posted
Yes, exactly, MightyCow. It's quite simple to just take 3-7 pills in a regular pack of contraception and prevent pregnancy. Doctors used to do this for rape victims or concerned women when the condom broke, etc. My own mother told me about it when I was like 12 or something. However, the MAP is only progesterone (I think - or estrogen, I could be getting my hormones crossed) and is therefore less likely to make you puke your guts out, which is what taking a lot of normal pills will usually do. Not pleasant.
Incidentally, I asked to be put on the pill when I was about 15, because I had really heavy periods (like 9 days of using super-absorbent everything) and it was beyond obnoxious. I didn't become sexually active until I was in college, however. My doctor was like "Great, cool, here are some sample packs, see what you think." He is a VERY responsible physician, but he was not about to mess around with a 15 year old girl requesting contraceptive drugs. He did not discuss it with my parents, for which I was appreciative, since this would have precipitated an "intersting" conversation with my mom. She would have supported me 100%, but still, I was 15, not fun to talk to your mom about.
I live in Boulder, a predominantly white, affluent, and well educated city. Most of my friends were offered BC pills as soon as they hit high school by their doctors and many of us now have standing prescriptions for the MAP in case of emergencies. There seems to be a strong correlation between affluence and education and access to birth control, possibly abortion as well. It's upsetting to me that some of the women who are least informed regarding the risks of intercourse and pregnancy also have the least access to resources to help them make intelligent decisions. I mean, when I was a kid, there were about 20 different moms who I could have gone to besides my own, five doctors, multiple friends, if I'd had unprotected sex or been raped. Big old safety net.
I am firmly pro-choice, but I would really prefer it if everyone avoided unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I think Plan B goes a long way toward doing that. Well-educated wealthy young women have been able to prevent or abort unwanted pregnancies for some time now. All women have had the choice to abstain from using BC if they did not wish to. I think Plan B just levels the playing field somewhat.
Interesting article that's likely been linked to in another page:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: According to this page: http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx , Plan B works just like regular birth control pills. If you support birth control pills, I don't see any reason not to support Plan B.
It's actually the same medication, in a higher dosage. One of the sites I found gave instructions on how to use various different brands of birth control pills as a substitute for Plan B, by taking a larger dose.
Yes, it is the same medication. The effect of taking it high dose one day, as opposed to 3-4 weeks every month, IS a little different. Enough different for many people to have arguments with one and not the other. Not to mention that birth control isn't over the counter, and the Plan B now IS, which is kind of what this thread is all about. Being against Plan B, being against Plan B OTC, being against Plan B for kids, and being against birth control are all for slightly different reasons.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is an interesting article. There are so many sides to these debates, so many unforeseen consequences to all the various actions.
I'm honestly surprised that doctors and pharmacists are legally allowed to withhold medical treatment based on their personal feelings.
It makes me wonder why a doctor or pharmacist's beliefs trump those of their patient, when the doctor or pharmacist took the job with the express intent to provide medical services to the public, and with the full knowledge that their job included things which they might find to go against their beliefs.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But how hard is it to get ahold of a pack of BC pills? I mean, this is the thing that's kind of odd to me about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for the MAP - all I'd have to do to get around them is renew my BC scrip, have my doc call a new pack in ( they needn't know why), or just take some of the pills I already have. Or call around and find out what friends already have a MAP lying around, or a scrip for one, or have old BC pills they stopped taking . . . yes, I know that transferring prescriptions or giving someone medication without a license is illegal, but it's not hard to do.
I dunno, it all seems like semantics to me, especially in regards to other people's health decisions. If someone doesn't want someone to use emergency birth control, talking to them, probably at a young age and persuading them, seems more effective than trying to keep them from having access.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really glad for this. I want all children to be cherished and well cared for. Unwanted children often aren't. Technology to prevent unwanted pregnancy is a good thing.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They aren't allowed to withhold emergency medical care. It's really only a problem usually in very small rural areas, where there is only one doctor or one pharmacist. With birth control, anyway. Plan B might be different, not sure yet.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samarkand. A lot of small towns might only have one or two pharmacies, only a few doctors. If you don't have access to a car, how do you get your prescription when nobody in town will write or fill it?
In cases like these, it seems like an extreme abuse of power to me. Doctors and pharmacists should not have the ability to change the law, but by allowing them to decide not to offer birth control or plan B, it's giving them defacto power to make them illegal.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: but by allowing them to decide not to offer birth control or plan B, it's giving them defacto power to make them illegal.
That's almost funny. People who live in extreme rural areas don't get everything at their fingertips. That might include not having gynecologists or Planned Parenthood down the street. That doesn't make it the other health care workers' fault that they chose to live there.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until recently (yay Walgreens), I lived in a one non-24-hour pharmacy college town. I know people who have been refused their BC prescriptions by a pharmacist. Thankfully, the situation was easily remedied by returning the next day when someone else was working. I find it silly that a pharmacist, who seems like a pretty smart person, would think it logical that all unmarried women take BC for "recreational" use.
Course, when this happens now, we can all just head down the road to the other pharmacy. Given the number of women in this country taking BC, it can't be good business for a pharmacy to hire a pharmacist who turns people away. My only hope is that this financial concern will keep certain pharmacists from working (or not working, depending how you look at it.)
Sorry if that was off-topic.
I have no problem with BC requiring a prescription and MAP not. MAP is an emergency medication. BC is taken for an extended period of time and therefore need to be monitored for negative effects on the body (ex: the drug yasmin can raise potassium levels and is dangerous for women with liver or kidney problems.)
I, personally, have never been able to get in to see my doctor without making an appointment three weeks in advance. Even in situations where I had problems that didn't quite require an emergency room visit, but where the symptoms were severe enough that I wanted medical attention soon...I have been seen. How would you get in while the window for using the MAP is still open?
Emergency health services through the state or PP can be even hard to get in with. After calling around and finding that most locations near me were still closed post-Katrina, of the two nearest locations more than an hour away, one was booked two months in advance and the other charged more than $100+ for a visit despite being a full-time student who could not use her insurance.
