(3) That submitting to an abortion subjects the pregnant woman to significant psychological and physical health risks, and that in the majority of cases there is neither the typical physician-patient relationship nor sufficient counseling between a pregnant woman contemplating submitting to an abortion and the physician who performs the abortion;
This "finding," which we might enshrine into law come November, appears to declare that a majority of women who go in for abortions are incapable of making reliable, rational decisions. At the very least, the latent claim is that the majority of women getting abortions can't have given fully informed consent. This sounds like the typical fallacy of thinking that the people who disagree with you must be crazy, since any right-thinking person could obviously see the truth of your argument.
But let's set that fallacy aside, roll around in the pro-IM11 worldview for a moment and see what happens. Let's suppose the majority of women going for abortions are subject to misinformation, deception, coercion, whatever it is that trumps their vulnerable mental faculties and negates the physician-patient relationship and informed consent. Shouldn't we conclude that this same mentally vulnerable majority of women experienced similar misinformation, deception, and coercion in the sexual experience that led them to the abortion clinic in the first place?
In plainer English, if a majority of women can't give informed consent to an abortion, wouldn't that majority of women be incapable of giving informed consent to sex?
In the plainest English, if we vote for IM11, if write into the law the idea that women don't have brains, aren't we saying all sex is rape?
"if write into the law the idea that women don't have brains, aren't we saying all sex is rape?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if it is rape, but as a man, I'll admit that prior to marriage most sex is coerced at a minimum. Once marriage occurs, coercion is replaced by sheer begging, silly tricks for attention and flat out payola.
Women are certainly not dumb.
By the way, I will vote against IM11...again.
Cory, thou twisteth my brain!
ReplyDeleteSuppose that there is at least one true misogynist amongst the folks who crafted IM11. Suppose that this person really believes that all women are incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. In that case, the misogynist must conclude that all sex involving a woman constitutes rape of that woman.
Whereupon, according to IM11, all abortions would be legal, because all pregnancies would be the result of rape.
One may be misinformed, coerced, even totally stupid about one issue but not the other. A woman should have the right to choose, however misguided.
ReplyDeletekia
Cory,
ReplyDeletePlease don't trivialize the abortion procedure. It is a HUGE decision that should require some thought and consideration BEFORE it is done.
Anon,
ReplyDeletePlease don't trivialize the autonomy and intellect of women. They can make HUGE decisions that require more thought and consideration than IM11 declares them capable of.
I like the "submit" part of the language. Because, of course, women must be "submitting" themselves, right?--instead of choosing that option as the best one in their situation.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, this measure, if passed, would "submit" women to the status of second (or third) class citizens.
Thanks for blogging, Cory.
The pro choice people didn't even want the law passed that required they be shown an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion. If women are so well informed ahead of time, why would the pro choice people care if women are shown the ultrasound? The pro choice crowd shouldn't have cared about that little item, but they did because they know that many women coming for an abortion are not thinking thorugh the consequences of the abortion, and this just might make them reconsider what an abortion actually is.
ReplyDeleteIf your biggest argument to this law is to argue that it implies all women are stupid, you really don't undersatnd the issue at all.
Just heard that Planned Parenthood is Sioux Falls is closed because they couldn't get any abortionists to come in, now that they have to abide by the law saying that women have to have an opportunity to see an ultrasound and be told more about what an abortion actually is.
ReplyDeleteMy question is why won't an abortionist continue to work in South Dakota? Are they afraid of the actual truth of what an abortion is?
Gee, maybe we found the way to stop most abortions right here. Just make abortionists tell women the truth about what an abortion actually is, and "poo," the abortionist disappears! Funny the power of truth!
ReplyDeleteNonnie
So Cory, what would be reasonable in your eyes to make sure that women are informed of the consequences of abortion without restricting their rights to have the procedure done?
ReplyDeleteThis law didn't restrict anything. It simply says that women have to be more fully informed before the procedure. Nothing restricts their rights.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know how this law restricts the rights of women seeking abortions. This law doesn't restrict anything. It simply says that women have to be more fully informed before the procedure. .
ReplyDelete"I would like to know how this law restricts the rights of women seeking abortions. This law doesn't restrict anything. It simply says that women have to be more fully informed before the procedure. ."
ReplyDeleteI think you might have your laws (or potential laws) mixed up, Anon. If passed, Initiated Measure 11 will ban abortions in South Dakota.
Erin's right: IM11 is an abortion ban. Anon may be distracted by the current law wherein Governor Rounds and Roger Hunt pretend they have medical degrees. What's reasonable in terms of informed consent? Letting doctors be doctors, and letting involve the people they see fit (family, friends, clergy, etc.) in their very personal decisions.
ReplyDeleteBack to the point: if you believe women are rational, responsible creatures, you will vote no on IM11. If you think IM11 is necessary, you think women are incapable of making their own decisions... and you must conclude that applies as much to their sexual activity as to their thinking about abortion. The logical sequel to IM11: a law requiring every woman to obtain written permission from the state Department of Health to have sex.
Erin, I wasn't talking about I11. I was talking about the law already passed that evidently resulted in PP being closed for abortions. That law didn't restrict abortion, it just said that women had to be more fully informed about what an abortion is before having the abortion.
ReplyDeleteI live in Sioux Falls and there have been questions in some of the local forums on weather or not PP is closed. Nobody seems to know the answer. If it is, it's a crying shame. All these right to lifers care about is taking away a woman's control over her body and life.
ReplyDelete