Providing context is important. Mere facts only take you so far, especially when addressing narrow ones. For instance, saying I killed someone does not really tell you too much. Was it in war? Was it an accident? Am I a police officer? Was it homicide? Perhaps, "someone" in one's opinion includes an embryo, and I am a doctor or even a pharmacist who prescribed a morning after pill that led to rejection of the implantation of a fertilized egg. Or, perhaps I am guilty of criminal homicide.
Many find this a problem in the news these days. Thus, certain facts about let us say the war are reported, but not put in context. Or, words some public official -- let us say the President -- are baldly noted, but not any context that suggest they are misleading, perhaps by design. This should not be the case, if possible, in reporting of any kind. The complete picture should be provided, not a simple snapshot. Not always possible, surely, especially in raw AP type stories. Nonetheless, even there, context is often quite possible and necessary.
I think this theme, therefore, applies across the board. The particular concern deals with the use of the abortion pill, which in a handful of cases [though it is not totally clear if the pill itself was the problem] has shown to be fatal. I personally see the abortion pill as a somewhat dubious method. It does not involve a one shot procedure, but one drawn over time. It involves at the end of the day more than one pill. And, it seems overall unpleasant. It can be supplied in a doctor's office, so avoids clinics -- in some parts of the country, this is fundamental. Finally, the cut-off is around two months.
But, if a woman in various circumstances wants to take the pill, it can provide an important additional choice in family planning. How about safety? The fact that something might have led to the death of apparently six (let us say it did cause the deaths) people really does not tell us much. Viagra causes five times as many deaths. Aspirin ten times. Of course, when dealing with numbers like "6," any number of things would. How about surgerical abortion? It seems a bit less dangerous. The telling alternative though is childbirth -- ten times more.
This is not surprising. A core issue in Roe v. Wade is that early abortion is less dangerous than childbirth. At the time, second trimester abortions were more dangerous -- I don't think this necessarily suggests additional regulations are proper, since the danger often is still not much more, and other concerns make it worthwhile in the minds of many women. All the same, it is a useful thing to keep in mind [second trimesters are now safer, affecting the legitimacy of certain laws]. Of course, the stories do not tend to remind us of such facts.
The father of one of the deceased women is given his time, which is proper, though his desire for a ban should be taken with a healthy grain of salt. He is not an expert or anything. And, the facts simply are not on his side. Chances are that, especially if the woman had some other problem, that a surgical abortion could have led to a tragic result as well. But, actually, there would have been a greater chance that a pregnancy would as well. Ditto a late term miscarriage. The right to abortion prevents many potential cases of the latter as well as the possibility of the former. We should be reminded of this fact when reports are put forth that "another death" via abortion pill occurred.
Where are all the national reports of deaths of pregnant women? Are they just God's plan, so not worthy of note?