RU486 - Abortion Pill (1 Viewer)

[kinabarina88]

Pro lifers don't trust opinions of experts, because the majority of pro lifers are mindless twits. Self explanatory,

how about the experts who are prolife wat r u sayn about them??

 

[erawamai]

how about the experts who are prolife wat r u sayn about them??

English my dear, so we can understand you.

 

[kinabarina88]

im not a freakn wannabe!!!! its the truth u gay!!!!!!!!! if thats the best comment u can come up wit u should get a life!!!

 

[withoutaface]

im not a freakn wannabe!!!! its the truth u gay!!!!!!!!! if thats the best comment u can come up wit u should get a life!!!

Hahahahaha I love you. Now let me rape you.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

if u ddnt kno how RU486 works..there is the first pill which starves the baby..so in affect u ARE KILLING IT!!!!!!!!!!! therefore it is an abortifacient...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the 2nd pill is then taken 5 days later and the girl should stay at the surgey for anothr 4 hrs, so basically the 2nd pill induces contractions..but dd u kno that there is a extrememly high risk of foetal body parts that will be left inside the mother..and within a couple of hrs the mother will die of infection...GET A SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION ALL YOU PPL WHO THINK RU486 SHOULD BE LEGAL!!!!!!!!!! abortion proves that ppl are willing to kill for sex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SCARY HUH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

how about this.. u stop being a kid..
and go start a science degree or realise u dun even know squat how this works.. ure worse u are arrogant.. u play into the hands of fundamentalist and conservatives..

I have a strange feeling ure education involves the hillsong or another assembly of God + either ACA and/or today tonight.. ppl like u are why id encourage abortions

god ure scientific understanding makes me want to throw up.. . and reconsider my goal of entering academia.. please tell me ull never end up in university.. cos i pity the sod who has to put up with ure mindless crap..

ure arguments are flawed on both accounts.. on the 1st pill and the foetal body part leading to infection..

also the ethics of the abortion debate is in another thread.. :mad1:

 

[Xayma]

if u ddnt kno how RU486 works..there is the first pill which starves the baby..so in affect u ARE KILLING IT!!!!!!!!!!!

If you did not know, RU486 works by "starving" a fetus, in a similar way many pills are being trialled that "starve" cancer.

You failed to provide proof that is alive, also shouldn't a woman be able to dictate how her bodily resources are used? A living child can be given up for adoption whereby the responsiblity falls upon the state. Last time I checked you can't surgically transplant a fetus.

therefore it is an abortifacient...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefore it is used to abort parasitic entities inside the mother.

Wow I wish I had the stamina to hold down the shift key that long, it's a pity but I can only seem to hold it down for a short while.

the 2nd pill is then taken 5 days later and the girl should stay at the surgey for anothr 4 hrs, so basically the 2nd pill induces contractions..but dd u kno that there is a extrememly high risk of foetal body parts that will be left inside the mother..and within a couple of hrs the mother will die of infection...

Another pill is taken, the fetus falls out of the body and is bagged, everybody is happy.
That's funny, what do you define as high risk? Unless surgical abortion also seems to kill alot of people and is extremly high risk since they have about the same problem rate.

GET A SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION ALL YOU PPL WHO THINK RU486 SHOULD BE LEGAL!!!!!!!!!! abortion proves that ppl are willing to kill for sex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SCARY HUH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

You should all get a typing education like myself.
I thought various sexual assaults proved people were willing to kill for sex. Although your statement doesn't cover rape.

Again, should a drug for a procedure that is already legal fall into the hands of a democratically elected person who does not necessairly have any training in the subject at all or a group of undemocratically elected people who are well trained in the area.

 

[Rafy]

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 has passed the senate. (45-28)

Now the House of Reps has to vote on it.

 

[ur_inner_child]

what!?!??!!

OMG NO ONE WILL TAKE YOU SRSLY IF YOU TYPE LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~*~*~*

 

[Generator]

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 has passed the senate. (45-28)

Now the House of Reps has to vote on it.

A little more info for those who are interested -

Abortion drug bill passes Senate
PM - Thursday, 9 February , 2006 18:10:00
Reporter: Gillian Bradford


MARK COLVIN: After a controversial and divisive debate in the Senate, the abortion drug RU-486 is one step closer to being assessed for use in Australia.

Supporters feared that the vote was narrowing after the Prime Minister's intervention yesterday but in the end the motion passed by 45 votes to 28.

It didn't begin as a debate on abortion rights in Australia, but it ended up like that: both sides saw this decision as an important "line in the stand".

It was a turbulent couple of days, as befitted one of the rare conscience votes in the Federal Parliament. And there's more to come.

The bill still has to pass the House of Representatives where the numbers are much tighter.

But for now Senators who supported the drug are relieved that at least one hurdle is clear.

Gillian Bradford reports from Canberra.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: In the end, it wasn't the tight race supporters of RU-486 had feared. But while the numbers fell quite comfortably, supporters like Senator Lyn Allison were more relieved than ecstatic.

LYN ALLISON: It's a win for women, it's a win for families and it's most certainly a win for the Senate.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: There was angry resignation from those who lost the vote, summed up by the Nationals leader in the Senate, Ron Boswell.

RON BOSWELL: This is a dangerous way to have an abortion. I'm disappointed. I know many of my constituents will be disappointed and I think the elected representation of the Westminster system that we have in Australia has been badly, badly let down today.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: The hours of debate have been intensely personal and passionate. Two Senators have talked about their own personal experiences with abortion, while others like Bill Heffernan have spoken more plainly.

