Should doctors stop using methotrexate in terminations?
yes they should stop
62%
[ 5 ]
no they should,nt
37%
[ 3 ]
Total Votes : 8
Author
Message
lil_blaze2004
Supporter
Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 6492 Location: ,
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-26-05 14:38pm
kourtney08
wrote:
ohh okay. I apologize
then. I thought you were just posting
them to try and further prove your point,
but those pro-life sites are biased, as
well as pro-choice so I don't usually go
to them.
that's why a lot of times we'll post from
gov't sites.
|
Kourtney08
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 May 2004 Posts: 937 Location: Alaska
Posted: 01-26-05 14:43pm
<<<no probs I did actualy check
out some sites that were neither pl or pc
which is where I copied and pasted from
and yes I admit that the terminology was
diffrent but in the end I got the same
evidence so no harm done . >>>
well good then :)
i don't want everyone thinking that im
some "baby murderer." I made the choice to
keep my daughter, and thats what im
supporting, is the choice to keep your
child, adopt out, or have an abortion. Im
not supporting only abortions, just the
choice to get one. I wouldn't get one,
and love my daughter :)
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 01-26-05 14:45pm
kourtney08
wrote:
<<<no probs I did
actualy check out some sites that were
neither pl or pc which is where I copied
and pasted from and yes I admit that the
terminology was diffrent but in the end I
got the same evidence so no harm done .
>>>
well good then :)
i don't want everyone thinking that im
some "baby not a nice person." I made the
choice to keep my daughter, and thats what
im supporting, is the choice to keep your
child, adopt out, or have an abortion.
Im not supporting only abortions, just the
choice to get one. I wouldn't get one,
and love my daughter
:)
i have no doubt that termination is,nt for
you I have no problem with pc in general
just steen. :)
|
Kourtney08
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 May 2004 Posts: 937 Location: Alaska
Posted: 01-26-05 14:55pm
Well thanks for not calling names and
being rude while you prove your points. I
respect pro-life people like you.
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 01-26-05 14:57pm
kourtney08
wrote:
well thanks for not calling
names and being rude while you prove your
points. I respect pro-life people like
you.
thank you your a breathe of fresh air in
the pc half on here.
|
lil_blaze2004
Supporter
Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 6492 Location: ,
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-26-05 15:01pm
fishx
wrote:
kourtney08
wrote:
well thanks for not calling
names and being rude while you prove your
points. I respect pro-life people like
you.
thank you your a breathe of fresh air in
the pc half on
here.
but she's not completely pc cause she
agrees that girls that keep getting
preggers and aborting is wrong.!!!! :)
|
Kourtney08
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 May 2004 Posts: 937 Location: Alaska
Posted: 01-26-05 15:28pm
Well it is wrong. If you're not using
birth control and are getting pregnant
over and over and getting abortions, then
you have some issues, and you need to get
on bc quick! Lol
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 01-26-05 16:05pm
lil_blaze2004
wrote:
fishx
wrote:
kourtney08
wrote:
well thanks for not calling
names and being rude while you prove your
points. I respect pro-life people like
you.
thank you your a breathe of fresh air in
the pc half on
here.
but she's not completely pc cause she
agrees that girls that keep getting
preggers and aborting is wrong.!!!!
:)
sorry my mistake just assumed no offence
intended.
Please note this is fact.
|
Kourtney08
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 May 2004 Posts: 937 Location: Alaska
Posted: 01-26-05 16:16pm
What? You didn't offend me at all, why
would you offend me by saying that? I
thought it was nice.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-26-05 22:24pm
foreverblue
wrote:
steen can you show me where
you got your facts please,i am interested
in checking them out,did you use
medline.Thankyou
yes, I used medline
through the ovid search tool, searching on
the fully expanded combined sets of:
mtx,
(mortality, death),
(women, fetus, embryo, pregnancy)
and then I did the google searches as I
listed.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Re: Steen Posted: 01-26-05 22:48pm
fishx
wrote:
print this
posted on tue, nov. 16, 2004
3rd fatality impels new warnings on
methotrexate
etc. That first article
talks about mifepristone, aka ru 486.
