PDA

View Full Version : Gasp!



Qtec
06-10-2005, 05:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Politics Of Rape And Contraception
LOS ANGELES, June 9, 2005


Lori Robinson is a survivor.

"When I got to my front doorstep I saw the barrel of a gun pointing at my head," she says. "I was rushed up to my apartment, blindfolded and gagged with duct-tape and tied down on my bed, and I was raped by two strangers."

She feared disease, emotional collapse but not pregnancy, because the hospital in Washington D.C. offered her emergency contraception.

Being told about the emergency contraception, she says, "in that time of total devastation, it was a relief."

But, as CBS News Correspondent Bill Whitaker reports, it wasn't a right, because these days emergency contraception is embroiled in the bitter politics of abortion.

Now, there's some confusion over just what emergency contraception is. It is not RU-486 - the pill which can cause an abortion early in a pregnancy. Emergency contraception is also known as the morning-after pill. Taken soon after a rape, it can actually prevent a pregnancy.

In Colorado, a measure that would have required hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims was vetoed by the governor.

He was strongly supported by the Catholic Church, which calls it tantamount to abortion.

"If ovulation has occurred, there's a potential for new life in that woman, so then the church's responsibility is to protect both the woman and the new baby," says Alia Keys, coordinator of the Office of Marriage and Family for the Archdiocese of Denver.

The federal government is siding squarely with religious conservatives. Dr. Michael Weaver helped draft national guidelines for rape victims, which strongly recommended offering the morning-after pill.

But when the Justice Department released the final version, all mention of emergency contraception had been removed.

"If indeed this prevents an unwanted pregnancy then that subsequently prevents abortions down the line," says Weaver of St. Luke's Hospital in Kansas City.

Some 25,000 women become pregnant from rape each year. To this rape survivor, there is no debate.

"How dare someone tell me what's best," says Robinson.

But for many hospitals and physicians it's a moral issue.

"I think that it's not their decision to make," says Robinson.

Right now, that depends where a rape occurs.



<hr /></blockquote>

I really dont know what to say!
What I would really like to see is GW on tv trying to explain to a woman who has been raped ,why she should have a baby that she doesnt want.
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in MD
06-10-2005, 05:58 AM
Ditto. Better yet, I'd like to hear him explain to any woman, raped or not, who doesn't want a pregnancy, why he thinks it's any of his business, or anyone elses business, what she decides to do.

Gayle in Md.

catscradle
06-10-2005, 06:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Ditto. Better yet, I'd like to hear him explain to any woman, raped or not, who doesn't want a pregnancy, why he thinks it's any of his business, or anyone elses business, what she decides to do.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

I understand why anybody who is anti-abortion would take a stand against it. However, even if it is defacto abortion, according to the current interpretation of the constitution abortion is legal therefore this pill (assuming proper FDA approval with all prerequisite trial periods) should be legal as well.
Whether it is moral or not is another issue which I don't care to get involved in, but it is clearly legal.

SPetty
06-10-2005, 07:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Now, there's some confusion over just what emergency contraception is. It is not RU-486 - the pill which can cause an abortion early in a pregnancy. Emergency contraception is also known as the morning-after pill. Taken soon after a rape, it can actually prevent a pregnancy.<hr /></blockquote>I thought RU-486 IS the morning-after pill, and I thought its intent is NOT abortion, but preventing pregnancy. Does anyone know if this statement quoted above is accurate?

Qtec
06-10-2005, 07:22 AM
What is it you want to know?
Q

Rich R.
06-10-2005, 08:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> What I would really like to see is GW on tv trying to explain to a woman who has been raped ,why she should have a baby that she doesnt want.
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>
I would like to see one of GW's daughters in this situation and GW trying to explain it to her.

Gayle in MD
06-10-2005, 08:34 AM
People who are against abortions, don't have to have them. Now, when they want to dictate to others regarding their private and personal choices, that's where the line should be drawn, IMO.

The effort to undo the legality of a woman's right to choose, is driven mostly by the religeous right, I do believe. There are far reaching possible implications, which could include the right to birth control. This has already shown up in a few spots in our country, ie. pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills.

The interference by the right into the personal choices of women should not be taken too lightly either, IMO, since there are a number of forms of birth control which amount to the abortion of the fertilized egg. One wonders, how far the religeous right, and the conservatives will take all this, given that Bush will be appointing probably several Supreme Court Judges.

The moral issue, should be a personal issue, IMO.

