Abortion Question Corrolary

 https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CVZxeqQHd/?mibextid=wwXIfr

" 

There's one question abortion advocates can NOT answer without completely contradicting themselves.

I’ve been thinking for a long time about what the perfect question is in this debate, and it finally came to me today.

Here it is: "Do you oppose the government's regulation of Accutane?"

Let me explain why it works so well...

Accutane is a widely prescribed acne medication. Millions of teenagers take it. It's safe enough that dermatologists prescribe it routinely.

But you can't just get it.

The FDA runs a mandatory program called iPLEDGE. The patient, the doctor, and the pharmacy all register with the federal government. A woman needs two negative pregnancy tests before her first pill, the first one done in a clinic. Then a documented negative test every month, or the pharmacy legally cannot fill her prescription. And she has to use two forms of birth control the entire time.

Pregnant women cannot get this medication at any point during their pregnancy. Period. The government won't allow it because it harms the baby.

But here's what makes it even more devastating to their position…

Those rules don't just apply to pregnant women. They apply to women who aren't pregnant and have no intention of getting pregnant. The government is restricting what a non-pregnant woman can do with her own body on behalf of a baby that doesn't even exist yet.

And here's the part that should end this debate entirely...

Even if a woman tells her doctor "if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion," she STILL can't opt out of iPLEDGE. The government protects the fetus from harm regardless of whether the mother intends to keep it or kill it (and regardless of whether it even exists yet).

So the government's position is: we won't let you give this child a birth defect even if you plan to end its life entirely. The protection applies no matter what.

If you’re fine with this regulation (and everyone I’ve asked is), then you’ve already conceded that:

A. This entity, even if you refuse to call it a person, deserves protection even before viability.

B. The government can step in and restrict a woman's choices and bodily autonomy to provide that protection.

C. Medical decisions between a woman and her doctor are not sacrosanct.

It destroys their privacy argument.

It destroys their "it's between a woman and her doctor" argument.

It destroys their "my body, my choice" argument, because the government is blocking her choice to get acne medication even though she wants it.

It destroys the healthcare argument (what if her severe acne is causing depression, anxiety, and social isolation? Doesn't matter. The baby comes first).

It destroys the "potential person" argument, because what are we protecting here if not the person growing inside her (and in many cases the potential person she hasn’t even conceived yet)?

Almost nobody objects to regulation.

Dermatologists don't call it government overreach. Patients don't call it an assault on bodily autonomy.

Which demonstrates their absurd position:

Giving this entity a birth defect = wrong, government should intervene to prevent it.

Killing this entity entirely = fine, government has no business intervening.

If the possibility of a birth defect justifies the government standing between a woman and her prescription, I need someone to explain why intentionally killing that same child doesn't."