NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: I'm no fan of abortion, but as I have said many times on here, I see no practical way of dealing with this issue as a society other than placing the decision squarely in the hands of those most affected ... women. Deaths as a result of taking RU-486 are at about the same rate as deaths from complications after surgical abortions. I'm unaware of possible complications arising after men have vasectomies, but it seems somehow unfair that women have to bear the brunt of the problems stemming from the act both men and women engage in.


2 More Women Die After Abortion Pills (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/20abort.html?th&emc=th)

By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: July 20, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 19 - Two more California women have died after taking abortion pills, and federal drug regulators say they suspect bacterial infections as the cause. As a result, the drug's label will be changed to warn women and doctors to watch out for signs of an unusual infection that is not always accompanied by fever, the Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday.

Five women in the United States have now died after taking abortion pills; four of them most likely suffered lethal bacterial infections, said Dr. Steven Galson, director of the agency's center for drugs.

Still, the risks of death from infection for users of the pill is roughly one in 100,000 uses - similar to the risks of death from infection after surgical abortions or childbirth, Dr. Galson said.

"There are no alarm bells going off because of this rate, but we are watching it closely," he said.

Dr. Galson emphasized that the agency did not know whether these infections were caused by the use of Mifeprex, the abortion medicine also known as misoprostol or RU-486.

The latest warnings about Mifeprex will be included in a "black box" warning that is already on the drug's label. Such warnings are the highest level of alert by the drug agency.

Dr. Cynthia Summers, a spokeswoman for Danco Laboratories, Mifeprex's maker, said she did not think the medicine caused bacterial infections. "This same infection has been reported after childbirth and other gynecological situations," Dr. Summers said.

Still, the company thought it was important to warn doctors and patients to watch for the signs of such an infection, she said, "so that this does not happen again."

"If you're feeling lousy more than 24 hours after taking misoprostol, even if you're not in terrible pain and don't have a fever, you should call your doctor," Dr. Summers said.

Wendy Wright, senior policy director for Concerned Women of America, a conservative women's group, said news of the latest death proved that label changes would not make the drug safe.

"Changing the label the last time clearly didn't help the latest woman who died," Ms. Wright said. "Sadly, people who support RU-486 apparently believe the risk of death is preferable to having a child."

Elizabeth Toledo, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, whose clinics provide many of the nation's abortions, said, "Medication abortion is extremely safe and effective."

For two of the women who died, samples have proved that the bacterium involved was Clostridium sordellii, Dr. Galson said. Infection with this bacteria can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and weakness but does not necessarily lead to abdominal pain and infection.

Doctors who suspect an infection in one of their patients should start them on antibiotics immediately, the F.D.A. advised. It also advised against prescribing all medication-abortion patients an antibiotic just to be sure, since the risks of such prescriptions outweigh the rare risk of an infection, Dr. Galson said.

Risk of 1 in 100,000? Seems pretty safe to me. I mean, what are the chances you take when getting in your car? Probably the most dangerous part of the abortion procedure is driving to the clinic.

Other than that, yes, biology dealt women a, perhaps, tougher hand. Apart from making men more responsible about their own choices and use of contraceptives, I don't see much can be done.

Seems to me the point is that women have medical choices and a responsibility to themselves. They don't need to take this drug - proper use of birth control is nearly certain not to get them to the abortion stage.

If for unusual reasons they need an abortion, they also have the choice of having it performed by a doctor - far preferable, in my view. A doctor will watch over the health of the patient, antibiotics will be prescribed, patients will be advised to watch for symptoms of infection, and follow-up visits will be scheduled to keep an eye on the patient.

Seems to me that an abortion at home, at the stage of pregnancy indicated for RU-486, carries more risk than one performed by a physician. I wouldn't want anyone in my family taking this risk for trying to save a little money.

Risk of 1 in 100,000? Seems pretty safe to me. I mean, what are the chances you take when getting in your car? Probably the most dangerous part of the abortion procedure is driving to the clinic.

Other than that, yes, biology dealt women a, perhaps, tougher hand. Apart from making men more responsible about their own choices and use of contraceptives, I don't see much can be done.
Acceptable risk? For a voluntary act? Hmm. It's difficult to live effectively in modern society without an automobile, unless you're one of those fortunate people who have public transportation easily available. But taking an abortificant isn't necessary, especially with a few precautionary measures beforehand.

For an interesting look at relative risks, see: http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2001/unep-duappendix1-12mar.pdf#search='comparisons%20risk%20assessment'

I agree. It's tough, but there's very little society on the whole can do. The only possible way to improve matters slightly is to start sex education as early as possible and to hammer "never without condoms" into everybody's mind.
Suffocate them with information, but that's about it. You can only inform them, the choice, in the end, is their's.

Well, calling a drug RU-486 is interesting. Apart from sound like a chemical weapon ...

RU-486


R U 4 8 6
Are you for great sex


Coincidental?

Well, calling a drug RU-486 is interesting. Apart from sound like a chemical weapon ...

RU-486


R U 4 8 6
Are you for great sex


Coincidental?
ROFLMAO!!! Hmm. Perhaps NOT! :eek:

I agree. It's tough, but there's very little society on the whole can do. The only possible way to improve matters slightly is to start sex education as early as possible and to hammer "never without condoms" into everybody's mind.
Suffocate them with information, but that's about it. You can only inform them, the choice, in the end, is their's.
I agree whole-heartedly! [ applauds ] :)

I agree. It's tough, but there's very little society on the whole can do. The only possible way to improve matters slightly is to start sex education as early as possible and to hammer "never without condoms" into everybody's mind.
Suffocate them with information, but that's about it. You can only inform them, the choice, in the end, is their's.

Ahhh, but if it's a voluntary act, then wouldnt they have accepted the risk associated voluntarily? No one forced them to accept the associated risk - they did so of their own volition. It's the same as accepting the risks associated with drinking alcohol, the difference is that conservatives would love nothing more than an excuse to ban RU-486 and then go get drunk off their keisters that night...



Edit: Whoops, meant to quote Eutrusca's post about risk associated with a voluntary act...and I'm frankly too damn lazy to change the quote...

The article mentioned says that the risk of death from bacterial infection is the same as for a standard abortion or childbirth.

So really, this is on par for the other methods of ending a pregnancy in terms of the risk of death.

Acceptable risk? For a voluntary act? Hmm. It's difficult to live effectively in modern society without an automobile, unless you're one of those fortunate people who have public transportation easily available. But taking an abortificant isn't necessary, especially with a few precautionary measures beforehand.

