RU486 - so called "abortion pill"

[Julia]

The Senate today decided in favour of the Private Members Bill advocating RU486 distribution decisions be removed from the Minister of Health to the TGA. I hope a similar decision is made when the Bill goes to the House of Representatives.

The 7,.30 Report this evening showed grabs of various politicians in the Senate giving their reasons why they were voting for and against. Essentially, most of the women voted for and some obvious men (e.g. Tony Abbott whose views are well known) voted against.

This forum consists of, if I've perceived it correctly, a majority of blokes.

I'd be really interested to know from everyone who takes an interest in this subject how you would have voted if you'd been a Senator today.

I find it incredible that so many men who obviously don't have any understanding of what it can be like to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, can be so bloody patronising in stating blandly that they just don't believe in abortion. It would be a different story if they actually had to go through the pregnancy and take responsibility for caring for the child afterwards. Tony Abbott even had the effrontery to suggest that the change of approvals from himself to the TGA for RU486 would probably result in a huge increase in backyard abortions! The medication has to be prescribed by a doctor, for heavens' sake. As Amanda Vanstone pointed out, no one is suggesting women will be able to rock up on into their local supermarket, buy a couple of packets and rock on out to the desert and take the pills miles away from any medical assistance should that become necessary.
Surely this drug would be a preferable means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy to having to undergo a surgical abortion.

I'd be really interested to hear the views of members, male and female on this apparently controversial subject, and also the question to the blokes:

:"Do you think it should be a woman's right to choose what she does when faced with an unexpected pregnancy?"

Julia

 

[wayneL]

Oh Julia! Another hot potatoe! I'm out here!!!

<========= exit, stage left <=====================

 

[Bobby]

The Senate today decided in favour of the Private Members Bill advocating RU486 distribution decisions be removed from the Minister of Health to the TGA. I hope a similar decision is made when the Bill goes to the House of Representatives.

The 7,.30 Report this evening showed grabs of various politicians in the Senate giving their reasons why they were voting for and against. Essentially, most of the women voted for and some obvious men (e.g. Tony Abbott whose views are well known) voted against.

This forum consists of, if I've perceived it correctly, a majority of blokes.

I'd be really interested to know from everyone who takes an interest in this subject how you would have voted if you'd been a Senator today.

I find it incredible that so many men who obviously don't have any understanding of what it can be like to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, can be so bloody patronising in stating blandly that they just don't believe in abortion. It would be a different story if they actually had to go through the pregnancy and take responsibility for caring for the child afterwards. Tony Abbott even had the effrontery to suggest that the change of approvals from himself to the TGA for RU486 would probably result in a huge increase in backyard abortions! The medication has to be prescribed by a doctor, for heavens' sake. As Amanda Vanstone pointed out, no one is suggesting women will be able to rock up on into their local supermarket, buy a couple of packets and rock on out to the desert and take the pills miles away from any medical assistance should that become necessary.
Surely this drug would be a preferable means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy to having to undergo a surgical abortion.

I'd be really interested to hear the views of members, male and female on this apparently controversial subject, and also the question to the blokes:

:"Do you think it should be a woman's right to choose what she does when faced with an unexpected pregnancy?"

Julia

Hullo Julia,
Yes it is a womans right to terminate.

Don't you wish all those richard Cranums had been !

Bob.

 

[clowboy]

First up....


If you think it is a "womans" problem and blokes should but out etc then not to sure why you are asking all us blokes, but.....

While I am firmly against abortion.....


It is a womans god given RIGHT to make the decsion (this can become a problem in the fact that it takes two to tango - and the mans rights can be taken away from him by the woman.

The question to me is really about making it easier for people to do something that I consider morally wrong.

That said....where there is a will there is a way and taking away someone's right only helps to aggrivate all those involved.

At the end of the day I am thankful that I do not have to make such a tough decision and I cannot say how I would vote without serious thought.

 

[Smurf1976]

It's a complex issue IMO and not one which should be decided by party politics. A conscience vote is definately appropriate on this one.

