RU486 - so called "abortion pill"

[son of baglimit]

bullmarket - 1 question - HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO RAISE A DISABLED CHILD.

while my situation isnt severe and we coped pretty well, i truly hate to think of the lives some people are forced to cope with, either because they couldnt get the pregnancy terminated for medical reasons, or the zealots out there got in their ear and gave them a false sense of life once the child was born.

as i said, my situation isnt too bad, we have coped, but the disability is mild - those with severely disabled children i cannot envy one bit - yes some cope, but some are close to doing themselves in every day because it is just too hard - no friends, no support, (the stories the govt say - all levels - of lots of help out there are just rubbish) divorce, financial hardship etc etc etc.

keep your religious ideals to yourselves - stop assuming your way is the right way. if its the right way for you - fine - but do not assume its right for all.

 

[dutchie]

Hear! Hear!

 

[bullmarket]

Hi son of baglimit

bullmarket - 1 question - HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO RAISE A DISABLED CHILD.

while my situation isnt severe and we coped pretty well, i truly hate to think of the lives some people are forced to cope with, either because they couldnt get the pregnancy terminated for medical reasons, or the zealots out there got in their ear and gave them a false sense of life once the child was born.

as i said, my situation isnt too bad, we have coped, but the disability is mild - those with severely disabled children i cannot envy one bit - yes some cope, but some are close to doing themselves in every day because it is just too hard - no friends, no support, (the stories the govt say - all levels - of lots of help out there are just rubbish) divorce, financial hardship etc etc etc.

keep your religious ideals to yourselves - stop assuming your way is the right way. if its the right way for you - fine - but do not assume its right for all.

Firstly, no I have never raised a disabled child but I am aware of the severe hardships that parents and child have to live through each day depending on the circumstances.

Secondly, I am not making any assumptions or trying to impose my views. Obviously this is a very emotive subject and some will agree with my views and some will not. I am just expressing my views, as we are all entitled to do, with supporting reasons and asking questions like the underlined question in post 19 of this thread to which no-one has been able to come up with answer yet.

Instead of asking me to keep my views to myself, why not try to answer the question I asked in my earlier post or post some verifiable information that shows anything I said is wrong.

I respect other peoples' views - though I don't agree with views supporting abortion - and so am just expressing my views supporting everyone's right to life and supporting arguments

If the views and reasoning I posted earlier encourages some to at least reconsider their views then all well and good, but if not then so be it. We are all entitled to our opnions....I'll just continue to call things as I see them with supporting reasons..

cheers

bullmarket

 

[Prospector]

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.

I guess I would like to know where you have the information that finds that abortion is used as a contraceptive technique?

I would like to think that if a woman had to go thru the trauma of having an abortion then she would not want to subject herself that experience again.

However, even so would it be in anyone's best interests to refuse a woman an abortion simply because she was not careful enough (or the male too for that matter?) or because her contraception had failed her? Because if it was refused in those circumstance then that is where women will once again have to revert to backyard abortions. And that is the last thing we need!

 

[visual]

Prospector,
just look at the numbers ,do you honestly believe that these people would all be at risk of death if they went ahead with the pregnancy,or would suffer psychological problems ,or financial hardship ect.. if the answer is yes,then we have a very sick society i mean medically not methaphorically.

Please be aware that the thing that i find unacceptable is the logic used to justify abortion,that theres a difference between embryos and fetus or indeed a live baby.If people want to have an abortion because of the reason that you mentioned in your post ,than thats fine.But dont use arguments about it not being taking a life.Each to their own but at the very least be honest.

I know of people who have had several abortions,because they could,it happens, recently i find out a student at our school had an abortion ,why because she was just having sex ,the father certainly wasnt going to marry her or take responsability for the baby so she got rid of it.
Unfortunately this subject like religion,is full of frailties .

 

[bullmarket]

Well..... I've had my worth in this thread.

