Political Crossfire Forums

[Prole]

Just a fun bit of satire from theonion.com

The Onion wrote: New 'Anti-Abortion Pill' Kills Mother, Leaves Fetus Alive
May 10, 2006 | Issue 42•19

NEW YORK—Pro-life advocates celebrated approval of the new anti-abortion drug UR-86 by the Food and Drug Administration Tuesday, calling it a "safe and effective method" for terminating pregnant women while leaving their unborn children unharmed.

Enlarge Image

A doctor explains to an expectant mother how her organs will slowly dissolve with the new pill.
Pfizer, manufacturer of UR-86—dubbed the "last-morning-ever pill"—said the drug is intended only for occasions when the mind-set or politics of the mother threaten the life of the fetus.

"This drug is designed for extreme cases in which the mother cannot or should not be saved, or when her health has been placed before that of her unborn child," Pfizer spokesman Anthony Wright said.

The orally ingested drug first tests for the presence of a fetus. If the outcome is positive, a near-lethal dose of barbiturates is released, which induces a coma in the expectant mother until the child is born, at which point a second, fatal dose is released.

The FDA's approval came after months of clinical trials firmly established that the fetus would be nourished and protected in the womb of the near-deceased UR-86 user.

Gender-equality advocates praised the introduction of the drug, calling it an "innovative solution" to the highly polarizing national abortion debate.

"This is a step forward for equality," men's rights activist Charles Hackett said. "For too long, women have had an unfair advantage in the outcome of a pregnancy. UR-86 levels the playing field for husbands and boyfriends across America."

Pro-life advocates, many of whom had petitioned the FDA to approve UR-86 while the drug was still in the research-and-development stage, also reacted warmly to the FDA's decision. Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, praised the new pharmaceutical for its potential use in cases of rape and incest, saying it could help end the shame and humiliation of such trauma while saving the life of the fetus.

"Victims of sexual assault can feel trapped, like they've got nowhere to turn," Terry said. "Now, they can solve their deep, internal problems once and for all, without unfairly condemning their children."

Yet critics say UR-86's prescription-only status and the fact that most health insurance plans do not cover the drug limit its effectiveness, as it is not available to those who need it most.

"If people can't afford the drug or get it prescribed on short notice, they're not going to have enough time to act, especially when their wives want to end the pregnancy fast," men's issues commentator Stan Dynes said. "UR-86 should be made available over the counter as soon as possible. It's the husband's right to choose if this drug is right for him, and neither the government nor the medical elite should get in the way of that decision."

Pfizer trials showed that UR-86 can do nothing for the fetus if an abortion procedure is performed. "If the mother is administered the pill the morning after an abortion, the fetus cannot be revived because it won't be there," Pfizer's Wright said. "It will still terminate the mother, though."

Conversely, some lawmakers are uneasy with the concept of ready access to the anti-abortion pill.

Tuesday night, South Dakota legislators introduced a bill to impose a five-day waiting period for teenage girls and women before they can buy the pill, claiming its use does not adequately safeguard the lifestyle of the father, the laundry of the father, or the favorite meals of the father. The legislators cited Pfizer's own published list of side effects of UR-86, which include domestic messiness, already-born-child neglect, and inadequate stocking of the fridge.

Still, Pfizer anticipates not only that the drug will be popular with husbands, but also that, once available over the counter, UR-86 will likely find a large consumer base in mothers-in-law, downstairs neighbors, and extramarital lovers.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48199

So...would anyone actually support such a pill being legalized and perscribed?

[LostSoul3412]

:wtf:

WHAT!?

Is that serious!?

To save a fetus but to intentionally kill the mother!? That's worse than restricting abortion in the first place! To say that this would be used in instances where the mother "should not be saved" is a direct violation against the mother's right to life! While I stand on the side of pro-choice, I'm sure that even those who are pro-life will agree that the mother has a much a right to life, or even more so, than the unborn embryo.

"This is a step forward for equality," men's rights activist Charles Hackett said. "For too long, women have had an unfair advantage in the outcome of a pregnancy. UR-86 levels the playing field for husbands and boyfriends across America."

