National study: Abortion does not cause depression or low self-esteem in adolescents

A new study has determined that teenagers who have abortions are no more likely to become depressed or have low self-esteem than their peers whose pregnancies do not end in abortion.

The study conducted by researchers from Oregon State University and University of California, San Francisco, is the first to use both depression and low self-esteem as outcomes with a nationally representative sample of adolescents.

The researchers found that young women in the study who had an abortion were no more likely to become depressed or have low self-esteem within the first year of pregnancy - or five years later - than their peers who were pregnant, but did not have an abortion.

The researchers used data from 289 respondents to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Data were taken from three survey waves, starting in 1994-1995, surveyed again one year later, and then five years after that. The study is available online and will appear in the December issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.

Lead author Jocelyn Warren, a post-doctoral research associate at OSU, said the study was intended to fill a major gap in abortion research.

"We know most teen pregnancies are not wanted pregnancies and an can be very stressful," Warren said.

She said previous research has shown that who get pregnant report more depression and lower self-esteem compared to those who don't. "What we didn't know was whether are worse for girls who choose abortion. This study says, 'No.'"

Warren noted that a 2008 report by the American Psychological Association found no evidence that an induced abortion causes in adult women. Because of a scarcity of evidence, no conclusions were drawn at that time about adolescents. Warren said the results of their study with teen girls were consistent with the results of studies with adult women reviewed in the APA report.

"Abortion is a very controversial issue and a hot political one, obviously," said Marie Harvey, a professor of public health at OSU and a leading national researcher in the area of women's health. Harvey was Warren's doctoral adviser and is co-author of the paper.

"In the interest of women's health, it's critical that we conduct the most rigorous studies possible and use evidence-based information to inform public policy," Harvey said. "This is our goal in public health research but it may be even more important in areas such as abortion that are highly politicized."

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that monitors state abortion policies, 34 states require parental involvement in adolescents' abortion decisions. In addition, laws in seven states mandate that women be advised only of negative psychological consequences of abortion, including "post-abortion traumatic stress syndrome," a disorder that is not recognized by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association.

Warren said it's important to note that individual women may have very different emotional responses to abortion. "But, on average, does not appear to have major psychological consequences - for adult women or for teens."

"We have policies being made that are not evidence-based, and that have adverse consequences for women's health," Harvey said. "I cannot think of any other type of health practice where a doctor is forced by law to tell a patient about negative consequences that have not been proven or validated."

Harvey said their study had several strengths. For one thing, the data were from a national sample and are representative of adolescents who were in grades 7 through 12. Also, the study used standard measures of depression and self-esteem. Finally, the longitudinal data examined psychological symptoms before, during, and years after pregnancy, Harvey said.

Citation: National study: Abortion does not cause depression or low self-esteem in adolescents (2010, September 24) retrieved 18 August 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 24, 2010
I sometimes wonder if the guilt that follows some women's abortions is the result of religious groups telling those women (priming them, really) that they will feel guilty and should feel guilty and not a result of the organic process so to speak.

Bring on the 1-star ratings, haters.

Sep 25, 2010
Obviously, the religious right have got to work harder to stigmatize this procedure.

Sep 25, 2010
The most peaceful countries with the highest standards of living around the world accept and pay for a woman's abortion if she chooses to have one.

Yes well, the Germans paid for the extermination of racial and ethnic groups they didn't want around too, but you atheists refuse to see and admit how abortion is no different than genocide. It's murder either way.

One third of females in America are murderers by any reasonable definition. If a man injures a pregnant woman who wants her child and she loses it, it is considered manslaughter, but if the same woman were to abort the pregnancy it is somehow considered acceptable. This is murder and it is hypocrissy.

I don't care whether or not it causes depression in the mother. That is not the issue at all. Many murderers feel no remorse anyway.

If you think it is somehow more acceptable to destroy a life that is deemed inconvenient than to save a life, then I think you are quite mad.

