A Simple Pill - RU486 approved!

[Flymaster]

*Originally posted by quixotic78 *
**In both situations (Nazis and abortion), there’s death. Someone earlier noted that the pro-life side should just admit that they oppose abortion in any form, because they view it as taking an innocent. In turn, why doesn’t the pro-choice side admit that they favor RU-486 because they support abortion rights, and are throwing in safety of the mother to confuse the issue? **

Yes, there’s death. But in the abortion issue, there are TWO potential deaths.

Meanwhile, I will admit that I favor RU486 exactly BECAUSE it makes things safer. Certainly I support abortion rights, but I don’t think anyone in this country really had a hard time getting one if they wanted one, anyway.

The pill just takes what was already POSSIBLE and EASY safer. Certainly, if I didn’t think abortions were already available to everyone, I would support the pill for making them available. However, my main reason for support is because of the saftey factor.

But I DO support abortion rights, as well.

[Ms2001]

quixotic78:

I’ll have to agree with Flymaster - given that I only have those two options, I would have to choose the less painful one. But the questions aren’t the same. You’re saying “these people are going to die, how would you like it to happen?” and I’m saying “one entity that you believe to be a person is going to die, but it can be done in a way that another person will not have to also risk harm or death”.

In both situations (Nazis and abortion), there’s death.

In the genocide situation, there’s a fixed amount of death. In the abortion situation, the amount is variable. You can kill the fetus, or you kill the fetus and risk killing the mother.

Someone earlier noted that the pro-life side should just admit that they oppose abortion in any form, because they view it as taking an innocent. In turn, why doesn’t the pro-choice side admit that they favor RU-486 because they support abortion rights, and are throwing in safety of the mother to confuse the issue?

I think both of those viewpoints are already understood - pro-lifers are going to want no abortions, pro-choicers are going to want abortion rights. The question at hand isn’t whether abortions should take place at all, but whether this new method should be introduced.

We already have abortion rights, RU-486 would simply make them safer and more manageable to exercise.

[Milossarian]

Bob Cos:

**Again, in the narrowly defined question you have constructed, there is only one “right” answer (as I said before). If in a given situation the only influence I can exert is to determine whether a blameless individual is placed in greater or lesser peril, I prefer that individual’s risk be minimized. **

And is that not exactly the case in this situation?

quixotic, where to begin?

**“Suppose you know that a woman is going to have an abortion. She has the choice between a surgical abortion, which may harm or kill her, and RU486, which will not. Both will kill the embryo, of course, but the surgical abortion will also pose a considerable risk to the woman. These are the only two options, and whichever one she chooses is going to happen.”

It’s a ridiculous question designed to get only one answer.**

It’s not a ridiculous question. It’s not a narrowly defined question. Other than, “when does life begin?” that both sides go round and round on, the question of, “Can we, must we, make the legal procedure of getting an abortion safer for women if we have the means available to do so?” is the CENTRAL, MOST IMPORTANT question of the debate.

And it’s not designed to get only one answer; it HAS only one logical answer. And anyone on the “pro-life” side that doesn’t answer it in the logical way is exposed as a hypocrite with extremely flawed logic.

**I hate playing this card, because it’s pretty silly, but hey, fight fire with fire…
Suppose you know that the Nazi regime is going to eradicate 6 million Jews. They have the choice between a terribly toxic gas which is extremely painful in its business, or a lethal injection, which is painless. Both will kill the Jews, of course, but the gas is extremely painful. These are the only two options, and whichever one they choose is going to happen.

So, are you pro-suffering, or anti-suffering? **

You hate playing that card? Then don’t. It makes you look like an ass.

Many millions of people believe that a zygote, embryo or early-stage fetus are not alive, are not human beings, and therefore cannot be “killed.” There is no debate that the Jews killed in the Holocaust were human beings. Your misguided attempt at a corollation is offensive.

[Satan]

Both questions being asked above are unfair and disingenuous. I believe the fallacy might be “begging the question,” but I am not an expert on these things.

