I am not going to give up my fight to make sure that Australian women know the truth about Mifepristone and Misoprostone (RU486). Just imagine what a woman has to go through by taking the Mifepristone alone. There are the strong period pains that are so strong that they are unbearable. There is the possibility of seeing the form of the little fetus as it is being flushed down the toilet. Imagine going two days and discovering that the fetus has not been expelled from the womb, so that it is necessary to take Misoprostone. Taking this drug increases the risk of getting a deadly infection that is related to toxic shock syndrome. The pain that the woman experiences is not something that is slight, but it is excruciating. Then there is the heavy bleeding and all of the risks associated with heavy bleeding. How many of the women for whom these doctors, such as Dr. Da Costa will end up on the theatre table for a surgical abortion because of the failure of those two drugs? How many will need emergency treatment because of heavy blood loss?
Dr. Da Costa seems to be living under the illusion that there will be no side effects when RU486 is given to aboriginal women in remote locations in Australia. She seems to be oblivious of the extra risks that are associated with age and with the colour of a woman's skin. There is an increased risk for black women, and so I question whether or not Aboriginal women will fall into the same category.
Has Dr. Da Costa considered the fact that the woman might have an ectopic pregnancy? Will her practice provide the women with an ultra sound prior to the administration of this dangerous drug? Is she aware that the manufacturer of Misoprostone has clearly stated that there is a contraindication for pregnant women and warns against its use in these circumstances? Does she ever talk about the women having their babies and then adopting them out? It seems to me that Dr. Da Costa seems a bit too keen to introduce this dangerous drug into Australia.
Dr. Da Costa seems to be living under the illusion that there will be no side effects when RU486 is given to aboriginal women in remote locations in Australia. She seems to be oblivious of the extra risks that are associated with age and with the colour of a woman's skin. There is an increased risk for black women, and so I question whether or not Aboriginal women will fall into the same category.
Has Dr. Da Costa considered the fact that the woman might have an ectopic pregnancy? Will her practice provide the women with an ultra sound prior to the administration of this dangerous drug? Is she aware that the manufacturer of Misoprostone has clearly stated that there is a contraindication for pregnant women and warns against its use in these circumstances? Does she ever talk about the women having their babies and then adopting them out? It seems to me that Dr. Da Costa seems a bit too keen to introduce this dangerous drug into Australia.
As usual women are not being informed the truth about something that can affect their future well-being. There are dangers attached to aborting an infant, and I am not talking about the damage to their souls as they move further away from God as a result of their actions. Australian women should be demanding to know the truth, and they need to stop blindly accepting everything that the leadership of the Australian feminists believe. They need to stand up for themselves and be truly independent in thought, spirit and in body.
I am not finished with this topic and if Julie da Costa thinks that she will have an easy ride for the introduction of RU486 then she could be wrong if those people who are in the know continue their work in opposition to its introduction. This form of abortion is not more convenient for the woman. Fancy having to return to the office of the doctor for at least two more visits to accomplish the abortion!!! Women should steer clear of this option.
I am not finished with this topic and if Julie da Costa thinks that she will have an easy ride for the introduction of RU486 then she could be wrong if those people who are in the know continue their work in opposition to its introduction. This form of abortion is not more convenient for the woman. Fancy having to return to the office of the doctor for at least two more visits to accomplish the abortion!!! Women should steer clear of this option.
No comments:
Post a Comment