And yet, people still choose to drive to the drugstore when it's within walking distance, and get on their cellphones, turn to their friends on the back seat, etc. Sure, there are ways to minimize risk, like taking precautions before sex, which would minimize the risk of getting pregnant. But still, those odds of 1 in 100,000 (look at it this way, you have 99,999 chances in 100,000 that everything will be ok) are pretty good if you have to take them.

And this link is better regarding comparative risks: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Taking the story at face value, it does not merit all the hand waving.

The medical advice is worthwhile, the panic button is unhelpful.


2 More Women Die After Abortion Pills (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/20abort.html?th&emc=th)

*snip*
Still, the risks of death from infection for users of the pill is roughly one in 100,000 uses - similar to the risks of death from infection after surgical abortions or childbirth, Dr. Galson said.

"There are no alarm bells going off because of this rate, but we are watching it closely," he said.


RU-486 is as safe as surgical abortion OR CHILDBIRTH!!

I agree. It's tough, but there's very little society on the whole can do. The only possible way to improve matters slightly is to start sex education as early as possible and to hammer "never without condoms" into everybody's mind.
Suffocate them with information, but that's about it. You can only inform them, the choice, in the end, is their's. Agreed, but perhaps it'd be more effective if fear tactics were used. Fear is very effective most of the time, more so than counting on people to be sensible.

Seems to me the point is that women have medical choices and a responsibility to themselves. They don't need to take this drug - proper use of birth control is nearly certain not to get them to the abortion stage.

If for unusual reasons they need an abortion, they also have the choice of having it performed by a doctor - far preferable, in my view. A doctor will watch over the health of the patient, antibiotics will be prescribed, patients will be advised to watch for symptoms of infection, and follow-up visits will be scheduled to keep an eye on the patient.

Seems to me that an abortion at home, at the stage of pregnancy indicated for RU-486, carries more risk than one performed by a physician. I wouldn't want anyone in my family taking this risk for trying to save a little money.

I agree. It's tough, but there's very little society on the whole can do. The only possible way to improve matters slightly is to start sex education as early as possible and to hammer "never without condoms" into everybody's mind.
Suffocate them with information, but that's about it. You can only inform them, the choice, in the end, is their's.

1. Although improved and better access to true sex education and contraception are the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and thereby prevent abortion, do not assume women who have abortions are necessarily irresponsible:

54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

Over 60% of abortions are among women who have had 1 or more children.

Almost 1/2 of all women in the United States will have an abortion by the time they are 35.

The stereotype of the irresponsible teenager is a lie.

2. The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion.

Ahhh, but if it's a voluntary act, then wouldnt they have accepted the risk associated voluntarily? No one forced them to accept the associated risk - they did so of their own volition. It's the same as accepting the risks associated with drinking alcohol, the difference is that conservatives would love nothing more than an excuse to ban RU-486 and then go get drunk off their keisters that night...



Edit: Whoops, meant to quote Eutrusca's post about risk associated with a voluntary act...and I'm frankly too damn lazy to change the quote...
I wondered about that! ;)

Yes, it's entirely voluntary. Yes, religious conservatives would ban both abortion and the "morning after" pill if they could. My point is that I would hate to see more women die from something so easily prevented, especially if they were any of the NS General women ( all of whom I just adore! ) and I could have helped prevent it. To refrain from acting when you know your actions can help others is, IMHO, a cardinal sin.

Agreed, but perhaps it'd be more effective if fear tactics were used. Fear is very effective most of the time, more so than counting on people to be sensible.
Sounds like one of those "reality shows." :headbang:

I wondered about that! ;)

Yes, it's entirely voluntary. Yes, religious conservatives would ban both abortion and the "morning after" pill if they could. My point is that I would hate to see more women die from something so easily prevented, especially if they were any of the NS General women ( all of whom I just adore! ) and I could have helped prevent it. To refrain from acting when you know your actions can help others is, IMHO, a cardinal sin.

Ya know, no one wants to mention it...but there's a way to really decrease the number of women affected by unwanted pregnancy. However, the problem is that it requires quite a bit of self-control and most people (men and women) have trouble with that part and arent willing to accept responsibility for their actions.

True, they might have tried artificial forms of contraception - but the pure fact is that none of those are 100% effective. By using the contraception they are accepting that level of risk. Condoms are only, what, 99% effective? Out of every 100 users, 1 is likely to get pregnant. By using a condom this risk is accepted and I feel no sympathy for those women who get pregnant and the men that impregnate them. I think abortion is used to often as a scapegoat for people not willing to accept responsibility for their actions, so, to be frank: the women that die after using the abortion pill I have no sympathy for.

Course, I'm a pretty unsympathetic guy (just ask Aerou...somethin bout starvin kids in Africa)

Agreed, but perhaps it'd be more effective if fear tactics were used. Fear is very effective most of the time, more so than counting on people to be sensible.

Meh.

Are you a sheep or a human being?

Meh.

Are you a sheep or a human being?

Ahhh, but have you not noticed that human beings all too often act like sheep?

"Changing the label the last time clearly didn't help the latest woman who died," Ms. Wright said. "Sadly, people who support RU-486 apparently believe the risk of death is preferable to having a child."
Like there is no risk on having the baby :rolleyes:

Ahhh, but have you not noticed that human beings all too often act like sheep?
No. That's a specious comparison used by misanthropes to justify being irrational. :p

Agreed, but perhaps it'd be more effective if fear tactics were used. Fear is very effective most of the time, more so than counting on people to be sensible.
So you are of the position that ends justify the means?

Ya know, no one wants to mention it...but there's a way to really decrease the number of women affected by unwanted pregnancy. However, the problem is that it requires quite a bit of self-control and most people (men and women) have trouble with that part and arent willing to accept responsibility for their actions.

True, they might have tried artificial forms of contraception - but the pure fact is that none of those are 100% effective. By using the contraception they are accepting that level of risk. Condoms are only, what, 99% effective? Out of every 100 users, 1 is likely to get pregnant. By using a condom this risk is accepted and I feel no sympathy for those women who get pregnant and the men that impregnate them. I think abortion is used to often as a scapegoat for people not willing to accept responsibility for their actions, so, to be frank: the women that die after using the abortion pill I have no sympathy for.

Course, I'm a pretty unsympathetic guy (just ask Aerou...somethin bout starvin kids in Africa)

Unsympathetic AND uninformed.

