Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 05, 2013, 01:00:55 PM
-
Bad decision. Crazy that a 13-year-old girl could buy this suff over the counter without her parents knowledge or consent.
Federal judge rules morning-after pill must be available for women of all ages
Published April 05, 2013
FoxNews.com
A federal judge ruled Friday that the morning-after pill known as Plan B must be made available over the counter for women of all ages.
The decision on the controversial subject comes after lengthy legal battles over who should have access to the pill and at what age. The Justice Department did not say definitively whether it would appeal, but released a statement saying: "The Department of Justice is reviewing the appellate options and expects to act promptly."
The Food and Drug Administration had initially decided to allow the emergency pill to be available for young teens. But Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA in late 2011, and the agency limited availability without a prescription to women 17 and older.
The decision Friday by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ordered the FDA to make the pill, commonly referred to as the abortion pill, available for all ages. The decision means that unless the FDA appeals and is granted a stay, by this time next month a teenager 16 or under could walk into a local pharmacy and buy the pill off the shelf.
Korman accused the FDA of "intolerable delays" in reviewing a petition seeking broad access to the drug, likening the process to an "administrative agency filibuster."
"The plaintiffs should not be forced to endure, nor should the agency's misconduct be rewarded by, an exercise that permits the FDA to engage in further delays and obstruction," he wrote.
The FDA declined to comment on the ruling, describing it as an "ongoing legal matter."
Pill manufacturer Teva said it is "currently reviewing" the decision. "We have no additional comment at this time," the company said.
The judge ordered the change to be completed in a month. The opinion is sure to rile conservatives and other pro-life groups, who consider the morning-after pill -- in some cases -- to act as an abortion-inducing drug.
"This ruling places the health of young girls at risk," said Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council. "There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent. The involvement of parents and medical professionals act as a safeguard for these young girls. However, today's ruling removes these commonsense protections."
The case started in 2005, and Korman initially ruled in 2009 that 17 year-olds should have over-the-counter access. The FDA then moved to allow that access to all ages, until Sebelius stepped in.
Korman wrote in his opinion that "the FDA bowed to political pressure emanating from the White House."
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed suit against the age restriction, and other groups have argued that contraceptives are being held to a different and non-scientific standard than other drugs and that politics has played a role in decision-making.
"I think this is a landmark decision in terms of providing women and girls in the United States access to a safe and effective form of birth control," said attorney Andrea Costello with the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund.
The morning-after pill contains a higher dose of the female progestin hormone that is in regular birth control pills. Taking it within 72 hours of rape, condom failure or just forgetting regular contraception can cut the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. But it works best within the first 24 hours.
If a woman already is pregnant, the pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg. According to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. Still, some critics say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, a contention that scientists -- and Korman, in his ruling -- said has been discredited.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/05/federal-judge-rules-morning-after-abortion-pill-must-be-available-for-women-all/
-
Bad decision. Crazy that a 13-year-old girl could buy this suff over the counter without her parents knowledge or consent.
Federal judge rules morning-after pill must be available for women of all ages
Published April 05, 2013
FoxNews.com
A federal judge ruled Friday that the morning-after pill known as Plan B must be made available over the counter for women of all ages.
The decision on the controversial subject comes after lengthy legal battles over who should have access to the pill and at what age. The Justice Department did not say definitively whether it would appeal, but released a statement saying: "The Department of Justice is reviewing the appellate options and expects to act promptly."
The Food and Drug Administration had initially decided to allow the emergency pill to be available for young teens. But Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA in late 2011, and the agency limited availability without a prescription to women 17 and older.
The decision Friday by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ordered the FDA to make the pill, commonly referred to as the abortion pill, available for all ages. The decision means that unless the FDA appeals and is granted a stay, by this time next month a teenager 16 or under could walk into a local pharmacy and buy the pill off the shelf.
Korman accused the FDA of "intolerable delays" in reviewing a petition seeking broad access to the drug, likening the process to an "administrative agency filibuster."
"The plaintiffs should not be forced to endure, nor should the agency's misconduct be rewarded by, an exercise that permits the FDA to engage in further delays and obstruction," he wrote.
The FDA declined to comment on the ruling, describing it as an "ongoing legal matter."
Pill manufacturer Teva said it is "currently reviewing" the decision. "We have no additional comment at this time," the company said.
The judge ordered the change to be completed in a month. The opinion is sure to rile conservatives and other pro-life groups, who consider the morning-after pill -- in some cases -- to act as an abortion-inducing drug.
"This ruling places the health of young girls at risk," said Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council. "There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent. The involvement of parents and medical professionals act as a safeguard for these young girls. However, today's ruling removes these commonsense protections."
The case started in 2005, and Korman initially ruled in 2009 that 17 year-olds should have over-the-counter access. The FDA then moved to allow that access to all ages, until Sebelius stepped in.
Korman wrote in his opinion that "the FDA bowed to political pressure emanating from the White House."
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed suit against the age restriction, and other groups have argued that contraceptives are being held to a different and non-scientific standard than other drugs and that politics has played a role in decision-making.
"I think this is a landmark decision in terms of providing women and girls in the United States access to a safe and effective form of birth control," said attorney Andrea Costello with the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund.
The morning-after pill contains a higher dose of the female progestin hormone that is in regular birth control pills. Taking it within 72 hours of rape, condom failure or just forgetting regular contraception can cut the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. But it works best within the first 24 hours.
If a woman already is pregnant, the pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg. According to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. Still, some critics say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, a contention that scientists -- and Korman, in his ruling -- said has been discredited.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/05/federal-judge-rules-morning-after-abortion-pill-must-be-available-for-women-all/
Why do you think thats crazy BB?
-
I think that ship has sailed. Abortion on demand is the new normal. Women have drawn a line in the sand on that issue.
Since we have decided to legalize this stuff I don't see any reason to put obstacles in place for young girls that need it. I also don't like the idea of some asshole pharmacist flexing nuts and giving a girl grief about buying it. The situation is hard enough as it is. Young kids aren't going to quit screwing each other. So fucking be it.
I believe that abortion is wrong in almost all situations but I'm willing to concede this issue to liberals. You have to choose the hill you want to die on. For me that's economic and foreign policy, not stuff like this. It's just another example of the insane world we live in.
-
Why do you think thats crazy BB?
Because a 13-year-old girl should not be able to purchase this kind of medication without her parents' knowledge and consent.
-
I think that ship has sailed. Abortion on demand is the new normal. Women have drawn a line in the sand on that issue.
Since we have decided to legalize this stuff I don't see any reason to put obstacles in place for young girls that need it. I also don't like the idea of some asshole pharmacist flexing nuts and giving a girl grief about buying it. The situation is hard enough as it is. Young kids aren't going to quit screwing each other. So fucking be it.
I believe that abortion is wrong in almost all situations but I'm willing to concede this issue to liberals. You have to choose the hill you want to die on. For me that's economic and foreign policy, not stuff like this. It's just another example of the insane world we live in.
Not really settled. State legislatures are passing laws all the time imposing various restrictions on abortion.
-
thank god.
about time.
enough with all these unwanted pregnancies.
-
I think that ship has sailed. Abortion on demand is the new normal. Women have drawn a line in the sand on that issue.
Since we have decided to legalize this stuff I don't see any reason to put obstacles in place for young girls that need it. I also don't like the idea of some asshole pharmacist flexing nuts and giving a girl grief about buying it. The situation is hard enough as it is. Young kids aren't going to quit screwing each other. So fucking be it.
I believe that abortion is wrong in almost all situations but I'm willing to concede this issue to liberals. You have to choose the hill you want to die on. For me that's economic and foreign policy, not stuff like this. It's just another example of the insane world we live in.
This is not an abortion pill
It prevents conception
btw - abortion has been been legal (on demand within certain limits) for ~ 40 years
The good news is that you're free to choose to not get one if that is your personal preference
-
Not really settled. State legislatures are passing laws all the time imposing various restrictions on abortion.
That pretty much the only thing state legislatures are doing and they are just ensuring their states will incur massive legal costs to unsuccessfully defend their laws when challenged
-
This is not an abortion pill
It prevents conception
btw - abortion has been been legal (on demand within certain limits) for ~ 40 years
The good news is that you're free to choose to not get one if that is your personal preference
a did you read what I wrote? My overall point was that since our society has decided to make this kind of thing legal that we should let women buy the pills without some asshole gatekeeper giving them a hard time. I also acknowledged that even though I don't agree with it I'm not out to force other people not to do it. I think fighting that battle and trying to pass laws to reverse this kind of stuff is a waste of time. The majority wants it. So fucking be it.
Also, I understand this pill is not an "abortion pill" I took for granted that people understood that so I didn't feel I had to spell it out.
-
Ni66a did you read what I wrote? My overall point was that since our society has decided to make this kind of thing legal that we should let women buy the pills without some asshole gatekeeper giving them a hard time. I also acknowledged that even though I don't agree with it I'm not out to force other people not to do it. I think fighting that battle and trying to pass laws to reverse this kind of stuff is a waste of time. The majority wants it. So fucking be it.
Also, I understand this pill is not an "abortion pill" I took for granted that people understood that so I didn't feel I had to spell it out.
Abortion "on demand" is nothing new and it wasn't granted by "the majority" at the time nor is that how we decide civil rights
Even though you took it for granted that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill I PROMISE you that there are people on this board who refuse to believe that which is why I mentioned it
-
Abortion "on demand" is nothing new and it wasn't granted by "the majority" at the time nor is that how we decide civil rights
Even though you took it for granted that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill I PROMISE you that there are people on this board who refuse to believe that which is why I mentioned it
Dude,
Killing children while they are in the womb is not a fucking civil right. While they're are instances where I understand it and support it (rape, etc.) the majority of abortions are performed because the pregnancy is inconvenient. Young people don't want kids but they don't want to stop screwing either. They could have the kid and give it up for adoption, they just don't want to. I was one of those horny teens so I'm not judging, it's just a reality. The only reason I mentioned "the majority" was to illustrate that it's a losing issue for pro-lifers. They don't have the groundswell of public support they would need to overturn it. There are bigger fish to fry right now and it's time for non liberals to face reality. Just my opinion.
-
Dude,
Killing children while they are in the womb is not a fucking civil right. While they're are instances where I understand it and support it (rape, etc.) the majority of abortions are performed because the pregnancy is inconvenient. Young people don't want kids but they don't want to stop screwing either. They could have the kid and give it up for adoption, they just don't want to. I was one of those horny teens so I'm not judging, it's just a reality. The only reason I mentioned "the majority" was to illustrate that it's a losing issue for pro-lifers. They don't have the groundswell of public support they would need to overturn it. There are bigger fish to fry right now and it's time for non liberals to face reality. Just my opinion.
everyone I know is against killing children
do you know anyone who is for it?
-
everyone I know is against killing children
do you know anyone who is for it?
People say they are against killing children but talk is cheap. They rationalize it by pretending that it's not a human being yet. Hey but don't let me stop you people. Chop them up and suck them out. Who gives a shit.
-
People say they are against killing children but talk is cheap. They rationalize it by pretending that it's not a human being yet. Hey but don't let me stop you people. Chop them up and suck them out. Who gives a shit.
so you're saying you know people who are in favor of killing children?
-
so you're saying you know people who are in favor of killing children?
I can't tell if you just don't understand english or if you are attempting some kind of liberal asshat trickery.
Either way, go back to my last post and you'll have your answer.
-
I can't tell if you just don't understand english or if you are attempting some kind of liberal asshat trickery.
Either way, go back to my last post and you'll have your answer.
you could have just typed "yes"
-
you could have just typed "yes"
But I didn't
-
But she cant buy a 20 oz soda.
Bad decision. Crazy that a 13-year-old girl could buy this suff over the counter without her parents knowledge or consent.
Federal judge rules morning-after pill must be available for women of all ages
Published April 05, 2013
FoxNews.com
A federal judge ruled Friday that the morning-after pill known as Plan B must be made available over the counter for women of all ages.
The decision on the controversial subject comes after lengthy legal battles over who should have access to the pill and at what age. The Justice Department did not say definitively whether it would appeal, but released a statement saying: "The Department of Justice is reviewing the appellate options and expects to act promptly."
The Food and Drug Administration had initially decided to allow the emergency pill to be available for young teens. But Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA in late 2011, and the agency limited availability without a prescription to women 17 and older.
The decision Friday by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ordered the FDA to make the pill, commonly referred to as the abortion pill, available for all ages. The decision means that unless the FDA appeals and is granted a stay, by this time next month a teenager 16 or under could walk into a local pharmacy and buy the pill off the shelf.
Korman accused the FDA of "intolerable delays" in reviewing a petition seeking broad access to the drug, likening the process to an "administrative agency filibuster."
"The plaintiffs should not be forced to endure, nor should the agency's misconduct be rewarded by, an exercise that permits the FDA to engage in further delays and obstruction," he wrote.
The FDA declined to comment on the ruling, describing it as an "ongoing legal matter."
Pill manufacturer Teva said it is "currently reviewing" the decision. "We have no additional comment at this time," the company said.
The judge ordered the change to be completed in a month. The opinion is sure to rile conservatives and other pro-life groups, who consider the morning-after pill -- in some cases -- to act as an abortion-inducing drug.
"This ruling places the health of young girls at risk," said Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council. "There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent. The involvement of parents and medical professionals act as a safeguard for these young girls. However, today's ruling removes these commonsense protections."
The case started in 2005, and Korman initially ruled in 2009 that 17 year-olds should have over-the-counter access. The FDA then moved to allow that access to all ages, until Sebelius stepped in.
Korman wrote in his opinion that "the FDA bowed to political pressure emanating from the White House."
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed suit against the age restriction, and other groups have argued that contraceptives are being held to a different and non-scientific standard than other drugs and that politics has played a role in decision-making.
"I think this is a landmark decision in terms of providing women and girls in the United States access to a safe and effective form of birth control," said attorney Andrea Costello with the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund.
The morning-after pill contains a higher dose of the female progestin hormone that is in regular birth control pills. Taking it within 72 hours of rape, condom failure or just forgetting regular contraception can cut the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. But it works best within the first 24 hours.
If a woman already is pregnant, the pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg. According to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. Still, some critics say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, a contention that scientists -- and Korman, in his ruling -- said has been discredited.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/05/federal-judge-rules-morning-after-abortion-pill-must-be-available-for-women-all/
-
People say they are against killing children but talk is cheap. They rationalize it by pretending that it's not a human being yet. Hey but don't let me stop you people. Chop them up and suck them out. Who gives a shit.
are eggs chickens? cus a baby is not a human until the third trimester.
-
are eggs chickens? cus a baby is not a human until the third trimester.
Whatever you gotta tell yourself.
-
But I didn't
so I guess the answer is no
so let's review
you don't know anyone in favor of killing children and you know that the morning after pill is contraception and not an abortion pill
-
Whatever you gotta tell yourself.
I value you the living over the potentially living, so I don;t really tell myself anything.
-
Morning after pill and late term abortions are two different creature. The world might be better off if a few more irresponsible uneducated fools used the morning after pill instead of bringing a child into this world. Certainly the cost burden on the system would diminish considerably.
-
Life begins at erection
-
Morning after pill and late term abortions are two different creature. The world might be better off if a few more irresponsible uneducated fools used the morning after pill instead of bringing a child into this world. Certainly the cost burden on the system would diminish considerably.
This
-
But she cant buy a 20 oz soda.
butt she can buy two 10oz ones.
or one 10 oz and get a free refill
at least while she's doing that she's not spreading her legs and getting preggers.
-
so I guess the answer is no
so let's review
you don't know anyone in favor of killing children and you know that the morning after pill is contraception and not an abortion pill
You are a dense individual.
You ask a stupid irrelevant question and when I don't play along you "guess" my answer is no. Choke yourself.
-
You are a dense individual.
You ask a stupid irrelevant question and when I don't play along you "guess" my answer is no. Choke yourself.
Damn, you've got a pretty short fuse.
Are you on your period?
You're the one that mentioned killing children but you can't say either yes or no to actually knowing anyone in favor of killing children
I personally don't know anyone in favor of killing children
-
are eggs chickens? cus a baby is not a human until the third trimester.
Eggs can be unfertilized for sure... So not always.
-
Because a 13-year-old girl should not be able to purchase this kind of medication without her parents' knowledge and consent.
Is it your position that a 13-year old who becomes pregnant should be required to keep the child if her parents so desire? In other words, do you believe that a 13-year old pregnant woman should be forced to carry a child to term against her wishes? If so, do you realize that you are treating 13-year olds as incubation chambers?
Eggs can be unfertilized for sure... So not always.
What?!? Eggs can be unfertilized? Are you genuinely that stupid or do you simply not know what "fertilization" means?
-
Is it your position that a 13-year old who becomes pregnant should be required to keep the child if her parents so desire? In other words, do you believe that a 13-year old pregnant woman should be forced to carry a child to term against her wishes? If so, do you realize that you are treating 13-year olds as incubation chambers?
What?!? Eggs can be unfertilized? Are you genuinely that stupid or do you simply not know what "fertilization" means?
I'm pretty sure Bum would be completely fine (probably happy) requiring woman of any age to be required to carry all pregnancies to term perhaps only making an exception for the life of the mother
that's pretty much the fundie point of view on abortion
-
so you're saying you know people who are in favor of killing children?
