|
Author
|
Topic: Only if Mom says so
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 241 of 304 (439169)
12-07-2007 3:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 239 by ringo
12-07-2007 1:26 PM
|
|
Hi, Ringo.
My personal feeling is that sometimes it's prefereable. I wouldn't phrase it this way myself, but I think we mostly agree. Me, I would say that neither one is preferable in itself: what is preferable is the woman make her choice based upon the best information provided to her and taking into account her own feelings and values. -
The important thing is that it's up to her to decide, not some guy with a coathanger or a poison smoothie. We did get a little off the main topic, didn't we? - P.S. Heh, I wonder how many people are going to figure out "XP"?
If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 239 by ringo, posted 12-07-2007 1:26 PM | | ringo has not replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: It's all or nothing
If there is one thing that I think both groups can agree about is that there is nothing inherently good about abortion. Nope. There are many inherently good things about abortion. 1. If a woman is poverty stricken 2. If the fetus is genetically defective 3. If a woman is raped 4. If a woman is young
Without abortion, women would be less healthy, less educated, less able to realize their gifts and talents, less able to choose their mates; children would be cared for worse and provided for less well; sex would be blighted by fear of pregnancy, as it used to be back in the good old days; families would be even more screwed up than they already are; there would be more single mothers who can't cope, more divorce, more poverty, and more unhappy people feeling sandbagged by circumstance. You’ve reached a 404 page. The Pro-Life movement because they believe that the unborn constitutes a human being with certain unalienable rights, and that the potential mother faces serious psychological/physical trauma over the event. The potential mother does not face serious psychological trauma. That's one of the insidious untruths ("Post Abortion Syndrome") flogged to death by the anti abortionists.
The American Psychological Association has concluded that abortion rarely causes any long-lasting psychological after-effects. Many negative feelings are related to the unwanted pregnancy, not the abortion, which usually brings feelings of relief. Psychological problems, such as post-partum depression, are common in new mothers. HealthBoards Message Boards The risk of serious physical trauma is less than carrying a fetus to term.
The Pro-Choice movement because a woman has to have surgery that has the potential to harm her and to be potentially stigmatized by her peers. I don't even know what the H E double hockey sticks you're talking about. What stigma?
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: It's all or nothing
Hi, mb-girl. I'm enjoying your posts as usual.
There are many inherently good things about abortion. 1. If a woman is poverty stricken 2. If the fetus is genetically defective 3. If a woman is raped 4. If a woman is young You forgot one: she just plain doesn't want to be a mother.
If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 242 by molbiogirl, posted 12-07-2007 3:27 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: It's all or nothing
There are many inherently good things about abortion. 1. If a woman is poverty stricken 2. If the fetus is genetically defective 3. If a woman is raped 4. If a woman is young You're not understanding. If it could all be avoided, I'm certain just about everyone would avoid it if possible. Its like any surgery. If you didn't need or want the surgery, you would rather avoid it. Is that not accurate?
The potential mother does not face serious psychological trauma. I don't think you are in any position to make that determination since its common knowledge that many women have expressed remorse and guilt after having gone through it. Heck, even Roe, as in Roe v Wade, has switched alliances over the guilt. You may not personally be affected by it, but then, some people are more calloused than others. More to the point, have you ever had an abortion or do you have any children? I think while it may be convenient to make a statement from a detached distance, personalizing the matter might better elucidate the point.
That's one of the insidious untruths ("Post Abortion Syndrome") flogged to death by the anti abortionists. Molbiogirl, no matter what anyone's stance is on abortion, it would be ludicrous to think that some women wouldn't feel remorse over the procedure. Its not an insidious untruth. What you are claiming is actually a pernicious falsehood.
The American Psychological Association has concluded that abortion rarely causes any long-lasting psychological after-effects. Many negative feelings are related to the unwanted pregnancy, not the abortion, which usually brings feelings of relief. Psychological problems, such as post-partum depression, are common in new mothers. You don't need the APA to figure out what should be readily apparent all on its own -- that women, like it or not, are often connected with their children in utero.
The risk of serious physical trauma is less than carrying a fetus to term. And to think, our mom's survived to live productive lives-- truly an anomaly.
