Planned Parenthood - Morning After Pill

[tu_holmes]

More like a poor analogy. 

The average 13-year-old understands the basics of human reproduction and knows how to have sex.  That really has nothing to do with whether they are competent to make adult decisions and whether they understand all of the ramifications of a pill that apparently has no long-term studies indicating possible effects of the pill.  In fact, a I doubt a 13-year-old can legally provide informed consent without the parents' involvement. 

We really have a contradiction in our society, because we have said, in every state, that 13-year-olds cannot consent to sex, but we allow those same 13-year-olds to get abortions and take these kinds of pills without parental involvement. 

She is having sex with same guy.  In that sense she really isn't much different than the likely millions of women who have used the morning after pill more than once.   

We're talking about your daughters dopey friend who I'm sure is older than 13

From her actions it sounds like she's a box of rocks and her boyfriend doesn't sound any better

What's worse for society - having this girl drop a new cabbage on the planet every 9 months or possibly messing up her baby maker?

Does this girl go to a christian school - perhaps one that teaches abstinence but no actual sex education?

What exactly is her excuse (or her boyfriends) for being so f'ng stupid?

Now, I know this may not really be even valid, but if 13 year old girls were getting married and having kids 400 years ago, why are 13 year old girls unable to be adult enough to do it now?

Have we gone backwards?

Isn't this more of a social thing in that we expect people to have sex closer to the age of 18 and therefore don't talk about until further along in their development?

From a "natural" perspective, if the human body is old enough to have children and procreate at 13, then shouldn't 13 year olds be allowed to have sex?

Now, I myself don't want my daughter having sex at 13, but isn't it more because at 13 she still has studies to complete so she can be successful in life? (or what society deems as successful?)

Seems to me that the age thing here is basically going against what nature intends.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here really, but in all reality, is it that they're not old enough, or that we treat them like they're not old enough?

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum, this post is borderline laughable. To find those selected quotes, you probably had to go through hundreds of quotes that dismissed any long term risks. 

The quote on the CNN page is from the spokeswoman of an anti-abortion group and it's wrong. MAP is a stronger dose of a medicine that has been in use for half a century. There is enough real world evidence to come to a conclusion on it's long term side effects. The practice of doubling up on MAP isn't even a recent development. Patients are instructed to do so in the event that they miss a dose.

The second quote is also misleading. To see why just check out the wikipedia page for the pill here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Other_effects.

If you don't feel like reading that, I'll summarize. Basically,  any increased risks of the listed diseases is small for a short period of time and negligible in the long term. The page also cites research that indicates carrying a pregnancy to term actually carries more health risks than any form of birth control.

Ah.  No.  All I did was insert the following terms on Google:  Morning after pill long-term effects.  I clicked on about three or four pages to find the information I posted.  What it shows is people have questions about long-term side effects.  I still do.     

Your post raises a number of questions.  For example, if the morning after pill is just a stronger dose of a drug that has been around for half a century, then why the need for a new FDA approved drug?  Why not just prescribe the extra dose of an existing drug? 

Also, if this drug was only approved and distributed about three years ago, it is literally impossible to know the effects of multiple uses of this drug on a woman after 10 or 20 years (or more).  It hasn't been around long enough.   

[Dos Equis]

If this girl is repeatedly relying on the morning after pill, then she obviously hasn't been taught sex ed well. The morning after pill is generally regarded as the worst form of birth control. Other than being borderline retarded, there is no reason for her not to be on the pill.

I cannot see how allowing this girl access to birth control is a bad thing. If  she has had to resort to the morning after pill so many times while still in high school, she is clearly an irresponsible idiot. Do you really think anything would have turned out better for anyone if she had carried any of her multiple potential pregnancies to term.

I think her situation, and many others, would turn out much better if the parents were involved. 

[Dos Equis]

Now, I know this may not really be even valid, but if 13 year old girls were getting married and having kids 400 years ago, why are 13 year old girls unable to be adult enough to do it now?

Have we gone backwards?

Isn't this more of a social thing in that we expect people to have sex closer to the age of 18 and therefore don't talk about until further along in their development?

From a "natural" perspective, if the human body is old enough to have children and procreate at 13, then shouldn't 13 year olds be allowed to have sex?

Now, I myself don't want my daughter having sex at 13, but isn't it more because at 13 she still has studies to complete so she can be successful in life? (or what society deems as successful?)

Seems to me that the age thing here is basically going against what nature intends.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here really, but in all reality, is it that they're not old enough, or that we treat them like they're not old enough?

