A Simple Pill - RU486 approved!

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Drain Bead *
**[

Also, the FDA restricted mifepristone’s use to doctors who can operate in case a surgical abortion is needed to finish the job or in cases of severe bleeding - or to doctors who have made advance arrangements for a surgeon to provide such care to their patients.

So, since this non-surgical method is only available to doctors who can arrange a surgical abortion in case of emergency, I don’t think that the argument that rural women will be getting more abortions stands. I mean, if there’s nobody there who can or will perform a surgical abortion, the FDA isn’t going to allow the doctors to dispense the pill.
**
[/QUOTE]

from http://foxnews.com/health/092900/abortionpill_whatsnext.sml

"And about one-third of family practitioners and gynecologists who don’t currently preform surgical abortions said they would consider prescribing mifepristone, according to a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

But even if many doctors shy from the drug, mifepristone’s approval seems certain to increase the number of U.S. abortion providers. The number of doctors trained to conduct surgical abortions has dwindled in recent years, as fewer medical schools included the procedure in their curricula and anti-abortion clinic protests made the profession less appealing.

“The major premise of this drug is to increase access (to abortion services), because in the United States we are in a serious crisis of access,” Joffe said. “If the tiny pool of present abortion providers could not be increased, the approval would have been a much more limited gain.” "

[Satan]

*Originally posted by milroyj *

**What about partial-birth abortions then? Where the object is partially delivered, then the “doctor” crushes its skull before removing it. Is that just a “zygote”, too? **

1. Straw man. The RU-486 pill will have no impact upon so-called “partial birth abortions.” If you wish to start a thread about the merits of apples while we are discussing oranges, feel free, though that has already been done.

2. And as has been discussed, late-term abortions are extremely rare and also only done when the life of the pregnant woman and/or the eventual life of the fetus are in doubt somehow. which makes me ask…

3. Your excuse about the incest/rape question you and dave dodged was that they are so rare. You wanna know how often “partial birth” abortions are performed? Wanna know how often they are done out of a “choice”?

Now you two are content to scream about fallacies that are not there while spouting your own…

---

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, 15 hours, 53 minutes and 41 seconds.
6986 cigarettes not smoked, saving $873.31.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 10 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)

[Commander_Fortune]

But the FDA’s formal approval may encourage more doctors who
don’t offer surgical abortions to offer the pill, thus making it easier for women,
particularly in rural areas, to get an abortion without traveling hundreds of
miles or entering surgical clinics often staked out by protesters.

**Drain[/b} this is from the article you cited.

Make no mistake, we’re on the same side, I think it’s atrocious that these women don’t already have easy access.

My understanding based on what I’ve read over the last day is that you are correct about the introduction of RU486, but as time goes on and more training becomes available, so will the doctors who will prescribe it become more plentiful.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Drain Bead *
**[

Now that we’ve cleared up what is and is not an insult, do you mind actually confronting the facts I presented you with? Oh, wait. You can’t. Because you were wrong. **

oops maybe YOU didn’t read the whole story… (see my link to the foxnews site and Commanders comment on your post)

[Drain_Bead]

"And about one-third of family practitioners and gynecologists who don’t currently preform surgical abortions said they would consider prescribing mifepristone, according to a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Of course, the cases you cited before, those of rural women who have no nearby surgical abortion providers, would STILL not be affected by this, because the FDA won’t dispense this medication to doctors who can’t line up a quick surgical abortion for their patients in case things go wrong. Please don’t change the terms of debate in the middle of it, thanks.

But even if many doctors shy from the drug, mifepristone’s approval seems certain to increase the number of U.S. abortion providers. The number of doctors trained to conduct surgical abortions has dwindled in recent years, as fewer medical schools included the procedure in their curricula and anti-abortion clinic protests made the profession less appealing.