What stigma? Most women don't broadcast to the world that they've had an abortion. Many of them keep things like that a secret. Whether they are judged or not, many of them assume that they will be judged and end up feeling stigmatized by it. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Re: It's all or nothing
Most women don't broadcast to the world that they've had an abortion. Would you broadcast your colonoscopy? Is that because the procedure has a stigma, or because people don't generally broadcast the ins-and-outs (if you will) of their various medical goings-on?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 244 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-07-2007 4:22 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: It's all or nothing
You're not understanding. If it could all be avoided, I'm certain just about everyone would avoid it if possible. Its like any surgery. If you didn't need or want the surgery, you would rather avoid it. Is that not accurate? Nope. Dunno bout you, but I want my sebaceous cyst lanced.
I don't think you are in any position to make that determination since its common knowledge that many women have expressed remorse and guilt after having gone through it. Oh. Common knowledge.
wiki writes: The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS as a valid diagnosis and it is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions. The task force concluded that "research with diverse samples, different measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress. Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44. Comparing data before and a month after the abortion, our study showed a significant decline of both anxiety and depression for both abortion methods ... Our study supports the consensus view that termination of an unwanted pregnancy is a positive first solution to the conflict, regardless of the chosen method. The positive outcome and high satisfaction levels among the participants illustrate the importance of an ongoing and improved accessibility of medical abortion for women in Germany. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 26, Number 1, March 2005 , pp. 23-31(9) This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion ... The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65. The quantitative findings of the study support the consensus view that abortion is associated with high incidence of psychological benefit, whichever method is used. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1994 Nov;73(10):812-8. A review of methodologically sound studies of the psychological responses of U.S. women after they obtained legal, nonrestrictive abortions indicates that distress is generally greatest before the abortion and that the incidence of severe negative responses is low. Psychosomatic Medicine 66:795-796 (2004) Two years postabortion, 301 (72%) of 418 women were satisfied with their decision; 306 (69%) of 441 said they would have the abortion again; 315 (72%) of 440 reported more benefit than harm from their abortion; and 308 (80%) of 386 were not depressed. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:777-784. Well designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age. APA 2005 Position Paper (H)aving one abortion was positively associated with higher global self-esteem, particularly feelings of self-worth, capableness, and not feeling one is a failure. It also noted that adverse emotional reactions to the abortion are influenced by pre-existing psychological conditions and other negative factors and, furthermore, that women's well-being was separately and positively related to employment, income, and education, but negatively related to total number of children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(4), 269-280. Yeah. Not so much, huh, Juggs?
What you are claiming is actually a pernicious falsehood. Nope. See above.
Molbiogirl, no matter what anyone's stance is on abortion, it would be ludicrous to think that some women wouldn't feel remorse over the procedure. Some? You mean less than 1%? And, of those 1%, most had pre existing depression?
You don't need the APA to figure out what should be readily apparent all on its own -- that women, like it or not, are often connected with their children in utero. Juggs, you are full of beans. I am no more "connected" to a wad of undifferentiated cells in my uterus than I am to that sebaceous cyst on my arm. Hey. Here's an idea. Why don't you do a pubmed search and find evidence of this supposed "connection".
And to think, our mom's survived to live productive lives-- truly an anomaly. Way to throw up a red herring. It is a documented fact that pregnancy is higher risk.
Most women don't broadcast to the world that they've had an abortion. I don't broadcast that fact that I had (insert gnarly medical procedure that I will not braodcast here on this board) either. And?
Many of them keep things like that a secret. Really? Care to document this assertion?
Whether they are judged or not, many of them assume that they will be judged and end up feeling stigmatized by it. Really? Care to document this assertion? Juggs, you need to lay off the bare assertions and provide documentary evidence of your nonsense.
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: Can't have it both ways...
Aw. Whatsamatter? Precious couldn't find my stat in the abstract?
No, Precious doesn't HAVE to find it. Again, for a person that likes to quote forum rules to others, you are a boatload of broken rules yourself. A title means nothing. I mean you didn't even explain what it meant. And once again, your... now given... citation says nothing about how ex is dosage INDEPENDENT. Remember my point was that it is dosage dependent... dosage and usage, dosage and usage, dosage and usage. Look at your quote. Even if it were stating there was lasting harm... which it doesn't... it clearly discusses ex in context of DOSAGE.
Drinking urine is drinking urine. You can call it whatever if you want. Therapy. Recreation. Doesn't matter. The fact remains: vomiting and diarrhea are common.
