PDA

View Full Version : Education FDA appeals making 'morning-after' pill available to all ages


luv
05-01-2013, 11:07 PM
http://www.ky3.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-planb-appealbre94100h-20130501,0,4232178.story

Terry Baynes
Reuters
8:00 p.m. CDT, May 1, 2013

(Reuters) - The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday appealed a court order directing the agency to make "morning-after" emergency contraception pills available without a prescription to all girls of reproductive age.

Lawyers with the Justice Department filed the appeal with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, according to court documents.

The appeal is the latest foray in the years-long legal battle over the pill known as "Plan B," a drug that has also sparked political and religious clashes. If taken up to 120 hours after unprotected sex, it is designed to prevent pregnancy.

The government is seeking to overturn U.S. District Judge Edward Korman's ruling from April 5 that required the FDA to make the emergency contraception available over-the-counter to women of all ages within 30 days.

The Justice Department has asked the district court to temporarily stop its order from taking effect while the appeal is pending, said FDA spokeswoman Erica Jefferson.

The district judge's ruling came in response to a lawsuit originally filed in 2005 by the Center for Reproductive Rights and other groups seeking to strike down age and access limits to the emergency contraception. They argued that there was no scientific proof that girls of reproductive age could not safely use the drug without supervision.

Korman's order reversed a surprise December 2011 decision by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. At the time, the FDA had decided to approve over-the-counter sales with no age limits when Sebelius ordered it to reverse course, barring girls under 17 from buying the pills without a prescription.

President Barack Obama supported that restriction, invoking his daughters. But the timing, 11 months ahead of the presidential election, sparked criticism that he was trying to placate social conservatives.

In his ruling, Korman called Sebelius' decision "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable."

"The motivation for the secretary's action was obviously political," he wrote.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, criticized the government's decision to appeal.

Obama's "administration has decided once again to deprive women of their right to obtain emergency contraception without unjustified and burdensome restrictions," she said in a statement.

Before filing its appeal, the FDA said on Tuesday that it would allow girls as young as 15 years old to buy without a prescription the Plan B One-Step emergency contraceptive, made by a unit of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

The agency said its decision to lower the age limit for Plan B One-Step was based on scientific data submitted by Teva that showed girls as young as 15 could safely use the drug without the intervention of a healthcare provider. Cashiers will still have to verify the customer's age before selling it, the FDA said.

The case is Tummino et al. v. Hamburg et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 12-763.

luv
05-01-2013, 11:14 PM
I put this under education because most of the comments I've seen directed at this seem to display a lack of it.

Fairplay
05-01-2013, 11:19 PM
It will be in vending machines everywhere before you know it.

Pass them out to the girls at middle school like its candy.

Cephalic Trauma
05-01-2013, 11:35 PM
It will be in vending machines everywhere before you know it.

Pass them out to the girls at middle school like its candy.

A. Abstinence doesn't work. It just doesn't

B. This has NOTHING to do with abortion. At all.

C. Safe for the girls, as stated in the OP.

Check. Check. Check.

There's a lot of misinformation out there, and we will likely see some of it in this thread.

luv
05-01-2013, 11:58 PM
A. Abstinence doesn't work. It just doesn't

B. This has NOTHING to do with abortion. At all.

There's a lot of misinformation out there, and we will likely see some of it in this thread.

You should have seen all of the people saying "liberals will send this country straight to hell", "life begins at conception", and "I'd rather raise a baby from an accidental pregnancy than know that killed an unborn child". Even the term "kill pill".

You cannot kill something that was never conceived to begin with. It's prevention, not abortion. Reading people's comments made me think, though. Is this how people think of my football views? Shouting at the top of my lungs against something whenever I have no clue what I'm really arguing against? :)

One "conversation" I had was also:

Him: Disgusting that they think its ok for a 15 year old to be able to purchase this.
Liberals are taking America straight to hell.

Me: As long as you're okay with the government paying for the child.

Him: Where do you think the government gets its money Leann. Wow
Obama??

Me: They get it from taxes. Your money will end up paying for the food stamps and welfare that the baby will likely be on. Abstinence is always best, but what if your child isn't as perfect as you want them to be? This is not abortion, unless you think items that prevent pregnancy are the same as abortion. This pill does not kill the baby. It helps to prevent pregnancy.


Pro-life people are really just pro-birth people. They care about the child up until it's born. But heaven forbid you have to pay taxes that go towards Medicare, food stamps, welfare, or whatever other government assistance the child will end up needing. You complain that people have babies just to get more money, but you also complain whenever they take preventative measures from having more babies?

Anyway, this particular gentleman's argument has now been moved to God no longer being in schools and how we have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion, etc.

Loneiguana
05-02-2013, 07:38 AM
It will be in vending machines everywhere before you know it.

Pass them out to the girls at middle school like its candy.


It cannot be obtained without proof of ID.

mlyonsd
05-02-2013, 07:39 AM
You should have seen all of the people saying "liberals will send this country straight to hell", "life begins at conception", and "I'd rather raise a baby from an accidental pregnancy than know that killed an unborn child". Even the term "kill pill".

You cannot kill something that was never conceived to begin with. It's prevention, not abortion. Reading people's comments made me think, though. Is this how people think of my football views? Shouting at the top of my lungs against something whenever I have no clue what I'm really arguing against? :)

One "conversation" I had was also:

Him: Disgusting that they think its ok for a 15 year old to be able to purchase this.
Liberals are taking America straight to hell.

Me: As long as you're okay with the government paying for the child.

Him: Where do you think the government gets its money Leann. Wow
Obama??

Me: They get it from taxes. Your money will end up paying for the food stamps and welfare that the baby will likely be on. Abstinence is always best, but what if your child isn't as perfect as you want them to be? This is not abortion, unless you think items that prevent pregnancy are the same as abortion. This pill does not kill the baby. It helps to prevent pregnancy.


Pro-life people are really just pro-birth people. They care about the child up until it's born. But heaven forbid you have to pay taxes that go towards Medicare, food stamps, welfare, or whatever other government assistance the child will end up needing. You complain that people have babies just to get more money, but you also complain whenever they take preventative measures from having more babies?

Anyway, this particular gentleman's argument has now been moved to God no longer being in schools and how we have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion, etc.
Someday when you're a parent maybe you won't sound so ignorant on this topic.

luv
05-02-2013, 07:49 AM
Someday when you're a parent maybe you won't sound so ignorant on this topic.

Tell me how I'm being ignorant. If a female is old enough to be on birth control, for whatever reason, then she's old enough for this. It's the same thing as birth control, only a higher dosage.

I'd like to hear how old a lot of people were when they became sexually active. Did your parents know? Yes, you want your children to wait as long as possible, but you do not have control over them all of the time.

I've been arguing so much with people who say it should be banned, that I'm forgetting my original thought on the subject. While I think it should be available, I actually agree that anyone under 17 should have parental consent.

Loneiguana
05-02-2013, 07:56 AM
Looks like it is still going to be in the courts.

"The Obama administration on Wednesday appealed a federal judge's order to lift all age limits on who can buy morning-after birth control pills without a prescription."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57582466/justice-department-to-appeal-morning-after-case/

mlyonsd
05-02-2013, 08:47 AM
Tell me how I'm being ignorant. If a female is old enough to be on birth control, for whatever reason, then she's old enough for this. It's the same thing as birth control, only a higher dosage.

I'd like to hear how old a lot of people were when they became sexually active. Did your parents know? Yes, you want your children to wait as long as possible, but you do not have control over them all of the time.

I've been arguing so much with people who say it should be banned, that I'm forgetting my original thought on the subject. While I think it should be available, I actually agree that anyone under 17 should have parental consent.
So you think the judge made a mistake?

LiveSteam
05-02-2013, 09:06 AM
anyone under 17 should have parental consent.

With out a doubt.

