Thursday, June 19, 2008

Bob should love RU486!

Bob pretends to care about the health of women. Take a listen to his screed from last Monday against mifepristone, also known as RU486, the prescription drug that's been used by millions of women around the world to induce an abortion.
Did y'know here here in the U.S., there have been at least seven women that it's confirmed that their deaths have been linked to taking RU486, the abortion drug...that's basically just about one person minimum per year dying from taking this. Now I want you, just try to imagine for a moment: what Asprin company do you think, just pick your Asprin, or Tylenol, anything like that, what over the counter drug, could anyone take, we'll say for headaches, where you would have an average of a minimum of one person die from taking it, that the FDA wouldn't be yanking that stuff off the shelf? You have that right now with RU486.
First of all, a recent study by University of Michigan researchers shows that misuse of the drug may be related to deaths from mifepristone. Apparently, some women were using the drug vaginally instead of orally.

But let's take a look at Bob's assertion that mifepristone is somehow a dangerous drug that should be yanked off the shelves. This article in the New England Journal of Medicine pretty much lays waste to this assertion. Basically, the death rate of using mifepristone is about 1 in 100,000 (or .01%). The death rate for carrying the pregnancy to term is 8 to 10 times higher than that!

Why isn't Bob warning women against the risk of death of getting pregnant? The fact of the matter is it's safer for a woman to have an abortion than to carry the child to term!

And Bob's wrong again about mifepristone's safety in comparison to other drugs. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) causes over 400 deaths per year due to liver failure. Sildenafil (Viagra) has been linked to hundreds of deaths.

Why isn't Bob warning his audience against the risk of taking Tylenol or Viagra?

Because this isn't about women's health issues. No, Bob simply wants to criminalize abortion in all cases, no matter what the circumstances. Rape, incest, birth defects... none of that matters to Dutko.

What's truly odd is Bob's feigning compassion for women taking mifepristone given that, if he applied some logical reasoning, he should support these deaths. Look:
  1. Bob believes abortion is murder.
  2. Bob believes that a woman having an abortion is guilty of murder and should be punished accordingly.
  3. Bob believes in the death penalty.
Therefore, if Bob had his way, a woman who has an abortion could be put to be death for committing a murder. Using Bob's own standards, therefore, it seems that mifepristone is simply saving a lot of time and expense by killing the woman without the bother of a trial.

So spare us the false concern, Bob. We know that you're a misogynist.

5 comments:

Scot said...

While I think I understand your misplaced compassion, killing a child produced by rape wouldn't appear to help the situation. In fact, it would seem to make it worse. As someone who was born from such a situation, I can tell you I'm glad my mother had no intention of killing me prior to my birth. A woman who is raped is understandably under no obligation to keep her child, she neither has the right to destroy it either. Or should abortion be allowed for any reason whatsoever? Who am I to say, right? After all, I'm just a man.

Scot said...

I suppose I ought to add that while Bob and I share a few, make that very few, of the same convictions, he makes me cringe when I listen to him. Call it a guilty pleasure--akin to listening to Wham!

Jeff said...

Scot said:
While I think I understand your misplaced compassion,

I did not think I exposed much compassion in my original post. I merely set to outline that Bob's so-called compassion for women who die using RU-486 is false, because he has clearly stated that a woman who gets an abortion is guilty of murder.

[K}illing a child produced by rape wouldn't appear to help the situation. In fact, it would seem to make it worse.

Well, that is clearly a matter of opinion. I'm sure that if I were to find a group of women who were pregnant as a result of rape, at least one of those women would not choose to carry the child to term for a whole host of reasons. Heck, even John McCain agrees with this position.

As someone who was born from such a situation, I can tell you I'm glad my mother had no intention of killing me prior to my birth.

However, if your mother did choose to have an abortion instead of giving birth to you, you would have absolutely no opinion on the situation, because you never would have formed the consciousness or intelligence to make such an opinion.

A woman who is raped is understandably under no obligation to keep her child, she neither has the right to destroy it either.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as do I. A woman does have the right to have an abortion as outlined in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Or should abortion be allowed for any reason whatsoever? Who am I to say, right? After all, I'm just a man.

OK.

Let me ask you this question. If my wife were to have an abortion, how would this have an effect on you? How would you be harmed? What possible negative consequences comes of it?

Scot said...

Man, is this response late. If your wife were to have an abortion what effect would it have on me? Oh a few, from a purely quotidian, individualistic perspective, probably none at all. One less mouth to feed, one less carbon footprint, one less taxpayer, blah, blah, blah. Another perspective might be that I am diminished because a fellow human being, a person, was brutally murdered. Perhaps the person who was to move America or the world in a better direction had been snuffed.
I, of course, would not be directly harmed, but neither am I harmed when some nine-year-old Thai girl is forced into prostitution. I am not directly harmed when some teenagers decide to kill small mammals just for fun. But what does the overall attitude that some persons are not persons do to me as an individual and as a member of society? Perhaps nothing. Then again, do I want to say nothing as 45,000,000 beings are wiped out, mostly for convenience's sake? I realize you and I won't agree, and of course, if my mother had killed me in utero I wouldn't know about it, but does that morally justify her decision? I would have to say no.
I appreciate your response and your blog.

Jeff said...

Scot,

I asked: "If my wife were to have an abortion, how would this have an effect on you? How would you be harmed? What possible negative consequences comes of it?"

Your answer was:

I am diminished because a fellow human being, a person, was brutally murdered.

I guess I don't understand how you're somehow "diminished" due to my wife's hypothetical abortion. If she were to have an abortion tomorrow, you'd still be here, right? Your friends and family would still be here, right? Or, like Obi-wan Kenobi, would you sense a small disturbance in The Force?

Perhaps the person who was to move America or the world in a better direction had been snuffed.

Perhaps. Or perhaps that person would be a serial murderer or brutal dictator. Perhaps the world would be a better place if Klara Hitler would have had an abortion.

I, of course, would not be directly harmed, but neither am I harmed when some nine-year-old Thai girl is forced into prostitution. I am not directly harmed when some teenagers decide to kill small mammals just for fun.

I think your attempts at analogy are both incorrect. Can you not see the stark differences between the nine-year-old Thai girl and an unborn fetus? Are you also arguing that sport hunting should be outlawed?

But what does the overall attitude that some persons are not persons do to me as an individual and as a member of society? Perhaps nothing.

Not perhaps; it really doesn't have any effect on you whatsoever! Besides, unborn humans, who have never taken a breath and do not have self-awareness, simply are not "persons" under the law.

Then again, do I want to say nothing as 45,000,000 beings are wiped out, mostly for convenience's sake? I realize you and I won't agree...

Well, nobody has said you shouldn't say anything. You're more than welcome to advocate your position that women shouldn't have abortions (even if you can't explain why). But there's a difference between advocating a position and using the power of the government to mandate your position on everyone. That's what Bob wants to do. In fact, he wants to send women to prison if they have an abortion. Do you agree with Bob on that point?

Finally, as you clearly deduced, you and I don't agree on this. But it's not just me. As you unwittingly noted, there are at least 45 million women who don't agree with you either! (assuming your numbers are correct, of course)