Anybody supporting aggressive wars against countries that are of no threat to their own, is in favour of killing children.
If the first casualities of war, were the insane, sociopathic leaders who order war in the first place, ...wars would end in a heartbeat. They are cowardly old men who send young men off to kill and be killed for the sole purpose of fattening their wallets, and convincing themselves they don't really have small dicks
-
Anybody supporting aggressive wars against countries that are of no threat to their own, is in favour of killing children.
If the first casualities of war, were the insane, sociopathic leaders who order war in the first place, ...wars would end in a heartbeat. They are cowardly old men who send young men off to kill and be killed for the sole purpose of fattening their wallets, and convincing themselves they don't really have small dicks
fair point
maybe that's what Pray4War was referring to
-
Is it your position that a 13-year old who becomes pregnant should be required to keep the child if her parents so desire? In other words, do you believe that a 13-year old pregnant woman should be forced to carry a child to term against her wishes? If so, do you realize that you are treating 13-year olds as incubation chambers?
What?!? Eggs can be unfertilized? Are you genuinely that stupid or do you simply not know what "fertilization" means?
What are you talking about?
Did I say something inaccurate?
No... Women ovulate and have unfertilized eggs leave their body... Hell, even chicken eggs at the grocery store are unfertilized.
I'm confused as to what your post means?
Are you being sarcastic or do you actually not realize that eggs can be unfertilized?
-
Ironic that some people do not want "big government in their lives" but it seems to be ok when said "big government" enforces what they think is right to others.
-
Because a 13-year-old girl should not be able to purchase this kind of medication without her parents' knowledge and consent.
Let child get pregnant and have TAXPAYER finance abortion
FUBB
-
What are you talking about?
Did I say something inaccurate?
No... Women ovulate and have unfertilized eggs leave their body... Hell, even chicken eggs at the grocery store are unfertilized.
I'm confused as to what your post means?
Are you being sarcastic or do you actually not realize that eggs can be unfertilized?
I interpreted your post to mean "a fertilized egg can, subsequently, become unfertilized." If that interpretation was wrong then I withdraw my comment, but must wonder what the point of your post is...
-
Ironic that some people do not want "big government in their lives" but it seems to be ok when said "big government" enforces what they think is right to others.
Of course.
-
It's a good ruling.
Some clerk at Walgreens shouldn't be interfering where parents have already failed.
Pretending the child of a 13 year old kid has a great future is nice but I'm not seeing a lot of instances where those who would deny the pill's availability are willing to take the children.
-
Ironic that some people do not want "big government in their lives" but it seems to be ok when said "big government" enforces what they think is right to others.
+1
-
As the parent of a daughter I have serious concerns about letting a thirteen year old girl buy and ingest serious medication without my knowledge or supervision. Seems like such a move undermines the authority of the parents.
That being said, it makes more sense, at least to me, to at least raise the minimum age to the age of consent in a particular state, otherwise a crime could easily be committed against a minor and I as the parent, as well as law enforcement, are none the wiser.
For example, an adult male could convince an impressionable underage girl to engage in sexual activity which results in pregnancy. All the pedo has to do is run to the store and pick up a pill and if the child remains silent, no one is the wiser. I understand its a pretty wild scenario but it could happen. And kids can buy all sorts of medications over the counter.
-
Anybody supporting aggressive wars against countries that are of no threat to their own, is in favour of killing children.
If the first casualities of war, were the insane, sociopathic leaders who order war in the first place, ...wars would end in a heartbeat. They are cowardly old men who send young men off to kill and be killed for the sole purpose of fattening their wallets, and convincing themselves they don't really have small dicks
sort of agree with your logic but I would argue that anyone in favor of ANY WAR is in favor of killing children. innocent children do not only die in "unjust" wars. if you choose to go to war, you choose to sacrifice innocent casulaties. period.
-
As the parent of a daughter I have serious concerns about letting a thirteen year old girl buy and ingest serious medication without my knowledge or supervision. Seems like such a move undermines the authority of the parents.
That being said, it makes more sense, at least to me, to at least raise the minimum age to the age of consent in a particular state, otherwise a crime could easily be committed against a minor and I as the parent, as well as law enforcement, are none the wiser.
For example, an adult male could convince an impressionable underage girl to engage in sexual activity which results in pregnancy. All the pedo has to do is run to the store and pick up a pill and if the child remains silent, no one is the wiser. I understand its a pretty wild scenario but it could happen. And kids can buy all sorts of medications over the counter.
its not a wild scenario at all. and is has happened. and it does happen. teachers who have abused children have taken them to abortion clinics themselves to "take care of it". works out nicely for them. this is just a sad reality.
both sides have an argument for their position. we all just have to be careful not to believe that either side has it all figured out. like most people on this board.
-
Let child get pregnant and have TAXPAYER finance abortion
FUBB
this thread is about contraception not abortion
-
Ironic that some people do not want "big government in their lives" but it seems to be ok when said "big government" enforces what they think is right to others.
For some; it's probably about helping make sure poor people stay in their place. :)
-
For some; it's probably about helping make sure poor people stay in their place. :)
or so that poor people dont keep birthin' babies they cant handle or want.
-
sort of agree with your logic but I would argue that anyone in favor of ANY WAR is in favor of killing children. innocent children do not only die in "unjust" wars. if you choose to go to war, you choose to sacrifice innocent casulaties. period.
Sometimes one does not have a choice... ie: in a defensive war.
When a country is attacked, ...should it not defend itself?
-
Sometimes one does not have a choice... ie: in a defensive war.
When a country is attacked, ...should it not defend itself?
thats neither here nor there.
just or unjust. right or wrong. when you make the decision to wage war, you choose to win. period. innocent casualties are ALWAYS a part of that picture.
-
its not a wild scenario at all. and is has happened. and it does happen. teachers who have abused children have taken them to abortion clinics themselves to "take care of it". works out nicely for them. this is just a sad reality.
both sides have an argument for their position. we all just have to be careful not to believe that either side has it all figured out. like most people on this board.
I agree. My main concern is whether a 13 girl has the emotional maturity and intellectual development to properly use a medication such as this without causing series health consequences. Should authorities be notified anytime a purchase is made by an under age girl? A crime might well have been committed such as molestation or statutory rape.
-
I agree. My main concern is whether a 13 girl has the emotional maturity and intellectual development to properly use a medication such as this without causing series health consequences. Should authorities be notified anytime a purchase is made by an under age girl? A crime might well have been committed such as molestation or statutory rape.
She was mature enough for fucking thought.
:/
-
She was mature enough for fucking thought.
:/
That's the argument her creepy uncle tried to make in court. The old grass on the field defense didnt convince the jury.
-
That's the argument her creepy uncle tried to make in court. The old grass on the field defense didnt convince the jury.
::)
All I'm saying is that she has the mental forethought to think she is old enough to have sex... so naturally, she believes she can control her body and what goes in it.
Why do you have to take it to a sad place?
-
::)
All I'm saying is that she has the mental forethought to think she is old enough to have sex... so naturally, she believes she can control her body and what goes in it.
Why do you have to take it to a sad place?
I was giving an example of a situation where a child is coerced or forced to engage in sexual activity. Where the choice was not her own and where the person engaging in sex with a child was an adult which is an absolute crime.
-
I was giving an example of a situation where a child is coerced or forced to engage in sexual activity. Where the choice was not her own and where the person engaging in sex with a child was an adult which is an absolute crime.
In that situation, the creepy ass uncle would go get the pill for her anyway.
This is about people doing things on their own... That's the point.
While I do understand that parents do want to know everything that their children are doing, but it's just not feasible... Children go off and do what they want.
No parent can be all over their kids 24/7. I'm not saying not to try, but if a girl is out having sex at 12 or 13 (and yes, it does happen) then what's your priorities? Knowing their every move or protecting their future?
-
I was giving an example of a situation where a child is coerced or forced to engage in sexual activity. Where the choice was not her own and where the person engaging in sex with a child was an adult which is an absolute crime.
So what you're saying is that in the instance where a child is raped by an adult, ...she should NOT have access to a morning after pill? Seems to me one choice has already been taken from her, ...and you want to take another one away from her as well? ???
I don't believe it's appropriate for minors to be engaging in sex. I don't believe it's even appropriate for some adults to be engaging in sex either, ...but I don't have the right to make their decisions for them.
In my opinion, if someone is capable of conceiving a child, they should have access to appropriate forms of contraception if they desire it. Having some degree of control over your own body is imo fundamental to freedom.
-
In my opinion, if someone is capable of conceiving a child, they should have access to appropriate forms of contraception if they desire it. Having some degree of control over your own body is imo fundamental to freedom.
Wow... did I just cross over into some weird-ass parallel universe? I find myself agreeing with 24KT! ;)
-
Wow... did I just cross over into some weird-ass parallel universe? I find myself agreeing with 24KT! ;)
It's either a moment of lucidity or insanity.
You decide. :)
-
So what you're saying is that in the instance where a child is raped by an adult, ...she should NOT have access to a morning after pill? Seems to me one choice has already been taken from her, ...and you want to take another one away from her as well? ???
I don't believe it's appropriate for minors to be engaging in sex. I don't believe it's even appropriate for some adults to be engaging in sex either, ...but I don't have the right to make their decisions for them.
In my opinion, if someone is capable of conceiving a child, they should have access to appropriate forms of contraception if they desire it. Having some degree of control over your own body is imo fundamental to freedom.
As a parent I want to be made aware of any serious medical condition my underaged child is experiencing. A nine year old is capable of having a child and I don't think they are capable of making life decision as serious as this one. The ability to engage in sexual activity or have a child are not in the least representative of maturity or intelligence.
You do make choices for your children because they are immature. If you didn't they would be eating ice cream at every meal, staying up all night and wouldn't go to school or do their homework. It's not about control, it's about guidance.
-
In that situation, the creepy ass uncle would go get the pill for her anyway.
This is about people doing things on their own... That's the point.
While I do understand that parents do want to know everything that their children are doing, but it's just not feasible... Children go off and do what they want.
No parent can be all over their kids 24/7. I'm not saying not to try, but if a girl is out having sex at 12 or 13 (and yes, it does happen) then what's your priorities? Knowing their every move or protecting their future?
This may be practically true but I don't see this as a reason to just let anything happen. Your logic is flawed. You can apply your argument to anything that is regulated or for which a law is passed to prevent.
You're also presenting an either or argument in which the only two options are to know your childes every move or protect your future. This line of reasoning is much to limited for the subject. There are other options and considerations and the issue is not so black and white.
People assume I want all underage kids to be forced to have children they dont want or cant support. This is untrue. My argument is that the age minimum for purchase over the counter should be the age of consent in a state.
-
This may be practically true but I don't see this as a reason to just let anything happen. Your logic is flawed. You can apply your argument to anything that is regulated or for which a law is passed to prevent.
You're also presenting an either or argument in which the only two options are to know your childes every move or protect your future. This line of reasoning is much to limited for the subject. There are other options and considerations and the issue is not so black and white.
But your response is black and white... You are saying 13 year olds simply should not have access to it. That's a very black and white statement also.
-
But your response is black and white... You are saying 13 year olds simply should not have access to it. That's a very black and white statement also.
From the beginning I said that a thirteen year old child should not be able to purchase over the counter without the consultation of a parent and medical professional. I've never said that there should be no access, never once.
-
As a parent I want to be made aware of any serious medical condition my underaged child is experiencing. A nine year old is capable of having a child and I don't think they are capable of making life decision as serious as this one. The ability to engage in sexual activity or have a child are not in the least representative of maturity or intelligence.
You do make choices for your children because they are immature. If you didn't they would be eating ice cream at every meal, staying up all night and wouldn't go to school or do their homework. It's not about control, it's about guidance.
So tell me Archer, ...if your NINE yr old for whatever reason has unprotected sex during ovulation, ...are you saying you would prefer she NOT be able to access a morning after pill, ...and be required to forego the window of opportunity to prevent conception, in order for YOU to be notified, so you can decide whether she has an abortion or carries to term? is that what you're saying?
-
But your response is black and white... You are saying 13 year olds simply should not have access to it. That's a very black and white statement also.
i think they should have access to it with parental consent.
-
From the beginning I said that a thirteen year old child should not be able to purchase over the counter without the consultation of a parent and medical professional. I've never said that there should be no access, never once.
I understand, my point is that if a child is sneaking around and having sex, they will not go to their parents after doing so and ask for a morning after pill.
Instead, they will end up finding out they are pregnant and being forced to have a child or get an abortion... The MAP is a much better alternative to either of those.
Yes, the fact it's a drug does weigh on my mind... It's a tough decision, but in this instance, I personally would go with the get them the pill over having a child.
-
So tell me Archer, ...if your NINE yr old for whatever reason has unprotected sex during ovulation, ...are you saying you would prefer she NOT be able to access a morning after pill, ...and be required to forego the window of opportunity to prevent conception, in order for YOU to be notified, so you can decide whether she has an abortion or carries to term? is that what you're saying?
are you saying that you want your 9 year olds teacher to be able to have unprotected sex with her and have the resources to "take care of it" discreetly without her parents knowledge? i see both sides to this. neither side has it figured out. if you think you do you're a stupid person. period.
-
People assume I want all underage kids to be forced to have children they dont want or cant support. This is untrue. My argument is that the age minimum for purchase over the counter should be the age of consent in a state.
Welcome to the birth of a whole new industry. <pun intended>
The unregulated illicit 'morning after" pill trade. I can see it now... 16 yr olds forking over their college funds to buy an aspirin from some street corner dealer thinking they're buying a morning after pill.
-
So tell me Archer, ...if your NINE yr old for whatever reason has unprotected sex during ovulation, ...are you saying you would prefer she NOT be able to access a morning after pill, ...and be required to forego the window of opportunity to prevent conception, in order for YOU to be notified, so you can decide whether she has an abortion or carries to term? is that what you're saying?
How much time passes between the time she finds out and she tells me....seconds. The time is minuscule and irrelevant. What I want is a discussion. I want to talk to her about what has happened, what her feelings are on the situation and the options that are available to her. As a parent this is part of my job and the responsibility I assumed. You're reacting emotionally and projecting your own feelings and false intentions onto me.
-
People assume I want all underage kids to be forced to have children they dont want or cant support. This is untrue. My argument is that the age minimum for purchase over the counter should be the age of consent in a state.
That's a more defensible position, to be sure, but I still don't know that it makes sense. Let's turn things around slightly and look at something else in the hopes of gaining some clarity. Let's assume that we are in a State where the age of consent is 16. Let's further assume that you work at a pharmacy (or grocery store). During the overnight shift, a young kid comes up to you and nervously asks for a pack of condoms. What now?
My position is that the kid should be able to get the condoms, no questions asked. What do you think?
And, by the way, I completely agree with you that children are immature and parents must make some decisions for them (ideally with some input from the child, especially as the child gets older). Ideally, a child should feel comfortable enough to discuss with his or her parents the issue of sex before he or she engages in it and to then make informed and responsible decisions. But let's be realistic - that's the exception and not the norm. We've all been kids, and we all know how quickly things can escalate from "First Base!!!" to "Uhmm... what do you mean you're pregnant?!?!"
-
I understand, my point is that if a child is sneaking around and having sex, they will not go to their parents after doing so and ask for a morning after pill.
Instead, they will end up finding out they are pregnant and being forced to have a child or get an abortion... The MAP is a much better alternative to either of those.
Yes, the fact it's a drug does weigh on my mind... It's a tough decision, but in this instance, I personally would go with the get them the pill over having a child.
True and I recognize that. Personally, I would be inclined to get them the pill as well also.
-
are you saying that you want your 9 year olds teacher to be able to have unprotected sex with her and have the resources to "take care of it" discreetly without her parents knowledge? i see both sides to this. neither side has it figured out. if you think you do you're a stupid person. period.
No that's not what I'm saying at all. And parental consent laws would do nothing to prevent the above scenario. If a pedophile teacher were having sex with his 9 yr old students, he could STILL make a MAP available to the 9 yr old even with parental consent laws in place.
There are laws against marijuana, heroin, crystal meth, crack etc.... yet those are still available are they not?
I think your argument is rubbish. make it illegal... yah, ...that'll stop it. ::) ::)
-
How much time passes between the time she finds out and she tells me....seconds. The time is minuscule and irrelevant. What I want is a discussion. I want to talk to her about what has happened, what her feelings are on the situation and the options that are available to her. As a parent this is part of my job and the responsibility I assumed. You're reacting emotionally and projecting your own feelings and false intentions onto me.
well said
-
That's a more defensible position, to be sure, but I still don't know that it makes sense. Let's turn things around slightly and look at something else in the hopes of gaining some clarity. Let's assume that we are in a State where the age of consent is 16. Let's further assume that you work at a pharmacy (or grocery store). During the overnight shift, a young kid comes up to you and nervously asks for a pack of condoms. What now?
My position is that the kid should be able to get the condoms, no questions asked. What do you think?
I would let them purchase the condoms no questions asked. The main difference being condoms are not medicine that is ingested with potential side effects to anyone other than those with a latex allergy. My point isn't even a moral one necessarily ot an objection to the use of the morning after pill itself.
-
How much time passes between the time she finds out and she tells me....seconds. The time is minuscule and irrelevant. What I want is a discussion. I want to talk to her about what has happened, what her feelings are on the situation and the options that are available to her. As a parent this is part of my job and the responsibility I assumed. You're reacting emotionally and projecting your own feelings and false intentions onto me.
