Abortion Pills To Be Legalised For Some Women: Thailand

[webfact]

Abortion pills to be legalised for some women

Wannapa Khaopa

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Thailand plans to legalise abortion pills for some women with 'unwanted pregnancies' under Medical Council of Thailand regulations and criminal laws. The move would be done to provide safer and cheaper choices for some women, such as rape victims.

Generally, abortion is illegal in Thailand, but women with unwanted pregnancies whose health and lives will be badly affected would be allowed to undergo abortion under the proposed changes.

Academic information shows that pills called Mifepristone and Misoprostol can be used with patients in line with international standard treatment to end unwanted pregnancies within 63 days or nine weeks gestation. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has already registered these drugs in its essential drug list.

If both kinds of pills are registered legally in Thailand, use of the pills will be under strict control of the Ministry of Public Health. So, only doctors will be able to prescribe them. They must not be sold at pharmacies, according to the ministry.

The pills are said to provide safer and cheaper treatment than manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) as well as Dilatation and Curettage (D&C). The latter is considered the most risky method to abort a pregnancy.

Both of these pills, however, have reportedly been sold illegally via the Internet in Thailand, although the prices are extremely high.

The ministry, universities and civil society organisations have trained medical practitioners about MVA and also educated them about the pills, which are new. They are likely to try to include both methods in medical education curricula.

A recent international conference on women's health and abortion urged every country to eliminate maternal deaths due to unsafe abortion and move to use safer abortion methods. Unsafe abortion was the second major cause of maternal deaths worldwide in 2008 or 14 per cent of 358,000 maternal deaths, while the first major cause was hemorrhage, which caused about a third of deaths. Unsafe abortion took more lives of women than infection (10 per cent) and HIV (7 per cent).

These figures were presented at the 2nd International Congress on Women's Health and Unsafe Abortion (IWAC 2013) in Bangkok last week.

Kittipong Saejeng, director of the Bureau of Reproductive Health at the Department of Health under Ministry of Public Health, who took part in the congress said to decrease maternal mortality, the congress urged all coun?tries to get medical personnel use safer abortion technologies, such as MVA and pills.

He said it also pointed out that all women had to acknowledge their rights and access knowledge about their health and medical providers, whereas men had to respect women's decisions. Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not.

-- The Nation 2013-01-29

[eezergood]

At last a very small step in the right direction!

[noitom]

The idea is great in its stated objective. Unfortunately, profiteering corrupt Thais will seize the opportunity to make this a networked gangster operation funded by Mr. Big Thais. Once in a while a petty dealer will get busted while we never hear of Mr/ Bigs and/or corrupt police in on the scam. Black market abortion pills will thrive in Thailand.

[cup-O-coffee]

I understand a woman's right, etc. but what I do not understand is that if she chooses to have the child, the man who was the sperm provider is somehow obligated financially.

In summary, a woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes. No problem there if we logically finish this sentence with ", if the woman is soley responsible for the condition her body is in." What I mean is, if the woman somehow gets pregnant without a man present (such as invitro-fertilization) then sure; give her all the rights she wishes to do with that thing as she wants. The problem I have with the logic of these skewed women's rights is that the man, on the one hand, is ignored, or on the other hand, expected to take full responsibility no matter what his (emphasis on "his") decision is.

If she wishes to abort the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the abortion to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is not financially obligated. He is ignored by all and considered a non-entity in the matter, We never hear about a man on the issue of abortion. It all points to a woman's right.

If, however she wishes to have the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the birth to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is financially obligated. He is considered inhuman and full attention is brought on him as being a dead-beat, or worse. That is all we hear about in the matter. It all points to the man.

Sorry, ladies, but I simply do not get this double standard that you wish to foist upon my senses.

It would make sense to me, and I would fully support your right "haben oder nicht haben" if all of you pro-abortionionists were to include the man in BOTH decision making processes.

Henceforth, I submit that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. However, if the man who contributed to her condition wants the baby, he should pay the woman substantially to keep it until it is born. If, however, the woman wishes to carry through, and the man wants it, then the woman should pay the man compensation for loss of equally owned property (based upon the logic of financial obligations placed upon the man were the baby carried to term) and based upon her decision to deny the man the equal right to have a child for his own to raise without the woman being financially respnsible for that upbringing.

I think this term "woman's right" is not carried far enough to a point of being legitimate simply because it deny's the man any fair representation for any decision that the woman makes, and hence gives her the "right" to be irresponsible and either have the matter settled with an abortion and not owe anything to the grieving father, or to have the full backing of many to suddenly place all obligation, duty and responsibility on the man, who is expected to wait in the wings for the outcome of a woman's decision.

Kittipong Saejeng says, "Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not."

I say that Kittipong Saejeng can kiss my ass if you have enough time to pull your lips away from everyone else's asses. It is folly and a solution will never be arrived at if sensible men are treated as sperm doners who are expected to await the outcome of a woman's decision as if those men are no more important than the things in the woman's body. Abort the baby; abort the man. Have the baby, have the man; whether he likes it or not. Don't tell me I don't matter one day, and then tell me I owe something the next.

You want rights? Then take responsibility for all involved so you get the respect you need to obtain those rights. This is a universal law, and it should not end simply on the basis that you are a woman. You are no more special than a man, and I would expect you to act accordingly in the matter.

Edited January 29, 2013 by cup-O-coffee

[tragickingdom]

Make it legal to castrate rich rapists. Abortion should always be free and not restraint by males who have no clue about women in the first place. Never mind the legality any woman has the right to break anti abortion laws made by men.

[laislica]

Both of these pills, however, have reportedly been sold illegally via the Internet in Thailand, although the prices are extremely high.

Hmmm, folk law has it that there are many plant species in the tropics that can "do the job", why the need for a "pill"?

Good old Google to the rescue?

I found this in seconds:

MISCARRIAGE and ABORTION PRODUCING PLANTS: are listed because in earlier times some native women were raped by soldiers and didn’t want a half-breed child. Rape may seem to be a justifiable reason for abortion in such cases.

[cup-O-coffee]

Make it legal to castrate rich rapists. Abortion should always be free and not restraint by males who have no clue about women in the first place. Never mind the legality any woman has the right to break anti abortion laws made by men.

