I dunno, weren’t you the one positing the other week that it was a mistake for people to worry so much about how the ‘abortion artwork’ business might set back the abortion rights movement that they end up limiting the movement themselves? It seems to me that there’s the same potential danger to worrying about how concern-trolls might leverage treating an abortion like any other medical procedure into something that could set women back. I’m not even sure they’d get very far with that anyway, because 95% of the people who oppose abortion rights also oppose contraception, so they’re not likely to be the ones offering that as a preferable alternative.

I do think that framing it as “preventing unwanted pregnancies” is probably a better idea at this point in time than “preventing abortions,” in the same way that “preventing cancer” is a better presentation that “preventing chemotherapy.” It’s just that I really don’t think I’d look askance at someone who said that funding asbestos removal would prevent paying for more chemotherapy down the line, so I’m not sure why I should look askance at someone who says funding birth control would prevent paying for more abortions (or more pregnancies and unwanted children!) down the line. I doubt there is any overlap between the people who say that and the people who want to criminilize abortion or marginalize women’s rights. Perhaps I’m being too optimistic, but I think most of the “safe, legal, and rare” NOW crowd genuinely do care about related women’s issues like reproductive health and freedom, problems of rape and domestic violence, etc.

I think because ‘as preventable as possible’ MIGHT be fine for the future, but in the present opens up too much possibility for shaming. “You should have/could have prevented it.” It’s also weaselly. Let me see if I can put this right. Preventable/avoidable puts the onus on the woman not to get pregnant at all costs so as not to have an abortion and — not generally, as you put it — to avoid harm to her. The moralistic reasons for avoiding it — it’s ‘killing a baby’ — still trump the other. Moreover, it allows for the framing of the abortion as a failure on the part of the woman.

It also opens up the door for the ever-insidious ‘Concern Troll’. The Concern Troll co-opts a tiny fragment of women’s health issues to advance their control-freak agenda, while ignoring all other genuine problems facing women. As soon as you let someone get a foot in the door by talking about how abortion (and early abortions are a very safe proposition) should be prevented at all costs for a woman’s health and safety, you destabilize the entire structure.

While it would be great to prevent women from having to undergo abortion procedures, the present system does so at their expense. I would prefer to say instead that conception itself should be as preventable as possible, not abortion. With no conception, there is no need for abortion. It also places the emphasis back on the greater risk of harm to the woman, which lies in pregnancy (and the consequences). While I think that pregnancy and birth are wonderful things when wanted, they are at the core of a damaging mythology that’s gripping our society and strangling the life out of a good portion of its members.

In this case, I agree with “legal, safe, free, accessible, and unlimited,” but I also have to wonder what’s wrong with “as preventable as possible.” In a perfect world, we’d view an abortion as equivalent to any other medical procedure, wouldn’t we? And in every other case I can think of, prevention is preferable to a surgical solution. It’s better to never get cancer in the first place than to successfully remove a tumor, for example. So why wouldn’t it be better to prevent unwanted pregnancies than to abort them? “Birth control is good because it prevents abortions” shouldn’t be any more loaded a statement than “Dietary changes are good for XYZ condition because they prevent surgery.”

Now in the same perfect world, no one should have to justify having the surgical procedure if that’s what they consider best for their health, and we don’t live in a perfect world to be sure; but even so, surely it’s always preferable from a public health perspective never to have had an unwanted medical condition at all, no matter whether that’s an unwanted pregnancy, cancer, a staph infection, or anything else.

I guess this statement rankles me a little bit, but only because I trust anyone–man or woman–to get away with whatever they can with whatever’s not nailed down. I’m just suggesting that there’s not a gender gap when it comes to selfish or selfless behavior.

So because it’s one baby, it’s ok to abort, but when it’s twins it’s a whole new ballgame?

Stupid rationalization if you ask me.