posted
Oh man, I think this means that adults are going to start having all kinds of sex now! Oh, the sin, THE SIN!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the middle of the night, "evolutionary biology" disappeared off of the list of college majors approved for recipients of government grants. I think that was the other shoe dropping?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a massive blow to the church community. Do you have any idea the number of people who are not praying right now, who elsewise would be on their knees, at the church-of-most-convience, praying for all their worth that, "God, please don't let me be pregnant." or "God, please don't let her be pregnant."
This drastic cut in floor traffic could signifigantly hurt donations, political action, and other good work otherwise performed by the guilty, worried, parents-may-be's.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand how anyone can see this as bad. Adults can buy it on their own recognizance. No one is being forced to sell it or prescribe it. Minors have to get a prescription.
quote: Conservative groups that fought wider availability said age enforcement was impossible.
quote:I don't understand how anyone can see this as bad.
After all the discussions about this topic on this site? I see it as not positive because it could possibly destroy an unborn child.
quote: Like prescription birth control pills, Plan B blocks the release or fertilization of an egg. Some research suggests the hormone also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, and some opponents liken that mechanism to abortion.
posted
It would be impossible because any adult can now go buy it and give it to kids, just like they do with alcohol and cigarettes.
NOTE: To me though, the benefits of better availability for adults outweighs this risk. It is impossible to "protect" kids from everything, and nearly as impossible to protect a determined kid against practically any specific thing. I think requiring a prescription for minors is adequate governmental intervention.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
The only threads I remember dealing with birth control had to do with forcing certain stores or people to sell birth control. I don't recall discussing whether or not birth control should be available at all.
From what you are saying, I take it you are against all birth control?
Karl,
that could have happened with a prescription before this ruling.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think it depends on where you live. In a lot of cities, places like Planned Parenthood would give morning after pills away to people who were 18 and up. Even if you lived in a place where you had to go get a prescription, how big of a deal do you think it would be to take an hour out of your day to get a prescription for birth control? I don't see that it was 'a hundred times' harder.
I thought the 'Morning After Pill' referred to RU-486; I didn't read the article until after the first part of my post.
I'm still leery of this pill because:
quote:Some research suggests the hormone also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb
It's a fine line to draw, between fertilized egg and unfertilized egg; because of my religious beliefs, I dislike the idea of a fertilized egg being willfully destroyed.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, the issue, then, isn't about the pill being OTC so much as the morning-after pill in general?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it depends on where you live. In a lot of cities, places like Planned Parenthood would give morning after pills away to people who were 18 and up. Even if you lived in a place where you had to go get a prescription, how big of a deal do you think it would be to take an hour out of your day to get a prescription for birth control? I don't see that it was 'a hundred times' harder.
1) You addressed only prescription-based availability; I only addressed prescription-based availability.
2) Imagine you're 15, and the condom broke. Before, you would need a prescription; obtaining one is often difficult and embarassing and in many places, requires either parent notification or sex counseling. Now, you can go ask your 18 year old friend to go buy Plan B at the corner drug store.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to your point 1, the issue is availability before this ruling. This directly bears on your second point.
As to your second point, you could go ask your 18 year old friend before. She would just have to have a prescription for it, which, as I mentioned, isn't hard to get. As in, not hard at all.
But let's go with your viewpoint and say that getting the pill is 'difficult and embarassing'. Now, we've already concluded that the dirty deed has been done ('the condom broke'). Are you saying that it's better that it's harder to get the morning after pill, that is, increasing the odds that nothing will be done?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a fine line to draw, between fertilized egg and unfertilized egg; because of my religious beliefs, I dislike the idea of a fertilized egg being willfully destroyed.
I have mixed feelings on this. I'm 20 years old, sexually active, and definitely pro-life, and if I were to get pregnant I would have no hesitation in my decision to keep the child. That said, I really, really, really don't want to get pregnant. I use condoms and take birth control pills, and feel pretty safe most of the time, but if there was ever a doubt in my mind about protection failing, knowing that I could go to the drugstore and get a morning-after pill is somewhat comforting. What's not comforting is having to wonder if the pill merely blocked fertilization altogether, or if it destroyed an already fertilized egg (and I believe that life begins at conception.) I'm not sure if I would personally use the pill or not, but I am glad that it's available now with more convenience.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, the issue, then, isn't about the pill being OTC so much as the morning-after pill in general?
For me it's both ... I dislike the morning-after pill as I dislike any abortion, and I think it's really sad that it will become as easy to get rid of a fertilized egg as it is to get rid of a headache.
Of course, the article refers to it as "preventing pregnancy", which makes it equivalent to birth control pills. But IMO, once an egg is fertilized, you're pregnant. So to me it's not the same thing as preventing pregnancy. It's terminating it. Abortion is a serious decision and shouldn't be made lightly, and it makes me ill to think that someone could end a pregnancy in the same shopping trip and with as little forethought as picking up some Tylenol.
