CNN wants stories from post-abortive mothers
CNN has invited mothers who have had abortions (post-abortive mothers) to “share your story via video, audio or text”:
As much as abortion gets debated politically, rarely do we read stories of women who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy. We want to hear from anyone who has had first-hand experience with abortion. How difficult was the decision? How do you feel about it now? How did it change your life?
Almost all of the current submissions are stories of abortion regret (more on abortion regret). The world needs to know the truth: abortion isn’t just a procedure. Abortion hurts women.
The deadline for submissions is next Friday, February 15.

A friend told me about a friend of hers who had legal abortions but had a physical problem because of them. When she finally had a wanted pregnancy, she had to have some sort of special procedure and have the pregnancy carefully watched in order to carry to term.
Hey CNN, There’s a website for that:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/index.aspx
Oh, Andrew. CNN isn’t going to find the “abortion saved my life” stories they’re going to highlight in their final piece at Silent No More. I’m pretty sure the CNN story will be a slap in the face to all the women that shared their experiences of heartache. I hope I’m wrong.
CNN will wait patiently for ”abortion is the best thing I’ve ever done” or maybe “I’m a millionaire because I aborted!” stories.
:)
Did any of you read the comments from “prochoicemom” who keeps saying these women (such as Carla) only have abortion regret because they were already mentally unstable to begin with?
there’s a new(s) way to fight CNN and other news media. A few ‘alternative medicine’ practitioners are fed-up with the pro-drug lobby that has infested most mainstream news. So to fight this take-over (this IS now part of the acedemea too), a few souls have begun a news service (websites) without pharmaceutical appeasement as their #1 priority.
Did any of you read the comments from “prochoicemom” who keeps saying these women (such as Carla) only have abortion regret because they were already mentally unstable to begin with?
I’ve read that women who tried to abort themselves with coat hangers were mentally unstable too, so right back at ya.
Sydney,
Yeah I’ve read quite a few of the stories and comments, as well as “prochoicemom’s” story and it angers and frustrates me that the women who regret their abortions are being called “zealots” and lumped in with extremists as well as implied their stories are not true. I say shame on these pro-choice individuals who say such things! These pro-choicers seek to shame and silence women who’ve shared different experience and narrative than their own, as it does not fit into their pro-choice and abortion as always a positive decision viewpoint. I personally believe there are many experiences and outcomes from an abortion, although from a sociological and psychological viewpoint abortion may not always be the best choice, however, all post-abortion narratives should be heard
CNN, if they present the resulting stories without heavy editing and in truthful regrets / no regrets proportions, may be bitten by the old lawyer’s rule not to ask a question if you don’t know what the answer will be.
Assuming this won’t be a “kangeroo court”, of course.
Sydney,
Prochoicemom is busy reading and watching and commenting isn’t she?
Trying to deny her own grief and pain.
Pray for her. So many of us were proabortion before we became prolife.
This will be about as accurate and representative as asking people to comment about a particular make and model of automobile.
The overwhelming majority, who are happy with their choice, just can’t be bothered to make the effort to contribute. Even the repeat customers.
As always it’ll just be the few who aren’t happy with their choice who will seize the opportunity of having a platform on which to air their grievances.
It happens with just about anything. What a waste of time.
What a waste of time.
It’s a waste if you’re only interested in “representative” information. If you actually care about the individual women that experience abortion, no, it’s not a “waste of time”.
So you don’t think it need be representative of women who have abortions yet you want it to be about women who have had abortions?
Does that mean you only want to hear from some? Who might they be?
Given the CNN prompt, (“We want to hear from anyone who has had first-hand experience with abortion. How difficult was the decision? How do you feel about it now? How did it change your life?”) I would say “representative” is not the point.
That would make it exactly as I described it then.
Responses pretty much only from the disgruntled few.
“we’ve heard from 4,000 owners of vehicle ‘x’ and 50% aren’t happy with their purchase”
Never mind that 200,000 of vehicle ‘x’ have been sold, therefore only 1% aren’t happy.
Doesn’t deliver an accurate picture of the topic. Waste of time.
Again, it’s only a waste of time if you’re expecting to draw “representative” conclusions. If you’re looking to gather information about women’s individual abortion experiences, it could be quite illuminating.
It says “We want to hear from anyone who has had first-hand experience with abortion.”, not ‘we want to hear from anyone who regrets their abortion’ or ‘we want to hear from anyone who is happy they had an abortion’.
You simply confirm that you are sitting their with your fingers crossed that only the disgruntled few will speak up, I get that. Another chance to present a false picture.
Far from being illuminating, it won’t deliver anything of value, let alone the truth.
