Nevermind by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Nevermind

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Saturday, August 26, 2006 18:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 639
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:49 PM

edit:
7% staightened me out here, the drug in question is this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel

not this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486

re: this story:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20246688-23109,00.h
tml

My bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:03 PM

SEVENPERCENT

At no part of that article does it state that the drug dissolves fetal tissue. It's Plan B, which really consists only of a double dose of regular birth control. I question your claim of a "fetal dissolver" as a scare tactic for this thread and making a pro-life case for what is nothing more than a birth control pill.

The fundies are in an uproar, as per usual with any sex-related issue (ie, issues they can't control), and you're helping them along.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:23 PM

DREAMTROVE

7%

I said "I read an article a while back" which stated that about ru486, which was then called 'the morning after pill.' If this drug isn't that drug, then I got confused, my apologies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:04 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Okay, you've admitted to your confusion on which pill you meant, but I remember the original post and this time I challenge your use of loaded language. I read through that entire Wiki article (and believe me when I say that chemistry and pharmacology are not my strongest subjects, so I had to read it 3 times), and I found this:

Quote:
FDA-approved to terminate pregnancy up to 49 days after the beginning of the latest menstrual cycle.

You claimed that you read an article that the drug in question, now the one you believe is RU486, can dissolve a fetus. I challenge your use of loaded language. A fetus, from Wiki, is

Quote:
In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the eighth week

, something quite past the limits of RU486.

Does it dissolve an embryo? Don't think so, but don't really care, either. Your use of the word "fetus" loads the argument towards a reader believing the pill affects babies as old as 4 or 5 (or more) months, which is in fact not the case.

If you consider an embryo to have the same considerations as a fetus or term birth, say so, but don't load the argument to make your point.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 6:20 PM

DREAMTROVE

7%

I read an article from a french science magazine some time ago which said that they had come to the conclusion that that was the mechanism, and that it had in fact dissolved the uterus lining in some patients. Now, it's possible that they were fudging their facts to support their own RTL predisposition, but they had me convinced.

Wikipedia, which is a good source, is not a good science source. I just wrote them a letter about another entry, DHEA, on which I believe they have the mechanism of action wrong. (DHEA is not a potent pro-hormore, it's a cholesterol transport and polymerase, at least, that's what I've read, and I've actually done the experiment and that's' what it looks like to me.)

So, I don't know the story with ru486, you may be right, but the last thing I want is an abortion argument. I don't take your claims that I stacked the argument, because you know me better than that by now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE