Bioethics, healthcare policy, and related issues.
Jill Stanek, raving but rarely comprehensible anti-choice knee-jerker, looks at this:
. . . and comes to this conclusion:
The cartoonist who penned this is liberal. However, the cartoon can be taken two ways, [which is] I’m sure not Ohman’s original intent.
Yeah, I’m sure it wasn’t. In fact, I’m sure there’s almost no one but a committed anti-choicer who would look at the choice between safe and legal abortion and widespread abuse, death, and disability from illegal abortions, and think there’s more than one good option.
It’s really hard, sometimes, to resign yourself to living in a world with these people in it.
6 Responses to “Illegal Abortion Deaths: A Viable Option”
Leave a Reply
Logged in as . Logout »
Theme copyright © 2002–2012Mike Little.
July 30th, 2006 at 9:31 AM
Prima facie this looks like a conservative cartoon advocating parental notification over on-demand abortion. This is a classic false dilemma. (The other options being not notifying parents at all.) The emphasis of the cartoon, that is, the point it is trying to make, regards the notification, not so much as on the abortion itself. This is clearly evidenced by the words “parental notification” being operative in the caption.
July 30th, 2006 at 1:09 PM
You’re right that the subject of the cartoon is “parental notification”, but the cartoon gives you a choice of two “forms” of it – that your daughter is exercising a legal right to abortion or that your daughter has died from an illegal abortion (presumably because legal abortion was not available). It asks you which “form of notification” is preferable – which is implicitly a question whether abortion should be legal, since that is what makes the difference between the two forms.
And I think it is a response obvious to all but the most deranged anti-choicers that notification under a scheme of legal abortion is far preferable to what would result if it became illegal.
July 30th, 2006 at 11:28 PM
I think that Stanek’s next sentence, which you had not quoted sheds light on her interpretation.
This bold, and obviously counter-factual statement makes it clear that she thinks that legal, above-the-board abortions performed in a regulated medical enviroment are identical to ones performed surreptitiously without medical facilities, which they are so long as the woman having the abortion is of no importance in the slightest.
Under such a theory, “obviously” this can be viewed as good because a pro-life parent can intervene and prevent the abortion, which is the only reason such a parent might care about whether their daughter has an invasive medical procedure.
Never mind whether pro-”life”rs recognize the right of women to control their lives. It’s not even clear that they are even granted the right to keep them!
July 31st, 2006 at 4:33 PM
KTK:
You’re right that the subject of the cartoon is “parental notification”, but the cartoon gives you a choice of two “forms” of it – that your daughter is exercising a legal right to abortion or that your daughter has died from an illegal abortion (presumably because legal abortion was not available).
I’m not so sure about that. I think the point of the cartoon is actually attempting to make a case against requiring parental notification. Because given a choice between a safe, legal abortion that requires parental notification, and an unsafe, illegal one that does not, a not-insignificant number of pregnant young girls will choose the latter.
The not-so-secret intent of parental notification requirements is that advocates of such requirements are counting on this discouraging young girls from having abortions at all. But real life doesn’t work that way. These girls will often find ways around the requirements, resort to illegal abortions, or conceal their pregnancies altogether (often ultimately resulting in dumpster babies).
So I think what the cartoonist is trying to say is that you may want the first option, but you’re likely to get the second one. But it doesn’t have much to do with the legality of abortion per se. Just the wisdom (or lack thereof) of parental notification requirements.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:04 PM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any teenage girl wanting an abortion whose parents are going to be supportive, will tell them on her own–regardless of any laws requiring her to do so. (If I had needed an abortion as a teen, my mother would have been in the clinic with me holding my hand the whole time, and my dad–if not his insurance–would have paid for it; in fact, this would still be the case today.) I agree with tgirsch; a teenage girl who doesn’t feel comfortable telling her parents will do whatever she has to do to avoid it.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:31 PM
I think the point of the cartoon is actually attempting to make a case against requiring parental notification. Because given a choice between a safe, legal abortion that requires parental notification, and an unsafe, illegal one that does not, a not-insignificant number of pregnant young girls will choose the latter. . . . So I think what the cartoonist is trying to say is that you may want the first option, but you’re likely to get the second one.
You’re right, of course. That was what I meant, but I expressed it very badly.
The cartoon is clearly anti-parental notification, for just the reason you say.