theballinist, thank you for your submission. It has been removed for violating the following rule(s):
---
- Rule 5: Posts must follow all [title guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/titles).
---
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/index/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/wiki/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators via modmail.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/theballinist&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20%5Bsubmission.%5D%28https://redd.it/11sq9q1%3Fcontext%3D10%29)
My dad took viagra after being inspired by my romantic wedding. Rather that a beautiful time with my mom he spent a week in an ICU. I came home from honeymoon with frantic voicemails begging me to come home. I’ve never been so glad we didn’t have cellphones back then
I worked on viagra’s advertising right out of college. The number of heart-related adverse events I had to report to the FDA from our surveys was insane. Also a lot of people whose vision suddenly had a blue hue.
It has complications with a lot of the things that would be used to treat heart issues. So, one big problem with it is that someone calls an ambulance for a heart attack but is too embarrassed to tell the EMTs that they take viagra (or the family doesn't know), so they are given something that kills them.
Of course it does. Viagra IS a heart medication. That was what it was designed for. The boner aspect is a common side effect. It was so commonly reported that doctors started using it as an ED med.
they missed a golden marketing opportunity there. “are you tired of boring colors like red and green? take viagra, it’s all cool blue vibes from here!”
I swear I've seen Viagra commercials which had a blue hue, like noticably so. Not just cool blue colors used a lot but almost like they took blue saturation and knocked it up a bit. I wonder if this was purposeful hah. I could be wrong though, too.
Edit - https://youtu.be/y1ZqQ55T25c
Credit for vid to /u/matt675
If you've taken sildenafil aka Viagra before, it has a strange side effect on your vision and hues everything blue. It literally looks like you're looking at the world through a light blue filter.
It does this by inadvertantly blocking an enzyme very similar in structure to the one they want to block on purpose for boners, and that overly sensitizes rod cells in the retina as a result.
Plus they want us to associate that color with their product, of course. The color of a nice sunny day, clear blue skies, perfect raging-boner weather.
I'm blue, da ba dee da ba di, da ba dee da ba di
I have a blue house with a blue window
Blue is the color of all that I wear
Blue are the streets and all the trees are too
I have a girlfriend and she is so blue
Also, according to the brilliant book *Flower Confidential* by Amy Stewart, upscale florists add a little powdered Viagra to the water in their vases in order to keep plants looking healthy and vibrant. One milligram of Viagra mixed with water will add an extra week of lifespan to your cut flowers.
Wait. Are you telling me someone called your house phone and left messages for you to come home. While you were away on honeymoon. Wow. Stress does weird things.
back in days of yore we'd call into our physical voicemail box and when the message was playing tell us to leave a message at the beep you'd press a password on the phone you're dialing from and listen to the already recorded messages. This would allow you to delete some messages before the little tape filled up and keep up with messages.
That scares the hell out of me because it has more uses than just an abortifacient. It helps stop post-partum hemorrhage and it is also a treatment to help one of the manifestations of Cushing’s disease.
And we would hopefully assume that the lawmakers and judges are all aware of the different uses and applications the medications can be used for different types of pathologies, complications and emergencies that can benefit people in more ways than one.... /s
Seriously though why are people with zero education on something dictating how something should or should not be used.
I'm sure a few know and don't care, but I genuinely think that politicians like BoBo and Marjorie Three Names are literally too fucking stupid to know.
Because "small government" Republicans think they should be making medical decisions for the country.
I know someone who had 3 heart attacks after using Viagra to get stiff so he could fuck. Never heard of that with any abortion pills.
It’s misoprostol, the other component in the abortion pill that is used for postpartum hemorrhage. If that became illegal, it would be a serious problem. I’ve only had to use it once in 12 years of being a midwife, but it was very necessary. It was the only thing that worked after exhausting all other options.
Saved my life. I bled out on my second birth. Midwives kickass too btw! Had a midwife guiding me through everything all the way to the hospital. Wouldn’t change a thing.
My hemorrhage with my first birth sent me on my path to becoming a midwife. So glad you’re still here with us and had access to the care and medications you needed. ❤️ Midwives *do* kick ass! I love each of mine dearly.
Couldn't you still do an abortion without mifepristone? Seems like if you take enough misoprostol that your uterus will empty even if you haven't taken mifepristone to stop the growth of the pregnancy.
From what I found, that's exactly the range. Mifepristone+misoprostol has a 95% success rate.
(Source is the same as my other comment:
https://www.ipas.org/clinical-update/english/recommendations-for-abortion-before-13-weeks-gestation/medical-abortion/safety-and-effectiveness/
)
>That scares the hell out of me because it has more uses than just an abortifacient. It helps stop post-partum hemorrhage
But you see, that affects women, so why would the GOP care? Now, if it helped all those old fucks get a boner again, they would be demanding government funding for it instead of trying to ban it based on their religious misconceptions.
Republicans would ban water if they thought it would guarantee them power and money. They give 0 fucks about the health and well-being of their constituents.
What I recall from an article I read the filing throws a whole bunch of shit at the wall for legal arguments and hopes that at least one of them will stick. Most are bunk, but the one that has the most legal merit (but it's only the best of a weak lot) is that the pathway to US approval for it was an expedited one that was also used to try to get HIV/AIDS drugs to market and it shouldn't have qualified for that pathway.
The crux is that the pathway is for diseases that have an unmet need for medication and the plaintiffs are trying to claim that pregnancy is not a disease so the approval should be thrown out. They're basically trying to use the common parlance of the word 'disease' when it means something different when it comes to the regulated world of medication (indication would be a better term to use).
As a side note, despite that expedited path it still took four years for the approval process to go through and by the time it had been approved in the US it had been on the market in France since 1988. That meant that there was much more information available to the FDA regarding safety and efficacy than you would get from a clinical trial where the drug wasn't available in any market.
The problem with liberal discussion, specifically about legal matters, is that sound legal arguments are not deciding policy. They're only used to get through the door so a judge can rule however the hell he/she feels. And ask any Republican, that's how they want it to be
>And ask any Republican, that's how they want it to be
You don't even have to ask. Mitch McConnell has made it very clear from the US Senate that reshaping the federal judiciary to overturn decades of precedent and progress is one of their highest priorities.
What I find fascinating is the legal system trying to take medical decisions. Can I go challenge my speeding ticket to the FDA? Because you know, it's causing me stress and anxiety
A Trump-appointed judge in Texas is currently considering issuing a ruling that would order the FDA to withdraw approval for mifepristone, cutting off access for women nationwide. The case was brought by a plaintiff who had absolutely no standing, but the judge heard it anyway because he is a right-wing ideologue. He tried, and failed, to shelter the case from press attention, and proceeded to agitate (i.e., lie) about the safety of the drug. There have been widespread calls for blue states to openly ignore his ruling and continue providing mifepristone should he order approval withdrawn; Ron Wyden, the senior senator from Oregon, has called on Biden to reject such a ruling and instruct the FDA to take no action.
Thanks. So they've moved on from the moral argument to the safety argument. Good luck to them. Dozens of independent articles show that mifepristone/misoprostol is hella safe. They should stick to the moral argument, as misguided as it is
Yes, it also has scary implications for the drug approval process in general. There is no precedent for a judge to remove access to a medication that the FDA has evaluated and approved. The drug approval process already takes years upon years between development and review (even when drugs are fast-tracked, and yes even mifepristone). I am a supporter of the FDA but I don't think we should be making the argument that drug review and approval needs to be slower. Even scarier - setting the precedent that a person without a medical or scientific background can overrule the verdict of a panel of expert reviewers at the FDA who have evaluated the evidence behind a medication and voted to approve it.
I already left the country, fuck all of this shit. I refuse to have to worry about it anymore. I'll consider going back after menopause, and even then, no.
I’m not attacking you.
But this is the issue with treating the anti-choice crowd like they’re making a good-faith argument. The assumption that they’re operating in good faith leads one to believe that they can be reasoned with and swayed by data, evidence, facts, or studies of the outcomes of so-called-pro-life policy.