Disgruntled? Like my soup was cold at the restaurant so I sent it back?
My daughter died. Her body was vacuumed from mine and I will regret it everyday for the rest of my life. My story of grief and pain and healing is irrefutable.
There are some letters from those who had an abortion and are so glad they did.
You go on with your bad self Reality. You and your hot air. ppppphhhhhhhtttttttt
Reality, it might be “useless” in regards to drawing conclusions about abortion in general, and I don’t think anyone is claiming that it’s somehow equivalent to a serious study about abortion with good methodology. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with hearing about people’s personal stories, though. Might be cathartic for those who want to share, and for those wanting to hear anecdotal stories about real women and their experiences it could be interesting. Just like any other issue that affects a lot of people, it’s important to hear from those close to it.
“You go on with your bad self Reality.” – is that supposed to actually mean anything?
“You and your hot air. ppppphhhhhhhtttttttt” – aw, did someone pop your balloon.
Carla, Reality can’t understand your loss. But so many of us do((()))).
“Just like any other issue that affects a lot of people, it’s important to hear from those close to it” – I agree Jack.
Given what you say about it being important to hear about things that affect a lot of people, if they were conducting the same sort of thing on a topic such as vaccination, how would you view it if it were swamped with anti-vaxxers?
” Given what you say about it being important to hear about things that affect a lot of people, if they were conducting the same sort of thing on a topic such as vaccination, how would you view it if it were swamped with anti-vaxxers”
Depends. If people who have children who were hurt by vaccines (which is very rare, like less than one percent, but happens on occasion) want to share their stories that’s fine, those people need to be heard just like the 99.5% of people who have healthy vaccinated children. It also wouldn’t wrong to hear from people who have chosen not to vaccinate, for a perspective on why people would choose to do such a (completely wrong in my opinion) thing. I don’t think it’s wrong to hear any perspective, it’s just wrong to treat it as anything other than anecdotal.
“it’s just wrong to treat it as anything other than anecdotal.” – and that’s the crux of the matter. Think of the bandwagoning that fringe elements would strive for. Now think of the average TV viewer. It would present a false image.
Courtnay, I haven’t questioned or dismissed Carla’s sorrow at finding her choice was the wrong one for her. What I do question is extravagant claims being made about the number of women who are ‘damaged’.
You call her and women like her she serves “fringe.” You are dismissive and arrogant, and your weird love affair with death betrays you every time you show up here.
It is not preposterous to imagine that once post-abortive women wake up from their self-interest/fear coma, it would be absolutely natural for them to regret the killing of their own baby. That just makes sense. And with all the advances in science and technology, Reality, we know in no uncertain terms (you try with “fetus” but you fail, miserably) that it’s a baby.
If you have been able to hold on to the illusion that you did not, in fact, kill your own child but rather “liberated yourself” through a “legal procedure,” then you are most certainly damaged. The women who mourn their abortions are, at lthe very least, still human.
You simply confirm that you are sitting their with your fingers crossed that only the disgruntled few will speak up, I get that.
Really? Please quote what I’ve said that leads you to this erroneous conclusion.
Far from being illuminating, it won’t deliver anything of value, let alone the truth.
Because women are going to lie? Obviously CNN thinks the individual stories will be “of value” since they’re asking for them.
Hey Jack! Hey Courtnay!
I have friends that killed the only child they would ever carry. Their fertility was destroyed by abortion. I have a friend whose 20 something year old daughter DIED during her abortion. Along with my friend’s grandchild. I have friends who tried to commit suicide over their abortions.(me included)I have friends that spiraled down into drinking, drugs and promiscuity and struggled with depression and nightmares.
Our stories are valid as much as that bothers Reality. We will speak about our abortion pain to spare women and babies the brutal REALITY of it.
PS
I was proabortion after my abortion. I was in denial. I didn’t regret a thing. Until I learned THE TRUTH. That women have killed their own child(just like me)and are happy about it just points to the lengths post abortive women go to justify their “choice.”
Carla, you’re so fringy.
(and I love you!)
“and that’s the crux of the matter. Think of the bandwagoning that fringe elements would strive for. Now think of the average TV viewer. It would present a false image.”
Okay, so I don’t get what you are arguing, honestly. Because some people with a minority opinion might want to take over the conversation, that means that it’s not valid to hear those experiences at all? That only the majority opinion be allowed to talk? People are stupid, and some people might not understand the difference between anecdotal and objective evidence, but that doesn’t mean that unpopular opinions shouldn’t be presented.
Lunatic fringe. :)
Love you too Courtnay!
