This week: RU-486. If? or When?

On Friday, an FDA panel recommended that the French abortion pill, RU-486, be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (the pill can be taken any time in the first two months of pregnancy). Should the FDA follow this recommendation, thereby approving the first legal alternative to surgical abortion for American women? Proponents of RU-486 have told pro-lifers that this is not the time to debate abortion. FDA Commissioner David Kessler told the panel to base its decision on data, not emotions. Do you agree? Should this pill be made available to American women? (It is already available to women in New Zealand and some European countries.)

Here's what Tripod Members had to say:

cmcook19: RU-486 is the work of Satan. Killing babies with pills is still murder. Those responsible are guilty of slaying innocent children, often for selfish motives. "May God forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Twinfinity: Yeah, okay...look, every person's body is their sovereign property. If you don't want some thing or person in your body, you have the right, as owner of your body, to remove it. (For that matter, you have the right to put anything into your body if you choose -- and to damage or kill it -- but I suppose that's beyond the scope of this topic.) I used to be blasé and disconnected about this topic, saying that a fetus is a bunch of cells and that's that, but then I saw the live sonogram of my baby boy. My emotions on the issue changed profoundly. But, as Dr. Kessler rightly emphasizes, emotions are not a proper basis for a decision of this stature. This is about a person's right to ownership of his or her body. I consider this unalienable. It's a position that's counterintuitive in some ways, but it is consistent with the basic principle of personal freedom, and I must support it. (I wonder if the rest of this discussion will be back-and-forth flames over "If? or When?" fetuses are people.) Yes, RU-486 should be freely available.

Ben Rathbone: Absolutely. This issue is not about abortion, it is about sex. RU-486 provides a safe, effective, backup against pregnancy, and thus makes sex not a risk, but something to enjoy. This is what the drug's opponents are against.

Amee: Yes. Yes. Yes! Hurray for something more reliable than Blue Cohosh and Pennyroyal and more private than a D&C.;

dawnchristine: Yes, yes, yes. Besides giving women a safe alternative to a surgical abortion, the other studied health benefits of RU-486 outweigh the reasons not to approve. It has been shown that it may help women with breast cancer. I think that's reason enough. The federal government needs to approve more research that will help women, not hurt them.

thought: I must agree with what most other members have responded so far. I, as a male, don't believe I have a right to decide what is right and what is wrong for women around the world. I personally would not be comfortable if I knew my partner were using it or going to use it. I believe that if one does not wish to have children, they should be responsible. This pill allows for lazy people to dispose of their problems. It is not good to have an alternative for every irresponsible act, but I look at this pill the same way I look at condoms and other drugs out there that may have a potentially harmful effect on our bodies and on people around us, or in this case inside of us...(ie tobacco, alcohol, other medications...)...but then... now my thoughts are splattering all over the place! these are topics that should be addressed...here we go: Thought's golden rule of controversial technology: -if one does not like it...he or she should not use it...; it is not right to impose one's beliefs on another...but I do commend valid and justified argument...for as Emerson wrote: "To believe that what is true in your own heart is true for all men. That is genius." Of course that is the extreme of non-conformity...we can't live in a society composed entirely of extremist... Well..after all this thought I must say the should approve it as long as they uphold the same safety standards as the rest of the products they are in charge of....

formicacid: If it is safe, it should be allowed. Abortions will happen whether legal or not; let's look to make them as safe as possible.

jmd: This is a medication developed to enable a medical procedure. (Actually, to aid many medical procedures, including treatment for cancers.) If the medication proves beneficial to patients, then it should be made available. To refuse access to a safe medication because others sincerely believe that the procedure is immoral is beyond inappropriate.

With some exception, the majority of the protest against ru-486 is that it makes the procedure confidential - that the only people who know about the procedure are the only ones who need to know (the doctor and patient).

GooRoo: From what I understand, this pill or a rendition of it is available as the "day after pill" which is really just a normal birth control pill, and if taken the "day after" is 75% effective and any women can get it from their doctor, merely for the asking. My question is: "Do we need another?"

Emma: To answer GooRoo, these two pills are very separate things. The morning after pill is just a combination of birth control pills that can be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, to prevent pregnancy. Doctors can prescribe the right combination of these pills. This option has been around for quite a while, but it's a pretty well kept secret. There was controversy over whether doctors should promote that use of birth control pills. And many doctors still prefer not to mention it. RU-486, on the other hand, can be taken up to two months into a pregnancy in order to induce abortion. So whereas the morning after pill is often referred to as "emergency contraception," RU-486 is most definitely an abortion pill (in addition to its other benefits, mentioned by other members above).

RobLamb: No. I am one of those people that believes abortion of any form is murder. No one can dispute the fact that from the point of conception, that there is another life growing inside of a woman's body. If you choose to kill that life, you have murdered. I often hear the argument that many abortions simply are for the better of the child. Huh? Explain that to me. Let's take a poll and see how many people are glad that they were born and not aborted. This is not humane. In a country such as the United States, that claims to allow freedoms of all kinds, I'm very surprised that people can't wake up to the individual's freedom to be born. I'd like to mention, for the record, that several years ago, I thought I was pro-choice. When my wife got pregnant, we considered an abortion, and it was then that I concluded, through much soul-searching, that abortion is murder. Trust me, I analyzed it from every angle. I attempted to rationalize abortion in every way possible.