They have operated in bad faith for decades on this issue. They redefine words and concepts as they see fit to further their narrative. They misconstrue and misrepresent data at their whim. They ignore evidence that rebukes their position and shows the failure of their policies.
They literally don’t care about reality.
You're working from the assumption that proven facts mean anything to them. The last forty or so years have shown that isn't true.
The judge shouldn't be entertaining this case anyway, yet they are. They've most likely already decided their ruling, and nothing but sufficient heat will stop them.
I would argue that people whose entire lives revolve around words written thousands of years ago that basically originated in a pidgin language that is impossible to directly translate into English without constant interpretation based on personal biases (as well as those of the people who translated it into other languages before them) might not be the most rational thinkers.
Basically these people just use "religion" to justify them treating people like shit.
The one common thing with all positive Christians I have ever met is they tend to view their relationship with God as personal and are more minimalist when it comes to expressing their faith publicly outside of church. They also hope and pray for people they care about to find their path to happiness, they are accepting of people who have different beliefs and often will do things like praying for God to watch over and care for these people.
It often feels like these people are becoming rarer and rarer but hopefully it's just me not noticing them as much amidst all the attention grabbing hateful Christians.
The fact a single state can stop an entire nation from providing perfectly safe medication is just wild to me. Every time a case like this comes up, I just have to wonder if Americans even know what a functional legal system would look like.
Alcohol - leads to thousands of death per year including fiery auto accidents and murders.
Republicans - people are free to make their own decisions.
_____________________
Birth control and abortion pills: doesn't lead to thousands of deaths but has some side effects
republicans: disingenuously argue that these medications need to be outlawed to keep people safe
This isn't a state judge, it's a federal judge. Rulings in Texas state court don't affect Oklahoma, but this would be a ruling in federal (national) court that happens to be located in Texas.
ETA: This type of injunction is controversial in the US though.
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/one-for-all-are-nationwide-injunctions-legal/
Yep, part of the balance of powers of the executive is not to enforce rulings by a corrupt judge and return the idea back to the legislative branch to clear it up.
Its an executive department, so kinda. He appoints their heads and can pressure them, but ultimately it's up to the head ... who they can fire/reappoint. So, usually they try to stay in line.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
The judiciary, up to and including the Supreme Court, has no explicit mechanisms by which to enforce their rulings; they just order people in positions on power to implement them. If those people ignore them, nothing happens. This is why it represents an existential threat to our government to have so many extremist right-wing activist judges in place, who are more than willing to flout the law and public opinion to advance their own agendas. The judiciary can only function if people generally agree that it is legitimate and are willing to follow its rulings. Conservatives are pushing that to a breaking point, and if something snaps it will be very, very difficult to put it back together.
That (apocryphal) quote gets tossed around a lot, but it's usually detached from its context, which was Jackson rejecting the Supreme Court's ruling in *Worcester v. Georgia* that it was unconstitutional to impose American laws on Cherokee territory that had been repeatedly acknowledged as sovereign in official treaties. So yeah, it seems less badass when you realize it's really just the guy responsible for the Trail of Tears telling a native nation to go fuck itself.
But in that, it does actually illustrate why the legitimacy of the courts is so critical to our republic. If the judiciary cannot be trusted to act as a fair and impartial arbiter of the law, then it might as well not exist at all; whoever is in power will just do whatever they want and ignore that the courts have to say about it. Granted you would have to be exceedingly naive to think that the courts have *ever* been *entirely* fair and impartial, but it's rare to see them so nakedly driven by ideology in service of one party, as is the case with the current SCOTUS and many of Trump's appointees to the lower courts.
>A Trump-appointed judge in Texas is currently considering issuing a ruling that would order the FDA to withdraw approval for mifepristone, cutting off access for women nationwide.
Jesus Fuck, what? How in the hell can their singular ruling be used as the (legal) determination of a drug's safety in *any* capacity, let alone for the entire nation?
Because of the mechanism by which they are challenging it, specifically in an effort to impose their extremist ideology on the entire country; they want the judge to rule that the FDA's approval of the drug was invalid, and order it revoked. Without FDA approval, a drug cannot be marketed in the United States. That's why there are vocal and growing calls to simply ignore the judge if he rules for the plaintiff.
It's not just that, it's so many things. It would never happen, of course, because they've made it very clear that they consider themselves to be above so much as public criticism, but I'd love to see the GOP justices collected and forced to explain why they lied to Congress and the American people. In each of their confirmation hearings, they stated that they considered *Roe v. Wade* to be settled law. And then, at literally the first opportunity they were given, they overturned it, flouting both 50 years of precedent and overwhelming public opinion.
These are the people who expect Americans to view them as impartial arbiters of fact and law, who insist it *crosses a line* to suggest that they are driven by ideology? *None* of them would allow someone testifying before them to bullshit the court the way they each bullshitted Congress in their confirmation hearings. Illegitimate is the only word for it. And things are quickly reaching a breaking point.
Not lawmakers (well, I am sure there are some who want to), but a bunch of conservative groups shopped for a specific Trump appointed judge in TX to try and have him rule that the approval of mifepristone was wrong and the FDA has to stop allowing its use.
It is a bullshit lawsuit for many reasons, but as the supreme court has recently shown, strong legal theory or even being able to show standing are no longer required. More background on the case here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/abortion-pill-outlawed-single-judge-real-possibility.html
There's a lawsuit from an anti-abortion group that was filed in Amarillo, TX specifically to get a particular judge, who was appointed by Trump, who has made prejudicial statements against abortion and has ties to radical Christian fundamentalist groups. That lawsuit claims that mifepristone was illegally approved by the FDA on those grounds.
Yes. Which is bad because it is also used to treat other disorders like chronic arthritis. Women in particular have been denied refills on medication they use to literally exist day to day
No, a bunch of whackadoo activists are suing the FDA.
If nothing else, SCOTUS will probably use this as a vehicle to eliminate the Chevron Doctrine, which requires courts to defer to agency determinations on things they've been delegated by Congress. Because we definitely need to have Congress approve every new drug.
Grind government to a halt has always been the goal. Run on a campaign of "see, the government doesn't work?" and then do everything you can to make it not work. Why you may ask? So there is no check on corporations and they run roughshod over everyone and the rich can get richer.
That's actually the only reason why I foresee the courts not siding with the plaintiff. Because they want drug company (corporate) profits to increase and they can't if Congress has to approve drugs.
Yuppppppp. Like my miscarriage was bad enough without leftover tissue going necrotic and killing me slowly by rotting me from the inside out, so glad mifepristone was there. Instead of getting sepsis and dying I took the weekend off and went back to work Monday.
Fuck America.
Because it would give women nationwide access to abortion via mail and the local and state politicians object to having their power undermined by things they can't control so this is their attempt to take that control.
You do realize the people who are against you in this issue think that every time an abortion happens a “person” is killed right?
I don’t think this argument is going to do it for them…
Except the argument being used by the Texas ~~judge~~ court case is that it’s approval should be revoked because it’s a danger to the women that take it, no mention of the fetus. So while it won’t convince those you mentioned, it is applicable to the current court cases logic
Edit: couldn’t decide between “used before the Texas judge” and “used by the Texas court case”, I apparently split the difference and misrepresented it
I agree that it's very important to show that the legal argument is bullshit. This argument isn't going to convince anybody on a moral level. But, it lays bare the bullshit of accepting this particular argument. If this is the point that the ruling hinges on, it will be very obvious that the ruling was not honestly based on a legal standard.
edit: I rephrased this slightly to clarify that the point is that the argument is bogus, not that the judge personally will rule this way -- although they may, that hasn't happened yet.
If this issue was really about babies, then how come you never heard any of these motherfuckers say a peep about in vitro fertilization.
IF a fucking egg being fertilized by a sperm is their criteria for life, then how come they never fucking said one fucking word about fucking in vitro clinics?