Radar Chief
05-02-2013, 09:18 AM
Tell me how I'm being ignorant. If a female is old enough to be on birth control, for whatever reason, then she's old enough for this. It's the same thing as birth control, only a higher dosage.

I'd like to hear how old a lot of people were when they became sexually active. Did your parents know? Yes, you want your children to wait as long as possible, but you do not have control over them all of the time.

I've been arguing so much with people who say it should be banned, that I'm forgetting my original thought on the subject. While I think it should be available, I actually agree that anyone under 17 should have parental consent.

I can agree with that. :thumb:

HonestChieffan
05-02-2013, 09:32 AM
Tell me how I'm being ignorant. If a female is old enough to be on birth control, for whatever reason, then she's old enough for this. It's the same thing as birth control, only a higher dosage.

I'd like to hear how old a lot of people were when they became sexually active. Did your parents know? Yes, you want your children to wait as long as possible, but you do not have control over them all of the time.

I've been arguing so much with people who say it should be banned, that I'm forgetting my original thought on the subject. While I think it should be available, I actually agree that anyone under 17 should have parental consent.


Very reasonable.

Brock
05-02-2013, 09:34 AM
It will be in vending machines everywhere before you know it.

Pass them out to the girls at middle school like its candy.

Please god, yes.

WV
05-02-2013, 09:50 AM
The part I don't agree with is making it available to all ages and many seemingly thinking that it's no big deal. I know accidents happen and the point of all of this is to prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, but the moral degeneration of this country is disturbing.

And my biggest issue is that this will do very little to prevent pregnancies from those that already ignore all other options out there currently.

luv
05-02-2013, 10:11 AM
The part I don't agree with is making it available to all ages and many seemingly thinking that it's no big deal. I know accidents happen and the point of all of this is to prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, but the moral degeneration of this country is disturbing.

And my biggest issue is that this will do very little to prevent pregnancies from those that already ignore all other options out there currently.

Agreed. It's only really effective if taken within the first three days after unprotected sex, and it's really more effective if the female is already on birth control. I think you have to have parental consent before a minor can be prescribed birth control, so I think the same would be true of selling it to a minor OTC.

stevieray
05-02-2013, 10:30 AM
parental consent? LMAO....what two 13 year olds do in the privacy of "their bedroom" isn't anyones business, especially the parents.

maybe they can call it .."old enough to bleed.....

mlyonsd
05-02-2013, 11:04 AM
Agreed. It's only really effective if taken within the first three days after unprotected sex, and it's really more effective if the female is already on birth control. I think you have to have parental consent before a minor can be prescribed birth control, so I think the same would be true of selling it to a minor OTC.

So since a 15 year old doesn't need parental consent for the morning after pill I'll ask again, did the judge get it wrong?

WhawhaWhat
05-02-2013, 11:25 AM
Why does anyone need their parent's permission to try to prevent pregnancy?

Brock
05-02-2013, 11:32 AM
Why does anyone need their parent's permission to try to prevent pregnancy?

Cuz thats mah grandbaby!!!

stevieray
05-02-2013, 11:36 AM
Why does anyone need their parent's permission

I know, what have we been thinking all these years...?

;)

HonestChieffan
05-02-2013, 11:37 AM
When does it become a baby these days anyway?

Brock
05-02-2013, 11:39 AM
When does it become a baby these days anyway?

When its wic card shows up in the mailbox.

luv
05-02-2013, 11:48 AM
When does it become a baby these days anyway?

At conception.

Bowser
05-02-2013, 11:51 AM
When does it become a baby these days anyway?

When its parents baptize it in the Holy Waters of the Grand Old Party.

HonestChieffan
05-02-2013, 11:53 AM
At conception.

I agree but the goal posts seem to be moving with the promotion of late term abortions and the information coming out of the Gosnell(sp) case. Im actually amazed at the low level of anyone even caring anymore.

J Diddy
05-02-2013, 12:00 PM
The hilarity of this is that no 15 year old would be able to afford them guys. They're like $50 a pop.

They'll still have to tell their parents.

Brock
05-02-2013, 12:00 PM
I agree but the goal posts seem to be moving with the promotion of late term abortions and the information coming out of the Gosnell(sp) case. Im actually amazed at the low level of anyone even caring anymore.

I suggest you pay extra taxes to support these kids if you really feel that way.

Warrior5
05-02-2013, 12:02 PM
Given that minimum age requirement (15) is under the age of consent, do statutory rape laws relate to this? If so, how?

I genuinely want to know.

J Diddy
05-02-2013, 12:03 PM
Someday when you're a parent maybe you won't sound so ignorant on this topic.

Hmmmm.

Sounds pretty accurate to me and I meet your "have child" qualifier.

J Diddy
05-02-2013, 12:04 PM
Given that minimum age requirement (15) is under the age of consent, do statutory rape laws relate to this? If so, how?

I genuinely want to know.

Stat rape cases vary state by state but here's a chart

http://age-of-consent.findthedata.org/

Cephalic Trauma
05-02-2013, 12:06 PM
I agree but the goal posts seem to be moving with the promotion of late term abortions and the information coming out of the Gosnell(sp) case. Im actually amazed at the low level of anyone even caring anymore.

Conception and late term are two very different things.

You won't see any abortions in the third trimester because it's illegal, and will stay that way, and partial birth abortions are rarely done these days because that shit is fucked up.

Bowser
05-02-2013, 12:07 PM
Or, just communicate with your daughter. Be open with her about sexuality, and be honest about the possible risks involved. Tell her to be smart about her choices, and if it is absolutley going to happen (which we all know it will; we were all high schoolers at one point. We know what goes on), don't just tell her to be safe about it, but help give her the resources she will need.

bevischief
05-02-2013, 12:08 PM
It's just a matter of time before this happens...

Mr. Kotter
05-02-2013, 01:02 PM
Conception and late term are two very different things.

You won't see any abortions in the third trimester because it's illegal, and will stay that way, and partial birth abortions are rarely done these days because that shit is ****ed up.

FTR... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestational_age), it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.<SUP id=cite_ref-cdc2003_13-0 class=reference>[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-cdc2003-13)</SUP> Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention) annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.<SUP id=cite_ref-cdc2003_13-1 class=reference>[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-cdc2003-13)</SUP> In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute) estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.<SUP id=cite_ref-14 class=reference>[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-14)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>....</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.<SUP id=cite_ref-state_18-1 class=reference>[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-state-18)</SUP> Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."<SUP id=cite_ref-19 class=reference>[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-19)</SUP>

luv
05-02-2013, 01:28 PM
I agree but the goal posts seem to be moving with the promotion of late term abortions and the information coming out of the Gosnell(sp) case. Im actually amazed at the low level of anyone even caring anymore.

I'm lost as to what you're talking about. The pill in the OP is to prevent pregnancy, not terminate it.

luv
05-02-2013, 01:29 PM
So since a 15 year old doesn't need parental consent for the morning after pill I'll ask again, did the judge get it wrong?

Well, since I'm stating that I believe a minor should have parental consent, it's not hard to come to that conclusion, is it?

luv
05-02-2013, 01:31 PM
The hilarity of this is that no 15 year old would be able to afford them guys. They're like $50 a pop.

They'll still have to tell their parents.

$35 through Planned Parenthood. They could save their allowance and have a nest egg for such occasions, I guess....lol

mlyonsd
05-02-2013, 01:52 PM
Well, since I'm stating that I believe a minor should have parental consent, it's not hard to come to that conclusion, is it?

If I misunderstood post 16 I apologize and retract my earlier comment.

Brock
05-02-2013, 01:56 PM
Someday when you're a parent maybe you won't sound so ignorant on this topic.

