Dr. Frank Boehm (9/6/18) is back and his hobby horse is still abortion. It almost seems like a obstetrics and gynecology professional shilling for abortion is equivalent to an oncologist advertising cigarettes. I guess Dr. Boehm will focus on the mother and ignore the baby. But wait, if it isn’t a baby, is she a mother? He will focus on the woman.
As I read the article, I noticed the orderly way he laid out his arguments for abortion. I was struck with the same notion that nearly equivalent arguments could be made for another “woman’s issue.” What if we were to defend sexual harassment and assault using those same rationales? Go paragraph by paragraph. (Please note that this is not to condone or approve these actions. The opinion is merely to display the paucity of probative force in the abortion argument.)
1. “Roe vs Wade has been around a long time, 45 years to be exact, and a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly 70 percent of Americans do not want it to be overturned.” Well, sexual harassment has been around a lot longer than that, and about 50% of the population would not be upset if it were supported.
2. “Many people across this country have either gone through the process of abortion themselves or gone through the process with a friend or family member....” A lot of people have been harrassed and others have been the instigators of such and conversely been punished severely for their “indiscretions. I read an article recently by a “sexual predator” who was experiencing ongoing “punishment” for his crime nearly 20 years after he had “paid his debt to society.”
3. “A significant number of abortions performed are due to serious and often life threatening illnesses, as well as for serious congenital fetal anomalies, incest and rape.” Later on in the paragraph Dr. Boehm notes that 16% of abortions are for “medical” reasons. He also noted that there are one million per year. (The next point) That means that 840,000 babies are aborted for non-medical reasons. This is quoting his own statistics. And “medical” abortions have been legal since before the advent of Roe v. Wade.
If about one third of legal abortions have been erased as he states, why does he decry the prospect of eliminating another 84% of the non-medical procedures. (1.5 million at R v.W down to 1 million currently.)
4. “... ridding the country of Roe vs Wade would not curtail the number of abortions performed annually; it will only cause difficult problems for patients, doctors and law enforcement.” Harassment is already illegal, and it seems to be pervasive. He might have a point, in that he is illustrating the “scoff-law” nature of our society. “I want to do it. I’m gonna do it regardless of what anyone says.” Not a firm foundation for positing a legal or ethical framework.
5. “The abortion procedure today is much safer due to the widespread use of a cheap medication...” The same can be said for victims of harassment. Rohypno, GHB, and ketamine, along with ecstacy are all known for the anesthetic and amnesiac effects. For instance, the victim in the Vanderbilt rape did not even know that she had been assaulted. If you are going to base your defence on “painless,” the foundation is quite unsteady. And the baby has not yet been polled about pain.
6. “Should abortion become illegal, patients will either return to unsafe termination....” Prohibiting assault will only make perpetrators more clever in their execution of the assault. This repeats the “scoff-law” position, and this ties into his next one.
7. “Abortions are prohibited in Latin American countries, yet these countries report that abortions are nonetheless common....” He explains that the use of drugs, illegally obtained facilitate this. The same is true for “hit and run assault.” The fact that people do it, should have no impact on the legality. And this completely ignores any ethical considerations.
8. “Should problems occur with Misoprostol such as bleeding, infection or failure, doctors and nurses may become involved.” He continues to lament that medical professionals who treat these complications may be subject to sanctions. A short segue here would note that treating gunshot injuries without reporting that is likewise prohibited and accompanied by legal retribiton.
9. “Lastly there is the argument that states have already been successful in limiting the number of abortions performed.” This was addressed above, and is gratefully acknowledged. This merely makes the point obvious. There is a small actual need for this procedure. Let’s turn the tables on Dr. Boehm a little. What if 84% of his deliveries requested or demanded a C-section, regardless of the medical need or justification? Would he be a responsible physician if he acceded to their requests?
Abortion has a legitimate role in medicine, in some instances, and that is neither denied nor threatened. What is “at risk” is the elective procedure that is substituted for effective, practiced birth control. The remainder of his article concludes that we can “...reduce abortions in America without having to go through the Supreme Court, simply by making contraception universally available and cheap.” He had earlier noted that“unintended pregnancies” could be precluded by “ subdermal hormonal implants and intra uterine devices (IUD), which are 99 percent effective.”
Incidentally, the universal availability and low cost of contraceptives are merely red herrings. If abortion were priced at the “going rate” as opposed to being subsidized by abortion mills slurping up public funds, contraception would be the preferred fiscal choice.
His argument about not needing to go through the Supreme Court is valid, if the at risk population would act in a responsible manner. Abortion on demand would then become a moot point and we can go on to more productive pursuits. It seems, however, that his argument is self- refuting. As long as elective abortion is available and legal, a significant portion of the population will continue to ignore safeguards that make it superfluous.
Logically, he should argue for the elimination of legal abortion and promote “safe contraception.” By continuing to provide low cost alternatives to contraception, the system he supports perpetuates the demand for this horrific procedure. A logical shift would allow him to focus on eliminating sexual harassment.
No comments:
Post a Comment