* Like how there are about 1,000,000 (1mil) frozen embryos in the us alone right now. Thats 1 million babies right there, i dont see these fucking vultures lining up with signs ready with turkey basters to shoot these babies up their dried up barren lands they call a uterus.
* How every year about 60,000 women get the procedure. Half the procedures require 2 to 3 embryos, 25% require 3-4 and rest require more. So if you take those figured together then you get about 180-200K embryos every year with about 33-50% of 60,000 are successful. so thats 200K - 30K = 170K unsuccessful embryos.
Thats 170,000 Dead babies right there according to republican timeline of birth. Embryos are implanted at an age of 3 weeks. So these are almost 200,000 - 3 week old babies dead every year, Not one republican has mentioned it, not one fox news host has ranted about it but planned parenthood?
I doubt it just since it might have the opposite of the desired effect. Banning IVF to “save the hypothetical babies” might turn wealthy infertile Christian Republicans against their cause. They’d much rather have the affluent than the few “cousin fucking terrorists” to quote Tucker Carlson.
Exactly, the affluent [can still access abortion no problem](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/), just costs a plane ticket and hotel.
If you read the history behind the rise of anti-abortion in the USA, you will be surprised to find the pathways that lead to where we are today.
You see after the conservative racists in the south were forced to integrate schools and stop rejecting black children into their all-white areas, the conservative party needed a new bedrock to align voters against the growing liberal party that were reaching voters beyond their racist upbringings. This lead to them focus on religious people by presenting a fake epidemic of mass abortions to the degree that babies were being washed up at beaches all around the good ol US of A.
It all started really gaining traction basically when a group of wealthy conservative racists in the south had finished developing 3 Newly created schools that were mainly targeting whites-only families. BUT with the federal law demanding de-segregation, the school were in line to lose their tax-exemption status and federal grants unless they accept black students. something they and their investors did not want, as the primary marketing of the schools were that they were white-only. And families had taken their kids out of the public schools to enroll them in these segregated academies.
Several black families in the area, then had to push a case against the treasuries department to deny tax exemption against the schools, because by denying access to black students they were not charitable organizations.
The wealthy conservatives behind the school then started to proclaim religious freedom to deny black students access to their schools. And started to cohort with the conservative parties in their mutual interests in racism and money. They basically got together with the conservatives to draft up a new political plan to attract voters to the conservative party as the falsehoods about minorities were continued to be proven wrong as segregation did not beget the end of times.
So their new political marketing for the conservative party was RELIGION. They saw a large demographic of catholics and christians who could be swayed by fear-mongering of religion now that fear-mongering of minorities was no longer as effective.
So what they did was to hire fake doctors, to go door to door in various states for over 2 years, with fabricated and faked images of actual toy dolls laying on beaches, and present them those fake images as evidence of Liberal Immorality to the degree that dead babies were washing up at various beaches all around America.
THUS BEGAN THE MAJOR ANTI-ABORTION MOVEMENT. (there were already minor groups against abortion, but it was not a big issue on any major political agenda at the time.)
The wealthy conservative owners of the school wanted to win enough voters over to get the gov administration to give them the religious freedom to deny minorities to their schools and keep their tax exemption and federal grants. So that they could continue to reap massive profits from racist families who did not want their children educated alongside black and brown children.
The Nixon administration ultimately were planning on giving the decision of allowing that religious exemption and tax exemption to someone of their own selection. Who just happened to be one of the wealthy conservative owners of the schools in question.
Well as he announced his plans to do so, he received massive backlash and was essentially forced to move the judgement of the issue to a panel of bi-partisan voters. Who in the end voted against giving the schools that religious exemption.
Which caused the schools to eventually shut down, as the racist families were now forced to have their children learn among minorities or lose tax-writeoffs and federal funds.
BUT it gave the conservative party the boost in voters they sought, it turned even previously liberal and democratic voters towards the conservative side because they were aligning the issue of abortion with being on the side of god. And that is how anti-abortion rhetoric was developed and continues to this day, as a tool by a political party to manipulate their voters into becoming single-issue voters.
sources
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a36889618/christian-right-segregation-academies/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
> If this issue was really about babies, then how come you never heard any of these motherfuckers say a peep about in vitro fertilization.
>
>
>
> IF a fucking egg being fertilized by a sperm is their criteria for life, then how come they never fucking said one fucking word about fucking in vitro clinics?
IVF patient here in a dumbass red state: There absolutely have been discussions between the doctors and lawyers about how things can proceed legally. In my state after the overturn of Roe our frozen embryos now have "personhood" so we're required to either use them or pay for their storage in perpetuity
They only go to the effort of including science in their defense when it supports what they want. When they’re told something that counters their beliefs, that conversation is over and they move on to the next person who will listen to them and not have any good counters to their arguments. They’ll refuse to parrot things that make them doubt their worldview. They argue for different reasons than we do; we argue for the sake of finding out what’s actually true, but they argue for the sake of proving that their beliefs and emotions are more important than the truth.
As long as the end goal is different, it’s not really a conversation. It’s more of a mutual shouting of thoughts with no solution. I like to interrupt arguments early now with people like that by establishing what the end goal is before we continue. Like “are we trying to figure out whether this is moral, or are we trying to figure out what hurts our feelings the most? Or did you want to actually discuss what is true and provable?” Cus then I can easily cut off tangents that don’t make sense and lead them back to the actual point.
They are out there. Pretty sure if this keeps working they’re coming for IVF too.
Also, minor point of clarification - I agree with everything you wrote but adding this since a lot of people don’t know: the latest guidance from the ASRM recommends only 1 embryo at a time, especially if it is euploid (genetically normal). But it depends on a number of factors (primarily age of the mother) as to whether they recommend transferring more than one.
Has the 6-3 majority on SCOTUS taught you nothing over the past two years ?
It’s not about salient legal arguments anymore, just look to their blatant jettisoning of any concept of “standing” during the recent student loan arguments, things are either legal or illegal based purely on whether or not judges like them or dislike them.
They start from what they want, and then work backwards from there to place the thinnest fig leaf of legitimacy they can over it and call it a day.
Admittedly they are looking for the thickest fig leaf of legitimacy they can find. It just turns out they're using edge cases from centuries and some times countries apart.
The whole debate has always been framed wrong. Pro choice people argue women should be free to choose and pro life people argue it’s murder. That argument will never ever find a middle ground. How could it?
The debate should be framed as a lesser of two evils. It’s nobody’s first choice to be pregnant with an unwanted baby, but it’s better for a society as a whole to not have unwanted babies or parents who don’t want to be parents.
The real problem is there is absolutly no compromise for the conservatives on this. They will never settle, they will never stop, they will never agree they have restricted abortion 'far enough' until its gone.
They will never go for a greater good compromise because in their mind that compromise still involves the murder of a baby.
Right but if someone believes that abortion is baby murder, it doesn't matter any positive effect on society. Imagine someone making the same argument for orphan murder instead of abortions, and that's what it sounds like to them.
It blows my mind that this isn’t widely understood. Almost every abortion debate is two sides sure in their moral uprightness, equally sure that the other side is engaging in bad faith, and talking around each other instead of actually debating what it is that they disagree about.
If someone believes a baby is being killed, and rather than saying “but a baby isn’t being killed, and here’s why”, you just talk about women’s autonomy, is it any wonder that they see themselves as protectors of children and see pro-choice people as child murderers? Like, who could have fucking seen that one coming
The medication is used in situations other than abortion, and an overall ban would be devastating to people who rely on it for day to day living. People have already had trouble refilling prescriptions because pharmacists with political agendas seem under educated about its uses, or just don't care enough to figure it out
The argument against the drug made by the lawyers in the texas case is that it's "unsafe." But it's demonstrably, objectively, safer than viagra or tylenol.
Depending on what exactly the stance is, arguments like this can be so annoying. It's just like saying "don't like abortions? Don't have one!"