I welcome any tool which allows women to decide when they become pregnant and keeps unwanted children from having unloved lives.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't this a malpractice suit waiting to happen?
Scenario: A woman taking medication that leads to birth defects (Accutane, anyone?) has, for one reason or another, unprotected sex. Or a woman who has already developed gestational diabetes once. Or who has a high likelihood of developing an immune reaction to the fetus. Aware of the fact that a pregnancy would be dangerous to her and any resultant child, she attempts to get the MAP. Her physician denies her because they have a moral problem with it. The patient while comfortable with the MAP, feels that abortion is morally abhorrent and therefore does not have an abortion and subsequently has an impaired child, or develops severe diabetes, or dies. Ahhh, the lawsuits . . .
Apparently some Catholic hospitals in Boston refuse to administer the MAP to rape victims, although they will tell them where to get it. Of course, your ambulance driver decides what hospital you go to. I imagine that the trauma of rape followed by someone imposing their values on me regarding my body (again - isn't this what rape is?) would result in my decking the attending physician.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: While I'm not convinced that the closed-minded attitude portrayed by OSC's leftists guerrilitas is the norm, this conversation is CERTAINLY a prime example of what he often talks about. Storm Saxon maligned opposers of this pill, not on any objections they'd made on this thread, but on his own concepts and prejudices about them.
Or I just made a mistake and didn't read clearly. I'm sorry for misunderstanding and micommunicating to some degree the position of opposers of the morning after pill.
That said, stop misrepresenting my motives and doing what you're accusing me of doing. I've been on this forum long enough where it should be clear that I make an effort to understand what people are saying and to not misrepresent their positions. Even in this thread, I think it should be clear that I've tried to be polite and understanding.
If it's not clear to you, and you insist on living in OSC's idiot, right wingnut fantasy world, where the simplest act of misunderstanding (something that happens in almost every thread!) is a deliberate act of sabotage in the neverending culture war, then this is your problem, not mine. I promise to always try and act in an above-board and honest manner when dealing with the positions of those on this forum. If it seems like I am being less than honest in how I'm dealing with you or anyone else on this forum, let me know, and just like I'm doing right now, I will either apologize if I am in the wrong, or work to clear up any misunderstandings.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. Help someone commit a mortal sin and thereby be guilty of mortal sin themselves, or pass the buck to some other health care worker who doesn't believe it is a mortal sin.
That's pretty much what Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors are supposed to do. It's not just values and morals, it's eternal life, it's trying not to participate in a serious sin. You could demand that no Catholics who believe this practice medicine anymore and that all the Catholic hospitals close, but that would't really be practical.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm Saxon- I think your behavior in this thread is some of the most polite behavior I've seen in a controversial thread on hatrack in the 4 years I've been here. I've appreciated it a lot.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's pretty much what Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors are supposed to do. It's not just values and morals, it's eternal life, it's trying not to participate in a serious sin. You could demand that no Catholics who believe this practice medicine anymore and that all the Catholic hospitals close, but that would't really be practical.
But when a person chooses to work in a pharmacy or in a hospital, the person can be reasonably expected to know that they might be required to dispense the morning-after pill or other form of birth control (this is what we're talking about, right?) in the course of their duties. So I think it is reasonable to expect someone who has moral problems with that either avoid those careers altogether or choose those jobs where passing the buck to some other health care worker who doesn't believe it is a mortal sin is always possible, so that they never end up in a situation where it's between what the patient wants and what they believe the patient needs (and not what they believe the patient physically needs as a physician or pharmacist, but spiritually as a Catholic, where they have not at all solicited advice).
It's simply irresponsible to go out and become a doctor in a small town where you will be the last decision for patients who come in, when you can't actually give them the aid they request. It's like going and becoming a soldier in the army when you believe it's morally wrong to kill someone; go join the Coast Guard (I don't think they kill people, anyway) or the Peace Corps or something. Don't pick a job in which you may very well be required to do something you abhor.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The workings of the FDA in the past 15-20 years have become mysterious to me. In the past, they had a reputation of going forward based on research. In fact, they sponsored much research, iirc.
Nowadays, things seem much more politicized. Top management over-rules the technical staff. Final decisions are made not on the basis of the science, but on a variety of factors, some of which are socio-political in nature.
I'm not sure how I feel about the morning-after-pill being available OTC. Frankly, if there are serious side-effects or complications possible, that by definition should make it a prescription-only thing. The idea of having standing prescriptions makes sense to me, though, and that sort of undermines at least part of the control factor that a prescription requirement is supposed to provide.
I do wonder if this will reduce the frequency of surgical abortions in this country. And if so, I wonder what various pro/anti- groups will say about that decline.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I want to say a little more about my reply to Scott. I think that what I said is true if you just look at what I said within the context of birth control. Of course, given that to Scott and others against the maf pill, the issue is birth control *and* abortion, this makes my statement not false, but a half-truth that fails to take into consideration of their position that the maf pill is abortion. It is still absolutely true that giving or not giving the pill is a matter of conscience. It's just that to one side (mine), giving the morning after pill is not really any different than birth control, while to the 'other side' (Scott's), giving the maf pill carries the possibility of abortion at least, and is, in fact, abortion to some.
Scott, I apologize for my clumsy handling of that point. Again, please let me know when you think I am in error rather than assuming that I am out to get you. I like you and respect you as a person, and I hope that at some point you might feel the same about me.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Incidentally, I asked to be put on the pill when I was about 15, because I had really heavy periods (like 9 days of using super-absorbent everything) and it was beyond obnoxious. I didn't become sexually active until I was in college, however. My doctor was like "Great, cool, here are some sample packs, see what you think." He is a VERY responsible physician, but he was not about to mess around with a 15 year old girl requesting contraceptive drugs. He did not discuss it with my parents, for which I was appreciative, since this would have precipitated an "intersting" conversation with my mom. She would have supported me 100%, but still, I was 15, not fun to talk to your mom about.