I am not opposed to abortion as such. There is certainly a valid argument about human life being valuable, but then how far does one take this? Is a woman who is not constantly pregnant (whether married or not) guilty of denying some unborn child the right to exist? Is a man who refuses to enable such things to occur also guilty, even if he has never met the woman before? It's causing the loss of a potential human life after all. What about those who argue for no sex before marriage? Are they not directly arguing for losing the opportunity to create a human life? Lots of issues here and I could argue that the conservative moral view is taking both sides at once.

In that context I don't see that terminating a pregnancy is overly different to not causing one in the first place provided that it is done in a medically / scientifically appropriate manner. It's one less person alive either way.

On the other hand there is the moral argument about saving existing human life and that the unborn child is already an existing life. We go to extraordinarly lengths to save the life of adults far beyond the level which could be justified on pure medical, scientific or economic grounds. Why not treat unborn children the same way? But then why not treat an unfertilised egg the same way...

Overall there is no shortage of people on this planet. Indeed the population continues to rapidly increase at a time when the negative effects of this on resource use, environment etc. are becomming increasingly obvious. It is a fact that the level of food production required to feed the current population has NEVER been achieved without heavy reliance on petrochemicals and other mineral inputs including aquifer (ground water) drawdown and consumption of natural gas and phospate rock (as fertilizers). With present technology the world's population is literally eating non-renewable resouces. The question is when, not if, this must end since no serious scientist or geologist doubts that such mineral resouces are ultimately limited. The debate is about how much we have, not that it is limited.

So I can't see any case, apart from the operation of the banking system which is a human construct which could be changed, which argues that the world actually needs a higher population. Indeed there is evidence that either we need radical technology improvement or a lower world population. This situation of resource limits is no different to that applying to any other species and indeed humans go as far as to actively kill adult members of other species to limit their population in recognition of this reality. Either limit numbers or the whole lot faces a lack of food once the stocks are eaten.

And so I take the scientific view. I am not opposed to abortion provided it is done in a manner which does not cause suffering to the unborn child. I acknowledge that there is debate about this point. That said, I certainly don't propose that abortion be used as a population control method despite mention of the issues there. That is simply a reason to not oppose it IMO rather than a reason to encourage it.

I certainly do believe in many Christian principles although I am not an active church goer. I do not believe that the Bible proscribes specific inflexible actions but rather general principles. Different people have different interpretations there. One of those responsibilties IMO is to future generations and hence the population issue. There is also a responsibility to prevent suffering. Under present attitudes in society an unwanted pregnancy does induce suffering on the part of the mother and in many cases father. Of course it could be argued that both had an opportunity to avoid it in the first place, but then that also represents a loss of a potential human life. If we have every woman constantly pumping out children then we're going to end up in serious trouble with population numbers...

Complex issues. Wilst I am not opposed to abortion I do have some concerns that this drug may not be the best means of doing it. Various reports I have heard (though I haven't seriously studied the subject) indicate that medical outcomes are somewhat worse than a surgical abortion in terms of risk.

To my understanding the drug also has other non-abortion uses under some circumstances.

How would I have voted? Personally I would want to know more about the issues of this drug versus surgical abortion as I don't think that has been properly considered in a debate which has focused heavily on moral issues. To me they are separate. The moral issue is whether or not to allow abortion in the first place and that has already been decided. The medical issue, the proper subject of this debate IMO, is how to perform abortions given that they are already legal. Completely different issues. If on medical grounds the drug is an appropriate means of performing an abortion then I am in favour of it, I not then I oppose it. I don't have sufficient information there but certainly think that science is the proper basis for a decision. I am, however, certainly in favour of it's use for other purposes to the extent that they exist provided that normal drug assessment proceedures determines safety etc.

With regard to this being a woman's issue, I would argue that there are two parents of any child. In a majority of cases that I have become aware of where there is dispute between parents about having children, it is the woman who wants the child and in general this is for purely economic reasons. Very sad but true and I suspect that most would know of at least one case of a woman using pregnancy as a means of gaining financial advantage. Very sad and totally immoral in my opinon but there is too much evidence to deny that it happens. Indeed I see that as a more serious moral issue worthy of debate than whether or not to introduce this drug (since abortion is already a legal proceedure and this is simply about the means). Suffice to say that I have serious concerns about the raising of children in single parent families where their reason for being is economic. .

