Can abortion be responsible birth control?

[MrDibble]

@OneCentStamp

I’m pro-choice, but I’m kind of surprised that nobody has called you to the mat on this one. In fact, a couple of people have quoted or paraphrased you in this thread without asking what, to me at least, is a glaring question:

What do you consider “sufficiently early?”

(I’ve only read as far as this question, but it was directed at me, so I’ll answer before reading the rest of the thread)
Me, personally? Anytime before the foetus is able to survive on its own outside the mother (that “on its own” can include incubation etc, if you prefer). Haven’t done exacting research, but I think that’s usually around the end of the second trimester? I’m open to correction on timing, but I think I can safely say anytime in the first semester is OK.

And what’s with the emphasis on surgery so far? I thought we have a working early abortion pill, and certainly abortifactants count too, not that those are good for the mother, and something like pennyroyal or rue are no doubt more risky than surgery.

[Kalhoun]

@gigi

Really? I remember in the city hearing from friends and others that they have to get the $300 together for an abortion.

Maybe the woman didn’t have insurance. Or maybe she didn’t want anyone to know she was having the procedure done. I know of a couple people who had to pay cash, but most are covered.

[MrDibble]

@MrDibble

And what’s with the emphasis on surgery so far? I thought we have a working early abortion pill, and certainly abortifactants count too, not that those are good for the mother, and something like pennyroyal or rue are no doubt more risky than surgery.

I see lots of people have addressed this since. Sorry.

[MrDibble]

I just want to clarify something. In answering OneCentStamp’s question, I might have given the impression that I favour abortion only being restricted to those times (i.e. 1st-2nd trimester). This is not the case, and I have no problem with late term abortions of any sort.
.

[scotandrsn]

It’s an interesting term, “birth control”, when you get right down to it.

Does a woman only regard her birth control as having failed when a new baby is being pushed out of her womb after 9 months of pregnancy, or sometime before?

Obviously, before.

So, when you get right down to it, “birth control” is a misnomer. It’s really “fertilization control”. Pregnant? Control failed. Case closed.

The fact that the term “birth control” was adopted at all reflects the pill technology’s development at a time when abortion was illegal in most of the country, and being pregnant was as good as giving birth. (Of course, I am assuming here that the phrase only gained currency once The Pill appeared. Did people call condoms, diaphragms etc. “birth control” as a matter of course before The Pill?)

So abortion really isn’t birth control at all, because birth control is really fertilization control, and being in a state where one is contemplating an abortion means that fertilization control’s time has passed.

So with the semantics worked out, the OP’s real question is: “Would it be responsible to forego fertilization control entirely, depending entirely on abortion
to prevent the appearance of offspring, based (or perhaps not) on one’s perception of one’s own fertility potential?”

Given how much easier it would be to maintain a pill regimen, insist on condom or diaphragm use (I’m not going to conflate, for purposes of this discussion, fertilization control and prevention of STD transmission) than going through an abortion procedure, which as far as I can tell is just barely this side of outpatient surgery, then I would have to say: No. It would be the epitome of an irresponsibly shitheaded attitude toward one’s own body, for one.

But this actually isn’t the question. It never is. EVERYONE knows such an attitude would be irresponsibly shitheaded. The real question being asked whenever this subject comes up, is: “Would it be better, given that there are bound to be some people who will have a shitheadedly irresponsible attitude about when it should be employed, to legally prevent all women from having access to a medical abortion, just in case one of them turns out to be such a person?”

This would have to be weighed against any benefits of not preventing such access. The benefits of continuing to allow such access under the law are several:

1. Women seeking to end a pregnancy would have access to a comparatively safe option.
2. The number of unwanted pregnancies coming to term would remain lower than it would be otherwise, which relieves society of a number of unhealthy burdens related to the existence of these unwanted people.
3. It would go some small way in reducing the number of distressing ways in which American policy and practice run parallel with those of oppressive, ideology-driven dictatorships.

On balance, I’d say access to medical abortion has the advantage here.

If all decisions about law, culture and innovation were decided based on avoiding potentially shitheaded behavior on the part of some, nothing would ever happen at all. Someone will always be shitheaded, and making the civilization beholden to their whims is a recipe for disaster. So the answer to the real question is: No.

“It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.” - As quoted in Murphy’s Law

[WhyNot]

@scotandrsn

It’s an interesting term, “birth control”, when you get right down to it.

Does a woman only regard her birth control as having failed when a new baby is being pushed out of her womb after 9 months of pregnancy, or sometime before?

Obviously, before.

So, when you get right down to it, “birth control” is a misnomer. It’s really “fertilization control”. Pregnant? Control failed. Case closed.

Case re-opened. There are contraceptives that work not by preventing fertilization, but by preventing implantation of the blastocyst (fertilized egg) or by causing an already implanted blastocyst to detach from the uterine wall. IUD’s being the first type, RU-486 being the second.

[scotandrsn]

@WhyNot

Case re-opened. There are contraceptives that work not by preventing fertilization, but by preventing implantation of the blastocyst (fertilized egg) or by causing an already implanted blastocyst to detach from the uterine wall. IUD’s being the first type, RU-486 being the second.

Then consider my remarks amended to say “fertilization/implantation control”. The point is, birth is not the event by which a method’s success or failure is determined, pregnancy is.