I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a minor child being on prescription medication the parent is unaware of. I'm responsible for my child's healthcare, I make the decisions for her and if she's in an emergency accident and the doctors need to know what drugs she's taking - I'd like to know what they are!
"Interesting" or not, that's exactly the type of conversation I think you should have had with your mother and I don't see why you didn't, since you say she would have supported you. I don't think that it's a good thing to encourage kids to lie or conceal the drugs they're taking from their parents. I really, really don't. (I realize you aren't necessarily advocating that others do what you did, but still you talk about it as if it's a good thing you concealed this from your mother and I am not comfortable with that idea.)
My daughter and I talk about those things all the time, she's certainly not afraid to come to me and tell me she's having cramps and a lot of bleeding - as her mother that's the kind of thing I'd want to know. And, I certainly wouldn't be against her taking the pill if a doctor thought it would help her and I was assured it was safe for her. That's the kind of decision that should be made with child, parent, and doctor all discussing the pros and cons and weighing them appropriately. I do not like the idea of minors getting prescriptions that their parents are unaware of.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's simply irresponsible to go out and become a doctor in a small town where you will be the last decision for patients who come in, when you can't actually give them the aid they request. It's like going and becoming a soldier in the army when you believe it's morally wrong to kill someone; go join the Coast Guard (I don't think they kill people, anyway) or the Peace Corps or something. Don't pick a job in which you may very well be required to do something you abhor.
No, it's not irresponsible. There are many pharmacies that allow their pharmacists to declare, in advance, which prescriptions they will not fill for ethical reasons. Why should an arrangement between employer and employee be trumped by the fact that people live in a small town.
In a small town with only one doctor, should that doctor be allowed to decline to provide abortions? If not, why is this different? If so, I don't want to live under your government.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are cops allowed to not enforce laws they are morally opposed to?
If not, then I don't see why pharmacists should be an exception. Both are placed in positions of public trust, and both should be expected to serve the will and good of the public despite personal objections.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't pick a job in which you may very well be required to do something you abhor.
Further, this is entirely begging the question. Why should a doctor or pharmacist be required to provide any particular service? It hardly seems fair to make requirements about which services or products one must provide, then use those requirements to drive an entire segment of the population out of the profession.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are cops allowed to not enforce laws they are morally opposed to?
If not, then I don't see why pharmacists should be an exception. Both are placed in positions of public trust, and both should be expected to serve the will and good of the public despite personal objections.
Actually, if the chief of police or the district attorney decides that a particular law shouldn't be enforced, then it won't be.
If they order a police officer to enforce a law and he won't, they can fire that officer. But they could also hire an officer who says, "I won't work drugs" IF they are willing to let him not work drugs.
Pharmacists do not work for you. Pharmacists aren't required to carry all drugs. They can make that decision for economic reasons, for liability reasons, or simply because they don't like dealing with a particular company. Why would you remove that right when the decision is based on something other than money?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they are supposed to find me a store with the drug. Or order me the drug. I mean, if you have a prescription for amoxil, and for some reason, the pharmacy doesn't carry amoxil, I don't think they're just supposed to send you on your merry way.
And when they do, I stop having prescriptions filled there, Walgreens.
posted
I personally support the availability of emergency contraception over the counter. I doubt that it will significantly increase irresponsible sexual behavior, but that's just an opinion. I'll be interested to see if there's any jump in STDs or unwanted pregnancies. I suspect that many women may use it once instead of birth control, but with the nasty side-effects, I can't imagine many would prefer it to regular BC use (where most of the side-effects are actually quite nice, like not having periods). Nor do I think it will reduce the number of people who decide to report a rape. I would imagine that if a woman is hesitant to report a rape, she'd probably rather risk the pregnancy than go to the hospital. How about instead including information in the packaging about resources for rape victims? Numbers for hotlines, what to do if you've been raped, etc.
Regarding the implantation issue, it's good to note that the research is mixed on the issue. There have been a few studies which found that the morning-after pill did not prevent implantation in various animal species. Some studies, however, did find an effect (though some of those studies seem to include drugs other than levonorgestrel, so those may not apply--looks like a few even used RU-486 in combination). You can all take a look for yourself by going to Pubmed and searching for levonorgestrel implantation.
I'd also like to add that the probability of fertilization and lack of implantation both occuring is low enough for me to be comfortable with. I also take the risk of killing someone every time I get behind the wheel of a car. Doesn't mean I refuse to drive. I won't be intending to kill embryos when I take the Pill and have sex. I will be trying to prevent pregnancy with the awareness that there is a slight but non-zero chance that an embryo might die that would have otherwise survived to term. I think the benefits outweigh the risks.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle - As someone who would like to be a mother someday, I understand your hesitation over medication being presribed to a minor without their parent's knowledge. However, I think my physician's viewpoint on this for contraceptives was:
1) I was 15, had been menstruating since 11, and was capable of getting pregnant. 2) I was an intelligent, well-educated kid who asked my own GP for a scrip and understood how the meds worked 3) Failing to provide a minor with the means to prevent pregnancy may result in said minor getting pregnant
I think it would have been quite different if I'd wanted sedatives or painkillers or steroids or something.
Now, I legitimately wanted the meds for a different reason - to shorten my periods and make them less severe. But heck, if a kid walks in and ASKS for contraceptives . . . shaky moral ground to refuse, in my eyes at least. It's so sad, but there are an awful lot of unplanned pregnancies in the world that lead to children not being cared for properly, and that's such a crime, one we're all complicit in to some extent. I mean, while there's one child somewhere on the planet who isn't getting food, love and medical attention we're kind of failing as a species.
And it was more of a "don't ask don't tell" policy, really. I mean, I'd leave the pack out on my nightstand . . . eventually I was like, "Hey, could you pick up my Loestrin at Safeway? Thanks!" to my dad . . . Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. On the one hand, I think kids are entitled to some degree of medical privacy. On the other, I'd probably want to know if my kid were taking any medication. On the third hand, I hope my kid would trust me enough to talk to me.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NOTE: Samarkand's & Belle's exchange had me thinking about some families I've known. (This is NOT NOT NOT a comment on Samarkand's homelife, which actually sounds pretty normal)
I think it is sad that many kids don't have the kind of relationship with their parents where they would feel comfortable discussing birth control issues.