That is not mtx, so why bring up
irrelevant stuff? It doesn't help your
"evidence" when your evidence is about
something completely different.
Now lets look at your second brief quote
(you should clarify where the one stop and
the next begin, and what the source is
from. That makes verification more
likely).
Quote:
or pregnancy
termination† prior to the 63rd day of
pregnancy in combination with intravaginal
misoprostol:
oh, wait a minute.
"in combination with"..... So no
evidence of mtx causing problems. And
notably, none of those women died. So we
have yet to see anything proving your
claim of women dying from mtx abortions.
And now the third one:
Quote:
...Possible side
effects...
ah, "possible side
effects."!!!! So no word on likelihood,
or even about what doese those s.E.'s are
expected to show up at. That is not a
good beginning. If you had used a
scientific site, then such things would
have been clarified.
Quote:
include severe
bleeding, nausea, pain, diarrhea, bone
marrow depression, severe anemia, liver
damage and methotrexate-induced lung
disease and
death
yes, and so? That is
the "possible" side effects that have been
seen by use of mtx over time at the high
doses. Now, you still haven't showed
that this is anything else than a
hypothetical idea. You still haven't
showed that the dose used with ru468
somehow is dangerous, and neither have you
shown that mtx by itself is used for
abortions and have caused any deaths in
abortions.
So until now, **none** of your claims have
been proven. Yes, somehow I figured that
once you actually have to prove your
claims and back up your accusations with
facts, the evidence kind of don't even
cover remotely your claim.
So your posts do not show any evidence of
women dying from mtx-induced abortions.
That means that your claim is false,
unless you have any other evidence that
you are holding back.
As such, you of course will not make that
claim anymore, and enither will others
reading this tread as it then will be an
outright lie. You failed to show your
claim, and I showed that the scientific
literature doesn't support it either.
Thus continued use of that false claim
constitutes a lie.
And yes, no doubt somebody will continue
doing so. That is how we see prolifers
always lying, when they continue to use
already disproven claims. We see it with
the claim of abortion causing breast
cancer. We now will see it regarding
claims of women dying from mtx abortions.
In fact, we see a never-ending litany of
such false claims that keep on being used
even after having been disproved.
That is why we with such confidence can
say that prolifers lie. Because they do.
When prolife falls in love with an
idea, then they stick with that wishful
thinking long after it has been disproven.
Such shameful display of lying we always
see from your side. Very sad and
patetic.
Quote:
there you go
d.I.C.K head now
ah yes. And profanities
and attacks when proven wrong. Why am I
not surprised.
Quote:
if I remember
rightly you had the gall to say that
methotrexate was only used in ectopic
pregnancy not in first trimester
terminations care to retract your lie
troll?
actualoly, I said that is
was used by itself for ectopic pregnancies
only. As you have shown above. You
can't prove anything from combination
therapy.
Quote:
please note this
is fact.
a "fact" that doesn't
support your claim. So your claim was
false. Yes, jlee is cheering you on, no
doubt believing that prolifers are always
right because she wants them to be (more
of that wishful thinking stuff), but the
'facts" are that what you claimed is not
supported by any of the material you
submitted for evidence. So your claim is
rejected, and only brought up again by
those who deliberately lie.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-26-05 22:50pm
fishx
wrote:
steen asked for evidence I
posted links but they would,nt work for
him so I copied and pasted the pages
simple as that.
Please note this is
fact.
but it is also to note
that what you posted did not support your
original claim. You have yet to show the
death of a woman from a mtx abortion.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 00:40am
jlee77
wrote:
fishx has proven more
intelligence and has posted more proof
than you have to
date,
really? Where?
Because there certainly was no proof of
women actually dying from mtx abortions in
**any** of the stuff provided. Or are
you *also* going to lie about *that*?
Gosh, you sure lie a lot.
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 01-27-05 03:08am
fishx
wrote:
steen
wrote:
mtx is used for termination
in cases of ectopic pregnancies. The
alternative is risikier surgeries.
Why would you want to prohibit that tool
for dealing with ectopic pregnancy?