Yes, because god knows pooping out kids makes people smarter.

fan4ever
05-02-2013, 01:59 PM
Or, just communicate with your daughter. Be open with her about sexuality, and be honest about the possible risks involved. Tell her to be smart about her choices, and if it is absolutley going to happen (which we all know it will; we were all high schoolers at one point. We know what goes on), don't just tell her to be safe about it, but help give her the resources she will need.

Because teenage girls are well known for their open communication with their parents, and especially their sexual habits.

Cephalic Trauma
05-02-2013, 01:59 PM
FTR... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestational_age), it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.<SUP id=cite_ref-cdc2003_13-0 class=reference>[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-cdc2003-13)</SUP> Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention) annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.<SUP id=cite_ref-cdc2003_13-1 class=reference>[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-cdc2003-13)</SUP> In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute) estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.<SUP id=cite_ref-14 class=reference>[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-14)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>....</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.<SUP id=cite_ref-state_18-1 class=reference>[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-state-18)</SUP> Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."<SUP id=cite_ref-19 class=reference>[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#cite_note-19)</SUP>

Good stuff.

28 weeks is the clinical cutoff for the 3rd trimester.

Bolded shows why late-term abortions still occur.

mlyonsd
05-02-2013, 02:06 PM
Yes, because god knows pooping out kids makes people smarter.

I'm not against them using the drug. I'm against a judge deciding how to parent somebody elses kid.

If a kid is going around having unprotected sex at 15 a parent should have the right to know about it. That judge isn't going to step in and warn a kid about the consequences of transmitted diseases.

LiveSteam
05-02-2013, 06:08 PM
I'm not against them using the drug. I'm against a judge deciding how to parent somebody elses kid.

If a kid is going around having unprotected sex at 15 a parent should have the right to know about it. That judge isn't going to step in and warn a kid about the consequences of transmitted diseases.

This

Cephalic Trauma
05-02-2013, 06:15 PM
I'm not against them using the drug. I'm against a judge deciding how to parent somebody elses kid.

If a kid is going around having unprotected sex at 15 a parent should have the right to know about it. That judge isn't going to step in and warn a kid about the consequences of transmitted diseases.

What if the girl is too embarrassed to tell her parent that she had unprotected sex and gets pregnant?

LiveSteam
05-02-2013, 06:23 PM
What if the girl is too embarrassed to tell her parent that she had unprotected sex and gets pregnant?

JFC what kind of far left liberal are you? You call Mtv & get rich & famous/ Daaaaaaaaa

mlyonsd
05-02-2013, 06:25 PM
What if the girl is too embarrassed to tell her parent that she had unprotected sex and gets pregnant?
I don't know, you tell me. That doesn't change the fact this ruling bypasses a parent's right to actually, you know, parent.

Cephalic Trauma
05-02-2013, 06:32 PM
I don't know, you tell me. That doesn't change the fact this ruling bypasses a parent's right to actually, you know, parent.

Then you have a child with a child.

It's a tough situation that doesn't have a right answer. And I can't fully grasp your frustration because I don't have children. But I also know, unfortunately, that these things happen. Hopefully not for you and your own.

KChiefer
05-02-2013, 07:04 PM
To those saying teens need parental consent, here's the problem: Plenty of teens would rather roll the dice and wait and see if they get pregnant than admit to their parents that they had sex. That is why this should be available to any teen w/o parental consent.

mlyonsd
05-02-2013, 08:18 PM
Then you have a child with a child.

It's a tough situation that doesn't have a right answer. And I can't fully grasp your frustration because I don't have children. But I also know, unfortunately, that these things happen. Hopefully not for you and your own.

And I appreciate that. It isn't an easy situation anyway you look at it. But to give a 15 year old an easy way out doesn't necessarily help them. All it does is promote dangerous behavior.

mlyonsd
05-02-2013, 08:19 PM
To those saying teens need parental consent, here's the problem: Plenty of teens would rather roll the dice and wait and see if they get pregnant than admit to their parents that they had sex. That is why this should be available to any teen w/o parental consent.
So I assume you're pro-life?

HonestChieffan
05-02-2013, 08:21 PM
Somewhere between conception and birth society decides when killing the baby is ok. Like it or not that seems to be the issue. Some say its wrong anytime after conception. Others are fine with snipping a spinal cord after an induced birth.

Lots of ignoring the reality in this debate.

Killing a baby is ok as long as you dont see it as a baby. Yet outrage occurs if a 9 month old dies for whatever reason.

Cephalic Trauma
05-02-2013, 08:25 PM
Somewhere between conception and birth society decides when killing the baby is ok. Like it or not that seems to be the issue. Some say its wrong anytime after conception. Others are fine with snipping a spinal cord after an induced birth.

Lots of ignoring the reality in this debate.

Killing a baby is ok as long as you dont see it as a baby. Yet outrage occurs if a 9 month old dies for whatever reason.

No one will take you seriously with comments like that in light of what has been posted above.

Ignoring reality reality or ignoring what you've made as your reality?

KChiefer
05-02-2013, 09:01 PM
So I assume you're pro-life?

Why would you assume that?

HonestChieffan
05-02-2013, 09:06 PM
No one will take you seriously with comments like that in light of what has been posted above.

Ignoring reality reality or ignoring what you've made as your reality?

You dont follow current events? Aborted "babies" swimming in toilets trying to survive seems rather nasty unless you see them as just something to be flushed.

mlyonsd
05-02-2013, 09:10 PM
Why would you assume that?You gave the impression a girl waiting to see if she was pregnant was somewhat of a worse position than just taking a pill up front. To someone pro-choice I wouldn't think that would matter.

KChiefer
05-02-2013, 09:39 PM
You gave the impression a girl waiting to see if she was pregnant was somewhat of a worse position than just taking a pill up front. To someone pro-choice I wouldn't think that would matter.

Well, when the girl is in the bibble belt where getting an abortion is A) difficult B) often not allowed w/o parental permission, Yes, it matters.

I dunno if you've ever had an abortion, but from what I understand it's not as easy as taking a pill that prevents conception.

Cannibal
05-02-2013, 09:42 PM
A fertilized egg is not a "baby".

Beliefs such as that, are why the Republicans are losing women and young voters.

HonestChieffan
05-02-2013, 09:51 PM
A fertilized egg is not a "baby".

Beliefs such as that, are why the Republicans are losing women and young voters.

So. When is it a baby?

Cannibal
05-02-2013, 09:54 PM
When it can survive outside the womb without the mother? I hadn't thought much about it really.

Cephalic Trauma
05-02-2013, 10:03 PM
When it can survive outside the womb without the mother? I hadn't thought much about it really.

The law would agree. 90% pre-term survival rate at 28 weeks.

Though it's a pretty difficult line to draw.

Cannibal
05-02-2013, 10:05 PM
The law would agree. 90% pre-term survival rate at 28 weeks.

Though it's a pretty difficult line to draw.

I do agree it's a touchy subject.

Cannibal
05-02-2013, 10:06 PM
Although, I'll defer to medical experts in lieu of the bible.

luv
05-02-2013, 10:18 PM
Somewhere between conception and birth society decides when killing the baby is ok. Like it or not that seems to be the issue. Some say its wrong anytime after conception. Others are fine with snipping a spinal cord after an induced birth.

Lots of ignoring the reality in this debate.

Killing a baby is ok as long as you dont see it as a baby. Yet outrage occurs if a 9 month old dies for whatever reason.

Why are you debating this in this thread? This thread is not about aborting babies at all. It's about preventing conception. This pill is not an abortion pill. It prevents fertilization. It's basically a stronger dose of a birth control pill. If you are already pregnant when you take it, you will be pregnant after you take it. It would be similar to a woman who gets pregnant while on the pill continuing to take the pill until she finds out she's pregnant. It doesn't terminate the pregnancy. If you are adamant on debating over abortion, start another thread. That's not what this is even about.