I just call things as I see them and I hope the reasons/logic I gave to support my views provide at least food for thought to some..........if not then so be it.

I hope my posts are seen in that light. To those that disagree with my views, then let's just simply agree to disagree and move on...

I'll leave you guys to it and hope to see you in the soup in other threads..

cheers

bullmarket

 

[Julia]

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.

Hello Prospector,

You've summed it up really well. I cannot see how Abbott can possibly expect anyone to accept his assertion that his rigidly anti-abortion views would have nothing to do with his decisions.

Julia

 

[Julia]

Regarding the safety or otherwise of RU486, my original post was made on the assumption that the drug will only be released for general use following the TGA having carried out the necessary investigations to determine its safety.

When discussing side effects etc., we need to remember that drug manufacturers are required to list a symptom as a side effect even if it occurred transiently in one person in several thousand.

Julia

 

[Julia]

Hi Bullmarket,

I respect your right to hold the views you have expressed so clearly.

However, I'd like to ask you to consider a scenario along the following lines:

A 15 year old girl has been raped by her father (this is not as uncommon as you may like to believe) and she is pregnant. This girl is physically and intellectually handicapped. She would be incapable of caring for a child.
Tests have indicated the baby will probably inherit at least some of the disability. The father has been charged and will go to jail. The girl's mother is devastated by the whole situation.

Do you think this girl should continue with the pregnancy?

If so, what do you think should happen to the baby?

Now, the above hypothetical situation may sound like something from a bad movie, but unfortunately it is something that occurs remarkably frequently.

Another situation which is even more common is two adults, not in a committed relationship, both drug addicts and alcoholics, chronically unemployed who have simply had sex a few times when stoned/drunk, and a pregnancy has resulted. They have both been in and out of jail most of their adult lives and have no intention of trying to quit their addictions. They both use crime as a means of funding their addictions. Neither of them have any supportive family who could care for a child. Because of the prospective mother's drug addiction, the baby would be born drug-dependent?

Again, do you think this baby should be brought into the world, and if so, what would you do about it.

Both of the above scenarios, if the pregnancy was completed, would be eligible for the government's baby bonus, now $ 3000 soon to be $7000.
How do you think that would be spent?

And then there's the whole huge question of which people are having the most babies, and the resulting effect on society's gene pool.

The above questions are asked in the spirit of furthering the discussion and hopefully increasing empathy for differing points of view, and in no way represent a personal attack on you, bullmarket, or anyone else.

Julia

 

[Prospector]

Regarding the safety or otherwise of RU486, my original post was made on the assumption that the drug will only be released for general use following the TGA having carried out the necessary investigations to determine its safety.

When discussing side effects etc., we need to remember that drug manufacturers are required to list a symptom as a side effect even if it occurred transiently in one person in several thousand.

Julia

Hi Julia
There is an irony in all this. Mr Abbott has been stockpiling Tamiflu for the possibility of Pandemic Flu (I am a fan of its competitor, Relenza = Biota). Yet Tamiflu has been linked with the deaths (psychotic) of several teenagers in Japan who had taken Tamiful for normal influenza treatment. While the US equivalent of TGA has cleared Tamiflu at the moment, it will reassess in 12 months time. I dont see Tony Abbott saying we shouldnt stockpile Tamiflu because of potential side effects, yet he wants to restrict RU486 because of similar concerns??? Tell me its not about religion then?

 

[Knobby22]

The question being asked is if the minister should decide or some medical independant authority.

I can see both sides,
(a)the minister is elected so he should get a say on controversial issues and if we don't like it we can vote him out.
(b) the minister is a politician and likly to make decisions for short term gain.

More of the Liberal women (even more than the Labor women) including Sen Vandstone are voting that it should be taken out of politicians hands.
On that basis, I probably think they must be more likely to be right than the male pollies and so are inclined to agree with them.

I greatly dislike abortion, especially late term but that is not the argument, we are looking at another form only.

