The RU486 tour option
In her brief to Federal MP’s presumably to inform them before their chance to locate and exercise their conscience, leading obstetrician Professor Caroline de Costa, from James Cook University’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Queensland, said that in several cases pregnant women had traveled to Auckland and Wellington to make use of New Zealand’s availability of RU486 to end their pregnancy.
I’m fairly confident a woman is the same everywhere in the world…in a gynaecological/obstetric sense.
The major difference between New Zealand women and Australian women seems to be that nine years ago they didn’t have a Harradine and currently they don’t have an Abbott.
Australian women are exercising their right to choice by traveling to countries and ordering the RU486 tour option.
Let’s break free from two disproportionately powerful men with no medical qualifications and create choice right here at home.
Image from here
December 5th, 2005 at 4:57 am
We live in a crazy country.
The thing which irks me me most at the moment is that Harradine sold out his resistance to the Telstra sale for this abortion drug approval mumbo-jumbo.
Now, not only do we now have this mumbo-jumo, but Telstra is also quite stuffed. The Australia public were shafted on both fronts.
December 5th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Strangely, RU486 is available in the land of St George Of The Jungle (watch out for that tree!) and Pat ‘Love Thy Neighbour But Kill Chavez’ Robertson…
December 6th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
1. Maybe I’m missing something here, but wouldn’t it be much more economical to buy the drug over the internet? or would Customs intercept it?
2. I remember when I was young (channeling Matt Taylor here), experiencing a condom breakage, his of course not mine. I went to the doc next day and was given a whole packet of oral contraceptives to take at once, which worked. Why isn’t this being done? did it turn out to be dangerous, or does it only work if it’s literally “the morning after”? Just curious, if anyone knows.
December 6th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
St George of the Jungle.. Love it.
December 6th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Helen,
In 1996, Harradine (and his supporters) got all these drugs on the ‘import with permit only’ list.
Abortifacients (substances for abortion) including:
Alprostadil
Carboprost
Dinoprost
Dinoprostone
Gemeprost
Mifepristone
Misoprostol
Prostaglandins
Vaccines against human chorionic gonadotrophin
Thankfully in December 2003, the law changed and the ‘morning-after’ pill became available ‘over the counter’ from 1 January 2004.
I researched the chemists in my area in the first week of 2004 and it was readily available ranging from $20 – $27.50.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:44 am
I have to admit, I knew nothing about the morning after pill. I have realised I have been living under a rock when it comes to these sorts of health issues.
—-
I googled the morning after pill and found this
December 7th, 2005 at 6:20 am
David,
People being able to tell their stories is so necessary as we learn from their experiences –
Thank you Helen!
December 7th, 2005 at 8:22 am
David, it’s not unusual that men know very little about every whipstitch of women’s reproductive health. However, this knowledge is a very basic responsibility of any man who is sexually active with women. This is not information you want to be acquiring and considering at the very moment your partner has turned up pregnant and you two are discussing a termination- that is IF she bothers to discuss it with you at all. She’s certainly under no obligation to involve a partner in these considerations.
Far, FAR too many men think birth control is solely their female partner’s concern. This is more than a bit ironic considering it is primarily males who are intent upon writing laws for body parts which they themselves don’t have. When men start having abortions, it will be appropriate that men make rules regarding abortion- but not before.
The more I read about RU486, the more I think surgical terminations are probably preferable. A surgical abortion is done and over with in 30 minutes with a few days of bleeding and discomfort. Then again, I’ve never been naked from the waist down on the gynecologist’s workbench, with my feet in the stirrups. The whole notion of having a stranger between my legs poking surgical instruments in my nether bits sounds profoundly invasive- and I can certainly see why women would want to avoid such an experience.
Anti-abortion protesters may insist on their right to free speech, but all rights have limits. When anti-abortion protesters crowd around the entries to abortion clinics, they are indeed creating a dissuasion for women from seeking approriate reproductive healthcare, which is women’s sole and inalienable right. It has been noted in the RU486 debate that some women have preferred to be able to simply go to their GP’s surgery to obtain a termination via pharmacologic means rather than run the gauntlet of anti-woman, anti-choice harassers outside women’s clinics. When free speech rights impinge upon women asserting their rights to free reproductive choice, the woman’s right to choose how to operate her body must prevail- every single time.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
weezil, the reason pro-lifers attend clinics to dissuade women from entering is because they care about them. i wish you could understand how hard it is to watch woman and child enter, with only one of them leaving after the deed is done.
i’d suggest you spend some time near an abortion clinic, not to heckle those pro-lifers you disagree with, but just take in the atmosphere and the situation with an open mind. they are profoundly depressing places, and one can feel a sense of oppression coming from the building. in fact, the only way most pro-lifers can sustain a presence at these places is to pray, because it is such a hardship to be there. once again, we only do it because we care about mother and child equally…..
December 7th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Marcel,
You amaze me. You can sense that a woman going through an abortion is affected by the experience, but you cannot contemplate that, perhaps, whilst she would rather not be going through with an abortion, she has decided that she has no other viable choice.
Can you grasp that people fuck? Fucking can make a baby. A baby was not why she fucked! She does not want to be pregnant. She has an abortion.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Marcel slobbered, “i wish you could understand how hard it is to watch woman and child enter”
Marcel, who cares how YOU feel? It’s not ABOUT you- or haven’t you worked that out yet?