From the time she finds out, and the time she tells you is seconds? YOU ARE DREAMING!
I understand what you want, and why you want it, ...but legislation isn't going to make that happen.
-
No that's not what I'm saying at all. And parental consent laws would do nothing to prevent the above scenario. If a pedophile teacher were having sex with his 9 yr old students, he could STILL make a MAP available to the 9 yr old even with parental consent laws in place.
There are laws against marijuana, heroin, crystal meth, crack etc.... yet those are still available are they not?
I think your argument is rubbish. make it illegal... yah, ...that'll stop it. ::) ::)
and making an abortion pill readily accessible WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT is just giving a child abuser extra resources at his disposal to better hide his crime.
-
and making an abortion pill readily accessible WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT is just giving a child abuser extra resources at his disposal to better hide his crime.
It's NOT an abortion pill.
-
No that's not what I'm saying at all. And parental consent laws would do nothing to prevent the above scenario. If a pedophile teacher were having sex with his 9 yr old students, he could STILL make a MAP available to the 9 yr old even with parental consent laws in place.
There are laws against marijuana, heroin, crystal meth, crack etc.... yet those are still available are they not?
I think your argument is rubbish. make it illegal... yah, ...that'll stop it. ::) ::)
Let's have no laws then. If people are doing to kill or rob other people, what's the point in making laws? The point is, that a child should not have access to potentially dangerous medications without someone being made aware.
-
From the time she finds out, and the time she tells you is seconds? YOU ARE DREAMING!
I understand what you want, and why you want it, ...but legislation isn't going to make that happen.
My point is that there is a law already in place that makes this situation easy to resolve, the age of consent law. No need to further legislate.
-
It's NOT an abortion pill.
whatever it is. its a resource to hide evidence of a crime. i'm not against the pill at all. i'm not even against an abortion pill. what i am against is this new obsession with making abortions as easy as possible for children to get without theit parents knowing.
-
whatever it is. its a resource to hide evidence of a crime. i'm not against the pill at all. i'm not even against an abortion pill. what i am against is this new obsession with making abortions as easy as possible for children to get without theit parents knowing.
I do see your point... When you make things easy, people use it to their advantage and that can definitely be negative.
What should the age be then?
I've seen archer say age of consent... But I do know girls who were having sex at 12... They certainly were not telling their parents.
-
whatever it is. its a resource to hide evidence of a crime.
So is a shower.
i'm not against the pill at all. i'm not even against an abortion pill. what i am against is this new obsession with making abortions as easy as possible for children to get without theit parents knowing.
What does easy access to abortion have to do with contraception. Seems to me more availability of contraception would reduce the numbers of abortions, wouldn't you agree?
-
I would let them purchase the condoms no questions asked. The main difference being condoms are not medicine that is ingested with potential side effects to anyone other than those with a latex allergy. My point isn't even a moral one necessarily ot an objection to the use of the morning after pill itself.
That's a very reasonable answer. I think that we are more or less on the same page, and yes, ideally I think that parents should have a say in their children's lives - and most of us would agree on that I suspect. However, as I noted in my post (edited after your answer) we don't live in an idea world. And that's why I think that the benefits of making the pill available without parental notification outweigh the risks.
There's also a distinction between parental notification and parental consent. Where do you stand on that issue?
-
whatever it is. its a resource to hide evidence of a crime. i'm not against the pill at all. i'm not even against an abortion pill. what i am against is this new obsession with making abortions as easy as possible for children to get without theit parents knowing.
Evidence of a crime?!? Really?
-
I do see your point... When you make things easy, people use it to their advantage and that can definitely be negative.
What should the age be then?
I've seen archer say age of consent... But I do know girls who were having sex at 12... They certainly were not telling their parents.
And kids drink before they are twent-one and dont tell their parents It happens. I did it. The law clearly states what it thinks is the acceptable age for consenting to sexual activity. Will people have sex before that age, of course, but the law serves as a guide post. Anyone, regardless of whether the underage girl consented, and we can argue all day about whether they are capable of truely consenting, can be prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity with a minor.
Anytime an underage girl purchases the morning after pill there is a possibility that, under the law, a crime might have occurred. This is why it is vital that someone be notified if a minor purchases the MAP. Notification is already a requirement for other things.Here is an example I think is appropriate. When a child comes to school with unsual or habitual injuries it is the obligation of the school to contact authorities in case abuse is being perpetrated against that child.
-
I do see your point... When you make things easy, people use it to their advantage and that can definitely be negative.
What should the age be then?
I've seen archer say age of consent... But I do know girls who were having sex at 12... They certainly were not telling their parents.
when it comes to issues like this, there is no good answer. as long as two people who don't love eachother are having sex with eachother, nothing good comes out of it. thats a hard truth that i personally had to learn. my generation has always preached the idea of treating sex lightly. it's all a lie. and we are facing the consequences of our actions today. and so far our only answer has been abortion. abortion, abortion. and its not working.
i have 2 boys. and i don't know how i am going to teach them to respect women and to not take sex lightly when eveyone else around them is doing the opposite. it's going to be a hard road. but my only weapons are to stand on principal and to be honest to a fault with them.
-
So is a shower.
What does easy access to abortion have to do with contraception. Seems to me more availability of contraception would reduce the numbers of abortions, wouldn't you agree?
yeah but it doesn't. people don't fuck chicks without condoms because they can't find condoms. people fuck chicks without condoms because they don't like to use condoms.
sorry. but thats a hard truth that they don't tell you on tv because people don't like to hear it. because it reminds people that they are accountable for where they put their penis and what they allow in their pussy. most people nowadays would rather blame someone else for their sons and daughters irreponsible decisions.
"It's not your faulty honey, the repubicans won't give out enough condoms". You know because its so hard to get condoms. ::)
-
yeah but it doesn't. people don't fuck chicks without condoms because they can't find condoms. people fuck chicks without condoms because they don't like to use condoms.
Who are you to speak on behalf of all people who fuck chicks without a condom?
It's also quite disingenuous to pretend as if the only time problems can happen is when people consciously choose to fuck without using condoms. No method of birth control (note: abstinence is not a form of birth control) is 100% reliable.
-
Is it your position that a 13-year old who becomes pregnant should be required to keep the child if her parents so desire? In other words, do you believe that a 13-year old pregnant woman should be forced to carry a child to term against her wishes? If so, do you realize that you are treating 13-year olds as incubation chambers?
Yes.
Yes.
No.
I'm in favor of the broader principle of a parent making decisions on behalf of their minor children, which they do with medicine, medical treatment, school, religion, food, clothes, language, etc., etc.
-
yeah but it doesn't. people don't fuck chicks without condoms because they can't find condoms. people fuck chicks without condoms because they don't like to use condoms.
sorry. but thats a hard truth that they don't tell you on tv because people don't like to hear it. because it reminds people that they are accountable for where they put their penis and what they allow in their pussy. most people nowadays would rather blame someone else for their sons and daughters irreponsible decisions.
"It's not your faulty honey, the repubicans won't give out enough condoms". You know because its so hard to get condoms. ::)
Exactly. That's why I say they don't work, because people (especially young people) will not consistently use them.
-
Who are you to speak on behalf of all people who fuck chicks without a condom?
It's also quite disingenuous to pretend as if the only time problems can happen is when people consciously choose to fuck without using condoms. No method of birth control (note: abstinence is not a form of birth control) is 100% reliable.
stop it. you're living in a dream world. i'm speaking the truth and you don't like to hear it.
let's put it this way. if everyone used condoms or responsibly took their birth control we wouldn't have 1.2 million abortions per year in the US. we would have something closer to 50,000. you're buying into the liberal left bullshit where abortion isn't about personal responsibility, it's about access to birth control. do you honestly think that most of the 1.2 million abortions in the US last year were because the people were using birth control and it failed? sorry but if you think that you're either fucking stupid or a virgin who doesn't know how sex works.
-
Exactly. That's why I say they don't work, because people (especially young people) will not consistently use them.
like i said before people don't want to believe that this is an issue of personal responsibility.
-
Yes.
Yes.
No.
I'm in favor of the broader principle of a parent making decisions on behalf of their minor children, which they do with medicine, medical treatment, school, religion, food, clothes, language, etc., etc.
but to axvo and hard left liberals, abortion is NEVER the wrong choice. its ALWAYS the right choice.
-
but to axvo and hard left liberals, abortion is NEVER the wrong choice. its ALWAYS the right choice.
At any stage before birth, and in some instances after birth.
-
like i said before people don't want to believe that this is an issue of personal responsibility.
It absolutely is. It's not about access/availability. Condoms are everywhere.
-
but to axvo and hard left liberals, abortion is NEVER the wrong choice. its ALWAYS the right choice.
I'm a hard left liberal? Really? Damn...
The weird thing about being a libertarian is that the nutjobs from the left call me a far-right loonie and the nutjobs from the right call me a far-left loonie.
-
I'm a hard left liberal? Really? Damn...
The weird thing about being a libertarian is that the nutjobs from the left call me a far-right loonie and the nutjobs from the right call me a far-left loonie.
I've had a similar problem here.
-
stop it. you're living in a dream world. i'm speaking the truth and you don't like to hear it.
If by "truth" you mean "feces" and if by "speak" you mean "flinging" then yes, you speak the truth.
let's put it this way. if everyone used condoms or responsibly took their birth control we wouldn't have 1.2 million abortions per year in the US.
And if pigs flew... something something!
we would have something closer to 50,000.
And you'd still be bitching and moaning even then. Also, I'm not going to ask how you reached that number because I don't want to have to hear about any part of your anatomy.
you're buying into the liberal left bullshit where abortion isn't about personal responsibility, it's about access to birth control.
It's always about personal responsibility - even if birth control measures fail it's still about personal responsibility. And sometimes, being responsible means getting an abortion. You may not like that, and you may feel it's wrong but the fact is that your feelings have no bearing on reality.
do you honestly think that most of the 1.2 million abortions in the US last year were because the people were using birth control and it failed?
I'm not interested whether it's the result of failed birth control or a stupid decision, because to me it's largely irrelevant. And since I have not metrics that I can use to ascertain the reason behind abortions or analyze how many are the result of condom failure vs. missed birth control pills vs. bareback encounters I will avoid drawing conclusions like you have.
sorry but if you think that you're either fucking stupid or a virgin who doesn't know how sex works.
Perhaps - but only if I thought that. Since I don't, your petty insults don't apply.
-
Yes.
You believe that a 13-year old woman should be required to function as an incubator for 9 months? That's... extraordinary! And tell me, what then? Should the 13-year old have any say on what happens to the resulting baby, or should her parents be able to just put it up for adoption
Yes.
It's amazing to see someone in this day and age arguing that someone should be compelled, against their wishes, to carry a pregnancy to term.
No.
What, exactly, are you treating them as then?
I'm in favor of the broader principle of a parent making decisions on behalf of their minor children, which they do with medicine, medical treatment, school, religion, food, clothes, language, etc., etc.
While I am in favor of that principle as well, I don't think that parents should be able to force their minor children to continue pregnancies to term against the child's express wishes.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of broader principles, are you only in favor of that broader principle when the decisions parents make are ones you approve of, or would you support a parent's right to decide his pregnant 13-year old daughter must have an abortion (perhaps against her will)?
-
You believe that a 13-year old woman should be required to function as an incubator for 9 months? That's... extraordinary! And tell me, what then? Should the 13-year old have any say on what happens to the resulting baby, or should her parents be able to just put it up for adoption
It's amazing to see someone in this day and age arguing that someone should be compelled, against their wishes, to carry a pregnancy to term.
What, exactly, are you treating them as then?
While I am in favor of that principle as well, I don't think that parents should be able to force their minor children to continue pregnancies to term against the child's express wishes.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of broader principles, are you only in favor of that broader principle when the decisions parents make are ones you approve of, or would you support a parent's right to decide his pregnant 13-year old daughter must have an abortion (perhaps against her will)?
A 13-year-old girl is not a "woman." She's a girl. A kid. More importantly, according to society she's a minor who is unable to make any life-changing decisions on her own without parental (or guardian) consent, including obtaining prescription medication, driving a car, going to the doctor, going to the dentist, buying alcohol, buying cigarettes, deciding whether or not to have surgery, deciding whether to be a Mormon, Muslim, or Catholic, etc., etc. I don't see a decision regarding what should be prescription medication for an abortion pill or a medical decision to have an abortion as any different.
I'm in favor of the broader principle as it applies to all legal decisions regarding the minor child, which of course would include abortion.
It simply defies common sense to start drawing arbitrary lines for kids and allow them to make adult decisions in situations like this. What's outrageous too is it may help cover up a crime. A 13-year-old girl cannot consent to sex, so any 13-year-old girl who is pregnant is a victim. Her parents should know. Law enforcement should know.
-
If by "truth" you mean "feces" and if by "speak" you mean "flinging" then yes, you speak the truth.
And if pigs flew... something something!
And you'd still be bitching and moaning even then. Also, I'm not going to ask how you reached that number because I don't want to have to hear about any part of your anatomy.
It's always about personal responsibility - even if birth control measures fail it's still about personal responsibility. And sometimes, being responsible means getting an abortion. You may not like that, and you may feel it's wrong but the fact is that your feelings have no bearing on reality.
I'm not interested whether it's the result of failed birth control or a stupid decision, because to me it's largely irrelevant. And since I have not metrics that I can use to ascertain the reason behind abortions or analyze how many are the result of condom failure vs. missed birth control pills vs. bareback encounters I will avoid drawing conclusions like you have.
Perhaps - but only if I thought that. Since I don't, your petty insults don't apply.
first off i'm not against abortion. i don't harshly judge people who have had abortions. but i do believe that our end goal should be to have as few of them as possible. that is, we should strive to miminimize as much as we can, unwanted pregnancies. i do not believe that goal is achieved by throwing condoms at kids in schools. its solved by teaching kids about personal responsibility and respect for their bodies. i know thats a more difficult task than giving away condoms and pills but when is doing the right thing ever the easy thing?
i'm also experienced enough to know that if you treat women with respect and yourself with respect and take the necessary precautions when engaged in sexual activity the chances of unwanted pregnancy go down drastically. if you don't believe this I can't help you. People who don't believe this are the reason why we have so many young girls and boys in these predicaments in the first place. I also don't get the impression that you realize the psychological implications abortion has on young women and men. again i don't believe that abortion is ALWAYS the answer. its a band aid solution to a much bigger problem.
-
A 13-year-old girl is not a "woman." She's a girl. A kid. More importantly, according to society she's a minor who is unable to make any life-changing decisions on her own without parental (or guardian) consent, including obtaining prescription medication, driving a car, going to the doctor, going to the dentist, buying alcohol, buying cigarettes, deciding whether or not to have surgery, deciding whether to be a Mormon, Muslim, or Catholic, etc., etc. I don't see a decision regarding what should be prescription medication for an abortion pill or a medical decision to have an abortion as any different.
I'm in favor of the broader principle as it applies to all legal decisions regarding the minor child, which of course would include abortion.
It simply defies common sense to start drawing arbitrary lines for kids and allow them to make adult decisions in situations like this. What's outrageous too is it may help cover up a crime. A 13-year-old girl cannot consent to sex, so any 13-year-old girl who is pregnant is a victim. Her parents should know. Law enforcement should know.
This is pretty much my argument. Considering that the age of consent in most states is 16, the guide post for when teens are in charge of their sexual behavior is already established, and it isn't t thirteen. You may disagree and believe that anyone under eighteen is under the authority of their parents and I understand that argument, but I'm arguing strictly based on the established law.
-
This is pretty much my argument. Considering that the age of consent in most states is 16, the guide post for when teens are in charge of their sexual behavior is already established, and it isn't t thirteen. You may disagree and believe that anyone under eighteen is under the authority of their parents and I understand that argument, but I'm arguing strictly based on the established law.
Agree. We actually had to fight with the governor to raise it from 14 to 16. :-[
-
A 13-year-old girl is not a "woman." She's a girl. A kid. More importantly, according to society she's a minor who is unable to make any life-changing decisions on her own without parental (or guardian) consent, including obtaining prescription medication, driving a car, going to the doctor, going to the dentist, buying alcohol, buying cigarettes, deciding whether or not to have surgery, deciding whether to be a Mormon, Muslim, or Catholic, etc., etc. I don't see a decision regarding what should be prescription medication for an abortion pill or a medical decision to have an abortion as any different.
You seem to operate under the misconception that minors have no rights. That is not correct. I agree that parents should be making decisions for their children, but children aren't slaves and have rights, which even parents can't infringe.
Do you genuinely believe that a parent should be allowed to force a kid (as you so aptly put it) to carry a child to term and go through labor? Then what? Do you then believe that a parent should be allowed to force this kid (again, your words) to, for example, breastfeed the infant?
A better question still, since the 13-year old is now a parent herself, do you believe that she - and she alone - can choose to put the baby up for adoption or to keep and raise it herself? Or do you believe that her parents get to preempt her parental authority and exercise it on her behalf since she's still a minor?
Your position - like all absolutists who see things as black and white - is untenable and crumbles away when exposed to a reality that is all shades of gray.
I'm in favor of the broader principle as it applies to all legal decisions regarding the minor child, which of course would include abortion.