GAyle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-10-2005, 08:44 AM
As I understand it, the only form of birth control which never has the possibility of aborting a fertilized egg, is the successful use of profilactics. All other forms, including birth control pills, have the potential of aborting, through hormone manipulation, a fertilized egg, except for surgical interference in the process.

Gayle

Qtec
06-10-2005, 08:51 AM
Rich, its just the begining. next they will be deciding who can procreate and who cant!
They might bring in a law that says everyone under a certain IQ , must be castrated! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Imagine how embarrassing that will be , when , at the next WH press conference, GW starts speaking 2 octaves HIGHER. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Qtec. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif.......although I do think C. Rove should be castrated.


That guy is way............. too .........ugly!!!!!!!!!..................Haaaaaa... ........LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SPetty
06-10-2005, 10:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> What is it you want to know?<hr /></blockquote>I was attempting to ask if the article you quoted was correct when it said that the morning-after pill is not RU-486.

RU-486 is the only morning after pill I've heard of, and its purpose is not abortion, but to prevent pregnancy.

So I guess I want to know if the morning after pill is RU-486. To continue, if it's not RU-486, then what is it?

Chopstick
06-10-2005, 10:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Now, there's some confusion over just what emergency contraception is. It is not RU-486 - the pill which can cause an abortion early in a pregnancy. Emergency contraception is also known as the morning-after pill. Taken soon after a rape, it can actually prevent a pregnancy.<hr /></blockquote>I thought RU-486 IS the morning-after pill, and I thought its intent is NOT abortion, but preventing pregnancy. Does anyone know if this statement quoted above is accurate? <hr /></blockquote>

I checked around. The morning after pill is only good for 72 hours max. It should be taken within 24 hours for best results. RU-486 appears to be different. It is the one that is referred as the abortion pill.

I still don't see what this has to do with George Bush. He wasn't even in Qs article.

SpiderMan
06-10-2005, 11:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> People who are against abortions, don't have to have them. Now, when they want to dictate to others regarding their private and personal choices, that's where the line should be drawn, IMO. <hr /></blockquote>
Where should the line be drawn? At what point should the woman cease to have a choice? Is "birth" just an arbitrary point, separated by a few inches of distance from "pregnancy"? How far beyond birth should the opportunity for "choice" remain? An hour, a week, a month? Does an hour before birth versus an hour after define "humanity"? Ok, how about a week before vs after? A month? Where's that line?

When I was seventeen, it seemed convenient to think of a fetus as something like a pimple on one's ass, to be removed for convenience. My thinking has matured considerably, and though I'm not religious I disagree with the blatant anti-life propaganda disguised as preserving the "right" of the person not being killed.

We MUST draw a line somewhere ... and though some may wish otherwise, I like to think it's too late for my parents to "recall" me. On the other hand, "abstinance" is an unworkable example of drawing the line too early. But I do believe one thing - the line, when drawn, should be a matter of law. We can't have every individual empowered with the "choice" of arbitrarily putting the line wherever it happens to suit them. Killing (at some debatable point it must be considered such) is not a "right", even for us agnostics.

SpiderMan

Gayle in MD
06-10-2005, 05:31 PM
The problem lies in the fact that people will not be able to agree on when, or by what amount of time, an abortion would be acceptable. IMO, it should be done within the first trimester, and after that, not at all, unless the life which is already here, namely the Mother's life, is in danger.

Labels, such as anti-life, have no place in this discussion, IMO. That label could be attached to many situations,... war, for example, is certainly one of them. Lawful execution, provides another. Do we wish to continue life in cases of brain death? Is it anti life to pull the plug on the elderly, who are ill, suffering, wishing for death?

When government steps between a woman and her doctor, in personal decisions, such as whether or not to become a mother, or carry a fetus to term, then all our rights are in danger of being controlled by those who wish to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. Many such people think that pregnancy prevention of any kind is wrong, and label birth control as anti life. Are we to allow them to tell us that we must reproduce at every encounter just because they happen to believe that their God wanted unlimited reproduction?

When an issue is far too complex to secure one dicision which will suit and satisfy all, then guidelines should be implemented, certainly, but dictatorship to all according to the belief system of some, is also not the answer, IMO.

Women fought long and hard to secure the right to use birth control, and to have a choice regarding their reproductive decisions. IOW, it is a woman's issue, and until a man carries and brings to term the first male delivery of a baby, those men who wish to control the bodies of women, either because of religious beliefs, or some other need to dictate, should remain outside the discussion, IMO.

IOW, and IMO, it is no Mans' business what a woman does with her own body, period.

Gayel in Md.