At least some of those situations are not going to get fixed by a parental notification law.
15 year olds from crappy homes...are these, in general, people we would hope to exclude from access to birth control unless mom or dad okays it?
Forcing the issue in the hopes that suddenly the irresponsible parents will suddenly take an interest, or stop abusing their child long enough to make a decision...I guess I just don't see a good outcome here.
Unless we're also going to intervene in all the crappy home situations and make parents be good parents, according to some standardized definition of "good."
I think if a parent wants their child to talk to them about this kind of thing, they had better have raised the child in such a way that the child wants to talk to them about it.
I think the laws to enforce parental rights are going to have unintended consequences for some of the people who are already at a huge disadvantage in the parenting department.
Having said that...
there ARE problems if teens (who may not be well informed on things like drug interactions) are sneaking around to get their BCPs -- not using their regular doctor or pharmacist. Part of the reason to stick with a small number of health care providers is that there is then an expectation that they'll not give you something that's contraindicator for a person with your health history and/or who is already taking some other types of medications.
I don't have a good solution for this (except better parenting overall), but I'd hope that pharmacists and doctors probably have pretty good radar when it comes to things of this nature.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We had a great discussion about a year ago of the doctor/pharmacist right to refuse specific treatments or to dispense specific medications.
I think the scenario that bothers me in this ISN'T the one where the pharmacist tells his employer up front and they have an agreement. The one that bugs me is where the hired pharmacist decides without consulting the company/owner. That's what happened in the case that prompted last year's discussion. In the case I recall, the pharmacist was fired. I believe there was a similar case in which the company simply ensured that the pharmacist in question never worked alone -- there was always another pharmacist to fill the prescriptions that the first person didn't want to fill.
As to the question of under-served rural communities, I have the sense that health care in small towns is not on a par with that available in large urban areas. People who live in these communities know that and choose to continue living there for a variety of reasons. I'm not going to start wringing my hands over it. I've known people who moved away from such communities because they could no longer tolerate the limited level of services they had access to.
In many of those small towns, the pharmacist owns the drug store -- they don't answer to anyone. In the absence of any laws to the contrary they can pretty much decide what they do with their own business. Even if there WAS a pharmacist's oath that called upon them to fill every legally obtained prescription (which there isn't, afaik), who is going to tell a person that choosing their personal ethics over their professional ethics is a problem? Would the community be better off if the government fined the pharmacy out of business?
Also, there are very few places in the US that are so remote that the local pharmacist is truly the only option. In rural America, most people have to travel a long way to hit an actual free-standing (non-hospital-based pharmacy). 30 miles is not uncommon. Being able to travel 30 miles implies the ability to travel 50 miles or 100 miles. Within 50 miles of most places in rural America, there's a decent sized-town supporting another pharmacy. Within 100 miles, there's usually a big enough city to have a chain store.
And if you're a teen living in a part of the country where every single pharmacist for 200 miles around is going to deny you BCPs...well, you may just have to deal with the reality of your situation and either take steps to become emancipated, or just wait until your 18th birthday and move. Sometimes life does kind of not align itself to give us everything we want. Passing laws isn't really going to work, imo. Driving pharmacists and doctors out of business over these issues is not going to make the standard of life in such communities better.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm really glad for this. I want all children to be cherished and well cared for. Unwanted children often aren't. Technology to prevent unwanted pregnancy is a good thing.
I agree, as long as we're talking about prevention, not termination.
Storm Saxon, like I said before-- the blush smiley isn't big enough. I overreacted.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: But they are supposed to find me a store with the drug. Or order me the drug. I mean, if you have a prescription for amoxil, and for some reason, the pharmacy doesn't carry amoxil, I don't think they're just supposed to send you on your merry way.
And when they do, I stop having prescriptions filled there, Walgreens.
-pH
Actually, I see it all the time. Pharmacies simply don't carry everything. Sometimes patients have to call all over town looking for some obscure drug that isn't used very often. Sometimes there is a local shortage of a drug that is often used Oftentimes the pharmacy will special order the drug for the patient, but it might take a week to come in. You can't very well wait a week for antibiotics, pain pills, Plan B, etc, so that option isn't really practical. Sometimes the pharmacy will suggest another pharmacy that might have it, but sometimes they have no idea if the other pharmacies in town carry it. So yes. I see patients turned away from pharmacies quite often. It's just a fact that pharmacies can't carry everything.
Hopefully, they won't run out of amoxil. It IS a staple of most pharmacies. Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's quite interesting to see how this plays out in the local communities. And sad -- it seems like neither side will budge an inch in seeing the other side's point of view.
I keep coming back to "Whose right is more right?"
The pharmacy or store owner to choose what they will or won't offer for sale (which is pretty common and needed in a store -- these daily decisions are made about all sorts of things . . . which brand of aspirin, milk, OJ, diapers, bread, organic vegies or not, etc.) versus ease of access or purchase for the consumer/pateint.
Hmmm.
We do have 36 pharmacies in our immediate area, with two major cities less than an hour away (well, barring rush-hour Friday traffic) and reasonably good bus service.
Granted -- not every community has that ease of access, and that must be considered, too. I have worked in communities where they have three mountain passses to traverse just to get to a nearby town, and can be snowed in for weeks at a time . . . how then does this work for them . . . ?
Our state also goes to great lengths to care for sexual assault emergencies -- every county has SAT centers -- although not every county has access to an abortion provider, so that begs the question of how accessible BC or morning after would be . . .
It's a pickle.
And guaranteed to heat up if the list of state leg bills on-hold from last season ready to go to the floor for the next season are any indicator:
posted
Why don't people think that it's possible for something that isn't a human right now (a zygote) to later grow into one given the right enviroment? This has always puzzled me. Why, just because a zygote can later become a human, does that mean it must be one now?
