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 > Mifepristone: not a panacea > Comments

Mifepristone: not a panacea : Comments

By Helen Ransom, published 2/11/2005

Helen Ransom argues the abortion drug endangers the lives of women.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. All
This isn't a debate I feel comfortable engaging with and I suspect a lot of men are just like me - undecided, a bit confused, hesitant and a little beguiled. I’ve learned a lot reading through these posts so thanks everyone. Do I have a position? No, but I do know one thing and that’s this. Women and birthing are exploited by pharmaceutical companies and these companies are owned and controlled by men.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 3 November 2005 9:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatma duck complains "what gets me is the tactics that they employ: here we have yet another article by a Christian who wishes to push their religious values on the rest of us under the guise of disingenuous concern for women ..."

Isn't this exactly what the pro-abortion lobby and the pharmacutical companies are doing? They are promoting abortion via the back door, and the companies are rubbing their hands all the way to the bank. To help women?

It's OK for pro-abortionists to put their views, but let someone opposed to abortion [and I know some who NEVER go near a church but won't have a bar of abortion] express their opposition, and the anti-Christian sectarans are jumping up and down, gnashing their teeth with rage. spewing out their bile by the bucket. Any opposition to them must be stifled at birth. Well get used to it because the people fighting abortion [as they are perfectly entitled to do] won't be silenced by sectarianism or anything else.
Posted by Big Al 30, Thursday, 3 November 2005 10:06:22 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
Big Al, you miss the point entirely. A secular society
needs tolerance to function. Be it the Pope or Bin Laden,
when they try to force their so called holy book inspired
views on us agnostics, we will protest loudly.

You have the free choice not to have an abortion and believe
Bin Laden, the Pope, or any other religious leader that you
choose to follow.

That does not give you the right to try to force your holy
book inspired views on women who disagree with you and your
beliefs. You are fortunate to have freedom of religion.
Some of us want to be fortunate to have freedom from religion.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 3 November 2005 11:50:42 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
Yabby, Just how far does tolerance go? Even some pro-abortion people are getting nervous at the number of abortions being performed in Australia, [over 90,000 per year].

I don't think we should tolerate the killing of unborn babies [having seen the ultrasounds now available no one can deny what they are killing is a tiny helpless human]. I also don't think we should tolerate the sale of a pill which has "helped" some women , including young Holly, into their graves.
Posted by Big Al 30, Friday, 4 November 2005 9:01:26 AM
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
It is interesting to note that in many of the comments about Helen Ransom's article refer to the author having some religious bias (i.e. Catholicism) when it comes to reporting about RU486 (mifepristone.) Ms Ransom has researched her article well, giving a well constructed debate using scientific and pharmaceutical facts to support her argument from reputable international medical journals and resources. There is also some qualitative data gathered from the experiential account of a young woman that reported how the taking of RU486 effected her physically, psychologically and emotionally. Yet she is attacked as letting her Catholic beliefs for clouding her objectivity in reporting on the matter.

As a woman in her mid 30's, a health professional and a Bioethicist I would like to applaud Ms Ransom for highlighting that there are a generation of young woman in our community that would see themselves as being pro-woman and yet pro-life not because of an ideological framework but through intelligent reasoning based on philosophical, anthropological, ethical and scientific foundations.

Feminism is an ideology that has always promoted a pro-choice mandate, yet Ms Ransom has provided an alternative view to this traditional notion of feminism. She has rightly challenged Lynne Allison's comments especially since the Senator suggests that she is speaking in the best interests of Australian women. There is a new generation of feminism that individuals such as Ms Allison needs to consider, and that is the pro-woman and pro-life, intelligent, articulate and professional woman. Please view www.womensforumaustralia.org to see an example of a generational change in what thousands of Aussie young woman really think it is to be pro-woman.
Posted by JoeyG, Friday, 4 November 2005 11:42:32 AM
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
If this drug has led to occasional serious problems, then perhaps it should be further scientifically investigated rather than simply talked about.

Tolerance has two extremes; deficiency and excess.
Deficiency: Bill doesn't tolerate his neighbour eating pizza because Bill hates European food.
Excess: Bill turns a blind eye to Bob running over his neighbour
My point, we must observe the mean.

"Perhaps you should differenciate
between a zygote, a foetus and a baby. Human skin tissue carries
our dna after all, that does not make it a person."
Entirely correct, Yabby.
A zygote, a foetus, a baby, a teen, an adult, an elderly person, they are all organisms. Human organisms.
Eggs and sperm have the potential to form an organism. They are not themselves organisms but they combine to form an organism. A human organism.
Posted by Jose, Friday, 4 November 2005 2:32:36 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. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. All

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