Subscribe-that lots of women don't realize that taking antibiotics will make the Pill ineffectiveI was on the Pill for years before anyone told me this. *shudder*
Anyone who wants to eat a grossly unhealthy diet is free to do so, and sure enough, I'm gonna be judgemental.Yeah, I also don't really get why you care about this.
.... I have suggested a case that sounds in political morality against restrictive regulations of reproductive choice, but does not decide the moral issue about abortion. In particular, I have said that reasonable people—with a sense of justice and an undiminished capacity for moral thought—disagree deeply on this issue, and that part of the idea of treating people as equals is we refrain from imposing highly burdensome regulations based on considerations that they reasonably reject.source
It is natural to suspect that some sleight-of-hand must be at work here. After all, the conclusion at the level of political morality supports one side in the moral dispute. According to the objection, however, the pro-life and pro-choice positions on the moral issue are symmetrical. That is, either abortions are restrictively regulated or they are not. If they are restrictively regulated, the side that favors restrictive regulation wins. If they are not, then the side that has a liberal view on the moral question wins.
So you cannot resolve the issue without giving greater weight to one side or another in the moral argument. Applying this general point to the argument sketched earlier: yes, some people do reject the justification for regulation. But why should their objections should carry the day? After all, some people reject the current settlement, which permits abortion. Why don’t their objections to the permissive regime carry as much weight as the pro-choice objections to the restrictive regime?
The answer to this question is to reject the alleged symmetry. What breaks the symmetry are the burdens on women of a restrictive regime. The restrictive regime imposes substantial burdens on women’s liberty, equality, and independent judgment; if we suppose with Dworkin that everyone’s life matters equally, and that individuals also have special responsibility for their own lives—those burdens need to be justified, and the terms of that justification must carry some weight with those whose liberty and equality are impaired. Otherwise, we fail to respect them as moral equals. The reason that the restrictive regime cannot stand, then, is that no such acceptable justification is available.
Because of the asymmetry created by these burdens, proponents of a restrictive regime have only two options. Either they can deny that a restrictive regime imposes large burdens on women, or, accepting that those burdens are serious, they can deny the equal standing of those who reject the justification for the burdens as weightless. Neither option seems acceptable.
While some [clinics] are able to give patients a limited supply of birth control pills at a reduced cost or free, some women are unable to continue this, or other, hormonal methods as they cannot afford the refills or the periodic medical visits required to obtain them. [there was some mention on a previous page about how when prioritizing whether to pay rent vs food for their families, contraceptives may take lower priority...that situation would assume, of course, that they already have ease of access to a clinic or non-judgmental pharmacist]Looks like the news reported the Title X problem accurately enough though:
“The 'wall of separation’ that the federal government has erected between family planning and abortion services is, paradoxically, leading to more abortions,” said Sharon Camp, the Institute’s president and chief executive officer.So, sure, some women may be out there who could easily pay for and have access to contraceptives, but just don't and end up having whimsical repeat abortions instead, just because they're irresponsible, but this particular study doesn't indicate that clinics are teeming with such women.
“These policies interfere with the ability of abortion providers to ensure continuity of care for their patients by guaranteeing that, following an abortion, every woman has an appropriate contraceptive method and is able to use it consistently,” Camp added in a statement.
« Older 15 year old Kimberly Anyadike is flying across the... | Ayn Rand discusses in a 1979 D... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
When people act like this is hypocritical or confusing, I just don't know what to say.
posted by ifjuly at 11:58 AM on July 1 [28 favorites]