When cloning becomes routine and commonplace, it will be the case that any human cell is capable, given the right circumstances, of being grown into a human being. So if I trim my nails, all the cells that I'm trimming could become human. Each individual one. It will be like Lank Mueller in Treason. Every one of your trillions of cells will be capable of being grown into a full identical twin to you.
Just as a fertilized egg, a zygote, which is a single cell, has the potential of becoming a real human someday, given the right (highly specialized) environment. The only difference is that in the latter case, the engineer was evolution instead of our own intelligence and understanding of the world. Both are of God. Both result in real people, who can love and laugh and be alive.
Why does anyone think a cell is a human being? I know that when cloning becomes commonplace, people will not treat cheek scrapings as though they are their children. They aren't children. They are potential children, if you want them to become children.
I seriously can not understand how anyone can think a cell is a child. I can see that I would consider my fertilized eggs really important to me personally, because I would hope they could grow into my children some day. But I can't see thinking other people's fertilized eggs are human beings that it's wrong to deny the correct environment that gives them a chance to become children.
We don't say children are mandatory for all parents. We don't try to dictate the minimum number of children a couple has to have. Can someone please explain this in a way that it makes sense to me? This whole idea seems to me like a mistake made by people who don't understand biology. However, I respect that there's obviously something about it that I'm not getting.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I remember reading in the news last year that there was some research suggesting that nursing doesn't keep eggs from being fertilized, it just keeps them from being implanted. Has anyone heard of this as well? If it's true, then I think it casts this debate in a different light.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why don't people think that it's possible for something that isn't a human right now (a zygote) to later grow into one given the right enviroment? This has always puzzled me. Why, just because a zygote can later become a human, does that mean it must be one now?
Why do you think this is why people who believe that life begins at fertilization thinks this?
quote:We don't say children are mandatory for all parents. We don't try to dictate the minimum number of children a couple has to have.
How is this relevant to the question you are asking? It makes me thing I'm missing your overall point, which I've interpreted as "why do some people consider a fertilized egg a child?"
quote:Can someone please explain this in a way that it makes sense to me? This whole idea seems to me like a mistake made by people who don't understand biology. However, I respect that there's obviously something about it that I'm not getting.
There are many ways to conceptualize this:
1.) From a religious perspective, personhood might start from the moment of ensoulment. There's no particular reason why this wouldn't occur at fertilization, while there are reasons for thinking it wouldn't occur prior to that point.
2.) Work backwards from a time when you definitely consider the child to be a person. Say birth, so there's almost no controversy on that point. Go back a second. Still a child? Why or why not. If one allows personhood to precede birth at all, there is a continuity. Fertilization is the single biggest moment of change, where two entities existed now one exists. The organism will grow, unless she dies, until she becomes what everyone recognizes to be a human being.
3.) As for cloning, if it ever does create people, there will be a moment when the cheek cell stops being a cheek cell and starts being a person. Most likely, since as far as I know cheek cells don't actually grow into clones, that moment akin to fertilization will occur when the genetic material from the cell is deposited into a sterile egg (if I'm remembering correctly how cloning works). There's almost no relevance between cheek cells and the cloning.
4.) Let's imagine further technology. For example, artificial wombs. Suppose it becomes possible to take an egg fertilized in vitro and grow it in an artificial uterus without it ever going into a mother. Would we consider the result to be people? Most likely. The working backwards principle can be used, but this time I think it's clear that birth would be an artificial checkpoint for personhood, because the scientist would be deciding when birth occurs. The child could be removed a day earlier. Would we say personhood is dependent entirely on a technician's decision to get an extra few humans out before the weekend? Doubtful.
Now continue to work backward. Again, we see that there is a continuity: person, go back one second, person, go back one second...eventually, not a person. Fertilization is again the most logical stopping point.
The caveat to this is that some people define "person" by status - brain or nervous functioning, or heartbeat, or response to stimuli. The "moment" idea does not refute this concept. I reject the status concept, though, because such a definition almost certainly excludes many people with severe medical conditions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, it's not irresponsible. There are many pharmacies that allow their pharmacists to declare, in advance, which prescriptions they will not fill for ethical reasons. Why should an arrangement between employer and employee be trumped by the fact that people live in a small town?
I was saying it's an irresponsible personal choice to choose to work in a town so small that you're the only pharmacist around when you can't give people the medications they want for ethical reasons.
It's like if there was a state where doctors were required to administer euthanasia to patients who fulfill all the requirements set by the law (I don't think there's any state like this, though)--if you were a doctor who believed that administering euthanasia was murder or otherwise immoral, you shouldn't go practice medicine in that state, or if you do you should make sure that there are other doctors who could do it for you. In other words, if you want to make the choice not to provide the morning-after pill for moral reasons, then don't provide it, but don't put yourself in the position where you're the only available provider. Otherwise you're forcing your moral position on others, just as a law that required you to dispense the medication would force the legislator's moral position on you.
quote:In a small town with only one doctor, should that doctor be allowed to decline to provide abortions? If not, why is this different? If so, I don't want to live under your government.
I'm really not sure about what the law should say in these sorts of situations. I'm talking purely about what is responsible for the doctor to do: if you can't dispense certain medications, make sure that your patients have easy access to people who can.
quote:Further, this is entirely begging the question. Why should a doctor or pharmacist be required to provide any particular service? It hardly seems fair to make requirements about which services or products one must provide, then use those requirements to drive an entire segment of the population out of the profession.
If someone believed it was morally wrong to cut someone open, that person probably shouldn't go into surgery. If someone believes that killing and eating animal meat is morally wrong, that person probably shouldn't become a butcher. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone who decides to put themself in a situation where their personal and professional ethics are mutually incompatible, if they had the forethought to consider what their personal ethics would mean in the context of their job and could have reasonably anticipated and avoided the conflict.
What if someone believes that using drugs of any kind for medicinal purposes is morally wrong? Isn't it generally irresponsible of them to become a pharmacist--and specifically, the only pharmacist in a small town?
quote:As to the question of under-served rural communities, I have the sense that health care in small towns is not on a par with that available in large urban areas. People who live in these communities know that and choose to continue living there for a variety of reasons.