Agreed. I agree with you to a pont. What if the man and woman had consentual sex and the man wants the child and is willing to pay for her to carry it to full term and pay for all expenses and take it off her hands and her be free from any responsibility towards raising it, and giving up her right to have anything to do with it?

What if she still desires to abort that thing inside her womb?

Are you saying that the man has no say in that singular issue, yet is obligated if the decision goes the other way, whether she chooses to let him live with her or not?

My question begs consideration for a man who wants the child to be born, and was an intimate and loving human involved in the conception of that child, at a time when the woman and the man knew the results that their copulation would bring forth.

You say a woman should have the right to have an abortion. I get it. That point has been rammed down out throats for a long time. But men are beginning to wake up and realize that this so-called "right" is a double standard that leaves the man entirely out of the equation when the decisions are being made.

I think if we look at it my way, then black has become white, and we can legitimately see that men have been put into the position of being nothing more than mere sperm doners who get the "thumbs-up" sign from the woman to donate their sperm in person, but to be aware that what the woman decides to do with the results of that conjugation is superior to the man's wishes.

I flatly disagree and this issue has yet to be discussed with the same equal intentions and credibility which have been lent to the women's whining about their right to choose, but over and above what the man legitimately chooses if the case dictates.

Am I supposed to feel gratitude to any woman who bears my child out to birth, and feel compelled to thank my lucky stars that she decided to let me be a part of it all, instead of ending the process at her whim? How idiotic and senseless is that?

It seems odd that these same givernments which give this sole right to a woman, also preach that no government should be run under a dictatorship; instead that they should be democratic and votes should be on a majority basis. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the woman gets to be dictator in a matter where human lives and well-being are of concern, and the man may very well be willing to be financially responsible when the woman "dictates" otherwise? There is no ruling on this, and that is a shame and it shows a lack of respect for men who face this issue.

[laislica]

Make it legal to castrate rich rapists. Abortion should always be free and not restraint by males who have no clue about women in the first place. Never mind the legality any woman has the right to break anti abortion laws made by men.

Agreed. I agree with you to a pont. What if the man and woman had consentual sex and the man wants the child and is willing to pay for her to carry it to full term and pay for all expenses and take it off her hands and her be free from any responsibility towards raising it, and giving up her right to have anything to do with it?

What if she still desires to abort that thing inside her womb?

Are you saying that the man has no say in that singular issue, yet is obligated if the decision goes the other way, whether she chooses to let him live with her or not?

My question begs consideration for a man who wants the child to be born, and was an intimate and loving human involved in the conception of that child, at a time when the woman and the man knew the results that their copulation would bring forth.

You say a woman should have the right to have an abortion. I get it. That point has been rammed down out throats for a long time. But men are beginning to wake up and realize that this so-called "right" is a double standard that leaves the man entirely out of the equation when the decisions are being made.

I think if we look at it my way, then black has become white, and we can legitimately see that men have been put into the position of being nothing more than mere sperm doners who get the "thumbs-up" sign from the woman to donate their sperm in person, but to be aware that what the woman decides to do with the results of that conjugation is superior to the man's wishes.

I flatly disagree and this issue has yet to be discussed with the same equal intentions and credibility which have been lent to the women's whining about their right to choose, but over and above what the man legitimately chooses if the case dictates.

Am I supposed to feel gratitude to any woman who bears my child out to birth, and feel compelled to thank my lucky stars that she decided to let me be a part of it all, instead of ending the process at her whim? How idiotic and senseless is that?

It seems odd that these same givernments which give this sole right to a woman, also preach that no government should be run under a dictatorship; instead that they should be democratic and votes should be on a majority basis. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the woman gets to be dictator in a matter where human lives and well-being are of concern, and the man may very well be willing to be financially responsible when the woman "dictates" otherwise? There is no ruling on this, and that is a shame and it shows a lack of respect for men who face this issue.

Deciding to have a child sounds like a huge commitment and not something that "just happens" between a man and his g/f.

If that is the case then I would expect that the couple would discuss such matters before the case, so to speak.

I do see your point that the man's wishes are just ignored but if there was a health issue for the woman that she could not reasonably have known about before getting pregnant then I think I vote with her this time.

Generally though, I agree that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the woman.

[cup-O-coffee]

Make it legal to castrate rich rapists. Abortion should always be free and not restraint by males who have no clue about women in the first place. Never mind the legality any woman has the right to break anti abortion laws made by men.

Agreed. I agree with you to a pont. What if the man and woman had consentual sex and the man wants the child and is willing to pay for her to carry it to full term and pay for all expenses and take it off her hands and her be free from any responsibility towards raising it, and giving up her right to have anything to do with it?

What if she still desires to abort that thing inside her womb?

Are you saying that the man has no say in that singular issue, yet is obligated if the decision goes the other way, whether she chooses to let him live with her or not?

My question begs consideration for a man who wants the child to be born, and was an intimate and loving human involved in the conception of that child, at a time when the woman and the man knew the results that their copulation would bring forth.

You say a woman should have the right to have an abortion. I get it. That point has been rammed down out throats for a long time. But men are beginning to wake up and realize that this so-called "right" is a double standard that leaves the man entirely out of the equation when the decisions are being made.

I think if we look at it my way, then black has become white, and we can legitimately see that men have been put into the position of being nothing more than mere sperm doners who get the "thumbs-up" sign from the woman to donate their sperm in person, but to be aware that what the woman decides to do with the results of that conjugation is superior to the man's wishes.

I flatly disagree and this issue has yet to be discussed with the same equal intentions and credibility which have been lent to the women's whining about their right to choose, but over and above what the man legitimately chooses if the case dictates.

Am I supposed to feel gratitude to any woman who bears my child out to birth, and feel compelled to thank my lucky stars that she decided to let me be a part of it all, instead of ending the process at her whim? How idiotic and senseless is that?

It seems odd that these same givernments which give this sole right to a woman, also preach that no government should be run under a dictatorship; instead that they should be democratic and votes should be on a majority basis. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the woman gets to be dictator in a matter where human lives and well-being are of concern, and the man may very well be willing to be financially responsible when the woman "dictates" otherwise? There is no ruling on this, and that is a shame and it shows a lack of respect for men who face this issue.

