solution compromise on abortion: make them illegal, but make RU86 free and

[mrhopeforwes]

over the counter.

win-win for everyone, no?

[Beaverhausen]

1. No

[HereSince1628]

2. No.

[Missy M]

3. No!

[Shakespeare]

4. No. What an ignorant suggestion. n/t

[mrhopeforwes]

25. but why would anyone ever need an abortion if RU86 was available?

[AlienGirl]

30. To name just one tragic instance, anencephaly

Anencephaly and some other fatal birth defects are often detected too late in the pregnancy for RU-486 to work. Part of the point of keeping abortion legal is so that women don't have to go months and months carrying a dead/dying fetus, knowing that it has no chance to live outside the womb.

Tucker

[colinmom71]

33. Also in the US, RU 486 can only be used up to 49 days after...

The first day of the woman's last menstrual period (or 7 weeks of pregnancy). Many women may not even know they are pregnant until after that safe usage guideline has passed. Heck, I didn't know I was pregnant with my son until I was about 10 weeks because I'd had two periods while I was pregnant (yes, this does happen!).

AlienGirl addressed terminations due to fetal health issues in her post above. Also, some pregnancies are terminated due to a health threat to the pregnant woman (severe pre-eclampsa or eclampsia, thrombocytopenia, toxemia, sudden kidney failure due to diabetes - just to name a few possibilities).

Because of RU 486 limitations, there will always be a need for safe and legal surgical abortions. Your compromise idea, while well intended, is simply not feasible.

[lukasahero]

5. Just to be different, I'll say "Screw that".

[mrhopeforwes]

26. well, at least you like Clark!!! :)

[wryter2000]

6. No

My body is mine. I'm not giving up control for a "compromise."

Does it ever occur to these bozos that if the government can deny a woman an abortion, it could turn around and force women to have abortions?

[troubleinwinter]

8. I think this often

What is the difference between FORCED BIRTH and forced abortions in China?

Both deny womens' reproductive rights and privacy.

[MissMarple]

14. My point of departure, as well.

Once the government starts telling women and families what they must do regarding these kinds of medical issues, the government has it's foot in the door and can swing it either way.

These are personal medical decisions that are far too individual for the government to weigh in with it's heavy hand.

Stepped out for some popcorn. :popcorn:

[wryter2000]

24. It's not much of a stretch

It sounds weird, but we all know that there are lots of folks in this country who would be happy to keep the "wrong" kind of people from having babies.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Here is how that compromise will work.

Step 1: abortion rendered illegal.
Step 2:

[David__77]

9. Nyet. Nein. Nopers.

Surgical abortion is still necessary. Let's get free universal health care and mandatory sex education and then we'll talk, maybe.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

10. Um...

:rofl:







Oh, wait. You were serious?
:scared:

[jaysunb]

11. I got a better idea

EVERYBODY MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS !
:evilfrown:

[BobBoudelangFan69]

15. 100% Agree!

[HereSince1628]

16. But as a man I feel it is MY business...

I have a wife, a daughter, a step daughter and a daughter in law.
Ensuring they have available safe legal choices is important to me.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. RU86 is not foolproof. I know a woman who took it and still had a baby

so it's not the answer to all our troubles.

[mrhopeforwes]

27. then I stand corrected

[PretzelWarrior]

13. horrible idea. can't even believe you thought that is acompromise

that is ridiculous.

[mrhopeforwes]

28. well, if it was fullproof, why, oh why, is that such a bad compromise?

because why would anyone ever need to consider abortion if they took. the pill?

[BobBoudelangFan69]

17. Honestly? That Is A Compromise? No, No, No.

[Warpy]

18. RU486 has a short "window of opportunity" to be used

and has to be used under a physician's supervision and with another medication. There are complications with it that need to be monitored. It is ineffective for abortions after about the sixth week. Your idea would leave women pregnant against their will, unable to obtain services when their health or lives were endangered by continuing a pregnancy, and without aid even if they managed to take it in time.

Honestly, educate yourself about these things before you make pronouncements. Surgical abortion is never going to be eradicated. It will occur, legally or illegally. Passing stupid laws against it just ends the safe, legal abortions.

Botton line, antiabortion laws kill women.

[mrhopeforwes]

29. "educate myself"? uh, like, that was the point of posting this QUESTION

so people like you could enlighten me.

[Eugene]

19. The "pro-life" crowd will never accept it.

They consider RU-486 to be a chemical abortion.
For them, human life begins at conceptions.
The Christian right is trying to block access
to contraception as well as abortion, and
they don't believe in compromise.

Besides, how will this compromise work when a pregnancy
endangers the life or health of the mother?

[sinkingfeeling]

20. The so-called 'pro-lifers' would never accept that. RU86 is an

abortion pill, unlike the Plan B. To the anti-abortion folks Ru86 is on the same par with any surgical procedure. The end result is the same: an abortion of a fertilized egg.

[meg]

21. No

You're saying women can have just a little bit of reproductive freedom, but not all. The winners in your plan are the men who want to control women's bodies and lives.

So, the compromise in your plan is government men share control of women's bodies with the women.

[Lefty48197]

22. The righties will hold funerals over sanitary napkin disposals

.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. After inspecting them for evidence of felonious miscarriage

You cannot reach out to meet fascism half way.

[Leeny]

31. HELL No

Nice try, dumb question, hell no.

[I Have A Dream]

32. The religious right can't even handle Plan B, which isn't abortion.

They'd NEVER agree to this compromise even if it were a good compromise, which I'm not necessarily ageeing that it is. Therefore, this is a moot question.

[EFerrari]

34. No.

[davsand]

35. Interesting question but probably unworkable for several reasons.

While i see your question as an interesting discussion exercise I see several reasons why it would be problematic.

You will get knee jerk reactions from both sides of the aisle--as you see demonstrated in this thread. The conservatives will hate it because RU486 is seen as being a form of abortion because it acts after conception takes place. (The fact that it hasn't really been studied much as a prevention to implantation seems to elude a lot of them--but hey--I'm not the FDA or a funder for contraceptive research.)

The rabid pro choice crowd will flinch at it for all the reasons you see above. (Frankly, I agree with them, but Laura's opinion is not supposed to be the subject of this exercise.)

One thing that seems to go under the radar for a lot of people on either side is the idea that we currently don't HAVE any contraceptive technology that is foolproof other than "Just say no" which is the favorite of the fundy crowd.

IF you are sincere about reducing the NUMBER of abortions you need to remove the NEED for abortions by reducing the number of unchosen pregnancies. THAT will require, at minimum, better education about reproduction AND better technology for contraception that is accessible to all women of childbearing age.

What I took from your OP was the idea that you are looking for a chemical solution to the problem or unwanted pregnancy that is available to all women. Is that an accurate assessment? If so, then look to education and contraceptive research.



Laura

[Mutley]

36. No.