<p>Actually I know many, many doctors as I work in the health care field. You sound like you’re one, or perhaps married to one. I regularly hear the moans and groans of those in the trade. Meanwhile they tend to be the wealthiest people that I know.</p>
<p>BIF,</p>
<p>Take some econ classes. You may understand the concept of opportunity cost, substitution and so forth. Your argument only makes sense if that’s the only thing a doc does, and the only thing the doc can do. </p>
<p>Beyond that comment, I won’t befuddle your mind with overly complex discussions. </p>
<p>Aries, </p>
<p>Regarding your comment about the law, OK. But you ducked my earlier question. </p>
<p>Regarding your comments about “strong drugs”, I see some value judgements here that are just not supported medically, but I suspect no argument I make will change your view. Just remember this is a drug sold in single dose form (unlike birth control pills) that has had wide use worldwide and found to be VERY safe for all users, including minors. You may not like the medical facts, but that’s what they are.</p>
<p>Touchy…touchy. Econ major with an MBA. My, my we end up sharing lots of info about each other here.</p>
<p>So the abortionist now has to go out and find another source of income. Agreed. Is he happy doing that? Of course not. He was satisfied with the stream of income that he had. Now it’s changed. If you lost a source of your income, would you be happy?</p>
<p>"So the abortionist now has to go out and find another source of income. Agreed. "</p>
<p>Nope, not agreed. “Abortionists” don’t really exist as a profession. There are some OB/Gyns who perform abortions among myriad other( much more lucrative too) things OB/Gyns perform. So nobody has to “find something else to do” , they already HAVE something else to do. But of course, you know that, right? :-)</p>
<p>Browninfall, you obviously don’t know any doctors who perform legal abortions. All of them do it because they believe women have a right to seek that procedure, and the right is useless unless someone is willing to perform it. In every case I know, it is an anti-economic decision – anti-economic in the sense that the doctor’s monetary income is lower because he or she performs abortions.</p>
<p>I knew an OB/GYN who was the only provider of abortions in a largely Catholic community. Constant threats, demonstrations, and vandalism produced not only anxiety but huge additional costs (that were not recovered from the procedure fees), and they drove away patients. (He was the only provider because the local OB/GYN society thought someone had to do it, but only one person had to take the heat. He volunteered.) He died suddenly under somewhat suspicious circumstances – a fall while out walking by himself. The doctor who replaced him performing abortions – a longtime colleague of his – died suddenly under un-suspicious circumstances: he was shot by a sniper firing into his kitchen at home.</p>
<p>Are you going to make the same patently offensive argument about lawyers who litigate death penalty cases? Do you think they would be upset if the death penalty were abolished? (Hint: They wouldn’t.) How about soldiers fighting in Iraq? Upset if the war ended? Aren’t they “satisfied with the stream of income they have”?</p>
<p>You were also wrong to say pro-lifers would be disappointed. Only those who oppose contraception should be upset with this. Taking this drug will have no effect on a pregnancy, which is the state that pro-lifers generally wish to preserve and protect. If the patient is pregnant, the drug will not stop it. It only prevents conception, which is the same aim of most other birth control methods.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>Well put. </p>
<p>To bad it will fall on deaf ears. </p>
<p>If BIF really has the background claimed, BIF must have slept through some key classes :)</p>
<p>Let’s say a guy (or a gal) owns the North Side Ob/Gyn Clinic on let’s say the north side of Anytown, America. Now our guy (gal) does ob/gyn work, but most of the business is in performing abortions at his/her clinic. The guy/gal is in business because he/she has abortions performed at his/her clinic. </p>
<p>So now our guy/gal is happy that they potentially aren’t going to be performing as many abortions anymore at their clinic? </p>
<p>Sure, that’s the ticket. Makes complete sense to me.</p>
<p>The point is, most people who perform abortions do not do so as a primary source of income.</p>
<p>Also, even most people who do perform abortions as a major source of income do acknowledge that it is a terribly sad thing to have to do, and would rather be making their money doing something else. An oncologist would rather see cancer prevented, just as someone who performs abortions would rather see unwanted pregnancies prevented.</p>
<p>NMD: Um, “not like the medical facts?” Bull! Medical fact is that Plan B contains EXACTLY the same compounds as prescription-only medication, but in higher doses.</p>
<p>Personally, I have long thought that the safety of the Pill is overstated. Considering that one month of it gave me a bleeding cyst, bear with me on this one. (I know this for a fact, having had numerous ultrasounds before and afterwards.)</p>
<p>Medical and legal fact is that Plan B contains the same compounds that are found in prescription only medication. I’m sorry, but being conservative doesn’t mean that I’m scientifically ignorant nor ignore medical facts. Try another argument.</p>
<p>FYI, for all: a quick internet persual shows that abortions cost a few hundred dollars. Now, most physicians could make more money doing other things, so I doubt that they get rich off of it. (Consider that very little of that money actually gets to the doctor, after paying everyone else in the room, overhead costs, and insurance.) Consider as well that many of these men wear bullet-proof vests to work. </p>
<p>For those who are in the know, EC has two mechanisms, one of which is considered by many to be an abortificant - i.e. it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.</p>