Deciding to have a child sounds like a huge commitment and not something that "just happens" between a man and his g/f.

If that is the case then I would expect that the couple would discuss such matters before the case, so to speak.

I do see your point that the man's wishes are just ignored but if there was a health issue for the woman that she could not reasonably have known about before getting pregnant then I think I vote with her this time.

Generally though, I agree that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the woman.

If a woman's health were in question, then I am fully supportive of the woman no questions asked.

[Arkady]

At last a very small step in the right direction!

Legalise abortion on demand now please. It is a woman's right.

[HerbalEd]

Make it legal to castrate rich rapists. Abortion should always be free and not restraint by males who have no clue about women in the first place. Never mind the legality any woman has the right to break anti abortion laws made by men.

So, are you saying castrate the "rich" rapists, but not the poor ones? Why?

[Unwisemonkey]

I understand a woman's right, etc. but what I do not understand is that if she chooses to have the child, the man who was the sperm provider is somehow obligated financially.

In summary, a woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes. No problem there if we logically finish this sentence with ", if the woman is soley responsible for the condition her body is in." What I mean is, if the woman somehow gets pregnant without a man present (such as invitro-fertilization) then sure; give her all the rights she wishes to do with that thing as she wants. The problem I have with the logic of these skewed women's rights is that the man, on the one hand, is ignored, or on the other hand, expected to take full responsibility no matter what his (emphasis on "his") decision is.

If she wishes to abort the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the abortion to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is not financially obligated. He is ignored by all and considered a non-entity in the matter, We never hear about a man on the issue of abortion. It all points to a woman's right.

If, however she wishes to have the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the birth to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is financially obligated. He is considered inhuman and full attention is brought on him as being a dead-beat, or worse. That is all we hear about in the matter. It all points to the man.

Sorry, ladies, but I simply do not get this double standard that you wish to foist upon my senses.

It would make sense to me, and I would fully support your right "haben oder nicht haben" if all of you pro-abortionionists were to include the man in BOTH decision making processes.

Henceforth, I submit that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. However, if the man who contributed to her condition wants the baby, he should pay the woman substantially to keep it until it is born. If, however, the woman wishes to carry through, and the man wants it, then the woman should pay the man compensation for loss of equally owned property (based upon the logic of financial obligations placed upon the man were the baby carried to term) and based upon her decision to deny the man the equal right to have a child for his own to raise without the woman being financially respnsible for that upbringing.

I think this term "woman's right" is not carried far enough to a point of being legitimate simply because it deny's the man any fair representation for any decision that the woman makes, and hence gives her the "right" to be irresponsible and either have the matter settled with an abortion and not owe anything to the grieving father, or to have the full backing of many to suddenly place all obligation, duty and responsibility on the man, who is expected to wait in the wings for the outcome of a woman's decision.

Kittipong Saejeng says, "Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not."

I say that Kittipong Saejeng can kiss my ass if you have enough time to pull your lips away from everyone else's asses. It is folly and a solution will never be arrived at if sensible men are treated as sperm doners who are expected to await the outcome of a woman's decision as if those men are no more important than the things in the woman's body. Abort the baby; abort the man. Have the baby, have the man; whether he likes it or not. Don't tell me I don't matter one day, and then tell me I owe something the next.

You want rights? Then take responsibility for all involved so you get the respect you need to obtain those rights. This is a universal law, and it should not end simply on the basis that you are a woman. You are no more special than a man, and I would expect you to act accordingly in the matter.

My friend got his girlfriend pregnant in college. He is Catholic so abortion is not an option from his point of view. He kissed another girl at a party and his girlfriend had an abortion at six months pregnant to get back at him. He begged her not to. In Spain a woman admitted to stealing sperm from a used condom from a doctor she wanted to be impregnated by. She was successful and subsequently the doctor was ordered to pay child support. The argument a from feminists is that men are trying to control them and their bodies which they don't understand is hyperbole and ad hominem. Many men in faced with pregnancy wanted or unwanted have a very clear idea about what their interest is in the child and the child's welfare as well.

[khunken]

I understand a woman's right, etc. but what I do not understand is that if she chooses to have the child, the man who was the sperm provider is somehow obligated financially.

In summary, a woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes. No problem there if we logically finish this sentence with ", if the woman is soley responsible for the condition her body is in." What I mean is, if the woman somehow gets pregnant without a man present (such as invitro-fertilization) then sure; give her all the rights she wishes to do with that thing as she wants. The problem I have with the logic of these skewed women's rights is that the man, on the one hand, is ignored, or on the other hand, expected to take full responsibility no matter what his (emphasis on "his") decision is.

If she wishes to abort the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the abortion to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is not financially obligated. He is ignored by all and considered a non-entity in the matter, We never hear about a man on the issue of abortion. It all points to a woman's right.

If, however she wishes to have the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the birth to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is financially obligated. He is considered inhuman and full attention is brought on him as being a dead-beat, or worse. That is all we hear about in the matter. It all points to the man.

Sorry, ladies, but I simply do not get this double standard that you wish to foist upon my senses.

It would make sense to me, and I would fully support your right "haben oder nicht haben" if all of you pro-abortionionists were to include the man in BOTH decision making processes.

Henceforth, I submit that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. However, if the man who contributed to her condition wants the baby, he should pay the woman substantially to keep it until it is born. If, however, the woman wishes to carry through, and the man wants it, then the woman should pay the man compensation for loss of equally owned property (based upon the logic of financial obligations placed upon the man were the baby carried to term) and based upon her decision to deny the man the equal right to have a child for his own to raise without the woman being financially respnsible for that upbringing.

I think this term "woman's right" is not carried far enough to a point of being legitimate simply because it deny's the man any fair representation for any decision that the woman makes, and hence gives her the "right" to be irresponsible and either have the matter settled with an abortion and not owe anything to the grieving father, or to have the full backing of many to suddenly place all obligation, duty and responsibility on the man, who is expected to wait in the wings for the outcome of a woman's decision.

