described. This is how the authors want it to be -- not how they found it. (Abortionists think Right-to-Lifers cannot be scientific. To the contrary, what is obvious is that abortionists do not care about science.) Furthermore, given the authors' admitted strong negative bent, the pluses would seem even more significant.
7.On page 96, the text states:
There were no significant differences in views expressed by UP subjects and AP controls on how they felt within their present social groups, their concerns about the future, or on how they decided on or prepared for their occupations. Nevertheless . . .
Always a "nevertheless . . . ." The authors routinely qualify their absence of findings in the direction they want. This particular quote is taken as they discussed "job satisfaction" between the ages of 21 to 23 (lines 29 and 30 of this critique's Table I).
8.On page 110:
The prevention of unwanted pregnancy is more important than ever for the well-being of the family.
This statement is not justified by the data. The concept of "unwantedness" is actually found to be irrelevant.
9.On page 124:
In conclusion, the findings of the Prague study -- and also of the Scandinavian research -- lend reasonable support to the hypothesis that insufficient gratification of basic social and emotional needs (which accompanies many UP children from early childhood) tends to create an unfavorable social environment with negative effects in personality development, social relations, and self-realization.
One cannot argue with the hypothesis -- but it has not been linked with wantedness, unwantedness, or abortions denied. To claim so is scientific balderdash.
The task for the reviewer is to maintain objectivity, an easy task in view of the data itself but a difficult one when faced with the maddeningly gross abuse of thinking present in this book. One wants to yell when convulsed by the equivocating and propagandizing. I am confident I have kept more faith with science in this review than the authors did in their book. And any group which accepts or promotes this book is filled with scientific charlatans (like the American Psychological Association).
The book is an example of manipulation of data more and more frequent in the scientific community. The authors ignore some data at times, then orchestrate it to accentuate the negative or to minimize the positive. Unjustified claims are made over and over again. They conform the data to themselves.
What was really measured in the studies in this book are family deficiencies and the lack of complete perfection in family life. The study measured the "more insecure environments" between the two groups of mothers and children. The seeking an abortion (an "unwanted" pregnancy) is truly a marker and a cry for help. It is not a cause of anything. The insecure environments are the cause of the few differences between the two groups. It is not scientifically correct to say that the marker for the insecure environment is the cause of the insecure environment or the cause of the problems subsequently identified.
The differences between the groups include the following:
-Mothers less than 24 years of age 25% more often than controls;
-Fathers under 24 years of age 20% more often than controls;
-Three or more siblings were present twice the controls;
-Controls owned their own flat eight percentage points more;
-The study group needed extended family help twelve percentage points more;
-Step-parents were present in the study group 2˝ times more than the controls;
-Single parent was present 50% more often in the study group;
-In the control group, the fathers earned in the highest employment status 50% more than the study group;
-Natural father was gone 1/5 of the time -- twice more often than in the control group;
-Mothers had one or more abortions prior to this child's birth 50% more often than the control group.
Science is not served well by ignoring these differences between the groups which singularly may prove insignificant but in the additive sense loom rather large, especially to those of us in clinical practice who discern what chaos each of these factors can cause in a family.
Buried in this book are the following assertions by the authors:
- (pg. 67) -There is no evidence that the mental condition of the mothers and their rejecting attitudes toward the pregnancy were manifest in any negative way at the time of the birth.
- (pg. 78) -Most of the mothers must be credited with a significant positive shift in attitude towards the child.
- (pg. 84) -Unwanted pregnancy does not harm the child's development.
- (pg. 85) - No single test, no individual item, and no indicator in the case history was capable of distinguishing the child so as to enable an experienced clinician to identify the so-called unwanted child easily and reliably.
- (pg. 96) - There were no significant differences in views expressed between the groups on how they felt within their present social groups, and their concern about the future.
- (pg. 124) -At all ages of the study: "The unaborted subjects are not so much over-represented on the extremely negative indicators as they are under-represented on the positive ones. They are rarely observed on any indicator of excellence." [Reviewer note: This is elitism and eugenics. After all the negative searching made by the authors, we are now informed that the negative indicators were not heavily represented but that the positive indicators were less frequent. One suspects they want to have it both ways.]
But all this is ignored, and the authors, by delicate psychological testing, discern differences in outcome, trying to suggest that a symptom is actually a cause. This is scientific quackery to be repeated and praised no doubt by scientific quacks (like those in the American Psychological Association).