Except that not everyone has the ability to move away from those communities. Like, say, unemancipated teenagers in places where they can't legally be emancipated. (Arizona, for instance, only just passed an emancipation law this last year, and it only applies to sixteen-year-olds and has a long court procedure.)
quote:Even if there WAS a pharmacist's oath that called upon them to fill every legally obtained prescription (which there isn't, afaik), who is going to tell a person that choosing their personal ethics over their professional ethics is a problem? Would the community be better off if the government fined the pharmacy out of business?
Actually, I was thinking more of the doctors-in-emergency-rooms-in-the-hospital situations than pharmacists, because they do have an oath--I'm not sure what it covers, though, and perhaps it doesn't say anything about refusing medical care to patients on moral grounds.
quote:And if you're a teen living in a part of the country where every single pharmacist for 200 miles around is going to deny you BCPs...well, you may just have to deal with the reality of your situation and either take steps to become emancipated, or just wait until your 18th birthday and move.
So a teenager gets raped (or even the-condom-broke), goes to get a morning-after pill, can't, and she's supposed to go through the long procedure of proving herself capable of living on her own to a judge (even assuming she's of age to be emancipated) and in the meantime she might get pregnant? It's called the "morning-after" pill, not the "months-after" pill. Let alone wait until she reaches the age of eighteen. And in the can't-help-a-minor-cross-state-lines-to-get-an-abortion states, while she's waiting to be declared emancipated she can't even get an abortion. So even if she manages it before birth, she's had to wait and wait and wait and abortions get more risky the longer in the term they are.
I wouldn't want to be the one telling a pregnant teenager that life doesn't always align the way they want. Or that the moral choices of the man who raped her and the doctors who refused to get her the pill override her choice not to get pregnant (not even to terminate the pregnancy, not to get pregnant!).
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think I remember reading in the news last year that there was some research suggesting that nursing doesn't keep eggs from being fertilized, it just keeps them from being implanted. Has anyone heard of this as well? If it's true, then I think it casts this debate in a different light.
I haven't heard the research, but I can attest from personal experience that nursing doesn't keep anything from happening.
Actually, nursing usually delays the start of the menstrual cycle. My cycle started at 4 months with my first (hence the early pregnancy) and at 8-12 months with my next three. I guess it's possible that rather than delaying eggs being released from ovaries, it could just be delaying the buildup of blood in preparation for a baby - therefore, as you said, it could allow eggs to be fertilized but not implanted.
quote:So a teenager gets raped (or even the-condom-broke), goes to get a morning-after pill, can't, and she's supposed to go through the long procedure of proving herself capable of living on her own to a judge (even assuming she's of age to be emancipated) and in the meantime she might get pregnant?
In the case of rape, if she presents herself to the police and reports the crime, the standard procedure is for her to be taken to a hospital where she will be examined and a rape kit exam performed, and one would presume that morning after birth control would be available to the victim.
In the case of a condom breaking, the person is willfully and consensually engaging in an activity that might produce a child, since no birth control is 100% effective (not even morning after regimens) so she should accept the potential risks and consequences of that action. If morning after is not available, and she's relying on that as a back up mesure then perhaps she should re-think having sex in the first place.
quote:Or that the moral choices of the man who raped her and the doctors who refused to get her the pill override her choice not to get pregnant (not even to terminate the pregnancy, not to get pregnant!).
I would absolutely fight with everything I had to give a raped woman access to morning after regimens, no matter who she was or how old she was. But I will not extend that fight to people who choose to have sex and are not forced - they are choosing to engage in an activity that has a chance of producing a pregnancy and should take responsibility for that choice.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In the case of a condom breaking, the person is willfully and consensually engaging in an activity that might produce a child, since no birth control is 100% effective (not even morning after regimens) so she should accept the potential risks and consequences of that action."
You know, this argument really bothers me on a lot of levels. When people screw up, there are ALWAYS ways to correct the mistake. And we don't deny them access to correcting the mistakes they make, simply because they screwed up.
Further, its basically saying "In order to punish you for making a mistake, you have to have a baby."
I can't think of a better way to punish a CHILD then to use it as punishment against its mother.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Belle, not every woman is in a mental or social position to report rape. And some hospitals refuse to provide the morning after pill for religious reasons, even in the case of rape. While I agree that the morning after pill should be standard in all rape kits, that doesn't mean that it IS standard. If a small snowed-in town has a single pharmacy that does not stock the morning after pill, it's easy to imagine that it might be impossible to get the pill within 72 hours after rape. Also, if we're talking about a minor being abused my a family member, or an adult for that matter, the odds of reporting the abuse are much lower. Easy access to pregnancy prevention, including the morning after pill. becomes even more critical.
Also, I'm not sure of your stance on abortion, but a woman choosing to engage in consensual sex with protection that fails, and who cannot gain swift access to the morning after pill may choose to abort if a pregnancy does result. Is it morally acceptable to not work for full access to the morning after pill if lack of access may lead to more abortions?
As I've said before, I'm pro-choice, but it would sure be a lot nicer if women didn't have unplanned pregnancies in the first place. And I agree with you that any woman engaging in consensual sex, with or without protection, should have the foresight to understand that her decision may result in her having to choose between carrying a child to term or having an abortion. However, not everyone is as thoughtful as I (and I think you as well) wish they were.
So what's the best way to decrease unplanned pregnancies and abortions? I dunno, but wide access to the morning after pill seems like a critical piece of the puzzle.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So a teenager gets raped (or even the-condom-broke), goes to get a morning-after pill, can't, and she's supposed to go through the long procedure of proving herself capable of living on her own to a judge (even assuming she's of age to be emancipated) and in the meantime she might get pregnant? It's called the "morning-after" pill, not the "months-after" pill. Let alone wait until she reaches the age of eighteen. And in the can't-help-a-minor-cross-state-lines-to-get-an-abortion states, while she's waiting to be declared emancipated she can't even get an abortion. So even if she manages it before birth, she's had to wait and wait and wait and abortions get more risky the longer in the term they are.
