RU486 Approved

[Sonora]

What does this mean for the US?? Would you use it?

 

[Bliss]

In simple terms, it means it will be much less obvious that any abortion procedure is occuring, thus making it more difficult for the militant right-to-lifer's to find a specific locale to protest or fire bomb. Not to mention, making an always unpleasant experience just a little more tolerable to the woman. Swallowing a pill is certainly less physically invasive than traditional methods.

The bigger issues of course, are moral. Swallowing a pill, instead of being assaulted by a scalpel and vaccuum, makes the fact that they are aborting a living fetus more remote and perhaps easier to deal with, or to put off dealing with, in already stressful circumstances.

Roe vs. Wade passed when I was a toddler. I know women who have had the legal, clinical experience and also those that had to endure the back alley. Obviously, neither is a trip to Disney.

Would I use it? I dunno. Ask me in a moment of crisis. I support everyone's right to choose and no one's right to dictate.


Thoughtful topic Sonora!

[Edited by Bliss on 09-28-2000 at 03:49 PM]

 

[Prussian Overlord]

oh, for anyone who pays the slightest attention to the Roman Catholic Church, this is gonna cause hell. I had a priest give *detailed* descriptions of third trimester abortions once. I walked out of church. that was not the time nor the place to give that kinda lecture. I can't imagine what kinda reprecustions this is going to have.

PO

 

[Patryn]

I'm with Bliss on this one. I don't necessarily agree with all abortions or abortion methods, or the reasons for them, but if it seems right to the person who's going through it, then who am I to say?

Would I take it? If I ever needed/wanted to have an abortion, yes. It seems much less invasive, and therefor most likely comes with less physical side effects, than other methods.

 

[Silverlily]

I support everyone's right to choose and no one's right to dictate.

That was beautifully put, Bliss. I completely agree. My viewpoint on abortion can only apply to me. I can't imagine being able to dictate to someone else what to do.

I personally could never use it, but if the day should ever come when one of my daughters choses to, I will be with her every step of the way.

 

[Always]

YES!!!!

that is a very good thing

and yes, i would use it if necessary.

 

[Always]

YES!!!!

that is a very good thing

and yes, i would use it if necessary.

and again, we hear the wise words of Bliss.

 

[Patryn]

Hey I'm Shila...watch me post.

 

[Patryn]

Another nice post by Shila.

 

[TN_Vixen]

Abortion is a dirty subject that no one wants to confront and no woman would wishes upon themself. I've always been an advocate for the choice to exist and always have been just as adamant about the choice not applying to me, however there was one time when a condom broke during sex at the most vulnerable time in my cycle and I stayed up and cried half the night, hysterical that I was pregnant and calling crisis centers all around town to find out what I could do to prevent a pregnancy from taking root. In that instance I learned that whatever I may say about how "I would NEVER take advantage of the choice," I admit that the choice should exist, in pill or in procedure for any woman, period.

 

[Whispersecret]

I support women's right to choose...as long as abortion is not being used as a method of birth control. Repeat offenders, I think, are proving themselves to be heinously irresponsible. (Obviously this doesn't apply to rape cases.)

I also support the right of people to "dictate" to others...as long as they are not bombing or attacking others who disagree with them. They believe that abortion is murder. These, for the most part, are not evil people, but people who are trying to prevent an evil as they see it. I respect that. Too few people these days are willing to actually act when they see a wrong being committed. We are a complacent society.

At one time, I might have used it if I found myself with an unwanted pregancy, unmarried and/or unable to support my child. Now, however, I'm a mother, and my views on abortion and me have radically changed. I wouldn't abort my baby now, because I've seen how much children add to my life.

[Edited by whispersecret on 09-28-2000 at 08:49 PM]

 

[Bliss]

Sorry, I thought I was clear enough.

I support the right to choose. Therefore even though I support and respect free speech, I cannot also support the right of one person or legislative body to dictate that there can be no choice, because I think what happens to a 'body is ought to be up to that 'body and the people in their lives, not strangers with political agendas.

I do not support abortion at all, but I do support the disappearance of the "hack and coat hanger" industry of yesteryear.

I don't think anyone on any side of the issue, left, right, or middle is evil, except to the far, far left and the far, far right, where complete irrationality takes over and they go and do something assinine, such as ruining the spirit of the '96 Olympics by pipebombing to death an innocent member of the public.

I do agree that it's gross to use as a "convenience", but no matter what reason there is for having it done, it is birth control, distasteful as that notion is.

Eons ago, I knew a friend of a friend who had had five of them and still went on her "merry way". Emotional detachment doesn't even begin to describe that scenario. There are always abuses of every freedom, somehow we can't let that mean that we lose all of them.

 

[Cheyenne]

While I firmly believe I could never have an abortion, I've been around long enough to know nothing is an absolute in life. Given the right set of "horrible circumstances" and the easy option of just taking a pill, I don't know that I can insist I wouldn't do it. I don't think any of us actually know what we would do unless we've been in the situation where we've had to make the decision. For that reason alone, I try not to judge others who have been there.

As for the effect of this pill being approved, I'm not sure. If it is really that easy, it may "allow" more women to be even less careful with birth control because they know there is an "easy" fix should they become pregnant.

 

[Whispersecret]

Sorry, I thought I was clear enough.
You were very clear. I very much enjoyed your post.

I didn't mean to suggest that you thought anti-abortion believers were evil. I was just stating my own opinion.

There are always abuses of every freedom, somehow we can't let that mean that we lose all of them.