Last year a doctor im Melbourne performed a late term abortion but neglected to kill the baby before removing it. The baby lay crying on a steel tray for two hours before it died. As usual there is a balance and no black and white view that is correct.

 

[Happy]

Dole + soon 7 grand a year very enticing and with free Medicare sponsored IVF females can get pregnant up to early 70-s or at least late 60-s.

So some will never use RU486, unless forced to.

 

[happytrader]

Hi Julia

In your scenario of the handicapped girl it would seem amazing that the father being the perpetrator would have come to light or that the family would have risked the ensuing humiliation and sought RU486 within the appropriate time frame.

As for the drug addicted couple it would also be amazing that they would even bother to obtain RU486.

Secrecy and denial are a big part of these scenarios. Time and acceptance would be of the essence in adminstration of RU486

However, your points are well taken.

Cheers
Happytrader

 

[wayneL]

.....but neglected to kill the baby before removing it. The baby lay crying on a steel tray for two hours before it died. As usual there is a balance and no black and white view that is correct.

That is truly horrific! I hope there was some profound justification for it Knobby!

 

[happytrader]

Thats truly awful Knobby

However, did you hear about that? I'm truly shocked no one was moved to wrap, comfort and hold that crying little human. I know I would have.

Cheers
Happytrader

 

[bullmarket]

Hi Julia

Hi Bullmarket,

I respect your right to hold the views you have expressed so clearly.

However, I'd like to ask you to consider a scenario along the following lines:

A 15 year old girl has been raped by her father (this is not as uncommon as you may like to believe) and she is pregnant. This girl is physically and intellectually handicapped. She would be incapable of caring for a child.
Tests have indicated the baby will probably inherit at least some of the disability. The father has been charged and will go to jail. The girl's mother is devastated by the whole situation.

Do you think this girl should continue with the pregnancy?

If so, what do you think should happen to the baby?

Now, the above hypothetical situation may sound like something from a bad movie, but unfortunately it is something that occurs remarkably frequently.

Another situation which is even more common is two adults, not in a committed relationship, both drug addicts and alcoholics, chronically unemployed who have simply had sex a few times when stoned/drunk, and a pregnancy has resulted. They have both been in and out of jail most of their adult lives and have no intention of trying to quit their addictions. They both use crime as a means of funding their addictions. Neither of them have any supportive family who could care for a child. Because of the prospective mother's drug addiction, the baby would be born drug-dependent?

Again, do you think this baby should be brought into the world, and if so, what would you do about it.

Both of the above scenarios, if the pregnancy was completed, would be eligible for the government's baby bonus, now $ 3000 soon to be $7000.
How do you think that would be spent?

And then there's the whole huge question of which people are having the most babies, and the resulting effect on society's gene pool.

The above questions are asked in the spirit of furthering the discussion and hopefully increasing empathy for differing points of view, and in no way represent a personal attack on you, bullmarket, or anyone else.

Julia

Both of your scenarios are extreme but valid questions as I agree they unfortunately happen on far too many occasions in our society

I feel my answer to your two scenarios is summarised by the 2nd paragraph of an extract from one of my earlier posts (post 19 in this thread).

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.

So my anwer to both scenarios is that the pregnancies should be allowed to run to full term, unless as I said even earlier it can be shown that allowing the pregnancy to continue would be life threatening to the mother.

The other part of your question was what would I do about the handicapped or drug addicted child after it was born if the parents were unable or unwilling to look after it. To be honest I don't have a definite answer apart from the obvious putting them up for adoption, foster parents etc. I don't know atm what other options of support would be available from the gov't, medical, welfare support authorities. Maybe someone else can provide more info on what options are available.

But at the end of the day, to me terminating a life during pregnancy because of some disability, addiction or whatever would be no different to a mother (or anyone for that matter) terminating the life of say a 5 year old who became severely handicapped for life after a car accident for example, using the excuse that either they couldn't look after the handicapped child or that the child would no longer have a meaningful life.