Wondering if you Reality have sauntered over to CNN and read the stories or watched the videos? Mine is there.
I think “Reality” is under the mistaken impression that CNN is trying to conduct research or a poll. Looks like they are collecting stories for an anecdotal human interest piece to me.
Reality, here’s some reality for ya:
64% of women who get abortions feel coerced into it.
84% were not given enough information to make an informed decision.
65% suffer symptoms of PTSD.
31% suffer health complications.
Women who receive abortions are 6 times as likely to commit suicide.
http://www.theunchoice.com/coerced.htm
There are 138 cited sources for the full report:
http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf
Is that “representative” enough for you?
Thank you Andrew.
I think “Reality” is confused about the definition of the word fringe. But then again, he’s already so lost on the definition of the word person that I’m honestly not surprised.
He’s confused on a lot of things. He doesn’t even seem to keep track of what he says himself, any longer, let alone what others say in response to his inane babbling.
“He doesn’t even seem to keep track of what he says himself, any longer, let alone what others say in response to his inane babbling.”
I know, at this point there is no way his name could be any more ironic.
“You are dismissive and arrogant” – in regard to exaggerated claims, yes.
“…it would be absolutely natural for them to regret the killing of their own baby. That just makes sense” – no, thats your wish.
“We will speak about our abortion pain to spare women and babies the brutal REALITY of it.” – falls into the same situation as “we’ve heard from 4,000 owners of vehicle ‘x’ and 50% aren’t happy with their purchase” Never mind that 200,000 of vehicle ‘x’ have been sold, therefore only 1% aren’t happy.”
“That women have killed their own child(just like me)and are happy about it just points to the lengths post abortive women go to justify their “choice.” – what, be happy about it? You simply can’t accept that the overwhelming majority are either happy or ambivalent about their abortions can you.
“Reality, here’s some reality for ya:” – oh if only it were true. Biased ‘data’ from biased sources mixed in with correlations being portrayed – yet again- as causation.
138 cited sources, wow. Some are anecdotal, some are news reports. Some women are forced or coerced. That is a bad thing. Sure doesn’t add up to the levels you try to claim though. And a good number of them would still occur if abortion was illegal, just like used to happen. So no, its not representative, at all.
“He doesn’t even seem to keep track of what he says himself, any longer, let alone what others say in response to his inane babbling.” – are you still sleep walking?!?
“Because some people with a minority opinion might want to take over the conversation, that means that it’s not valid to hear those experiences at all?…..but that doesn’t mean that unpopular opinions shouldn’t be presented” – no no, not at all Jack. I just think that presenting an excessively unrepresentative portrait of the topic would do more harm than good.
I’m off to do other things for a while, I think someone said something about societal fabric needing to be shredded or whatever ;-)
I will return to respond to anything you want me to Jack. Maybe even to others too :-)
“no no, not at all Jack. I just think that presenting an excessively unrepresentative portrait of the topic would do more harm than good.”
Okay, so you think it would be irresponsible journalism to give the anti-vaxxers in our example a disproportionate amount of space to air their experiences.
So then, my question in regards to the CNN piece is… if they are going to make a human interest piece on women who have abortions and how they are living with that decision, what do you think is the proper airing of each side? Do you think that one woman who says she is happy with her decision, and one woman who regrets it is fair?
Hell-bent Reality reminds me of the demon-possessed Weston, the Un-man:
[Ransom] taught himself to keep silent in the end: not that the torture of resisting his impulse to speak was less than the torture of response but because something with him rose up to combat the tormentor’s assurance that he must yield in the end. If the attack had been of some more violent kind it might have been easier to resist. What chilled and almost cowed him was the union of malice with something nearly childish. For temptation, for blasphemy, for a whole battery of horrors, he was in some sort prepared: but hardly for this petty, indefatigable nagging as of a nasty little boy at a preparatory school. Indeed no imagined horror could have surpassed the sense which grew within him as the slow hours passed, that this creature was, by all human standards, inside out – its heart on the surface and its shallowness at the heart. On the surface, great designs and an antagonism to Heaven which involved the fate of worlds: but deep within, when every veil had been pierced, was there, after all, nothing but a black puerility, an aimless empty spitefulness content to sate itself with the tiniest cruelties, as love does not disdain the smallest kindness?
also this, from the same chapter:
“And will you teach us Death?” said the Lady to Weston’s shape, where it stood above her.
“Yes,” it said, “it is for this that I came here, that you may have Death in abundance. But you must be very courageous.”
What are you quoting this time, Jon?
pieces from Chapter 9 of Perelandra. I’ve mentioned it before. I like it very much, just as I do The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings.
