Does Abortion Cause Women to Be Physically Abusive?

Does abortion cause women to be more likely to physically abuse their children? That’s how research by Bowling Green State University professor Priscilla Coleman is being portrayed by conservative news outlets like The Washington Times, but the claim largely falls apart on close examination.

Coleman studied 518 low-income women in Baltimore that included 118 abusive mothers, 119 neglecting mothers, and 281 mothers with no history of either neglect or abuse. Out of that sample, Coleman found that women who had experienced any sort of pregnancy loss, such as an abortion of miscarriage, had a 99 percent higher risk of abusing their children than those who had never had an abortion according to the Washington Times.

The Times quotes Coleman as saying,

There’s a good number of women who have abortions, experience it as a … loss with bereavement, some guilt — guilt is a pretty common experience with abortion. Those kind of effects could cause anger, and we know parents who abuse their children often have anger-control issues.

But does this really tell us that having an abortion is linked to physical abuse of children? Consider another study that Coleman did that used just this sort of methodology.

For a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Coleman examined 56,000 women who were part of California’s Medicaid program. Of that sample, 15,000 had had abortions, compared to 41,000 who had not. Coleman then tracked admissions for psychiatric illnesses by the women in the year after they either had an abortion or gave birth.

Only 0.7 percent of women who gave birth were hospitalized for psychiatric problems, while 1.5 percent of the women who had an abortion were hospitalized for psychiatric problems in the following year. Moreover, women who had abortions had a 160 percent higher risk of being admitted to a hospital for psychiatric women in the first 90 days after having an abortion than did women who gave birth in the first 90 days afterward. After four years, however, the women who had abortions only had a 50 percent higher risk of hospitalization for a psychiatric condition as compared to the women who gave birth.

But as even Coleman herself acknowledged, what these studies cannot tell us is if women who have abortions are more likely to be abusive or suffer psychiatric problems or if women more likely to be abusive or suffer psychiatric problems are also simply more likely to have abortions. As Arizona State University professor Nancy Russo told the Toledo Blade,

It is just as plausible that the direction of causality is reversed . . . that psychiatric problems cause women who become pregnant to feel less capable of raising a child and to terminate their pregnancy.

Coleman agrees, telling the Toledo Blade,

There are a whole lot of factors that lead up to the decision [to have an abortion], a whole lot of lifestyle circumstances, and that can be predictive. So when you look at the negative effects, what are you really looking at? is it a product of their choice? Or are they experiencing depression or whatever because they were battered? Or because of the abortion? It’s hard to tease apart.

All of these comments apply equally to the claim about abortion and child abuse being linked. It could be that women who are more likely to abuse children are also more likely to have abortions.

Sources:

After decades of research, evaluationg abortion’s effect still difficult. Jenni Laidman, Toledo Blade, January 22, 2004.

Abuse risk linked to abortion. Shepherd Pittman, The Washington Times, November 3, 2005.

Abortion Linked to Abuse. Josh Montez, Family.Org, December 30, 2005.

Stupid O’Reilly E-Book Pricing

Of all the firms that don’t get electronic books, I’m kind of surprised to see O’Reilly Books in there.

All I want is one thing — an e-book version of Jon Udell’s 1999 book Practical Internet Groupware. This is a book that, to my knowledge, has been out-of-print for several years.

So I go to O’Reilly’s Safari site to see if I can purchase it there and I can, if I’m willing to pay ridiculous prices.

First, I’d have to sign up for a $19.99/month subscript to the Safari site. Then, I could pay to download the chapters in PDF format (because I don’t want to permanently subscribe to Safari) for an additional $22. Even if it was just $22 to download, that’d be a bit silly to pay for a 6 year old book on groupware.

Instead, I ended up ordering a couple copies for $4+shipping from a used bookseller I found on Amazon. Now both O’Reilly and I are losers. I’d really prefer to have an electronic version rather than paper, and I imagine O’Reilly would prefer that it have my money rather than the used bookseller.

Stupid.