WStarksMD: Yes. Every woman should have the choice to do with her life (notice I said life and not body) whatever she feels is right. The abortion issue is very controversial and there isn't a time that I think about this issue that I couldn't go either way. I just have a few points on the issue before I sign off. The first thing is that a baby in a woman's body is not "part of her body" at any time during it's existence. The child is always separate from the woman's body and the only contact with the mother is the nutrients from her bloodstream. The child has it's own blood supply and most of the time has a different bloodtype than the mother. So for those who say that this the baby is a part of their body are wrong in that respect. Now as a male I strongly feel that this is an issue that we as men should really take a back seat and let the women decide what they need and want because I really do believe that if men were having the babies, the option of abortion would have been in the picture long ago and not only that we men would have found a way to praise a young man who was pregnant and decided he didn't want to carry a child. If the pill has been proven to be safe and effective then make it available and let each and every woman decide what she wants to do with her situation. Everyone out there, let's keep our opinions and condemnations to ourselves and let each woman decide what she wants because we really can't make someone moral or immoral, that's God's job. I can go either way on the abortion issue depending on what day of the week it is. I can only imagine how difficult it is for a woman who has to make that decision is going thru. So since I can't know all I can do is support any woman that makes either decision. I hope they make the pill available and many women will have a chance to benefit from it because God knows they went thru some hell making the decision.

mparrish: Human life is sacred. Period. the ONLY case an abortion could possibly be justified is if the mother's life hangs in the balance.

Whitewave: No. I don't think that this pill should be given out to american women. I am not a pro-lifer, or a pro-choicer, however, I do think that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. This method makes abortion way to easy and accessible. I think allowing this pill in the USA will only highten the number of abortions. Women need to think about the possibility of pregnancy and talk to their partners about having a child before they say yes to unprotected sex. We need to take responsibilities for our mistakes, not kill them.

Ciltrel: Every woman should have access to any birth control as long as it's safe, and she is not too far along in her pregnancy.

ceef: About time for improvements in choices for women. It's a personal choice, not that of any other person, group, club, politican whether or not to sustain a pregnancy, all the comes later. It's the world population getting just a mite stretched?

Kimberleigh: YES!!! This is not an issue about abortion, but rather an issue about a safe way to terminate a pregnancy. We all have views on the abortion issue, they will continue to fight over that until God deems it necessary to terminate the planet. However, RU-45 is a safe alternative for women who, as far as I can see, would abort their pregnancies anyway. To terminate or not to terminate, that is NOT the question. I truly feel the whole issue here is HOW to terminate. What is the safest way? I pray that the studies have been complete and that somewhere down the line we don't learn that it has serious side-effects or causes cancer (I mean everything does, right?). The question is not mine to ask, the solutions are widening, that's all.

cmcook19: May The Holy Spirit grant wisdom to those who shall gain a deeper appreciation for the mystery of life. We are temples of The Holy Spirit; may She be always with us. "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:7-8

kewl1: i think it should be legal, but only if you have a good reason. if you want to have an abortion just because it will hurt to much to have a baby, it shouldn't be given to her. kewl1

obnurse: RU-486 is no more the "work of Satan" than many other things in our society. Most creations/inventions have the capacity to be misused. It is easy to say in which situiations I belive it SHOULD be used in, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should only use it in that manner. Everyone SHOULD use birth control, practice safe sex, put money back for emergencies and retirement, and a million other wise things. Do we tell an indigent 70 year old widow she must starve to death because she failed to save money when she could? If one is pregnant, what she "should have done" is no longer an issue. Should we now say, " since you were so irresponsible as to get pregnant, we are sure you are going to be a responsible parent."As an obstetrical nurse, I cannot tell you the number of times I have attempted to hand a just born baby to an uninterested mother. It is a sad event. RU-486 is not going to bring on the end of the world. It is also, unfortunately, not going to solve the problems of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, high crime and drug abuse. It is simply one more choice each of have must deal with based upon our own values.

Carianne: I know that you can't pass a law on what people can or cannot do with theor own body, because they will go on and do whatever they want anyway, but can you actualy, in good conscience promote something that advocates the killing of innocent human beings. To end on something that I heard at a pro-life march, "Pro-Choice is a lie, babies do not choose to die!"

Qvovadis: I agree with cmcook19. But God gives us the whole liberty regarding our souls. We can enter The Havean or The Hell. It is our decision. So, even I don't agree with such a pills I'm not requesting their interdiction

RKaeser: Yes, of course, the pill should be avaible for all women in the world to avoid coming back of medieval age!

amie: As someone who has faced the choice to defend my right to my body or allow it to be host and protector for someone else, I know how difficult it can be. But I made the same decision that everyone who steps behind the wheel of a car makes: to accept the responsibility for my actions. If you pay for car insurance, you are accepting a monetary responsibility for your actions in your car. If you can't or won't accept that and buy insurance, in most cases, you don't drive. Sex is no different. If you kill someone with your car, will you have to take responsibility for your "one mistake" for the rest of your life? Certainly. And if you create a life with another person, are you assuming responsibility for that life? Yes. RU-486 will allow everyone to think "it's okay, I can just take that pill." It will almost certainly be used as freely as contraception, not to prevent life, but to terminate it. So yes, we are dealing with the question of our bodies. But if you're having sex, no matter what precautions you're using, you must acknowledge the risk, as surely as when you pay your automotive insurance. Therefore, you are making the choice for your body at that time, not after the fact. After all, aren't you glad your mother chose to let you live?

bill54494: I'm impressed by the thoughtful discussion on this issue. I believe that abortion is one of the great dilemmas of our time, along with other weighty matter of human life like capital punishment and war. Until someone can demonstrate to me that the products of human conception are not genetically human, not genetically distinct from the parents, and not alive, I will be unable to accept that abortion in any form is morally acceptable. I realize that there are many others who agonize over this complex issue, and I respect those who do so.

JerryLS: Please tell me who decided that the unborn had no rights. The truth is this. The supreme court had to rule that the unborn had no rights. And don't think that they can't rule out our lives, as well, if it comes to it.

---

Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily Scoop

Map | Search | Help | Send Us Comments