Tu I don't know much about 13-year-olds from 400 years ago, but I do know today's 13-year-olds aren't ready for these kinds of decisions. 

[tu_holmes]

Tu I don't know much about 13-year-olds from 400 years ago, but I do know today's 13-year-olds aren't ready for these kinds of decisions. 

But my question is WHY... If they were ready 400 years ago (and history will validate that they were) then why are they not now? What is the difference... It's not their physiology or their intelligence... It's something else... Seems to me like it's society.

Just a thought though.

[Michaeloz]

But my question is WHY... If they were ready 400 years ago (and history will validate that they were) then why are they not now? What is the difference... It's not their physiology or their intelligence... It's something else... Seems to me like it's society.

Just a thought though.

I think your right there.  Society has changed and will continue to change as people ( politicians, religious groups atc ) continue to force their wills and beleifs on the masses until they are accepted as the norm.  Where I currently live the age of consent is 14.  Sex education isn't provided in schools until the student is 16.  Same students can't get married until they are 21. 


The systems are fucked up.. We need to educate our kids at a younger age about what is safe and what is not.  Teens will be teens and wish to have sex so they eed to be hithard with the consequences of doing something that feels great.

The pill and morning after pill arn't that big here either.  Most women opt for abortion rather than use contraceptives  ( abortion about $50 US).
This then also brings into play stds.

We really need to start being smarter with how we raise our children

Michael

[Al Doggity]

Your post raises a number of questions.  For example, if the morning after pill is just a stronger dose of a drug that has been around for half a century, then why the need for a new FDA approved drug?  Why not just prescribe the extra dose of an existing drug? 

Also, if this drug was only approved and distributed about three years ago, it is literally impossible to know the effects of multiple uses of this drug on a woman after 10 or 20 years (or more).  It hasn't been around long enough.   

The FDA has to approve any drug that is introduced to the market and advertised with a targeted use. When the patent for Prozac ran out a few years ago, Eli Lily  re-introduced the drug as Sarafem, a menstrual relief agent. Even though it was exactly the same drug with a new name, it still needed FDA approval.


Once again, since the medicine has been on the market for nearly half a century, researchers have a plethora of real world stats to judge it's long term effects. It's not a situation like Vioxx, where a new drug may have unforeseen effects down the line. Any long term risks from birth control would have been documented by now. The argument that trials specific to this old drug with a new name don't exist is a red herring in the anti-abortion debate.

[Dos Equis]

But my question is WHY... If they were ready 400 years ago (and history will validate that they were) then why are they not now? What is the difference... It's not their physiology or their intelligence... It's something else... Seems to me like it's society.

Just a thought though.

History validates that 13-year-olds could make adult decisions 400 years ago?  How so? 

Society is us.  We have decided that little girls cannot consent to sex.  We have decided that minors cannot marry, vote, carry weapons, smoke, or consent to medical treatment . . . unless it's an abortion or the morning after pill. 

[Dos Equis]

The FDA has to approve any drug that is introduced to the market and advertised with a targeted use. When the patent for Prozac ran out a few years ago, Eli Lily  re-introduced the drug as Sarafem, a menstrual relief agent. Even though it was exactly the same drug with a new name, it still needed FDA approval.


Once again, since the medicine has been on the market for nearly half a century, researchers have a plethora of real world stats to judge it's long term effects. It's not a situation like Vioxx, where a new drug may have unforeseen effects down the line. Any long term risks from birth control would have been documented by now. The argument that trials specific to this old drug with a new name don't exist is a red herring in the anti-abortion debate.

Assuming this is precisely the same drug that has been on the market for nearly half a century, but just a larger dose, where are the studies showing the long-term impact of multiple uses of this larger dose? 

[tu_holmes]

History validates that 13-year-olds could make adult decisions 400 years ago?  How so? 

Society is us.  We have decided that little girls cannot consent to sex.  We have decided that minors cannot marry, vote, carry weapons, smoke, or consent to medical treatment . . . unless it's an abortion or the morning after pill. 

Sure... It's common knowledge that hundreds of years ago that 13 year olds were getting married and having children... These are the adult things this topic speaks on correct? It's about having sex, having kids and the like...

That's my point.

[Dos Equis]

Sure... It's common knowledge that hundreds of years ago that 13 year olds were getting married and having children... These are the adult things this topic speaks on correct? It's about having sex, having kids and the like...

That's my point.

Unless there has been a sea change in the development of 13-year-olds in past 400 years, I don't think they were competent to make those kinds of decisions then and are not competent today.  A widespread historical practice isn't necessarily a good practice.

