I'm pro-abortion. You might not guess that, or you might. I'll admit to feeling uneasy about it, and I don't know if I could go through with one myself, but damned if I'm going to tell someone else what to do with her life.
This brief article exists to talk about a specific argument I've run into with pro-life people. They'll bring up the sanctity of life. They'll bring up that no one should kill babies. But there's another thing they like to say. That the woman should deal with the consequences of her actions.
They'll say that if the woman was raped, of course it's not her fault. They'll say if she was drunk, maybe she can get some leeway. But if she was sober and consented to sex, she should deal with the consequences.
Here's a question for you: Since when are children consequences? Why would you ever, in your life, refer to a child as a "consequence," a punishment, a sentence? And why would you ever, ever, give a child to a woman who considers it a punishment? What kind of life could that child possibly live? There are too many unwanted children as it is, and some of them are fortunate enough to be up for adoption. The unlucky ones are the ones who live with their birth mothers who never wanted them. Their birth mothers who thought of them as consequences.
Children should be loved and hugged and spoiled and disciplined and enjoyed. They should be the center of a parent's world. They should be beautiful and funny and sincere and happy and sad, even if only to you. They should be treasured. They should be precious. They should not be "consequences."
Some women are not ready for children. Some women will never be ready for children. And those women-- and, perhaps more importantly, their potential children-- should not have to base their lives around the results of one action. If you can't think of the women, the ones who deserve to have a life and a career and children when they're ready, at least think of the potential children. (You always claim to.)
So yes, I do support abortion. Because a woman should be able to have children when she's ready.
And because the children should never be consequences.
Anyone and everyone has already heard about the controversy over the most recent "politics are better than science" story, but I feel we'd be dragging our feet if we didn't at least comment on it.
The FDA has approved the Plan B One Step pill to be sold over-the-counter with no ID check required. The pill seems to be less harmful than things that are already sold over-the-counter, such as headache medication. Plus you can prevent some teen pregnancies in the process. Not a bad idea, right?
On December 7th, Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA's decision.
The FDA showed that girls as young as 12 can easily understand the instructions on the box, not that there's much room for error anyway. (What are they going to do? Try to snort it? They can't overdose on it. You only get one pill in the box, and it's $50.) Ms. Sebelius thinks that's not enough.
From the above link:
Sebelius noted that about 10% of girls are able to get pregnant at age 11. In a statement, Sebelius said her action "reflects my conclusion that the data provided as part of the actual use study and the label comprehension study are not sufficient to support making Plan B One-Step available to all girls 16 and younger without talking to a health-care professional."
10% of girls are able to get pregnant at age 11. Never mind that the vast majority of 11-year-olds are not sexually active. Never mind that this is actually a reason that she should approve of Plan B's attempted over-the-counter status. (Who here knows an 11-year-old that can handle children? My sisters are 11 and 12, and I wouldn't trust them with taking care of a dog for any extended period of time, much less a human baby.)
One of the biggest problems with not making Plan B One Step over-the-counter is noted in the same article I've linked: By the time a young lady has a prescription, it may already be too late. The pill has to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse to be effective. The sooner the better.
The other biggest problem is that, by keeping the pills behind the counter, we're giving pharmacists the chance to say they're out of it instead of selling it, as has happened in the past. We're also giving doctors the chance to refuse to fill out a prescription for it. That's one hurdle women 17 and over have to jump, and two hurdles for any sexually active young ladies under the age of 17.
The instructions aren't exactly cryptic. There's one pill. You swallow it within 72 hours after sex. Tada! If our 11-year-olds don't possess the basic reading comprehension skills for that... Well, we certainly don't want them reproducing.
If this irritates you as much as it's irritating me, go here and badger Obama into reversing the decision. Our health and ability to have a family when we're ready should be more important than the opinions of people who don't know the difference between abortion and birth control. Hopefully, one day, it will be.