What riskier than possible death?
Ah, you are talking about using it instead
of ru486. You are claiming that it is
more unsafe in that process than when used
for ectopic pregnancies?
I am claiming it is unsafe full stop.
Now, I would love to see the evidence of
all these women that died from mtx of
their ectopic pregnancies or abortions in
general (given its rare
use).
did I say they had died ? Errrm no but
if possible death is a reason to end a
pregnancy how can you condone the usage of
this medication?
It is,nt just terminations that
methrotezate is used. The point I am
trying to make is that it is supposed to
give a better quality of life to the user
no matter what it is used for. Is death
an acceptible penalty for a better quality
of life (bare in mind i,m talking a better
quality of life for the mother not the
embryo)
heres some links so you can do your own
research steen maybe then it won,t be
lies.
i have already stated that I did,nt say
women had died please learn to read all
posts doctor not just lines out of text
again I will ask the above question if
possiblity of death is a reason to
terminate how can you condone the use of a
medication that could cause possible death
? Is that not a contradiction in itself?
The pregnancy could cause death we can
help you but the product given to help
could also cause death.
I am not that naive that I think that
termination would/could be outlawed but
should we not at least make it safer for
the woman and more humane for the fetus/
baby.
Please note this is n.O.T. 100% fact.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 11:05am
fishx
wrote:
i have already stated that I
did,nt say women had
died
ah, so you *are*
admitting that your claim is based on a
hypothetical event, not some actual
reality. That's nice. Why then, did
you get all upset when I pointed that out
last time? Did you have trouble standing
by your owrd suddenly?
Quote:
i will ask the
above question if possiblity of death is a
reason to terminate how can you condone
the use of a medication that could cause
possible death ? Is that not a
contradiction in
itself?
well, for one, that is
true for *all* medications out there.
Yes, I condone the use of medications that
can help people, even though there are
known risks associated with them.
What you are arguing is that if a
medication *hypothetically* can cause
death, then we shouldn't allow it. That
*is* what you are arguing here, isn't it?
In that case, tell me what medication in
use today *should* be allowed continued
use? Because by your criteria, *all*
medications and most surgical procedures
should be banned as well. You are saying
that nearly everything a doctor does for
people today should be outlawed.
Yes, that is outright *stupid* which is
what I think your argument is as well.
Now, do you have actual evidence that
women have died from mtx abortions--- no
you don't. Yet, you argue that its use
is wrong because it "could" hypothetically
cause women to die. Yet, you left out
*all* other medical treatments that can
and very much have caused the patient to
die. That is flagrantly hypocritical.
Certainly, if you truly are concerned for
women's health, you would insist on all
such treatments that can cause "potential
deaths" to be banned. Funny that you
did not. That is a strong indication
that your concern is ***not*** with the
woman, but that you merely so dishonestly
try to pretend this to be the case. How
dishonest of you. But obviously
prolifers have no shame over such flagrant
dishonesty.
Quote:
the pregnancy
could cause death we can help you but the
product given to help could also cause
death.
more dishonesty.
Pregnancies ****do cause death**** but so
far, you have yet to show that there is
mtx abortions causing such deaths. To
try to single out mtx for some
hypothetical risk, especially when their
use is so necessary for ectopic
pregnancies, that shows gross disregard
for women’s health, which you sacrifice on
your altar of the holy fetus. Yes, your
misogynistic disregard for women’s'
welfare, coupled with your hypocritical
use of same is duly noted.
Quote:
i am not that
naive that I think that termination
would/could be outlawed but should we not
at least make it safer for the
woman
well, we just found out
that mtx by itself has never killed a
woman having an abortion. You can't get
much safer than that. In fact, rather
than so deceptively badmouthing mtx, you
should praise it for its documented safety
(of course, we have only seen it used by
itself in ectopic pregnancies, which you
seem to not care about either as you seek
to scaremonger about it).
Quote:
and more humane
for the fetus/
baby.
and how do you define
"humane" here? Certainly, the fetus
doesn't feel anything and has no
self-awareness. So how is it possible to
make it more "humane"? Or are you just
blabbering prolife platitudes here?