Kittipong Saejeng says, "Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not."

I say that Kittipong Saejeng can kiss my ass if you have enough time to pull your lips away from everyone else's asses. It is folly and a solution will never be arrived at if sensible men are treated as sperm doners who are expected to await the outcome of a woman's decision as if those men are no more important than the things in the woman's body. Abort the baby; abort the man. Have the baby, have the man; whether he likes it or not. Don't tell me I don't matter one day, and then tell me I owe something the next.

You want rights? Then take responsibility for all involved so you get the respect you need to obtain those rights. This is a universal law, and it should not end simply on the basis that you are a woman. You are no more special than a man, and I would expect you to act accordingly in the matter.

My friend got his girlfriend pregnant in college. He is Catholic so abortion is not an option from his point of view. He kissed another girl at a party and his girlfriend had an abortion at six months pregnant to get back at him. He begged her not to. In Spain a woman admitted to stealing sperm from a used condom from a doctor she wanted to be impregnated by. She was successful and subsequently the doctor was ordered to pay child support. The argument a from feminists is that men are trying to control them and their bodies which they don't understand is hyperbole and ad hominem. Many men in faced with pregnancy wanted or unwanted have a very clear idea about what their interest is in the child and the child's welfare as well.

I don't agree with either of the above posts. In far too many cases the man just runs away - as he can easily do - and the woman is just left 'holding the baby' so to speak. If a man wants a baby then he needs to find a wife or g/f who is on the same wavelength.

Women have every right to make decisions about themselves & abortion is very much their problem. Far too many rules & regulations about sexual matters are made by men, often religious, sometimes pontificating clergy who have no feeling toward the rights of others, especially females.

This is definitely a step in the right direction.

[h90]

Make it legal to castrate rich rapists. Abortion should always be free and not restraint by males who have no clue about women in the first place. Never mind the legality any woman has the right to break anti abortion laws made by men.

While I fully agree, I want that also poor rapists get castrated..

[h90]

At last a very small step in the right direction!

Legalise abortion on demand now please. It is a woman's right.

Actually it is very common in Thailand. A long time I thought it is legal, because it is so common.

[MEL1]

Me senses a lot of retrospective rape accusations, once this is implemented.

-mel.

[candypants]

safe, professional abortion in a real hospital with real support facilities has always been available in Thailand, you just have to have the money to pay for it. Usually about 20k to have the procedure performed by a real obstetrician.

In fact, some of the best ob gyn's in the country fund their charity work with the proceeds derived from these procedures for the well-off.

I suspect this will just be another alternative for the privileged -- a pill that seems a little less naughty than surgical intervention.

i highly doubt the welfare of women is being seriously considered here. Many of the doctors care, but the politicians are, well, politicians.

[Yme]

safe, professional abortion in a real hospital with real support facilities has always been available in Thailand, you just have to have the money to pay for it. Usually about 20k to have the procedure performed by a real obstetrician.

In fact, some of the best ob gyn's in the country fund their charity work with the proceeds derived from these procedures for the well-off.

I suspect this will just be another alternative for the privileged -- a pill that seems a little less naughty than surgical intervention.

i highly doubt the welfare of women is being seriously considered here. Many of the doctors care, but the politicians are, well, politicians.

The cost of a suction termination at the Planned Parenthood Association of Thailand under the Patronage of Her Royal Highness the Princess Mother costs about Bt2,500 though they will accept less depending on the ability of the woman/ couple to pay. The process is conducted by a very experienced doctor and takes about 40 minutes including the required "counseling" session.

The Chatuchak office is the only PPAT location that offers termination services.

Termination services are also available for a similar fee from:

Population and Community Development Association (PDA)

6 Sukhumvit 12, Klongtoey, Bangkok 10110

Tel : (+66)2229-4611-28

[cup-O-coffee]

I understand a woman's right, etc. but what I do not understand is that if she chooses to have the child, the man who was the sperm provider is somehow obligated financially.

In summary, a woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes. No problem there if we logically finish this sentence with ", if the woman is soley responsible for the condition her body is in." What I mean is, if the woman somehow gets pregnant without a man present (such as invitro-fertilization) then sure; give her all the rights she wishes to do with that thing as she wants. The problem I have with the logic of these skewed women's rights is that the man, on the one hand, is ignored, or on the other hand, expected to take full responsibility no matter what his (emphasis on "his") decision is.

If she wishes to abort the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the abortion to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is not financially obligated. He is ignored by all and considered a non-entity in the matter, We never hear about a man on the issue of abortion. It all points to a woman's right.

If, however she wishes to have the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the birth to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is financially obligated. He is considered inhuman and full attention is brought on him as being a dead-beat, or worse. That is all we hear about in the matter. It all points to the man.

Sorry, ladies, but I simply do not get this double standard that you wish to foist upon my senses.

It would make sense to me, and I would fully support your right "haben oder nicht haben" if all of you pro-abortionionists were to include the man in BOTH decision making processes.

Henceforth, I submit that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. However, if the man who contributed to her condition wants the baby, he should pay the woman substantially to keep it until it is born. If, however, the woman wishes to carry through, and the man wants it, then the woman should pay the man compensation for loss of equally owned property (based upon the logic of financial obligations placed upon the man were the baby carried to term) and based upon her decision to deny the man the equal right to have a child for his own to raise without the woman being financially respnsible for that upbringing.

I think this term "woman's right" is not carried far enough to a point of being legitimate simply because it deny's the man any fair representation for any decision that the woman makes, and hence gives her the "right" to be irresponsible and either have the matter settled with an abortion and not owe anything to the grieving father, or to have the full backing of many to suddenly place all obligation, duty and responsibility on the man, who is expected to wait in the wings for the outcome of a woman's decision.

Kittipong Saejeng says, "Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not."

I say that Kittipong Saejeng can kiss my ass if you have enough time to pull your lips away from everyone else's asses. It is folly and a solution will never be arrived at if sensible men are treated as sperm doners who are expected to await the outcome of a woman's decision as if those men are no more important than the things in the woman's body. Abort the baby; abort the man. Have the baby, have the man; whether he likes it or not. Don't tell me I don't matter one day, and then tell me I owe something the next.