And why would birth control pills need a prescription, but the morning-after pill not? It makes the morning-after pill easier to obtain and use than reglar birth control, which gives women an incentive to not do anything to prevent pregnancy until after the fact. This seems to me to really encourage irresponsible behavior.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As to your second point, you could go ask your 18 year old friend before. She would just have to have a prescription for it, which, as I mentioned, isn't hard to get. As in, not hard at all.
Um. Have you ever tried to obtain the morning after pill by prescription?
It's a lot harder than you're making it sound. And a LOT more embarassing and difficult.
It often involves a mandatory pelvic exam, mandatory sex counseling, mandatory STD testing before a 'scrip will be written.
There is NO comparison.
quote:But let's go with your viewpoint and say that getting the pill is 'difficult and embarassing'. Now, we've already concluded that the dirty deed has been done ('the condom broke'). Are you saying that it's better that it's harder to get the morning after pill, that is, increasing the odds that nothing will be done?
No, I'm not saying that. In fact, I've said nothing about it being "better" or "worse."
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:For me it's both ... I dislike the morning-after pill as I dislike any abortion, and I think it's really sad that it will become as easy to get rid of a fertilized egg as it is to get rid of a headache.
As has been mentioned, the day-after pill is geared at prevent conception, not implantation.
Also, you do not need to be 18 to purchase pain killers.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, the issue, then, isn't about the pill being OTC so much as the morning-after pill in general?
For me it's both ... I dislike the morning-after pill as I dislike any abortion, and I think it's really sad that it will become as easy to get rid of a fertilized egg as it is to get rid of a headache.
Except the problem is, the Morning-after pill isn't an abortion. It prevents release of the egg.
Yes, there is a chance that it can prevent implantation. And yes, if you believe that conception is when life starts, then there is a chance it could cause an abortion. However, the chance is THE SAME as the chance of a regular birth-control pill doing the same thing.
Basically what I'm saying is, if you're against the morning-after pill, you should be against the regular birth-control pill. In which case, fine.
I just get terribly frustrated when people think that these two pills are different. The only difference is that one has a higher dosage of the same drugs, and one is taken after sex while the other is taken before.
This isn't a comment against you, JennaDean, it just happens that your quote set me off, sorry.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Demonstrocity (I keep wanting to type "eros") -
That's a fairly likely scenario, in the same way that cigarettes, liquor and what, porn I guess, are smuggled to youth against the law.
I'm curious, how easy was it before for girls under 18 to get birth control? By circumventing the law, how easy I mean.
Either way, I think the benefits of this to the over 18 population outweigh the risks to the under 18 population. Something about the idea of the possibility of 12-17 year olds breaking the law should prevent 18-100+ year olds from easily purchasing a perfectly legal substance is a little odd to me. I think the restrictions set in place are the best that can be done, and the rest should be up to parents and their children.
The government can't be watching out for your kids all the time.
edit to add: whew I'm behind the thread, this was in response to your 1:45 post.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: which gives women an incentive to not do anything to prevent pregnancy until after the fact. This seems to me to really encourage irresponsible behavior.
This isn't something that can be taken after you find out you're pregnant -- it really does have to be the morning after sex (or evening, I suppose, if the encounter was in the morning). And it causes what is in effect a very heavy period, immediately. I really can't see many women choosing to bring on 4-6 days of heavy bleeding after every act of intercourse rather than using regular birth control.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As has been mentioned, the day-after pill is geared at prevent conception, not implantation.
Yes. And it has also been mentioned:
quote: Some research suggests the hormone also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, and some opponents liken that mechanism to abortion.
Of course, that's why I don't like certain forms of before-the-morning-after contraceptives either, as some of them work by the same method.
quote:Also, you do not need to be 18 to purchase pain killers.
No, just White-Out. Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenna, getting a prescription for birth control wasn't, and isn't, hard. I think this point also speaks to your belief that making birth control easier to get will make the decision to abort a child easier. That is, I'm not sure it follows.
Keep in mind, then, that we're talking about people who, often, aren't on birth control at all, and don't plan ahead, and are already engaged in risky behavior.
I appreciate your argument that from your point of view, this will increase people engaging in risky behavior, but it seems like that this is not a given.
What is a given, and is a fact, is that there are people who engage in risky behavior. Let's say for the sake of argument that the number of people engaging in this risky behavior stays the same. From what you're saying, the argument isn't about engaging in this behavior, but aborting a 'child'. So, it sounds like you are against the morning after pill totally, too.