Brock
05-02-2013, 10:19 PM
Somewhere between conception and birth society decides when killing the baby is ok. Like it or not that seems to be the issue. Some say its wrong anytime after conception. Others are fine with snipping a spinal cord after an induced birth.

Lots of ignoring the reality in this debate.

Killing a baby is ok as long as you dont see it as a baby. Yet outrage occurs if a 9 month old dies for whatever reason.

Lots of butthurt over a 40 year old decision. Get over it.

Mr. Kotter
05-02-2013, 11:41 PM
Good stuff.

28 weeks is the clinical cutoff for the 3rd trimester.

Bolded shows why late-term abortions still occur.

Technically, 24 weeks is the 3rd trimester cut-off since 36 weeks is considered "full-term"...but, yeah, despite intentional conflation and denial by many in the "pro-choice" crowd, third trimester abortion is NOT illegal (as you claimed earlier) in some states, and still DOES occur. However horrific and, "inconvenient" that fact may be...the lame excuse that you bolded of " exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health" merely serves as a gateway...

...a gateway for Pro-Abortion doctors and their radical extremist feminist "supporters" to attempt to rationalize and legitimize, what most rational folks would clearly consider nothing less than genuine "infanticide," under the guise of "threats" to a woman's "physical" and "mental" "health" that can easily be, manipulated and construed by those for whom ideology super-cedes squeamishness over infanticide ("ah, she is showing sever signs of 'distress' and depression," and "ah, she will be very sad!")...people like, well, you, it would seem....from your postings in this thread, at least.

But, hey, knock yourself out; it's your conscience. Personally, and regrettably from a moral perspective...I fall on the "pro-choice" side, because above-all I'm a political and social pragmatist. The Abortion debate has been settled on a legal and philosophical level....but I abhor those, like you, who appear to hide behind intellectually dishonest rhetoric.

Come on, man--just admit that you support infanticide, third-trimester and all. Don't hide behind transparent and lame intellectual mental gymnastics that any rational and educated folks can see through.

I'm just sayin'..... :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
05-02-2013, 11:45 PM
....

Though it's a pretty difficult line to draw.

Not for rational people with a real brain...or any parent, that I know, who has had a child.

Just sayin'... :shrug:

Dave Lane
05-02-2013, 11:57 PM
You should have seen all of the people saying "liberals will send this country straight to hell", "life begins at conception", and "I'd rather raise a baby from an accidental pregnancy than know that killed an unborn child". Even the term "kill pill".

You cannot kill something that was never conceived to begin with. It's prevention, not abortion. Reading people's comments made me think, though. Is this how people think of my football views? Shouting at the top of my lungs against something whenever I have no clue what I'm really arguing against? :)

One "conversation" I had was also:

Him: Disgusting that they think its ok for a 15 year old to be able to purchase this.
Liberals are taking America straight to hell.

Me: As long as you're okay with the government paying for the child.

Him: Where do you think the government gets its money Leann. Wow
Obama??

Me: They get it from taxes. Your money will end up paying for the food stamps and welfare that the baby will likely be on. Abstinence is always best, but what if your child isn't as perfect as you want them to be? This is not abortion, unless you think items that prevent pregnancy are the same as abortion. This pill does not kill the baby. It helps to prevent pregnancy.


Pro-life people are really just pro-birth people. They care about the child up until it's born. But heaven forbid you have to pay taxes that go towards Medicare, food stamps, welfare, or whatever other government assistance the child will end up needing. You complain that people have babies just to get more money, but you also complain whenever they take preventative measures from having more babies?

Anyway, this particular gentleman's argument has now been moved to God no longer being in schools and how we have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion, etc.

You hang around awesome people. :p

I still just cant figure the logic or lack of behind these thought processes.

Cephalic Trauma
05-03-2013, 06:36 AM
Technically, 24 weeks is the 3rd trimester cut-off since 36 weeks is considered "full-term"...but, yeah, despite intentional conflation and denial by many in the "pro-choice" crowd, third trimester abortion is NOT illegal (as you claimed earlier) in some states, and still DOES occur. However horrific and, "inconvenient" that fact may be...the lame excuse that you bolded of " exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health" merely serves as a gateway...

...a gateway for Pro-Abortion doctors and their radical extremist feminist "supporters" to attempt to rationalize and legitimize, what most rational folks would clearly consider nothing less than genuine "infanticide," under the guise of "threats" to a woman's "physical" and "mental" "health" that can easily be, manipulated and construed by those for whom ideology super-cedes squeamishness over infanticide ("ah, she is showing sever signs of 'distress' and depression," and "ah, she will be very sad!")...people like, well, you, it would seem....from your postings in this thread, at least.

But, hey, knock yourself out; it's your conscience. Personally, and regrettably from a moral perspective...I fall on the "pro-choice" side, because above-all I'm a political and social pragmatist. The Abortion debate has been settled on a legal and philosophical level....but I abhor those, like you, who appear to hide behind intellectually dishonest rhetoric.

Come on, man--just admit that you support infanticide, third-trimester and all. Don't hide behind transparent and lame intellectual mental gymnastics that any rational and educated folks can see through.

I'm just sayin'..... :shrug:

You're right, law says 24 weeks. 24 weeks is a time where a lot of things happen embryologically. Clinically, we use 28 because not all individuals develop the same.

Here are some good numbers:

41 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
 22 states impose prohibitions at fetal viability.
 4 states impose prohibitions in the third trimester.
 15 states impose prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24 weeks or during the third
trimester; 8 of these states ban abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization or its equivalent of 22 weeks after
the woman’s last menstrual period on the groundsthat the fetus can feel pain at that point in gestation.
 The circumstances under which later abortions are permitted vary from state to state.
 28 states permit later abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman.
 9 states unconstitutionally ban later abortions, except those performed to save the life or physical health
of the woman.
 4 states unconstitutionally limit later abortionsto those performed to save the life of the woman.
 Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed.
 12 states require that a second physician attend the procedure to treat a fetus if it is born alive in all or
some circumstances.
 9 states unconstitutionally require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically
necessary in all or some circumstances.

And, the harm to the mother is very real. Choose what you want to believe big guy. I don't really care, as the law and us nasty doctors will continue to treat our patients as we see fit.

Loneiguana
05-03-2013, 07:43 AM
The only way to do way with abortion would be to finally have the medical ability where people only get pregnant when they want to. I don't know what that answer is,but abstinence sure as heck isn't it.

To solve the problem of abortion demand, we have to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

Also, of this list: Birthcontrol, Abortion, Welfare - Of that list, you have to allow women at least one of those options.

Cephalic Trauma
05-03-2013, 07:53 AM
The only way to do way with abortion would be to finally have the medical ability where people only get pregnant when they want to. I don't know what that answer is,but abstinence sure as heck isn't it.

To solve the problem of abortion demand, we have to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

Also, of this list: Birthcontrol, Abortion, Welfare - Of that list, you have to allow women at least one of those options.

At present, we have birth control through many different mediums (IUD, oral, patch), morning after, barrier contraceptives, etc. There's just a stigma attached to some of these methods, and if you "peddle" them to kids, who will eventually have sex mind you, then it's wrong and unethical.

But when an unintended pregnancy occurs, what happens? Who pays for that? And who's complaining about pre- and post- fertilization options? The same people. The only way to satisfy them is if all kids stop having sex, which won't happen. Ever.

You're trying to suppress natural tendencies, and nature always wins. That's the reality of the situation.

King_Chief_Fan
05-03-2013, 08:03 AM
A fertilized egg is not a "baby".

Beliefs such as that, are why the Republicans are losing women and young voters.

link?

patteeu
05-03-2013, 08:42 AM
Maybe our schools should provide safe fuck rooms for our kids too so they don't have to get it on in the back seats of their cars.

Cephalic Trauma
05-03-2013, 08:43 AM
Everybody now!

