maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 11:09am on 19/02/2006
even bigger nutballing comes in the form of "we're aborting ourselves out of existence"

unfortunately, it seems that no company is prepared to go through the hassle of getting ru-486 approved anyway.

what gets lost in the palaver is that ru-486 is a cancer treatment. it's abortifacent effect is a sideline ...
 
posted by [identity profile] verdigriis.livejournal.com at 11:46am on 19/02/2006
Yes, I'd heard about that cancer treatment thing. It's like the whole Thalidomide thing - apparently it has other uses, but given the whole birth defect thing can't be used on anyone - even men...

But I thought I read somewhere that there are now companies interested in selling the drug in Australia?

As for aborting ourselves out of existence - WTF? That's just insane. The human population has the opposite problem, if anything.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 01:32am on 20/02/2006
thalidomide is back on the medicare list as a cancer treatment.

many of the cancer drugs are nasty beasties. after all, they're intended to kill very tenacious organisms - which happen to be parts of ourselves.

the masses are emotional. thinking is a secondary activity. they remember how they felt much better than what they were thinking.

it was not surprising, but still disappoinitng, to see how quickly an issue about the proper authority to regulate a particular therapeutic drug became a screaming match over how people feel about deliberate miscarriage.

i'm hearing mixed signals about the place regarding ru-486 availability. until i hear more from my source in medicare australia, i'll just wait and see.

the 'aborting ourselves out of existence' was more a reflex of personal rage locally than the larger context. plenty of 'religious' people object to the killing of embryos and feotuses per se ... refusing to accept that neither are independent living things, and more particularly they're only interested in their own feelings on the matter. until very late in pregnancy, the putative child is not independant of the woman who carrying it. without her body, the developing body has no life.

having spent some time with a pregnant woman, and more time with biology, i have a pretty good outsider's understanding of the process. i also have a personal experience with parenting. no one should be forced to carry, give birth to, and then parent if they do not want to. but the nutters don't see things that way. they're fixated on 'every life is sacred' - by which they really mean 'we ought to control every life'.

if as much energy and effort was put into teaching kids about the value of their own lives and giving them the tools to manage themselves there might be a few more adults who were equipped for adulthood. some of them might even become adults, rather than reactive adolescents with drivers licences.
 
posted by [identity profile] verdigriis.livejournal.com at 11:03am on 20/02/2006
Pretty much.

I'm always amazed at how many right-to-lifers are pro the death penalty, and pro war. I find it an interesting example of double think - it is never OK to destroy a small bundle of unthinking cells (early in pregnancy) but it's fine to accept thinking, talking feeling children dying as "collateral damage" in a military action.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 09:00am on 21/02/2006
consistency is all too rare.

requires thinking.

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          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