Oh, the dishonesty and hypocrisy of
prolifers. Once again, it is
demonstrated and confirmed. Sigh!
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 01-27-05 11:32am
Steen you stupid blind fool can you not
see how utterly thick you are making
yourself out to be advocating something
that can kill people as a solution to
another thing that can kill I really think
that you need to grow up and do some
proper reasearch my point to you at the
moment is that it could kill not will you
constantly bang on about pregnancy and the
dangers but when all said and done what do
you actualy know after all you are only a
quack.
My advice to you is to read a dictionary
you keep throwing the word misogynist
about but to be a misogynist I would have
to hate myself and beleive me I do,nt
please note this is fact.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 12:20pm
fishx
wrote:
steen you stupid blind fool
can you not see how utterly thick you are
making yourself out to be advocating
something that can kill people as a
solution to another thing that can kill
you have yet to prove
that. Yes, you say that it is so, but
have provided no evidence for that.
Your 'because I say so" postulation really
don't matter a hill of beans. Show the
real risk to women from what you claim is
real. I am still waiting.
Quote:
i really think
that you need to grow up and do some
proper
reasearch
well, I did the research
of the scientific literature, where I
found that your claim was unfounded.
Your 'research was quotes that (#1) didn't
even have to do with mtx, (#2) merely
described mtx cell effect, and (#3) didn't
prove anything about the woman actually
being at risk other than a hypothetical
risk based on results from use of mtx in
*much higher doses* for treatment of
arthritis and similar.
So perhaps *you* need to do some proper
research. Again, I ask, where is the
evidence of real risk to the woman?
Where is the evidence of the woman having
been harmed or killed (which was what you
were ranting about at the beginning of the
tread)?
No, you don't have any. And as such,
your insistence of the woman being at risk
when there is no evidence for that, well
that by now is an outright lie. Provide
real evidence of harm or death.
Otherwise drop your lying claims.
Quote:
my point to you
at the moment is that it could kill not
will
and even that is not
something you have shown. The risks you
have provided are clearly stated to
involve much higher doses and chronic use
for the treatment of chronic conditions.
And I did provide evidence in the form of
a scientific article showing that in the
rare case when it has been used in
elective abortions (in this case,
self-induced), there was no harm or
consequenses to the woman. Likewise, in
all the years that it has been used for
ectopic pregnancies, there is no mortality
attributed to it.
So no, fishx. At this time, to claim
that mtx has a risk of mortality for
abortions is a false claim. The
evidence is presented, and further making
those claims in this area will be evidence
if deliberate lying unless you come up
with some real data to support your
claim.
But I have no doubt you will persist.
As I have pointed out before, prolifers
confuse wishful thinking with facts and
regardless of evidence will continue to
make the same claims time after time, even
after evidence against it. Yes, as
usual, we see the prolife propensity and
even willingness towards lying.
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 01-27-05 12:30pm
And where did you present your evidence
then duck I havent seen one scrap of
evidence of you .
I agree with forever blue you are a
racist and i,m pretty sure racism is a
crime.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 01-27-05 13:21pm
fishx
wrote:
and where did you present
your evidence then duck I havent seen one
scrap of evidence of you
.
ah, of course you do, as
reality has no impact on your fervent
hatred of prochoicers and anything in
their disfavor never mind how unrealistic
is lapped up by you right away.
Quote:
and i,m pretty
sure racism is a
crime.
hmm, according to what
statute?
|
Kourtney08
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 May 2004 Posts: 937 Location: Alaska
Posted: 01-27-05 13:30pm
<<<fishx has proven more
intelligence and has posted more proof
than you have to date, and you have been
here longer>>>
thats only because you agree with his
opinion. Of course the person you agree
with is going to be so much "smarter" then
the person you're arguing with.
Lets stick with opinions, and not tell
each other "no you're wrong." no ones
wrong, our opinions are our opinions,
we're allowed to have them, and just
because someone doesn't mean we need to
start calling petty names and saying "well
i'm smarter then you are." take that caca
right back to middleschool where it
belongs.
