Yeah, Implicit, when you can calmly and rationally discuss how RU486 cruelly and godlessly snatches precious life from an innocent little baby, maybe David42 will take you off ignore.
If wishes were ponies. What else is done David42?
LOL, there was no emotion at all in any of my posts. I was supplying actual facts about both abortion procedures and the “dangerous” drugs you implied were used, in an attempt to fight ignorance since your claim “But after all, these drugs are designed to KILL and maybe its not so unreasonable–in outpatient surgeries do they ever give a drug that is designed to kill?” was bullshit. Ignore me if you like, it’s no loss to me.
There’s a lack of clarity here, and I’m hoping you’re actually interested in learning something.
The method of action for the most common abortion drug is not one that causes cellular death. Mifeprestone (RU-486) causes cervical softening and induces placental separation and contractions–essentially, it’s a progesterone antagonist. The abortion comes from the fact that it’s only FDA approved for use up to 49 days, and there’s no possible way a 7-week-old fetus can survive even a minute under conditions of placental detachment. (this is also the reason there’s a failure rate associated with the drug–it doesn’t directly affect anything but the uterus, so there’s a chance the uterus won’t be affected enough to detach and expel the fetus).
Basically, RU-486 is no more or less dangerous than birth control pills, and affects the same organ systems in approximately the same ways at therapeutic/abortificant doses.
Now, methotrexate IS a drug that directly kills, because it’s related to chemotherapy drugs. My understanding is that it’s primarily used to terminate ectopic pregnancies that cannot survive and are not in the uterus anyway, and that it has a much higher degree of side effects.
I was suggesting that since you were guessing that there are other kinds of clinics in Kansas with any substandard qualities you might concede that maybe there aren’t as well. I didn’t mean it to apply to any other part of your argument.
“I based that guess on the number of licensed clinics in Kansas and the fact that those clinics don’t *have *any specific regulations to meet regarding things like door widths and janitorial closet size. You think they’re going to check and see if they meet the newly introduced, highly specific, and very stringent regulations?”
please produce proof for the “fact” that no other type of clinic in Kansas has a specific regulation for its operation, please.
I think you speculate there are no such clinics because 1)Brownback is anti-abortion and since 2)Brownback is morally wrong 3)all things he does are wrong therefore 4) since the regulations are unfair toward abortion clinics there must be a clinic in Kansas that is completely unregulated on issues like the building it operates in.
I’m not against the possible conclusion that the abortion regulations are unfair. I’m against the foregoing thought process to determine it is.
I claimed nothing regarding how RU486 kills, whether indirectly or directly. Does the lump of tissue wind up dead as a result of the administration of this drug?
The whole issue here is something I already admit was based on my screwed up reading of another’s post. It is being blown out of proportion.
it only became a tangent because of an idiot poster who did not see the qualifiers like the fact that I had QUESTIONS about the safety of some of the drugs.
It is the blanket assertion that RU486 is not designed to kill that I took issue with, but no-one is suggesting any other purpose in response.
I find it sophomoric to claim that it doesn’t kill, it causes an abortion–unless you have some proof that the designers of the drug thought the fetuses would afterwards live.
That is like saying because a drug affects the central nervous system, it did not kill my liver and kidneys when I stopped breathing and died. A drug designed to stop breathing permanently is also designed to kill the kidneys because you can’t do one without the other.
But I do appreciate the further info on the effects of RU486 and did learn something, thank you very much.
Actually, I believe RU486 was originally synthesized as a contraceptive. It can still be used as such. It was also studied for its anti-inflammatory properties. So, no, it was not necessarily “designed to kill”.
It always amazes me when anti-choicers project their feeling off onto others. It’s pretty obvious to me that David42 is being emotional, feels he is at least close to 100% right on this subject, and has spent a lot of time here obfuscating and adding irrelevancies. Then he has the gall to complain about it and to invite another poster to commit suicide.
David42 - I suggest that you quit listening to political soundbites and actually research things before you post on teh interwebs, because you will find that there are people out there who know more than you do and are not going to be nice about telling you that.
IANAD but as I understand it mifepristone is only used early in a pregnancy, before it has developed to the fetal stage.
I did *not *say that the other clinics had substandard qualities. I said that they are not required to meet the new, more stringent regulations being imposed on the abortion clinics.
Once, more, and really loudly so perhaps you’ll hear it this time.