First, you appear to imply the only "responsible" thing to do is never have sex unless you are willing to get pregnant. And one should never ride in a car unless one accepts the responsibility of being mangled or killed. In fact, one should never leave the bunker unless one accepts the responsiblity of being raped or murderd. To be honest, one should also never breath without accepting the responsibility one may die. :headbang:

(Look, Wally, he made "responsibility" a meaningless term. ;) )

Second, your stereotypical dismissal of women who have abortions is naseuating. You write off nearly half the female population of the U.S. as irresponsible?

Ahhh, but have you not noticed that human beings all too often act like sheep?

Here's some nice oats, o' woolly one.

The topic of this thread is a purposefully wrong and deceptive. RU-486 is NOT a "morning after" pill, it is an abortion pill, specifically.

Ihatevacations']The topic of this thread is a purposefully wrong and deceptive. RU-486 is NOT a "morning after" pill, it is an abortion pill, specifically.
Was thinking the same thing but at least he was considerate enough to put the actual drug name in the title rather then leaving it strait “morning after” (and to be fair it had the title before the current morning after pill)

While the number of deaths has increased, overall statistics don't show a growing trend that nakes this pill more dangerous that abortion or childbirthing. Almost any medication can cause death if misused or prescribed to the wrong person...

And aren't the death rates for moking and obesity something to be more concerned with rather than whether or not a woman is going to carry out the full pregnancy term?

Was thinking the same thing but at least he was considerate enough to put the actual drug name in the title rather then leaving it strait “morning after” (and to be fair it had the title before the current morning after pill)
I expect nothing less than this kind of deceptive bullshit from Eutrusca, I don't even read his articles, I just go straight to contradicting him because he is being purposefully deceptive somewhere

Ihatevacations']I expect nothing less than this kind of deceptive bullshit from Eutrusca, I don't even read his articles, I just go straight to contradicting him because he is being purposefully deceptive somewhere
As much as I hate it the title is correct … he was using the “name” that existed for Ru-486 before the emergency contraceptive “morning after” pill came about

He could have left out RU-486 from the title if he really wanted to be deceptive

Still, the risks of death from infection for users of the pill is roughly one in 100,000 uses - similar to the risks of death from infection after surgical abortions or childbirth, Dr. Galson said.

5 women total (time period unspecified) have died from RU-486 in the US.

On average, 10 women each year die from induced abortion in the US, compared with about 275 who die from pregnancy and childbirth.

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women. The risk of death associated with abortion is low—approximately 0.7 deaths per 100,000 abortions—and the risk of major complications is less than 1%.

The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 10 to 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion -- approximately 7.1 deaths per 100,000 childbirths. (Note: The calculation of mortality from childbirth omits deaths from miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.)

On average, 10 women each year die from induced abortion, compared with about 275 who die from pregnancy and childbirth.

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women. The risk of death associated with abortion is low—approximately 0.7 deaths per
100,000 abortions—and the risk of major complications is less than 1%.

The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 10 to 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion -- approximately 7.1 deaths per 100,000 childbirths. (Note: The calculation of mortality from childbirth omits deaths from miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.)
Thank you (I was looking for the stats myself after reading that bullshit quote from the article that I commented on earlier)

As much as I hate it the title is correct … he was using the “name” that existed for Ru-486 before the emergency contraceptive “morning after” pill came about

He could have left out RU-486 from the title if he really wanted to be deceptive
Wrong, look at the article he quotes. The headline states, specifically: "2 More Women Die After Abortion Pills." The topic is purposefully wrong and deceptive. He is trying to link "morning after" pills to abortion drugs like RU-486

While the number of deaths has increased, overall statistics don't show a growing trend that nakes this pill more dangerous that abortion or childbirthing. Almost any medication can cause death if misused or prescribed to the wrong person...

And aren't the death rates for smoking and obesity something to be more concerned with rather than whether or not a woman is going to carry out the full pregnancy term?

Exactically!

Ihatevacations']Wrong, look at the article he quotes. The headline states, specifically: "2 More Women Die After Abortion Pills." The topic is purposefully wrong and deceptive. He is trying to link "morning after" pills to abortion drugs like RU-486
No, the topic says: Two more California women die after taking RU-486 "morning after" pill. Total now 5.

Eutrusca didn't write the article title, therefore, he is not deceiving any one. Further, he put the morning-after part in quotations...

Exactically!
The only ones that are generally free of side effects are placebos (provided that the test subject isn't take off their current medication if they are part of a clinical trial - and even then, there is a risk, but most trials are done after extensive testing on animals). That and most herbal solutions, which do nothing, making thm expensive placebos - though omega 3 fish oils are good for the heart and blood even if there are no immediate benefits.

No, the topic says: Two more California women die after taking RU-486 "morning after" pill. Total now 5.

Eutrusca didn't write the article title, therefore, he is not deceiving any one. Further, he put the morning-after part in quotations...
Exactly. The article title says abortion pill, and it is talkig about RU-486, Eurtusca obviously sall the article first. Then when he created this topci he called the RU-486 pill a morning after pill, which it is not. it is specifically an abortion inducing pill

Ihatevacations']Wrong, look at the article he quotes. The headline states, specifically: "2 More Women Die After Abortion Pills." The topic is purposefully wrong and deceptive. He is trying to link "morning after" pills to abortion drugs like RU-486
Just because the article calls them abortion pills which I personally find more descriptive of their function, does not mean that his use of the moniker “morning after” is necessarily wrong

Ihatevacations']Exactly. The article title says abortion pill, and it is talkig about RU-486, Eurtusca obviously sall the article first. Then when he created this topci he called the RU-486 pill a morning after pill, which it is not. it is specifically an abortion inducing pill

I see what you are saying.

The NYT Times did not call RU-486 a "morning after" pill. Eutrusca added that.

Still, I would put that down to ignorance or carelessness. I understand your objection, but I don't think it could be deliberate deception. The error is common and doesn't serve any purpose.

Still, I would put that down to ignorance or carelessness. I understand your objection, but I don't think it could be deliberate deception. The error is common and doesn't serve any purpose.
Normally I would agree, but this is Eutrusca

Unsympathetic AND uninformed.

First, you appear to imply the only "responsible" thing to do is never have sex unless you are willing to get pregnant. And one should never ride in a car unless one accepts the responsibility of being mangled or killed. In fact, one should never leave the bunker unless one accepts the responsiblity of being raped or murderd. To be honest, one should also never breath without accepting the responsibility one may die. :headbang:

(Look, Wally, he made "responsibility" a meaningless term. ;) )

Second, your stereotypical dismissal of women who have abortions is naseuating. You write off nearly half the female population of the U.S. as irresponsible?

I didnt say there wasnt risk in everything we do. I merely stated that people have to take responsibility for their actions. Riding in a vehicle is almost a necessity these days, whereas going out and having sex is not.