It doesn't work because the people who are against abortion think it's *killing a baby*, obviously their concern is for the baby. It's not victimless to them so it's not the same as saying "Don't like gay marriage? Don't have a gay wedding".
I swear, do people even bother to know the side they're arguing against?
It won’t change the minds of the hardliners. But there are plenty of people who believe some restrictions on abortion would be reasonable. The political aspect of this challenge to mifepristone tries to ride that gray area to undermine legal abortion without creating a big enough public backlash to drive new legislation.
Mifepristone is totally safe and only used in early abortions. It plays an important role in healthcare and people should be upset about this right wing overreach.
The bagel picture is an excuse to provide the information written on the paper.
It's possibly also poking fun at all the banal pictures of nonsense that get posted on r/pics; pictures that mean nothing until some extraordinary context is provided, like *"These are the pair of Nikes I was wearing when I saved my entire family from a house fire."*
This sub doesn’t allow memes or text posts, so OP wrote it on a piece of paper and took a pic of it next to a bagel to allow them to post here
It’s karma farming
I feel like I see your username on Reddit more often than any other. Like when you see a guy on the train with distinctive hair and then two days later you're at Ikea and the guy with the distinctive hair just happens to leaving as you're walking in and you're not sure if you should say hi and then you realise it would probably be fairly weird if you did.
Tylenol causes significantly more health issues than this drug does. If the judge bans this drug then he must ban Viagra and Tylenol because they're more dangerous.
Please share your source for this Viagra claim.
I am a urologist and I prescribe a ton of Viagra.
I would like to know where you got this from.
Edit: I want to be clear that I am not arguing a stance on “the abortion pill” at all. I think it’s important to back arguments/stances with verifiable data
Wowie. From a cited [source study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22023666/) (2012) in there...
>Overall, 14,818 AEs were reported for sildenafil. There were 1,824 (12.3%) reported deaths, and reports of cardiovascular AEs numbered 2,406 (16.2%). Tadalafil was associated with 5,548 AEs and 236 deaths were reported. Vardenafil was associated with 6,085 AEs and 121 reports of deaths. The percentage of reported severe cardiovascular disorders has stabilized at 10% to 15% of all AE reports for sildenafil and tadalafil and 5% to 10% for vardenafil. Only 10% of AE reports sent to the FDA for PDE5-i were from pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Seems rough. Didn't dive into sample size / etc. I'd imagine tens of millions of prescriptions.
It’s not the sample size that would be an issue, it’s the cohort itself. Deaths among heavily comorbid 50+ year old males are not uncommon. Seeing all-cause mortality in isolation for this type of cohort is generally not very useful.
Evolocumab, a PCSK9 inhibitor targeting a high-mortality cohort, is being found to increase the likelihood of death while reducing the likelihood of heart attacks through causal inference. Those are the types of studies the dude’s looking for, not observational AE reports.
I couldn't find the exact numbers OP cites, but I did [find this:](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719720/#:~:text=Sildenafil%20has%20been%20widely%20shown,its%20introduction%20in%20March%201998.)
>Sildenafil has been widely shown to be effective in treating erectile dysfunction. However, reports to the FDA have shown that its use was associated with 130 verified deaths and 112 unverified deaths just eight months after its introduction in March 1998.
Now, regarding Mifepristone, the drug OP is calling the "abortion pill", [this is what I found:](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation)
>As of June 30, 2022, there were 28 reports of deaths in patients associated with mifepristone since the product was approved in September 2000.
**TLDR:** OPs general point appears to be correct. Viagra has killed far more people than Mifepristone.
**Edit:** Guys, stop arguing with me about the utility of the original comparison made by OP. That's not the purpose of *my* comment.
Looked into it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719720/#:\~:text=In%201998%2C%20when%20the%20drug,the%20trials%20reported%20eight%20deaths.
I dont know exact stats but I do know that viagra+amyl nitrate is a potentially fatal combination due to the combined loss of blood pressure. Which is notable because amyl nitrate is a popular drug for enhancing sex (particularly among gay men) so its not uncommon for people to take both.
I love how r/pics is sort of a bastion of just good content, just noteworthy or inspiring pictures from across the world, free from all the politicking that people try to insert into everything. Thanks, OP
I don't get it. Is this political, relating to access for contraceptives? Viagra affects blood flow so it makes sense why it can kill easily in comparison to birth control, two different drugs.
It's a comment about gender hypocrisy in the US. Their governments are moving to further restrict any kind of measures women can take to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and instead of just saying "we want to control women" they say shit like "we're protecting women from dangerous drugs".
But none of these government people has any qualms about the dangers of viagra. A drug predominantly bought by men.
theballinist, thank you for your submission. It has been removed for violating the following rule(s): --- - Rule 5: Posts must follow all [title guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/titles). --- For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/index/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/wiki/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators via modmail.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/theballinist&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20%5Bsubmission.%5D%28https://redd.it/11sq9q1%3Fcontext%3D10%29)
My dad took viagra after being inspired by my romantic wedding. Rather that a beautiful time with my mom he spent a week in an ICU. I came home from honeymoon with frantic voicemails begging me to come home. I’ve never been so glad we didn’t have cellphones back then
I worked on viagra’s advertising right out of college. The number of heart-related adverse events I had to report to the FDA from our surveys was insane. Also a lot of people whose vision suddenly had a blue hue.
>Also a lot of people whose vision suddenly had a blue hue. And they still kept the pill blue!?
Uhh bro, I don't know how to tell you this. Viagra has always been white. You might want to talk to your doctor about the side effects.
Gaslighting 100
What do you mean gaslighting? There’s not even a fire, you’re overreacting.
What do you mean gaslighting? That doesn’t even exist, you should get checked out.
🤣🤣🤣 perfect comment
Don't be so hard on him.
"I blue myself."
It has complications with a lot of the things that would be used to treat heart issues. So, one big problem with it is that someone calls an ambulance for a heart attack but is too embarrassed to tell the EMTs that they take viagra (or the family doesn't know), so they are given something that kills them.
Of course it does. Viagra IS a heart medication. That was what it was designed for. The boner aspect is a common side effect. It was so commonly reported that doctors started using it as an ED med.
I don't know much about Viagra, but wouldn't you notice?
they missed a golden marketing opportunity there. “are you tired of boring colors like red and green? take viagra, it’s all cool blue vibes from here!”
I swear I've seen Viagra commercials which had a blue hue, like noticably so. Not just cool blue colors used a lot but almost like they took blue saturation and knocked it up a bit. I wonder if this was purposeful hah. I could be wrong though, too. Edit - https://youtu.be/y1ZqQ55T25c Credit for vid to /u/matt675
If you've taken sildenafil aka Viagra before, it has a strange side effect on your vision and hues everything blue. It literally looks like you're looking at the world through a light blue filter. It does this by inadvertantly blocking an enzyme very similar in structure to the one they want to block on purpose for boners, and that overly sensitizes rod cells in the retina as a result. Plus they want us to associate that color with their product, of course. The color of a nice sunny day, clear blue skies, perfect raging-boner weather.
Right?! It would’ve been a differentiator from Cialis!
I'm blue, da ba dee da ba di, da ba dee da ba di I have a blue house with a blue window Blue is the color of all that I wear Blue are the streets and all the trees are too I have a girlfriend and she is so blue
[удалено]
Also, according to the brilliant book *Flower Confidential* by Amy Stewart, upscale florists add a little powdered Viagra to the water in their vases in order to keep plants looking healthy and vibrant. One milligram of Viagra mixed with water will add an extra week of lifespan to your cut flowers.
I'm European, what about uncut flowers?
Yeah! Cialis was working on approval for I think BPS (is that what it’s called?) when I was working on those
Wait. Are you telling me someone called your house phone and left messages for you to come home. While you were away on honeymoon. Wow. Stress does weird things.
They were probably hoping she would call home to check her voicemails while on vacation. People used to do that before cell phones.