Never more clear than in this book is that those who are aborted are real people with lives to lead and, if left alone and unaborted, do not have "bad" lives. The outcome was far from a disaster. Sixty-four percent stated they were at least satisfied with their lives from the Prague study, and from the Göteborg study, 48% had no registered problems from birth to age 21 and also no registered problems in almost 62% between the ages of 21 and 35. The positives justify the existence of these children not only as children but as adults.
This is a study of those who should be dead by abortion according to the authors. Therefore the real question is: Is life's adventure worth it for the unaborted? To answer this question and to bring this study to a valid conclusion, the authors must break the codes, openly discuss the unabortedness with the UP individuals and find out directly whether they feel they should have been allowed to live. Narratives are needed emphasizing the common struggles and themes present. Unfortunately, the real stories of the unaborted remain hidden in this egregious attempt to deceive entitled Born Unwanted -- Developmental Effects of Denied Abortion.
The not-aborted children described in this book confirms that abortion is a massive deprivation and a total write-off of millions of lives. This study shows that if these lives had been left to live, they would not have been that much different from the socially-approved pregnancies. These unaborted individuals are the lebensunwerten Leben (life unworthy of life), and we need to know more about those "who might have been" by looking at those few who have escaped the abortionists' procedures.
Finally, one wonders what improvements could have resulted had the authors, instead of merely studying the subjects, spent time in therapy and in counseling with these families. This is to raise an ethical objection. Not to offer help to someone in identifiable trouble flies in the face of Western Christian traditions. It is certainly against the Oath of Hippocrates. What these authors did was to allow more suffering than was necessary while they attempted to promote their point of view in clear defiance of civilization, science, and all helping traditions. This is traitorous science, not only in its failure to keep allegiance to the scientific process but in its failure to offer help when obviously needed by both groups studied. (And, the American Psychological Association ought to close its doors.)
|1. Mother average age at birth||25.5 years||25.9 years|
|2. Mothers under 24 years old at birth||49.5%||40.5%|
|3. Fathers under 24 years old at birth||21.9%||17.9%|
|4. At 8 years old, three or more siblings||26.9%||13.6%|
|5. Parents with own flat at birth||53.0%||61.0%|
|6. Grandparents helped first 8 years||41.4%||29.1%|
|7. Child at 8 years old - married to child's father/mother||73.2%||86.4%|
|8. Child at 8 years old - married to another||10.0%||3.6%|
|9. Child at 8 years old - divorced||13.2%||8.2%|
|10. Child at 8 years old - "complete family"||83.2%||90.0%|
|Social employment status of father (at child 8 years old):|
|11. (Lowest) Class I||53.4%||53.2%|
|12. (Mid) Class II||34.8%||30.1%|
|13. (Highest) Class III||11.8%||16.7%|
|14. Natural father (child 8 years old) - married to another woman||11.7%||3.2%|
|15. Natural father (child 8 years old) divorced||10.3%||7.6%|
|16. No pregnancy complications||73.9%||65.3%|
|17. No puerperal complications||90.8%||83.0%|
|18. Breast fed -- 8 weeks or less||54.6%||60.4%|
|19. Breast fed -- 9 weeks or more||45.4%||39.6%|
|20. Financial status 5-8 years after birth improved||40.0%||42.0%|
|21. Financial status 5-8 years after birth worse||15.0%||17.0%|
|22. Maladaptation Scores (child age 9) -- total average||10.6 ± 5.4||8.7 ± 5.0|
|23. Maladaptation Scores (child age 9) -- males average||12.2 ± 6.0||9.8 ± 5.4|
|24. Maladaptation Scores (child age 9) -- females average||9.0 ± 4.1||7.6 ± 4.1|
|Child Care Department Help Needed -- Less Than 18 Years Old -- Reasons:|
|25. -- Divorce||36.8%||35.1%|
|26. -- Education/alimony matters||29.8%||24.3%|
|27. -- Criminal acts of adolescence||10.6%||13.5%|
|28. -- Other social/legal||22.8%||27.1%|
|29. Child at age 20 -- "Life: Close to what wanted with few problems"||60.0%||83.0%|
|30. Child at age 20 -- "Life: Satisfied on whole or better"||64.0%||86.0%|
|31. Three or more abortions -- at birth||2.9%||0.9%|
|32. One or more abortions -- at birth (includes line 31)||27.6%||18.9%|
|33. One or more abortions -- child at 9 years old||42.7%||36.5%|
Entire Site Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 by The Mankind First Company. All Rights Reserved.