By choosing to have sex, people are choosing to run the risk of pregnancy. Plain and simple. If you get in a car wreck, you have to live with the consequences of choosing to drive. If a girl gets pregnant, she shouldn't have to accept any responsibility for that action and that should be O.K.? (not including outstanding circumstances such as rape and so on)

So, when do people become responsible for their actions? Never? Or just when it hurts someone else? When should people be held responsible for a lack of self-control resulting in a pregnancy?

I didnt say there wasnt risk in everything we do. I merely stated that people have to take responsibility for their actions. Riding in a vehicle is almost a necessity these days, whereas going out and having sex is not.

By choosing to have sex, people are choosing to run the risk of pregnancy. Plain and simple. If you get in a car wreck, you have to live with the consequences of choosing to drive. If a girl gets pregnant, she shouldn't have to accept any responsibility for that action and that should be O.K.? (not including outstanding circumstances such as rape and so on)

So, when do people become responsible for their actions? Never? Or just when it hurts someone else? When should people be held responsible for a lack of self-control resulting in a pregnancy?
To carry your analogy farther should someone have medical attention after getting in a car accident in which they were partially at fault? Or should they be responsible for their own actions?

Maybe getting an abortion is acting responsible for their actions depending on their lifestyle or ability to bear children maybe it is responsible for their future and their health

Just because the article calls them abortion pills which I personally find more descriptive of their function, does not mean that his use of the moniker “morning after” is necessarily wrong

Yes, it is wrong. A "morning after" pill prevents pregnancy. An abortion pill such as RU-486 ends it.

To carry your analogy farther should someone have medical attention after getting in a car accident in which they were partially at fault? Or should they be responsible for their own actions?

Maybe getting an abortion is acting responsible for their actions depending on their lifestyle or ability to bear children maybe it is responsible for their future and their health

Chances are, whomever is at fault in the accident will be paying monetarily for their mistake for some time - whether in increased insurance premiums or in medical costs, what have you.

If they can't afford the children or children dont fit their lifestyle, than they should not engage in sexual activity that could result in pregnancy. It's really just that simple.

Meh.

Are you a sheep or a human being? A human being who knows how to drive sheep.

Chances are, whomever is at fault in the accident will be paying monetarily for their mistake for some time - whether in increased insurance premiums or in medical costs, what have you.

If they can't afford the children or children dont fit their lifestyle, than they should not engage in sexual activity that could result in pregnancy. It's really just that simple.

So, so long as someone is willing to pay the money, they can avoid the health-related consequences of their actions? If we can pay to avoid responsibility, why can't women pay to get abortions or abortion pills?

Yes, it is wrong. A "morning after" pill prevents pregnancy. An abortion pill such as RU-486 ends it.
Not originally … the name “morning after” pill was first applied to RU-486 … only relatively recently was it applied to emergency contraception

This is the risk we take when people decide to give the same unofficial name to first one then a second pill that have different effects

(That and the “morning after” nickname from what I can find was applied to the Contraceptive first in the us and to RU-486 Mostly in Europe)

But in the end “morning after” is an un-official name applied to BOTH

It sucks but that’s the way it is with un-official names sometimes

Chances are, whomever is at fault in the accident will be paying monetarily for their mistake for some time - whether in increased insurance premiums or in medical costs, what have you.

If they can't afford the children or children dont fit their lifestyle, than they should not engage in sexual activity that could result in pregnancy. It's really just that simple.
And people should not engage in driving a car that could result in injury ... its really that simple :p

Chances are, whomever is at fault in the accident will be paying monetarily for their mistake for some time - whether in increased insurance premiums or in medical costs, what have you.

If they can't afford the children or children dont fit their lifestyle, than they should not engage in sexual activity that could result in pregnancy. It's really just that simple.
its never been just that simple. people have had unintended pregnancies since the beginning of humanity. we have all always known how to prevent it, that we DONT indicates that its not a simple solution at all

abortion IS taking responsibilty for your actions, so is adopting out the baby after it is born, so is having the baby and raising it on your own. the only people who DONT take responsibility are those who deny they are pregnant, tell no one, then leave the baby in a dumpster somewhere.

that a woman doesnt make the choice YOU think is best is not an indication of irresponsibility.

And people should not engage in driving a car that could result in injury ... its really that simple :p And people should not take the blame for actions not committed by them… *watches fire*

A human being who knows how to drive sheep.

I see.

So you are just intellectually superior to the rest of the population. How special. :rolleyes: :headbang:

And people should not take the blame for actions not committed by them… *watches fire*

Care to put that statement in a context where it makes some sense?

I see.

So you are just intellectually superior to the rest of the population. How special. :rolleyes: :headbang: No, I'm intellectually superior to sheep. :rolleyes: My point was that fear might well work… I mean, it's legitamate, given that the consequences are pretty damn fearful.

Yeah but more people have died from eating peanuts.

Yeah I see how it is unfair for women to bear the brunt of the medical problems with pregnancies but whatcha gunna do? The women already know this fact (or they should anyway) and MUST bear the responsibility if they decide to go forward with teh sex0rz.

Myself, as soon as I can afford it I am getting snipped because I don't like the fact that my fiancee has to take birth control and neither of us ever want kids anyhoo.

Ihatevacations']Exactly. The article title says abortion pill, and it is talkig about RU-486, Eurtusca obviously sall the article first. Then when he created this topci he called the RU-486 pill a morning after pill, which it is not. it is specifically an abortion inducing pill
Ru-486, more properly known as Mifepristone, was called the "morning after" pill before the advent of the current "morning after" pill . the current MA or EC(emergency contraceptive) pill has essentially the same effect as taking multiple birth control pills at once. Also, it is still quite undetermined whether Plan B(called Levonelle in the UK and NorLevo in France) acts as an abortificant or not.




...This is the first time I've actually used knowledge gained from that stupid high school health class I had to take.

Ru-486, more properly known as Mifepristone, was called the "morning after" pill before the advent of the current "morning after" pill . the current MA or EC(emergency contraceptive) pill has essentially the same effect as taking multiple birth control pills at once. Also, it is still quite undetermined whether Plan B(called Levonelle in the UK and NorLevo in France) acts as an abortificant or not.




...This is the first time I've actually used knowledge gained from that stupid high school health class I had to take.
Thank you … I have been trying to argue that the same “nickname” was given to each pill … while their effect is completely different at this stage in the game it is really not “wrong” to call either it … though to not be deceptive you should specify which one you were talking about (which the thread creator did in the title itself)

Ru-486, more properly known as Mifepristone, was called the "morning after" pill before the advent of the current "morning after" pill . the current MA or EC(emergency contraceptive) pill has essentially the same effect as taking multiple birth control pills at once. Also, it is still quite undetermined whether Plan B(called Levonelle in the UK and NorLevo in France) acts as an abortificant or not.