I just can't see how someone can support killing an unborn child because of some disability and then be shocked and horrified if another mother killed her 5 year old child because the child suddenly became drug addicted, disabled, handicapped or whatever. I would imagine that the available gov't and community support available to that 5 year old would also be available to the disabled, handicapped or addicted baby the moment it was born.

This is obviously an emotive subject and I don't have exact answers for extreme cases, but I refer you back to my original argument, which is the crux behind my views and that is that imo an embryo/unborn child is just as alive as you and I and everyone else and has the same right to life as everyone else whether it is handicapped, disabled, drug addicted or whatever. The only difference between an embryo and us is that an embryo is in a very early stage of physical development. There is no other difference imo.

I hope this clears up, at least a little bit, where I am coming from. I could go into the religious aspects but I won't do that here as I'm sure all hell would then break loose in here .

Anyway, to finish off, I hope everyone looks at my earlier posts in the light that although I have strong views on the topic, my posts with their reasoning/logic are aimed at providing food for thought, hopefully for at least those who might be wavering between pro/anti abortion. I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone - I'm just stating what my views are.....and to those that disagree with me...that's fine...lets agree to disagree and move on.

Phewwwww......my 2 typing fingers are battered and bruised after all this typing today might have to give them a well earned rest...

cheers

bullmarket

 

[Prospector]

Knobby, that story must relate to an illegal abortion if it did occur. The upper limit for a legal abortion is around 22 weeks at the most, and fetus's are unable to breathe until at least 24 weeks, and generally 28 weeks. In order to cry, you must be able to breathe so I cant see how this was possible.

 

[Knobby22]

The nurse did end up wrapping it and the Doctor got in trouble for not following correct procedure, the baby was a late term abortion (from memory 26 to 30 weeks). It was done because the women had psychiatric problems.

I will see if I can dig the report up but its old news now.

I am just saying that there are horror stories on both sides.
There are awful stories where you cannot expect the girl to go through with the birth also.

 

[Knobby22]

Maybe it was Darwin, not Melbourne. Found this from Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun so not a real reporting situation. The real report has long gone.


For too long, our doctors have avoided even recording the births -- and then deaths -- of babies who survive abortions. Greg Cavanagh found this out when he was tipped off by a horrified midwife about the abortion at 22 weeks of Jessica Jane, born alive in a Darwin hospital in 1998.

Cavanagh, the Northern Territory coroner, was told how Jessica, tiny but perfect, was slipped into a stainless steel dish and left alone in a room where she cried until she died, 80 minutes later.

At the inquest he called, he was also told that other late-term babies had been born alive after abortions in the NT, only to die. And none of those deaths had been reported to him or publicised in any way.

It has been the same story in NSW. A coroner investigated the death of a baby found alive in a bin after an abortion in Sydney's Westmead Hospital and also learned there had been more such cases, none of which had been reported.

I haven't heard of similar tragedies in Victoria, but who would tell? Or perhaps our doctors more routinely do what a doctor at Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital did to a healthy girl called Jessica, already 32 weeks in the womb, and first kill the fetus with an injection to the heart.

In this Jessica's case, the doctor, who can't be named, thought she was a dwarf, which allegedly made her superstitious mother threaten to kill herself if she didn't get an abortion. It now turns out the doctor may have been wrong, though the hospital denies it. But I can't tell you much more, thanks to legal restrictions and the say-nothing culture of the abortion industry.

But perhaps that say-nothingness may yet end, even here, now that Sydney abortionist Suman Sood was last month ordered to stand trial on charges of manslaughter following an alleged late-term abortion she performed.

It is alleged that she handed an abortion drug to a woman who went home and gave birth to her son in her toilet. The boy was fished out and rushed to hospital, but died five hours later -- which, I guess, was the desired result anyway. Sood is fighting the charges.

 

[wayneL]

I am struggling to comprehend that this happens in OZ. I'm stunned!