You want rights? Then take responsibility for all involved so you get the respect you need to obtain those rights. This is a universal law, and it should not end simply on the basis that you are a woman. You are no more special than a man, and I would expect you to act accordingly in the matter.

My friend got his girlfriend pregnant in college. He is Catholic so abortion is not an option from his point of view. He kissed another girl at a party and his girlfriend had an abortion at six months pregnant to get back at him. He begged her not to. In Spain a woman admitted to stealing sperm from a used condom from a doctor she wanted to be impregnated by. She was successful and subsequently the doctor was ordered to pay child support. The argument a from feminists is that men are trying to control them and their bodies which they don't understand is hyperbole and ad hominem. Many men in faced with pregnancy wanted or unwanted have a very clear idea about what their interest is in the child and the child's welfare as well.

I don't agree with either of the above posts. In far too many cases the man just runs away - as he can easily do - and the woman is just left 'holding the baby' so to speak. If a man wants a baby then he needs to find a wife or g/f who is on the same wavelength.

Women have every right to make decisions about themselves & abortion is very much their problem. Far too many rules & regulations about sexual matters are made by men, often religious, sometimes pontificating clergy who have no feeling toward the rights of others, especially females.

This is definitely a step in the right direction.

Your bitterness and resentment towards the male gender makes me feel like it would be useless to attempt to convince or persuade you to consider my views. Your comments about my post suggests this. I hope that my comment here will at least compell you to reconsider your statements and re-evaluate objectively. I sympathize if you were hurt in the past, but this direction you are headed will take years off your life.

[cup-O-coffee]

safe, professional abortion in a real hospital with real support facilities has always been available in Thailand, you just have to have the money to pay for it. Usually about 20k to have the procedure performed by a real obstetrician.

In fact, some of the best ob gyn's in the country fund their charity work with the proceeds derived from these procedures for the well-off.

I suspect this will just be another alternative for the privileged -- a pill that seems a little less naughty than surgical intervention.

i highly doubt the welfare of women is being seriously considered here. Many of the doctors care, but the politicians are, well, politicians.

Could we use this same logic towards other rights that women feel they have, and all the excuses which go along with; such as the right to be beautiful according to their interpretation; or to be obese or bulimic or anorexic according to their mental state?

Using the implications above, they do not seem so naïve to suggest when one considers that society already seems to cater to women in just about as many ways as one can imagine, and yet they still persist in their belief that their welfare is at stake. It almost tantalizingly suggests that there is no end in sight for all their demands; a sort of "honey-do" list capitulated onto the shoulders of society, or, "A little to the right... No, a little to the left." attitude problem.

Compare the disproportion in services and products offered between men and woman in scientific research, charities, public drives, ratified laws, polls, hubs, billboard signs, discounts, coupons, fashion, accessories, TV shows & commercials, retail stores and ad nauseum. And to think that you are concerned that a woman’s welfare is not taken seriously? Consider that most fashion issues revolve around women, and the most successful fashion designers and outlets are purely successful because they can "predict" what a woman will think. Do we have this for men? Is there any market for predicting what men will like, or who gives a dam_n about men's double cotton lined boxer shorts so their testicles don't chafe when they grab a handful for a good scratch?

Perhaps on the issue of abortion, the reason women feel their welfare is at stake is because society is not that stupid, and society is resisting in what it perhaps feels is its last line of defense against insane demands for irresponsibility without being held accountable; demands from women that are stretching the truth a bit too far now.

Perhaps it isn't that a woman's welfare is not being considered here. Perhaps instead it is that women have forgotten that in order to receive welfare, one must must be willing to pay back some form of renumeration,as well as one must remain in a static mental condition so that that welfare prescribed remains effective for the conditions it was demanded to meet. Using welfare to abuse one's irresponsible behavior simply damages the credibility for those who really need it. Are you telling me that all women are above abusing their bodily rights and the expected welfare that comes with the conditions when they abuse their bodies?

Additionally, a woman's welfare should not be at the cost of a man being reduced in status and role in a relationship to that of a fetus; to be aborted at her whim, or to be kept and raised according to her standards and wishes; and the fetus / baby is collateral damage in either case, as her right to dictate exists in her mind... in the form of an unsubstantiated thought.

I disagree with your premise. I truly believe that the welfare of women is being seriously considered here. It's all around them, but they are simply overlooking this. I also believe that this could possibly be due to being allowed the right to be irresponsible and not being held unaccountable. I think many women have been spoiled by society catering to their whims (as suggested prior) and it has gone to their head in matters where the well being of two other humna lives are concerned; the unborn and the living.

In summary, I will emphatically agree that a woman should receive the best health care if she is pregnant. After all, she is bearing a future generation within her womb,and it is imperative that society is given a healthy baby with all the mental and physical faculties of well-being to be happy and productive in the future.

In the matter of healthcare for a woman who wishes to have an abortion: If not in the instance of a rape, then I hold the view that the woman should be held accountable with a government loan to receive that healthcare, and that the woman should pay that money back to the government or face jail time. This is along the same reasoning that the man should pay for the child. Well then, the woman should pay back the government or the hospital or go to pauper's prison until she works it off.

If the man is expected to pay the fine for her right to have the baby, or face being a dead beat dad, then the woman should be expected to pay back the government on a low or zero percentage rate loan for her safe and sanitary abortion, or face being a dead beat abortionist? They both go to jail and can spite each other on the prison Internet chat rooms.

All rights come at a cost, yes? This includes receiving welfare. Welfare is not charity, and I believe that women have this issue confused. Otherwise, I would like to know what women have to say about what they think their price or cost is for the "rights" and "welfare" they expect. Or, is their end goal simply to not be held accountable or responsible for anything, and it’s all free for a woman specifically?

Edited January 29, 2013 by cup-O-coffee

[Robby nz]

I understand a woman's right, etc. but what I do not understand is that if she chooses to have the child, the man who was the sperm provider is somehow obligated financially.