In other words you believe that once the parents force their thirteen year old to carry a pregnancy to term, they can their make decisions for the infant as well, preempting the actual parent's right to make legal decisions regarding her minor child.
It simply defies common sense to start drawing arbitrary lines for kids and allow them to make adult decisions in situations like this. What's outrageous too is it may help cover up a crime. A 13-year-old girl cannot consent to sex, so any 13-year-old girl who is pregnant is a victim. Her parents should know. Law enforcement should know.
You raise the point that it would be a crime, and you are right. This is, perhaps, your strongest argument. But let's see how it works in a few corner cases, shall we? Let's assume we are in a State where the age of consent is 15, and the girl in question is 16. Now what?
-
first off i'm not against abortion. i don't harshly judge people who have had abortions. but i do believe that our end goal should be to have as few of them as possible. that is, we should strive to miminimize as much as we can, unwanted pregnancies. i do not believe that goal is achieved by throwing condoms at kids in schools. its solved by teaching kids about personal responsibility and respect for their bodies. i know thats a more difficult task than giving away condoms and pills but when is doing the right thing ever the easy thing?
i'm also experienced enough to know that if you treat women with respect and yourself with respect and take the necessary precautions when engaged in sexual activity the chances of unwanted pregnancy go down drastically. if you don't believe this I can't help you. People who don't believe this are the reason why we have so many young girls and boys in these predicaments in the first place. I also don't get the impression that you realize the psychological implications abortion has on young women and men. again i don't believe that abortion is ALWAYS the answer. its a band aid solution to a much bigger problem.
Of course I support minimizing the number of abortions (and unwanted pregnancies). What rational person doesn't? And to clarify, I don't believe abortion is always the answer; I don't believe any one thing is always the answer. What I do believe is that people ought to be informed and have access to a wide range of methods to protect themselves and stay in control of their body, without having to ask for the permission, consent or moral approval or someone else. What I don't believe is that any one group's moral and religious beliefs should dictate how others must live their life.
As for whether I personally realize the psychological implications of abortion, I'd urge you to not draw conclusions. You know nothing about me personally or my past history.
-
I'm a hard left liberal? Really? Damn...
The weird thing about being a libertarian is that the nutjobs from the left call me a far-right loonie and the nutjobs from the right call me a far-left loonie.
you want a 13 year old child to be able to walk into an abortion clinic and get an abortion without notifying their parents. no questions asked. some of my most hard left liberal friends would think thats incredibly irresponsible to allow something like that. just sayin.
-
I'm a hard left liberal? Really? Damn...
The weird thing about being a libertarian is that the nutjobs from the left call me a far-right loonie and the nutjobs from the right call me a far-left loonie.
I have the same issues.
The reality is that because people do not do things like everyone else wants them to do it, they decide to label you.
On no level is Beach Bum correct in believing he has the right to force a person, any person to have a baby if they choose not to.
Legally he has no leg to stand on there, so he can get that notion out of his head... Being an attorney he should know this.
-
You seem to operate under the misconception that minors have no rights. That is not correct. I agree that parents should be making decisions for their children, but children aren't slaves and have rights, which even parents can't infringe.
Do you genuinely believe that a parent should be allowed to force a kid (as you so aptly put it) to carry a child to term and go through labor? Then what? Do you then believe that a parent should be allowed to force this kid (again, your words) to, for example, breastfeed the infant?
A better question still, since the 13-year old is now a parent herself, do you believe that she - and she alone - can choose to put the baby up for adoption or to keep and raise it herself? Or do you believe that her parents get to preempt her parental authority and exercise it on her behalf since she's still a minor?
Your position - like all absolutists who see things as black and white - is untenable and crumbles away when exposed to a reality that is all shades of gray.
In other words you believe that once the parents force their thirteen year old to carry a pregnancy to term, they can their make decisions for the infant as well, preempting the actual parent's right to make legal decisions regarding her minor child.
You raise the point that it would be a crime, and you are right. This is, perhaps, your strongest argument. But let's see how it works in a few corner cases, shall we? Let's assume we are in a State where the age of consent is 15, and the girl in question is 16. Now what?
I never said minors don't rights. What I said is they are not permitted to make life changing decisions or the important decisions I specifically listed (yes there are others).
A minor doesn't become emancipated solely because she has a baby, so yes the parent should be able to tell her to breast feed. Or take a pill. Or not take a pill. Or got to physical therapy. Or have surgery. What the heck does breastfeeding have to do with whether a minor should be allowed to buy an abortion pill without her parents' knowledge and consent??
There is always, black, white, and gray. There is a lot of gray when it comes to the entire abortion question. Not so much so when talking about parental rights and the lack of a minor's ability and capacity to make adult decisions.
If a kid gets pregnant and is over the agent of consent when she has sex, then of course we cannot assume a crime has been committed. So what? That doesn't detract at all from the central issue of the parents doing whats best for their minor child, and not allowing a minor to make adult decisions without the parents knowledge.
-
Sex isn't a life changing decision?
-
I never said minors don't rights. What I said is they are not permitted to make life changing decisions or the important decisions I specifically listed (yes there are others).
You are wrong - minors are legally permitted to make all sorts of life-changing decisions, including to engage in sex if they are over the age of consent.
A minor doesn't become emancipated solely because she has a baby, so yes the parent should be able to tell her to breast feed.
Wow... that's just way out there... let's see how far off the deep end you're willing to go.
- Should the parent be able to put his infant grandchild up for adoption, exercising surrogate parental authority on behalf of his daughter?
- Should the parent be able to force the child to, say, have a hysterectomy after she carries that first child to term?
- Should the parent be able to force the child to donate a lobe from her liver to save a sibling?
What the heck does breastfeeding have to do with whether a minor should be allowed to buy an abortion pill without her parents' knowledge and consent??
It has everything to do with a mentality that says that children have no rights and aren't under the care of their parents; they're under their absolute and unrestricted control.
There is always, black, white, and gray. There is a lot of gray when it comes to the entire abortion question. Not so much so when talking about parental rights and the lack of a minor's ability and capacity to make adult decisions.
So let's review: in your view a 13-year that becomes pregnant can be forced to carry the child to term, forced to breastfeed said child, and has no say as a parent herself in the rearing of her child, because her parental authority, like all her legal rights, is exercised by her parents?
You are FUCKING INSANE.
-
I have the same issues.
The reality is that because people do not do things like everyone else wants them to do it, they decide to label you.
On no level is Beach Bum correct in believing he has the right to force a person, any person to have a baby if they choose not to.
Legally he has no leg to stand on there, so he can get that notion out of his head... Being an attorney he should know this.
one could also argue that we have no right to tell a 13 year old who she can and cannot have sex with. even if it is a 35 year old man with herpes.
-
one could also argue that we have no right to tell a 13 year old who she can and cannot have sex with. even if it is a 35 year old man with herpes.
One could... but legally the law already has consent statutes...
-
You are wrong - minors are legally permitted to make all sorts of life-changing decisions, including to engage in sex if they are over the age of consent.
Wow... that's just way out there... let's see how far off the deep end you're willing to go.
- Should the parent be able to put his infant grandchild up for adoption, exercising surrogate parental authority on behalf of his daughter?
- Should the parent be able to force the child to, say, have a hysterectomy after she carries that first child to term?
- Should the parent be able to force the child to donate a lobe from her liver to save a sibling?
It has everything to do with a mentality that says that children have no rights and aren't under the care of their parents; they're under their absolute and unrestricted control.
So let's review: in your view a 13-year that becomes pregnant can be forced to carry the child to term, forced to breastfeed said child, and has no say as a parent herself in the rearing of her child, because her parental authority, like all her legal rights, is exercised by her parents?
You are FUCKING INSANE.
Yes, minors above the age of consent can make some life-changing decisions. We don't allow 13-year-olds to do so.
You're repeatedly asking the same question. Use the scroll function for an answer. :)
Insane? And you're same one crying about people calling you names? Can you recommend a good shrink?
-
You are wrong - minors are legally permitted to make all sorts of life-changing decisions, including to engage in sex if they are over the age of consent.
Wow... that's just way out there... let's see how far off the deep end you're willing to go.
- Should the parent be able to put his infant grandchild up for adoption, exercising surrogate parental authority on behalf of his daughter?
- Should the parent be able to force the child to, say, have a hysterectomy after she carries that first child to term?
- Should the parent be able to force the child to donate a lobe from her liver to save a sibling?
It has everything to do with a mentality that says that children have no rights and aren't under the care of their parents; they're under their absolute and unrestricted control.
So let's review: in your view a 13-year that becomes pregnant can be forced to carry the child to term, forced to breastfeed said child, and has no say as a parent herself in the rearing of her child, because her parental authority, like all her legal rights, is exercised by her parents?
You are FUCKING INSANE.
right keep the parents out of it. it none of their business if their 13 year old is having an abortion because she had sex with a 35 year old man. keep it all a secret for her. i don't see any downside tho that ::)
-
You are wrong - minors are legally permitted to make all sorts of life-changing decisions, including to engage in sex if they are over the age of consent.
Wow... that's just way out there... let's see how far off the deep end you're willing to go.
- Should the parent be able to put his infant grandchild up for adoption, exercising surrogate parental authority on behalf of his daughter?
- Should the parent be able to force the child to, say, have a hysterectomy after she carries that first child to term?
- Should the parent be able to force the child to donate a lobe from her liver to save a sibling?
It has everything to do with a mentality that says that children have no rights and aren't under the care of their parents; they're under their absolute and unrestricted control.
So let's review: in your view a 13-year that becomes pregnant can be forced to carry the child to term, forced to breastfeed said child, and has no say as a parent herself in the rearing of her child, because her parental authority, like all her legal rights, is exercised by her parents?
You are FUCKING INSANE.
thinking that a 13 year old doesn't need parental guidance in a situation involving an unwanted pregnancy is INSANE. how you can't see that is ridiculous. and you are obviously not a parent.
-
Yes, minors above the age of consent can make some life-changing decisions. We don't allow 13-year-olds to do so.
Alright then.
Let's assume we have a 16-year old. She is legally allowed to consent. Can her parents prevent her from consenting because she is a minor?
Let's assume that our 16-year old chooses to consent to the advances of a guy from school. She gets pregnant. Remember, this was a decision she was legally entitled to make. Now... can you please answer the following questions about our pregnant 16 year old? A yes or no will do.
Can her parents force her to have an abortion?
Can her parents force her to carry the child to term?
Can her parents force her to breastfeed?
Can her parents exercise her own parental authority on her behalf?
Can her parents put her child up for adoption?
Can her parents force her to have a hysterectomy?
Can her parents force her to donate a kidney?
Insane? And you're same one crying about people calling you names? Can you recommend a good shrink?
I don't think calling you insane is calling you names if you really do support the positions you claim to support.
-
right keep the parents out of it. it none of their business if their 13 year old is having an abortion because she had sex with a 35 year old man. keep it all a secret for her. i don't see any downside tho that ::)
You are welcome to attack my position - and you can be sure I will defend it. What I am not going to do is defend some imaginary position that you create and then pretend is my own. Show me where I said "keep the parents out of it" (or, for that matter, where I mentioned sex the imaginary 13-year old having sex with a 35-year old).
This sort of straw-man argument is typical of you and your ilk - you can't challenge a position so you twist it and challenge that instead.
thinking that a 13 year old doesn't need parental guidance in a situation involving an unwanted pregnancy is INSANE. how you can't see that is ridiculous. and you are obviously not a parent.
Again you're attacking a position other than my own. I never said that a 13 year old doesn't need parental guidance - especially in this situation. I said something very different: namely that parents don't exercise absolute authority over their children and that their children have rights of their own. You may find this concept novel, but I assure you, it is not.
-
Alright then.
Let's assume we have a 16-year old. She is legally allowed to consent. Can her parents prevent her from consenting because she is a minor?
Let's assume that our 16-year old chooses to consent to the advances of a guy from school. She gets pregnant. Remember, this was a decision she was legally entitled to make. Now... can you please answer the following questions about our pregnant 16 year old? A yes or no will do.
Can her parents force her to have an abortion?
Can her parents force her to carry the child to term?
Can her parents force her to breastfeed?
Can her parents exercise her own parental authority on her behalf?
Can her parents put her child up for adoption?
Can her parents force her to have a hysterectomy?
Can her parents force her to donate a kidney?
I don't think calling you insane is calling you names if you really do support the positions you claim to support.
No, let's assume we're dealing with a 13 year-old who cannot consent to sex anywhere in the country and she wants to buy an abortion pill. Better yet, let's assume we're dealing with a 9 or 10-year old who is pregnant and wants to buy an abortion pill.
So someone calling you stupid is not calling you names if you really are stupid? lol
-
thinking that a 13 year old doesn't need parental guidance in a situation involving an unwanted pregnancy is INSANE. how you can't see that is ridiculous. and you are obviously not a parent.
Pretty obvious.
-
No
Aww, what's the matter? You don't want to answer questions that will show everyone just how out there your positions are? So you're going to take your ball and walk away and not play anymore? There there... I won't be mean to you anymore.
let's assume we're dealing with a 13 year-old who cannot consent to sex anywhere in the country and she wants to buy an abortion pill.
OK. Let's. What's an abortion pill? The "morning-after" pill isn't an abortion pill.
Better yet, let's assume we're dealing with a 9 or 10-year old who is pregnant and wants to buy an abortion pill.
OK. Let's assume that. Again, I'm still unsure what an "abortion pill" is. The "morning-after" pill isn't an abortion pill.
So someone calling you stupid is not calling you names if you really are stupid? lol
Would you prefer the politically correct term for insane? You didn't strike me as the politically correct type, but that's fine.
But in all seriousness: there's a different between calling someone names blindly in an attempt to win an argument and calling someone something that accurately describes their actual behavior and position.
Pretty obvious.
Interesting... Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and I'm not a parent (I'm not conceding that). If I were, I wouldn't treat my child as a slave nor claim that my authority over her is absolute and she has no rights that she can choose to exercise independently of me.
-
No, let's assume we're dealing with a 13 year-old who cannot consent to sex anywhere in the country and she wants to buy an abortion pill. Better yet, let's assume we're dealing with a 9 or 10-year old who is pregnant and wants to buy an abortion pill.
So someone calling you stupid is not calling you names if you really are stupid? lol
i know his answer already. it goes something like this
"fuck it give a 10 year old girl a overdose of progestin to prevent conception. even though there is a chance of major health problems when a child ingests progestin under no circumstances are we to inform her parents. we don't want her to get grounded."
-
Interesting... Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and I'm not a parent (I'm not conceding that). If I were, I wouldn't treat my child as a slave nor claim that my authority over her is absolute and she has no rights that she can choose to exercise independently of me.
[/quote]
you're not a parent. it's obvious
-
i know his answer already. it goes something like this
"fuck it give a 10 year old girl a overdose of progestin to prevent conception. even though there is a chance of major health problems when a child ingests progestin under no circumstances are we to inform her parents. we don't want her to get grounded."
Egads! You know me so well!
Or maybe not...
As I said, if you want to attack my position then do so. Attacking some straw man, onto which you hang a label that says "avxo's position" seems silly to me, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
you're not a parent. it's obvious
You know... I have a degree in mathematics. I hear "it's obvious" a lot when people try to prove stuff. And you know what? Everytime I've heard someone say "it's obvious"... well, it turns out that things weren't quite so obvious.
-
Aww, what's the matter? You don't want to answer questions that will show everyone just how out there your positions are? So you're going to take your ball and walk away and not play anymore? There there... I won't be mean to you anymore.
OK. Let's. What's an abortion pill? The "morning-after" pill isn't an abortion pill.
OK. Let's assume that. Again, I'm still unsure what an "abortion pill" is. The "morning-after" pill isn't an abortion pill.
Would you prefer the politically correct term for insane? You didn't strike me as the politically correct type, but that's fine.
But in all seriousness: there's a different between calling someone names blindly in an attempt to win an argument and calling someone something that accurately describes their actual behavior and position.
Interesting... Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and I'm not a parent (I'm not conceding that). If I were, I wouldn't treat my child as a slave nor claim that my authority over her is absolute and she has no rights that she can choose to exercise independently of me.
Oh yes, you got me. Overwhelmed by your powerful intellect.
I don't care about what labels you want to use. Doesn't matter to me one bit. Was just pointing out the hypocrisy.
I'm assuming you're not a parent. It's pretty obvious.
-
i know his answer already. it goes something like this
"fuck it give a 10 year old girl a overdose of progestin to prevent conception. even though there is a chance of major health problems when a child ingests progestin under no circumstances are we to inform her parents. we don't want her to get grounded."
And a 10 year old is perfectly capable of making that kind of decision on her own. Don't want them being slaves and all.
-
Oh yes, you got me. Overwhelmed by your powerful intellect.
It's got nothing to do with "powerful intellects". I find it pretty ironic that you refuse to answer questions when you feel that those questions will back you against a corner. The honest approach would be to say something "Well, I hadn't thought of that, and maybe my proposal doesn't cover all the bases, but I think that my position still serves as a good starting point." Or even "I don't think this is a practical concern."
I don't care about what labels you want to use. Doesn't matter to me one bit. Was just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Is it hypocritical to call someone who espouses racist positions a racist? If not, they why is it hypocritical to call someone who espouses crazy and extreme positions crazy and an extremist?