I understand your point.  I was (trying) to focus on the appropriateness of a group like Planned Parenthood providing this pill to a minor, on multiple occasions, with no notice to or consent of the parents. 


 

[tu_holmes]

Unless there has been a sea change in the development of 13-year-olds in past 400 years, I don't think they were competent to make those kinds of decisions then and are not competent today.  A widespread historical practice isn't necessarily a good practice.

I understand your point.  I was (trying) to focus on the appropriateness of a group like Planned Parenthood providing this pill to a minor, on multiple occasions, with no notice to or consent of the parents. 


 

I can't say I disagree with your stance... as a parent I do believe I should be notified, but I also think as a parent I may be more understanding about those matters than some others, but I don't really "know" that.

[Al Doggity]

Assuming this is precisely the same drug that has been on the market for nearly half a century, but just a larger dose, where are the studies showing the long-term impact of multiple uses of this larger dose? 

Sorry, dude. That's still a red herring. For what other medication would this standard be applied? "Safe in one dose, safe in another. Limited short term side effects in one dose, the same limited short term side effects in another. No long term side effects in one dose, but we have to conduct twenty years of research to determine if a larger dose -administered infinitely less often, mind you- has any side effects."

None.  Doctors constantly alter dosages for patients. Dosages aren't inalterable dogma. A diabetic's doctor will alter his insulin intake repeatedly until the patient's blood sugar level is stabilized.

The only people who have raised the issue of  long term studies on MAP are abortion-activists. The position has no merit. It's purely a byproduct of an agenda. Do you really think these people would really object to insulin or tylenol medications delivered in different doses for lack of long term studies?

[Al-Gebra]

i'm going to go drink some mercury now, and perhaps I'll eat some lead . . . i ingest traces of these all the time anyway . . .

[Al Doggity]

i'm going to go drink some mercury now, and perhaps I'll eat some lead . . . i ingest traces of these all the time anyway . . .

Good luck. That sounds dangerouns, but I've heard it can take up to 50 years before any negative side effects surface.

[Al-Gebra]

hmmm . . . what point were you trying to make again?

your dosages argument is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on getbig, and that's saying something.

and about the lead/mercury thing . . . I wouldn't be so optimistic.

[Al Doggity]

hmmm . . . what point were you trying to make again?

your dosages argument is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on getbig, and that's saying something.

It's perfectly apt.

and about the lead/mercury thing . . . I wouldn't be so optimistic.

I was being facetious. The lead/mercury poisoning would be evident almost immediately... which was my point. It's not going to take twenty years for MAP side effects to surface.

[Dos Equis]

Sorry, dude. That's still a red herring. For what other medication would this standard be applied? "Safe in one dose, safe in another. Limited short term side effects in one dose, the same limited short term side effects in another. No long term side effects in one dose, but we have to conduct twenty years of research to determine if a larger dose -administered infinitely less often, mind you- has any side effects."

None.  Doctors constantly alter dosages for patients. Dosages aren't inalterable dogma. A diabetic's doctor will alter his insulin intake repeatedly until the patient's blood sugar level is stabilized.

The only people who have raised the issue of  long term studies on MAP are abortion-activists. The position has no merit. It's purely a byproduct of an agenda. Do you really think these people would really object to insulin or tylenol medications delivered in different doses for lack of long term studies?

In other words, there are no studies.  What you're saying doesn't make sense Al.  If it's just a matter of increasing the dose of a pill, there would be no need for an entirely new drug.  I haven't researched this pill at all, but I question whether it is the simply a stronger dose of a drug that has been on the market for 50 years.  (And I don't feel like looking it up.   

Only "anti-abortion activists" have raised questions?  Even if that's true, which I doubt, so what.  Are you saying people who oppose abortion lack credibility?  I would imagine abortion proponents were all over this pill because it advances "reproductive healthcare."     Are those people more credible? 

And after my first (and only) Google search, in which I spent about 2 minutes or less, I posted this from earlier in the thread:

Although no conclusive research has been conducted into the long-term effects of the morning-after pill, Dr Niyada said that some studies showed links between constant high levels of progesterone, due to extended use of the pill, and breast, ovarian and uterine cancer plus ectopic pregnancies.

http://www.morningafterpill.org/bangkok.htm

I have no idea who this Dr. Niyada is.  Is he an "anti-abortion activist"? 

[tu_holmes]

Unless there has been a sea change in the development of 13-year-olds in past 400 years, I don't think they were competent to make those kinds of decisions then and are not competent today.  A widespread historical practice isn't necessarily a good practice.

I understand your point.  I was (trying) to focus on the appropriateness of a group like Planned Parenthood providing this pill to a minor, on multiple occasions, with no notice to or consent of the parents. 