Narnia and LOTR are okay. I prefer His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman and A Song of Ice and Fire for my fantasy, though. I’ve never even heard of Perelandra.
Perelandra is part of the space trilogy by C.S. Lewis. Lewis geared his Narnia series towards children, but the space trilogy is meant for adults.
Thank you for not disappointing, reality. Your response went almost exactly how I expected it. Don’t like the facts? Discredit the source.
138 cited sources, wow. Some are anecdotal, some are news reports.
Yeah, because everyone knows you can get statistics like “64% of women feel coerced into abortions” from anecdotes and news reports.
You obviously didn’t look over the report at all. You just went straight to the sources to find one thing you could complain about and latched on to it. It doesn’t seem like your response is very “representative” of the data to me.
I’m so sad. It seems like you’re not even trying anymore. You used to be much more clever with your rebuttals.
The funny thing is, Reality complains about sources and yet expects us to beleive anything HE says.
He seriously went off the rails when he tried to defend abortion with such absurd conjecture as the hypothetical non-human spawn of two humans due to genetic abnormality. It’s really all been downhill since he referenced gestational trophoblastic disease, now that I think about it…
”It’s really all been downhill since he referenced gestational trophoblastic disease, now that I think about it…”
Was there really much of a hill to go down?
Seriously, why do we all spend so much time feeding this troll?
@JDC~
My guess is part humor, part frustration, part unbelief. The Huge Disconnect between the moniker and the substance of the comments is funny, irksome, and astonishing.
“Reality” says: the overwhelming majority are either happy or ambivalent about their abortions
Cite your source please.
Good point, Mary Ann. He is quite funny if you don’t take his nonsense too seriously.
Unfortunately, I think CNN is going to silence the “Silent No More” testimonies – just highlight the women who had “positive” experiences. It would be totally God if they indeed included the entire truth abortion though. The mainstream media seems to really want to hide it.
“Your response went almost exactly how I expected it.” – then why did you knowingly post info that you know to be significantly less than factual?
“Don’t like the facts? Discredit the source.” – that might be relevant if what you cited was factual.
“Yeah, because everyone knows you can get statistics like “64% of women feel coerced into abortions” from anecdotes and news reports.” – yeah, well thats what happened.
“You obviously didn’t look over the report at all.” – I did actually.
“It seems like you’re not even trying anymore” – on more than one previous occasion I have shown that claims such as “Women who receive abortions are 6 times as likely to commit suicide.” are grounded on correlation masquerading as causation. Why do you keep posting such arrant nonsense?
“You used to be much more clever with your rebuttals.” – then how about you post something that requires a clever rebuttal. In this instance you certainly didn’t.
“the hypothetical non-human spawn of two humans due to genetic abnormality.” – I see you’re still applying the ‘if the writers name is on it then it must be an autobiography’ theory to all that you read.
“Okay, so you think it would be irresponsible journalism to give the anti-vaxxers in our example a disproportionate amount of space to air their experiences.” – yes I do Jack.
“Do you think that one woman who says she is happy with her decision, and one woman who regrets it is fair?” – it is acceptable in the context of the piece even though that would be an astonomical overrepresentation of the ‘unhappy’ viewpoint. I just don’t think it should become a propaganda piece for either side of the debate.
“Your response went almost exactly how I expected it.” – then why did you knowingly post info that you know to be significantly less than factual?
I didn’t. Just because you disagree with something that doesn’t make it “less than factual.”
“Yeah, because everyone knows you can get statistics like “64% of women feel coerced into abortions” from anecdotes and news reports.” – yeah, well thats what happened.
This is the source (cited repeatedly in the first page of the report) for 3 of the statistics I posted:
http://www.vozvictimas.org/pdf/documentos/rue2004.pdf
Please review and consider revising your previous statement.
“You obviously didn’t look over the report at all.” – I did actually.
See above…
“It seems like you’re not even trying anymore” – on more than one previous occasion I have shown that claims such as “Women who receive abortions are 6 times as likely to commit suicide.” are grounded on correlation masquerading as causation. Why do you keep posting such arrant nonsense?
I never claimed there was a causal link. I stated the correlation pretty plainly actually. Facts aren’t nonsense. Are you saying a correlation of abortion to a 600% higher rate of suicide is not alarming?
“Just because you disagree with something that doesn’t make it “less than factual.” – I agree Andrew. The fact that it is less than factual does however.
“Please review and consider revising your previous statement.” – statement reviewed. Revising not warranted.
Patricia Coleman’s studies have been debunked on numerous occassions. She has a track record for this type of thing.
