Ted Cruz trying to get Abortion pill classified as dangerous drug

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,068
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#5
Seems to me this pill is extremely dangerous to the unborn. Extremely.

I would assume it is prescription only, so what would classifying it as dangerous actually change?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#6
US deaths from abortion since 1973: 60,000,000

Seems miss O’Reilly forgot to mention that.
If we are going to count pregnancies that end as deaths, don't forget the largest cause of death of all, miscarriage. That would be more than 188,000,000 deaths since 1973!

Maybe we need to label the uterus as a dangerous environment. Half of those that enter die while there.
 
Last edited:

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
31,610
10,196
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#7
Seems to me this pill is extremely dangerous to the unborn. Extremely.

I would assume it is prescription only, so what would classifying it as dangerous actually change?
The ability to be charged on Federal Drug charges by the DEA for the manufacture, distribution and possession of it as then the DEA could classify it as a scheduled drug
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#8
Seems to me this pill is extremely dangerous to the unborn. Extremely.

I would assume it is prescription only, so what would classifying it as dangerous actually change?
The purpose of taking the pill is to end the pregnancy so that makes no sense calling it extremely dangerous when that is the intent. That is like calling a leg amputation an extremely dangerous surgery because the patient ends up without a leg. Yes, leg amputation is extremely dangerous for a leg. Should we label it as such?

The classification is being sought to remove the pill from the market so it would be a huge change.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,068
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#9
The purpose of taking the pill is to end the pregnancy so that makes no sense calling it extremely dangerous when that is the intent. That is like calling a leg amputation an extremely dangerous surgery because the patient ends up without a leg. Yes, leg amputation is extremely dangerous for a leg. Should we label it as such?

The classification is being sought to remove the pill from the market so it would be a huge change.
If leg amputations were being used to remove mainly healthy legs I would question that too. Yes I understand our views on abortion differ and therefore you completely disagree with my analogy...there's no need to rehash that whole debate.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#10
If leg amputations were being used to remove mainly healthy legs I would question that too. Yes I understand our views on abortion differ and therefore you completely disagree with my analogy...there's no need to rehash that whole debate.
The analogy that is repeated in one way or another here every time anything related to abortion safety for the mother is posted. If you don't want responses to the same worn-out analogy, don't post the same tired analogy.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,068
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#11
The analogy that is repeated in one way or another here every time anything related to abortion safety for the mother is posted. If you don't want responses to the same worn-out analogy, don't post the same tired analogy.
Sorry, as long as I believe that's a life, my analogies will reflect that. And feel free to continue criticizing them if you want, I just thought I would save you the time.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#12
Sorry, as long as I believe that's a life, my analogies will reflect that. And feel free to continue criticizing them if you want, I just thought I would save you the time.
And as long as I continue to see the harm caused by this line of thinking, I'll continue to post too.

We can never get rid of abortion. But, there are proven ways to make it as rare as possible. Instead of that, people continue to worry about making it illegal which does not help. Platitudes over real action to help, that is what "pro-life" means to me.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,068
16,978
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#13
And as long as I continue to see the harm caused by this line of thinking, I'll continue to post too.

We can never get rid of abortion. But, there are proven ways to make it as rare as possible. Instead of that, people continue to worry about making it illegal which does not help. Platitudes over real action to help, that is what "pro-life" means to me.
A drug that makes it as easy as going to the corner drug store isn't "making it as rare as possible". It's making it easier and more accepted...that is not what pro life means to me.

And I will never stop fighting to get rid of it, no matter how hopeless it may seem to you... everybody has the right to life.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#14
A drug that makes it as easy as going to the corner drug store isn't "making it as rare as possible". It's making it easier and more accepted...that is not what pro life means to me.

And I will never stop fighting to get rid of it, no matter how hopeless it may seem to you... everybody has the right to life.
No. Empowering women is what makes it rare as possible. The method has no relevance.

I'm not hopeless at all. I am extremely thrilled as abortion rates are declining here and many other places. My opinions are based on data not heartstrings.

Just realize that pro-life is not fighting to get rid of it. Pro-life is fighting to make it illegal which data already shows does not get rid of it.

There is no evidence that the legality of the procedure affects the rate. The countries with the fewest abortions have legal and regulated abortion. Countries with illegal abortion have just as much or more abortion and more frequently maimed women.
 

Josephus33

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Dec 31, 2014
567
442
613
26
Tulsa
#16
No. Empowering women is what makes it rare as possible. The method has no relevance.

I'm not hopeless at all. I am extremely thrilled as abortion rates are declining here and many other places. My opinions are based on data not heartstrings.

Just realize that pro-life is not fighting to get rid of it. Pro-life is fighting to make it illegal which data already shows does not get rid of it.

There is no evidence that the legality of the procedure affects the rate. The countries with the fewest abortions have legal and regulated abortion. Countries with illegal abortion have just as much or more abortion and more frequently maimed women.
There are more slaves today than there ever have been. This is the case after 100’s of years of effort by the western world to eradicate the slave trade. Does the fact that the slave trade persists mean that we might as well endorse slavery on a governmental level? No, because it’s evil and should be eradicated worldwide.

The fate of human beings should not be left up to anyone’s opinion based solely on the results of “data”.
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
8,337
5,900
1,743
Edmond
#17
There are more slaves today than there ever have been. This is the case after 100’s of years of effort by the western world to eradicate the slave trade. Does the fact that the slave trade persists mean that we might as well endorse slavery on a governmental level? No, because it’s evil and should be eradicated worldwide.

The fate of human beings should not be left up to anyone’s opinion based solely on the results of “data”.
IIIIII think you just made his point for him.
 

Josephus33

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Dec 31, 2014
567
442
613
26
Tulsa
#18
IIIIII think you just made his point for him.
You completely missed mine.

IF we agree slavery and abortion are evil, THEN we ought not support it in any way from a governmental perspective regardless of whether the problem persists.

This is a moral argument, not a practical one.

From a practical perspective, the western world has done pretty well eradicating slavery in Europe and the Americas.
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
8,337
5,900
1,743
Edmond
#19
You completely missed mine.

IF we agree slavery and abortion are evil, THEN we ought not support it in any way from a governmental perspective regardless of whether the problem persists.

This is a moral argument, not a practical one.

From a practical perspective, the western world has done pretty well eradicating slavery in Europe and the Americas.
Ah, gotcha. The bold part is where the disagreement is then.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,803
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
#20
There are more slaves today than there ever have been. This is the case after 100’s of years of effort by the western world to eradicate the slave trade. Does the fact that the slave trade persists mean that we might as well endorse slavery on a governmental level? No, because it’s evil and should be eradicated worldwide.

The fate of human beings should not be left up to anyone’s opinion based solely on the results of “data”.
The difference of course being that NOBODY ever says, "Yea, in that situation, slavery is the correct ethical choice."

In other words, you are saying that because apples are rotten, that proves we should ban all oranges.