...This is the first time I've actually used knowledge gained from that stupid high school health class I had to take.
Yep. You can take large doses of birth control pills (forget the number, planned parenthood has a page on this) to act the same as an emergency contraceptive.

However, if we posulate that life beings at conception, then all morning after pills are abortificants.

Yep. You can take large doses of birth control pills (forget the number, planned parenthood has a page on this) to act the same as an emergency contraceptive.

However, if we posulate that life beings at conception, then all morning after pills are abortificants.
Not really “conception” is at the point of VIABLE creation of a zygote formation … a zygote is not viable if it is not implanted

Not originally … the name “morning after” pill was first applied to RU-486 … only relatively recently was it applied to emergency contraception

While this may be true, I find it a bit odd. To my knowledge, RU-486 wouldn't really be useful on the morning after - as the embryo wouldn't even have implanted yet (morning after pills block implantation). On top of that, I don't think it has ever been approved for use in "in case" situations, but only for confirmed pregnancies - which, again, would be later than the morning after.

*Shrug*

As for the rest of the thread, the article clearly states that women are at risk for these same infections regardless of the course of action they choose. Seems to me like we just need to make sure women know of this risk and watch for it (Education is key!).

And as for Eutrusca purposely decieving anyone - I doubt it. Eutrusca and I disagree on some matters, but I would hardly accuse him of intentionally misleading anyone. My guess is that he got the terms mixed up - as many people do.

While this may be true, I find it a bit odd. To my knowledge, RU-486 wouldn't really be useful on the morning after - as the embryo wouldn't even have implanted yet (morning after pills block implantation). On top of that, I don't think it has ever been approved for use in "in case" situations, but only for confirmed pregnancies - which, again, would be later than the morning after.

*Shrug*

As for the rest of the thread, the article clearly states that women are at risk for these same infections regardless of the course of action they choose. Seems to me like we just need to make sure women know of this risk and watch for it (Education is key!).

And as for Eutrusca purposely decieving anyone - I doubt it. Eutrusca and I disagree on some matters, but I would hardly accuse him of intentionally misleading anyone. My guess is that he got the terms mixed up - as many people do.


Agreed … and he spent the time and space to put the actual drug in the title instead of just leaving the “nickname” up there if he really wanted to rile people up

Agreed … and he spent the time and space to put the actual drug in the title instead of just leaving the “nickname” up there if he really wanted to rile people up

Again, I don't think there was anything deceptive.

(Although Eutrusca has been deceptive in such posts before.)

But he added both the nickname and the drug name. The nickname wasn't in the article. The drug name was.

Not originally … the name “morning after” pill was first applied to RU-486 … only relatively recently was it applied to emergency contraception

This is the risk we take when people decide to give the same unofficial name to first one then a second pill that have different effects

(That and the “morning after” nickname from what I can find was applied to the Contraceptive first in the us and to RU-486 Mostly in Europe)

But in the end “morning after” is an un-official name applied to BOTH

It sucks but that’s the way it is with un-official names sometimes

That's funny, 'cause the public health centres have been dispensing 'morning-after' pills since at least 1983 in my hometown. RU-486 didn't show up until some time in the 90s.

That's funny, 'cause the public health centres have been dispensing 'morning-after' pills since at least 1983 in my hometown. RU-486 didn't show up until some time in the 90s.
Though we would have to argue not nessisarlily which was CREATED first but which had the “nickname” first

That's funny, 'cause the public health centres have been dispensing 'morning-after' pills since at least 1983 in my hometown. RU-486 didn't show up until some time in the 90s.

I don't know the full history of when things were actually first around.

However, one thing to point out might be that, if you live in the US, RU-486 has only been available in some places for a very short time. It has been available in Europe for much longer.

I don't know the full history of when things were actually first around.

However, one thing to point out might be that, if you live in the US, RU-486 has only been available in some places for a very short time. It has been available in Europe for much longer.
Yeah I believe it was not till 2000 that the FDA finally approved it

And people should not engage in driving a car that could result in injury ... its really that simple :p
...unless they're willing to accept the risk associated...

Amazing how that little bit is left out. See...in every action, there is a risk. By choosing a certain action, you are accepting that risk and the consequences thereof. Get in a car to go to work, you accept the risk of accident. Engage in sexual intercourse, you accept the risk of pregnancy.

By reducing the risk involved, because there's always the ability to get an abortion, there develops a lack or responsibility. It'd be like getting in a wreck and having a big red button that makes it as though the wreck never happened. If that were available, would not everyone drive however they wanted because, lets face it, if something were to happen, the button could be pushed and everyone involved would just go on about their lives...

I suppose I merely fail to see how having an abortion is taking responsibility for their lack of self control resulting in their being knocked up...(once again, there are always extenuating circumstances and believe it or not, I do believe there is a gray area to this argument. However, engaging in permiscuous sexual activity should not be allowed to result in abortion unless the mother's life is in danger)

...unless they're willing to accept the risk associated...

Amazing how that little bit is left out. See...in every action, there is a risk. By choosing a certain action, you are accepting that risk and the consequences thereof. Get in a car to go to work, you accept the risk of accident. Engage in sexual intercourse, you accept the risk of pregnancy.


And like A car accident there is medical treatments to mitigate the damages ...

So how is geting health care after a car accident any more or less taking responsibility then geting medical care to mitigate the damages of a pregnancy?

And like A car accident there is medical treatments to mitigate the damages ...

So how is geting health care after a car accident any more or less taking responsibility then geting medical care to mitigate the damages of a pregnancy?

If you cant tell the difference, then perhaps you shouldnt be posting here. An abortion is more like making it never have happened whereas medical attention after a wreck doesnt make everything like it never happened....

But, then again, I'm not quite as liberal as the rest of the posters here, so I must be wrong...

If you cant tell the difference, then perhaps you shouldnt be posting here. An abortion is more like making it never have happened whereas medical attention after a wreck doesnt make everything like it never happened....

But, then again, I'm not quite as liberal as the rest of the posters here, so I must be wrong...
So there is a difference in effectiveness

How does that change responsibility ?

Or would if we get to the point where we can erase all damage and make it so the accident never happened be removing responsibility?

So there is a difference in effectiveness

How does that change responsibility ?

Or would if we get to the point where we can erase all damage and make it so the accident never happened be removing responsibility?