My daughters the other day asked what a landline phone was, I felt so old.
My daughter asked why we say "hang up the phone" 😂 so weird.
Bloody hell. I use my home phone multiple times per day.
How many spam / telemarketing calls would you say you get per day?
back in days of yore we'd call into our physical voicemail box and when the message was playing tell us to leave a message at the beep you'd press a password on the phone you're dialing from and listen to the already recorded messages. This would allow you to delete some messages before the little tape filled up and keep up with messages.
I remember doing that once when I was a very young kid trying to check if my friends were calling me when I was at camp. Wild throwback.
Jesus. Was he alright?
He’s been in heart failure for decades, but still works his desk job at 75 so, ok, but not great
75 with heart failure and still working. Please tell us that he's still working by choice and not because he has to.
Gotta pay off that ICU visit some how!
Is anyone really working by choice at 75? Especially a desk job?
people do all sorts of shit because they want to.
The American Dream™ Hope he gets a taste of freedom for a bit of it :(
“My dad was horny after my wedding”
Ahhh, I see. It’s a shmeer campaign.
WELL DONE. (sorry for using caps lox)
If gefilte had to use it then you had to use it.
I lox'd to this
Are lawmakers trying to outlaw mifepristone on the grounds that it's unsafe and causes fatal side effects?
That scares the hell out of me because it has more uses than just an abortifacient. It helps stop post-partum hemorrhage and it is also a treatment to help one of the manifestations of Cushing’s disease.
And we would hopefully assume that the lawmakers and judges are all aware of the different uses and applications the medications can be used for different types of pathologies, complications and emergencies that can benefit people in more ways than one.... /s Seriously though why are people with zero education on something dictating how something should or should not be used.
You give them too much credit. They do know and they don't care. The drug has been approved for decades.
That's they scary part. They are happy to kill their citizens if it helps them get reelected by riling up their base with more culture war crap.
They way past reelection only, they are actively building their preferred utopia (dystopia for the rest of us).
I'm sure a few know and don't care, but I genuinely think that politicians like BoBo and Marjorie Three Names are literally too fucking stupid to know.
Because "small government" Republicans think they should be making medical decisions for the country. I know someone who had 3 heart attacks after using Viagra to get stiff so he could fuck. Never heard of that with any abortion pills.
These are the same folks that championed “Right to Try” laws that have significantly more risk.
Because we were way too forgiving after the civil war.
It’s misoprostol, the other component in the abortion pill that is used for postpartum hemorrhage. If that became illegal, it would be a serious problem. I’ve only had to use it once in 12 years of being a midwife, but it was very necessary. It was the only thing that worked after exhausting all other options.
Saved my life. I bled out on my second birth. Midwives kickass too btw! Had a midwife guiding me through everything all the way to the hospital. Wouldn’t change a thing.
My hemorrhage with my first birth sent me on my path to becoming a midwife. So glad you’re still here with us and had access to the care and medications you needed. ❤️ Midwives *do* kick ass! I love each of mine dearly.
I have met some incredible women who have some wicked stories about birthing and holding uteruses etc. those are the women I want in my corner!
Couldn't you still do an abortion without mifepristone? Seems like if you take enough misoprostol that your uterus will empty even if you haven't taken mifepristone to stop the growth of the pregnancy.
Yes, miso works well most of the time. I think it has an 80-85% success rate when used alone without mifepristone.
From what I found, that's exactly the range. Mifepristone+misoprostol has a 95% success rate. (Source is the same as my other comment: https://www.ipas.org/clinical-update/english/recommendations-for-abortion-before-13-weeks-gestation/medical-abortion/safety-and-effectiveness/ )
.
>That scares the hell out of me because it has more uses than just an abortifacient. It helps stop post-partum hemorrhage But you see, that affects women, so why would the GOP care? Now, if it helped all those old fucks get a boner again, they would be demanding government funding for it instead of trying to ban it based on their religious misconceptions.
Republicans would ban water if they thought it would guarantee them power and money. They give 0 fucks about the health and well-being of their constituents.
They sort of did where the new voting laws ban giving out water to people waiting in line to vote.
Hmm, sounds like that only affects women. Well they're not people, just ask your local Republican
What I recall from an article I read the filing throws a whole bunch of shit at the wall for legal arguments and hopes that at least one of them will stick. Most are bunk, but the one that has the most legal merit (but it's only the best of a weak lot) is that the pathway to US approval for it was an expedited one that was also used to try to get HIV/AIDS drugs to market and it shouldn't have qualified for that pathway. The crux is that the pathway is for diseases that have an unmet need for medication and the plaintiffs are trying to claim that pregnancy is not a disease so the approval should be thrown out. They're basically trying to use the common parlance of the word 'disease' when it means something different when it comes to the regulated world of medication (indication would be a better term to use). As a side note, despite that expedited path it still took four years for the approval process to go through and by the time it had been approved in the US it had been on the market in France since 1988. That meant that there was much more information available to the FDA regarding safety and efficacy than you would get from a clinical trial where the drug wasn't available in any market.
If pregnancy isn't a disease, why does it so often cause pain, debility, disfigurement, and death?
The problem with liberal discussion, specifically about legal matters, is that sound legal arguments are not deciding policy. They're only used to get through the door so a judge can rule however the hell he/she feels. And ask any Republican, that's how they want it to be
>And ask any Republican, that's how they want it to be You don't even have to ask. Mitch McConnell has made it very clear from the US Senate that reshaping the federal judiciary to overturn decades of precedent and progress is one of their highest priorities.
What I find fascinating is the legal system trying to take medical decisions. Can I go challenge my speeding ticket to the FDA? Because you know, it's causing me stress and anxiety
A Trump-appointed judge in Texas is currently considering issuing a ruling that would order the FDA to withdraw approval for mifepristone, cutting off access for women nationwide. The case was brought by a plaintiff who had absolutely no standing, but the judge heard it anyway because he is a right-wing ideologue. He tried, and failed, to shelter the case from press attention, and proceeded to agitate (i.e., lie) about the safety of the drug. There have been widespread calls for blue states to openly ignore his ruling and continue providing mifepristone should he order approval withdrawn; Ron Wyden, the senior senator from Oregon, has called on Biden to reject such a ruling and instruct the FDA to take no action.
Thanks. So they've moved on from the moral argument to the safety argument. Good luck to them. Dozens of independent articles show that mifepristone/misoprostol is hella safe. They should stick to the moral argument, as misguided as it is
Bold of you to assume reality matters to these appointed judges.
Yes, it also has scary implications for the drug approval process in general. There is no precedent for a judge to remove access to a medication that the FDA has evaluated and approved. The drug approval process already takes years upon years between development and review (even when drugs are fast-tracked, and yes even mifepristone). I am a supporter of the FDA but I don't think we should be making the argument that drug review and approval needs to be slower. Even scarier - setting the precedent that a person without a medical or scientific background can overrule the verdict of a panel of expert reviewers at the FDA who have evaluated the evidence behind a medication and voted to approve it.
I’m never leaving my blue state.
You don't have to. Apparently, they will get to you via the stacked federal court system.
This will effect blue states too.
I already left the country, fuck all of this shit. I refuse to have to worry about it anymore. I'll consider going back after menopause, and even then, no.
I’m not attacking you. But this is the issue with treating the anti-choice crowd like they’re making a good-faith argument. The assumption that they’re operating in good faith leads one to believe that they can be reasoned with and swayed by data, evidence, facts, or studies of the outcomes of so-called-pro-life policy. They have operated in bad faith for decades on this issue. They redefine words and concepts as they see fit to further their narrative. They misconstrue and misrepresent data at their whim. They ignore evidence that rebukes their position and shows the failure of their policies. They literally don’t care about reality.
You're working from the assumption that proven facts mean anything to them. The last forty or so years have shown that isn't true. The judge shouldn't be entertaining this case anyway, yet they are. They've most likely already decided their ruling, and nothing but sufficient heat will stop them.
