More women die from RU-486 [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
Two more women have died recently in the United States from RU-486, according to the New England Journal of Medicine,bringing the number of mothers killed by the abortifacient into the …

More…
 
The link doesn’t clarify HOW they died from RU-486. Was it caused by a reaction to medication they took with it? Was it a spontaneous allergic reaction which lead to anaphalactic shock? Can anyone clarify this?
 
Just did some research. They died because of an infection. Doesn’t specify how the infection happened though, but then, no one seems to know.
 
Catholic_Press said:
Two more women have died recently in the United States from RU-486, according to the New England Journal of Medicine,bringing the number of mothers killed by the abortifacient into the …

More…
Click to expand...
OK, let’s assume that the death was caused by RU-486. Now answer me three questions, with full documentation:
  1. What is the death rate, per 100,000, for women who take RU-486?
  2. What is the death rate, per 100,000, for women who do not take RU-486 but go on to have an abortion?
  3. What is the death rate, per 100,000, for women in childbirth?
Statistics taken out of context can be misleading:(
 
Whatever you say about pro-choicers, I have never seen them manipulate statistics as much as pro-lifers do. It’s a shame, but it looks desperate when they are campaigning for a good cause.
 
LemonAndLime said:
Just did some research. They died because of an infection. Doesn’t specify how the infection happened though, but then, no one seems to know.
Click to expand...
In about 5% of cases, the baby or pieces of tissue such as the placenta do not all come out so surgery is needed to remove them. If that doesn’t happen, infection occurs. That might have been what happened.
 
Charlotte1776 said:
In about 5% of cases, the baby or pieces of tissue such as the placenta do not all come out so surgery is needed to remove them. If that doesn’t happen, infection occurs. That might have been what happened.
Click to expand...
Sounds plausible. Never heard that one before though, I don’t know a lot about abortion to be honest.
 
LemonAndLime said:
Whatever you say about pro-choicers, I have never seen them manipulate statistics as much as pro-lifers do. It’s a shame, but it looks desperate when they are campaigning for a good cause.
Click to expand...
Sad but true. I also wonder what the point is? The Church’s opposition to RU-486 has nothing to do with its safety for the mother. The habit of many in the pro-life movement of using this kind of data clouds the real issue, which is moral, not medical. Touting the supposed danger of RU-486 to the mother, the long-term effects of abortion on the women that have them and (in the contraception context) the failure rate of the pill and condoms, etc, makes it seem like the Church is arguing over good vs bad medicine. That is not an argument that the Church can win, or even wants to win. First, most of these arguments are exaggerations based on bad science, at best. More importantly, they amount to an argument for better abortions and better abortion techniques, not an argument against abortion itself. Like much that is done in the pro-life movement today, they are aimed at getting nods of acceptance from the choir, not at changing anyone’s mind.
 
I was reading about these deaths, and the infections come because PP was instructing women to take the medication vaginally (which is an off label use as the FDA says it should be taken orally). The medication apparently has an immune suppressant effect and disrupts the natural environment in a woman’s vagina. So “bad” bacteria, which is always present but controlled by "good’ bacteria takes over and causes the severe infection, sepsis and death. (There was one death when taken orally, but most of the deaths were from the “off label” use).

This paragraph is from the CDC.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/id_Csordellii.html
Who gets C. sordellii Toxic Shock Syndrome?
Click to expand...
Women are at highest risk of infection from C. sordellii following a live birth, spontaneous, medical, or surgical abortion. Of the 10 cases described in the literature prior to the recent U.S. cases associated with medical abortion, eight occurred following delivery of live-born infants, one occurred following a medical abortion, and one was not associated with pregnancy. The rate of vaginal colonization (when bacteria are present, but not causing an infection) with Clostridium species in the period after abortion has been reported to be as high as 29%, whereas these bacteria have been isolated in the vaginal secretions of 5%-10% of non-pregnant women.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top