Nature always wins!

Nature always wins!

Nature always wins!

patteeu
05-03-2013, 08:44 AM
Also, of this list: Birthcontrol, Abortion, Welfare - Of that list, you have to allow women at least one of those options.

Why?

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 08:47 AM
A fertilized egg is not a "baby".

Beliefs such as that, are why the Republicans are losing women and young voters.

Republicans won married women.

duncan_idaho
05-03-2013, 08:59 AM
It's all well and good to debate parents "knowing" about the sexual activities of their children. And in most cases, it's smart practice.

But I think what often gets overlooked when discussing a parent's right to know if his or her 15 year old is sexually active is what happens to the child if the parent refuses to allow access to birth control or emergency contraception.

Point of order: I'm not condoning sexual activities from young teens, but anyone with the ability to use logic understands that abstinence is not going to work, and at some point most children will have sex in their teens. It's a biological thing.

What happens to the 15-year-old whose mom and dad are Catholic and don't believe in using birth control? (or don't believe in birth control for any reason, even if it's just trying to promote abstinence for their kid)

That child doesn't have access to birth control. That child certainly wouldn't have access to emergency contraception if her parents were required to sign off on it.

That doesn't sit right with me.

Emergency contraception serves a critical need and prevents unwanted pregnancy. Its effect is really no different than taking birth control on an ongoing basis. It does the same thing - prevent implantation.

Abuse of emergency contraception exists, but it is less rampant than opponents insist.

Yes, young teens having sex is less than ideal. But we all know it's going to happen. I don't think it's fair or right to leave it entirely up to the parents whether their child has birth control access or not.

Backwards Masking
05-03-2013, 09:05 AM
Maybe our schools should provide safe **** rooms for our kids too so they don't have to get it on in the back seats of their cars.

man i wish

in the heat of the moment one time in HS, i sat down too fast on one of those rigid, upward seat buckles in the middle of fooling around one night and about had it go up my ass. In a very non consensual, non loving way I might add. WITH A GIRL.

allowing me a fuck room would have preventing such a dramatic experience from becoming ingrained in my fragile little mind.

Backwards Masking
05-03-2013, 09:06 AM
Republicans won married women.

and "married" usually (but not always) means "unavailable"

i say - they can have 'em!!!

patteeu
05-03-2013, 09:27 AM
It's all well and good to debate parents "knowing" about the sexual activities of their children. And in most cases, it's smart practice.

But I think what often gets overlooked when discussing a parent's right to know if his or her 15 year old is sexually active is what happens to the child if the parent refuses to allow access to birth control or emergency contraception.

Point of order: I'm not condoning sexual activities from young teens, but anyone with the ability to use logic understands that abstinence is not going to work, and at some point most children will have sex in their teens. It's a biological thing.

What happens to the 15-year-old whose mom and dad are Catholic and don't believe in using birth control? (or don't believe in birth control for any reason, even if it's just trying to promote abstinence for their kid)

That child doesn't have access to birth control. That child certainly wouldn't have access to emergency contraception if her parents were required to sign off on it.

That doesn't sit right with me.

Emergency contraception serves a critical need and prevents unwanted pregnancy. Its effect is really no different than taking birth control on an ongoing basis. It does the same thing - prevent implantation.

Abuse of emergency contraception exists, but it is less rampant than opponents insist.

Yes, young teens having sex is less than ideal. But we all know it's going to happen. I don't think it's fair or right to leave it entirely up to the parents whether their child has birth control access or not.

Why do you think you need to meddle with that parent/child relationship and fix it? Why not let those families decide how best to mitigate risk and deal with consequences?

luv
05-03-2013, 09:30 AM
Why do you think you need to meddle with that parent/child relationship and fix it? Why not let those families decide how best to mitigate risk and deal with consequences?

Because taxpayers often end up helping pay for the "consequences".

duncan_idaho
05-03-2013, 09:36 AM
Why do you think you need to meddle with that parent/child relationship and fix it? Why not let those families decide how best to mitigate risk and deal with consequences?

I'm not trying to fix anything.

I'm saying the teenager (we'll call her Sally) should have some outlets to protect herself from unwanted pregnancy if her parents are unwilling to help her do it or forbid her from doing it.

I'd rather Sally be able to get birth control without her parents consent than not. By extension, I"d rather her be able to get emergency contraception, too.

We all know that saying Sally should just not have sex is a foolish and unrealistic.

Backwards Masking
05-03-2013, 09:50 AM
Because taxpayers often end up helping pay for the "consequences".

the taxpayers ALWAYS help pay for the consequences via the great "Child Tax Credit" if the parents don't make a combined salary of AT LEAST $100k ( IE 99.9 percent of cases)

patteeu
05-03-2013, 10:02 AM
Because taxpayers often end up helping pay for the "consequences".

Does that mean that if, for example, anal sex leads to increased incidence of some kind of medical condition that impacts our taxpayers through healthcare expenses that it would be legitimate to reinstate anti-sodomy laws?

patteeu
05-03-2013, 10:04 AM
I'm not trying to fix anything.

I'm saying the teenager (we'll call her Sally) should have some outlets to protect herself from unwanted pregnancy if her parents are unwilling to help her do it or forbid her from doing it.

I'd rather Sally be able to get birth control without her parents consent than not. By extension, I"d rather her be able to get emergency contraception, too.

We all know that saying Sally should just not have sex is a foolish and unrealistic.

Yes, that's exactly what you're trying to do. You're trying to substitute your judgment for that of Sally's parents and fix what you perceive as a problem because her parents apparently don't perceive it that way. Another way to put this is that you're trying to impose your morality on Sally's family.

Radar Chief
05-03-2013, 10:13 AM
Does that mean that if, for example, anal sex leads to increased incidence of some kind of medical condition that impacts our taxpayers through healthcare expenses that it would be legitimate to reinstate anti-sodomy laws?

Increase risk of colon cancer.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 10:45 AM
Increase risk of colon cancer.

We've got to put a stop to this!

duncan_idaho
05-03-2013, 11:25 AM
Yes, that's exactly what you're trying to do. You're trying to substitute your judgment for that of Sally's parents and fix what you perceive as a problem because her parents apparently don't perceive it that way. Another way to put this is that you're trying to impose your morality on Sally's family.

I'm not imposing morality on Sally or Sally's family.

I'm making the choice available for Sally should she want to use it. Sally is the one making the morality choices, just like she is when she chooses to be sexually active.

Bowser
05-03-2013, 12:00 PM
Because teenage girls are well known for their open communication with their parents, and especially their sexual habits.

That's why the parent should approach the kid and initiate the talk, imo. It will be awkward, of course, but nobody said being a parent was easy.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 12:03 PM
I'm not imposing morality on Sally or Sally's family.

I'm making the choice available for Sally should she want to use it. Sally is the one making the morality choices, just like she is when she chooses to be sexually active.

Of course you are. Your value is that a 15 year old girl should have independent choice in the matter. You want to impose that value on others who believe that parents should have a say until their daughter becomes an adult.

Cephalic Trauma
05-03-2013, 12:07 PM
Of course you are. Your value is that a 15 year old girl should have independent choice in the matter. You want to impose that value on others who believe that parents should have a say until their daughter becomes an adult.

You're really good at misconstruing people's words and their intent.

BigChiefTablet
05-03-2013, 12:13 PM
You're really good at misconstruing people's words and their intent.

'Splain it to us then, because that is pretty much exactly the position you seem to be championing.

luv
05-03-2013, 12:14 PM
Of course you are. Your value is that a 15 year old girl should have independent choice in the matter. You want to impose that value on others who believe that parents should have a say until their daughter becomes an adult.

And your imposing the morality that a 15 year old should not have an independent choice.