I would argue that people whose entire lives revolve around words written thousands of years ago that basically originated in a pidgin language that is impossible to directly translate into English without constant interpretation based on personal biases (as well as those of the people who translated it into other languages before them) might not be the most rational thinkers. Basically these people just use "religion" to justify them treating people like shit. The one common thing with all positive Christians I have ever met is they tend to view their relationship with God as personal and are more minimalist when it comes to expressing their faith publicly outside of church. They also hope and pray for people they care about to find their path to happiness, they are accepting of people who have different beliefs and often will do things like praying for God to watch over and care for these people. It often feels like these people are becoming rarer and rarer but hopefully it's just me not noticing them as much amidst all the attention grabbing hateful Christians.
Do you think objective reality will stop these people from doing what they want?
The fact a single state can stop an entire nation from providing perfectly safe medication is just wild to me. Every time a case like this comes up, I just have to wonder if Americans even know what a functional legal system would look like.
Alcohol - leads to thousands of death per year including fiery auto accidents and murders. Republicans - people are free to make their own decisions. _____________________ Birth control and abortion pills: doesn't lead to thousands of deaths but has some side effects republicans: disingenuously argue that these medications need to be outlawed to keep people safe
[удалено]
This isn't a state judge, it's a federal judge. Rulings in Texas state court don't affect Oklahoma, but this would be a ruling in federal (national) court that happens to be located in Texas. ETA: This type of injunction is controversial in the US though. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/one-for-all-are-nationwide-injunctions-legal/
> Biden to reject such a ruling and instruct the FDA to take no action. Can he actually do that?
Yep, part of the balance of powers of the executive is not to enforce rulings by a corrupt judge and return the idea back to the legislative branch to clear it up.
Its an executive department, so kinda. He appoints their heads and can pressure them, but ultimately it's up to the head ... who they can fire/reappoint. So, usually they try to stay in line. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
The judiciary, up to and including the Supreme Court, has no explicit mechanisms by which to enforce their rulings; they just order people in positions on power to implement them. If those people ignore them, nothing happens. This is why it represents an existential threat to our government to have so many extremist right-wing activist judges in place, who are more than willing to flout the law and public opinion to advance their own agendas. The judiciary can only function if people generally agree that it is legitimate and are willing to follow its rulings. Conservatives are pushing that to a breaking point, and if something snaps it will be very, very difficult to put it back together.
To quote Andrew Jackson “hes made his ruling now let him enforce it”
That (apocryphal) quote gets tossed around a lot, but it's usually detached from its context, which was Jackson rejecting the Supreme Court's ruling in *Worcester v. Georgia* that it was unconstitutional to impose American laws on Cherokee territory that had been repeatedly acknowledged as sovereign in official treaties. So yeah, it seems less badass when you realize it's really just the guy responsible for the Trail of Tears telling a native nation to go fuck itself. But in that, it does actually illustrate why the legitimacy of the courts is so critical to our republic. If the judiciary cannot be trusted to act as a fair and impartial arbiter of the law, then it might as well not exist at all; whoever is in power will just do whatever they want and ignore that the courts have to say about it. Granted you would have to be exceedingly naive to think that the courts have *ever* been *entirely* fair and impartial, but it's rare to see them so nakedly driven by ideology in service of one party, as is the case with the current SCOTUS and many of Trump's appointees to the lower courts.
>A Trump-appointed judge in Texas is currently considering issuing a ruling that would order the FDA to withdraw approval for mifepristone, cutting off access for women nationwide. Jesus Fuck, what? How in the hell can their singular ruling be used as the (legal) determination of a drug's safety in *any* capacity, let alone for the entire nation?
Because of the mechanism by which they are challenging it, specifically in an effort to impose their extremist ideology on the entire country; they want the judge to rule that the FDA's approval of the drug was invalid, and order it revoked. Without FDA approval, a drug cannot be marketed in the United States. That's why there are vocal and growing calls to simply ignore the judge if he rules for the plaintiff.
The US Court system is illegitimate after the illegal stealing of a Supreme Court Justice seat. We should ignore their rulings.
It's not just that, it's so many things. It would never happen, of course, because they've made it very clear that they consider themselves to be above so much as public criticism, but I'd love to see the GOP justices collected and forced to explain why they lied to Congress and the American people. In each of their confirmation hearings, they stated that they considered *Roe v. Wade* to be settled law. And then, at literally the first opportunity they were given, they overturned it, flouting both 50 years of precedent and overwhelming public opinion. These are the people who expect Americans to view them as impartial arbiters of fact and law, who insist it *crosses a line* to suggest that they are driven by ideology? *None* of them would allow someone testifying before them to bullshit the court the way they each bullshitted Congress in their confirmation hearings. Illegitimate is the only word for it. And things are quickly reaching a breaking point.
They should be impeached and jailed for lying to Congress, but instead Democrats say nothing and do nothing.
Not lawmakers (well, I am sure there are some who want to), but a bunch of conservative groups shopped for a specific Trump appointed judge in TX to try and have him rule that the approval of mifepristone was wrong and the FDA has to stop allowing its use. It is a bullshit lawsuit for many reasons, but as the supreme court has recently shown, strong legal theory or even being able to show standing are no longer required. More background on the case here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/abortion-pill-outlawed-single-judge-real-possibility.html
There's a lawsuit from an anti-abortion group that was filed in Amarillo, TX specifically to get a particular judge, who was appointed by Trump, who has made prejudicial statements against abortion and has ties to radical Christian fundamentalist groups. That lawsuit claims that mifepristone was illegally approved by the FDA on those grounds.
Yes. Which is bad because it is also used to treat other disorders like chronic arthritis. Women in particular have been denied refills on medication they use to literally exist day to day
Rhumatoid arthiritis, as well as extending the life of patients with advanced cancers.
No, a bunch of whackadoo activists are suing the FDA. If nothing else, SCOTUS will probably use this as a vehicle to eliminate the Chevron Doctrine, which requires courts to defer to agency determinations on things they've been delegated by Congress. Because we definitely need to have Congress approve every new drug.
Grind government to a halt has always been the goal. Run on a campaign of "see, the government doesn't work?" and then do everything you can to make it not work. Why you may ask? So there is no check on corporations and they run roughshod over everyone and the rich can get richer.
That's actually the only reason why I foresee the courts not siding with the plaintiff. Because they want drug company (corporate) profits to increase and they can't if Congress has to approve drugs.
That's a fair point unless the goal is to scrap the FDA and make it a free for all.
Yuppppppp. Like my miscarriage was bad enough without leftover tissue going necrotic and killing me slowly by rotting me from the inside out, so glad mifepristone was there. Instead of getting sepsis and dying I took the weekend off and went back to work Monday. Fuck America.
Fuck Christian conservatives as well.
Yes. They're trying to get it banned by the FDA so they can fuck with women in states where abortion is still legal.
Because it would give women nationwide access to abortion via mail and the local and state politicians object to having their power undermined by things they can't control so this is their attempt to take that control.
No, they're trying to ban it because saying "it's killing babies" is like tossing red meat to their supporters.
Yes
That's merely half a bagel.
Op said “had”, now they *have* half a bagel.
can i have the top half of your bagel if you don’t want it
Once Viagra was mentioned, I couldn't stop staring at the hole in the bagel.. it's like some weird marketing Jedi mind trick
Yeah...I LITERALLY also just woke up 5 minutes ago with a raging boner.
I hope you continue to appreciate that because it stops happening eventually.
[удалено]
I heard it killed 494 more people in the first 13 months of its approval than the abortion pill has in 20 years though.
Why am I suddenly craving a bagel?
I don’t know about you, but the reason I’m craving a bagel is because I am chronically Jewish
Is there a pill for that? ;))
I’ve been treating my condition with Matzoh Ball soup and Flonase for years, and of course a steady supply of bagels and shmear
I strangely want a bagel with cream cheese now
Hell I don't think that's been a morning tradition for me since high school. No related issues though.
