En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/02/17/1503

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

February 17, 2009 3:03 PM - Woozle

Woozle said...

==abortion thread quickie==

Mike said: "Since you are saying that if abortion isn't a crime then the woman's future need not be part of her risk assessment, I think you are confirming what I said above, which is that abortion IS part of the accepted birth control tool kit. So long as abortion is available, her future need not be in jeopardy... correct?"

1. I'm not saying that abortion poses no cost to the woman, so no -- it is still part of the risk assessment. You have been maintaining all along that abortion is "easy", and I've been saying no it isn't.

The woman's future may not be in jeopardy if she has an abortion, but she still has to make that decision -- and either go through an unpleasant ordeal (however trivial it may seem to you) or she may decide to pay the price, for whatever reasons, and have the baby.

So the risk of pregnancy still factors heavily in the decision to have sex and regarding what protection strategy to use.

2. I agree that abortion is part of the toolkit for handling an unwanted pregnancy, but I do not agree that it is significantly used as the first line of defense -- a primary method of birth control -- which is what I understood you to be suggesting.

I will clarify a bit: When you say "abortion is being used as birth control", it sounds like what you mean is "Women aren't bothering to use proper birth control; they're going and having sex, then routinely having abortions if they happen to get pregnant."

That interpretation of your statement is what I found obscene (and not supported by the data, either). If that is not what you meant, then I apologize for misinterpreting -- but it would probably be a good idea for you to clarify what you did mean. (Taken literally, it's meaningless anyway: abortion is birth control, by definition, and cannot be used in a way which is not birth control.)

It would also behoove anti-abortionists, if they have any interest in personal integrity or intellectual honesty, to use a less ambiguous phrasing -- because that way of saying it is clearly open to misinterpretation.

(From my experience, however, anti-abortionists are perfectly happy to foster whatever misinterpretations or lies they think will help their cause.)

Brought to you by today's accidentally-appropriate verification word, "ovulact"