Sep 25, 2010
These standards won't last much longer as their birthrates fall below replacement.

You under estimate how low godless, demonic insanity will stoop. Many ancient cultures destroyed themselves through human sacrifice to the false gods, due primarily to the "true" false god behind every idol, which is "SELF". It was more acceptable to the ancients to sacrifice their own children to a false fertility god than to preserve their children at their own loss.

Abortion is no different in principle. It labels the child as an inconvenience and justifies it's destruction in the name of "SELF".

JESUS said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray on BEHALF of them which despitefully use you and persecute you."

The abortionist and the NAZI both say, "Kill those who inconvenience you."

"The thief cometh not but for to steal, kill, and destroy..."

Sep 25, 2010
So what we see here is that the abortionist, the NAZI, and many, many members of this forum all have something in common:

They share many characteristics of Satan himself, i.e. "Steal, kill, destroy".

In exodus 21:22-23, we see that the penalty for the ACCIDENTAL abortion due to ACCIDENTAL injury of a woman due to the example of a fight between two men, then the man who injured the woman was punished as much as "life for life" as the woman's husband chose.

So then the unborn was considered as much a living thing as the guy who injured the woman.

Our culture of murderers does not care about God or morality.

"They profess that they know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." Titus 1:16.

Once again, abortion is murder and has always been murder. Man can try to change the definition of words, but it doesn't change the TRUTH.

Sep 26, 2010
Same thing. Sin? Look at religions and the Reich Wing that hides behind it! Unfortunate and hateful.

Sep 26, 2010

The Bible most certainly does consider it a living human being, and from the moment of conception.

You conveniently ignored the next verse which said, "Life for Life".

You also conveniently ignored this verse:

Jeremiah 1:5

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Clearly the Biblical point of view is that it is indeed fully "life" and fully "human" from the moment of conception.

Sep 26, 2010

You are a joke.

You say it is "hateful" to oppose abortion, but is it then "love" to kill an unborn child?

You are very warped and a truly evil person if that is what you believe.

To both of you warped persons: The supreme court also once upheld slavery even though they were clearly wrong.

It's a human being and it's murder for anyone to have an abortion.

Sep 26, 2010

I suggest you read Ecclesiastes, particularly chapter 6 verse 3, as it deals with just that question.

The ultimate answer is that your conclusion that it would be better to have never been born than to go to hell is quite in agreement with the Bible.

The only key difference is that some evil people have children who get saved and go to heaven, so in that sense those persons served a "good" purpose even if they refuse to acknowledge God.

Ultimately, you must understand that God is love, God is good, and God is just. He has never treated anyone unfairly, because everyone is ultimately judged by the same standard.

Now you see, God has not been "unfair" to you, because God himself also became a man and suffered worse pain and worse temptation that most humans have ever suffered.

Whereas we are at fault because we were tempted by satan or our own selves and failed, but Jesus endured the same tempation without failing, and he endured the cross for salvation.

Sep 26, 2010
Now the problem is, God does not want trillions of aborted babies in heaven. God wants human beings as close as possible to what he intended human beings to be. It is not God's fault that man chose to become evil any more than it would be God's fault that Satan himself chose to become evil.

A mis-guided professing Christian might well conclude as you have, and go around killing babies and the unborn, but then that person would be guilty of murder, which is a work of the flesh, and guilty of violating even the first commandment "be fruitful and multiply," which was given several times in scripture.

This person would almost certainly end up in hell ultimately, as Jesus said that it is better for a millstone to be hanged around a person's neck and cast in the sea than to hurt one of the little ones.

So we return to the fact that we belong to God and God's purpose involves people being born on the earth and CHOOSING to serve him willfully.

Sep 26, 2010
"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live..."-Ezekiel 33:11.

Now see, God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, not even one person.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" - 2 Peter 3:9.

How can you say that God is unfair? He gave everyone the same choice.

Sep 26, 2010

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it go away.