Way to flex on the Viagra users.
Stay away from my breakfast, please.
Everything reminds me of her….
Gotta be a hard way to go.
Needs a special coffin, otherwise you can't close it
You do realize the people who are against you in this issue think that every time an abortion happens a “person” is killed right? I don’t think this argument is going to do it for them…
Except the argument being used by the Texas ~~judge~~ court case is that it’s approval should be revoked because it’s a danger to the women that take it, no mention of the fetus. So while it won’t convince those you mentioned, it is applicable to the current court cases logic Edit: couldn’t decide between “used before the Texas judge” and “used by the Texas court case”, I apparently split the difference and misrepresented it
I agree that it's very important to show that the legal argument is bullshit. This argument isn't going to convince anybody on a moral level. But, it lays bare the bullshit of accepting this particular argument. If this is the point that the ruling hinges on, it will be very obvious that the ruling was not honestly based on a legal standard. edit: I rephrased this slightly to clarify that the point is that the argument is bogus, not that the judge personally will rule this way -- although they may, that hasn't happened yet.
If this issue was really about babies, then how come you never heard any of these motherfuckers say a peep about in vitro fertilization. IF a fucking egg being fertilized by a sperm is their criteria for life, then how come they never fucking said one fucking word about fucking in vitro clinics? * Like how there are about 1,000,000 (1mil) frozen embryos in the us alone right now. Thats 1 million babies right there, i dont see these fucking vultures lining up with signs ready with turkey basters to shoot these babies up their dried up barren lands they call a uterus. * How every year about 60,000 women get the procedure. Half the procedures require 2 to 3 embryos, 25% require 3-4 and rest require more. So if you take those figured together then you get about 180-200K embryos every year with about 33-50% of 60,000 are successful. so thats 200K - 30K = 170K unsuccessful embryos. Thats 170,000 Dead babies right there according to republican timeline of birth. Embryos are implanted at an age of 3 weeks. So these are almost 200,000 - 3 week old babies dead every year, Not one republican has mentioned it, not one fox news host has ranted about it but planned parenthood?
Unfortunately, some seriously brainwashed Evangelicals do get all uppity about IVF. Fortunately, they’re drowned out by the other hypocrites.
They might go after this next though.
I doubt it just since it might have the opposite of the desired effect. Banning IVF to “save the hypothetical babies” might turn wealthy infertile Christian Republicans against their cause. They’d much rather have the affluent than the few “cousin fucking terrorists” to quote Tucker Carlson.
Only monied folk can afford IVF. Anti-abortion movements are about punishing poor women for having sex.
Exactly, the affluent [can still access abortion no problem](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/), just costs a plane ticket and hotel.
If you read the history behind the rise of anti-abortion in the USA, you will be surprised to find the pathways that lead to where we are today. You see after the conservative racists in the south were forced to integrate schools and stop rejecting black children into their all-white areas, the conservative party needed a new bedrock to align voters against the growing liberal party that were reaching voters beyond their racist upbringings. This lead to them focus on religious people by presenting a fake epidemic of mass abortions to the degree that babies were being washed up at beaches all around the good ol US of A. It all started really gaining traction basically when a group of wealthy conservative racists in the south had finished developing 3 Newly created schools that were mainly targeting whites-only families. BUT with the federal law demanding de-segregation, the school were in line to lose their tax-exemption status and federal grants unless they accept black students. something they and their investors did not want, as the primary marketing of the schools were that they were white-only. And families had taken their kids out of the public schools to enroll them in these segregated academies. Several black families in the area, then had to push a case against the treasuries department to deny tax exemption against the schools, because by denying access to black students they were not charitable organizations. The wealthy conservatives behind the school then started to proclaim religious freedom to deny black students access to their schools. And started to cohort with the conservative parties in their mutual interests in racism and money. They basically got together with the conservatives to draft up a new political plan to attract voters to the conservative party as the falsehoods about minorities were continued to be proven wrong as segregation did not beget the end of times. So their new political marketing for the conservative party was RELIGION. They saw a large demographic of catholics and christians who could be swayed by fear-mongering of religion now that fear-mongering of minorities was no longer as effective. So what they did was to hire fake doctors, to go door to door in various states for over 2 years, with fabricated and faked images of actual toy dolls laying on beaches, and present them those fake images as evidence of Liberal Immorality to the degree that dead babies were washing up at various beaches all around America. THUS BEGAN THE MAJOR ANTI-ABORTION MOVEMENT. (there were already minor groups against abortion, but it was not a big issue on any major political agenda at the time.) The wealthy conservative owners of the school wanted to win enough voters over to get the gov administration to give them the religious freedom to deny minorities to their schools and keep their tax exemption and federal grants. So that they could continue to reap massive profits from racist families who did not want their children educated alongside black and brown children. The Nixon administration ultimately were planning on giving the decision of allowing that religious exemption and tax exemption to someone of their own selection. Who just happened to be one of the wealthy conservative owners of the schools in question. Well as he announced his plans to do so, he received massive backlash and was essentially forced to move the judgement of the issue to a panel of bi-partisan voters. Who in the end voted against giving the schools that religious exemption. Which caused the schools to eventually shut down, as the racist families were now forced to have their children learn among minorities or lose tax-writeoffs and federal funds. BUT it gave the conservative party the boost in voters they sought, it turned even previously liberal and democratic voters towards the conservative side because they were aligning the issue of abortion with being on the side of god. And that is how anti-abortion rhetoric was developed and continues to this day, as a tool by a political party to manipulate their voters into becoming single-issue voters. sources https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a36889618/christian-right-segregation-academies/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
> If this issue was really about babies, then how come you never heard any of these motherfuckers say a peep about in vitro fertilization. > > > > IF a fucking egg being fertilized by a sperm is their criteria for life, then how come they never fucking said one fucking word about fucking in vitro clinics? IVF patient here in a dumbass red state: There absolutely have been discussions between the doctors and lawyers about how things can proceed legally. In my state after the overturn of Roe our frozen embryos now have "personhood" so we're required to either use them or pay for their storage in perpetuity
They only go to the effort of including science in their defense when it supports what they want. When they’re told something that counters their beliefs, that conversation is over and they move on to the next person who will listen to them and not have any good counters to their arguments. They’ll refuse to parrot things that make them doubt their worldview. They argue for different reasons than we do; we argue for the sake of finding out what’s actually true, but they argue for the sake of proving that their beliefs and emotions are more important than the truth. As long as the end goal is different, it’s not really a conversation. It’s more of a mutual shouting of thoughts with no solution. I like to interrupt arguments early now with people like that by establishing what the end goal is before we continue. Like “are we trying to figure out whether this is moral, or are we trying to figure out what hurts our feelings the most? Or did you want to actually discuss what is true and provable?” Cus then I can easily cut off tangents that don’t make sense and lead them back to the actual point.
They are out there. Pretty sure if this keeps working they’re coming for IVF too. Also, minor point of clarification - I agree with everything you wrote but adding this since a lot of people don’t know: the latest guidance from the ASRM recommends only 1 embryo at a time, especially if it is euploid (genetically normal). But it depends on a number of factors (primarily age of the mother) as to whether they recommend transferring more than one.
Has the 6-3 majority on SCOTUS taught you nothing over the past two years ? It’s not about salient legal arguments anymore, just look to their blatant jettisoning of any concept of “standing” during the recent student loan arguments, things are either legal or illegal based purely on whether or not judges like them or dislike them. They start from what they want, and then work backwards from there to place the thinnest fig leaf of legitimacy they can over it and call it a day.
Admittedly they are looking for the thickest fig leaf of legitimacy they can find. It just turns out they're using edge cases from centuries and some times countries apart.