<p>I hadn’t heard of the stories that you cite about the constant threats, vandalism, demonstrations, and murders of abortion providers in a “largely Catholic community” which you cite. Was this in Philly? Could you please provide us with the links to those stories? Thanks!</p>
<p>In the past, when contraception was not very good, there were pratical constraints on female sexuality. It was a lot easier to preach “thou shall not”, when it was understood that there was a sigificant risk of an unwanted pregnancy. Pointing out a negative ramification being a lot easier to do than talking about the subtler points of human sexuality.</p>
<p>Deep down, I think everyone realizes that if that risk were totally removed, “thou shall not” would be a tougher sell. It would come down to chasity for its own virtue. I think that prospect scares a lot of religious people and why they migt oversell the dangers of contraception and abortion (remember the breast cancer “link” issue?). On the other hand, there are those that discount the risks, even though there are some legitimate risks that remain.</p>
<p>It’s pretty clear to me that we are converging on the risk-free point, even though progress might be slow at this point (going from reduced-risk to no-risk being very difficult). If not now, then real soon, the discussion we will really need to have is what are the appropriate limits, if any, on sexuality, given that the safety issues regarding contraception become moot.</p>
<p>aries,</p>
<p>You were an undergrad engineering major? You are now in law school?</p>
<p>Please pardon me if I give more credit to the opinion of folks who have spent their careers studying such things.</p>
<p>Given your legal training, you should know that getting a cyst while taking a medication does not mean the medication caused the cyst, any more than coffee consumption (I presume you also take coffee?) caused it. </p>
<p>Also consider that the physiological action of a one off dose of something is frequently different from the effect of long term use. That’s the reason why there are always concerns regarding the long term safety of any drug. But long tem toxicology is very different from short term, and short term is much easier to assess.</p>
<p>Regarding prescription versus nonprescription, what about drugs available as both? How does that fit into your logical model?</p>
<p>So, you are entitled to disagree with professionals. But please pardon me if I don’t give much credit to your arguments.</p>
<p>My only concern with the morning-after pill would be the same concerns we didn’t think of when the “Pill” came out–just because you are safe from pregnancy doesn’t mean you are safe. If men are less likely to be persuaded to use a condom because “you can always take Plan B in the morning” then we will see more STDs. </p>
<p>So, Dadguy, I don’t see how there can ever be a “risk-free point.”</p>
<p>STDs are a problem, but not necessarily one that will always be with us. I still think we will come to the point where we will have to debate “Thou shall not” on its own merit without bringing in the big guns of medical consequences, pregnancy or disease.</p>
<p>mommusic – I don’t think that most users will have the attitude that “you can always take Plan B in the morning,” for the following reasons:</p>
<p>a. Plan B is fairly expensive. The wholesale price is about $19 per dose, and drugstores may sell it for up to $40… condoms are much, much cheaper.
b. It isn’t terribly medically risky, but the side effects are significant – most people would rather have to wear a condom during sex than have to be sick the next day.
c. It’s only something like 89% effective in preventing pregnancy, even when taken in the first 72 hours following intercourse. This number is low enough that it would make me (and, I imagine, most other young women) nervous enough that I wouldn’t want it to be my primary method of birth control, even if I could afford to.</p>
<p>Dadguy–how can you say that? Every disease is a race between us and the microbes. We invent better antibiotics, they evolve to resist them. Add ignorance or sheer carelessness to that and I don’t see us ending the spread of STDs anymore than I see us ending the spread of the flu.</p>
<p>To pose a worst case scenario–there are drugs that enable people to live with AIDS, but at what cost? And there are lesser STDs that can make women sterile and they never knew they had it! Knowing how sexually free many girls are today, I worry about my sons’ odds of finding disease-free partners. And condoms break.</p>
<p>Not trying to hijack the thread, but all this is a consideration when you are talking about sex. The problem is, every generation has to learn the same lessons anew.</p>
<p>ILoveBrown–good points.</p>
<p>Aries</p>
<p>Your absolutism is showing!</p>
<p>I am excited about the HPV vaccine- now I jsut have to talk my girls into the three shot series.
I don’t see how teens could be more promiscuous than teens in the 70’s, I actually think they are less liable to contract sexually transmitted diseases, and in many cases much more informed about how to protect themselves against illness and pregnancy.</p>
<p>Ive never personally had a condom that broke, but I would be more worried about out of date ones that have started to deterioate
I agree we need more male birthcontrol, but I am afraid since the woman is the one who actually gets pregnant, I know I would never rely on a guy telling me he was on “the pill” or “fixed”</p>
<p>I have used the morning after pill before- at a time when I was using a diapraghm for protection but when I went to take it out it was all- sideways. ( I was using a different word that was apparently censored) :eek:
I agree , no one is going to use that, or abortion as their primary birthcontrol, unless they are forced to.
I was reading about fertility management methods that sound interestng though, if either you are trying to get pg, or if you are especially afraid of it, and want to know when your high risk times are- it isn’t the rhythm method but involves monitoring your fertility signs.</p>