One is a leading question which has only one answer - one which HARDLY (to me) makes their points (even though I disagree with them in general) somehow sullied. Conversely, the proposed question invoking Nazis was insipid as corrolary or as an excersice in fairness.

People who feel that abortion rights should be done away with are not going to like this pill because it’s something which allows abortions to take place. It doesn’t matter if it can be debated that it’s a less invasive and easier thing for someone who will do it if it’s legal anyway - THEY DON’T THINK IT SHIOULD BE LEGAL, PERIOD!

This, of course, leads a lot of them (not all) to not see the merits in the drug in spite of positives. I mean, we see that side say all kinds of nasty things about Planned Parenthood, for example, and we all know that the bulk of that organizations work has nothing to do with abortions. But they are not AGAINST it, so they must be DESTROYED!! (Again, please note that not ALL pro-life folks aree like this. Just enough of them.)

So anything having to do with abortion will draw the ire of pro-lifers for obvious reasons.

Why we expect them to back up their views with conjecture and false dillemas is beyond me. And I don’t see how people are trying to take away the rest of the debate, as if RU-486 exists in a vaccum.

It doesn’t.

And to treat it as if it does and try and get its detractors to answer questions and act as if it does is foolhardy at best, and not fair at worst.

---

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, two days, 2 hours, 26 minutes and 44 seconds.
7044 cigarettes not smoked, saving $880.51.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 11 hours, 0 minutes.

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

[quixotic78]

Of course the Nazi question was ridiculous. As I said, fight fire with fire. If someone answers “Kill the Jews painlessly,” it’s ludicrous to say, “Aha! So you favor genocide in general?” The other, painful option is a non-option, of course. Now, in the abortion hypothetical, if someone answers “I’m against abortion, but use the safe method,” then it’s ludicrous to say, “Aha! So you favor abortion after all, you hypocrite!” And again, the other option is a non-option.

I did not intend the question to be serious. It was merely my way of pointing out the Milo et al’s question is a pointless exercise. The situation was so limited as to make the answer worthless. And yet, they constantly attacked others for “dodging” such a silly question.

I think Bob Cos said it much more eloquently: how does being anti-pill equate to being pro-suffering, as Mr2001, Milo, etc. seemed to imply?

Q

[Ms2001]

quixotic78:

I think Bob Cos said it much more eloquently: how does being anti-pill equate to being pro-suffering, as Mr2001, Milo, etc. seemed to imply?

Because to deny women the pill is to deny them a safer means of abortion.

If you’re pro-life in the sense of valuing the quality of human life, you may not approve of abortions, but you should still be interested in making a legal procedure safer. You may not approve of lifestyles that put people at risk for AIDS, but you should still be interested in making the disease easier to live with and finding a cure.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
**.

Many millions of people believe that a zygote, embryo or early-stage fetus are not alive, are not human beings, and therefore cannot be “killed.” There is no debate that the Jews killed in the Holocaust were human beings. Your misguided attempt at a corollation is offensive.
**

Your definition of life is nonsense. Even most pro choice folks will grant that a zygote/embryo/fetus is “alive”… My definition of “alive” includes cell division…growth…dna etc…

Most pro choice folks will also consider the zygote/embryo/fetus to be “human” as opposed, for example, bovine…canine or feline (i.e, the genetic sequence codes for human life)

Where most pro choice folks part company is over the notion of personhood or legal status deserving protection. Some pro choice people use viability as their criteria, some use “sentience”, some use “dependence”, some use physical brain development or other criteria. Obviously, pro life folks don’t use those criteria (for reasons coverved by the earlier linked url)

So, for pro life folks, there IS a comparison with other individuals deemed to be “un person like” …or less of a person…by another group…whether it’s Dred Scott, or the Jews during the early part of the century. I don’t think that this is a point of agreement that pro life and pro choice folks will ever agree upon…because it is essentially a philosophical point.

