"Why are so many people so upset that women seeking an abortion will be told the facts on abortion, and learn all the risks and dangers before they make their final decision? Fanatic pro-choicers seem to want to protect the cult of abortion against all resistance, with obfuscation of the facts as their number one priority. What sort of agenda must you have to think that it's bad if a young woman facing a major choice is actually advised of all of her choices, and given the proper knowledge to make a decision?"
A letter I wrote to the AJC. When it comes down to it, I'm pro-choice, but not fanatical, and if abortion doctors are required to reveal all the possible side-effects and other options to a patient before they assent to the operation, I cannot see how it could be a bad thing. I do admit to needing to read the remainder of the bill, because I know there is more involved. My letter was in repsonse to people who wrote letters against informing patients, saying it will just scare them. Abortion is a HUGE deal, an operation in which the mental effects may not even show for 30 years or nore, and anyone thinking about getting one should be scared.
5 Comments:
How libertarian of you. How would you like it if every time you went to McDonalds, the cashier was required to tell you of the possible side effects of the extra fat and calories in a Big Mac? Or if every time you went to a gas station to buy some cigarettes, the government required you to listen to the gas station attendant tell you how it will eventually kill you? Or what if when you went to buy a car, the salesman was forced to explain all the ways you could get hurt or killed in one and how others could get hurt or injured through your use of the car.
Maybe the government should force booksellers to give a little spiel to bookbuyers whenever they show interest in a book that people find controversial. Or maybe mortgage brokers should be forced to sit down with every client and go through their personal finances to make sure it doesn't pay to keep their apartment or stick with their current 30-year fixed rate loan.
The reason these regulations, including the one forcing doctors to give a partisan speech are so odious, is because nobody wants the government to tell them what to do or what to say. (Why partisan? Are there any regulations forcing gynecologists to ask patients if they *really* want to keep the baby?)
It's so ironic, that Republicans, the champions of "smaller government" and "personal freedom" are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to dictating what people do with their personal lives.
The best quote I've seen recently: "Republicans and Christians have become obsessed with the vagina. They want to dictate what and when things go in and out."
I think the problem here is that you think a potential human life is equal in importance to a hamburger or book. That's ridiculous, but fits in very well with the attitude of many of the more fantaical pro-choicers. Plus, I can get a burger several times a day, and a woman can get an abortion every few months at the most. Add to that, how many 18 year olds out there thinking about gettng abortions are aware of the significant chance of lifelong sterility as a result of their abortion? It's not a huge percentage, but even 5% would make me stop and think about if it's a risk I really want to take.
Oh, and mortgage brokers are in fact required to go over certain things they might rather not, and the one I worked for would definitely look at your finances in the way you suggest. No broker wants to get stuck with a bunch of defaulted lines.
Anyway, you seem excited to give everyone the chance to have an abortion, and hide any facts that might change their mind. For someone who probably calls for heads every time some reporter says the government tried to keep something secret, I would think you would be more favorable towards disclosure. What is it about abortion that makes you want to hide things? What they need is to switch that "*truth" anti-smoking campaign that wastes tons of money for little result to telling the truth about abortion.
And once again, I am pro-choice, but think that groups like Planned Parenthood make abortion seem way to easy and nonchalant. It shouldn't be.
And one more thing. An abortion is a fairly big deal, as far as operations go. How would you like it if you go in for some surgery, and come out paralyzed, and the doctor says, "Oh yeah, there's a 60% of coming out paralyzed from this surgery, didn't I tell you that before?"
OK - you're right - I made bad examples. An abortion is definitely more serious than a book or a hamburger. The point is that if the law were passed, the government would be advocating one side of the debate - the religious right side. If doctors are forced to talk about the negative aspects of an abortion, why not the negative aspects of a teenager on welfare keeping her baby? Or even the negative effects of carrying a baby to term.
Don't go overboard in the other direction, though. Doctors lecturing patients on alternatives to abortion isn't the same as saying "you have a 66% chance of being paralyzed". I absolutely agree that doctors must disclose possible side effects to the mother. But it's hypocritical to force the doctor to discuss abortion alternatives when you don't force doctors to discuss alternatives to other surgeries.
Still it's all moot if you have an honest discussion abotu abortion. We're still dancing around the thing. Is a fetus a human or not? If it is, abortion should be outlawed entirely (even in cases of rape or incest). If it isn't, abortion should be legalized like any other elective surgery. Even for a diehard liberal, I don't see a lot of gray in this solution.
Any doctor that wants you to get surgery should mention alternatives, or he should lose his license. I'd have to think it's considered unprofessional and immoral not to, except, apparantly, with abortion, where it's not only ok not to talk about alternatives, but encouraged to the point where many pro-choicers get really ticked off if you dare to mention that there are other choices.
I can't define when life begins, but I know I'm ok with first trimester abortions, and no ok with late term abortions, which, from the descriptions I've seen, border on criminally sadistic. So I guess for me life begins at 5 months in the womb.
Actually it's kind of funny. Until Bush started that late-term abortion ban, you could get tried for two murders if you kill a pregnant woman (and her unborn baby), but if you were that pregnant woman, you could kill your late-term baby (fetus?) through an abortion with no reprecussions.
There's too many differing opinions, and no "logical" argument is going to change most people's minds, so it's an issue that we will compromise on time and time again, moving the law one way or the other as current thought goes.
Post a Comment
<< Home