Does a woman have a right to terminate? IMO yes. But where there is clear evidence that the woman has intentionally fallen pregnant for economic reasons I believe that the father also ought to have the right to request that the pregnancy be terminated. The law views that the child has two parents and if one parent has already acted in a manner not conducive to the long term wellbeing of the child then I believe that the other parent, either the father in this case or the mother in other cases, ought to have the right to make such decisions. On the other hand, if it is accepted that it is the woman's decision to make then I contend that the law ought to state that the mothher, not the father, is responsible for the child in all respects. It seems incredibly unjust to have responsibility shared but only one parent having authority on the matter. That is morally wrong in terms of the effects on adults IMO. For the record, my own mother was never married and I have no ongoing contact with my father. Importantly however, there was no money involved since my mother shares the view that whoever has authority also has absolute responsibility.

As a closing comment, I am very aware that this is a highly controversial topic. I have stated my views and am willing to debate them in a sensible manner but no hatred on the forum please. You have a right to your views and I have a right to mine. As adults we should be able to agree to disagree but still have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

 

[Bobby]

Well Smurf,
That was deep well done, I did'nt like all of it but good for you to have the guts to say it !.

I used to send $$ to the impoerished once, but stuff all $bucks ever get through to them , corruption is excepted as a normal thing ?.
As soon as they get a feed the bonking starts again ( no thought of contraception ) .

Bob.

 

[Duckman#72]

Hi All

The primary question that needs to be answered is - "Is it safe?" All the moral and religious aspects are IMO secondary.

I believe a woman has the absolute right to make the decision.

I agree with Smurfs conclusion but not all of his arguments. He has raised some interesting (some might say bizarre) concepts. I have never heard of the argument that a couple who believe in abstaining in sex before marriage are denying the life of a child. LOL's!!

Duckman

 

[wayneL]

Hi All

The primary question that needs to be answered is - "Is it safe?"

Well it seems to be a pretty nasty drug

http://www.ru486facts.org/index.cfm?page=sideeffects

Adverse Events and Side Effects

* An Overview of Adverse Events and Side Effects
* Pelvic Infections
* Excessive Bleeding
* Allergic Reactions
* Cardiopulmonary Problems
* Emotional and Psychological Reactions

1. An Overview of Adverse Events and Side Effects [top]

Eight deaths have occurred in recent years related to RU-486 abortions: 4 in California, 1 in Canada, 2 in the United Kingdom and 1 in Sweden. In addition...

 

[Smurf1976]

I have never heard of the argument that a couple who believe in abstaining in sex before marriage are denying the life of a child. LOL's!!

Duckman

Agreed that it's an unusual argument. But at the end of the day the effect of abstaining from sex is ultimately the same as abortion - fewer people on the planet. If nobody has sex, the species eventually dies out completely. If every woman has 10 children, how can we possibly feed them all? Just contemplate what a 50 or so fold increase in all resource use over 2 generations would involve. They are the extremes of course.

I just find it interesting that the decision to reproduce (or not) tends to be viewed very differently by the same people depending on how it is achieved. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with those views though I find them somewhat contradictory since the general argument against abortion is along the lines of the potential that is lost. The old "What if some famous person had been aborted? We wouldn't have discovered this or done that if they had been aborted.". But it's the exact same result if they hadn't been conceived in the first place and yet that is viewed very differently, even positively, by the same people.

As I said, not agreeing or disagreeing with it, just observing. Very complex subject which will probably never go away.

 

[macca]

Hi all,

If they are going to make it "only available with a prescription", then it really is only a less invasive way of doing what they already do isn't it ?

If so, might as well make it available, same result, less cost to us, less trauma for the woman, a big drama over something that doesn't really change anything.