But to ignore science and declare a zygote to not be alive is just that…ignoring science. Or to claim that the zygote is not human, but something else (porcine perhaps?) is again ignoring the DNA sequencing that exists in the zygote/embryo/fetus.

[Milossarian]

beagledave: Whether a developing embryo or zygote is “alive” is most certainly not nonsense, and is most certainly debatable. The tissue involved may have DNA and exhibit cellular division, but it is entirely dependant upon its “host” to continue these processes.

And I still have difficulty understanding why many believe the question I and others posed is some kind of a semantics game or word-trap. Other than the debate over when life begins, there is no more relevant or important question on this issue. Is there? If so, let’s hear it.

[Jodi]

DAVE, I also think the question “when does life begin?” is a whole 'nother question, but since you’ve attacked Milo’s definition of “human,” allow me to point out that under your definition my left hand, the small mole on my back, and the eggs in my ovaries are all “alive” as well – and, presumably, deserving of protection.

Actually, this whole thread nicely encapulates what I object to about the “pro-life” stance, and it isn’t a matter of morals or ethics. I object to the very idea that the rights of a potential human should be exhalted over the rights of a human being already born and walking around among us. The concept that the abortion pill should be blocked and abortion services made as difficult and dangerous as possible seems to me to nicely highlight this (to me, extremely offensive) ideal.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
**DAVE, I also think the question “when does life begin?” is a whole 'nother question, but since you’ve attacked Milo’s definition of “human,” allow me to point out that under your definition my left hand, the small mole on my back, and the eggs in my ovaries are all “alive” as well – and, presumably, deserving of protection.
**

Actually I attacked his definition of “alive/life” AND human…I’m not attacking his (or anyones elses) definition of personhood in my response.

You are right that my definition was incomplete…I used an “etc” to complete my thought…To be more specific, I looked up in an old Zoology book (    Hickman, Cleveland, Roberts, Larry, & Larson, Allan. (1997). Zoology, (10th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill), and found the following definition of a unique life:

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex molecular organization.
    2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
    3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
    4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity of inheritance.
    5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments.
    6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
    7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.

I think exclude the hand and mole…and I think your eggs…from http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1881/lifebegi.html comes a better outline of this including

“To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.”

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
**
And I still have difficulty understanding why many believe the question I and others posed is some kind of a semantics game or word-trap. Other than the debate over when life begins, there is no more relevant or important question on this issue. Is there? If so, let’s hear it. **

I don’t think it’s a word game to ask “when does life begin”, you’re right in that it is the crux (I think) of the abortion debate.

I do point out that some people use different terminology in the debate…for example…Gaudre (pro choice) does say earlier that a fetus is “alive”…but draws a distinction between that and being a person (if I mis stated his earlier comment, I hope I’m corrected)

It appears that you’re saying it’s “not” alive…

“Most” people that I know who are pro choice (not just on the SDMB) will describe a fetus as being “alive” (and mean something distinct, from say a mole on your back), and most will also say that it is genetically “human”…but NOT a person…yet.

I grant that there is a wide variety of opinion in the pro choice camp…one poster supposted infanticide in certain cases, something that I think is a minority opinion among pro choice folks.

I do think that there is scientific evidence, in the form of embryological studies, to call a zygote/embryo/fetus a “unique” life, that is genetically human.

Distinctions involving things like sentience, viability, physical brain development, or dependence, I feel are philosophical issues.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
**Bob Cos:

**Again, in the narrowly defined question you have constructed, there is only one “right” answer (as I said before). If in a given situation the only influence I can exert is to determine whether a blameless individual is placed in greater or lesser peril, I prefer that individual’s risk be minimized. **

And is that not exactly the case in this situation?
**

No. Did you actually read my post? If so, as I said when I posted it, I would like to hear specific problems you had with my argument. You asked me for explanation and I provided it. Can you do the same for me? Something more than just letting me know you disagree?

Thanks.

[Milossarian]

Sorry to disappoint, Bob. What would you like me to respond to?