No, your assertion above is not true and contradictory to the cites you gave. One person pissing in a drink is NOT the same as the amount used in urine therapy. Within urine therapy, which was the only thing discussed at either cite you gave, it clearly discussed those issues as not being inherent to drinking urine. Vomiting comes from a psychological reaction, and can be eliminated with slow progression to urine therapy amounts. Your cite even gave that as a tip. The second was suggested to be a result in people that are already quite ill, or have been ill for some time. It also suggested that that would go away in time. You know there are many people out there who have drunk urine, particularly as part of sex. Vomiting and diarrhea are NOT inherent properties of drinking a bit o pee. Try it. And by the way, even if I were to buy your sad attempt at debate, McD's and Taco Bell can result in vomiting and diarrhea. Hell, prunes are sold with the idea that they will give one diarrhea. Neither are some sort of harm. Discomfort and embarrassment perhaps... harm?
h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: It's all or nothing
I think I did a poor job explaining myself in my last post. Thankfully you seem to have understood me. And I do agree with what your position is, as stated here. Let me try to clarify, for anyone else who I might have confused. I think the term "pro-abortion" gets equivocated by those on the anti-a side to mean wanting people to have more abortions. That they are somehow a great way to deal with pregnancies. That is not necessarily true. I think (and as you, Chiro, just said) abortion is the least preferable method of birth control. Hence, the fewer there are the better. And so I feel a bit odd when an anti-a person uses that term as if I want more abortions. When it really gets obvious, I will take an anti person to task for the error. On the flipside, I totally agree with you (Chiro), that some of those on the pro-choice side overreact to that term's usage at all. And they go to great lengths to argue how bad they think abortion is. At which point I agree that they are doing a huge disservice to the pro-choice side. I get equally uncomfortable with them. Maybe that makes me a flip-flopper... but I can be called both terms. I don't care so much about which term a person uses, but what is meant by its usage.
h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 236 by Chiroptera, posted 12-07-2007 8:24 AM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 249 of 304 (439235)
12-07-2007 9:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 247 by Silent H
12-07-2007 8:09 PM
|
|
Re: Can't have it both ways...
And once again, your... now given... citation says nothing about how ex is dosage INDEPENDENT. Remember my point was that it is dosage dependent... dosage and usage, dosage and usage, dosage and usage. Look at your quote. Even if it were stating there was lasting harm... which it doesn't... it clearly discusses ex in context of DOSAGE. What are you on about? I never said X was dosage independent. btw. "Dose independent" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Dose-independent adverse reactions are less common than dose-dependent ones. They are generally caused by allergic reactions to the drug or in some cases to other ingredients present in the dosage form. They occur in patients who were sensitized by a previous exposure to the drug or to another chemical with cross-antigenicity to the drug. Dose-independent adverse reactions can range from mild to severe. Britannica I said the street dose is 75-120 mg. I said that dose is sufficient to induce adverse side effects.
One person pissing in a drink is NOT the same as the amount used in urine therapy. Really? Care to document that assertion?
Vomiting comes from a psychological reaction ... Really? Care to document that assertion?
Vomiting and diarrhea are NOT inherent properties of drinking a bit o pee. Really? Care to document that assertion? (Hint: Either vomiting happens and it's "psychological" or vomiting doesn't happen. You can't have it both ways.)
McD's and Taco Bell can result in vomiting and diarrhea. Really? Care to document that assertion? Step up to the plate, chum. A pile of bare assertions does not a debate make.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 247 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2007 8:09 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 254 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2007 9:42 PM | | molbiogirl has replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: It's all or nothing
Dunno bout you, but I want my sebaceous cyst lanced. I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately evasive.... Read my words: If you had a choice to NOT ever have a sebaceous cyst you would rather that than having to have it lanced... Is this accurate? Likewise, instead of having to get an abortion, it would be better not to have been pregnant at all... Is this accurate? Or are you so gung-ho and mindlessly imbued by the whole thing that you seek out abortions intentionally?
Oh. Common knowledge... Yeah. Not so much, huh, Juggs? As much as we all love your bare links and your constant appeal to authority, you forget the fact that psychology, as well as most fields, are subject to personal bias. You can find any information on the web to substantiate any claim about abortion which serves to confirm that these studies have trouble accounting for personalities.
Some? You mean less than 1%? And, of those 1%, most had pre existing depression? Less than 1% is a ridiculous figure. You would have a better chance at saying that the cause of their depression is similar to postpartum depression, where a woman's hormones are all out of whack than alleging that it doesn't exist at all -- or if it does, it means they're crazy. Because really, it must be crazy to assume that a woman would have some emotional attachment to being pregnant, right? It would be as ambiguous as saying that any woman who didn't find it troubling began cold and calloused, which invariably explains why they are indifferent now. Secondly, these studies indicate that they derive from first trimester pregnancies. I assume there is no difference in your mind from a first, second, or third trimester as it relates to emotional attachment...?