Getting to that point would not in and of itself remove responsibility. But, if there is no consequence for poor decision making, we would live in pure anarchy - after all, who cares what you do when all the bad can be made to go away...

That's how laws work. It's not so much that something's not supposed to happen - it's that there are consequences for taking that action. Remove the consequences and you result in a lack of responsibility....

Getting to that point would not in and of itself remove responsibility. But, if there is no consequence for poor decision making, we would live in pure anarchy - after all, who cares what you do when all the bad can be made to go away...

That's how laws work. It's not so much that something's not supposed to happen - it's that there are consequences for taking that action. Remove the consequences and you result in a lack of responsibility....
So you essentially want to treat pregnancy and child rearing as a punishment or consequence

Why ?

Do you only ever do the “right” thing because of fear of punishment ?

So you essentially want to treat pregnancy and child rearing as a punishment or consequence

Why ?

Because people should take responsibility for their mistakes in life. Having an abortion hardly seems like taking responsibility...

Because people should take responsibility for their mistakes in life. Having an abortion hardly seems like taking responsibility...
How is it not responsible to recognize your condition … weigh the consequences and then make a decision based on your needs

If you cant tell the difference, then perhaps you shouldnt be posting here. An abortion is more like making it never have happened whereas medical attention after a wreck doesnt make everything like it never happened....

If you honestly believe that an abortion is "like making it never have happened," perhaps you shouldn't be posting here.

A woman who chooses to have an abortion takes on significant physical and mental health risks. That woman will forever wonder if she made the right choice - will think about how old her possible child might have been. Women who have abortions often suffer from depression - even if they do think that they made the right choice.

An abortion is not a walk in the park my dear. If someone gets in an accident - they may heal fully, get their injuries and car paid for completely by insurance, and never have a single emotional problem. If someone chooses to have an abortion, they will deal with the effects of that for the rest of their lives.

Because people should take responsibility for their mistakes in life. Having an abortion hardly seems like taking responsibility...

Then we're taken back to the car accident analogy. If someone is at fault in a car accident, then why should they recieve medical assistance? They accepted the risk when they got behind the wheel, so they should take responsibility for getting into that accident.

How is it not responsible to recognize your condition … weigh the consequences and then make a decision based on your needs

Because you should not have gotten yourself knocked up if you couldnt handle the responsibilities of raising a child. I thought I'd already stated that? Guess I wasnt clear enough.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, then keep your damn legs closed...

Because you should not have gotten yourself knocked up if you couldnt handle the responsibilities of raising a child. I thought I'd already stated that? Guess I wasnt clear enough.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, then keep your damn legs closed...
…Or get an abortion or use birth control

All ways of making sure you do the responsible thing and nothave a kid when you are not ready to be a parent

Because people should take responsibility for their mistakes in life. Having an abortion hardly seems like taking responsibility...

Forcing 'irresponsible' people into parenting roles sounds like a recipe for one mother of a messed-up society.

…Or get an abortion or use birth control

All ways of making sure you do the responsible thing and nothave a kid when you are not ready to be a parent

There is a risk associated with birth control, wheras keeping your legs closed means no risk of pregnancy...

You open your legs, you take the risk - whether you use birth control or not. Therefore you should take responsibility for your actions.

There is a risk associated with birth control, wheras keeping your legs closed means no risk of pregnancy...

You open your legs, you take the risk - whether you use birth control or not. Therefore you should take responsibility for your actions.
And taking responsibility means letting things happen to you that you don’t want or agree with?
When you have an option not too … that does not seem very responsible to me

Seems freighting close to blaming a rape victim for taking the wrong way home

Forcing 'irresponsible' people into parenting roles sounds like a recipe for one mother of a messed-up society.
Agreed … punishing people by baby seems like a horrible thing for society

Because you should not have gotten yourself knocked up if you couldnt handle the responsibilities of raising a child. I thought I'd already stated that? Guess I wasnt clear enough.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, then keep your damn legs closed...
when you insist on a "solution" that doesnt reflect common human behavior then your solution will not work.

i think we understand that you feel that a baby is the punishment for having sex. you dont really need to say it again. we heard it, we just dont agree with you

are you as angry at MEN who have irresponsible sex?

There is a risk associated with birth control, wheras keeping your legs closed means no risk of pregnancy...

You open your legs, you take the risk - whether you use birth control or not. Therefore you should take responsibility for your actions.

Right, and having an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions.

Right, and having an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions.
Not for the man it isn't.

Not for the man it isn't.

True enough. Free vasectomies, all 'round. Add in a tax incentive. That's the sort of thing that plays well with Americans, after all... not any talk of reproductive freedom.

Cold, hard cash.

True enough. Free vasectomies, all 'round. Add in a tax incentive. That's the sort of thing that plays well with Americans, after all... not any talk of reproductive freedom.

Cold, hard cash.
I plan on getting one :D and not for the money

Not for the man it isn't.

Well, the man can't have an abortion, now can he? He can't get pregnant.

Well, the man can't have an abortion, now can he? He can't get pregnant.Kinda wrong to have men decide for women how it's going to be handled then, isn't it?

ROFL @ everyone taking my comments to the extreme...

Lets be realistic here. If there were no lasting consequence to your actions, what kind of responsibility would you assume? Not a damn bit.

Abortions being as freely available as they are allows women and men (I dont mean to single out the women here, I think men are just as responsible for raising the child etc.) to have sex whenever, with whomever, and if the condom breaks, so what? We'll just have an abortion. Where's the responsibility there? There's a responsibility that has to come BEFORE the action. We dont let murderers walk free because they changed their mind AFTER committing the crime...

There is a risk associated with birth control, wheras keeping your legs closed means no risk of pregnancy...

You open your legs, you take the risk - whether you use birth control or not. Therefore you should take responsibility for your actions.

So almost all human beings are irresponsible for having sex.

The vast majority of the population is irresponsible for having sex without wanting to get pregnant.

And one-third to one-half of all women in the US are irresponsible for having an abortion.

Are you not getting laid or are you just smugly superior?

ROFL @ everyone taking my comments to the extreme...

Lets be realistic here. If there were no lasting consequence to your actions, what kind of responsibility would you assume? Not a damn bit.

Abortions being as freely available as they are allows women and men (I dont mean to single out the women here, I think men are just as responsible for raising the child etc.) to have sex whenever, with whomever, and if the condom breaks, so what? We'll just have an abortion. Where's the responsibility there? There's a responsibility that has to come BEFORE the action. We dont let murderers walk free because they changed their mind AFTER committing the crime...
So you only ever do the right thing because of fear of consequences if you don’t?