 

Oh, and as an added thing... I do think development of 13 year olds has changed... People grow up as early as society requires them to grow up... 14 year olds going to war and things of that nature.

If 13 year old children are taught to be children, stay in school, and not grow up until their 18 or older, then I think that is why 13 year olds 'today' aren't capable of being adults.

It's not that they can not... it's that they aren't 'supposed' to be.

Again, on your stance of parents not being told... I don't agree with that one bit... as my previous posts state.

[Dos Equis]

Oh, and as an added thing... I do think development of 13 year olds has changed... People grow up as early as society requires them to grow up... 14 year olds going to war and things of that nature.

If 13 year old children are taught to be children, stay in school, and not grow up until their 18 or older, then I think that is why 13 year olds 'today' aren't capable of being adults.

It's not that they can not... it's that they aren't 'supposed' to be.

Again, on your stance of parents not being told... I don't agree with that one bit... as my previous posts state.

Good points.  Kids can adapt.  Even today some are forced to grow up faster than others.  A boy whose father isn't around and has no male authority figure in the house has to become a man much sooner than a boy from a two-parent household with a strong father.  You can say the same about girls.  Even though this happens, I don't think it's a good thing.  One of the things I've told my kids is I want them to engage in age appropriate activities, have fun being a kid, and let the adults worry about adult problems.

[Straw Man]

Bum,

Let's not forget that your point is based on a girl who is older than 13 (what is she 16 or 17) probably old enough to drive and clearly too stupid to understand where babies come from in spite of 3 trips to Planned Parenthood.  Again, I'm sure that there are many, many 13 year olds (I chose that age because it's the youngest age of a teenager) who are smart enough to know better.   

Does your daughters friend go to a Christian School?

Did she get sex education or just fear mongering/abstinence indoctrination?

As I'm sure you know, abstinence only indoctrination has been an abject failure

Don't blame Planned Parenthood for the actions of this stupid person

[tu_holmes]

Bum,

Let's not forget that your point is based on a girl who is older than 13 (what is she 16 or 17) probably old enough to drive and clearly too stupid to understand where babies come from in spite of 3 trips to Planned Parenthood.  Again, I'm sure that there are many, many 13 year olds (I chose that age because it's the youngest age of a teenager) who are smart enough to know better.  

Does your daughters friend go to a Christian School?

Did she get sex education or just fear mongering/abstinence indoctrination?

As I'm sure you know, abstinence only indoctrination has been an abject failure

Don't blame Planned Parenthood for the actions of this stupid person

I know a girl who had 2 or 3 abortions... She was definitely over 18 at the time.

It's not age... It's mental maturity (call it brains or intelligence, whatever), and that has NOTHING to do with age.

[Dos Equis]

Bum,

Let's not forget that your point is based on a girl who is older than 13 (what is she 16 or 17) probably old enough to drive and clearly too stupid to understand where babies come from in spite of 3 trips to Planned Parenthood.  Again, I'm sure that there are many, many 13 year olds (I chose that age because it's the youngest age of a teenager) who are smart enough to know better.   

Does your daughters friend go to a Christian School?

Did she get sex education or just fear mongering/abstinence indoctrination?

As I'm sure you know, abstinence only indoctrination has been an abject failure

Don't blame Planned Parenthood for the actions of this stupid person

Yes she goes to a Christian school, which is apropos of nothing. 

Yes she got sex education (which I already stated earlier in this thread).  Again, apropos of nothing. 

The thread has nothing to do with abstinence. 

I absolutely blame Planned Parenthood for providing these kinds of services to minors.  It's simply not appropriate IMO.  It's okay if you disagree.   

[Dos Equis]

I know a girl who had 2 or 3 abortions... She was definitely over 18 at the time.

It's not age... It's mental maturity (call it brains or intelligence, whatever), and that has NOTHING to do with age.

I suspect there are millions of women over 18 who have had more than 1 abortion. 

[Straw Man]

Yes she goes to a Christian school, which is apropos of nothing. 

Yes she got sex education (which I already stated earlier in this thread).  Again, apropos of nothing. 

The thread has nothing to do with abstinence. 

I absolutely blame Planned Parenthood for providing these kinds of services to minors.  It's simply not appropriate IMO.  It's okay if you disagree.   

I figured she went to a Christian School.

Why is it that after "sex education" and 3 trips to Planned Parenthood she's still too stupid to master the complicated mechanics of using a condom?

At least she smart enough to realize that she shouldn't be having any kids

I commend Planned Parenthood for helping this girl.