I wouldn't want to be the one telling a pregnant teenager that life doesn't always align the way they want. Or that the moral choices of the man who raped her and the doctors who refused to get her the pill override her choice not to get pregnant (not even to terminate the pregnancy, not to get pregnant!).
I didn't say anything about rape because that's a totally different situation and, well, frankly, if anyone is raped there is a process (may not be great, of course, but it is there...).
I'm kind of suprised by your other example...you left out all the other bad scenarios -- like sexual abuse by a parent or close relative -- where parental notification and going through the police also involves the choice of whether or not to involve the police in ones family, the fear of seeing the family (such as it is) torn apart, the risk of one close relative murdering another close relative, and so on...
I don't like the idea of forcing a person to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. And if they were taking precautions and those precautions didn't work (the condom breaking scenario), I feel even more "on their side."
But, yes, at some point people do have to realize that life doesn't always align itself for their convenience and, if a teen girl is engaging in consensual sex and knows there's a risk of pregnancy and she may not be able to get the morning after pill without telling her folks, who will then have some say in her getting to go to a pharmacy further away than she's allowed to go, or to get a prescription for it since she's under age...well...yes, I'm not going to sit here wringing my hands over how unfair life is to her at that point.
If your home life is so bad that you can't imagine ever consulting your parents then, yeah, go get emancipated. And guess what...if you're adult enough to be emancipated, then you're adult enough to refrain from sex until you have the "right" measure of control over your own life to enable you to do what you feel is necessary if you were to get pregnant.
If you can pre-plan your sexual activity enough to get condoms, you can pre-plan enough to abstain under selected circumstances.
Sorry...that is exactly what I mean by society not aligning itself for the individual's convenience.
Does that mean I would want that person barred from access to an abortion if she chooses that alternative. No. I would want there to be a way for her to get her way even over her parents objections. But it can't be just a simple "she says so and that's that." Not with dependent minors.
I just don't have a lot of empathy or sympathy to spare for the kid who wants to be treated like an adult but doesn't really think this stuff through first and act in his/her own best interest to begin with. I realize the sex urge is powerful, but if the options are "have sex and if, despite your best precautions, you get pregnant you're in a huge mess" or "don't have sex," then I expect the majority should choose not to have sex.
Frankly, as the potential (as personally perceived) damage to your life from becoming pregnant rises, the willingness to refrain from sexual intercourse should rise as well. If it doesn't work like that for some teens, that's not society's fault. Other than saying that we should definitely do a better job educating our young people, I don't really think there's much that "society" should do about it. Acting contrary to ones own best interest is not responsible behavior.
And I'm more worried about the children coming into the world under those circumstances. I feel for the young moms, but I have real concern for the infants. If the mom is wrapped up in how having a baby (or even earlier -- if being pregnant) is ruining her life, what chance has that child got?
I've seen teen parents do a great job. Don't get me wrong. I just think the odds are not in their favor. There's a reason the social norm is to consider sex as "adult behavior."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder where the community's responsibility to the mother is? If the community is able to tell a woman that she must get pregnant (she's not allowed to get the morning after pill), shouldn't that community hold a moral responsibility to care for the mother and the child?
It seems like a very irresponsible thing to impose your morality on someone else, but only up until the point where they no longer have a choice, then sit back an watch them suffer.
Pharmacist: Oh, maybe you shouldn't have had sex (sinner), if you couldn't be responsible for the baby. I have the power to help you, but I choose not to.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wonder where the community's responsibility to the mother is? If the community is able to tell a woman that she must get pregnant (she's not allowed to get the morning after pill), shouldn't that community hold a moral responsibility to care for the mother and the child?
It seems like a very irresponsible thing to impose your morality on someone else, but only up until the point where they no longer have a choice, then sit back an watch them suffer.
Is that what we do as a society? Really? I don't believe that.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure medicaid and special programs and social workers everywhere will be bummed by your words.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely cannot understand people who say that the morning-after pill or abortion is okay in the case of rape, but not in the case of consenting sex.
If you believe that that fertilized egg is a human being, and should not be killed, then it's a human being no matter what the circumstances of its creation were. Yes, it would really suck for nine months for the woman involved, but does that mean a human being (the egg) should be murdered?
(For the record, I'm pro-choice and pro morning-after pill, but I hate, hate, hate it when people claim that its wrong to "kill" a fertilized egg, EXCEPT in the case of rape)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mighty Cow, and Paul...that's not at all what society's message is.
Surely as you grew up you learned that it was inappropriate to have sex below a certain age, right? If you chose to ignore that message, and are still underage, we (the rest of society) don't leave you in a lurch. There are programs to help you finish school. Programs to make sure your child has food. Programs to offer job training and assistance finding a job. There's even welfare if all of the above fail. And if you need medical attention and can't get it any other way, you can, in this country, walk into any emergency room and it is flat illegal to deny you treatment (assuming it is an actual emergency).
I think we should do more for the children who are born into those circumstances. I think there should be ways for an underage girl to obtain an abortion if she wants one. But that doesn't mean it has to be easy and that she can do it without having her parents (or a court-appointed guardian if the home situation is a serious problem) involved in some way.
I also would not deny the morning after pill. But how about this: people who can't afford an "oops" take additional precautions, up to and including just not engaging in intercourse. It's really not that difficult (barring rape, which we've already covered sufficiently, I believe).
I would never abandon people who are in trouble, but there's a point at which if someone is saying they are old enough and responsible enough to CHOOSE to have sex, then they should act like it. Choose NOT to have intercourse if the consequences of pregnancy are too much for you to handle and you are too young to legally make your own decisions regaring abortion, tubal ligation, etc.
This one of those situations where you can't have it both ways. Either you're old enough to do the act and accept the consequences or you aren't. If you aren't, then don't do the act. If you are, then fine...I'll be there to willingly lend a hand with expenses as long as you'll be a good parent to that child. I'll be there to foot the bill for adoption (if you choose public adoption route) or foster care (if you're such a crappy parent that the state takes your child away).