Passionate people wanting to impose their beliefs on others, seems to me that is how most of the worlds problems start

 

[bullmarket]

Morning everyone

Julia - regardless of whether this controversial abortion drug is safe to use or not the bigger issue is whether or not it should be used at all.

My view is that unless a pregnancy can be shown to be a direct threat to the life of the mother, which is the only situation under which terminating the pregnancy could be considered, then terminating a pregnancy is nothing short of cold blooded murder.

I get the impression that those supporting abortion hide behind the misconception that an embryo is somehow less of a human being than you or I or anyone else. An embryo is just as alive as you and I and has a soul just like you and I and everyone else. The only difference is that an embryo is at a very much earlier stage of physical development. Apart from that there is no difference.

Maybe try thinking of it this way - an indisputable fact is that you and I and everyone else were all embryos at one stage of our lives and if your mother or the mother of anyone else reading this post had decided to have an abortion for whatever reason while pregnant with you then none of you would be here today reading this post.

bullmarket..

 

[visual]

abstaining from sex is ultimately the same as abortion - fewer people on the planet.

Smurf,imo what horrifys people about abortion is the taking of a human life,so not creating one is hardly like destroying one

 

[bullmarket]

Hi Julia

...........I'd be really interested to hear the views of members, male and female on this apparently controversial subject, and also the question to the blokes:

:"Do you think it should be a woman's right to choose what she does when faced with an unexpected pregnancy?"

Julia

I forgot to answer your question before.

Personally, I think you are asking the wrong question because of course a woman, hopefully in consultation with the baby's father, can choose what to do if faced with an unexpected pregnancy for whatever reason.

But imo, for the reasons I expressed in my earlier post, the choices available do not include aborting the pregnancy, again except for the very exceptional circumstances in my earlier post.

I guess the real intent of your question is do us 'blokes' support a woman having the choice of abortion.

Put me down as a NO for the reasons in my earlier post.

Well, that's my worth...

cheers.

bullmarket

 

[Happy]

Let’s not forget that population explosion is likely to be a global problem at some stage, so voluntary control is logical opposed to controlled control like in China for example.

Of course natural check as pandemic or artificial check as conflict can do the same trick.

 

[Prospector]

Hi Julia
As a female I can only assert that it is the woman's choice to determine the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy. While some posters assert that abortion should only be performed if there is a physical risk to the mother's life, this totally ignores any other impact an unwanted pregancy has on her life - such as her mental health. Not to mention changing the course of her life for the next 18 years.

As abortion is legal in Australia, then RU486 offers an alternative method of achieving this, and is less invasive than surgical intervention. The risks of surgical intervention including the use of anaesthetics is much higher than the use of this drug.

Why Mr Abbott is bringing himself personally into this debate is beyond me. As I have just heard Julia Guillard state, this debate is not about him, it is a medical choice. Why it was ever effectively 'banned' is beyond me, actually I do know, it was a deal done with Harradine in order to gain his vote on something else. Nothing like women's health becoming a commodity in politics.

 

[aobed]

Wow, hot potato Julia. The last thing I expected when joining a sharemarket forum was such an open discussion about this topic . However, I think it's great to be able to voice an opinion and discuss such a complex issue. Thank you for raising the question.

As stated by some other people who have posted before me, I believe that it is the woman's right whether she chooses to take a course of action that aborts a child. That clearly is a very difficult position for a female to find herself in and she should be supported by the provision of all possible options available.

As we live in a society that supports the rights for the individual, the moral questions surrounding this pill should be left to the individual. After all, it will be her (and possibly her partner, etc) that will have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives.

The morals by which we choose to live our lives are choices made by us. Whether this is learnt by our parents, social environment, religion or faith. Ultimately this is a choice and that choice should be governed by the individual and not dictated by the ideology of politicans.

Personally, I do not believe I could encourage my partner or a family member to undertake taking this pill. I does not sit well with me. But it is easy for me to say that from an idealistic point of view. There are circumstances (such as rape) in which this course of action may be warranted. However, I do respect the right of the individual in making the decision for themselves.

 

[visual]

Prospector,
you say as abortion is legal in Australia...............

as far as I`m aware abortion is legal under certain circumstances,not as a birth control method.

unfortunately too often thats exactly what its used for.