And a 10 year old is perfectly capable of making that kind of decision on her own. Don't want them being slaves and all.
Feel free to join in his little game - I'm not sure what attacking some imaginary position gets you, except ridicule from everyone here.
-
It's got nothing to do with "powerful intellects". I find it pretty ironic that you refuse to answer questions when you feel that those questions will back you against a corner. The honest approach would be to say something "Well, I hadn't thought of that, and maybe my proposal doesn't cover all the bases, but I think that my position still serves as a good starting point." Or even "I don't think this is a practical concern."
Is it hypocritical to call someone who espouses racist positions a racist? If not, they why is it hypocritical to call someone who espouses crazy and extreme positions crazy and an extremist?
Feel free to join in his little game - I'm not sure what attacking some imaginary position gets you, except ridicule from everyone here.
That's the beauty of the internet. Ask any question you want. Answer what you want. Ignore what you want.
We are all very concerned about being ridiculed too. The internets is serious business.
-
That's the beauty of the internet. Ask any question you want. Answer what you want. Ignore what you want.
We are all very concerned about being ridiculed too. The internets is serious business.
Now THAT is hilarious coming from you.
-
That's the beauty of the internet. Ask any question you want. Answer what you want. Ignore what you want.
Do that if you want - but then don't pretend you're engaging in serious or honest debate.
We are all very concerned about being ridiculed too. The internets is serious business.
::)
-
Do that if you want - but then don't pretend you're engaging in serious or honest debate.
::)
You don't determine what is serious or honest by asking a bunch of retarded questions.
Go back to the issue at hand. Try and understand it. Try and understand the implications of allowing someone 13 or younger access to a drug like this. That's the issue. Not whether someone should be donating a friggin kidney. lol
-
stop it. you're living in a dream world. i'm speaking the truth and you don't like to hear it.
let's put it this way. if everyone used condoms or responsibly took their birth control we wouldn't have 1.2 million abortions per year in the US. we would have something closer to 50,000. you're buying into the liberal left bullshit where abortion isn't about personal responsibility, it's about access to birth control. do you honestly think that most of the 1.2 million abortions in the US last year were because the people were using birth control and it failed? sorry but if you think that you're either fucking stupid or a virgin who doesn't know how sex works.
Contrary to popular opinion and "sexy" "attention grabbing" headlines. The majority of abortions are given to married women with children who quite frankly do not want anymore.
As for taking birth control religiously... God forbid a woman requires dental surgery, because dentists have been known to prescribe anti-biotics prior to surgery WITHOUT informing women of the ramifications and negative effects it has on oral contraceptives.
Just in... there has been a recall of the birth control pill Alysena 28. It seems it contains 2 weeks of placebo pills instead of just one. Taking sugar pills regularly... oh yeah, ...that'll stop an unplanned pregnancy in it's tracks. ::)
These compromised pills have been distributed for the past 4 months, however, women are only now being notified about the problem.
-
At any stage before birth, and in some instances after birth.
When referring to you.... YES!
-
When referring to you.... YES!
Says the most hated person on getbig.com. lol
Let me get that for you: "report to moderator." :D
-
You don't determine what is serious or honest by asking a bunch of retarded questions.
I'll let others judge whether my questions where retarded or not and how honest and sensible your answers were. If they agree with you that a parent ought to be able to force a pregnant child to carry the fetus to term and then breastfeed the infant, then something is very, very wrong.
Go back to the issue at hand. Try and understand it. Try and understand the implications of allowing someone 13 or younger access to a drug like this. That's the issue. Not whether someone should be donating a friggin kidney. lol
I understand the subject quite well. What you may not have noticed, while you were foaming at the mouth, is that I never took a particular position on the issue and merely challenged your assertions that parents exercise absolute and unrestricted authority over their children who you treat as non-entities, until the very instant they turn eighteen.
You are the one who adopts a completely unsupportable and absolutist position by arguing that parents can force a pregnant child to carry the fetus to term and then breastfeed the infant. So may I suggest that you take your own advice and try to understand the issue yourself?
-
I'll let others judge whether my questions where retarded or not and how honest and sensible your answers were. If they agree with you that a parent ought to be able to force a pregnant child to carry the fetus to term and then breastfeed the infant, then something is very, very wrong.
I understand the subject quite well. What you may not have noticed, while you were foaming at the mouth, is that I never took a particular position on the issue and merely challenged your assertions that parents exercise absolute and unrestricted authority over their children who you treat as non-entities, until the very instant they turn eighteen.
You are the one who adopts a completely unsupportable and absolutist position by arguing that parents can force a pregnant child to carry the fetus to term and then breastfeed the infant. So may I suggest that you take your own advice and try to understand the issue yourself?
Dude. Take a step back. This is a discussion board. Nobody is taking a poll about the stuff you post on here. This isn't a contest. Nobody cares what either one of us taps out here. This is not real life.
Foaming at mouth? lol Yes, from laughing. You got me again. lol
It's easier to understand something if you try and deal with the specific issue at hand, rather than running down rabbit trails with wild unrealistic hypothetical situations. It's not that hard. And I'm here to help. :)
-
I'm a hard left liberal? Really? Damn...
The weird thing about being a libertarian is that the nutjobs from the left call me a far-right loonie and the nutjobs from the right call me a far-left loonie.
Welcome to the club. :)
-
Says the most hated person on getbig.com. lol
Let me get that for you: "report to moderator." :D
I wouldn't say I'm the MOST hated, ...I may come close, ...but no cigar.
-
I wouldn't say I'm the MOST hated, ...I may come close, ...but no cigar.
I heard someone say the other day that people don't start hating on you unless you have the potential for greatness.
-
Dude. Take a step back. This is a discussion board. Nobody is taking a poll about the stuff you post on here. This isn't a contest. Nobody cares what either one of us taps out here. This is not real life.
Foaming at mouth? lol Yes, from laughing. You got me again. lol
It's easier to understand something if you try and deal with the specific issue at hand, rather than running down rabbit trails with wild unrealistic hypothetical situations. It's not that hard. And I'm here to help. :)
Good luck with that. Wannabe's like a jilted 12 year old...pathetically desperate to always get in the last word. Let me know how things go under your tutelage. :D
-
I wouldn't say I'm the MOST hated, ...I may come close, ...but no cigar.
So I wanna be like you?
And now we know the world has truly gone to hell.
-
Good luck with that. Wannabe's like a jilted 12 year old...pathetically desperate to always get in the last word. Let me know how things go under your tutelage. :D
Sound the bell, school is in, sucka! :D
-
Calling someone a hater is a diversionary tactic done when a person has nothing more constructive to contribute. It's main purpose is to put the opposition on the defensive, necessitating they defend themselves against the accusation.
Its secondary purpose is to convince oneself that it's not their assertion that is wrong but the other person is simply petty. It's pure name calling. Don't take this personally this is a general observation and not directed at any one specifically.
-
Calling someone a hater is a diversionary tactic done when a person has nothing more constructive to contribute. It's main purpose is to put the opposition on the defensive, necessitating they defend themselves against the accusation.
Its secondary purpose is to convince oneself that it's not their assertion that is wrong but the other person is simply petty. It's pure name calling. Don't take this personally this is a general observation and not directed at any one specifically.
Or you could just condesendingly point out spelling errors ;D
(not you archer, a cetian "I have no hidden agenda when I post financial collapse articles" victim.)
-
Or you could just condesendingly point out spelling errors ;D
(not you archer, a cetian "I have no hidden agenda when I post financial collapse articles" victim.)
Hey, I know that guy. ;D
-
Dude. Take a step back. This is a discussion board. Nobody is taking a poll about the stuff you post on here. This isn't a contest. Nobody cares what either one of us taps out here. This is not real life.
WHAT?! Not realy life?!?! Queue Darth Vader style "NO!!!!!"
Foaming at mouth? lol Yes, from laughing. You got me again. lol
It's easier to understand something if you try and deal with the specific issue at hand, rather than running down rabbit trails with wild unrealistic hypothetical situations. It's not that hard. And I'm here to help. :)
We were trying to deal with a specific issue. You refused to answer questions - very helpful.
-
A good percentage of the abortions performed in our area are to terminate pregnancies that resulted from incest. I was pretty surprised to learn that the typical person seeking abortion services didn't fit the stereotype.
-
Or you could just condesendingly point out spelling errors ;D
(not you archer, a cetian "I have no hidden agenda when I post financial collapse articles" victim.)
I won't even try to point out YOUR spelling errors, because the fact that you're a dick far overshadows anything I could possibly point out about your spelling.
-
I won't even try to point out YOUR spelling errors, because the fact that you're a dick far overshadows anything I could possibly point out about your spelling.
Yet, Just recently you still did any way.
I love how hypocritical you can be.
Like how you condescendly pointed out how the government lies to us then at the same time posted an article trying spin it as a "no fly zone" over America.
You are a piece of work girl, I still like ya anyway, I am not one of your "haters" :-*
-
Dude. Take a step back. This is a discussion board. Nobody is taking a poll about the stuff you post on here. This isn't a contest. Nobody cares what either one of us taps out here. This is not real life.
Foaming at mouth? lol Yes, from laughing. You got me again. lol
It's easier to understand something if you try and deal with the specific issue at hand, rather than running down rabbit trails with wild unrealistic hypothetical situations. It's not that hard. And I'm here to help. :)
why are you a moderator? you have no expertise in this area and frankly make silly posts quite often. You won't even engage in argument and deflect constantly.
signed another mod.
-
Contrary to popular opinion and "sexy" "attention grabbing" headlines. The majority of abortions are given to married women with children who quite frankly do not want anymore.
As for taking birth control religiously... God forbid a woman requires dental surgery, because dentists have been known to prescribe anti-biotics prior to surgery WITHOUT informing women of the ramifications and negative effects it has on oral contraceptives.
Just in... there has been a recall of the birth control pill Alysena 28. It seems it contains 2 weeks of placebo pills instead of just one. Taking sugar pills regularly... oh yeah, ...that'll stop an unplanned pregnancy in it's tracks. ::)
These compromised pills have been distributed for the past 4 months, however, women are only now being notified about the problem.
source? yeah we'll never see that. and yeah birth control pills are recalled all the time. YAz has killed or had severe health ramifications for over 10,000 people too. and you would want someone to give oral progestin that to your 13 year old daughter without your consent? what if there is something wrong with those? you don't care about the health risks? even though they may be small? again. im not against abortion. i'm against someone taking my 13 year old daughter to get one without my consent. and you're obviously not a parent either.
-
Contrary to popular opinion and "sexy" "attention grabbing" headlines. The majority of abortions are given to married women with children who quite frankly do not want anymore.As for taking birth control religiously... God forbid a woman requires dental surgery, because dentists have been known to prescribe anti-biotics prior to surgery WITHOUT informing women of the ramifications and negative effects it has on oral contraceptives.
Just in... there has been a recall of the birth control pill Alysena 28. It seems it contains 2 weeks of placebo pills instead of just one. Taking sugar pills regularly... oh yeah, ...that'll stop an unplanned pregnancy in it's tracks. ::)
These compromised pills have been distributed for the past 4 months, however, women are only now being notified about the problem.
may i also remind you that this was exactly what the liberals were saying back in the 1970's that ABORTION WOULD NEVER BE USED FOR. the argument for the legalization of abortion was for young, single women who had no other options. it was a last resort. which goes back to what i always say on how the entire liberal movement for womens rights was based on lies from the beginning.
-
source? yeah we'll never see that. and yeah birth control pills are recalled all the time. YAz has killed or had severe health ramifications for over 10,000 people too. and you would want someone to give oral progestin that to your 13 year old daughter without your consent? what if there is something wrong with those? you don't care about the health risks? even though they may be small? again. im not against abortion. i'm against someone taking my 13 year old daughter to get one without my consent. and you're obviously not a parent either.
i should make clear that i dont think the MAP is an abortion pill. i misspoke in my post. but i still don't want someone giving my 13 year old daughter an overdose of progestin to prevent conception without my knowledge or consent. thats just plain irreponsible.
-
why are you a moderator? you have no expertise in this area and frankly make silly posts quite often. You won't even engage in argument and deflect constantly.
signed another mod.
::)
Sincerely, a grossly underpaid mod
-
source? yeah we'll never see that. and yeah birth control pills are recalled all the time. YAz has killed or had severe health ramifications for over 10,000 people too. and you would want someone to give oral progestin that to your 13 year old daughter without your consent? what if there is something wrong with those? you don't care about the health risks? even though they may be small? again. im not against abortion. i'm against someone taking my 13 year old daughter to get one without my consent. and you're obviously not a parent either.
Agree. It really is about parental involvement.
-
i should make clear that i dont think the MAP is an abortion pill. i misspoke in my post. but i still don't want someone giving my 13 year old daughter an overdose of progestin to prevent conception without my knowledge or consent. thats just plain irreponsible.
Truth (again).
-
Agree. It really is about parental involvement.
I can't understand why that isn't just obvious to everyone. It's not about controlling or taking away rights but about being a concerned responsible parent.
-
I can't understand why that isn't just obvious to everyone. It's not about controlling or taking away rights but about being a concerned responsible parent.
Correct. I think the majority of concerned, responsible parents would agree with you.
-
Correct. I think the majority of concerned, responsible parents would agree with you.
if your 13 old daughter is knocked up I think you have to forfeit your claim to be a concerned responsible parent
-
if your 13 old daughter is knocked up I think you have to forfeit your claim to be a concerned responsible parent
I don't think this necessarily true.. Coercion and rape come to mind.
-
I don't think this necessarily true.. Coercion and rape come to mind.
fair point
I would say lets add incest to list but then one really has to forfeit the concerned responsible parent claim
-
I don't think this necessarily true.. Coercion and rape come to mind.
True. Also peer pressure, poor decision making (things inherent in young teens).
-
fair point
I would say lets add incest to list but then one really has to forfeit the concerned responsible parent claim
Incest is added to the list.
True. Also peer pressure, poor decision making (things inherent in young teens).
Members of the football team taking advantage of her while she's drunk and posting about it on the Internet.
-
if your 13 old daughter is knocked up I think you have to forfeit your claim to be a concerned responsible parent
look who's passing judgment now. fucking bible thumper.
-
if your 13 old daughter is knocked up I think you have to forfeit your claim to be a concerned responsible parent
why are they bad parents? they don't own her. she's not their slave. its her body. she can do what she wants with it.
-
Incest is added to the list.
Members of the football team taking advantage of her while she's drunk and posting about it on the Internet.
Ouch. Those boys got off with a slap on the wrist.
-
look who's passing judgment now. fucking bible thumper.
LOL @ bible thumper
I'm going on the record that if your 13 year old daughter is pregnant it's highly likely that you're not a concerned responsible parent
Furthermore, if your 13 year old child is pregnant as a result of incest then you are definitely not a concerned responsible parent
-
why are they bad parents? they don't own her. she's not their slave. its her body. she can do what she wants with it.
no doubt she has free will
btw - it takes a lot less than getting pregnant to be a bad parent in my book
My starting point is someone's stupid kids talking in a movie theater
-
LOL @ bible thumper
I'm going on the record that if your 13 year old daughter is pregnant it's highly likely that you're not a concerned responsible parent
Furthermore, if your 13 year old child is pregnant as a result of incest then you are definitely not a concerned responsible parent
because 13 year olds shouldn't be having sex right?
-
because 13 year olds shouldn't be having sex right?
I'm sure 13 years have sex everyday on this planet
as long as they shut up in a movie theater I couldn't care less what they do but their concerned responsible parents might want to re-evaluate themselves a bit
-
I'm sure 13 years have sex everyday on this planet
as long as they shut up in a movie theater I couldn't care less what they do but their concerned responsible parents might want to re-evaluate themselves a bit
any way you slice it you obviously think 13 year olds shouldn't be having sex thats why you pass judgment on the parents of 13 year olds who get pregnant. you believe in practicing abstinence but its not the "cool thing" to say anymore.
i totally agree with you that 13 year olds shouldn't be having sex i just don't believe that a 13 year olds parents are "bad parents" if their child gets in trouble. especially when they see and hear all of the adults around them mocking and ridiculing the conservatives promoting abstinence for young teens. they're simply a product of their environment. maybe not you personally but most pro choice advocates who mock conservatives for preaching abstinence and label them as "judgmental" are themselves guilty of it. they believe in a girls choice to abort but they secretly despise the girls who do.
-
any way you slice it you obviously think 13 year olds shouldn't be having sex thats why you pass judgment on the parents of 13 year olds who get pregnant. you believe in practicing abstinence but its not the "cool thing" to say anymore.
i totally agree with you that 13 year olds shouldn't be having sex i just don't believe that a 13 year olds parents are "bad parents" if their child gets in trouble. especially when they see and hear all of the adults around them mocking and ridiculing the conservatives promoting abstinence for young teens. they're simply a product of their environment. maybe not you personally but most pro choice advocates who mock conservatives for preaching abstinence and label them as "judgmental" are themselves guilty of it. they believe in a girls choice to abort but they secretly despise the girls who do.
when did I say I believe in practicing abstinence ?
All I said is the starting point of being a "non responsible concerned parent" is a lot sooner than when your 13 year old daughter gets knocked up
make sure your kids don't talk in the movies and maybe keep them out of my way when I'm at the grocery store and I really don't give a shit what they do
-
when did I say I believe in practicing abstinence ?