Kinda wrong to have men decide for women how it's going to be handled then, isn't it?

Yeah - which is why men can't decide it.

Abortions being as freely available as they are allows women and men (I dont mean to single out the women here, I think men are just as responsible for raising the child etc.) to have sex whenever, with whomever, and if the condom breaks, so what? We'll just have an abortion.

You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Having an abortion is not a trip to the park. It isn't a decision made on a whim. And those who have had them rarely, if ever, see it as something easy to do.

Meanwhile, there are lasting effects to having an abortion, so you can't claim that there are not.

Where's the responsibility there? There's a responsibility that has to come BEFORE the action. We dont let murderers walk free because they changed their mind AFTER committing the crime...

Sex is a crime now?

ROFL @ everyone taking my comments to the extreme...

Lets be realistic here. If there were no lasting consequence to your actions, what kind of responsibility would you assume? Not a damn bit.

Abortions being as freely available as they are allows women and men (I dont mean to single out the women here, I think men are just as responsible for raising the child etc.) to have sex whenever, with whomever, and if the condom breaks, so what? We'll just have an abortion. Where's the responsibility there? There's a responsibility that has to come BEFORE the action. We dont let murderers walk free because they changed their mind AFTER committing the crime...

Pregnancy, whether ended by childbirth or abortion, is a consequence. With additional potentially lasting consequences.

Abortions are not as "freely available" as you tend to think. Nor is there evidence to support your thesis that they are routinely used for birth control. The evidence is to the contrary.

Moreoever, your view borders on a misogynist dismissal of women as feckless sex machines that must be controlled by punishment.

Kinda wrong to have men decide for women how it's going to be handled then, isn't it?
Absolutely hence my wishes to leave the choice up to them … they are the ones that have to deal with the consequences they are the ones that have the responsibility of choosing what is best for their future

Absolutely hence my wishes to leave the choice up to them … they are the ones that have to deal with the consequences they are the ones that have the responsibility of choosing what is best for their future*Applause* :)

Pregnancy, whether ended by childbirth or abortion, is a consequence. With additional potentially lasting consequences.

Abortions are not as "freely available" as you tend to think. Nor is there evidence to support your thesis that they are routinely used for birth control. The evidence is to the contrary.

Moreoever, your view borders on a misogynist dismissal of women as feckless sex machines that must be controlled by punishment.

Ok, ya know what. STOP putting words in my mouth. What I said is what I intended to say. If you wish to further discuss this, then we can do so, but only if you refuse to exaggerate what I'm stating.

That goes for everyone.

Moreoever, your view borders on a misogynist dismissal of women as feckless sex machines that must be controlled by punishment.

Hear, hear.

Let's have more people choosing to raise children, and fewer working off some twisted form of penance for the supposed sin of pleasure.

Ok, ya know what. STOP putting words in my mouth. What I said is what I intended to say. If you wish to further discuss this, then we can do so, but only if you refuse to exaggerate what I'm stating.

That goes for everyone.

I (and I think others) have merely taken your words at face value. I have applied the meaning I think they have.

If you do not mean what we think, feel free to clarify.

You've taken a provocative position and, at times, used extreme language you knew would cause controversy. Don't be suprised that it did.

If you have been misconstrued, I am sorry. But I haven't seen where that is the case -- at least not in my posts. I would be glad to be corrected.

Ok, ya know what. STOP putting words in my mouth. What I said is what I intended to say. If you wish to further discuss this, then we can do so, but only if you refuse to exaggerate what I'm stating.

That goes for everyone.

Who benefits from your notions of sex and punishment?

Ok, ya know what. STOP putting words in my mouth. What I said is what I intended to say. If you wish to further discuss this, then we can do so, but only if you refuse to exaggerate what I'm stating.

That goes for everyone.

No one has put words in your mouth. They have interpreted how they view your words based on several posts. If you cannot take people viewing you in a negative light, feel free to leave this discussion.

No one has put words in your mouth. They have interpreted how they view your words based on several posts. If you cannot take people viewing you in a negative light, feel free to leave this discussion.

That's not entirely true. I feel that my words have been taken somewhat to an extreme to which they were not intended, at which time others joined in against my viewpoint basing their arguments on the statements that had been taken to an extreme.

However, I feel no need to any longer bother arguing here as I find that I will simply be taken out of context, to an extreme.

Oh my, boys and girls.

That's not entirely true. I feel that my words have been taken somewhat to an extreme to which they were not intended, at which time others joined in against my viewpoint basing their arguments on the statements that had been taken to an extreme.

However, I feel no need to any longer bother arguing here as I find that I will simply be taken out of context, to an extreme.

I've had my words taken out of context and been accuse of things I did not say, so I understand the frustration.

Again, I am sorry if I have misconstrued your words. I have tried to argue in good faith, but I may have either made mistakes or been over zealous.

I've had my words taken out of context and been accuse of things I did not say, so I understand the frustration.

Again, I am sorry if I have misconstrued your words. I have tried to argue in good faith, but I may have either made mistakes or been over zealous.


I understand that this is a very...emotional...subject.

My frustration comes in being taken to an extreme that I did not want to be taken to, and even after I made a post or two that I thought clarified that I was not trying to take an extreme view on this, such comments were ignored and only the ones that fit the extreme were discussed...

I understand that this is a very...emotional...subject.

My frustration comes in being taken to an extreme that I did not want to be taken to, and even after I made a post or two that I thought clarified that I was not trying to take an extreme view on this, such comments were ignored and only the ones that fit the extreme were discussed...
perhaps you would like to restate your position using less inflamatory language.

...........................................................................Chance of death per year:
Risk from terminating pregnancy:
Before 9 weeks ......................................................1 in 1,000,000
Between 9 and 10 weeks .........................................1 in 500,000
Between 13 and 15 weeks .......................................1 in 60,000
After 20 weeks ......................................................1 in 11,000

Risk to persons who participate in:
Motorcycling .........................................................1 in 1,000
Automobile driving ..................................................1 in 5,900
Power-boating .......................................................1 in 5,900
Playing football ......................................................1 in 25,000

Risk to women aged 15–44 from:
Having sexual intercourse (PID) ................................1 in 50,000
Using tampons .......................................................1 in 350,000

Sex is a crime now?
Didn't you get the memo?

Because you should not have gotten yourself knocked up if you couldnt handle the responsibilities of raising a child. I thought I'd already stated that? Guess I wasnt clear enough.

If you cannot handle the responsibility, then keep your damn legs closed...

Grandpa!!?!?!?!??! is that you?