I accept and agree with your statement (heretofore paraphrased) that, given no other opportunity to stop the abortions you are morally opposed to, you support allowing women who choose to have them to have a safer means available.

I then submitted that, to my way of thinking, this is not a hypothetical question, but the exact situation that now exists with the FDA approving the use of RU486. I don’t believe you have any other opportunity to stop the abortions you are morally opposed to.

(And, memo to the freakier elements among the anti-choice cabal: Terrorizing young women in front of family planning clinics – including those only going to get a pap smear or a refill of birth control pills – ain’t workin’.)

Perhaps you and others who share your view do or will have other opportunities to eradicate the moral wrong of legal abortion. (I personally don’t think the Supreme Court will have the cajones to overturn Roe v. Wade even if Bush is elected and makes the high court more conservative.)

But I’m glad to hear that you don’t see holding approval of RU486 hostage as a tactic in your goal of eradicating legal abortion.

(At least that’s what I think I hear in what your saying. Please correct me if I am misstating your position.)

[BoBettie]

I am pro-choice, which to me means:

I will never, ever have an abortion
I do not like abortion
I wish no one ever had abortions
BUT
All women have the right to choose abortion if they wish, as it is a legal medical procedure.

I am ALL for RU-486, as I believe it is a medically safer alternative to an invasive procedure. When given a choice in ANY medical procedure, the less invasive the safer. End of story.

I am also all for the fact that a family practitioner who has been trained in surgical abortion (or will now go for training) will be able to prescribe RU-486 to his or her patients without the world knowing. Around here we have TWO, count 'em TWO “womens services” facilities that offer abortions. They are hounded constantly by anti-choicers who harass the patients and threaten the doctors. (Randell Terry of Anti-choice fame lives nearby)

If I understand this correctly, now a family doctor could prescribe this drug without gaining the label of “abortionist” by the anti-choicers. (provided they had proper training). I personally think this torques the RADICAL PICKETING anti-choicers off because they can’t get to everyone they want to harass. (In MY area. Remember, there are only two facilities, so targeting them is very easy). Now they won’t really know WHO is going to their doctor for what treatment, which is the way it should be. The women who use the Womens Services facilities are constantly harassed here, even if they’re going in to pick up birth control pills. The workers at Planned Parenthood are constantly harassed, even though OUR Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform abortions. These people know NO bounds when it comes to harassing.

Plain and simple, I suspect that the bottom line is this:

Anti-choice people don’t want a safer OR easier (meaning less invasive) method of abortion, as they think it makes the procedure less “medical” and traumatic for the patient. It certainly is safer and easier for someone to take a couple of pills then to be prepped, stirruped, and have an invasive procedure performed.

I think what the anti-choice people are saying (but are afraid to commit to) is that women who have abortions DESERVE the trauma and potential medical risk of traditional abortions, including having pamphlets waved in their faces and being called murderers. I believe that anti-choicers feel this is letting the patient “get away easy” with their choice.
If that’s your stance, at least admit it and get it out in the open.
Zette

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Zette *
**
Anti-choice people don’t want a safer OR easier (meaning less invasive) method of abortion, as they think it makes the procedure less “medical” and traumatic for the patient. It certainly is safer and easier for someone to take a couple of pills then to be prepped, stirruped, and have an invasive procedure performed.

I think what the anti-choice people are saying (but are afraid to commit to) is that women who have abortions DESERVE the trauma and potential medical risk of traditional abortions, including having pamphlets waved in their faces and being called murderers. I believe that anti-choicers feel this is letting the patient “get away easy” with their choice.
If that’s your stance, at least admit it and get it out in the open.
Zette **

Well no…at least not me. As you seemed to admit…(and Ellen Goodman, pro choice advocate admits in an editorial in todays newspaper), RU-486 will probably end up in more women having abortions from more doctors (maybe not in the near future…because of FDA restrictions, but down the road as more docs choose to provide the service) …perhaps, because as you point out, more doctors will feel less pressure (rightly or wrongly) in participating in this.

