“It’s safe. It’s private. And it’s FINALLY HERE.”
In my town, there is a radio ad running for the abortion pill.
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/thu/20919abortionads2fsrl-jmd.html
"Paid for by Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona, the ads are running - on radio and in some print forms, including postcards and pamphlets - because too few women know there is a pill alternative to surgical abortion, say Planned Parenthood officials. "
Appropriate or not?
I’m kind of torn here. On the one hand, it’s just an ad touting a product, and the article makes the case that not many people are aware of its existence. On the other hand, advertising the pill (and the very existence of the pill itself) seems to trivialize the whole idea of abortion. “Go ahead and get knocked up, you can always just get an abortion afterwards.” Whether or not you disagree with abortion on moral grounds, I don’t think it’s hard to see that this is a rather irresponsible lifestyle, and encouraging society to look upon abortion as just another everyday process with no stigma associated with it seems… wrong. But at the same time, if there’s a way for people who are going to get an abortion, for whatever reason, to do so in a more safe and comfortable fashion, it seems odd to oppose it.
Anyway, like I said, I’m torn. My gut reaction is to find it generally “icky”, for want of a better word, but I’m not wholly offended by it. I guess I’m more offended by the social implications of the ad than by the ad itself, if that makes any sense.
Jeff
While there’s some merit to the arguement that making something less risky will increase behavior, on the other hand this arguement is sort of like saying that one shouldn’t advertise herpes drugs because more people might feel embolded to go out and get herpes.
Well, lots of people have moral objections to drinking, but nobody gets all bent out of shape over liquor ads. You don’t agree with drinking, don’t buy vodka, but don’t tell Smirnoff they can’t or shouldn’t advertise.
“sort of like saying that one shouldn’t advertise herpes drugs because more people might feel embolded to go out and get herpes.”
Should I ever get into a real live debate about this, I’ afraid I’m going to have to steal that line from you.
I’m all for these ads. I just hope people won’t start picketing outside of pharmacies or shooting cashiers.
I’m all for these ads. Too many women (or postpubescent girls, and yes, there’s a BIG difference) get pregnant, but don’t have enough of a clue to find out in time how not to remain pregnant in a way that avoids surgery.
Anything that increases the probability that pregnant people will be informed about all of their options, especially the less invasive ones, is a good idea in my book.
I’m Totally Psyched About This Abortion!
But seriously, folks, Eva does have a good point. The window of opportunity for using RU-486 is pretty short – if you’ve been pregnant for more than 9 weeks, you can’t use it at all, and your only abortion alternatives will be surgical ones. And don’t forget that it can be up to a month after a pregnancy begins before you’ll miss a period and/or show other symptoms of pregnancy.
Wow, these are two remarkably poor analogies. To the first, I will point out that even if you get herpes (or any other STD), no drug completely eliminates all discomfort - you still feel like crap, or have pain, or whatnot, during the course of the illness, and with herpes in particular, it’s kinda there for life. Conversely, from what I understand of RU-485 (and correct me if I’m wrong), you pretty much take it, and presto, you’re devoid of child again, with few or no adverse effects. If there’s no longer any negative side effects of abortion, and it’s more convenient than birth control (no condoms to fuss with, no birth control pills to remember to take every day, etc), then why not just take the morning-after pill? No muss, no fuss.
To the second, I must suggest that comparing what abortion-opponents consider murder to drinking a Screwdriver is laughable at best.
Jeff