Talk of advantages and disadvantages of RU-486 remind me that it all DIS-advantage as far as the unborn are concerned. Some posters are talking as though the unborn child has no rights whatever.

We are not talking about a tumour, we are talking about a tiny human being - even many pro-choice people admit that. I am taking a 2 week holiday, so you can get stuck into me as much as you like.

Big Al 30 - enjoy your break, while you are away consider that adult females are living,breathing,independent,human beings - NOT BABY MACHINES.

Thank you

Having read all the above 80 posts with great interest, I’d like to comment on RU-486 (not abortion as a whole).

There is a perception that right-wing pro-lifers are trying to ban this drug by suggesting RU-486 is not medically safe. The pro-RU-486 lobby are saying ‘look at the medical evidence’. Caroline De Costa’s article claims it is safe and effective. Abbot and other politicians disagree.

I believe the medical evidence is unassailable. There is no RU-486 study showing less than 5% failure rate. This is 20 times higher than that of surgical abortion. It is also far more painful. Studies show that there is heavy bleeding for 10±4 days. There have been enough serious side-effects and deaths to require the USFDA to remove the drug from market.

How is using this evidence being irrational?

The lack of reason here comes in the form of (old) feminist ideological convictions that abortion is the only way forward. The developers of this drug, and the Population Council that has spread it around the world, have publicly said that RU-486 is the solution to a lack of abortion facilities in third world countries and remote areas. They also believe is will remove the stigma from abortion clinics when doctors can give this drug and the patient can walk away.

Unfortunately for them, it hasn’t quite worked out. As a pharmaceutical researcher I’d suggest that the drugs side effects would only be acceptable for life-threatening illness. Is that what pregnancy is? The Population Council believes so. It had the drug approved in the US in 6 months under the guise of ‘drug for life-threatening illness’ without any clinical trials in the US. Its approval was a flawed process. As it is only used by abortion facilities and doctors it’s failures are being under-reported. We only hear of the severest cases that lead to death because coroners and lawyers get involved.

I’m sorry for sounding so harsh, but there is nothing good to say about the drug. It’s not the panacea people are hoping for.

Tama, I think you should cite your sources. I'm surprised that the Australian Department of Health have been so mislead.

Every one is aware that the US has an extremely conservative government that has refused aid to countries that practice population control so its no surprise that american women's control over their fertility has been eroded.

The debate over whether women have control over their fertility is as fundamental to their ability to function as equals in this society as their right to vote and earn equal pay for equal work.

Billie, first and foremost you have hit the mark: for RU-486 supporters this debate is all about women's rights to control their fertility. But perhaps you should be careful about equating access to abortion as being equivalent to other fundamental rights. Abortion is only regarded as a right to some. Women in Poland have no access to abortion yet they have access to more education and work opportunities than most Western countries.

I would be happy to cite every point from my last article- if space and time permitted. If you are interested in these facts google a few key words like "Population Council' and RU-486, 'Bermuda Conference, Also have a look at Emile Baulieu's book. He was the inventor of the drug.

I have written an article on RU-486. Some of the key refernces are as follows:
Irving M. Spitz, C.Wayne Bardin, Lauri Benton, and Ann Robbins, "Early Pregnancy Termination with Mifepristone and Misoprostol in the United States," New England Journal of Medicine, 338(18). (April 30, 1998).
Raymond, et al, RU 486: Misconceptions, Myths, and Morals
FDA Mifepristone Hearing, July 19, 1996
Testimony of Beverly Winikoff, Program Director of Reproductive Health, Population Council at FDA Mifepristone Hearings, p. 81; Margaret Talbot, "This Pill Will Change Everything About Abortion," The New York Times Magazine, July 11, 1999
"Commercial challenges in bringing Mifepristone to developing countries," by Roy Karnovsky, President, Advances/The Neogen Group, at meeting Towards Safe and Effective Use of Medical Abortion, sponsored by Population Council and Wellcome Trust, Bermuda, January 10-13, 1998
FDA Announcement of Approval. Larr Backorik. Sept 18, 1996

Tama, first question. Are you a Catholic?

Both Poland and the US are two countries where the Vatican has
huge influence in politics, one way or another.

Personally I take far more notice of the views of many more secular European Govts and their opinions, then anything coming from the
religiously fanatical Bush regime or the Vatican influenced Polish
Govt.