All I said is the starting point of being a "non responsible concerned parent" is a lot sooner than when your 13 year old daughter gets knocked up
make sure your kids don't talk in the movies and maybe keep them out of my way when I'm at the grocery store and I really don't give a shit what they do
so what are you saying? you stated that you're a bad parent if your 13 year old gets pregnant. so wouldn't it stand to reason that you're a bad parent if you're 13 year old is having sex? so wouldn't that opinion be promoting abstinence?
-
if your 13 old daughter is knocked up I think you have to forfeit your claim to be a concerned responsible parent
-
reminds me of a conversation i had with one of my dads pro choice friends. this is almost verbatim.
him: "we're all God's children. who are these pro life people to pass judgment on a person who has an abortion?"
me: "abortion is 99% of the time two people who were irresponsible with their sex life. thats why we have so many abortions. because people behaved irresponsibly. doesn't mean that they're bad people. it just means they fucked up and instead of taking responsibility for the life that they created, they aborted it. i don't judge them. i don;t know what i would do in that situation. i know that the easy solution would be to abort. i'm just not sold on that being the right thing to do"
him: "have you ever known anyone who had an abortion?"
me: "most of my friends had abortions in college"
him : "well that just goes to show the type of people you surround yourself with"
me: "excuse me!!!!!??????"
-
reminds me of a conversation i had with one of my dads pro choice friends. this is almost verbatim.
him: "we're all God's children. who are these pro life people to pass judgment on a person who has an abortion?"
me: "abortion is 99% of the time two people who were irresponsible with their sex life. thats why we have so many abortions. because people behaved irresponsibly. doesn't mean that they're bad people. it just means they fucked up and instead of taking responsibility for the life that they created, they aborted it. i don't judge them. i don;t know what i would do in that situation. i know that the easy solution would be to abort. i'm just not sold on that being the right thing to do"
him: "have you ever known anyone who had an abortion?"
me: "most of my friends had abortions in college"
him : "well that just goes to show the type of people you surround yourself with"
me: "excuse me!!!!!??????"
lol
-
reminds me of a conversation i had with one of my dads pro choice friends. this is almost verbatim.
him: "we're all God's children. who are these pro life people to pass judgment on a person who has an abortion?"
me: "abortion is 99% of the time two people who were irresponsible with their sex life. thats why we have so many abortions. because people behaved irresponsibly. doesn't mean that they're bad people. it just means they fucked up and instead of taking responsibility for the life that they created, they aborted it. i don't judge them. i don;t know what i would do in that situation. i know that the easy solution would be to abort. i'm just not sold on that being the right thing to do"
him: "have you ever known anyone who had an abortion?"
me: "most of my friends had abortions in college"
him : "well that just goes to show the type of people you surround yourself with"
me: "excuse me!!!!!??????"
everyone passes judgement on others everyday
don't you do it yourself?
-
everyone passes judgement on others everyday
don't you do it yourself?
try not to but yeah i do sometimes.
-
the point i'm trying to make is that it seems that anytime someone speaks out against anything concerning abortion they are the ones being accused of being "holier than thou" and "judgmental". just because someone doesn't agree with letting a child take a MAP doesn't mean they;re trying to "control the child's body" or "enslave them".
like i said before. i see both sides of the argument. neither side has this thing figured out.
i will say this though. that once science advances past a certain point in human genome research abortion will start getting real ugly real fast. and it could ultimately create huge problems for humanity. we're getting a taste of it right now in India. boys are being born at a much higher rate than the girls because the families abort most of the girls. it is creating a huge population problem and severely affecting the treatment of women. so now ironically we have American feminist groups going there and trying to reduce the abortion of girls. so back here in the US their "keep your laws off my body" signs are put in a closet before they fly off to india to try and place laws on people's bodies. i do think what they're doing is right but find it disturbing how they don't see the disconnect. i mean this is what they asked for. trust me this issue is only going to become more complicated. it's not getting any better.
-
the point i'm trying to make is that it seems that anytime someone speaks out against anything concerning abortion they are the ones being accused of being "holier than thou" and "judgmental". just because someone doesn't agree with letting a child take a MAP doesn't mean they;re trying to "control the child's body" or "enslave them".
like i said before. i see both sides of the argument. neither side has this thing figured out.
i will say this though. that once science advances past a certain point in human genome research abortion will start getting real ugly real fast. and it could ultimately create huge problems for humanity. we're getting a taste of it right now in India. boys are being born at a much higher rate than the girls because the families abort most of the girls. it is creating a huge population problem and severely affecting the treatment of women. so now ironically we have American feminist groups going there and trying to reduce the abortion of girls. so back here in the US their "keep your laws off my body" signs are put in a closet before they fly off to india to try and place laws on people's bodies. i do think what they're doing is right but find it disturbing how they don't see the disconnect. i mean this is what they asked for. trust me this issue is only going to become more complicated. it's not getting any better.
no offense but I don't trust your judgement regarding the dubious conclusions in your post nor the predictions for the future
-
no offense but I don't trust your judgement regarding the dubious conclusions in your post nor the predictions for the future
no offense but if you don't see where this is going i seriously doubt your intelligence. and whats happening in India is NOT the future. it's happening right now. but you choose to ignore it because you've already closed your mind and chosen up sides. any real problems abortion might cause you have already chosen to ignore. you don't want to hear it.
-
no offense but if you don't see where this is going i seriously doubt your intelligence. and whats happening in India is NOT the future. it's happening right now. but you choose to ignore it because you've already closed your mind and chosen up sides. any real problems abortion might cause you have already chosen to ignore. you don't want to hear it.
yeah because our cultures are so similar and women were treated so wonderfully there until just recently when they were able to determine the sex of the unborn child and had access to abortion
-
Yet, Just recently you still did any way.
I love how hypocritical you can be.
Like how you condescendly pointed out how the government lies to us then at the same time posted an article trying spin it as a "no fly zone" over America.
I didn't "spin" anything. I posted an attention grabbing headline, and posted the video clip.
What was untruthful about the attention grabbing headline? Is Arkansas no longer a part of the USA?
You are a piece of work girl, I still like ya anyway, I am not one of your "haters" :-*
I am an amazing piece of work, ...and of course you do because I'm just so incredibly loveable. Yes I am. :D
-
yeah because our cultures are so similar and women were treated so wonderfully there until just recently when they were able to determine the sex of the unborn child and had access to abortion
right you'll tout the positive effects of abortion (less children growing up in poverty, less crime, etc) but the possible negative effects you patently dismiss. you don't want to hear it. thats just willful ignorance dude. wake the fuck up.
-
right you'll tout the positive effects of abortion (less children growing up in poverty, less crime, etc) but the possible negative effects you patently dismiss. you don't want to hear it. thats just willful ignorance dude. wake the fuck up.
I've actually never touted any positive effects of abortion on this thread but probably have in others but that has nothing to do with why I dismiss your claims.
I dismiss them because they are ridiculous. While I don't deny that female fetuses are aborted a greater rate in India it's due to specific cultural tendencies that simply don't exist in this country and never will.
Furthermore, it's not like access to abortion created this cultural tendency. It precedes the advent of widespread access to abortion
Why is there such deadly discrimination against girls? Part of the answer is money. Girls are a financial burden to their parents, who must pay expensive dowries to marry them off. The dowry is a cultural tradition and the single biggest reason Indians prefer boys.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-pregnant-girls-pressured-abortions-india/story?id=15103950#.UWTD2pPvtro
When it becomes the cultural norm in this country for families to pay expensive dowries to marry off their female offspring and they start aborting the female fetuses then get back in touch with me.
Until then, I'm not losing any sleep over it. If you want to get panicked about it then go right ahead
-
I didn't "spin" anything. I posted an attention grabbing headline, and posted the video clip.
What was untruthful about the attention grabbing headline? Is Arkansas no longer a part of the USA?
I am an amazing piece of work, ...and of course you do because I'm just so incredibly loveable. Yes I am. :D
No what you posted was spin. Purposely spun for retards.
Should we say now that there is a no fly zone over earth? How about over the solor system? The milky way?
Additionally it wasn't what is classically accepted as a no fly zone.
A no-fly zone (or no-flight zone) is a territory or an area over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky, and usually prohibit military aircraft of a belligerent nation from operating in the region.
( per wiki)
Again you complian that our government lies yet you fall prey to any old stupid lie by anyone.
Between you, Jack or Ahmed, I don't know who is the worse at making a legit argument.
-
why are they bad parents? they don't own her. she's not their slave. its her body. she can do what she wants with it.
If that's the case, shouldn't the decision to take or not take the morning-after pill be hers? After all, it is, as you so aptly put it, "her body and she can do what she wants with it." Right?
[I am being somewhat facetious here - obviously I don't believe that this hypothetical 13-year old we're arguing about should have absolute authority to really do what she wants, although I don't believe that her parents have absolute authority to do what they want either.]
-
I've actually never touted any positive effects of abortion on this thread but probably have in others but that has nothing to do with why I dismiss your claims.
I dismiss them because they are ridiculous. While I don't deny that female fetuses are aborted a greater rate in India it's due to specific cultural tendencies that simply don't exist in this country and never will.
Furthermore, it's not like access to abortion created this cultural tendency. It precedes the advent of widespread access to abortion
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-pregnant-girls-pressured-abortions-india/story?id=15103950#.UWTD2pPvtro
When it becomes the cultural norm in this country for families to pay expensive dowries to marry off their female offspring and they start aborting the female fetuses then get back in touch with me.
Until then, I'm not losing any sleep over it. If you want to get panicked about it then go right ahead
your small minded thinking only allows you to contemplate the specific situation in India as a potential problem in the US. Don't you think there are other negative effects that may evince themselves in the future? specific to the US? I use India as an EXAMPLE of how abortion can pose a problem. there are other problems that may or may not occur. and these need to be addressed BEFORE they happen. sure the US won't have a problem with aborting girls. so thats it for you huh? you KNOW there couldn't possibly be any other potential problems? seriously, you're an idiot. you can't even admit the possibility of a potential negative effect of abortion because of your loyalty to your ideology. it's very simple. i'm thinking past the tip of my own nose, you're trying to win an argument because you defend to the death anything ABORTION.
-
If that's the case, shouldn't the decision to take or not take the morning-after pill be hers? After all, it is, as you so aptly put it, "her body and she can do what she wants with it." Right?
[I am being somewhat facetious here - obviously I don't believe that this hypothetical 13-year old we're arguing about should have absolute authority to really do what she wants, although I don't believe that her parents have absolute authority to do what they want either.]
to be perfectly honest its hard to disagree with you on this one. this is a tough one. a 13 year old pregnant girl is never a good situation. but all i know is that as a parent, i don't want my CHILD to be able to be given an overdose of progestin without my consent. I want to be the one who takes care of my kid. i want to be PART of the decision. for the government to step in and say that I don't deserve to be part of that decision is unfair. THERE ARE RISKS. getting pregnant as a 13 year old is bad enough. now the government wants to help these 13 year olds hide these pregnancies from their parents. thats really all this is about. and i am not sold on the fact that its a good idea.
-
your small minded thinking only allows you to contemplate the specific situation in India as a potential problem in the US. Don't you think there are other negative effects that may evince themselves in the future? specific to the US? I use India as an EXAMPLE of how abortion can pose a problem. there are other problems that may or may not occur. and these need to be addressed BEFORE they happen. sure the US won't have a problem with aborting girls. so thats it for you huh? you KNOW there couldn't possibly be any other potential problems? seriously, you're an idiot. you can't even admit the possibility of a potential negative effect of abortion because of your loyalty to your ideology. it's very simple. i'm thinking past the tip of my own nose, you're trying to win an argument because you defend to the death anything ABORTION.
yes, you used India an example and I pointed out that the treatment of woman in India wasn't caused by abortion (read the article I posted - girls are also just abandoned and murdered along with being aborted).
those specific cultural problems are not going to happen here so your entire premise is false it two ways (not caused by access to abortion and never going to happen here)
If you want to choose to ignore these facts then go right ahead but don't expect me to do the same thing
-
yes, you used India an example and I pointed out that the treatment of woman in India wasn't caused by abortion (read the article I posted - girls are also just abandoned and murdered along with being aborted).
those specific cultural problems are not going to happen here so your entire premise is false it two ways (not caused by access to abortion and never going to happen here)
If you want to choose to ignore these facts then go right ahead but don't expect me to do the same thing
like i said, small minded thinker.
-
like i said, small minded thinker.
like I said, you imagined a problem (Indians were killing off female children before abortion existed) and then insist I take your imaginary problem seriously and worry that the same imaginary problem will somehow happen here
I see no reason to believe that American are going to suddenly start aborting female fetuses
If you want to believe that's going to happen then feel free
-
like I said, you imagined a problem (Indians were killing off female children before abortion existed) and then insist I take your imaginary problem seriously and worry that the same imaginary problem will somehow happen here
I see no reason to believe that American are going to suddenly start aborting female fetuses
If you want to believe that's going to happen then feel free
i believe that there's a POTENTIAL for the irresponsible utilization of abortion in the US. what it will be? i don't know.
but do you think back in the 1930's people thought that court cases where we would have to make decisions on who has the rights to a child born by a surrogate mother? by a child born from a sperm donor? no. back then anyone who saw that the advancement of science would create these issues would have been shot down by you as well. because you wouldn't have been able to process the implications that science would have on parental rights 80 years in the future. thats why we have what is called the study of bioethics. the study of bioethics exists because these people know that people like you do not think about the ramifications that advances in biology and medicine have on a populace.
i'm only bringing to everyone's attention that we will face more complex issues in the future. and you shit a brick. because you have been trained by tv to defend everything abortion. like i said. small minded.
-
to be perfectly honest its hard to disagree with you on this one. this is a tough one. a 13 year old pregnant girl is never a good situation. but all i know is that as a parent, i don't want my CHILD to be able to be given an overdose of progestin without my consent. I want to be the one who takes care of my kid. i want to be PART of the decision. for the government to step in and say that I don't deserve to be part of that decision is unfair. THERE ARE RISKS. getting pregnant as a 13 year old is bad enough. now the government wants to help these 13 year olds hide these pregnancies from their parents. thats really all this is about. and i am not sold on the fact that its a good idea.
I understand and agree - it is tough. It may surprise you to know that I actually agree with you generally, even if we might disagree about some specifics. As a parent, I too would want to be informed and involved and be a part of the decision, because that's what parents are supposed to do.
My positions are:
- Make the pill available over the counter;
- Require pharmacists to either dispense it or have someone else dispense it if they have personal objections;
- Make it available without parental notification if the person asking is over the age of consent.
My other point (which angered some of you) was that, faced with a pregnant teen, the scope of a parent's authority becomes a little muddier. These are difficult issues...
Ask yourself, seriously and dispassionately: can a parent decide, on behalf of his or her pregnant minor daughter, to continue an unwanted pregnancy? Can that parent force the minor to subsequently care for the infant (e.g. by requiring that she breast feed the infant)? Can the parent put the newborn infant up for adoption, without the Mother's consent? Remember, the teen is now a parent herself - so the very authority you are arguing allows the parent to do that is the authority that the teen now possesses.
It's unlikely that we can codify every possible situation in the law, but these are questions that inform us on how we want to structure the law and what the intent behind it should be. My position is that a minor is still an independent human being with rights and that she has a real interest in the decisions made on her behalf by her parents. As such, she should at least have a voice in those decisions and sometimes that voice should be heard loudly and respected.
-
I understand and agree - it is tough. It may surprise you to know that I actually agree with you generally, even if we might disagree about some specifics. As a parent, I too would want to be informed and involved and be a part of the decision, because that's what parents are supposed to do.
My positions are:
- Make the pill available over the counter;
- Require pharmacists to either dispense it or have someone else dispense it if they have personal objections;
- Make it available without parental notification if the person asking is over the age of consent.
My other point (which angered some of you) was that, faced with a pregnant teen, the scope of a parent's authority becomes a little muddier. These are difficult issues...
Ask yourself, seriously and dispassionately: can a parent decide, on behalf of his or her pregnant minor daughter, to continue an unwanted pregnancy? Can that parent force the minor to subsequently care for the infant (e.g. by requiring that she breast feed the infant)? Can the parent put the newborn infant up for adoption, without the Mother's consent? Remember, the teen is now a parent herself - so the very authority you are arguing allows the parent to do that is the authority that the teen now possesses.
It's unlikely that we can codify every possible situation in the law, but these are questions that inform us on how we want to structure the law and what the intent behind it should be. My position is that a minor is still an independent human being with rights and that she has a real interest in the decisions made on her behalf by her parents. As such, she should at least have a voice in those decisions and sometimes that voice should be heard loudly and respected.
well said. unfortunately it seems like people like yourself, who understand that there are downsides as well as upsides to things like this are fewer and far between every day. it seems like the gut reaction to every story like this is to quickly defer to one of the two the generic ideologies presented to us on television as opposed to taking the time to think about what you actually believe is right and just. thats the power of mass media. dumbing down and making zombies out of all of us.
-
Parents are granted the right to decide for their children in issue of a medical nature. The assumption being that an adult has a better grasp on complex issues than a child. As I said from the beginning, it's perfectly reasonable under the law to allow a teen who is of the age of consent to purchase the morning after pill.