In summary, a woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes. No problem there if we logically finish this sentence with ", if the woman is soley responsible for the condition her body is in." What I mean is, if the woman somehow gets pregnant without a man present (such as invitro-fertilization) then sure; give her all the rights she wishes to do with that thing as she wants. The problem I have with the logic of these skewed women's rights is that the man, on the one hand, is ignored, or on the other hand, expected to take full responsibility no matter what his (emphasis on "his") decision is.

If she wishes to abort the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the abortion to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is not financially obligated. He is ignored by all and considered a non-entity in the matter, We never hear about a man on the issue of abortion. It all points to a woman's right.

If, however she wishes to have the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the birth to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is financially obligated. He is considered inhuman and full attention is brought on him as being a dead-beat, or worse. That is all we hear about in the matter. It all points to the man.

Sorry, ladies, but I simply do not get this double standard that you wish to foist upon my senses.

It would make sense to me, and I would fully support your right "haben oder nicht haben" if all of you pro-abortionionists were to include the man in BOTH decision making processes.

Henceforth, I submit that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. However, if the man who contributed to her condition wants the baby, he should pay the woman substantially to keep it until it is born. If, however, the woman wishes to carry through, and the man wants it, then the woman should pay the man compensation for loss of equally owned property (based upon the logic of financial obligations placed upon the man were the baby carried to term) and based upon her decision to deny the man the equal right to have a child for his own to raise without the woman being financially respnsible for that upbringing.

I think this term "woman's right" is not carried far enough to a point of being legitimate simply because it deny's the man any fair representation for any decision that the woman makes, and hence gives her the "right" to be irresponsible and either have the matter settled with an abortion and not owe anything to the grieving father, or to have the full backing of many to suddenly place all obligation, duty and responsibility on the man, who is expected to wait in the wings for the outcome of a woman's decision.

Kittipong Saejeng says, "Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not."

I say that Kittipong Saejeng can kiss my ass if you have enough time to pull your lips away from everyone else's asses. It is folly and a solution will never be arrived at if sensible men are treated as sperm doners who are expected to await the outcome of a woman's decision as if those men are no more important than the things in the woman's body. Abort the baby; abort the man. Have the baby, have the man; whether he likes it or not. Don't tell me I don't matter one day, and then tell me I owe something the next.

You want rights? Then take responsibility for all involved so you get the respect you need to obtain those rights. This is a universal law, and it should not end simply on the basis that you are a woman. You are no more special than a man, and I would expect you to act accordingly in the matter.

Fair enough however the article is talking about the availability of pills for abortion in the cases of rape and if continuing with the pregnency would be a serious threat to a womans health.

In the case of rape then I would suggest the man should have no say, hepefully he is locked up.

In the case of a serious threat to health then I ask you ; assuming you cared about her, would you want your gf or wife to carry on with a pregnency if you knew it could kill or seriously injure her?

[Unwisemonkey]

I understand a woman's right, etc. but what I do not understand is that if she chooses to have the child, the man who was the sperm provider is somehow obligated financially.

In summary, a woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes. No problem there if we logically finish this sentence with ", if the woman is soley responsible for the condition her body is in." What I mean is, if the woman somehow gets pregnant without a man present (such as invitro-fertilization) then sure; give her all the rights she wishes to do with that thing as she wants. The problem I have with the logic of these skewed women's rights is that the man, on the one hand, is ignored, or on the other hand, expected to take full responsibility no matter what his (emphasis on "his") decision is.

If she wishes to abort the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the abortion to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is not financially obligated. He is ignored by all and considered a non-entity in the matter, We never hear about a man on the issue of abortion. It all points to a woman's right.

If, however she wishes to have the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the birth to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is financially obligated. He is considered inhuman and full attention is brought on him as being a dead-beat, or worse. That is all we hear about in the matter. It all points to the man.

Sorry, ladies, but I simply do not get this double standard that you wish to foist upon my senses.

It would make sense to me, and I would fully support your right "haben oder nicht haben" if all of you pro-abortionionists were to include the man in BOTH decision making processes.

Henceforth, I submit that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. However, if the man who contributed to her condition wants the baby, he should pay the woman substantially to keep it until it is born. If, however, the woman wishes to carry through, and the man wants it, then the woman should pay the man compensation for loss of equally owned property (based upon the logic of financial obligations placed upon the man were the baby carried to term) and based upon her decision to deny the man the equal right to have a child for his own to raise without the woman being financially respnsible for that upbringing.

I think this term "woman's right" is not carried far enough to a point of being legitimate simply because it deny's the man any fair representation for any decision that the woman makes, and hence gives her the "right" to be irresponsible and either have the matter settled with an abortion and not owe anything to the grieving father, or to have the full backing of many to suddenly place all obligation, duty and responsibility on the man, who is expected to wait in the wings for the outcome of a woman's decision.

Kittipong Saejeng says, "Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not."

I say that Kittipong Saejeng can kiss my ass if you have enough time to pull your lips away from everyone else's asses. It is folly and a solution will never be arrived at if sensible men are treated as sperm doners who are expected to await the outcome of a woman's decision as if those men are no more important than the things in the woman's body. Abort the baby; abort the man. Have the baby, have the man; whether he likes it or not. Don't tell me I don't matter one day, and then tell me I owe something the next.

You want rights? Then take responsibility for all involved so you get the respect you need to obtain those rights. This is a universal law, and it should not end simply on the basis that you are a woman. You are no more special than a man, and I would expect you to act accordingly in the matter.

My friend got his girlfriend pregnant in college. He is Catholic so abortion is not an option from his point of view. He kissed another girl at a party and his girlfriend had an abortion at six months pregnant to get back at him. He begged her not to. In Spain a woman admitted to stealing sperm from a used condom from a doctor she wanted to be impregnated by. She was successful and subsequently the doctor was ordered to pay child support. The argument a from feminists is that men are trying to control them and their bodies which they don't understand is hyperbole and ad hominem. Many men in faced with pregnancy wanted or unwanted have a very clear idea about what their interest is in the child and the child's welfare as well.

I don't agree with either of the above posts. In far too many cases the man just runs away - as he can easily do - and the woman is just left 'holding the baby' so to speak. If a man wants a baby then he needs to find a wife or g/f who is on the same wavelength.

