RU-486

Dave

Dave

Well-Known Member
morning after pill

we get a few women each week looking for this pill. i generally dont take care of female rape victims so i dont know how often the pill is given for that. most of the women i have triaged that have asked for the pill usually start off saying something to the effect of" i was with this guy at a party last night...".
i was unaware there was any type of controversy surrounding this pill. there are only a couple of docs that wont give it on moral grounds which i dont necessarily agree with. they are doctors, not morality police.
just about every other "can of worms" has been opened here. might as well get this one going.
thoughts?
 
I have to wonder how the doctors who find these 'moral reasons' decide where and when to draw they line...Not saying they are right or wrong, but it seems quite a dilemma to be in that profession with such convictions...
As for the pill itself....I think society has made them necessary for the better good at this point.
 
hypocratic oath
another link

it is not the job of healthcare professionals to pass moral judgement on patients. we are there to treat and educate.
the hippocratic oath is becoming more irrelevant with advances and specialization.
 
So it's better to bring an unwanted child into this world to suffer mental and emotional problems for the rest of it's life knowing that it is the product of rape and has been rejected by it's mother because of that, rather than to prevent the fertilised ovum from reaching maturity in the first place... that makes sense... :rolleyes:
 
Aunty Em said:
So it's better to bring an unwanted child into this world to suffer mental and emotional problems for the rest of it's life knowing that it is the product of rape and has been rejected by it's mother because of that, rather than to prevent the fertilised ovum from reaching maturity in the first place...
Click to expand...

* FTR-pro choice

Who the hell are we, the mother, the family, the doctors or society in general, to pre-judge the life of an unborn? That child may be evil incarnate. Or the person with the cure for cancer.
 
Aunty Em said:
rather than to prevent the fertilised ovum from reaching maturity in the first place...
Click to expand...

Actually, the morning-after pill is designed to prevent conception, or more particularly the fertilised egg attaching itself to the ovarial walls, not to terminate an already-in-progress pregnancy. That comes more under abortion, although I've always wondered why anti-abortionists aren-t equally against the morning-after pill, considering the two main arguments are "it's killing a life" and "you should take responsibility for your actions"..

I have called upon the morning-after pill four times thus far, and am very thankful for it, as even Durex is not perfect. ;)
 
Gonz said:
pre-judge the life of an unborn?
Click to expand...

You pre-judge the life by the effect it's likely to have on the lives of those closest to it.. not the possibilities at the farthest extent of the probability and/or imagination scale. Otherwise it would be illegal to not have at least 1 baby year, because each one might potentially carry the cure for AIDS, or whatever.
 
I don't have a problem with it. I just hope it's really expensive and medicare doesn't pay for it. Although on second thought, I guess it's still cheaper than sending another kid through the welfare system.
 
a13antichrist said:
the effect it's likely to have
Click to expand...

So, we are now soothsayers? In the case of a rape, the child can be adopted out to a two parent family who wishes to raise it with love & care & the knowledge of it's inception need never be brough to the front (it's irrelevant anyway).

Whether a child becomes a devils spawn or a cancer curing phenom is, as you point out, unlikely. Most probable is just another average joe working to pay the bills. But, doesn't theat average joe have exactly as much right to a chance to better mankind as you?
 
Gonz said:
doesn't theat average joe have exactly as much right to a chance to better mankind as you?
Click to expand...

Don't the mother and father have the same right? That's two rights (at least) versus one. We do live in a democracy, right?
 
Who the hell are we, the mother, the family, the doctors or society in general, to pre-judge the life of an unborn? That child may be evil incarnate. Or the person with the cure for cancer.
Click to expand...

who the hell are we to force a kid to grow up in a world if the parents don't want the kid nor wish to take care of it?
and for the record, we're not talking about an unborn child. we're talking about preventing conception...

the way you're stating it, even jerking off and flushing the shit through the toilet isn't morally accepted...who are we to decide over sperm that could have brought us the greatest rocket-scientist or greatest doctor ever alive? or sperm that could have brought us somebody worse than, let's say, stalin...? :rolleyes:
 
Gonz said:
In the case of a rape, the child can be adopted out to a two parent family who wishes to raise it with love & care & the knowledge of it's inception need never be brough to the front (it's irrelevant anyway).
Click to expand...

A woman who gets raped should have to carry the baby for 9 months? Talk about adding insult to injury.
 
RU-486 is illegal around here, you have to go with the "special dosis" of anticonceptive pills within the first 72 hours.
 
in the uk we have had a lot of debate over making the morning-after pill available over the counter in pharmacists. i don't really have a problem with that, especially if it allows people to make a choice where they may feel it difficult to approach their doctor.

i don't think it should be considered a regular contraceptive, partly on health grounds [i am lead to believe that its not the most pleasant on the human system], but given the number of times i've had condoms break i think that easy availability is not necessarily a bad thing.

i am sure there are those out there who don't think things through at the time and have a realisation later. if they choose to want to use this form of contraception then that's fine.

it offers choice, my only reservation would be that how often it is used would not be monitorable - i know that if you go to the familiy planning clinics here for it more than twice they usually recommend you look more carefully at your contraceptive choice.
 
Eliminate rapists and people that take advantage of drunken/drugged chicks, bam. No more need for contraceptives, morning-after pills, abortion, etc. :beerbang:
 
a13antichrist said:
Don't the mother and father have the same right?
Click to expand...

No. Upon engaging in sex they abandoned all rights to individuality over child.

Shadowfax said:
who the hell are we to force a kid to grow up in a world if the parents don't want the kid nor wish to take care of it?
Click to expand...

That's why they made adoption. Life is "forced"? How odd.

Shadowfax said:
jerking off and flushing the shit through the toilet isn't morally accepted
Click to expand...

Don't quote me but I think masturbation is also a sin or a big no-no or something. :shrug:

flavio said:
Talk about adding insult to injury.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is one of the things that makes playing devils advocate so difficult ;)
 
* watches while the men discuss whether or not I should be able to take a pill.

:lurk:
 
* waiting for Leslie to point out where abortion on demand or contraception is an inalienable right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top