The Singularity Is Fiction, Not Science

Glenn Reynolds has an odd, but all too typical, defense of the bizarre notion of the technological singularity. Addressing critics of singularity theology, Reynolds writes,

I’ve heard talk about the Singularity dismissed as “the rapture for nerds,” but I think that’s mere dismissal, and not very persuasive. It is, instead, an illustration of Clarke’s Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I wrote a song about that, too, once but it wasn’t a hymn!

There might be some sort of argument in there, but I confess I cannot find it. Fortunately, Reynolds helps debunk the singularity nonsense by linking to a post by Phil Bowermaster. Bowermaster in turn quotes from singularity guru Ray Kurzweil’s book, The Singularity Is Near. Kurzweil nicely illustrates the sort of nonsense that lies just under the surface of most strains of singularity arguments,

Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every monotheistic tradition God is likewise described as all of these qualities, only without limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although never quite reaching this ideal. We can regard, therefore, the freeing of our thinking from the severe limitations of its biological form to be an essentially spiritual undertaking.

This is fiction, not science. Kurzweil’s description of evolution as moving towards “greater levels of subtle attributes such as love” is simply Teilhard de Chardin’s teleological nonsense coated with a high-tech veneer. Instead of de Chardin’s Omega Point, we’re given the “singularity” which will bring transcendence.

My New Year’s Resolution — Less WoW

So 2005 will be known at my house as the year the MMO took over our lives.

Before some students I know engaged in an evil conspiracy to get me to install World of Warcraft, for example, typically I’d have lunch with my wife and we’d talk about our kids or what happened at work, etc.

Today, though a typical lunch goes like this:

Me: Damn. Last night I was in the Blasted Lands with some guildies when one of them aggroed a bunch of mobs and by the time we cleared ’em, some Undead Rogue bastard came and ganked us.

Lisa: Fucking horde. That reminds me of this time in Stranglethorn Vale when a mob debuffed my . . .

…and so on. Seriously, I remember we were getting into it at a Wendy’s and this small group of people was looking at us a table away going WTF?

Fortunately, I’ve finally gotten my character almost to level 60, and once I get to that point I can stop playing this game so damn much.

I can stop at anytime. Really. I just need to log in one more time to, uh, check my auctions. Yeah, that’s it.

The Library of Congress’ Online Wizard of Oz Exhibit

The Library of Congress as a short but interesting online exhibit covering The Wizard of Oz. The exhibit includes a lot of interesting posters and examples of Oz-related novelties, including this gorgeous map of Oz created by Oz illustrator Dick Martin and original art for the 1990 Wizard of Oz stamp featuring Dorothy and Toto.

OpenReader.Org

OpenReader.Org is an interesting attempt to create a single format for e-books, as opposed to the couple dozen formats that are out there now, with Microsoft’s LIT and Adobe’s PDF formats way out in front of everyone else (Palm READER and Mobipocket’s secure format also have significant marketshare).

The OpenReader format is going to be XML-based, and unfortunately (though of necessity), they will have some way for publishers to wrap the resulting file in DRM,

Q. Will the OpenReader format work with digital rights management — anti-piracy protection?

If publishers insist on DRM, the ideal solution would be to use a standardized DRM solution — preferably owned by no one company. In other words, it would be “nonproprietary.” If you make DRM nonproprietary, however, it is somewhat easier to crack.

Two possible answers exist. One would be to allow publishers to pick their own DRM systems and allow reading software to support multiple systems. A second approach might be to standardize on one DRM system developed by some company who has agreed to make their system available at low cost. Right now, as much as 10 or 15 percent of an e-bookÂ’s price at times may go for DRM-related services. We think this is far too much, especially in a generally low-margin industry like book publishing. OSoft is interested in selling its DRM to publishers at a low price that shouldnÂ’t wreak havoc on their margins, the way present alternatives do on occasion.

It will be interesting to see how far this goes. My own perception is that so few publishers actually seem to care about the electronic book market — due to its relatively small size — that this won’t end up going anywhere. The ebook market is one where good ideas rarely get implemented.

I’d love to be proven wrong on that count, however.