As a parent, I can't imagine how I would react to finding out my thirteen year old daughter is pregnant. Would I force her to keep the child or abort? Personally I think I wouldn't, and there is definitely a gray area in terms of what comes next. What I do know is that I should be notified so that I can help my child deal with the situation on an emotionally level. I also do not feel comfortable with allowing a child access to medication with out the supervision of a competent adult and/or medical professional.
-
No what you posted was spin. Purposely spun for retards.
Should we say now that there is a no fly zone over earth? How about over the solor system? The milky way?
Additionally it wasn't what is classically accepted as a no fly zone.
A no-fly zone (or no-flight zone) is a territory or an area over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky, and usually prohibit military aircraft of a belligerent nation from operating in the region.
( per wiki)
Again you complian that our government lies yet you fall prey to any old stupid lie by anyone.
Between you, Jack or Ahmed, I don't know who is the worse at making a legit argument.
Was there or was there not a no-fly zone imposed over the area of the oil spill, ...which was located in the USA?
-
I understand and agree - it is tough. It may surprise you to know that I actually agree with you generally, even if we might disagree about some specifics. As a parent, I too would want to be informed and involved and be a part of the decision, because that's what parents are supposed to do.
My positions are:
- Make the pill available over the counter;
- Require pharmacists to either dispense it or have someone else dispense it if they have personal objections;
- Make it available without parental notification if the person asking is over the age of consent.
My other point (which angered some of you) was that, faced with a pregnant teen, the scope of a parent's authority becomes a little muddier. These are difficult issues...
Ask yourself, seriously and dispassionately: can a parent decide, on behalf of his or her pregnant minor daughter, to continue an unwanted pregnancy? Can that parent force the minor to subsequently care for the infant (e.g. by requiring that she breast feed the infant)? Can the parent put the newborn infant up for adoption, without the Mother's consent? Remember, the teen is now a parent herself - so the very authority you are arguing allows the parent to do that is the authority that the teen now possesses.
It's unlikely that we can codify every possible situation in the law, but these are questions that inform us on how we want to structure the law and what the intent behind it should be. My position is that a minor is still an independent human being with rights and that she has a real interest in the decisions made on her behalf by her parents. As such, she should at least have a voice in those decisions and sometimes that voice should be heard loudly and respected.
Dang!!! We really are in a parallel universe. :D
-
Parents are granted the right to decide for their children in issue of a medical nature. The assumption being that an adult has a better grasp on complex issues than a child. As I said from the beginning, it's perfectly reasonable under the law to allow a teen who is of the age of consent to purchase the morning after pill.
As a parent, I can't imagine how I would react to finding out my thirteen year old daughter is pregnant. Would I force her to keep the child or abort? Personally I think I wouldn't, and there is definitely a gray area in terms of what comes next. What I do know is that I should be notified so that I can help my child deal with the situation on an emotionally level. I also do not feel comfortable with allowing a child access to medication with out the supervision of a competent adult and/or medical professional.
What's to deal with on an emotional level? She's not having an abortion... she's preventing conception.
Are you Catholic or something? I think even Pope John Paul II came out in favour of contraception.
-
Was there or was there not a no-fly zone imposed over the area of the oil spill, ...which was located in the USA?
Did it meet the definition?
I'll answer for you. "NO"
Its called a "temporary flight restriction." over the area of the spill. Not uncommon.
But to "Hater's of America" and the Alex Jones Retard Cult, its a "No fly Zone over America"
-
No what you posted was spin. Purposely spun for retards.
....
Between you, Jack or Ahmed, I don't know who is the worse at making a legit argument.
How's this for straight talk... Stop being a useless dick by attempting to subvert the thread off topic in order to attack a poster. >:(
-
What's to deal with on an emotional level? She's not having an abortion... she's preventing conception.
Are you Catholic or something? I think even Pope John Paul II came out in favour of contraception.
It's medical treatment. I'm an atheist. Are you seriously asking what a pregnant 13 year old would have to deal with emotionally? How about a kid getting pregnant and having to make serious adult choices about her life. You don't have kids. Cats don't count
-
How's this for straight talk... Stop being a useless dick by attempting to subvert the thread off topic in order to attack a poster. >:(
Funny, you not only attack him but you also started throwing out accusations against me to divert the conversation. You don't get this whole exchange of ideas thing.
-
It's medical treatment. I'm an atheist. Are you seriously asking what a pregnant 13 year old would have to deal with emotionally? How about a kid getting pregnant and having to make serious adult choices about her life. You don't have kids. Cats don't count
That's about her having sex. I completely understand a parent wanting to know if their child is sexually active, ...however, if she has access to the morning after pill, getting pregnant won't be an issue that she would have to deal with emotionally. I don't have cats.
There's a big difference between wanting to know, ..and having the right to know. And if you desire to be notified, I'd say that depends entirely on the relationship you establish with your child BEFORE she winds up in a situation where she requires emergency contraception. If you do your job as a parent properly, you WILL be notified... BY YOUR CHILD and would have no need to leave it up to the state to effect a situation your failure brings about.
Do you demand to know if your son purchases condoms?
-
How's this for straight talk... Stop being a useless dick by attempting to subvert the thread off topic in order to attack a poster. >:(
What's a matter Jags? CAN'T HANDLE THE FUCKING TRUTH????????????????????????????
Try living in reality.
Owning you is too easy.
Its pretty sad too that you have digressed to name calling and pointing out spelling errors instead of supporting your pathetic arguments,
Maybe its a sign that you really don't have any real arguments.
Maybe Monsanto controls you.
-
That's about her having sex. I completely understand a parent wanting to know if their child is sexually active, ...however, if she has access to the morning after pill, getting pregnant won't be an issue that she would have to deal with emotionally. I don't have cats.
There's a big difference between wanting to know, ..and having the right to know. And if you desire to be notified, I'd say that depends entirely on the relationship you establish with your child BEFORE she winds up in a situation where she requires emergency contraception. If you do your job as a parent properly, you WILL be notified... BY YOUR CHILDand would have no need to leave it up to the state to effect a situation your failure brings about.
Do you demand to know if your son purchases condoms?
Condoms aren't a medication. Condoms are not used to treat a medical condition. As the father of a minor it is my responsibility and right to be made aware of any medical treatment given to my child. As I said before, the morning after pill should not be sold over the counter to anyone under the age of consent. The law is established, the guidelines are clear.
-
What's to deal with on an emotional level? She's not having an abortion... she's preventing conception.
Are you Catholic or something? I think even Pope John Paul II came out in favour of contraception.
seriously? your post about a 13 year old getting pregnant and having to take a pill to prevent conception is
"What's to deal with on an emotional level? She's not having an abortion... "
dude come on.
-
Condoms aren't a medication. Condoms are not used to treat a medical condition. As the father of a minor it is my responsibility and right to be made aware of any medical treatment given to my child. As I said before, the morning after pill should not be sold over the counter to anyone under the age of consent. The law is established, the guidelines are clear.
I understand where you're coming from, and I have to admit, I would want to be notified as well, however, as I said, want to know, and having the right to know are two different things. I think prohibiting it's sale could lead to far more unwanted pregnancies and far more abortions, ...and far more emotional things to deal with that could be precluded by simple availability of emergency contraception.
-
seriously? your post about a 13 year old getting pregnant and having to take a pill to prevent conception is
"What's to deal with on an emotional level? She's not having an abortion... "
dude come on.
She's not pregnant YET, ...but taking a MAP could prevent a pregnancy.
...and I'm a dudette. :)
-
That's about her having sex. I completely understand a parent wanting to know if their child is sexually active, ...however, if she has access to the morning after pill, getting pregnant won't be an issue that she would have to deal with emotionally. I don't have cats.
There's a big difference between wanting to know, ..and having the right to know. And if you desire to be notified, I'd say that depends entirely on the relationship you establish with your child BEFORE she winds up in a situation where she requires emergency contraception. If you do your job as a parent properly, you WILL be notified... BY YOUR CHILD and would have no need to leave it up to the state to effect a situation your failure brings about.
Do you demand to know if your son purchases condoms?
fair enough point. i'll give you that. i WANT to know if my son buys rubbers. i think i have a right to know if my daughter is taking an overdose of progestin to prevent conception. i want to be part of that decision
-
I understand where you're coming from, and I have to admit, I would want to be notified as well, however, as I said, want to know, and having the right to know are two different things. I think prohibiting it's sale could lead to far more unwanted pregnancies and far more abortions, ...and far more emotional things to deal with that could be precluded by simple availability of emergency contraception.
I think there is enough wrong with an underage girl being pregnant that facilitates someone being notified. A doctor and a teacher are required by law to report any indication of potential abuse to the authorities for the safety and well being of the child. The implications of an underage kid walking into a drug store looking for the morning after pill is more than enough reason for somebody in authority to be made aware.
-
She's not pregnant YET, ...but taking a MAP could prevent a pregnancy.
...and I'm a dudette. :)
and i'm sorry but as an adult. if a 13 year old comes to me and tells me shes pregnant, i'm most probably going to tell her parents. i'm not going to just point her in the direction of a MAP and wish her good luck. you're defending an ideology you've been brainwashed to defend at any cost. thats why you see no problem with a pregnant 13 year old.
-
and i'm sorry but as an adult. if a 13 year old comes to me and tells me shes pregnant, i'm most probably going to tell her parents. i'm not going to just point her in the direction of a MAP and wish her good luck. you're defending an ideology you've been brainwashed to defend at any cost. thats why you see no problem with a pregnant 13 year old.
I haven't been brainwashed to defend anything and I do see a problem with a pregnant 13 yr old, ...however,
having been a 13 yr old girl, and having had far more access to the mind of 13 yr old girls who come up pregnant, it is my belief that a 13 yr old SHOULD have access to a MAP.
I'm speaking to you from a female perspective, ...not that of a male parent.
...or maybe I'm just overly biased and emotional after having discovered I'm about to become a grandmother for the 2nd time. :'(
-
I haven't been brainwashed to defend anything and I do see a problem with a pregnant 13 yr old, ...however,
having been a 13 yr old girl, and having had far more access to the mind of 13 yr old girls who come up pregnant, it is my belief that a 13 yr old SHOULD have access to a MAP.
I'm speaking to you from a female perspective, ...not that of a male parent.
...or maybe I'm just overly biased and emotional after having discovered I'm about to become a grandmother for the 2nd time. :'(
No one is trying to deny anyone anything. I also don't appreciate the sexism.
-
I haven't been brainwashed to defend anything and I do see a problem with a pregnant 13 yr old, ...however,
having been a 13 yr old girl, and having had far more access to the mind of 13 yr old girls who come up pregnant, it is my belief that a 13 yr old SHOULD have access to a MAP.
I'm speaking to you from a female perspective, ...not that of a male parent.
...or maybe I'm just overly biased and emotional after having discovered I'm about to become a grandmother for the 2nd time. :'(
you said that there is no reason to be worried about the emotional damage a 13 year old may experience if they have to go get a MAP and prevent a pregnancy. enough said. put down the fucking shovel grandma.
-
What's to deal with on an emotional level? She's not having an abortion... she's preventing conception.
Are you Catholic or something? I think even Pope John Paul II came out in favour of contraception.
idiot. sorry. but......idiot
-
No one is trying to deny anyone anything. I also don't appreciate the sexism.
Sorry. I don't mean to be sexist, ...but I do believe there are different perspectives at play.
-
Sorry. I don't mean to be sexist, ...but I do believe there are different perspectives at play.
there shouldn't be different perspectives as to the concern that there may be some emotional baggage from a 13 year old having a pregnancy scare. dude. she's fucking 13!!! worst........grandma.... .....ever.
-
idiot. sorry. but......idiot
LOL, ...ya, I gotta admit that was a pretty stupid, and inarticulate response. ;D
I was thinking about the emotional baggage that comes with having to decide between abortion, carrying to term, adoption, raising a child etc.,
-
LOL, ...ya, I gotta admit that was a pretty stupid, and inarticulate response. ;D
I was thinking about the emotional baggage that comes with having to decide between abortion, carrying to term, adoption, raising a child etc.,
ok. maybe you forgot we were talking about a 13 year old. sorry.
-
there shouldn't be different perspectives as to the concern that there may be some emotional baggage from a 13 year old having a pregnancy scare. dude. she's fucking 13!!! worst........grandma.... .....ever.
The ideal emotional baggage from a pregnancy scare at 13 ...is that she inserts a quarter between her knees, presses so hard, and never releases it, until her honeymooon. There'll be the imprint of the Queen on her right knee, and a moose on her left. {sigh} if only.
And I'm a fantastic grandma. My daughters from other mothers are 24 & 21. I'm not so worried about the 24 yr old. She's got a great head on her shoulders, is in a stable loving 7 yr relationship with a good man, and she's financially very well secured. ...and she's given me a gorgeous little grand daughter. The 21 yr old however... OY! What a wild child!!! :o
-
The ideal emotional baggage from a pregnancy scare at 13 ...is that she inserts a quarter between her knees, presses so hard, and never releases it, until her honeymooon. There'll be the imprint of the Queen on her right knee, and a moose on her left. {sigh} if only.
And I'm a fantastic grandma. My daughters from other mothers are 24 & 21. I'm not so worried about the 24 yr old. She's got a great head on her shoulders, is in a stable loving 7 yr relationship with a good man, and she's financially very well secured. ...and she's given me a gorgeous little grand daughter. The 21 yr old however... OY! What a wild child!!! :o
my biggest worry when i was 13 was algebra.
-
If you do your job as a parent properly, you WILL be notified... BY YOUR CHILD and would have no need to leave it up to the state to effect a situation your failure brings about.
Pretty judgmental. And wrong. I know lots of parents who are good parents with kids who do stupid things. Kids don't always talk to their parents. And they are extremely reluctant to volunteer bad information to their parents.
Teenagers do some pretty dumb stuff. It's part of the growing and maturing process.
-
I think there is enough wrong with an underage girl being pregnant that facilitates someone being notified. A doctor and a teacher are required by law to report any indication of potential abuse to the authorities for the safety and well being of the child. The implications of an underage kid walking into a drug store looking for the morning after pill is more than enough reason for somebody in authority to be made aware.
Agree.
-
my biggest worry when i was 13 was algebra.
I knew many girls that were pregnant at 13. They will tell their friends before they told their parents.
By the time they got around to telling their parents, ...or more accurately, by the time their parents discovered, all choices decisions were out of everyone's hands, ...especially in the case of one particular girl.
I can't help but think how much differently her life could have turned out had she had a MAP then.
-
Pretty judgmental. And wrong.
Perhaps :-\
I know lots of parents who are good parents with kids who do stupid things. Kids don't always talk to their parents. And they are extremely reluctant to volunteer bad information to their parents.
Agreed. That's why I think it is so important that a teen who wishes to prevent conception be allowed to do so in a time-sensitive situation. The reluctance to volunteer information to parents, or to have information disclosed to parents can have life changing ramifications on a child's future.
Teenagers do some pretty dumb stuff. It's part of the growing and maturing process.
Yep. Even adults do some pretty dumb stuff.
-
I knew many girls that were pregnant at 13. They will tell their friends before they told their parents.
By the time they got around to telling their parents, ...or more accurately, by the time their parents discovered, all choices decisions were out of everyone's hands, ...especially in the case of one particular girl.
I can't help but think how much differently her life could have turned out had she had a MAP then.
no one is arguing the convenience of MAP's or abortions for that matter. yes they temporarily solve a problem. bottom line is that girl, pregnancy or no pregnancy, was having sex at 13 fucking years old. and i highly doubt the first time she had sex she got pregnant. her problems were just beginning. a MAP would have been a band aid for a while but come on. her life was going to be fucked from the get go. and if she had an abortion, she would probably just have had more abortions later on. almost 40% of abortions are repeat abortions. we dont use it as a last resort. we use it as a form of birth control. which is exactly what the liberals in the 1970's swore up and down abortion would not turn into.
i couldn't even conceptualize a sex life at 13. and i wasn't a prude either. my point is that her problem was not that she didn't have access to MAPS for christs sake. a 13 year old is a baby.
-
no one is arguing the convenience of MAP's or abortions for that matter. yes they temporarily solve a problem. bottom line is that girl, pregnancy or no pregnancy, was having sex at 13 fucking years old. and i highly doubt the first time she had sex she got pregnant. her problems were just beginning. a MAP would have been a band aid for a while but come on. her life was going to be fucked from the get go. and if she had an abortion, she would probably just have had more abortions later on. almost 40% of abortions are repeat abortions. we dont use it as a last resort. we use it as a form of birth control. which is exactly what the liberals in the 1970's swore up and down abortion would not turn into.
i couldn't even conceptualize a sex life at 13. and i wasn't a prude either. my point is that her problem was not that she didn't have access to MAPS for christs sake. a 13 year old is a baby.
Actually, as a matter of fact, ...it WAS her first time having sex. And without putting all her business out there, I can't think of a more perfect scenario for the necessity of a MAP. The MAP was tailor made for her situation. However, because they weren't around then, she ended up dropping out of school in the 9th grade. Her older sister died in a car accident a few years later, and everyone passed the child off as her sister's child that she was raising. To this very day she will still not admit to having had a child out of wedlock, and the charade is still going on. Despite having married and having subsequent children with her husband, she still calls her daughter her niece, and her daughter thinks her half-sisters are her cousins. I fear what will happen when her daughter finds out the truth. A lie like that cannot live forever, ...especially when so many people know the truth. The truth always comes out in the end. :'(
-
i couldn't even conceptualize a sex life at 13. and i wasn't a prude either.