Women have every right to make decisions about themselves & abortion is very much their problem. Far too many rules & regulations about sexual matters are made by men, often religious, sometimes pontificating clergy who have no feeling toward the rights of others, especially females.

This is definitely a step in the right direction.

I'm not for taking away a woman's choice if a man has run out on her, obviously he's made his choice clear by running away like a coward. But if a man is willing to stick around and support a child without the woman, he has just as much choice in the matter as the woman. He provided an equal amount of genetic material. Rare as it may a case like that occur, it does not negate a parents inherent right. It's equivalent to saying only women have the right to decide who is fit to pass on their genes.

This however does not prevent me from being realistic about the situation as it pertains to Thailand and generally speaking I'd also agree it is a step in the right direction.

[candypants]

safe, professional abortion in a real hospital with real support facilities has always been available in Thailand, you just have to have the money to pay for it. Usually about 20k to have the procedure performed by a real obstetrician.

In fact, some of the best ob gyn's in the country fund their charity work with the proceeds derived from these procedures for the well-off.

I suspect this will just be another alternative for the privileged -- a pill that seems a little less naughty than surgical intervention.

i highly doubt the welfare of women is being seriously considered here. Many of the doctors care, but the politicians are, well, politicians.

Could we use this same logic towards other rights that women feel they have, and all the excuses which go along with; such as the right to be beautiful according to their interpretation; or to be obese or bulimic or anorexic according to their mental state?

Using the implications above, they do not seem so naïve to suggest when one considers that society already seems to cater to women in just about as many ways as one can imagine, and yet they still persist in their belief that their welfare is at stake. It almost tantalizingly suggests that there is no end in sight for all their demands; a sort of "honey-do" list capitulated onto the shoulders of society, or, "A little to the right... No, a little to the left." attitude problem.

Compare the disproportion in services and products offered between men and woman in scientific research, charities, public drives, ratified laws, polls, hubs, billboard signs, discounts, coupons, fashion, accessories, TV shows & commercials, retail stores and ad nauseum. And to think that you are concerned that a woman’s welfare is not taken seriously? Consider that most fashion issues revolve around women, and the most successful fashion designers and outlets are purely successful because they can "predict" what a woman will think. Do we have this for men? Is there any market for predicting what men will like, or who gives a dam_n about men's double cotton lined boxer shorts so their testicles don't chafe when they grab a handful for a good scratch?

Perhaps on the issue of abortion, the reason women feel their welfare is at stake is because society is not that stupid, and society is resisting in what it perhaps feels is its last line of defense against insane demands for irresponsibility without being held accountable; demands from women that are stretching the truth a bit too far now.

Perhaps it isn't that a woman's welfare is not being considered here. Perhaps instead it is that women have forgotten that in order to receive welfare, one must must be willing to pay back some form of renumeration,as well as one must remain in a static mental condition so that that welfare prescribed remains effective for the conditions it was demanded to meet. Using welfare to abuse one's irresponsible behavior simply damages the credibility for those who really need it. Are you telling me that all women are above abusing their bodily rights and the expected welfare that comes with the conditions when they abuse their bodies?

Additionally, a woman's welfare should not be at the cost of a man being reduced in status and role in a relationship to that of a fetus; to be aborted at her whim, or to be kept and raised according to her standards and wishes; and the fetus / baby is collateral damage in either case, as her right to dictate exists in her mind... in the form of an unsubstantiated thought.

I disagree with your premise. I truly believe that the welfare of women is being seriously considered here. It's all around them, but they are simply overlooking this. I also believe that this could possibly be due to being allowed the right to be irresponsible and not being held unaccountable. I think many women have been spoiled by society catering to their whims (as suggested prior) and it has gone to their head in matters where the well being of two other humna lives are concerned; the unborn and the living.

In summary, I will emphatically agree that a woman should receive the best health care if she is pregnant. After all, she is bearing a future generation within her womb,and it is imperative that society is given a healthy baby with all the mental and physical faculties of well-being to be happy and productive in the future.

In the matter of healthcare for a woman who wishes to have an abortion: If not in the instance of a rape, then I hold the view that the woman should be held accountable with a government loan to receive that healthcare, and that the woman should pay that money back to the government or face jail time. This is along the same reasoning that the man should pay for the child. Well then, the woman should pay back the government or the hospital or go to pauper's prison until she works it off.

If the man is expected to pay the fine for her right to have the baby, or face being a dead beat dad, then the woman should be expected to pay back the government on a low or zero percentage rate loan for her safe and sanitary abortion, or face being a dead beat abortionist? They both go to jail and can spite each other on the prison Internet chat rooms.

All rights come at a cost, yes? This includes receiving welfare. Welfare is not charity, and I believe that women have this issue confused. Otherwise, I would like to know what women have to say about what they think their price or cost is for the "rights" and "welfare" they expect. Or, is their end goal simply to not be held accountable or responsible for anything, and it’s all free for a woman specifically?

you lost me at pauper's prison, i seriously cant be bothered, your resentment of women is palpable and I will avoid you on the internet, just as i would avoid you in life.

[cup-O-coffee]

I understand a woman's right, etc. but what I do not understand is that if she chooses to have the child, the man who was the sperm provider is somehow obligated financially.

In summary, a woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes. No problem there if we logically finish this sentence with ", if the woman is soley responsible for the condition her body is in." What I mean is, if the woman somehow gets pregnant without a man present (such as invitro-fertilization) then sure; give her all the rights she wishes to do with that thing as she wants. The problem I have with the logic of these skewed women's rights is that the man, on the one hand, is ignored, or on the other hand, expected to take full responsibility no matter what his (emphasis on "his") decision is.

If she wishes to abort the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the abortion to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is not financially obligated. He is ignored by all and considered a non-entity in the matter, We never hear about a man on the issue of abortion. It all points to a woman's right.

If, however she wishes to have the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the birth to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is financially obligated. He is considered inhuman and full attention is brought on him as being a dead-beat, or worse. That is all we hear about in the matter. It all points to the man.

Sorry, ladies, but I simply do not get this double standard that you wish to foist upon my senses.

It would make sense to me, and I would fully support your right "haben oder nicht haben" if all of you pro-abortionionists were to include the man in BOTH decision making processes.