****************************
One point that I hesitated making with Scott, but that I will say now, is that this thread bears directly on the discussions of whether or not someone should be forced to sell the pill against their beliefs. I don't understand how you can say, on the one hand, that a person's beliefs should be honored to not sell, but on the other hand, a person's belief's should not be honored when they wish to sell birth control. This makes me think the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available, and that giving people who don't want to sell it their choice, but denying those who do want to sell it, is a means to this end.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw - Good point. I don't think they'd take it EVERY time. It's called Plan B for a reason. It's a backup/last resort, not someone's first choice.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: And why would birth control pills need a prescription, but the morning-after pill not? It makes the morning-after pill easier to obtain and use than reglar birth control, which gives women an incentive to not do anything to prevent pregnancy until after the fact. This seems to me to really encourage irresponsible behavior.
The morning after pill basically causes your period to start. So it's not exactly going to be viewed as a substitute for being on regular birth control pills. I doubt there are many sexually active women who would consider taking a morning after pill every time they had sex preferable to getting a birth control prescription.
--
Demonstrocity, I'm curious where you're getting your information about what getting a morning-after pill prescription "often" involved. I've never heard of sex counseling or STD tests being required, and pelvic exams only if you didn't have your annual in the file. (Or, I suppose, if you weren't going to your regular doctor.) It may be different in different places, of course, but I'm just wondering if you're speaking from friend's experience, or news reports, or what.
quote: Um. Have you ever tried to obtain the morning after pill by prescription?
It's a lot harder than you're making it sound. And a LOT more embarassing and difficult.
It often involves a mandatory pelvic exam, mandatory sex counseling, mandatory STD testing before a 'scrip will be written.
I have never heard of these things being a necessity in all cases to get the morning after pill. I am open to the idea that I am wrong. So, if anyone else has any views on how hard it is to get the morning after pill in their area, I'd like to hear it.
quote: quote:But let's go with your viewpoint and say that getting the pill is 'difficult and embarassing'. Now, we've already concluded that the dirty deed has been done ('the condom broke'). Are you saying that it's better that it's harder to get the morning after pill, that is, increasing the odds that nothing will be done?
No, I'm not saying that. In fact, I've said nothing about it being "better" or "worse."
That would be why I asked you the question.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Demonstrocity,
quote:As has been mentioned, the day-after pill is geared at prevent conception, not implantation.
Yes. And it has also been mentioned:
quote: Some research suggests the hormone also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, and some opponents liken that mechanism to abortion.
Of course, that's why I don't like certain forms of before-the-morning-after contraceptives either, as some of them work by the same method.
quote:Also, you do not need to be 18 to purchase pain killers.
No, just White-Out.
Right; I objected to your attitude and phraseology, which suggested a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take it that was directed at me, Demonstrocity. I can't speak to my attitude. I've tried to be pretty polite in this thread. If I've somehow not succeeded in doing so, then I don't know what to say.
As to 'misinterpreting' the facts, which facts have I misinterpreted?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For me it's both ... I dislike the morning-after pill as I dislike any abortion, and I think it's really sad that it will become as easy to get rid of a fertilized egg as it is to get rid of a headache."
As has been pointed out SOME research suggests that this MAY prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. So far, there's nothing to suggest it does do this.
"But IMO, once an egg is fertilized, you're pregnant."
The medical definition of pregnancy is implantation, so the statement that it prevents pregnancy is entirely accurate within the field of medicine.
" This seems to me to really encourage irresponsible behavior."
There's been a lot of research geared at demonstrating this, and so far its come up dry. So you can rest easy on that account, at anyrate.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I take it that was directed at me, Demonstrocity. I can't speak to my attitude. I've tried to be pretty polite in this thread. If I've somehow not succeeded in doing so, then I don't know what to say.
As to 'misinterpreting' the facts, which facts have I misinterpreted?
That was geared at JennaDean, not you (hence her post being quoted, not yours).
You haven't offended me or been impolite; I just think you're wrong. ^_^
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is little or no evidence that hormonal birth control actually prevents implementation of an already fertilized egg. As far as I could find when I researched it (about 2 years ago), the idea that it might was a marketing gimmick when “the pill” was first introduced. The intended and well studied effect is to prevent ovulation. It also causes changes to the uterine lining, which may make implementation more difficult (though obviously not impossible, since some women have gotten pregnant while on the pill). Whether or not these changes do actually decrease the chance of implementation doesn’t seem to have been studied. But they might.
Now if I needed to take, for any reason, a medication whose possible side effects included making it more difficult for a fertilized egg to implant (for example, some anti-inflammatory drugs) I would want to take precautions to see that there was no fertilized egg to worry about. Since the main intent and effect of hormonal birth control is to see that there’s no egg present to be fertilized in the first place, I consider it a responsible form of pregnancy prevention, not a possible abortion.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Great article. Dr. Drew, I think, has always been the most respected and progressive advocate for teenage sexual health. Thanks for the link.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
