The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The semantics of abortion > Comments

The semantics of abortion : Comments

By Helen Ransom, published 9/2/2006

When does human life begin? A discussion on RU486, abortion and choice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 80
  9. 81
  10. 82
  11. All
Maracas, the debate is about whatever people want to make the debate about not what you decide it's about. There are people with vastly different points of view to you - get used to it. If people want to question the morality of abortion they are entirely within their rights to. Because a side-effect of making RU-486 more easily available is that the natural barrier to having an abortion comes down. One can only hope that those who avail themselves of the drug are the ones that would have had a surgical abortion anyway. But there's no guarantee that will be the case.

As to Donnie's point about where does the pro-life argument take us, what about the plain ol' idea that a person gets a chance to live his/her life. Just ask yourself how you'd have liked it if it was you who'd been the aborted foetus?
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:08:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can understand why an abortion pill would be considered as a different class of drugs to most pharmaceuticals, in that it is designed to do other than extend and facilitate life. That is the argument for or against approval by the TGA versus the politicians and it is one which I can understand and concur with, providing it is not used as an excuse for politicians to do nothing.

I found anomies argument compelling and pertinent.

Having no appropriate medical credentials, I would not argue the technical merits and risks of RU486 and would rely on the services of say the TGA to perform due-diligence on this drugs technical performance, risks and consequences. That is a mechanical matter and not pertinent to the ethical / social / moral issues inspired by this drug.

However, provided the side effects, long as well as short term and inherent risks of using this drug are “acceptable” I would say it is a slam-dunk certainty that its use is preferable to and certainly less intrusive than a surgical procedure.

Regarding Helen Ransom herself. Studying something, especially in the cloistered environs of a Catholic Theological College, does not impart any particular skill in objective or ethical analysis, quite the opposite when anyone can deduce the "political slant" applied in such an institution.

The Church of Rome is not known for encouraging debate in the matter of the values it holds. The faithful are expected to follow like sheep or face being barred for taking mass (for lesser dissent) all the way up to excommunication (which at one time had far more serious implications than today).

Oh and the matter of choice
“a seriously “pro-choice” society would advocate for a mother to have the baby,”

WRONG!

A “seriously pro-choice society” would support the mother in whatever “choice” she decides for herself and the embryo / foetus which is sharing her bodily resources. The mother being the only one with cognitive skills.

A “seriously pro-choice society” would respect the sovereignty of the individual and recognise that society is there to support individuals, not to subordinate them.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:13:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with you Helen. It is far too simplistic to treat this drug RU 486 like any other drug, this is a unique genre of drug which is NOT therapeutic, because it kills developing human beings at the embryonic stage of development and it poses serious and fatal risks to women's health (the exact opposite of therapeutic!).

Many pro-choicers are operating on the assumption that abortion be it surgical or pharmaceutical is the answer to unwanted pregnancies, this is far too simplistic and is a cop out for all involved in including the government. Women deserve better than abortion.

Donnie makes a good point, the first step to finding a solution is to acknowledge the truth, if we can at least acknowledge that life begins at conception than we as a nation/society can start brainstorming solutions which are a win-win solutions for mother, child, nation especially in a nation with a negative population growth.

The real issue as Helen has pointed out then is when does life begin?
When do you other people who have commented say that life begins then? At what point should we respect a human beings basic human right to life?

We need to look at ways to give women faced with an unwanted pregnancy real help, support, real health care, not a drug which endangers their life and their developing offspring’s life, not a drug that exterminates our future Australians.. When are we going to start taking the plight of women seriously instead of offering band-aid solutions like abortion be it surgical or pharmaceutical?
Posted by Connor, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:27:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
in response to Col Rouge:

the issue is that RU 486 is NOT safe, it is a seriously dangerous drug whether the TGA acknowledge it or not.

just like tobacco caused lung cancer and this information was supressed by the tobacco industry for years, so also many drugs which are approved are pose serious risks to our health.

i refer you to a february 2006 study in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy on mifepristone (the drug used in RU 486 to terminate the developing human being in its embryonic stage of life.)

"Although neither the manufacturer nor the FDA recognises a causal link between the use of mifepristone and the adverse events reported, it is undeniable that these woman were healthy before the use of the mifepristone and became very sick or died shortly after its use. Before any medication is used, a prudent practitioner weighs carefully the risks of the medication with the potential benefits. Medications, such as chemotherapy agents , with life threatening or potentially lethal adverse effects are acceptable in treating conditions that are themselves debilitating or lethal such as cancer, HIV, sepsis and others. In the these cases, alternative treatments are limited and , without treatment, the disease is rapidly lethal. The use of mifepristone as an abortificant, however, is radically different. Pregnancy in most instances is a benign, self limited condition, with duration of approximately 8 months from diagnosis for most women. It generally occurs in otherwise healthy young women."

excerpted from:
“Analysis of Severe Adverse Events Related to the Use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient” by Margaret M Gary and Donna J Harrison, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Feb 2006 vol 40.

therefore, the risk to a woman's health of continuing a pregnancy (unwanted or not) versus the risk to her health of using RU 486 must be weighed up and this study above which looked at 600 studies found that it is NOT SAFE!
Posted by Connor, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:39:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I totally agree Col (for the first occassion I feel).

Your article is not surprising Helen, as you drift of on a predictable tangent. This is not about the merits of abortion people - it is legal act in our society. So your suggestion about what the ministers 'should' be debating is categorically incorrect. It is about valuing the right of women to choose a drug over the right of "Mr partial" himself, Abbot, to choose.

So, in response to your attempt to discredit the TGA Helen, your best alternative is to leave it in the hands of an openly partial, biased, morally-motivated minister? Oh yeah, I bet he has plenty of expertise in the area! What rubbish.

I suspect that every single woman in Australia who ponders abortion carves themselves up about the very issues you suggest, like the sanctity of life. You should not underestimate the difficulty of the decision. But you also should not take that decision out of their hands. You simply have no right.
Posted by jkenno, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:40:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anomie.
The contraceptive pill primary method is preventing ovulation. Then it also works it makes it harder for fertilization. In very rare cases thes e fail and then it MAY prevent implantation. (I believe the failure rate resulting in pregnancy is a few percent If I remember correctly).

I find it amazing that people complain that it is mostly men who are prolife, yet they deride women who are prolife when they speak up. It's almost as if, shock horror, they are just looking to force their own views onto the unborn and it doesn't really matter who opposes them
Posted by Alan Grey, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:52:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 80
  9. 81
  10. 82
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy