PHIL 104 Homework assignment

[EricMM 0]

I think he meant that a woman shouldn't have to use a condom if she wants to just use abortions to prevent pregnancy.

 

I know the type, especially the type that sees abortions as intentionally painful in an attempt to coerce women into keeping babies. Since there are supposedly other ways to induce abortions (such as natural herbs and exercises (?) ) that are not painful at all.

[Guest stardust]

There's also RU-487 (I hope I got those numbers right, I'm pretty sure I did, though), which is a pill that causes an abortion. Well, more like it causes a miscarriage. It was used in France for years before the FDA ever approved it here, and it's a much safer and less painful alternative to surgical abortion (there is the chance of hemorraghing, but there's also that chance with surgicial abortions). So yes, there are less painful alternatives, to answer that.

[Highland 0]

c) one of the neo-feminists who believe they should not have to use contraception, since their body is their own to do with as they please whenever they want.

 

(awaits the incoming shelling)

 

I'm not sure what kind of feminists you're coming in contact with or referring to, because most feminists I know are very pro-birth control. Hell, I think in almost every single women's studies course I've taken, we've had long, drawn-out discussions about birth control and how sex ed needs to be taught in schools and how teens need to be educated about birth control and places like Planned Parenthood where you can go get free birth control (OMG free condoms~!). *shrug* But those are just the feminists I know. I'm sure there is some radical feminist subgroup out there that believes they shouldn't have to use contraception.

I'm refering to a very small minority. And come to think of it, my argument wasn't well thought out. My apologies.

[Guest stardust]

c) one of the neo-feminists who believe they should not have to use contraception, since their body is their own to do with as they please whenever they want.

 

(awaits the incoming shelling)

 

I'm not sure what kind of feminists you're coming in contact with or referring to, because most feminists I know are very pro-birth control. Hell, I think in almost every single women's studies course I've taken, we've had long, drawn-out discussions about birth control and how sex ed needs to be taught in schools and how teens need to be educated about birth control and places like Planned Parenthood where you can go get free birth control (OMG free condoms~!). *shrug* But those are just the feminists I know. I'm sure there is some radical feminist subgroup out there that believes they shouldn't have to use contraception.

I'm refering to a very small minority. And come to think of it, my argument wasn't well thought out. My apologies.

It's okay, no need to apologize, I was just curious as to who exactly you were talking about--a small minority or feminists in general. It's all good.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

There's also RU-487 (I hope I got those numbers right, I'm pretty sure I did, though), which is a pill that causes an abortion. Well, more like it causes a miscarriage. It was used in France for years before the FDA ever approved it here, and it's a much safer and less painful alternative to surgical abortion (there is the chance of hemorraghing, but there's also that chance with surgicial abortions). So yes, there are less painful alternatives, to answer that.

I believe it's actually RU-486, but that's just nit-picking. Although the risks with non-surgical abortion (can't remember the exact term...I want to say "medical abortion" or "medicinal abortion") are still present, they're much, much lower. And I think this scares pro-life people because one of their few arguments that actually made sense, the risking of the mother's life, is now gone. That's really the only valid pro-life argument I've ever heard.

 

One thing I was wondering though, that maybe you know, stardust. Are RU-486 and the "morning after pill" the same? I don't think so, but some research I did recently with my girlfriend made it sound as if they were.

[Guest stardust]

One thing I was wondering though, that maybe you know, stardust. Are RU-486 and the "morning after pill" the same? I don't think so, but some research I did recently with my girlfriend made it sound as if they were.

I think it is RU-486 (like I said, I thought I was getting the number a little off).

 

As for your question, no, they're not the same. The morning after pill, or emergency contraception (also sometimes simply called E.C.) is basically a very high dosage of the Pill that has to be taken within three days of unprotected sex. Basically, it just helps to keep fertilization from even happening, although the girls I know that have taken it have gotten quite sick from it. RU-486 is taken after fertilization has occurred and causes the body to basically miscarry (or abort the fetus). Planned Parenthood offers the morning after pill either for free (or on a sliding income-based scale) or at a very reasonable rate for non income-based facilities, for anyone who might find a need to actually use emergency contraception. RU-486 is something that is normally administered by the woman's gynecologist or physician in a hospital, and she's normally kept there for observation for at least a few hours if not overnight just to make sure hemorraghing doesn't occur. E.C. is normally taken in the privacy of her home, where she can hang over the toilet all she needs to because of the extremely high amount of hormones running through her body.

 

So guys, if your girl has to use the morning after pill, at least hold her hair out of her face while she's puking her guts out to at least attempt to make up for not using some form of contraception in the first place. *grin*

 

(That's a joke, btw)