From their very own conclusions – “Posttraumatic stress reactions were found to be associated with abortion.” – yes but why are they ‘associated’? Or is that just a ‘headline grabber’?- “Consistent with previous research,” – previously discredited - “the data here suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities,” – suggest? No it doesn’t – “particularly for those women who have a history of adverse childhood events and prior traumata.” – yes, as pointed out in various debunkings, other factors have not and maybe even cannot be adequately assessed and demonstrate accurately measurable impacts – “Study limitations” -as I have stated – “preclude drawing definitive conclusions,” – so no basis on which to make any claims – “but the findings do suggest additional crosscultural research is warranted” – yes, well, good luck with that.
“I never claimed there was a causal link. I stated the correlation pretty plainly actually.” – how, by dumping this little job-lot as a parcel?
“64% of women who get abortions feel coerced into it.
84% were not given enough information to make an informed decision.
65% suffer symptoms of PTSD.
31% suffer health complications.
Women who receive abortions are 6 times as likely to commit suicide.”
“Facts aren’t nonsense.” – no Andrew, they certainly aren’t.
“Are you saying a correlation of abortion to a 600% higher rate of suicide is not alarming” – no, but it has been demonstrated that there is no causal link so attacking abortion is fruitless.
“Reality” says: the overwhelming majority are either happy or ambivalent about their abortions
Since you’re so interested in presenting FACTS with SOURCES, please cite your source for your statement above.
Patricia Coleman’s studies have been debunked on numerous occassions. She has a track record for this type of thing.
Please explain how these studies have been debunked. Oh, and make sure there are no anecdotes or news sources in your explanation. Thanks.
From their very own conclusions – “Posttraumatic stress reactions were found to be associated with abortion.” – yes but why are they ‘associated’? Or is that just a ‘headline grabber’?
So… your criticism isn’t “this is not true.” Your criticism is “they don’t explain why.” Must you know the reason for everything in order for it to be true? Does not knowing why protons are positive mean they don’t exist? What an interesting world you must live in.
“the data here suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities,” – suggest? No it doesn’t
I guess we just have to take your word for it, eh?
“particularly for those women who have a history of adverse childhood events and prior traumata.” – yes, as pointed out in various debunkings, other factors have not and maybe even cannot be adequately assessed and demonstrate accurately measurable impacts – “Study limitations” -as I have stated – “preclude drawing definitive conclusions,” – so no basis on which to make any claims.
Patently false. If you have clear correlations, you have basis to state them.
“I never claimed there was a causal link. I stated the correlation pretty plainly actually.” – how, by dumping this little job-lot as a parcel?
Please point to definitive proof that anything I said was false. Again, no news sources or anecdotes, please.
“Are you saying a correlation of abortion to a 600% higher rate of suicide is not alarming” – no, but it has been demonstrated that there is no causal link so attacking abortion is fruitless.
Wait… it’s been demonstrated that there is no causal link? As hard as it is to prove that there is a causal link, it’s a lot harder to prove statistically that there is no causal link. That is a ridiculous claim, and I’d love for you to list one source that supports it.
“Reality” is a cowardly, lying troll. We should stop feeding him.
Oh reality, also (I can’t believe I missed this one): nobody named Patricia Coleman was associated with that study. Your attention to detail is dazzling.
Sorry Lrning…
“nobody named Patricia Coleman was associated with that study. Your attention to detail is dazzling.” – oo er. If only young Priscilla’s errors were as minor and insignificant as my getting her name wrong.
“Please explain how these studies have been debunked.” – Priscilla used the 2004 study you cited along with a number of others to produce a meta-analysis which made the same claims as her 2004 study. It has been roundly condemned.
Replies to Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009
Is Having an Abortion Likely to Damage a Woman’s Mental Health? | Psychology Today
Untrue: Abortion Leads to Mental Health Problems | World of Psychology
I have more if you need them, I know multiple links hold up posts.
“Must you know the reason for everything in order for it to be true?” – no, but stating that “Posttraumatic stress reactions were found to be associated with abortion.” tells us…nothing.
“I guess we just have to take your word for it, eh?” – no. Read the report, it doesn’t suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities.
“Patently false.” – how? Their own conclusion says “Study limitations preclude drawing definitive conclusions.”
“If you have clear correlations, you have basis to state them” – as correlations yes, but that is all.
“Please point to definitive proof that anything I said was false” – the study you cite and Priscilla’s later work. You, like Priscilla, attempt to insinuate that abortion is responsible for increased suicides. The fact that pre-abortion and other impacting factors aren’t addressed in these studies show that this is a claim without basis.
I assure you Lrning that nothing you offer ‘feeds’ me.