If you come from a position that abortion is a bad thing, then something that you believe will increase the number of abortions is also probably a bad thing. For those who don’t think that RU-486 will increase the number of abortions (unlike many pro choice writers, like Goodman for example) well fine…there is still enough evidence and opinion from even the pro choice folks to make pro life folks think that there is a high liklihood of an increase.

I’ ll not debate the reasons for a pro life position (its been done ad nauseum elsewhere)…just re-iterate that opposition to Ru-486 is as simple as a belief that it will increase the number of abortions.

[BoBettie]

As you seemed to admit…(and Ellen Goodman, pro choice advocate admits in an editorial in todays newspaper), RU-486 will probably end up in more women having abortions from more doctors (maybe not in the near future…because of FDA restrictions, but down the road as more docs choose to provide the service)

Actually, that’s not what I admit or believe. I believe more doctors will be able to offer abortion as a medical service in their offices (now or in the future). I do NOT believe that means more women will have abortions. I believe it will give women more choices of what doctor to visit if they decide to have an abortion.

Around here, anyway, doctors that do abortions are scarce, but accessible. How would increasing the number of people willing to perfom some service increase the number of consumers that desire that service? Perhaps that’s what Ellen Goodman believes, but I do not.

Just wanted to clear that up. And my above post was not meant to imply ALL anti-choice people felt that way. It is certainly the feeling I get from some, though.

Zette

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Zette *
**

As you seemed to admit…(and Ellen Goodman, pro choice advocate admits in an editorial in todays newspaper), RU-486 will probably end up in more women having abortions from more doctors (maybe not in the near future…because of FDA restrictions, but down the road as more docs choose to provide the service)

Actually, that’s not what I admit or believe. I believe more doctors will be able to offer abortion as a medical service in their offices (now or in the future). I do NOT believe that means more women will have abortions. I believe it will give women more choices of what doctor to visit if they decide to have an abortion.

Around here, anyway, doctors that do abortions are scarce, but accessible. How would increasing the number of people willing to perfom some service increase the number of consumers that desire that service? Perhaps that’s what Ellen Goodman believes, but I do not.

Just wanted to clear that up. And my above post was not meant to imply ALL anti-choice people felt that way. It is certainly the feeling I get from some, though.

Zette

**

O.K. misunderstood your initial point…

There has already been discussion about whether Ru-486 will increase the NUMBER of abortions performed, earlier in this thread. At least one other pro choicer (Commander) said, that at least down the road, the numbers of abortions WILL go up. Rather than re-hash that line of discussion…I would suggesting reading the comments and links of the pro life folks in the thread if you want to know their reasoning

My basic reason on why most pro lifers (at least that I know) oppose RU-486 is still because they believe (wrongly, according to you I guess) that it will increase the number of abortions performed.

[Kyberneticist]

The Onion interviews our public about RU486.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3635/wdyt_3635.html

[Ms2001]

beagledave:

My basic reason on why most pro lifers (at least that I know) oppose RU-486 is still because they believe (wrongly, according to you I guess) that it will increase the number of abortions performed.

What is so different between Americans and Europeans that you believe will cause RU-486 to increase abortions here, even though it didn’t in Europe?

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**beagledave:

My basic reason on why most pro lifers (at least that I know) oppose RU-486 is still because they believe (wrongly, according to you I guess) that it will increase the number of abortions performed.

What is so different between Americans and Europeans that you believe will cause RU-486 to increase abortions here, even though it didn’t in Europe? **

covered earlier in this thread http://www.lifeissues.org/ru486/ru00-01.html#Will

Because we’re predicting future actions…that could involve other factors (like a rise or fall in teen pregnancy rates for example)…it’s hard to be definitive about the future…but keep in mind…it’s NOT just pro life folks who think this…the pro choice creator of this thread (Commander) believes it as well…as do other folks I mentioned earlier in this thread…so maybe take it up with them as well…