The reason women should have more say in their pregnancy is because they are the ones who are carrying the child! To say that this levels the playing field for husbands and boyfriends is like saying that men's rights will be achieved by killing their wives and girlfriends. It is outrageous that such a comment would even be made!

"Victims of sexual assault can feel trapped, like they've got nowhere to turn," Terry said. "Now, they can solve their deep, internal problems once and for all, without unfairly condemning their children."

This is completely preposterous! To say that rape victims would want to commit suicide is putting words in the people of America. To give mothers and option of suicide, but save the child, shows a complete disregard for the mother's physical, or emotional health!

"If people can't afford the drug or get it prescribed on short notice, they're not going to have enough time to act, especially when their wives want to end the pregnancy fast," men's issues commentator Stan Dynes said. "UR-86 should be made available over the counter as soon as possible. It's the husband's right to choose if this drug is right for him, and neither the government nor the medical elite should get in the way of that decision."

So now we're going to let the fathers decide if it is best to kill the mother of their child? If the mother wants to keep the child, but the father does not, that does not give him any right to kill her! To kill the mother of your child because she is pregnant is nothing short of murder. To actually legalize this, would be giving men a chance to kill, I say that that certainly gives the government and the medical elite to "get in the way of that decision". Men to not have a right to kill, and they certainly don't have the right to determine if their significant other deserves to live or die.

Still, Pfizer anticipates not only that the drug will be popular with husbands, but also that, once available over the counter, UR-86 will likely find a large consumer base in mothers-in-law, downstairs neighbors, and extramarital lovers.

Pfizer should be condemned for such a drug. To sell a pill that murders, and to say that it will be popular with everyone but the mother who would die from it is advocating the murder of pregnant mothers for the sake of the embryo inside. Not only is this murdering the mother, it is murder for the sake of nothing. Pregnancy and abortions are decisions for both parents to make together, not for the man to decide that he is going to kill the mother because she wants an abortion. I am outraged and disgusted that Pfizer would create such drug, and that the FDA would actually approve it! The product being sold here is not anti-abortion, the product being sold is murder.

EDIT: ... That'll teach me to read the part about it being satire... :gdgf:

Oh well, I've written too much now, no sense in letting all that typing go to waste.

[Plodder]

what a stupid question.

no humn would ever support such a drug

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: what a stupid question.

no humn would ever support such a drug

Finally, something that we can agree upon. :-D

[Prole]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Plodder wrote: what a stupid question.

no humn would ever support such a drug

Finally, something that we can agree upon. :-D
I think the indignant respone and subsequent realization that it was satire made it all worthwhile. :wink:

[LostSoul3412]

Prole wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Plodder wrote: what a stupid question.

no humn would ever support such a drug

Finally, something that we can agree upon. :-D
I think the indignant respone and subsequent realization that it was satire made it all worthwhile. :wink:

:lol:

[steen]

I LOVE "The Onion."

[Plodder]

I love the omen

[Politics Mstr]

This is way too extreme which tells me that it is exaggerated propaganda based on a minority of pro-life people. It doesn't have to be this bad of punishment.

But I am pro-life and I think that if a woman had a choice between dying or letting her fetus live, it would be heaven-rewarding to let herself die over the fetus. I mean, c'mon people, its not the child's fault! Why should the child die for her mistake?

[steen]

Politics Mstr wrote: This is way too extreme which tells me that it is exaggerated propaganda based on a minority of pro-life people. It doesn't have to be this bad of punishment. Do you know what "the Onion" is?

[WsTxRedRaider06]

Quote: Do you know what "the Onion" is?

You would be suprised how many people dont know what The Onion is. What it is, is pure greatness!

[steen]

Didn't it end up in some White House briefing once?

[LostSoul3412]

steen wrote: Didn't it end up in some White House briefing once?

"I believe the report was entitled, 'Osama bin Laden determined to attack within the United States'." - Condoleezza Rice

:lol:

[Demonic Spoon]

Funny. Most pro-lifers believe that people who abort are murderers. Since many of them support the death penalty, why not?