That's because you were a 13 yr old geek who masturbated to national geographic. ;D j/k
-
Actually, as a matter of fact, ...it WAS her first time having sex. And without putting all her business out there, I can't think of a more perfect scenario for the necessity of a MAP. The MAP was tailor made for her situation. However, because they weren't around then, she ended up dropping out of school in the 9th grade. Her older sister died in a car accident a few years later, and everyone passed the child off as her sister's child that she was raising. To this very day she will still not admit to having had a child out of wedlock, and the charade is still going on. Despite having married and having subsequent children with her husband, she still calls her daughter her niece, and her daughter thinks her half-sisters are her cousins. I fear what will happen when her daughter finds out the truth. A lie like that cannot live forever, ...especially when so many people know the truth. The truth always comes out in the end. :'(
so everyone's life in that situation would have been better if that little girl was dead. thats what you're saying. that seems to be the only real tragedy here.
-
so everyone's life in that situation would have been better if that little girl was dead. thats what you're saying. that seems to be the only real tragedy here.
You can always come to the conclusion you want with the right scenario.
-
You can always come to the conclusion you want with the right scenario.
exactly. the real tragedy is that little girl is surrounded by people who wish she was never born.
-
I knew many girls that were pregnant at 13. They will tell their friends before they told their parents.
By the time they got around to telling their parents, ...or more accurately, by the time their parents discovered, all choices decisions were out of everyone's hands, ...especially in the case of one particular girl.
I can't help but think how much differently her life could have turned out had she had a MAP then.
i never addressed this before but you knew MANY 13 year old girls who got pregnant? where the fuck did you grow up?
-
i believe that there's a POTENTIAL for the irresponsible utilization of abortion in the US. what it will be? i don't know.
but do you think back in the 1930's people thought that court cases where we would have to make decisions on who has the rights to a child born by a surrogate mother? by a child born from a sperm donor? no. back then anyone who saw that the advancement of science would create these issues would have been shot down by you as well. because you wouldn't have been able to process the implications that science would have on parental rights 80 years in the future. thats why we have what is called the study of bioethics. the study of bioethics exists because these people know that people like you do not think about the ramifications that advances in biology and medicine have on a populace.
i'm only bringing to everyone's attention that we will face more complex issues in the future. and you shit a brick. because you have been trained by tv to defend everything abortion. like i said. small minded.
who are you or I to decided was is irresponsible or not ?
-
who are you or I to decided was is irresponsible or not ?
irresponsible is utilizing it in a manner that has severe negative effects on a populace. india is experiencing severe negative effects from sex selective abortion. thats why we have Womens rights organizations going over there and trying to place laws on people's bodies. take it up with them
-
irresponsible is utilizing it in a manner that has severe negative effects on a populace. india is experiencing severe negative effects from sex selective abortion. thats why we have Womens rights organizations going over there and trying to place laws on people's bodies. take it up with them
again, what's happening in India in regards to how girls/woman are treated is nothing new
it may be exacerbated by access to abortion but not caused by it
Unless you happen to be Indian and live there it's really none of your business if poor Indian families choose to abort female fetuses. It's certainly a better alternative to killing them after they are born
-
again, what's happening in India in regards to how girls/woman are treated is nothing new
it may be exacerbated by access to abortion but not caused by it
Unless you happen to be Indian and live there it's really none of your business if poor Indian families choose to abort female fetuses. It's certainly a better alternative to killing them after they are born
womens rights groups are fighting against it because they think that gendercide has far reaching implications on their population.
-
again, what's happening in India in regards to how girls/woman are treated is nothing new
it may be exacerbated by access to abortion but not caused by it
Unless you happen to be Indian and live there it's really none of your business if poor Indian families choose to abort female fetuses. It's certainly a better alternative to killing them after they are born
and you're wrong about abortion not being the cause of the problem. men are being born at a much higher rate than women ever since abortion was introduced. solves a small problem temporarily while creating a much bigger problem in the long run. and i do agree that it's none of our business. however, it should draw attantion to the fact that abortion can cause problems within a populace. how you don't see that is beyond me. but again, its because you've been taught to defend everything abortion.
-
and you're wrong about abortion not being the cause of the problem. men are being born at a much higher rate than women ever since abortion was introduced. solves a small problem temporarily while creating a much bigger problem in the long run. and i do agree that it's none of our business. however, it should draw attantion to the fact that abortion can cause problems within a populace. how you don't see that is beyond me. but again, its because you've been taught to defend everything abortion.
the cause of the problem is the cultural tradition of dowries
that's WHY they are choosing to abort female fetuses or kill or abandon them after they are born
Where do you get the idea I've been "taught to defend everything abortion" ?
Why do you presume I haven't made up my own mind on the topic?
-
so everyone's life in that situation would have been better if that little girl was dead. thats what you're saying. that seems to be the only real tragedy here.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. To imply that is a specious argument.
I'm saying her life would have turned out differently had she not gotten pregnant in the first place.
-
exactly. the real tragedy is that little girl is surrounded by people who wish she was never born.
I don't think she feels that way, ...and I don't think she is made to feel that way either, ...but I fear if she discovers the truth about who her real birth mother is... the consequences may not be good for all concerned. I just don't understand why they had to lie to her and everyone else to begin with. The more time passes... the harder it becomes.
-
i never addressed this before but you knew MANY 13 year old girls who got pregnant? where the fuck did you grow up?
I grew up in Toronto, ...and believe it or not guys... many, many girls get pregnant during their teen years.
Most people never discover this sad fact because the majority do not carry to term, but the numbers would surprise you.
Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 4 girls from who got pregnant in the 8th or 9th grade.
-
I don't think she feels that way, ...and I don't think she is made to feel that way either, ...but I fear if she discovers the truth about who her real birth mother is... the consequences may not be good for all concerned. I just don't understand why they had to lie to her and everyone else to begin with. The more time passes... the harder it becomes.
i agree. the tragedy was not that the girl was born. it was how they handled it. but you said yourself that you wish that girl had acess to a MAP so you wish she was never born. your words not mine
-
womens rights groups are fighting against it because they think that gendercide has far reaching implications on their population.
Gendercide has nothing to do with whether or not emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy should be made available. Seems to me, if you PREVENT a pregnancy, ...selective sex abortion is a mute issue.
-
Below the age of consent.
FDA to Let 15 Year-Old Girls Buy Morning-After Pill Over the Counter
Tuesday, 30 Apr 2013
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday said it would allow the Plan B One-Step contraceptive to be sold without a prescription to girls as young as 15 years of age.
The announcement partially reverses a December 2011 decision that prevented the sale of the emergency contraceptive to all females of reproductive age, which was also overturned by a U.S. district judge in New York on April 5. The FDA said its approval was not related to the judge's ruling.
Instead, the agency said it was responding to an amended marketing application from Teva Women's Health Inc, a unit of Plan B maker Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Teva originally applied to sell Plan B to all females of reproductive age, but changed its latest bid to those 15 and older after 2011. The amended application was pending when Judge Edward Korman handed down his ruling, the FDA said.
The pill known as "Plan B" has long been at the center of political and religious battles. The FDA initially approved sale of the drug to all reproductive age females, but was ordered to bar girls under 17 by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who came under fire from women's activists who accused her of bowing to political pressure from social conservatives.
"Research has shown that access to emergency contraceptive products has the potential to further decrease the rate of unintended pregnancies," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement.
"The data reviewed by the agency demonstrated that women 15 years of age and older were able to understand how Plan B One-Step works, how to use it properly and that it does not prevent the transmission of a sexually transmitted disease."
The FDA said the product will now be labeled "not for sale to those under 15 years of age 'proof of age required' not for sale where age cannot be verified."
Product coding is designed to prompt cashiers to request and verify the customer's age. Teva has also arranged to have a security tag placed on all product cartons to prevent theft.
The U.S. Justice Department is considering the administration's next steps in the New York court case.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/fda-Morning-After-Pill/2013/04/30/id/502123
-
this is GREAT NEWS, especially for all those abstinent fundie teens in red states who keep getting pregnant
-
Fifteen is not so bad. I don't understand why they didn't just make it age of consent.
-
Fifteen is not so bad. I don't understand why they didn't just make it age of consent.
Fifteen is bad because it's below the age of consent. So the FDA just said any girl who is raped, as any pregnant fifteen-year-old girl has been, can buy this drug and her parents and law enforcement do not have to be involved.
Can a fifteen-year-old girl buy sudafed without parental consent?
-
Fifteen is bad because it's below the age of consent. So the FDA just said any girl who is raped, as any pregnant fifteen-year-old girl has been, can buy this drug and her parents and law enforcement do not have to be involved.
Can a fifteen-year-old girl buy sudafed without parental consent?
If a fifteen year old wants to clam up about a rape, she's gonna do it whether she's pregnant or not.
-
Parents need to know up to 18 years of age rape included. Parents shouldn't have the right to force them to have the baby and or deny them the morning after pill.
-
If a fifteen year old wants to clam up about a rape, she's gonna do it whether she's pregnant or not.
So? The government shouldn't be participating in covering up a crime committed against a minor.
-
Age of consent is irrelevant. Humans can have sex at any age.
-
Age of consent is irrelevant. Humans can have sex at any age.
its not irrelevant according to the law.
-
its not irrelevant according to the law.
What law says its illegal for two 15 year olds to have sex with each other? ???
-
this is GREAT NEWS, especially for all those abstinent fundie teens in red states who keep getting pregnant
Lol
-
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department is appealing a judge's decision lifting all age limits on the Plan B morning-afer birth control pill and a cheaper generic.
The federal government says the judge who issued the ruling had exceeded his authority and that his decision should be suspended while the appeal is underway.
U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of New York had given the Food and Drug Administration until Monday to lift all age limits on Plan B and cheaper generic. The judge mandated that emergency contraception be sold just like aspirin.
On Tuesday, the FDA said anyone 15 or older could begin buying one brand, Plan B One-Step, without a prescription - two years younger than the current age limit of 17.
© 2013 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST, REWRITTEN OR REDISTRIBUTED. Learn more about our PRIVACY POLICY and TERMS OF USE.
-
greater access to morning after pill = less abortions
does anyone disagree with that speculative outcome?
-
greater access to morning after pill = less abortions
does anyone disagree with that speculative outcome?
They feel preventing implantation is an abortion.
I'm what used to be called a conservative. Someone who wants the smallest govt functionally possible and feels the free market will correct itself if everyone is playing on a level field.
The far right wants a govt small enough to fit in a woman's vagina and plug a man's asshole. :) They're fundamentalists intent upon imposing a literal interpretation of The Bible upon us through legislation.
We're a culture that over-corrects so things will get a lot worse before any improvement is seen. :)
-
They feel preventing implantation is an abortion.
I'm what used to be called a conservative. Someone who wants the smallest govt functionally possible and feels the free market will correct itself if everyone is playing on a level field.
The far right wants a govt small enough to fit in a woman's vagina and plug a man's asshole. :) They're fundamentalists intent upon imposing a literal interpretation of The Bible upon us through legislation.
We're a culture that over-corrects so things will get a lot worse before any improvement is seen. :)
;D
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/obama-plan-b_n_3199874.html
LMFAO - O-TWINK getting blasted
-
greater access to morning after pill = less abortions
does anyone disagree with that speculative outcome?
you see there's the disconnect that I see with hard left pro choice people. this is a very common argument for the MAP. but haven't you been telling us for the past 20 years that there's nothing wrong with abortion? So i ask you. Why's that a good thing? What's wrong with abortion?
-
you see there's the disconnect that I see with hard left pro choice people. this is a very common argument for the MAP. but haven't you been telling us for the past 20 years that there's nothing wrong with abortion? So i ask you. Why's that a good thing? What's wrong with abortion?
I've also never quite figured out why all those "dirty Arabs" they want to kill aren't considered Very Late Term Abortions. :)
-
you see there's the disconnect that I see with hard left pro choice people. this is a very common argument for the MAP. but haven't you been telling us for the past 20 years that there's nothing wrong with abortion? So i ask you. Why's that a good thing? What's wrong with abortion?
nothing's wrong with abortion; what's wrong are all the kids born and then no one around to look after them.
-
They feel preventing implantation is an abortion.
I'm what used to be called a conservative. Someone who wants the smallest govt functionally possible and feels the free market will correct itself if everyone is playing on a level field.
The far right wants a govt small enough to fit in a woman's vagina and plug a man's asshole. :) They're fundamentalists intent upon imposing a literal interpretation of The Bible upon us through legislation.
We're a culture that over-corrects so things will get a lot worse before any improvement is seen. :)
I know some brain dead fundies believe that but I was just talking about non-morons who are against abortion
If someone is against abortion then they should be for the morning after pill since less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions
-
I know some brain dead fundies believe that but I was just talking about non-morons who are against abortion
If someone is against abortion then they should be for the morning after pill since less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions
They should be on a registry so women could drop unwanted children off at their houses.
-
They feel preventing implantation is an abortion.
I'm what used to be called a conservative. Someone who wants the smallest govt functionally possible and feels the free market will correct itself if everyone is playing on a level field.
The far right wants a govt small enough to fit in a woman's vagina and plug a man's asshole. :) They're fundamentalists intent upon imposing a literal interpretation of The Bible upon us through legislation.
We're a culture that over-corrects so things will get a lot worse before any improvement is seen. :)
That is simply priceless!!! ;D
-
That is simply priceless!!! ;D
Feel free to use it as your own. :)
-
Feel free to use it as your own. :)
Oh no dear. I will take credit only for recognizing the humour & wit of the comment,
but I won't take credit for the crude vulgarity. That's all yours. ;D
-
Oh no dear. I will take credit only for recognizing the humour & wit of the comment,
but I won't take credit for the crude vulgarity. That's all yours. ;D
"Crude vulgarity"?!
My explanation was beautiful! :P
-
The president talking out of both sides of his mouth. Imagine that.
Obama Reverses Course, Agrees to Comply with NY Morning-after Pill Ruling
Monday, 10 Jun 2013
By Newsmax Wires
The federal government on Monday told a judge it will reverse course and take steps to comply with his order to allow girls of any age to buy emergency contraception without prescriptions.
But the decision isn't likely to end President Barack Obama's troubles with the issue, as anti-abortion advocates are certain to be unhappy with the reversal.
The Department of Justice, in the latest development in a complex back-and-forth over access to the morning-after pill, notified U.S. District Judge Edward Korman it will submit a plan for compliance. If he approves it, the department will drop its appeal of his April ruling.
Last week, the appeals court dealt the government a setback by saying it would immediately permit unrestricted sales of the two-pill version of the emergency contraception until the appeal was decided. That order was met with praise from advocates for girls' and women's rights and with scorn from social conservatives and other opponents, who argue the drug's availability takes away the rights of parents of girls who could get it without their permission.
The government had appealed the judge's underlying April 5 ruling, which ordered emergency contraceptives based on the hormone levonorgestrel be made available without a prescription, over the counter and without point-of-sale or age restrictions.
It asked the judge to suspend the effect of that ruling until the appeals court could decide the case. But the judge declined, saying the government's decision to restrict sales of the morning-after pill was "politically motivated, scientifically unjustified and contrary to agency precedent." He also said there was no basis to deny the request to make the drugs widely available.
The government had argued that "substantial market confusion" could result if the judge's ruling were enforced while appeals were pending, only to be later overturned.
It appears the Justice Department has decided it might lose with the appeals court and then would have to decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court, The New York Times noted. "That would drastically elevate the debate over the politically delicate issue for Mr. Obama," The Times said.
Anti-abortion advocates are likely to be angered by the decision. They are opposed to allowing young girls to obtain the drug without a parent's or guardian's OK.
Obama can expect to see a renewed political debate on the issues at a time when his administration already is beset with multiple scandals and controversies, The Times noted. The president, who has two young daughters, said last year he felt uncomfortable with the idea of them being able to obtain the drug without a prescription.
The morning-after pill contains a higher dose of the female hormone progestin than is in regular birth control pills. Taking it within 72 hours of rape, condom failure or just forgetting regular contraception can cut the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent, but it works best within the first 24 hours. If a girl or woman already is pregnant, the pill, which prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg, has no effect.
The Food and Drug Administration was preparing in 2011 to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill with no limits when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled her own scientists in an unprecedented move.
The FDA announced in early May that Plan B One-Step, the newer version of emergency contraception, the same drug but combined into one pill instead of two, could be sold without a prescription to those age 15 or older. Its maker, Teva Women's Health, plans to begin those sales soon. Sales had previously been limited to those who were at least 17.
The judge later ridiculed the FDA changes, saying they established "nonsensical rules" that favored sales of the Plan B One-Step morning-after pill and were made "to sugarcoat" the government's appeal.
He also said they placed a disproportionate burden on blacks and the poor by requiring a prescription for less expensive generic versions of the drug bought by those under age 17 and by requiring those age 17 or over to show proof-of-age identification at pharmacies. He cited studies showing that blacks with low incomes are less likely than other people to have government-issued IDs.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Morning-After-Pill/2013/06/10/id/509126