Peronally, I'm still leaning towards parental consent, but I'm doing so more for medical purposes. While the pill will not terminate a pregnancy, there are still health factors (side effects) to think about. The argument of morality goes both ways, IMO.

King_Chief_Fan
05-03-2013, 12:14 PM
You're really good at misconstruing people's words and their intent.
c'mon Ceph - how else would you interpret what he said?

WhawhaWhat
05-03-2013, 12:15 PM
Of course you are. Your value is that a 15 year old girl should have independent choice in the matter. You want to impose that value on others who believe that parents should have a say until their daughter becomes an adult.

Parents that don't want their kid to know about and use birth control are morons. If the girl is worried about getting pregnant, she should do everything she wants to prevent that.

King_Chief_Fan
05-03-2013, 12:18 PM
Parents that don't want their kid to know about and use birth control are morons. If the girl is worried about getting pregnant, she should do everything she wants to prevent that.

I think that is right...prevent it with birth control or abstinence (yeah I know). No one want their underage teenager driving down to Walgreens to get the morning after pill

Cephalic Trauma
05-03-2013, 12:22 PM
'Splain it to us then, because that is pretty much exactly the position you seem to be championing.

Pretty much exactly, huh?

LMAO

duncan_idaho
05-03-2013, 12:22 PM
Of course you are. Your value is that a 15 year old girl should have independent choice in the matter. You want to impose that value on others who believe that parents should have a say until their daughter becomes an adult.

Let me go reductio for a second...

How far do you extend the whole "parents have a say" concept?

What if the parents' individual value is that their daughter should not take any medication, of any sort, at all? And that child has any number of chronic conditions that would normally be treated easily and effectively with daily medication (diabetes, high blood pressure, anemia, athsma, etc.).

Is the parent's SAY in that teenager's choice still paramount?

I can tell you that from a legal and healthcare standpoint, it isn't. Parents can't restrict what medications are prescribed by their doctor and can't even restrict what medications their health coverage will provide to their child.

Hell, a parent can't even discuss their teenager's prescriptions without the kid's permission/authorization. My company is a Fortune 50 health care organization, and it actually requires authorization for any child 11 or older. This is the industry standard.

WhawhaWhat
05-03-2013, 12:25 PM
No one wants their underage teenager driving down to Walgreens to get the morning after pill

Completely agree. Nobody wants that, but once it's happened, that ship has sailed and it's time to deal with reality.

Cephalic Trauma
05-03-2013, 12:26 PM
c'mon Ceph - how else would you interpret what he said?

He's providing options to an adolescent who would otherwise be embarrassed to talk about it with their parents.

This argument is becoming circular.

How about this- you believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. I'll stick to reality, as my experiences have shown me first hand, and you can continue to hope the ideal situation wins out.

Sometimes facts are unpleasant.

Happy?

King_Chief_Fan
05-03-2013, 12:27 PM
Let me go reductio for a second...

How far do you extend the whole "parents have a say" concept?

What if the parents' individual value is that their daughter should not take any medication, of any sort, at all? And that child has any number of chronic conditions that would normally be treated easily and effectively with daily medication (diabetes, high blood pressure, anemia, athsma, etc.).

Is the parent's SAY in that teenager's choice still paramount?

I can tell you that from a legal and healthcare standpoint, it isn't. Parents can't restrict what medications are prescribed by their doctor and can't even restrict what medications their health coverage will provide to their child.

Hell, a parent can't even discuss their teenager's prescriptions without the kid's permission/authorization. My company is a Fortune 50 health care organization, and it actually requires authorization for any child 11 or older. This is the industry standard.

We aren't talking medication to preserve health of an individual with an illness......the industry standard appears to be moronic

duncan_idaho
05-03-2013, 12:29 PM
Completely agree. Nobody wants that, but once it's happened, that ship has sailed and it's time to deal with reality.

Agree.

I don't have a 15-year-old daughter, but if I did...

1) I'd rather her not be sexually active than be sexually active
2) If she's going to be sexually active, I'd rather she be on birth control than be at high risk for getting pregnant
3) If she's not on birth control and has an unprotected sexual encounter, I'd rather she take emergency contraception than become pregnant.

King_Chief_Fan
05-03-2013, 12:30 PM
He's providing options to an adolescent who would otherwise be embarrassed to talk about it with their parents.

This argument is becoming circular.

How about this- you believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. I'll stick to reality, as my experiences have shown me first hand, and you can continue to hope the ideal situation wins out.

Sometimes facts are unpleasant.

Happy? Then it is a crying shame that children cannot talk with their parents about these issues. Your reality fits you and mine, me.
I guess we both win......Happy?

luv
05-03-2013, 12:30 PM
I think that is right...prevent it with birth control or abstinence (yeah I know). No one want their underage teenager driving down to Walgreens to get the morning after pill

That's exactly what this pill is. It's birth control. It's not an abortion pill. It prevents fertilization. If it's already occurred, this pill will not terminate a pregnancy.

BigChiefTablet
05-03-2013, 12:31 PM
Pretty much exactly, huh?

LMAO

Well tell us what you really meant then?

Cephalic Trauma
05-03-2013, 12:33 PM
Then it is a crying shame that children cannot talk with their parents about these issues. Your reality fits you and mine, me.
I guess we both win......Happy?

Yeah, it is. I agree with that entirely. Ideally, the parents would have the talk, tell them what they believe (in your case celibacy, and probably mine as well), and hope that the values they've instilled in their child hold true. But if they don't, it would suck to have a kid because the adolescent had nobody or nothing to turn to.

Cephalic Trauma
05-03-2013, 12:34 PM
Well tell us what you really meant then?

I pretty much exactly meant what I've posted over and over. I can write it, but the comprehension part is on you.

luv
05-03-2013, 12:35 PM
Agree.

I don't have a 15-year-old daughter, but if I did...

1) I'd rather her not be sexually active than be sexually active
2) If she's going to be sexually active, I'd rather she be on birth control than be at high risk for getting pregnant
3) If she's not on birth control and has an unprotected sexual encounter, I'd rather she take emergency contraception than become pregnant.

And those who do not want their children to do so also have the option of trying to force that view on their children without the government interfering. "Conservatives" can still be conservative without forcing "liberals" to be conservative. My view of parental consent is weak, but I'm still for it until further research on any possible side effects causing possible permanent damage.

duncan_idaho
05-03-2013, 12:38 PM
We aren't talking medication to preserve health of an individual with an illness......the industry standard appears to be moronic

That's why I said "Let me go reductio for a second." To take the argument to the extreme and make the point that parental values don't/should not trump the kid's right to medical treatment.

The industry standard is based on legal protection for individual rights. It's annoying but designed with what is best for all individuals in mind.

BigChiefTablet
05-03-2013, 12:43 PM
I pretty much exactly meant what I've posted over and over. I can write it, but the comprehension part is on you.

My reading comprehension is excellent. Which part Pat's summary of your argument do you disagree with?

duncan_idaho
05-03-2013, 12:46 PM
Yeah, it is. I agree with that entirely. Ideally, the parents would have the talk, tell them what they believe (in your case celibacy, and probably mine as well), and hope that the values they've instilled in their child hold true. But if they don't, it would suck to have a kid because the adolescent had nobody or nothing to turn to.

Exactly.

If Sally's parents are extremely strict Catholics, they're going to tell her to remain celibate and DEFINITELY never take birth control.

I respect their right to teach and instruct their kid as they see fit. That doesn't mean Sally buys all the way in to her parents values and should have no outlets or alternatives.

What's better for society:

1) Sally is sexually active AND on birth control, both against her parents' beliefs and wishes and is RESPONSIBLE about her sexual activity
2) Silly is sexually active against her parents' wishes but is not on birth control, and is NOT responsible about her sexual activity, resulting in a an unwanted pregnancy
3) Sally is sexually active but is not on birth control and is NOT responsible about her sexual activity, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy that she aborts.