Sep 26, 2010
It's quite clear from the wording in this article that it is simply propaganda. I would recommend throwing out the results and getting an unbiased group to repeat the research.

Sep 27, 2010
If "previous research has shown that adolescent girls who get pregnant report more depression and lower self-esteem compared to those who don't," then unintended teen pregnancy increases the likelihood of depression and choosing abortion does not ameliorate such depression. So a more accurate and honest conclusion of this study, and title of this article, would be as follows: CHOOSING ABORTION HAS NO PSYCHOLOGICAL BENEFIT FOR PREGNANT TEENS

Sep 29, 2010
Women can have another child if the abortion didn't cause permanent damage.
The only abortions that cause damage now a days are the ones done in backrooms brought on by the denouncement of a publically available abortion option.

People like you are the ones who cause the problems associated with the practice marjon.

No, dummy. The word you're looking for is impact, not benefit.

Oct 01, 2010
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Nuts. I was so busy preaching myself that I missed this thread entirely.

QC, in case youre still around, you understand that the bible was written by political intellectuals who knew that the Only Way to conquer the world was by outgrowing the undomesticated rabble and supplanting them with religionist cattle, by force and 'with extreme prejudice' dont you?

Of course you dont. But this verse and many others in your book is evidence of just this. For how can believers be expected to 'fill up the earth' with more of them and fewer unbelievers, except by reproducing beyond their capacity to live within their means?

Because the enemy were doing just this. And before you could introduce population control you had to conquer those who would overrun you when you did.

Strange dichotomy eh? So is your bizarre god/man.

Oct 02, 2010
Did the Bill & Melinda Gates "foundation" fund this study covertly ?
Probably the Rockefeller foundation at least, as usual.

Oct 02, 2010
Knowledge must be true to be knowledge, whereas Belief does not. Why settle for anything less than knowledge ? Why indeed.
'Interesting' website but a little naive.
Please advise how this message could be written clearer
You should first study your field and learn from the pros, such as the Grandmaster of nutters (no not me):
-David has done excellent research in the past, very informative, and he knows how to present it. But he wraps it up in that reptilian crap- possibly to discredit the 'Truth'? Is he working for 'Them'? Isn't everybody??

Oct 02, 2010
I'm just saying that Ickes site looks credible, even if his message is largely not. Yours reminds me of the many religious sites I've stumbled across. Looks like you do have some useful info, and obviously have done a lot of work.

Icke knows how to sell. Pictures help.

Oct 02, 2010

You also conveniently ignored this verse:

Jeremiah 1:5

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Typical fundamentalist tactic - quoting out of context to make something appear to say what it does not really say. God was speaking to and about Jeremiah, not anyone else. It might be evidence that God cares about people chosen to be prophets, but certainly doesn't suggest that He cares about anyone else, fetus or otherwise.

Oct 03, 2010
God was speaking to and about Jeremiah, not anyone else.
Tough to reason with an irrationalist, especially about the mush found in the bible. They might say that the prophets were no different than anybody else, and so the same prenatal sanctity would apply to everybody/thing.

But their same logic could be applied not only to womb contents but what god knew before conception- the seed, the food which the body used to create the seed, the soil the food grew in, the dung used to fertilize the soil, etc; thereby concluding that nothing can be disturbed without affecting gods holy plan.

Of course Those who wrote and edited the bible back during it's shadowy formative years debated these points endlessly, and did what they could to weed out the flaws (or make them sufficiently vague). But it's still obviously flawed, easy to disprove, easy to expose it's obvious sociopolitical intent, and thus to conclude that it was not dictated by any perfect being. Ditto for the Quran.

Oct 07, 2010
Just stumbled on this, so my comment will likely be ignored.

It labels the child as an inconvenience and justifies it's destruction in the name of "SELF".

Many (most?) women abort in the name of a future child, one that will have a better chance at reaching reproductive age and be more sexually competitive. This behavior has been selected by evolution, as shown by other species, which I'm sure you ignore. My, how the world must confuse you every day!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more