I have a problem with this paragraph from the NYTimes (re: the morning-after pill):
The announcement infuriated Democrats and abortion rights advocates, who said the Food and Drug Administration allowed politics to trump science. Abortion opponents, however, said the application should be rejected.
Why do I have a problem? BECAUSE THE MORNING-AFTER PILL IS NOT AN ABORTIFACTANT! A nit picky criticism? Perhaps. But with words as controversial as abortion, we should be precise in their meaning and use. Also, the current argument is over how to make the pill available only to those 16 and over. Yes, because clearly younger adolescents would be much better off having an abortion or raising a child!
2 Comments:
I think the argument is that younger adolescents are more prone to impulsive behavior and making the morning-after pill available to them makes them less prone to make responsible decisions. I'm not saying I agree, just putting it out there.
Also, most people who are against the morning-after pill are going to liken it to abortion regardless of what the NYT says. Though most of those people don't read the Times to being with...
-Ahalya
Yes, that's the argument, but clinical trials have disproven it. The scientist who filed the paperwork is merely agreeing to the age limitation in an attempt to speed up the approval process, since the FDA requested another trial, with a larger sample size, before it would be approved for younger women. Either way, my argument stands that once a woman is seeking the morning after pill, if it is refused to her, we are increasing the likelihood that another girl/woman will a) seek an abortion b) give a child up for adoption or c) end up raising a child without the means or desire to do so.
As for the argument that opponents are going to liken it to abortion, I agree, they are. That's no reason for the Times to be careless in their wording.
Post a Comment
<< Home