All I ask is that using public money for your upkeep and your child's upkeep be a last resort. We all know mistakes are going to happen. The next teen to get pregnant isn't the first and won't be the last. It's not the end of the world -- we'll all survive and even thrive if we don't work against each other or expect the world to align itself to our wishes.
You know what, though...sometimes things are just going to suck. Let's be honest. Having a child while still in high-school is not the preferred option. Before you've experienced life you're responsible for another life. And, yes, people are going to fret more about what chances your baby have than you have. Gosh-darn baby is going to get the lion's share of the attention and concern.
If that's not an acceptable scenario, then...yes...do whatever you can to avoid it. And yes, there's a safety net, but it's not free and it's not luxurious. It's the bare minimum. And that sucks, but that's all there is going to be.
Please tell me...what would an intelligent near-adult do?
Is sex so crucial to a teens day-to-day life that it must happen no matter what the outcome? Of course not. Do they know this? Of course they do.
Will it keep happening anyway? Yeah...sure it will.
Could it happen less? I sure as heck hope so.
Who can make it happen less? Teens. Who the heck else?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you consider "medicaid and special programs and social workers everywhere" to always provide at least adequate services for all children, young mothers, families on welfare, etc.? I have close friends who are social workers or in AmeriCorp or any number of other programs, and they are vastly underfunded and overworked. I would love for it to be true that as a nation (or on a grander scale, as a species) we take care of everyone who needs help, but that's blatantly false. New Orleans, anyone?
I think the concern that MightyCow and Paul are expressing is that when a woman does know that she has a risk of becoming pregnant and is prevented from taking steps to prevent that pregnancy, it's not as if society descends on her and pays for daycare so she can pursue a high school diploma and/or professional school, makes a registry of necessities for the baby, sends gift baskets full of diapers and formula at the delivery date, explains the importance of folic acid, comes by her house to take her to her pre-natal checkups, etc.
I wish we did do this as a society, but we don't. Some people try, and work very hard for it, but it's really not the norm. Having and caring for children is expensive and difficult - I think the self-selecting members of Hatrack are, as a whole, remarkably intelligent and committed to caring for children, but there are still posts all he time asking about how to deal with tough scenarios.
How is it morally superior to encourage the birth of a baby who will not be cared for?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple points regarding people having sex when they haven't really thought about it:
1) Good parenting should convery the message that sex carries certain risks, including disease and unplanned pregnancy. But not everyone receives good parenting. Some parents say nothing. Some parents, with the best intentions, fail to explain how to prevent pregnancy under the assumption that their child will not engage in sex simply because the parent has said they shouldn't.
2) Schools should reinforce messages regarding abstinence, sex, dangers, responsibility, etc. However, many private schools (or public schools is some districts, for that matter) have no viable sex ed classes or preach abstinence only. I have no particular objection to abstinence being taught as a sensible option, but again, failure to explain the repercussions of sex (and what sex IS for that matter) lead to people wandering around thinking you can't get STDs from oral sex or that you can't get pregnant if you're wearing your shoes. Or not even understanding what sex is. Not good.
Bob, I wish that every reproductively adult person on the planet knew what sex is, what the risks are, reasons not to choose sex, ways to be safe while having sex, how to prevent pregnancy, how to terminate pregnancy, how to access programs to care for expectant mothers, how to appropriately raise a child, how to apply for grants to raise a child - but they just don't. And I think society IS at least partially responsible for allowing such ignorance to go unchecked.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, is it that there's no clear dividing line during development between human and not-yet-human, that's why you feel the line must be backed up to fertilization? Because fertilization somehow makes a good break point?
But there are many many important things in life that don't have clear dividing lines. The age of majority, for instance. We pick an arbritary age there, because there's no saying exactly when a child becomes an adult. Being old enough to drive, or drink, or vote. A sapling becomes a tree. Night becomes day at dawn. Whatever instant we choose as "the moment of sunrise" who can think this isn't fairly arbitrary? The moment the sun's disk touches an artificial horizon line, regardless of the actual topography of the area you live in?
Huge important life changing differences hang in the balance on many of these things. Are you an adult and able to decide where you will live and whether you can marry the person you love? Are you a child and under the legal authority of a parent who may or may not have your best interests in mind? These dividing lines are almost completely arbitrary.
Had I been hired before Dec 31 I would have 2 weeks vacation this year and 2 weeks next year. Even though I was offered and accepted the job in Dec, it took them long enough to complete the paperwork that I didn't start until Feb. Therefore I have one week's vacation this year and one week next year.
Trivial examples, and important ones abound. There are no clear dividing lines between states that matter very much which state we choose, that have huge life-changing consequences.
Is that idea harder to conceptualize than looking at a cell through a microscope and calling it a human person?
I agree that if it's a matter of religion alone, then there's no questioning that. However, if it is a matter of religion alone, then there's no rationale for forcing this view on people who don't share the religion.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teenagers are preoccupied with sex. Their entire biological directive is to procreate. Their own body is telling them, "Have sex, have sex, HAVE SEX!!!" loudly and frequently. It takes a lot to overcome that. Some teens are lucky enough to have the support system to resist these urges, or the educational and financial resources to have birth control easily available.
Unfortunately, many teens are uneducated about safe sex. Many teens don't live in an environment where abstinence is given a high priority. Many teens believe that you can't get pregnant your first time, or that pulling out is a viable form of safe sex, or that wearing a condom means you can't get pregnant.
If a teen isn't considered mature enough to make her own birth control choices, why is she still held responsible for her choices concerning sex? If a teenager should stand up and take responsibility for her actions, how is it right to limit their ability to take the responsible choice of trying to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?
Further, if someone takes intentional steps to promote a woman's pregnancy, isn't that person partly responsible for the pregnancy?
Withholding Plan B from teenagers seems on par with removing airbags from a teen's car. Maybe if they don't want to get into an accident, they shouldn't drive. And if they drive and get into an accident, well too bad they didn't have airbags. They knew when they got in the car that they might get hurt.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