 

[son of baglimit]

julia - you stole my thunder - i was gonna start a thread on this topic, but got lost in my eddie mcguire thing - oh well.

MY POINT OF VIEW

RELIGION HAS "NO" PLACE IN MAKING DECISIONS FOR "ALL" AUSTRALIANS - ABBOTT HAS HIS VIEW - GOOD LUCK TO HIM - BUT HE CANNOT USE THAT VIEW TO FORCE A POLICY DECISION ON ANY OF US - AS FOR THE OTHERS DONT BE SURPRISED THAT THEY ARE ONLY PREACHING THE LINE OF THEIR LOUDEST CONSTITUENTS.

IF ANYONE DIDNT SEE THE 7.30 REPORT LAST NIGHT, YOU'D SWEAR ABBOTT WAS READING STRAIGHT FROM AN AUTOCUE - HIS WORDS WERE VERY STRUCTURED, HE WAS CLEARLY UPSET WITH THE LINE OF QUESTIONS PUT TO HIM, MAINLY BECAUSE HE HAD NO ANSWER - THEY STUCK IT RIGHT UP HIM. I LOVED HIS ANSWERS TO THE 'BACKYARD MISCARRIAGE' COMMENTS - HE HAD NONE.

GOODBYE ABBOTT - TAKE YOUR OPINIONS AND SHOVE EM.

 

[bullmarket]

hi Prospector

Hi Julia
As a female I can only assert that it is the woman's choice to determine the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy. While some posters assert that abortion should only be performed if there is a physical risk to the mother's life, this totally ignores any other impact an unwanted pregancy has on her life - such as her mental health. Not to mention changing the course of her life for the next 18 years.

As abortion is legal in Australia, then RU486 offers an alternative method of achieving this, and is less invasive than surgical intervention. The risks of surgical intervention including the use of anaesthetics is much higher than the use of this drug.

Why Mr Abbott is bringing himself personally into this debate is beyond me. As I have just heard Julia Guillard state, this debate is not about him, it is a medical choice. Why it was ever effectively 'banned' is beyond me, actually I do know, it was a deal done with Harradine in order to gain his vote on something else. Nothing like women's health becoming a commodity in politics.

You are obviously including my and other peoples' responses to Julia's original post, so please let me ask you this question (and please don't take it as a personal attack as I respect other peoples' views but I also have strong views of my own) as I am interested in how people view this scenario:

Given my view as expressed earlier that the human life of an embryo/unborn child call him/her what you will, is just as important, valid and relevant as your life and my and everyone else's life, then how is aborting a pregnancy any less cold blooded murder than if someone in the street walked up to you, me or anyone else out of the blue and shot us dead?

Sure, some pro-abortionists can try to argue that for some reason an unborn child/embryo is somehow less of a human being (for medical, physical or whatever reasons suit their arguments) but that is simply not true imo. Using an unborn child's physical or mental disability to justify aborting the pregnancy is just as ludicrous and unjustifiable as terminating the life of say a 5 year old that becomes severely mentally or physically handicapped for whatever reason.

Obviously, some pregnancies will have occured as a result of severely traumatic physical and emotional events, but even those circumstances do not justify anyone (male or femal) taking it upon themselves to play "God" and decide for themselves who lives and dies.

Imo at the end of the day the unborn child has just as much right to life as you and I and everyone else regardless of how traumatic the events leading to conception may have been or the physical/mental state of the unborn child.

As I said in my original post, if the mother of anybody reading this post had decided to have an abortion for whatever reason when she was pregnant with you, then you would not be here today reading this post....it's as simple as that...

cheers...

bullmarket

btw.....I am against capital punishment as well, but that's another whole new ball game and please don't get me started

 

[dutchie]

Passionate people wanting to impose their beliefs on others, seems to me that is how most of the worlds problems start

Unfortunately Macca this is the crux of all the worlds problems.

Catholics (Abbott in this topic), Christians, Muslims, communists, socialists, Maoists, Japanese whalers etc etc