I have not said that they are not required to meet regulations.
I SAID THAT NON ABORTION ASCS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE MORE STRINGENT REGULATIONS BEING IMPOSED ON THE ABORTION CLINICS.
You haven’t read any of the links I provided, have you? There’s one up in post #43 to the regulations** currently in effect in Kansas on ASCs that are not abortion clinics.** You’ll note the complete lack of anything saying how wide the doors are, what size the janitor’s closets have to be, etc.
That is a crock of shit, and you know it. It’s not even logical. See the shouting above. Furthermore, you are imputing to me motives that are not the case. Brownback may or may not be correct in other things he does in Kansas. I have no opinion on his other actions because I’m not (yet) concerned with them so I have no knowledge of them. This I am concerned with because it is yet another state in which Republicans are trying to overturn the effect of Roe v Wade without challenging the law.
I’m done here. This poster isn’t even playing devil’s advocate.
Go count up all the qualifiers I have used and how many times I have pointed out a particular lack of knowledge but then said “IF this is the case then…”
Well you finally concede the point that just cause Brownback did something unreasonable once, not all things he does are therefore necessarily bad.
I never offered my opinion on whether this instance is bad. I talked about what a newspaper story on the issue looked like, and commented that without further information I couldn’t decide. I still haven’t decided, but you’re not very persuasive.
From a drug safety standpoint, it’s absolutely relevant–flushing the uterine lining is a process that happens to most women once a month or so, and the fetal death is a side effect that is not related to the pharmaceutical action of the drug.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but RU-486 causes the flushing of the uterine lining. Expulsion of the fetus from the uterus kills the fetus. The difference is between moral cause and pharmacological cause.
Since the discussion at the beginning was about the safety of a drug that kills, pointing out that the drug’s pharmacological effects are not doing any direct killing is (it seems to me) entirely relevant.
When in hell did I ever say that all things done by Brownback are bad? Cite me that cite, you proof-demander.
You were given links to more than one newspaper article. You were given links to the actual regulations. You were given a link to a study regarding Republican use of TRAP laws. You were given a great deal of information, by more people than just me, had you bothered to read it in good faith.
Little scarecrow, I do not need to persuade you. You are not interested in being persuaded. You are interested in appearing to be reasonable while pushing your own agenda.
You said you guessed that they did, I do believe, but wouldn’t admit that perhaps something else is the case. Until now.
Your citations were all news articles, not the regulations. You did not cite this.
My only agenda is for people to properly read and evaluate what is before them.
It has been suggested multiple times that when posting a link, a poster should briefly describe its contents. I must have missed your link. Would you mind posting it again?
Go back to all her previous posts & read all the links.
Come back when you’re done.
I already did. Morgyn, it appears that perhaps you did post the regulations. I missed it because when I click on the link, it says something about Zeon wants to open something and it closes my browser. I ahve tried firefox too and have the same problem.
While I still haven’t seen the link, since I can’t look I will take your word for it that you did indeed post the link. it’s just a link that doesn’t work for my computer here.
Sorry for saying you hadn’t posted that.
I might suggest that everyone reread the thread paying particular attention to the qualifiers and hypotheticals.
If I said you said that, I apologize. I was speaking to the tendency people have to hate a person and hate every blasted thing they do without thinking about it, based on their hate.
I did suggest that maybe you were using that method, and I did so due to a percetion that 1) you think your guesses are facts and 2) you hadn’t looked at the regulations. Sorry about that.
I am neither for nor against abortion on demand, if you would have read my first post. My post was all about a perceived hypocrisy of pro-choice people complaining when all the news story mentioned was wider doors and janitor’s closets. I concede the janitors closets sounded bad, until I thought of the importance of cleanliness in medicine and imagined the possibility of a janitor’s closet that was too small.
I admitted long ago that Morgyn is right if there is something that unfairly is regulated–that has nothing to do with the service performed. At the same time I also said there is nothing wrong with writing a building code specific to what goes on in the building, or in health regulations specific to the type of practice. It happens all the time.
My only issue was with Morgyn guessing that other clinics do not already comply with the same regulations voluntarily or as a matter of law. Morgyn does not get to guess about how many clinics comply with what. Unless pro-abortionists hold she is right because of what side she is on.
The stuff about drugs was a tangent. Its really irrelevant.
Your point? Or are you not aware that this doesn’t appear to address anything I said?