Henceforth, I submit that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. However, if the man who contributed to her condition wants the baby, he should pay the woman substantially to keep it until it is born. If, however, the woman wishes to carry through, and the man wants it, then the woman should pay the man compensation for loss of equally owned property (based upon the logic of financial obligations placed upon the man were the baby carried to term) and based upon her decision to deny the man the equal right to have a child for his own to raise without the woman being financially respnsible for that upbringing.

I think this term "woman's right" is not carried far enough to a point of being legitimate simply because it deny's the man any fair representation for any decision that the woman makes, and hence gives her the "right" to be irresponsible and either have the matter settled with an abortion and not owe anything to the grieving father, or to have the full backing of many to suddenly place all obligation, duty and responsibility on the man, who is expected to wait in the wings for the outcome of a woman's decision.

Kittipong Saejeng says, "Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not."

I say that Kittipong Saejeng can kiss my ass if you have enough time to pull your lips away from everyone else's asses. It is folly and a solution will never be arrived at if sensible men are treated as sperm doners who are expected to await the outcome of a woman's decision as if those men are no more important than the things in the woman's body. Abort the baby; abort the man. Have the baby, have the man; whether he likes it or not. Don't tell me I don't matter one day, and then tell me I owe something the next.

You want rights? Then take responsibility for all involved so you get the respect you need to obtain those rights. This is a universal law, and it should not end simply on the basis that you are a woman. You are no more special than a man, and I would expect you to act accordingly in the matter.

Fair enough however the article is talking about the availability of pills for abortion in the cases of rape and if continuing with the pregnency would be a serious threat to a womans health.

In the case of rape then I would suggest the man should have no say, hepefully he is locked up.

In the case of a serious threat to health then I ask you ; assuming you cared about her, would you want your gf or wife to carry on with a pregnency if you knew it could kill or seriously injure her?

To answer your question first; No question about it. The mother comes first!

Regarding the pill: I just hope for the woman's sake that these pills are all Big Pharma says they are, and that the side effects and residual effects are safe, and that there are no lasting effects. I do not know about your thoughts on this, but I do not trust Big Pharma. I grew up without Big Pharma; I never got the shots Big Pharma says I should have; and I never got sick when everyone else was taking Big Pharma vaccinations and getting sick from them. That's my digression for the day.

A funny thing though is that these pills are for consumption for no later than 9 to 16 weeks gestation. It seems to me that most abortions that hit the news headlines describe the aborted fetus as much later than that. So, will this have any effect on women who clearly have not been in the "decision" business the first 16 weeks?

I am not so sure that the ignorant ones getting pregnant are even aware that they are pregnant within that time frame; and merely assume they had a bout of the stomach flu or something. Also, there is the shame factor; the "I'll ignore it" factor, and the "I feel better now so I must be OK" factor to consider. I am not so sure that Thais are capable of dissemenating the "red flag" necessary to make woman aware and to have the pill readily available. I am thinking of teens and pre teens who are the a large percentage of women who face unwanted pregnancies.

I am concerned about how the establishment will involve the parents or guradians. Will the parents or guardians even be made aware of the pregnancy and the abortion, or will it be done in secret? This is a moral issue that might cause another issue from the parent's or guardian's point of view.

Also, I am concerned that this "remedy" will be abused (as Thais are fond of doing) so that it is a free ticket to ramapnt sexual misconduct.

And finally, how long will it be until this pill hits the black marlet and begins to do more damage?

Edited January 31, 2013 by cup-O-coffee

[candypants]

im going to go out on a huge limb here.

if i were left up to me, the best thing in my life would have ceased to exist.

she is six now.

let the woman decide, its her body, its her call.

we could never have have predicted the kid would live mostly with me.

Adults sharing custody, who would have thought it possible.

not thai, not farang. PARENTS.

I still believe EVERY woman should have a choice.

should the male carry the child for 9 months i will defer to him.

some people should have children, some, should not

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06_1359380173

Edited January 31, 2013 by candypants

[h90]

safe, professional abortion in a real hospital with real support facilities has always been available in Thailand, you just have to have the money to pay for it. Usually about 20k to have the procedure performed by a real obstetrician.

In fact, some of the best ob gyn's in the country fund their charity work with the proceeds derived from these procedures for the well-off.

I suspect this will just be another alternative for the privileged -- a pill that seems a little less naughty than surgical intervention.

i highly doubt the welfare of women is being seriously considered here. Many of the doctors care, but the politicians are, well, politicians.

Also since long time there are abortion pills, can't recall 20-40 years. It just wasn't called abortion.

My mother spoke with her doc decades ago. She told she might be pregnant and he gave her a pill that just initiate menstruation.

He told her that of course this is no abortion, she only told him that she didn't had menstruation for a long time and this medicine will initiate menstruation. First she didn't understand what he mean and asked again, and what if she is pregnant.....so he told her more clear that it will initiate menstruation no matter what.

So also the abortion pills were available for the rich for a long time....

[maturebrit]

safe, professional abortion in a real hospital with real support facilities has always been available in Thailand, you just have to have the money to pay for it. Usually about 20k to have the procedure performed by a real obstetrician.

In fact, some of the best ob gyn's in the country fund their charity work with the proceeds derived from these procedures for the well-off.

I suspect this will just be another alternative for the privileged -- a pill that seems a little less naughty than surgical intervention.

i highly doubt the welfare of women is being seriously considered here. Many of the doctors care, but the politicians are, well, politicians.

Also since long time there are abortion pills, can't recall 20-40 years. It just wasn't called abortion.

My mother spoke with her doc decades ago. She told she might be pregnant and he gave her a pill that just initiate menstruation.

He told her that of course this is no abortion, she only told him that she didn't had menstruation for a long time and this medicine will initiate menstruation. First she didn't understand what he mean and asked again, and what if she is pregnant.....so he told her more clear that it will initiate menstruation no matter what.

So also the abortion pills were available for the rich for a long time....

yes POSINOR (morning after pill) is easily available and many Thai girls that dont want a pregnancy with their bf. .. some can be bothered and some cant then have to live with the consequences and dump baby with her mom. ....and so it goes

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app