Bill from INDC Journal has a post placing in context recent revelations that some women have died from ingesting RU-486. Bill reminds us all that a small number of deaths can be expected from almost anything humans do: taking RU-486, taking aspirin, crossing the street, or sticking your face in a fan. I take issue with a couple of his examples in the comments, but I like his overall point.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Powered by WordPress.
I would think the abortionists would be happy. The pill is meant to kill one and these people are getting “two for the price of one”.
Ed (dfd255) — 8/18/2005 @ 9:51 amBill’s central argument is valid, but like you I’ve a few problems with it. Fun fun fun in the comments!
Joan (b7e529) — 8/18/2005 @ 10:03 amGood Police Squad reference.
Voice of Reason (a8b058) — 8/18/2005 @ 12:51 pmGiven the repression that women have suffered for thousands of years, I think it’s about time that they develop a pill that doesn’t have any side effects (and is low cost so poor people can afford them and not just rich people). I think we all know that if there was an anti-abortion pill that was killing men, people wouldn’t be so cavailier?
True Blue (f8c2ea) — 8/18/2005 @ 3:18 pmIn ancient Greek the same word is used for “poison” and “medicine” — “pharmakon”. If it poisons the embryo and induces abortion, why should anyone think that it would not hurt someone bigger as well? I am not at all gleeful about this. I do not think that sex is punishable by death or unwanted motherhood. I am angry at people like NARAL who do not seem to even think about these things — only about the urgings of their gonacds.
nk (35ba30) — 8/18/2005 @ 4:46 pmI can’t express how horrified and sad I am that sex is more important than children in this nation. Whether the medicine is dangerous to women’s health or NOT is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of killing unborn children. Efficiency of murdering the victim while effectively protecting the life of the murderer is hardly a recommendation. THe fact is that abortion in the U.S. is generational genocide. To put it so that those who suffer from true liberal mind meld can understand the idea: it is ageism at its most deadly. If we really want to use death to eliminate the unwanted results of sex, let’s kill the woman and the man and keep the baby, for the baby is the only Innocent party. Better yet let’s keep all three alive and healthy and kill no one. I know this way of thinking is way to old fashioned and stodgy for today’s bright minds and brilliant ideologues.
john (fb05db) — 8/19/2005 @ 1:11 amYes, a small number of deaths can be the result of almost anything humans do. But.
Risk assessment means we compare not just the deaths but also the benefits to see whether the risk is worth the benefit. So say a medication to prevent heart attacks saves lives in most cases, with a small number of casualties for reasons that are not clear- in all probability, that medication would be approved, although it would have to come with warning.
However, if that medication also helped patients lose weight quickly, but killed a few, it would probably not be approved for that use.
One use saves lives, the other use doesn’t, so it’s hard to justify the deaths.
RU486 does not save lives, even if you disagree with a growing number of pro-choice people who admit that the human embryo is in fact human. It’s safer to have the baby than to have an abortion.
The second point with RU486 is that the rush to get it approved gives the lie to the claim that it’s all about women’s health and safety. That old chant “Pro-life, it’s a lie; you don’t care if women die” has always been nonsense. Prolifers do care if women die. Pro-choicers, on the other hand, object to regulations that keep the clinics as clean and safe as say, somewhere you get your ears pierced, and have fought to have RU486 treated differently than other drugs by the FDA, and try to keep the number of deaths to women from those ‘safe and legal’ abortions a deep, dark, secret. In fact, there has been a concentrated effort in the pro-choice movement to have clinics deregulated to the point that a doctor does not have to do the abortion, which is essentially a surgical procedure done blind. That hardly demonstrates a concern for the life and health of the woman.
If the prochoice crowd really cared more about women’s health and safety than abortion, they’d be more concerned about RU486 and conditions in the abortionist office. Which is, I would guess, one of Malkin’s points.
DeputyHeadmistress (e71725) — 8/19/2005 @ 8:58 amIt’s safer to have the baby than to have an abortion.
Actually, Bill has evidence that it’s not. People die from pregnancy and childbirth too.
Patterico (8303b8) — 8/19/2005 @ 9:23 amPatterico:
TJ Jacxkson (de4fb8) — 8/19/2005 @ 5:22 pmMaybe I’m wrong on this but in every abortion doesn’t at least one person die? Dothe mortality rates in childbirth equal that?
Could be wrong but I read or heard somewhere recently that it wasn’t RU486 that was the culprit in the deaths but the drug that induces labor several days after taking RU486 that essentially results in a miscarriage. I also read (or heard) that that drug was not originally designed for its current use and that the company producing it has warned strongly against its use in conjunction with RU486. Anyone else know anything about this that might add to a civil discussion of the actual risks to women being administered this protocol? Philly MD?
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 8/19/2005 @ 9:17 pm