In slang, to "86" something is to get rid of it.

Is the name of the abortifacient, RU486, some sick paronomasiacal joke:

"ARE YOU FOR '86?'"

By the way, "abortifacient," is the correct designation for RU486. It is not a contraceptive, since its efficacy is contingent upon conception having already taken place.

RU 486 blocks the action of progesterone, the natural hormone vital to maintaining the rich nutrient lining of the uterus. The developing baby starves as the nutrient lining disintegrates.

We'll soon all gain a greater understanding of this when economic necessity will bring about defining the quality of Human Life of society's "Dead Wood" in the same terms currently used to des...

In slang, to "86" something is to get rid of it.

Is the name of the abortifacient, RU486, some sick paronomasiacal joke:

"ARE YOU FOR '86?'"

By the way, "abortifacient," is the correct designation for RU486. It is not a contraceptive, since its efficacy is contingent upon conception having already taken place.

RU 486 blocks the action of progesterone, the natural hormone vital to maintaining the rich nutrient lining of the uterus. The developing baby starves as the nutrient lining disintegrates.

We'll soon all gain a greater understanding of this when economic necessity will bring about defining the quality of Human Life of society's "Dead Wood" in the same terms currently used to describe embryos and fetuses - basically, a restatement of the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany.

We'll soon all gain a greater understanding of this when economic
necessity will bring about defining the quality of Human Life of
society's "Dead Wood" in the same terms currently used to describe
embryos and fetuses - basically, a restatement of the Nuremberg Laws of
Nazi Germany.

I beg to differ with you on this comparison. Bringing Nazis into the picture and comparing birth control to eugenics is nothing more than a scare tactic for which no logical connection exists. I'm fully aware of the religious concept of ensoulment being the justification for opposition to abortion. Since this is a religious concept and not an actual fact and since I'm an atheist, I, of course, h...

We'll soon all gain a greater understanding of this when economic
necessity will bring about defining the quality of Human Life of
society's "Dead Wood" in the same terms currently used to describe
embryos and fetuses - basically, a restatement of the Nuremberg Laws of
Nazi Germany.

I beg to differ with you on this comparison. Bringing Nazis into the picture and comparing birth control to eugenics is nothing more than a scare tactic for which no logical connection exists. I'm fully aware of the religious concept of ensoulment being the justification for opposition to abortion. Since this is a religious concept and not an actual fact and since I'm an atheist, I, of course, have no belief in it.

A more productive line of questioning would be to determine when does a zygote, or embryo, or fetus, become a person. A person is lawfully granted rights which are not afforded to non-persons. A hypothetical potential person, just as an egg or a sperm, has no rights afforded to a person. This is the slippery slope that theists never address but logically any cell is a potential person when one considers cloning or the state before fertilization.

I'm not familiar with any law like that.

The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) of 1935, the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, Montana DWD, Washington DWD, and many more on the way.

You might find this of interest:
"NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA" The Next Station Stop On The Death Train To Hell by Steve Savage "King of the Beasts"
http://sskotb.blogspot.com/2007/10/non-voluntary-euthanasia-next-station.html

Unfortunately for the girl in Australia who took RU486, no matter what one's position may be on the matter, she broke an established law. The law doesn't care whether one believes the law is just or unjust. It's there to be obeyed. If one chooses to disregard the law, th...

I'm not familiar with any law like that.

The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) of 1935, the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, Montana DWD, Washington DWD, and many more on the way.

You might find this of interest:
"NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA" The Next Station Stop On The Death Train To Hell by Steve Savage "King of the Beasts"
http://sskotb.blogspot.com/2007/10/non-voluntary-euthanasia-next-station.html

Unfortunately for the girl in Australia who took RU486, no matter what one's position may be on the matter, she broke an established law. The law doesn't care whether one believes the law is just or unjust. It's there to be obeyed. If one chooses to disregard the law, they must be willing to accept the consequences.

Hell, talk about unjust laws: We all smoked "Pot" through the '60s. O.K., O.K., the '70s and '80s, as well. Thankfully most of us didn't get caught, because some states had some pretty draconian laws, which could have had some real life altering effects.

I am not familiar with the details of laws dealing with euthanasia although I am of the opinion that the concept does not rob people of their personhood. In fact, I see the concept as preserving the dignity of individuals and allows them to make decisions concerning the end of their life. Naturally, I come to this conclusion because I'm not hindered by religious dogma in my decision that a person should be in charge of their own life. The idea that a deity would disapprove of my decision to end my life with dignity holds no meaning to me and seems quite bizarre.

I took a look at the link you provided (a bit self serving, eh?). I'll have to say that I don't agree with your position and don't...

I am not familiar with the details of laws dealing with euthanasia although I am of the opinion that the concept does not rob people of their personhood. In fact, I see the concept as preserving the dignity of individuals and allows them to make decisions concerning the end of their life. Naturally, I come to this conclusion because I'm not hindered by religious dogma in my decision that a person should be in charge of their own life. The idea that a deity would disapprove of my decision to end my life with dignity holds no meaning to me and seems quite bizarre.

I took a look at the link you provided (a bit self serving, eh?). I'll have to say that I don't agree with your position and don't share your views. With all my carping about religion, racism, and just plain ignorance I"m still a relatively optimistic person.

As far as the Australian situation goes I don't know that they broke any laws or not. The article claims the laws are "muddled".

As far as the 60s and 70s go, I'm not admitting anything...

I'll have to say that I don't agree with your position and don't share your views.

That's why Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors of ice cream.

It would be a pretty boring world if we all agreed on everything.

Though these words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.", are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were actually first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in "The Friends of Voltaire (1906)," as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.

As a Voltarian, of sorts, AtlLiberal, I respect your right to believe whatever it is you may wish to believe.

How...

I'll have to say that I don't agree with your position and don't share your views.

That's why Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors of ice cream.

It would be a pretty boring world if we all agreed on everything.

Though these words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.", are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were actually first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in "The Friends of Voltaire (1906)," as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.

As a Voltarian, of sorts, AtlLiberal, I respect your right to believe whatever it is you may wish to believe.

However, as the Kung Fu Man said in the Shao-lin Temple:
"Men believe what they cannot prove."

It is Time that is the Author of all Truth, and it is Reality that verifies Truth.

Should non-voluntary euthanasia come about, it will not be because of any foolish religious beliefs, but out of economic necessity, what the "Controllers" call "Herd Control."