BILL HEFFERNAN: This drug is designed to knock over babies.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: It's that sort of language that's angered Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone.

AMANDA VANSTONE: To those people who choose to list details of adverse reactions that might have been had to someone who's taken RU-486, to list off deaths that might be attributed to it, their argument would carry more weight if they equally listed off the adverse reactions and deaths from surgical abortions, and for that matter, from any other medical intervention.

Life is a risky business. Yes, things go wrong, but where they go wrong is not necessarily an indicator of what we should do for those for whom it will go right.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: The Senate debate has also proven there are no Party lines when it comes to a vote on RU-486.

The former leader of the Government in the Senate, Robert Hill, is a supporter of the bill.

ROBERT HILL: Where women require an abortion, I believe they should be treated with sensitivity and support at what must be an extraordinarily difficult and emotionally stressful time.

I believe they have a right to access whatever procedural options that are safe and can be provided by their medical practitioner. I don't therefore see a role for the Minister of Health in the process.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: There were some interesting bed-fellows. Several Labor Senators sided with their more conservative colleagues in voting against the bill.

Opposition Finance Spokesman Stephen Conroy explained why he went with the No case.

STEPHEN CONROY: I believe the process should be more open and transparent and accountable and that's why I cannot support the bill, a bill that simply says we give it over to scientists and doctors.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Nationals Senator Fiona Nash is one of the co-sponsors of the bill. She's been especially irritated some of her colleagues have depicted the Therapeutic Goods Administration as a bunch of bureaucrats, ill qualified to deal with the complexities of RU-486.

FIONA NASH: I say to those who think that those people aren't capable of properly assessing this drug, that you are absolutely wrong.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Supporters of the drug are cautiously optimistic the bill will pass the House of Representatives when it heads there next week, though no doubt the Senators who lost the case in the Upper House will be urging their colleagues to stop this drug becoming more widely available.

MARK COLVIN: That was Gillian Bradford reporting.


Source: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1566436.htm

 

[Riviet]

I would just like to ask, from a neutral perspective and based on the facts, which is more likely to occur, the abortion pill being legalised or not?

 

[withoutaface]

Well we have 60 Laborites and 3 independents who will (i think, in the case of the independents, though not 100% sure) almost surely vote in favour, 12 Nationals who will almost certainly be against, and as such we need 13 out of the 74 Liberals to be in favour, and so I think the likely outcome is that it will be approved.

 

[ace]

Ok, lets hope it gets approved (the bill), and doesn't get veto'd or any other random crap happen.

Some of these responses I see are coming out as abortion being a laughing matter. Abortion is the last choice not the first choice, people make the best decision they see fit (in some cases, it may not be the decision you agree with)

I'm not going to jump into the debate on pro/anti abortion, but I'll leave with, I'd prefer someone with the proper medical training and expertise to make decisions on whether xyz drug is suitable in Australia than a politician anyday. (I mean who really trusts politicians, you've got to be pretty bloody naive to do so)

 

[Generator]

I would just like to ask, from a neutral perspective and based on the facts, which is more likely to occur, the abortion pill being legalised or not?

If we are to take the relevant medical organisations as being knowledgeable guides, it's likely that the drug's 'ban' will be lifted some time in the near future. In saying this, I'm assuming that the current bill will be passed by the lower house and that someone will then sponsor the drug for consideration by the TGA.

 

[azzie]

reading some of the replies to this thread that pro-lifers have been trying to argue their way into and subsiquently out of after being proven wrong goes to show that many of those objecting to it don't actually know how it works, when it is taken and the guidelines that are being discussed about the dispensation of this drug. maybe some people should google RU486 and become more familiar with the drug from credible medical sources, and how it is dispenced in other parts of the world (might i add that it is legal in many European states)
anyone using the term "you gay" to insult someone should be banned from any intelligent discussion about this topic.

 

[Generator]

Keep it somewhat civil (at the very least) and relevant, please.

 

[Generator]

I think I was mentioning that the levels of spelling and grammar in this forum are for the most part somewhat not conducive to proper argument and discussion.

Neither are trolls, yet they continue to pop up every now and again.

As I said, keep it somewhat civil (at the very least) and relevant.

Edit: Just take the above as a general statement that applies to everyone.

 

[withoutaface]

The funny thing is that the people who are trolls on the rest of the forums engage in serious debate here (case in point).

 

[ur_inner_child]

funny thing was said to me the other day

"fucking pro-life shitheads are gonna breed, even if they have a crappy way to bring their kid up, while pro-choicers go and abort.

have you heard of natural selection? a slow process? fuckhead narrowminded idiots are gonna breed us pro-choices out!!!

and you what sucks even more? their concept. They have a waa about the kid getting killed here, but not in fucking ethiopia no. They don't care if the world is overpopulated no. They don't care, and you'd think these would be the very same who would be the hippy ones saying we should ALL tie our reproductive organs so we can even out the ratios. Inconsistancy of thought, that's what I reckon"

actually it was me drunk and being recorded.

 

[Generator]

The funny thing is that the people who are trolls on the rest of the forums engage in serious debate here (case in point).

Two points -

1. As serious as some contributions may be, I don't think that there's a place for the language that some otherwise trolling members consider to be appropriate. As valid as some of their concerns may be, there's nothing to be gained by presenting their point in such a poor manner.

2. If someone is to engage in a debate, then it is only fair that they do so through a single account, especially when the secondary account is in no way true to the political character that the account claims to represent.

 

[Generator]

Given the nature of the account, my assumption was more than fair. As for the rest... I suggest that you try and be more polite in the future.