A decision to end a pregnancy is between a woman and her GP. This has less than nothing to do with anyone else, much less YOU!
If you’re so bothered, quit stalking women- starting with Suki!
December 7th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
Suki, perhaps you need to form your own political party. I’ve already designed your first bumper sticker. 😀
December 7th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
*grinning broadly*
Thank you weezil.
Can I have a subtle one when parking at work like – “Abortion happens make it safe”
December 8th, 2005 at 4:43 am
Hey Marcel,
I read your comment and think you’re mistaken in your motives for what you do. In your comment, I don’t think you are doing what you do through care or concern for the woman, but only for yourself.
Caring as I understand it involves putting someone else’s needs before your own. For example, I care for my wife because I will (at times) put her needs, desires, wants above my own.
The way you explain what you do seems to be putting your feelings, needs and desires first. For example, you write:
… how hard it is (for you) to watch
… they are profoundly depressing places, and one (ie you) can feel a sense of oppression
These are all your feelings which you are acting through. Not the woman’s. The foetus too is to young to have feelings or emotions. The only feelings you are taking into account here are your own.
I don’t think you are doing it for the woman. I don’t think that is caring for them. And I think you’re misleading yourself in thinking that it is.
Hope this info helps you.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:46 am
You misunderstand folks. I find pro-lifers to be very selfless people who act overwhelmingly out of concern for others. People don’t take on the abortion issue for fun, or popularity, but because a human rights abuse is going on. I shared my personal feeling because weezil railed against clinic witnesses as ‘anti woman’ and ‘anti choice’. That is not the case, we are pro woman, we stand for an ethical choice.
People who care only for themselves say “I’m personally opposed to abortion, would never have one, but i can’t tell others what to do.” I think that is a self centered point of view. Pro lifers on the other hand go to clinics morning after morning to try and rescue complete strangers and their children, in a loving fashion, from an awful atrocity. I believe that is true sacrifice, especially in the face of the abuse one receives for doing so.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Marcel… once again… who cares what you think? You have no right to force your beliefs on others. Full stop.
Indeed, David has you pegged. You’re acting on your own misguided empathy. Talk about selfish!
December 8th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
Yes, marcel, I believe you believe you are pro-woman. The problem is your view of a woman is so narrow as to exclude many women – Women who are gratefully referred to an abortion clinic for instance.
Do you actually approach these women? Are you aware that women are told about selfless people like you by their referring doctor and bring support of their own to counteract you?
Do you understand self-determination or body integrity?
Abortion clinics routinely hire security guards for their entrances.
It’s not to keep the women in, Marcel, it’s to keep you out!
Pray all you like, exhaust yourself with the selfless fatigue.
Unwanted pregnancies continue to end with an abortion – reality.
You are irrelevant.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Indeed, a decision affecting the bodies of women should be a decision made by a woman. I really don’t understand the uterine obsession that conservative folk seem to have.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
j, nothing wrong with a uterine obsession- as long as one is obsessed with her own uterus.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:09 am
Suki – I think you’re on to something. That some people may care, but their conception of the entity they are helping is incorrect. Their idea of what a woman is doesn’t map onto reality. As such, they do damage.
I hadn’t thought of it from that angle.
I’ve always tended to see what happens as a schism between what people believe they are doing, and what they are actually doing. An example of how this can go wrong is the husband who tells himself he is loving his wife because he is hitting her. Or indeed, the politictian who tells us he is given employees a better deal, when he’s removing their support structure.
The belief doesn’t map onto reality.
Marcel: I read your reply, and can’t agree with some of the ideas you have expressed in it.
For example, “we stand for an ethical choice.”
I don’t see anti-abortionists as giving people choices. Choice involves increasing options. In wanting to stop people having abortions, anti-abortionists are removing options, which is the opposite of choice.
Also, I’m guessing ethics from your point of view is Christian ethics, rather than the woman’s own ethics. By pushing your brand of ethics on her, you’re not opening up options for her, you’re closing them down. You are desiring to negate her own ethics and replace it with Christian principles.
I think what you’re doing is not given people “the ethical choice” but are trying to control people and incorrectly justifying it to yourself as “giving them choices”.
I think you may better describe what you do as “We are trying to force people through demonstration into taking the option which we believe is the right one.”
—-
I also don’t agree with the idea:
People who care only for themselves say “I’m personally opposed to abortion, would never have one, but I can’t tell others what to do.”
I think what you describe in the quote is unrelated to selfishness and selflessness.
Caring only for yourself means you only take your own feelings and desires into account when making decisions. For example, the husband who ignores his wife’s needs and desires before making decisions is an example of selfishness.
The quote describes a fundamental principle in human rights like freedom of religion. By having such a tennent, I can’t tell anyone that they shouldn’t be a Christian or a Muslim because I don’t agree with them.
It is unconnected with one’s own desires and needs, and more to do with a way of setting up one’s life of society.
I think the two ideas of selfishness and the tennet behind freedom of religion are unconnected.
—
Also, I think Suki is right. I think you could get great benefit from talking to women whose lives you have affected and confirm your beliefs about your caring.
If it is too hard to find or approach these women, seek out their blogs. Face to face communication is always the best kind, but reading their blogs may give you insight into how your caring has affected them.
Hope this info helps.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
For Marcel’s sake. “A soul is born when it takes its first breath”.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Link,
marcel hasn’t been for a while.
I imagine he has exhausted himself into a selfless fatigue fugue.