PDA

View Full Version : Ru 486 ABortion Pill



Johnson
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 08:37 AM
RU-486, also known as the abortion pill, is a medication that causes the termination of an early pregnancy.

RU-486 involves the use of two different pills. The first pill contains a medication called mifepristone. When taken, this medication blocks the action of the hormone progesterone that is needed to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Without progesterone, the pregnancy will die, and a miscarriage will occur.

Two days after taking mifepristone, a second pill must be taken that contains a medication called misoprostol. This second medication makes the uterus contract and push out the pregnancy tissue. This is similar to what happens in a natural miscarriage.

Taking RU-486 is very different from having a surgical abortion. A surgical abortion must be performed in a hospital or clinic by a doctor. Local anesthesia and sedation is used during the procedure. The actual abortion takes approximately 10 minutes and the process is complete as soon as the procedure is over.

In comparison, a medical abortion with RU-486 requires a few visits to the doctor to take the medications. There is no surgery. The person goes home and waits for the pregnancy tissue to be expelled within several days. However, the person using RU-486 may experience side effects, such as strong cramping and heavy bleeding.

Approximately 92% of the time, RU-486 leads to the complete termination of a pregnancy. That means that 8% of the women or girls who take RU-486 will end up needing a surgical abortion procedure to remove pregnancy tissue that did not come out on its own.

RU-486 can only be used in the first seven weeks of pregnancy.

Legio_Melita
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 11:31 AM
It is a niggerly act to have fuck anyone in sight and impregnate without care, and it is a sicker act to kill a baby (unless he's a fucking mongrel/spic/jew, you get the point).

Johnson
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 12:30 PM
What if having the baby endanger's the mother's health?

Ederico
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 12:37 PM
Abortion from the Racialist perspective is something to be abhorred when both parents are Aryan in all cases except physical danger for the mother. Perhaps there are other cases, but I cannot think of others at the moment.

Johnson
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 12:46 PM
What if the mother has a disease that will be passed on to the child when she births it?

AIDS, (other STD's)...

What of Down's Syndrome, Mental Retardation, Disfigured child...

Bear in mind that all these questions are from an athiest point of view.

Ederico
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Johnson
What if the mother has a disease that will be passed on to the child when she births it?

AIDS, (other STD's)...

What of Down's Syndrome, Mental Retardation, Disfigured child...

Bear in mind that all these questions are from an athiest point of view.

From a Rational perspective I support Abortion in all of the cases you mentioned and I actually believe it could be in correlation with an Eugenics program. The Abortion I support is State-induced but considering other factors I would consider allowing the parents to decide whether to Abort or not, obviously with no Social Benefits given to the child and its parents if the Abortion does not happen.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Thursday, January 23rd, 2003, 06:30 PM
I think that abortion is definately a good choice when the child is going to have a severe disability or disease. I don't see the point in having that child. We have a much too compassionate society. Healthy babies on the other hand should not be aborted unless the mother's health is at risk. I don't have a moral issue with choosing one life over the other in that case.

Many anti-abortionists though, will bring up such a thing like the "abortion pill"...and many people will call themselves "pro-life", but they don't have any objections to birth control pills, etc. One pregnancy preventative mechanism that the birth control causes is not allowing the uterine lining to develop so that in the case of fertilization the ovum cannot implant itself. This happens in the instance of breakthrough ovulation, which occurs surprisingly often (the first mechanism of bc is to stop ovulation). So, do you think that birth control is a form of abortion when it relys on that final mechanism?

Johnson
Friday, January 24th, 2003, 02:30 AM
Birth control is not a form of abortion, abortion stops a life, whereas BC prevents a new human from growing.

OnionPeeler
Friday, January 24th, 2003, 03:06 AM
Vanessa has a point. The line between BC and abortion can be unclear. An intra-uterine device does not prevent conception, but implantation of the fertilized egg. An otherwise viable embyo is flushed from the system.

Aryan NS
Friday, January 24th, 2003, 03:28 AM
I am against abortion unless it is mongreled, endangers mothers life, rape victom mothers, or if the baby will have serious health problems.

Johnson
Friday, January 24th, 2003, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by OnionPeeler
An otherwise viable embyo is flushed from the system.

I think that's no different really, than eating a chicken egg, that's an aborted chicken, when you crack it open, no?

I wouldn't say stopping the egg from implanting in the uterine wall would qualify as an abortion, after-all the popular pro-choice slogan "Abortion stops a beating heart" is a good example of what is and what doesn't qualify as an abortion.

It's just getting past the moral roadblock.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Friday, January 24th, 2003, 04:54 AM
It depends on whether or not you believe that life begins exactly at conception. If you do, then logically birth control does perform abortions. Unfortunately there is no real way to measure the instances of breakthrough ovulation and how often this occurs. Is an abortion okay if it only happens once or twice? I think birth control is pretty fucked up anyway...it really messes with a woman's body whether or not it performs abortions...

And you can't compare an ovum to a birds egg. We eat chickens, but we don't eat people!

Johnson
Friday, January 24th, 2003, 06:01 AM
In a state implementing my particular ideology, a max of two abortions would be allowed and would have to be registered with the state.

And my bird egg / ovum comparison is that both are non devoloped beings. We readily abort chicken babies, but when it comes to our own we have all these moral hangups. That's all.


It depends on whether or not you believe that life begins exactly at conception. If you do, then logically birth control does perform abortions.

Well, as current law states, life does not begin at conception, it begins after the first trimester[?] I believe, which again, im guessing, is one month, 3 weeks.

Back on topic, I think RU486 is the most "Morally" correct way of going about it.

Other methods such as Saline poisoning, suction pump, and other ways seem barbaric.

Here's a good pro choice website covering all aspects of abortion.

http://www.abortiontv.com/index.html

One final thought for this post, In politics, people associate Pro Choice with Leftism and Pro Life with Right-Wing.

Basically, it boils down to the religious community. The church, the religious right, and other religious heirarchies in the USA. IMO of course.

AryanSoldier
Monday, February 10th, 2003, 02:10 AM
I am 100% against abortion in all forms when it comes to the murder of white babies.

HEIL HITLER!!!