Cephalic Trauma
05-03-2013, 12:46 PM
My reading comprehension is excellent. Which part Pat's summary of your argument do you disagree with?

Put those excellent comprehension skills to work:thumb:

BigChiefTablet
05-03-2013, 01:09 PM
Maybe I got ahead of myself. I assumed you were arguing that making this drug available over the counter was the right thing to do.

But you said that ideally the parents should be involved in these types of decisions, but the final decision should rest with the kid. If these pills are available over the counter, then the parents can be bypassed altogether. So you must not be arguing that this pill should be available over the counter.

Hell, I can't even buy Sudafed without showing my ID.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 01:59 PM
And your imposing the morality that a 15 year old should not have an independent choice.

Peronally, I'm still leaning towards parental consent, but I'm doing so more for medical purposes. While the pill will not terminate a pregnancy, there are still health factors (side effects) to think about. The argument of morality goes both ways, IMO.

Yes, I'm defending the family unit. That's a version of morality that has been the foundation of western culture for quite some time. You're entertaining the idea of driving another wedge into that family unit based on the conceit that you know better what is good for someone's kid than their parents do.

I hope I don't ever hear you complaining about the way religious conservatives (of which I'm not one) want to impose their morality on the rest of us. It's always a two way street.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 02:13 PM
Let me go reductio for a second...

How far do you extend the whole "parents have a say" concept?

What if the parents' individual value is that their daughter should not take any medication, of any sort, at all? And that child has any number of chronic conditions that would normally be treated easily and effectively with daily medication (diabetes, high blood pressure, anemia, athsma, etc.).

Is the parent's SAY in that teenager's choice still paramount?

I can tell you that from a legal and healthcare standpoint, it isn't. Parents can't restrict what medications are prescribed by their doctor and can't even restrict what medications their health coverage will provide to their child.

Hell, a parent can't even discuss their teenager's prescriptions without the kid's permission/authorization. My company is a Fortune 50 health care organization, and it actually requires authorization for any child 11 or older. This is the industry standard.

I think great deference should be given to the parent. In extraordinary cases like serious child abuse or life threatening medical conditions, I think it's OK for the state to intervene. Pregnancy (or the mere possibility of pregnancy in this case) isn't what I would consider the kind of condition that warrants stripping parental rights away.

I'm not sure what you're calling an industry standard, but it's not standard for a healthcare professional to require written authorization from an 11 year old to discuss that child's prescriptions with his parents.

luv
05-03-2013, 02:17 PM
Maybe I got ahead of myself. I assumed you were arguing that making this drug available over the counter was the right thing to do.

But you said that ideally the parents should be involved in these types of decisions, but the final decision should rest with the kid. If these pills are available over the counter, then the parents can be bypassed altogether. So you must not be arguing that this pill should be available over the counter.

Hell, I can't even buy Sudafed without showing my ID.

I'm saying that there should be parental consent, but for different reasons than "morality". I disagree with that parents rights to parent their child is imposed upon by NOT making parental consent mandatory.

The more I think about it, though, the more I'm still torn. I see the argument with both sides.

From a legal standpoint of individual rights that some are protecting, but, at the same time, minors don't have the same legal rights as adults. They cannot represent themselves. They can't even legally enter into binding contract.

At the same time, I can see how this might help the teen pregnancy rate possibly go down.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 02:24 PM
Exactly.

If Sally's parents are extremely strict Catholics, they're going to tell her to remain celibate and DEFINITELY never take birth control.

I respect their right to teach and instruct their kid as they see fit. That doesn't mean Sally buys all the way in to her parents values and should have no outlets or alternatives.

What's better for society:

1) Sally is sexually active AND on birth control, both against her parents' beliefs and wishes and is RESPONSIBLE about her sexual activity
2) Silly is sexually active against her parents' wishes but is not on birth control, and is NOT responsible about her sexual activity, resulting in a an unwanted pregnancy
3) Sally is sexually active but is not on birth control and is NOT responsible about her sexual activity, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy that she aborts.

What's better for society is not undermining the parent/child relationship and encouraging girls who aren't ready emotionally for sex to go ahead and give it a try anyway because they can have anonymous access to sex-without-pregnancy pills.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 02:25 PM
I'm saying that there should be parental consent, but for different reasons than "morality". I disagree with that parents rights to parent their child is imposed upon by NOT making parental consent mandatory.

The more I think about it, though, the more I'm still torn. I see the argument with both sides.

From a legal standpoint of individual rights that some are protecting, but, at the same time, minors don't have the same legal rights as adults. They cannot represent themselves. They can't even legally enter into binding contract.

At the same time, I can see how this might help the teen pregnancy rate possibly go down.

Most relevantly, they can't even legally consent to sex.

duncan_idaho
05-03-2013, 02:36 PM
What's better for society is not undermining the parent/child relationship and encouraging girls who aren't ready emotionally for sex to go ahead and give it a try anyway because they can have anonymous access to sex-without-pregnancy pills.

You're way too jaded to really be this naive about this subject.

Providing access to safe (and pregnancy-free) sex for teenagers doesn't increase the amount of sex teenagers have. It just increases the amount of safe (and pregnancy-free) sex teenagers have.

Providing access does not undermine the parent/child relationship. The actions and choices of the individuals are the only things that can truly undermine the parent/child relationship.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 03:32 PM
You're way too jaded to really be this naive about this subject.

Providing access to safe (and pregnancy-free) sex for teenagers doesn't increase the amount of sex teenagers have. It just increases the amount of safe (and pregnancy-free) sex teenagers have.

Providing access does not undermine the parent/child relationship. The actions and choices of the individuals are the only things that can truly undermine the parent/child relationship.

OK, I disagree on both counts.

duncan_idaho
05-03-2013, 03:50 PM
OK, I disagree on both counts.

You honestly think fear (of getting pregnant) is disincentive to having sex for a teenager? That will convince teenagers to abstain?

patteeu
05-03-2013, 04:02 PM
You honestly think fear (of getting pregnant) is disincentive to having sex for a teenager? That will convince teenagers to abstain?

Yes. It's undoubtably a disincentive. It might not be decisive in many cases, but it's a negative for most teens who weigh the pros and cons.

Frazod
05-03-2013, 04:07 PM
I didn't have a brain when I was a teenager - I had a boner. It didn't weigh pros and cons. It just wanted to fuck.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 04:13 PM
I didn't have a brain when I was a teenager - I had a boner. It didn't weigh pros and cons. It just wanted to ****.

Did you ever screw your girlfriend in front of her dad?

Frazod
05-03-2013, 04:22 PM
Did you ever screw your girlfriend in front of her dad?

In the next room, yes. In front of, no.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 04:23 PM
In the next room, yes. In front of, no.

Why not?

Frazod
05-03-2013, 04:24 PM
Why not?

Are you filling in for Donger today?

BucEyedPea
05-03-2013, 04:24 PM
You honestly think fear (of getting pregnant) is disincentive to having sex for a teenager? That will convince teenagers to abstain?

It worked for me.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 04:29 PM
Are you filling in for Donger today?

The reason you didn't do it in front of him was because as careless as you were willing to be to get laid, you still balanced pros and cons, and the reaction you could expect from him was enough of a con to outweigh any of the pros.

But besides all that, the con of pregnancy is much greater for the girl than it is for the guy so the fact that you weren't very sensitive to it doesn't mean much.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 04:31 PM
It worked for me.

If your parents had told you that they understood that teenagers were going to have sex and they just wanted to make sure you were on the pill so you wouldn't have to deal with the inconvenience of pregnancy, do you think you would have been more likely to experiment with it?

Prison Bitch
05-03-2013, 04:34 PM
You honestly think fear (of getting hooked) is disincentive to doing drugs for a teenager? That will convince teenagers to abstain?