I am no more "connected" to a wad of undifferentiated cells in my uterus than I am to that sebaceous cyst on my arm. And therein lies the problem.
Why don't you do a pubmed search and find evidence of this supposed "connection". Done deal... But really, what will it conclude, other than its inconclusive to you? If you have similar studies yielding different results, then what are you supposed to glean from it other than the tests themselves are suspect?
quote:
And to think, our mom's survived to live productive lives-- truly an anomaly.
Way to throw up a red herring. I was actually correcting a red herring -- namely, that pregnancy is the scourge of the earth. Be sure to thank your mother on mother's day and your birthday for the same thing -- the gift of your life.
It is a documented fact that pregnancy is higher risk. Whoa! And you say that I'm throwing out red herrings?!?!?! How completely irrelevant, especially in light of no one would exist if it were not for pregnancy. I suppose everyone should have abortions then?
I don't broadcast that fact that I had (insert gnarly medical procedure that I will not braodcast here on this board) either. And? Heh... Maybe I already know the answer and the point has been illustrated. Say no more. I also asked if you had children too. Well?
quote:
Many of them keep things like that a secret.
Really? Care to document this assertion? Well, Molbiogirl, if its kept secret, then one couldn't quantify that, now could we? I just happen to know from experience that many women keep that a secret until they reluctantly spill the beans. Whether they are judged or not, many of them assume that they will be judged and end up feeling stigmatized by it. Really? Care to document this assertion?
Juggs, you need to lay off the bare assertions and provide documentary evidence of your nonsense. Mol, is it really so nonsensical? You couldn't even answer the basic questions. You had to immediately remove the personal factor in favor of stale statistics, all of which, as I've illustrated, is inconclusive at best and immaterial at worst.
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: It's all or nothing
Nope. Dunno bout you, but I want my sebaceous cyst lanced.
I think you are missing the point of his question... which I think (and hope) you are capable of answering correctly without losing your position. Most people would rather do without surgery. If you could avoid having a fetus develop within you in the first place, wouldn't you prefer that to having it happen and then having to have an abortion? Or, if you could get rid of it before implantation such that you won't have to have an abortion, wouldn't you rather have that?
It is a documented fact that pregnancy is higher risk.
Whirl whirl twist and twirl... Gee when I said that, I got pegged by you. Is RU486 more or less dangerous than continuing with a pregnancy? If pregnancy is more dangerous, is it not more harmful? If the guy was really wanting to see his wife in physical pain or jeopardy wouldn't he have been better of NOT giving her the RU486? As my original post to you was titled, and I argued... you cannot have this both ways.
I am no more "connected" to a wad of undifferentiated cells in my uterus than I am to that sebaceous cyst on my arm.
While I would agree, that doesn't seem to be the position of many people on this thread. Was the wife connected to those undifferentiated cells in her uterus more than a sebaceous cyst on her arm? If you answer yes, then NJ has his point made. Perhaps not as an inherent fact for all abortions, but certainly with some.
Juggs, you need to lay off the bare assertions and provide documentary evidence of your nonsense.
PCKB. Are you really arguing that no women hide the fact of their abortion based on fear of what people might think of them? If not, then NJ's point is made, though perhaps limited in scope.
h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 252 of 304 (439242)
12-07-2007 9:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 248 by Silent H
12-07-2007 8:24 PM
|
|
Re: It's all or nothing
abortion is the least preferable method of birth control Nope. The pill is higher risk than abortion.
Long-term use of oral contraceptives (OCs) and anabolic androgenic steroids (AASs) can induce both benign (hemangioma, adenoma, and focal nodular hyperplasia [FNH]) and malignant (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) hepatocellular tumors. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Nov;1089:228-36. There is an increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke among Chinese users of long-term low-dose oral contraceptives, which appears to persist long after discontinuation. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006 Oct;15(10):726-34. Case-control studies have shown an increased risk of CVST (cerebral venous and sinus thrombosis) in women who use COCs (combined oral contraceptives), especially third-generation contraceptives that contain gestodene or desogestrel. Acta Neurol Scand. 2007 May;115(5):295-300. Risks of adverse cardiovascular and other serious events in users of a DRSP-containing OC are similar to those associated with the use of other OCs. Contraception. 2007 May;75(5):344-54.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 248 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2007 8:24 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 255 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2007 9:49 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 253 of 304 (439245)
12-07-2007 9:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 251 by Silent H
12-07-2007 9:13 PM
|
|
Re: It's all or nothing
Most people would rather do without surgery. On the contrary. If one is ill and surgery is the answer, then one would rather "do with the surgery".