If by “abortion providers,” they mean “people who can offer an abortion of any kind,” sure. But surgical abortionists probably won’t be on the rise for the reasons they state in the latter sentence of that paragraph. If they claim that the number of doctors who perform surgical abortions will increase, they need to give a more solid reason, because if you look at it that way, the second sentence doesn’t logically follow from the first. And since, again, you were talking about rural women who don’t have access to surgical abortions, this doesn’t apply to them either. Don’t change the terms of the debate in the middle of it, thanks.

(I repeated that because you seem to have trouble seeing things the first time around.)

I won’t even respond to the third paragraph, because even I get tired of repeating myself.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Satan *
**[
Now you two are content to scream about fallacies that are not there while spouting your own…

---

**

ehhh… I was screaming about which fallacy?

I said nothing about ad hominum attacks…that was the other poster

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Drain Bead *
**[

If by “abortion providers,” they mean “people who can offer an abortion of any kind,” sure. But surgical abortionists probably won’t be on the rise for the reasons they state in the latter sentence of that paragraph. If they claim that the number of doctors who perform surgical abortions will increase, they need to give a more solid reason, because if you look at it that way, the second sentence doesn’t logically follow from the first. And since, again, you were talking about rural women who don’t have access to surgical abortions, this doesn’t apply to them either. Don’t change the terms of the debate in the middle of it, thanks.

(I repeated that because you seem to have trouble seeing things the first time around.)
**

thanks for the repeat…you know how slow us pro lifers are I wasn’t changing the terms of my debate. The original debate was about how pro life folks would/should react to the approval of ru-486 in the U.S. I said that most (not all) pro life folks seem to oppose it because they think it will make availability of abortions easier (perhaps not immediately…depending on other variables…but certainly down the road).

One counter argument used the French experience to dispute the idea that the numbers of abortions would increase. I provided a link to a rebuttal argument that discussed some of the differences between the French experience and the U.S. …and other links about the status of rural area abortions.

As Dr. Joffe said…one of the goals/hopes of approving ru-486 is that the number of abortion providers will also increase (again…not immediately it seems…but down the road)…

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Drain Bead *
**

Is it reasonable to assume this pill will increase the number of abortions?

As I said on the first page of this thread, NO.

From http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000928/ts/abortion_pill.html

Health experts note abortions did not increase when RU-486 debuted in France in 1988, or later across Europe.

Is this willful delusion, Bob, or do you just not pay attention to the other side? I thought I cleared this issue up 30 posts ago, but I guess I’ll just keep reposting it until it sinks in. **

Actually, I did completely miss your earlier post. Though I’ve tried to keep up with this thread, apparently I missed the mark here; for that I apologize (though I’m not sure a vague reference to “Health experts” exactly clears things up with any finality).

I do appreciate the fact you offer me a choice here: willful delusion or deliberate ignorance. That’s very helpful, in that it quickly rules out the extremely unlikely possibility that I may have merely inadvertently overlooked this. The dodgeball comment was great as well. Let’s keep things hostile! Carry on…

[Drain_Bead]

But the FDA’s formal approval may encourage more doctors who don’t offer surgical abortions to offer the pill, thus making it easier for women, particularly in rural areas, to get an abortion without traveling hundreds of miles or entering surgical clinics often staked out by protesters.

Far be it from me to criticize the logic of said article, but even if there will be more doctors who don’t offer surgical abortions offering this pill, I don’t see how it will make it easier for rural women who previously had to travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion. If there is nobody around who will perform a surgical abortion, nobody will have the pill. That’s in the rules set down by the FDA, and no amount of “may encourage” or “making it easier” is going to change this. Just because doctors would consider prescribing it doesn’t mean that the rules will allow them to.

I was simply arguing under the terms that beagledave set down before. When the terms are changed to non-rural women, my argument changes. Then, I revert back to the fact that abortions didn’t increase in Europe in the past 10 years they’ve had this drug!