I agree completely, but I think that we are anyway.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

RU-486 is a good drug. It's been used in Europe for over a decade now. As an unfortunate consequence of incredible political melee over abortion, we've lost out on the other therapeutic benefits of this drug. Although it causes abortions early in pregnancy, late in pregnancy it can be used as an extremely effective delivery inducer and I'm sure all OBGYN's in America welcome its approval for that reason if not the other.

As far as the issue of "dictating to others", the law does this all the time. In fact, it's the very nature of law. Lawmakers make certain acts impermissable for us to do. Of course, it gets much trickier when it comes to laws governing our bodies, over which we demand the most freedom.

This issue pits the two most highly-cherished ideals we hold: individual liberty and life. In fact, these are 2 of the 3 rights spelled out in the Constitution's guarantee to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's no wonder that we have such a divided country.

In light of all this, I don't think it's inappropriate to outlaw abortion if we as a society decide that the right to life of the fetus is worthy of protection and outweighs the liberty rights of the mother to reproductive freedom.

I certainly don't want to go back to the ways of the 1950's in which the hospital I work in had an entire wing devoted to incredibly ill women with acute endometritis from botched do-it-yourself abortions. At the same time, everything I've learned in science that a fetus is incredibly alive and human from very early in gestation and I can't bear the thought of willingly killing them (and I use the word "kill" very consciously here).

Difficult question and it's not going to be solved anytime soon. Enjoying the responses...

[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 09-28-2000 at 09:56 PM]

 

[CreamyLady]

Oliver, in point of fact the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" guarantee is not in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence.

To me, there is no right to life; if there was, there would be no death. Death exists; therefore, the right to live does not.

Life does, but that is something else entirely.

To me, the entire question is between a woman and her conscience; after her decision, it is between a woman and her doctor. I am pleased that a fairly safe and practical method has been found; I, too, would not want to return to the bad old days.

 

[Bliss]

Thank you WS! *Still aspiring to CLness -ohmmmmmmmmmm*

One thing I had forgotten long ago about this drug is that name. It's morbid and I suspect it was done on purpose. If not, incredible coincidence. If so, incredibly crass.
RU486. Are you for '86(ing)? *heebee geebees*

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

CL, oops on the misquotation. Especially embarrassing from someone who actually has a B.A. in history. I couldn't remember and didn't bother to look it up and decided to go for the guess. That should learn me...

However, the point is the same, because the Declaration is an expression of the principles our founding fathers built the nation on.

I don't quite understand how you can say that we don't have a right to life. Murder is prohibited by criminal as well as civil law. A person found guilty of committing it is punished, sometimes by death.

Wrongful death is a clearly-established legal principle backed up by generations of common-law precedent. Firestone will soon be paying out huge sums of money in settlements in an attempt to avoid the damages courts will obviously award to the families of the deceased if they don't settle.

And close to the issue at hand, there is even a law on the books in my state called "feticide" which makes it a crime to commit an act that injures a woman causing her to lose her pregnancy. The government and courts make all these laws for the protection of life.

Of course we don't have a guarantee to life. With whom could we lodge our complaint and how could justice be done? Death is final.

However, human justice does it's best. We punish the murderer. We fine the lawbreaker guilty of wrongful death. We punish the committer of feticide.

It's the best we can do.

 

[BeautyBabe]

I read this thread when it had no replies and wondered what RU486 was. Can you explain the difference between taking an "abortion" pill and taking the morning after pill? I would have thought both worked on similar lines. (I know the mornong after pill affects the lining of the womb to prevent conception)

I believe every woman has the right to choose, but I honestly couldn't say whether or not I'd have an abortion until I was faced with that choice.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

RU-486, or Mifepristone, is what is referred to as a progesterone antagonist, meaning that it blocks the receptors on cells of the uterus that bind the female hormone progesterone.

Ordinarily when a woman gets pregnant her body produces high levels of progesterone, which the bind to uterine cells, telling them to maintain their current thickened state, which allows the newly fertilized zygote to implant and continue developing normally. As long as the progesterone is reaching these cells, the pregnancy will proceed.

However, Mifepristone blocks the progesterone receptors on these cells, essentially tricking them into believing there's no more progesterone and that there is no pregnancy. As a result, the uterine lining sloughs off along with the developing baby.

The catch is that this only works reliably during approx. the first 2 months of pregnancy, and as a result it has to be used early.

Late in pregnancy, however, the body ordinarily experiences a sharp drop in progesterone triggering labor. Mifepristone will mimic this effect by again blocking progesterone receptors and inducing labor.

As far as I know (and I may be incorrect... my OBGYN knowledge could be better) there is no separate entity called the "morning after pill". It's simply taking multiple regular oral birth control pills, increasing estrogen levels, causing the endometrium to slough off and the period to begin. Hence no implantation of the zygote if there is one.

Somebody tell me if I'm wrong...

 

[Cheyenne]

Somebody tell me if I'm wrong...

From what I've read recently when I was researching the different types of bcp's, you are exactly right.

 

[Deborah]

Bet you a buck this becomes a huge issue in the debates and the election. Gore will play it to the hilt. Dontcha know, Al invented RU486?

 

[BeautyBabe]

As far as I know (and I may be incorrect... my OBGYN knowledge could be better) there is no separate entity called the "morning after pill". It's simply taking multiple regular oral birth control pills, increasing estrogen levels, causing the endometrium to slough off and the period to begin. Hence no implantation of the zygote if there is one.

Somebody tell me if I'm wrong...

Yes, the "morning after pill" is regular birth control pills, but in the UK it's prescribed under a particular name (forget it off hand) as four high dose pills to be taken over 24 hours. Although it's refered to as morning after, it can be taken up to 72 hours later.