Gee when I said that, I got pegged by you. I never said pregnancy is less risky than RU 486.
Is RU486 more or less dangerous than continuing with a pregnancy? We are not discussing poison smoothies. The issue at hand is the risks of abortion (medical/surgical) v. the risks of pregnancy. And the risks of pregnancy are higher.
If the guy was really wanting to see his wife in physical pain or jeopardy wouldn't he have been better of NOT giving her the RU486? A poison smoothie is aggravated assault.
Are you really arguing that no women hide the fact of their abortion based on fear of what people might think of them? I did not say "NO women hide the fact of their abortions". I asked Juggs to back up his assertion that ...
Many of them keep things like that a secret. "Many". I'd like to see some stats.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 251 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2007 9:13 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 256 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2007 10:04 PM | | molbiogirl has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: Can't have it both ways...
What are you on about? I never said X was dosage independent.btw."Dose independent" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Lame. You really seem to think scoring points is the name of the game here, and anything counts. Hoorah that someone uses the term dosage independent in a slightly (though not completely) different way. So what? In any case, if you believe that whether X does damage or not is based on dosage, then you agree with me, and all of this nonsense has been your fault.
I said the street dose is 75-120 mg. I said that dose is sufficient to induce adverse side effects.
One, you have never shown that, and two, that means nothing to my position on X even if you did.
Really? Care to document that assertion?
Clue to molbio: You made the claim so YOU have to prove it. That you've been asked to... and haven't been able to... does not mean you can suddenly reverse the onus to me. 2nd Clue to molbio: As it happens I did document those claims, referring to your own cites. That you refuse to look at them is not my problem. That you pretend I have not done so, is also not my problem.
(Hint: Either vomiting happens and it's "psychological" or vomiting doesn't happen. You can't have it both ways.)
Really? What are you channeling that Axiom debater in the other thread now? 1) It happens to SOME, and it is psychological when that happens. 2) It doesn't happen to others... likely because they don't have the psychological issue. What on earth is so hard to understand about that? As I said... and you have avoided for the second time... your OWN CITATION listed a tip on how to avoid vomiting when doing urine therapy, by introducing smaller amounts of pee into juice so you can get used to it (psychologically). That was your own citation. Lame skillz.
A pile of bare assertions does not a debate make.
And yet that is all you have provided... unless I count bare links, and quote mines. If you want to continue insisting that I have not answered your points above using your own cites already, then we are done here. I'm perfectly fine resting my case, since anyone with half a brain and average reading skills will understand your charges are meaningless. Oh wait, yes I didn't provide anything about McD's and TB causing Diarrhea. That was sort of a joke. To some it can cause that, but I suppose I should have realized the joke would confuse you. The prune bit was not a joke. That really is marketed for its laxative effect. I notice you didn't deal with it. Gee, wonder why? And btw... nice dodge on the piss-sex deal. That was one thing I didn't provide any refs for and you left off your list. Gee, wonder why? You want some links to piss-sex sites? I mean I have to take it you never tried it... or you couldn't BS the way you are. Or maybe you could? You also never addressed the problem that neither vomiting or diarrhea are truly harm. Discomfort and embarrassing maybe, but harm? People by prunes laxatives and.... uhm... expectorants (?) shoot I forgot the word. Anyway people buy products to induce vomiting and diarrhea. They are not harmful, unless in their most violent forms, which your cites also do not indicate is the result.
h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: It's all or nothing
Nope. The pill is higher risk than abortion.
First let me say that the question of if the pill is higher risk than abortion is an interesting subject. I'd like to see more info on that. However, your stats don't show anything of the kind. They show risks associated with the pill, but not comparisons. And indeed some are about (geez not again) dosage and usage issues leading to problems. They also do not show which is the prefered method, which is what I said. It may very well be that women would prefer to take a pill that might have adverse longterm side effects, than continually have to go in for abortions. That might be for psychological as well as financial reasons. But if you want to prove that women are better off having abortions than taking the pill... be my guest. That has no relevance to my position, and I'd find such stats interesting. Edited by Silent H, : able ed
h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 252 by molbiogirl, posted 12-07-2007 9:24 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2