I don’t think that abortions will rise. Hell, they’ve been decreasing for years now. But no matter how you look at it, getting rid of all abortions (which I assume you pro-life folks are all for) is only solving the symptom of the major problem of unintended pregnancies. Frankly, instead of debating the merits or drawbacks of this pill, I think our energies would be put to better use trying to figure out how to cut the number of unintended pregnancies. Funny, though, I hardly see that happening. From EITHER side.

[beagledave]

I’m not sure I did a very good job in that last post…I guess my main point is that ru-486 will not dramtically increase (in my opinion) the number of abortions performed in the very near future (for several reasons, including the ones stated about the fda restrictions)

Over time…it DOES appear (at least according to the survey) that doctors who don’t currently perform abortions (for all the reasons earlier cited) may choose to so …

I guess for me, it’s not a big stretch to think that with an increase in the number of providers, the number of women who get some kind of abortion will increase, since many choose not to do so (as Commander pointed out) because of the difficulty of getting to a provider…

Of course there are always other societal factors that could come into play…a sharp downturn in the number of “unwanted” pregnancies, for example could change the landscape. But I think I have answered the OP about why at least some pro life folks are opposed to ru-486.

This thread (like most abortion threads) seems to branch off into a multitude of side issue (cloning etc…), but I hope I have at least answered why “I” and some other pro life folks are opposed to ru-486 approval (which I thought was the purpose of the OP)

If the purpose of this thread is to now debate whether an embryo/fetus is human or a person, I’m not sure that any of the posters on either side of the debate has anything original to add

[Satan]

*Originally posted by beagledave *

**ehhh… I was screaming about which fallacy?

I said nothing about ad hominum attacks…that was the other poster **

Your exact words were:

hey more insults and assumptions…cool

If this is not claiming that you were the victim of some kind of fallacy without using the nify Latin, then whatwere you (erroneously) claiming, anyway?

---

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, 16 hours, 17 minutes and 14 seconds.
6987 cigarettes not smoked, saving $873.39.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 15 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Drain Bead *
**[I think our energies would be put to better use trying to figure out how to cut the number of unintended pregnancies. Funny, though, I hardly see that happening. From EITHER side. **

that qualifies as the smartest thing said by anybody in this thread…

[Satan]

*Originally posted by beagledave *

**I guess my main point is that ru-486 will not dramtically increase (in my opinion) the number of abortions performed in the very near future (for several reasons, including the ones stated about the fda restrictions)

**

Which is what Drain Bead and others seem to be saying.

**Over time…it DOES appear (at least according to the survey) that doctors who don’t currently perform abortions (for all the reasons earlier cited) may choose to so …

**

If the restrictions in place do not allow this, they cannot “choose” to do anything.

[quote]
I guess for me, it’s not a big stretch to think that with an increase in the number of providers, the number of women who get some kind of abortion will increase, since many choose not to do so (as Commander pointed out) because of the difficulty of getting to a provider…[/quot]

1. Slippery slope.

2. Why do you think that just because there might be more providers that abortion would naturally increase as well?

3. Do you think that there are tons of women who do NOT get abortions because they’re not close to them? How about the women before Roe v. Wade who actively broke the law and risked their lives (and in many cases, it cost them their lives) to have abortions? Do you really think that the attitde of, “Well, if it’s inconvenient for some people, they won’t have abortions” is first of all fair, and second of all, logical to deduce?

**But I think I have answered the OP about why at least some pro life folks are opposed to ru-486.

**

How about just being honest instead of twisting words and creating thinsg that are not there.

How about saying that since you feel that all abortion is wrong, and this is another method of abortion, that even if it causes or helps one abortion to take place it’s wrong?

I would, of course, disagree with you, but really, that’s the only way to think this is a bad idea, and I have not been persuaded thus far that there are other reasons.

---

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, 16 hours, 28 minutes and 11 seconds.
6987 cigarettes not smoked, saving $873.43.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 15 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)

[Commander_Fortune]

Current providers vs. potential providers.

