InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "I want to be your beef buritto"

arbre_rieur (arbre_rieur) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-10-22 12:52:00

Entry tags:

creator: brian k. vaughan, creator: tony harris, publisher: wildstorm, title: ex machina

Ex Machina 46
Part Two of the "Pro-Life" arc...

I have no idea what that's supposed to be in the last panel.

(Post a new comment)

	manofbats 2009-10-22 08:12 pm UTC (link)
	Is that penis bulge? Or a recorder? What the hell? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2009-10-23 07:36 am UTC (link)
	In the same room as Mitchell Hundred? Unless I missed something and he lost his powers... (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sherkahn 2009-10-22 09:09 pm UTC (link)
	I'm going to say " 'What is cell phone for $200?', Alex" (Reply to this)

eyelid
2009-10-22 10:14 pm UTC (link)

in what way is Candy's argument even remotely logical? She's like "You're your own man! You march to your own drummer! Which is why you're going to give up on your foolish plan of funding EC to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and instead hate EC and refuse to fund it, like I'm telling you to, RIGHT?"

Furthermore... uh, of course funding a contraceptive would reduce abortions. ??

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	lieut_kettch 2009-10-23 02:29 am UTC (link)
	She said funding RU-486 for teens won't prevent STD's. Which makes sense, since taking it means the deed's already done, presumably without any form of protection. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	geoffsebesta 2009-10-23 08:31 am UTC (link)
	oh, is that what she's trying to say? Goddamn, by that logic, what good are traffic lights or fire departments? They don't prevent STDs either. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lieut_kettch 2009-10-23 11:39 am UTC (link)
	The point being that an added benefit of providing condoms is that it prevents both pregnancy and STD's-- funding would most likely be bette spent there. Although since his advisor's Catholic, she'd probably be opposed to that too. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	geoffsebesta 2009-10-23 05:24 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I doubt that's where she was going with that. Probably some more crap about abstinence education is what she had in mind. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	eyelid 2009-10-23 02:16 pm UTC (link)
	lol... exactly. (Reply to this) (Parent)

eyelid
2009-10-23 02:15 pm UTC (link)

She said funding RU-486 for teens won't prevent STD's.

Um... hello.

Emergency Contraception (at issue in the comic) and RU-486 (not at issue in the comic) are entirely different things.

It is amazing to me how uneducated many people are about really basic reproductive health care.

In any event, she challenged the Mayor's contention that EC would prevent abortions (ostensibly by challenging the NUMBER - but then offering no numbers for her implied argument that funding EC would cause STDs). But obviously it WOULD prevent abortions. While it wouldn't prevent STDs, so what? Lots of government-funded things don't prevent STDs, yet are still worthwhile - like prenatal care. There's no evidence that it would increase STDs. Candy's various, shifting, unsupported arguments reveal that her actual opposition is purely moral based on her religious convictions about birth control being a bad thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	darklorelei 2009-10-23 02:49 pm UTC (link)
	Indeed. And there's been at least one throwaway line about condoms, too. (Reply to this) (Parent)

lieut_kettch
2009-10-23 08:28 pm UTC (link)

Since you've seen fit my ignorance, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on the difference between "emergency contraception" and a morning after pill? What other form of emergency contraception is there? From the context of the panel, it seems they were discussing providing access to RU-486.

Oh, and this is the first time I've come across the term. I always thought emergency contraception was a condom vending machine.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

eyelid
2009-10-26 03:41 pm UTC (link)

perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on the difference between "emergency contraception" and a morning after pill? What other form of emergency contraception is there? From the context of the panel, it seems they were discussing providing access to RU-486

You are confused. There is no difference between EC and the "morning after pill" - they're different words for the same thing (though MAP is kind of a misnomer - it can be effective up to five days after sex, though the efficacy diminishes each day).

There is a HUGE difference between EC and RU-486.

EC is just a large dose of synthetic progesterone, which stops your body from ovulating for a few days. No ovulation = no egg = no pregnancy. If you have already ovulated, EC will not do anything to you at all, because after ovulation your body is releasing progesterone on its own (progesterone withdrawal is what causes your period.) EC is taken within 5 days of unprotected sex in an attempt to prevent pregnancy.

RU-486 (mifepristone), in contrast, is a progesterone inhibitor. In the US, it's taken between 4-8 weeks of pregnancy to induce abortion. Your uterine lining requires progesterone to sustain itself (and a pregnancy) after ovulation. No progesterone = your lining sheds, which is your period. RU-486 terminates an existing pregnancy by inserting itself into the progesterone receptors in your uterine lining. It's like shoving gum into a bunch of little locks. Your uterine lining doesn't get any more progesterone, so it sheds, causing miscarriage (or, I guess, if you weren't pregnant, it would just bring on your period.)

In layman's terms: EC prevents conception. RU-486 causes an abortion. The medications are completely different, are taken at different times, and act in an entirely different way. While EC is a contraceptive, RU-486 is an abortifacient.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	kaileighblue 2009-10-22 10:25 pm UTC (link)
	Judging by the coloring I'd say she's holding her own arm. God dammit insane journal just let me post already. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	arbre_rieur 2009-10-23 02:17 am UTC (link)
	Which leads to the question of why the panel is closing up on that. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kaileighblue 2009-10-23 04:01 am UTC (link)
	The chick the guy got to pose for him got tired of posing? I don't have the rest of the book to judge. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	darklorelei 2009-10-23 10:27 am UTC (link)
	There's nothing past this page, it goes straight to a scene with January. Could just be weird art, although it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it's supposed to be a hidden recorder or something, just from where the book is right now. Although I think it's just an odd panel. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	janegray 2009-10-23 03:33 pm UTC (link)
	I don't even know who this Candy person is, yet just from these few pages I feel like hating her. Also, I hate the very name "Pro-life", as it implies that the opposition is "Pro-death". (Reply to this) (Thread)

	darklorelei 2009-10-23 05:08 pm UTC (link)
	Well, Pro-life is also for the other plotline, not just the politic-y stuff. (Reply to this) (Parent)