They have computers with Net access in the after life? :eek:

Wow. May I ask how old you are?

Didn't you get the memo?

Damn you!

You beat me too it! :D

Moreoever, your view borders on a misogynist dismissal of women as feckless sex machines that must be controlled by punishment.
Now, now, now! Tsk!

Actually, most of the ones I've known were "sex machines," but then again, I do tend to be a bit selective. :D

Damn you!

You beat me too it! :D
*Performs victory dance*

Now, now, now! Tsk!

Actually, most of the ones I've known were "sex machines," but then again, I do tend to be a bit selective. :D

Was that back in the 1920's or the 30's? :p

Was that back in the 1920's or the 30's? :p
Back in the darker times when women popped out babies at a time a dozen and stood shoeless in the kitchen like the ignorant wench she was. :p

Risk of 1 in 100,000? Seems pretty safe to me. I mean, what are the chances you take when getting in your car? Probably the most dangerous part of the abortion procedure is driving to the clinic.

Other than that, yes, biology dealt women a, perhaps, tougher hand. Apart from making men more responsible about their own choices and use of contraceptives, I don't see much can be done.

i'll be booted for this no doubt.
why cant women keep there legs closed or make the man were a condom,i would never take a pill that would potentialy kill me...just curious,why would a women do that?to please there man?...i dont know nothing i guess,but i sure wouldnt take a pill that would kill me when the guy could wear a rubber or...better yet...trust the guy you are having sex with to not give you aids or or make you pregnant...i think i heard that having unprotected sex can do either to you?
if i was a girl,i would be monag. or i would insist on a condom.
i certainly would not take a pill that could kill me.

i'll be booted for this no doubt.
why cant women keep there legs closed or make the man were a condom,i would never take a pill that would potentialy kill me...just curious,why would a women do that?to please there man?...i dont know nothing i guess,but i sure wouldnt take a pill that would kill me when the guy could wear a rubber or...better yet...trust the guy you are having sex with to not give you aids or or make you pregnant...i think i heard that having unprotected sex can do either to you?
if i was a girl,i would be monag. or i would insist on a condom.
i certainly would not take a pill that could kill me.

Why is it only the woman's fault? Keep your damn dick in your pants if you don't want kids. It's even easier to do that than to demand the woman make you wear a condom.

i'll be booted for this no doubt.
why cant women keep there legs closed or make the man were a condom,i would never take a pill that would potentialy kill me...just curious,why would a women do that?to please there man?...i dont know nothing i guess,but i sure wouldnt take a pill that would kill me when the guy could wear a rubber or...better yet...trust the guy you are having sex with to not give you aids or or make you pregnant...i think i heard that having unprotected sex can do either to you?
if i was a girl,i would be monag. or i would insist on a condom.
i certainly would not take a pill that could kill me.
And what about the women who are monogamous and get the man to wear a condom?

Are you trying to appear totally ignorant or does it come naturally?

i'll be booted for this no doubt.
why cant women keep there legs closed or make the man were a condom,i would never take a pill that would potentialy kill me...just curious,why would a women do that?to please there man?...i dont know nothing i guess,but i sure wouldnt take a pill that would kill me when the guy could wear a rubber or...better yet...trust the guy you are having sex with to not give you aids or or make you pregnant...i think i heard that having unprotected sex can do either to you?
if i was a girl,i would be monag. or i would insist on a condom.
i certainly would not take a pill that could kill me.
And what about the women who are monogamous and get the man to wear a condom?

Are you trying to appear totally ignorant or does it come naturally?

i'll be booted for this no doubt.
why cant women keep there legs closed or make the man were a condom,i would never take a pill that would potentialy kill me...just curious,why would a women do that?to please there man?...i dont know nothing i guess,but i sure wouldnt take a pill that would kill me when the guy could wear a rubber or...better yet...trust the guy you are having sex with to not give you aids or or make you pregnant...i think i heard that having unprotected sex can do either to you?
if i was a girl,i would be monag. or i would insist on a condom.
i certainly would not take a pill that could kill me.

1. What Sdaeriji said. It is worth your reading again:

Why is it only the woman's fault? Keep your damn dick in your pants if you don't want kids. It's even easier to do that than to demand the woman make you wear a condom.

2. Get your facts straight: over one-half of women who have abortions were using contraceptives when the got pregnant.

3. I hope you don't take aspirin or cold medicine or any prescription drugs. They can all kill you.

(And be sure not to get in a car. Or leave the bunker.)

1. What Sdaeriji said. It is worth your reading again:


I'm liking all this praise. :D

I'm liking all this praise. :D

I believe in positive reinforcement. Continue into the light, my child.

Other than that, yes, biology dealt women a, perhaps, tougher hand. Apart from making men more responsible about their own choices and use of contraceptives, I don't see much can be done.
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

SOMEONE THOUGHT WITH THEIR BRAIN!!

If men were more responsible with their choice of contraceptives and frequency of sex, there would be little concern over abortion. Ladies and gentlemen, if you don't want a kid, USE A CONTRACEPTIVE. Double them up or something. Let her take the pill, he should use a condom, and there should be a diaphragm or spermicide involved. Better safe than sorry.

...........................................................................Chance of death per year:
Risk from terminating pregnancy:
Before 9 weeks ......................................................1 in 1,000,000
Between 9 and 10 weeks .........................................1 in 500,000
Between 13 and 15 weeks .......................................1 in 60,000
After 20 weeks ......................................................1 in 11,000

Risk to persons who participate in:
Motorcycling .........................................................1 in 1,000
Automobile driving ..................................................1 in 5,900
Power-boating .......................................................1 in 5,900
Playing football ......................................................1 in 25,000

Risk to women aged 15–44 from:
Having sexual intercourse (PID) ................................1 in 50,000
Using tampons .......................................................1 in 350,000


So there is more risk in using tampons then terminating before the 10 week mark lol

If men were more responsible with their choice of contraceptives and frequency of sex, there would be little concern over abortion. Ladies and gentlemen, if you don't want a kid, USE A CONTRACEPTIVE. Double them up or something. Let her take the pill, he should use a condom, and there should be a diaphragm or spermicide involved. Better safe than sorry.

Of course, even with all of that, you aren't looking at 100%. I had a friend who was with her first partner, on the pill, used a condom, a sponge, and a diaphragm - and still ended up pregnant. Would that be a common occurence? of course not, but it can happen.

The chances of dying in child birth are greater than 1 in 100,000 in fact in the developed word 28 times greater (http://www.who.int/docstore/world-health-day/en/pages1998/whd98_01.html). I think I'd take the chance with RU486.