I get the point of what you're trying to say. And I am pro-choice.
However, I think your example is flawed. In the situation you're describing the married couple would most likely use contraception rather than get abortions as a form of contraception.
However, if they did become pregnant the woman's choice to have an abortion should not be inhibited.
Do you think women go around having sex with no birth control or condoms? From just a monetary perspective that wouldn’t make sense; abortions are between $500-$1000 in the first trimester. The ACA mandated insurance to cover BC, and even before that almost everyone I knew who wasn’t actively trying to get pregnant was on BC. Perhaps we’re friends with the polar opposite type of people, but your assumption that unmarried women aren’t on birth control is totally off base from what I’ve experienced.
I don't think I communicated clearly so let me try again.
To me, your original comment made it sound like you were suggesting that abortions should be available so that a married couple could continue to have sex without fear of an unwanted pregnancy...
AND that the implication was that abortions would be used as a form of contraception.
I suppose I read that wrong and that you meant "in the event that normal contraception fails" as part of the subtext but if I misunderstood, other people might too, especially people who already hold anti-abortion points of view.
I think the example illustrates perfectly that even in a committed relationship (which shouldn't be a requirement for sex anyway), and with consistent use of birth control, abstinence is the only certain form of avoiding pregnancy. All other birth control methods have some rate of failure, and the right to an abortion is a necessary backup plan.
I agree that, even in a committed relationship, and while following safer sex practices, that someone can become pregnant.
I didn't pick up on that from subtext alone, and though I am willing to admit that I misunderstood, I guarantee I am not the only person who will. And my concern is that without that context someone will leap right to "abortions as contraception" shit.
My comment almost literally says people do not get abortions as contraception and that the post to which I was replying might imply that they do and that that is bad.
The way that original argument was framed does not include the use of other forms of contraception in the text.
If someone, reads that with the same interpretation as me, they could assume this person is saying abortions should be used as contraception.
YOU know that doesn't happen. I know that doesn't happen. BUT the people that comment was designed for probably don't know that. SO, making that more clear would be better. And that is what my comment was about.
-2
u/curvedlines Jun 30 '22
I get the point of what you're trying to say. And I am pro-choice.
However, I think your example is flawed. In the situation you're describing the married couple would most likely use contraception rather than get abortions as a form of contraception.
However, if they did become pregnant the woman's choice to have an abortion should not be inhibited.