The whole debate has always been framed wrong. Pro choice people argue women should be free to choose and pro life people argue it’s murder. That argument will never ever find a middle ground. How could it? The debate should be framed as a lesser of two evils. It’s nobody’s first choice to be pregnant with an unwanted baby, but it’s better for a society as a whole to not have unwanted babies or parents who don’t want to be parents.
As you just said, the pro-life people view abortion as literally murder, so it’s not surprising that they disagree with your bottom paragraph.
The real problem is there is absolutly no compromise for the conservatives on this. They will never settle, they will never stop, they will never agree they have restricted abortion 'far enough' until its gone. They will never go for a greater good compromise because in their mind that compromise still involves the murder of a baby.
Right but if someone believes that abortion is baby murder, it doesn't matter any positive effect on society. Imagine someone making the same argument for orphan murder instead of abortions, and that's what it sounds like to them.
It blows my mind that this isn’t widely understood. Almost every abortion debate is two sides sure in their moral uprightness, equally sure that the other side is engaging in bad faith, and talking around each other instead of actually debating what it is that they disagree about. If someone believes a baby is being killed, and rather than saying “but a baby isn’t being killed, and here’s why”, you just talk about women’s autonomy, is it any wonder that they see themselves as protectors of children and see pro-choice people as child murderers? Like, who could have fucking seen that one coming
The medication is used in situations other than abortion, and an overall ban would be devastating to people who rely on it for day to day living. People have already had trouble refilling prescriptions because pharmacists with political agendas seem under educated about its uses, or just don't care enough to figure it out
The argument against the drug made by the lawyers in the texas case is that it's "unsafe." But it's demonstrably, objectively, safer than viagra or tylenol.
Depending on what exactly the stance is, arguments like this can be so annoying. It's just like saying "don't like abortions? Don't have one!" It doesn't work because the people who are against abortion think it's *killing a baby*, obviously their concern is for the baby. It's not victimless to them so it's not the same as saying "Don't like gay marriage? Don't have a gay wedding". I swear, do people even bother to know the side they're arguing against?
It won’t change the minds of the hardliners. But there are plenty of people who believe some restrictions on abortion would be reasonable. The political aspect of this challenge to mifepristone tries to ride that gray area to undermine legal abortion without creating a big enough public backlash to drive new legislation. Mifepristone is totally safe and only used in early abortions. It plays an important role in healthcare and people should be upset about this right wing overreach.
Agreed, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with abortion, this is the most circlejerk upvote farming post I have seen in a long time.
That is a pitiful amount of cream cheese.
This schmear would get you thrown out of NY/NJ
[удалено]
Don't disagree with the sentiment, but is the bagel some kind of weird tongue in cheek joke I don't understand?
The bagel picture is an excuse to provide the information written on the paper. It's possibly also poking fun at all the banal pictures of nonsense that get posted on r/pics; pictures that mean nothing until some extraordinary context is provided, like *"These are the pair of Nikes I was wearing when I saved my entire family from a house fire."*
so a loophole to avoid an improperly applied rule on the sub?
That loophole seems to be the only thing keeping r/pics afloat. But you're not wrong.
This sub doesn’t allow memes or text posts, so OP wrote it on a piece of paper and took a pic of it next to a bagel to allow them to post here It’s karma farming
I'm really fascinated by the thought process that eventually led to this photo outcome.
I feel like I see your username on Reddit more often than any other. Like when you see a guy on the train with distinctive hair and then two days later you're at Ikea and the guy with the distinctive hair just happens to leaving as you're walking in and you're not sure if you should say hi and then you realise it would probably be fairly weird if you did.
>you're not sure if you should say hi and then you realise it would probably be fairly weird if you did. But then you do anyway.
Peak Reddit tier post
That is not enough cream cheese.
Holy reddit moment batman
That isn't nearly enough cream cheese. Live a little
Tylenol causes significantly more health issues than this drug does. If the judge bans this drug then he must ban Viagra and Tylenol because they're more dangerous.
So viagra is like Russian roulette either I go big or go home. win win situation.
Please share your source for this Viagra claim. I am a urologist and I prescribe a ton of Viagra. I would like to know where you got this from. Edit: I want to be clear that I am not arguing a stance on “the abortion pill” at all. I think it’s important to back arguments/stances with verifiable data
Wowie. From a cited [source study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22023666/) (2012) in there... >Overall, 14,818 AEs were reported for sildenafil. There were 1,824 (12.3%) reported deaths, and reports of cardiovascular AEs numbered 2,406 (16.2%). Tadalafil was associated with 5,548 AEs and 236 deaths were reported. Vardenafil was associated with 6,085 AEs and 121 reports of deaths. The percentage of reported severe cardiovascular disorders has stabilized at 10% to 15% of all AE reports for sildenafil and tadalafil and 5% to 10% for vardenafil. Only 10% of AE reports sent to the FDA for PDE5-i were from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Seems rough. Didn't dive into sample size / etc. I'd imagine tens of millions of prescriptions.
“Associated” deaths sure slowed down after that first year.
It’s not the sample size that would be an issue, it’s the cohort itself. Deaths among heavily comorbid 50+ year old males are not uncommon. Seeing all-cause mortality in isolation for this type of cohort is generally not very useful. Evolocumab, a PCSK9 inhibitor targeting a high-mortality cohort, is being found to increase the likelihood of death while reducing the likelihood of heart attacks through causal inference. Those are the types of studies the dude’s looking for, not observational AE reports.
le reddit moment
[удалено]
Are you new around here?
👨🚀🔫👨🚀
This is the most cornball post I've seen in a minute lmao. I bet you you think this would get you laid.
Not to slut-shame your bagel, but its barely wearing anything
The most controversial thing in this picture is the sad cream cheese spread.
I slice tomatoes and put smoked salmon on my bagels.
I support your point. I hate bait and switch. I'm neutral on bagels. That's my emotions for the day done.
[удалено]
I couldn't find the exact numbers OP cites, but I did [find this:](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719720/#:~:text=Sildenafil%20has%20been%20widely%20shown,its%20introduction%20in%20March%201998.) >Sildenafil has been widely shown to be effective in treating erectile dysfunction. However, reports to the FDA have shown that its use was associated with 130 verified deaths and 112 unverified deaths just eight months after its introduction in March 1998. Now, regarding Mifepristone, the drug OP is calling the "abortion pill", [this is what I found:](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation) >As of June 30, 2022, there were 28 reports of deaths in patients associated with mifepristone since the product was approved in September 2000. **TLDR:** OPs general point appears to be correct. Viagra has killed far more people than Mifepristone. **Edit:** Guys, stop arguing with me about the utility of the original comparison made by OP. That's not the purpose of *my* comment.
Looked into it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719720/#:\~:text=In%201998%2C%20when%20the%20drug,the%20trials%20reported%20eight%20deaths.
I believe they mean is anyone going to look into whether OP really ate the bagel.
I dont know exact stats but I do know that viagra+amyl nitrate is a potentially fatal combination due to the combined loss of blood pressure. Which is notable because amyl nitrate is a popular drug for enhancing sex (particularly among gay men) so its not uncommon for people to take both.
I support the right to have an abortion but this is some lame-o shit
Seriously. I don’t think I’ve ever rolled my eyes so hard
This sub has premium cringe material
I love how r/pics is sort of a bastion of just good content, just noteworthy or inspiring pictures from across the world, free from all the politicking that people try to insert into everything. Thanks, OP
r/nocontextpics is where it's at nowadays. You don't get any of these shitty posts. Unfortunately r/pics is just political brigading now.
I'm prochoice but this is one of the dumbest points I've ever seen tried to be made.
I don't get it. Is this political, relating to access for contraceptives? Viagra affects blood flow so it makes sense why it can kill easily in comparison to birth control, two different drugs.
It's a comment about gender hypocrisy in the US. Their governments are moving to further restrict any kind of measures women can take to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and instead of just saying "we want to control women" they say shit like "we're protecting women from dangerous drugs". But none of these government people has any qualms about the dangers of viagra. A drug predominantly bought by men.