In the introductory phase it will only be distributed to doctors and clinics who currently perform surgical abortions.
Certainly not all doctors who are trained to do surgical abortion are currently doing them. Also, I think we can agree that many doctors who are not currently providing abortions as a significant part of their practice will not find reason to be trained for this during the introductory phase. As time goes on, however, those doctors may choose to prescribe the pill.

Example:
My OB/GYN is a fertility specialist. He is one of the best in the region. He also performs therapeutic abortions during the second trimester, it is a VERY SMALL part of his practice. Dr. Mac would have no compelling reason to participate in the introductory phase of this drug. However, down the road a bit, this is probably something he will provide because he is a resourseful doctor who keeps on top of his industry. While it is true to say that he was “an abortion provider” before RU486 the overall proportion of abortions his practice provides could increase quite a bit. Who would you rather go to, your own Dr. who’s treated you for years or a clinic? Not being rural, this would have no impact at all on the local rate. There are 5 abortion clinics in town including the infamous Boulder Abortion Clinic, which performs third trimester abortions.

My point is: A family doctor can be trained in and have the ability to provide surgical abortion yet not do them (as someone else noted) due to political pressure and other reasons…they will now have an alternative. For rural physicians this can mean that where they didn’t perform ANY abortions before, as long as they have the ability to perform or procure one in an emergency situation, they can now offer chemical abortions to their patients. This might have an measurable impact on the abortion rates in rural areas. But again, as I mentioned above, it’s not as if they are all counted as it is.

I will try to find additional cites regarding the post-introductory phase.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by milroyj *
**

Now, like I said, she has the choice between a procedure that might harm or kill her and one that will not. Which would you prefer?

Do you want her to be harmed or killed?

Are you pro-life, or pro-suffering?

Of course, you’re ignoring the fact that the baby will suffer and die in either case.**

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that I’m asking you a question. I’m going to take this to mean that you do want her to be harmed or killed, but you don’t want to admit it.

[milroyj]

3. Your excuse about the incest/rape question you and dave dodged was that they are so rare. You wanna know how often “partial birth” abortions are performed? Wanna know how often they are done out of a “choice”?

Actually, if you have data on this, I would be interested in seeing it. How often are late-term abortions performed, and for what reason(s)?

[milroyj]

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that I’m asking you a question. I’m going to take this to mean that you do want her to be harmed or killed, but you don’t want to admit it.

Of course I don’t want anyone harmed or killed. But let’s back up a step or two. Why did she get pregnant in the first place, if she wasn’t prepared to raise a child?

[The_Asbestos_Mango]

*Originally posted by hardcore *
**

Not all people who believe that human life begins at conception are uneducated fundies who choose not to aquaint themselves with available science.

But I would be willing to wager that the pro-lifers intelligent enough to do so would not break the law by hacking an online store **

Wanna bet?

[Ms2001]

milroyj:

Of course I don’t want anyone harmed or killed. But let’s back up a step or two. Why did she get pregnant in the first place, if she wasn’t prepared to raise a child?

I think we’ve seen all kinds of potential situations in other threads… perhaps:

[ul]
[li]She was raped.[/li][li]She was using birth control and it failed.[/li][li]She was prepared and in fact intending to raise a child, but it would be born with severe defects (like missing a head).[/li][li]Complications came up that would make giving birth harmful or fatal to her.[/li][li]She was drunk, not thinking ahead, or changed her mind about having a baby.[/li][/ul]

Whether you agree with her motivation or not, these are all legal reasons for her to have an abortion… and that’s what this thread is about: there is now another way to have a legal procedure done.

If you’re going to say “she knew she might get pregnant, why can’t she accept the consequences”, maybe we should bring back the “Pro-life: is it about compassion or punishment?” thread.

[milroyj]

She was drunk, not thinking ahead, or changed her mind about having a baby.

You bring up compassion??? Why should anyone have compassion for someone who would kill her own child because she was drunk? or even worse, because she changed her mind?

What planet do you live on?