FYP

HonestChieffan
05-03-2013, 04:35 PM
If your parents had told you that they understood that teenagers were going to have sex and they just wanted to make sure you were on the pill so you wouldn't have to deal with the inconvenience of pregnancy, do you think you would have been more likely to experiment with it?

I would have. She would not. Been married 40 years and still laugh about those issues. She won.

WhawhaWhat
05-03-2013, 04:40 PM
It worked for me.

BJs only?

Frazod
05-03-2013, 04:49 PM
The reason you didn't do it in front of him was because as careless as you were willing to be to get laid, you still balanced pros and cons, and the reaction you could expect from him was enough of a con to outweigh any of the pros.

But besides all that, the con of pregnancy is much greater for the girl than it is for the guy so the fact that you weren't very sensitive to it doesn't mean much.

I never peed on the floor in the middle of art class, either. I don't think that has so much to do with weighing pros and cons as just not being an animal.

HonestChieffan
05-03-2013, 04:54 PM
I never peed on the floor in the middle of art class, either. I don't think that has so much to do with weighing pros and cons as just not being an animal.

Now come on. Did you really? Art class? Damn. Come on fess up....

Loneiguana
05-03-2013, 05:09 PM
Why?

Why should women be allowed birth control, abortion, or public assistance?

Well, First I believe a women has the right to choose when she will have a kid, as a kid is one of the biggest life changing events in a person's life. A mother should be able to choose when that happens.

Now, personally, I favor the birth control of those three options. One day, I hope science will find a very effective, non invasive, technique that will ensure without a doubt infertility until a women (or couple) decides their life is ready for a child.

If, for some reason, a society doesn't have a great system of birth control, with a comprehensive sex education system, than abortion demand will be there.

This is nothing new, abortions have been happening for thousands of years.

If, for some reason, a society does not allow either of those options, then I believe that society should at a minimum ensure that children in poverty get assistance. Which, would have to go through parents. In a developed, rich, nation such as ours, there shouldn't be child starvation.

A few sad stats:

"Single mothers are more likely to be poor than married couples. The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2011 was 40.9%, nearly five times more than the rate (8.8%) for married-couple families.


Two fifths of single mother families are “food insecure,”12 one seventh use food pantries, one third spend more than half their income on housing, which is generally considered the threshold for “severe housing cost burden.”

Single-parent families are among the poorest in the nation and as such, are extremely vulnerable to homelessness. Among all homeless families, 8 out of 10 are headed by single women with children; two fifths are African Americans (43%)."

Although two fifths of all single mothers are poor, only one tenth of all single mothers receive TANF. Though a small percentage, they represent more than 90% of all TANF families."

Read More Here: http://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

I am not at all going to claim that all single mothers didn't want their child.

I will claim that better birth control will help alleviate the problem

Loneiguana
05-03-2013, 05:23 PM
Some more stats., specifically relating to teen pregnancy. I'd say that teen pregnancy is an issue that is worth finding a solution for. Abstinence only isn't it.

From http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/why-it-matters/pdf/poverty.pdf


Approximately one-quarter of teen mothers go on welfare within 3 years of the child’s birth.2

Teen mothers are less likely to complete the education necessary to qualify for a well-paying job —only 38 percent of mothers who have children before age 18 obtain a high school diploma.3 In addition, other data indicate that less than two percent of mothers who have children before age 18 complete college by the age of 30 compared to nine percent of young women who wait until age 20 or 21 to have children.4 This disparity in education, not surprisingly, tends to affect income level. In fact, over the past 20 years the median income for college graduates has increased 19 percent while the median income for high school dropouts has decreased 28 percent.5

Virtually all of the increase in child poverty between 1980 and 1996 was related to the increase in nonmarital childbearing, and half of never-married mothers begin their childbearing as teens.6

Nearly 80 percent of fathers of children born to teen mothers do not marry the mothers. These fathers pay less than $800 annually in child support, often because they are quite poor themselves.8Since child support can be an important source of income for poor children—accounting for 23 percent of the family income among those families who do receive child support—children born to young fathers are at further disadvantage.9

Brock
05-03-2013, 05:25 PM
Approximately one-quarter of teen mothers go on welfare within 3 years of the child’s birth.

Rescue these parasites!!! /religious kooks

Loneiguana
05-03-2013, 05:28 PM
To back up my claim on Abstinence only claim, I provide the following study. What I provide here is the abstract:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0024658

Abstract

The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In an effort to reduce these rates, the U.S. government has funded abstinence-only sex education programs for more than a decade. However, a public controversy remains over whether this investment has been successful and whether these programs should be continued. Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S. In alignment with the new evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative and the Precaution Adoption Process Model advocated by the National Institutes of Health, we propose the integration of comprehensive sex and STD education into the biology curriculum in middle and high school science classes and a parallel social studies curriculum that addresses risk-aversion behaviors and planning for the future.


I will also provide this:

Because Of Abstinence Education, 60 Percent Of Young Adults Are Misinformed About Birth Control’s Effectiveness

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/14/482665/birth-control-misinformed/

patteeu
05-03-2013, 05:28 PM
Why should women be allowed birth control, abortion, or public assistance?

No, not why do you think we should. Why do we *have to* do one of the three?

The rest of this long post was deleted because it wasn't responsive to my question.

Loneiguana
05-03-2013, 05:33 PM
No, not why do you think we should. Why do we *have to* do one of the three?

The rest of this long post was deleted because it wasn't responsive to my question.

Well, then read it again, and substitute should for "have to". It doesn't change my response.

But, I will add another reason. Have to provide birth control because no one wants an abortion, but they will get one if needed. And despite all the laws you pass, abortion will happen.

patteeu
05-03-2013, 06:32 PM
Well, then read it again, and substitute should for "have to". It doesn't change my response.

But, I will add another reason. Have to provide birth control because no one wants an abortion, but they will get one if needed. And despite all the laws you pass, abortion will happen.

Ok, so you concede that we don't really have to do any of those things.

mlyonsd
05-03-2013, 10:51 PM
Ok, so you concede that we don't really have to do any of those things.
You're arguing with people that think the emotions and hormones of a 15 year old are more logical, experienced, and intelligent than that of her parents. They obviously fear the parent's actions more than that of a manipulating boyfriend, abuser, drug addict, or disease infested vermin fucking said 15 year old.

Good luck with that.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 08:01 AM
You're arguing with people that think the emotions and hormones of a 15 year old are more logical, experienced, and intelligent than that of her parents. They obviously fear the parent's actions more than that of a manipulating boyfriend, abuser, drug addict, or disease infested vermin ****ing said 15 year old.

Good luck with that.

Good point.

WilliamTheIrish
05-04-2013, 08:30 AM
Glad those days as a parent of a teen are over.

My daughter, at 15 asked to go on the pill. "Regulate my period" etc.

My question: "So, you"re having sex or going to have sex"?

Her reply: "Of course not".

By that time in my career in radiology/US I'd already seen hundreds of teens who came to the ED with "belly pain /weight gain/ or any other malady only to discover on the monitor "Oh gee, what's that"?

I was happy my kid had the fortitude to discuss it with me and her mom. I had pounded it into their heads that I was not paying to raise their mistake. That was incentive enough I suppose, but no way were we going to take any chances.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 08:43 AM
You're arguing with people that think the emotions and hormones of a 15 year old are more logical, experienced, and intelligent than that of her parents. They obviously fear the parent's actions more than that of a manipulating boyfriend, abuser, drug addict, or disease infested vermin ****ing said 15 year old.

Good luck with that.

No where in my post did I say any of that. Is making things up the only way conservative argue?

dirk digler
05-04-2013, 08:43 AM
You're arguing with people that think the emotions and hormones of a 15 year old are more logical, experienced, and intelligent than that of her parents. They obviously fear the parent's actions more than that of a manipulating boyfriend, abuser, drug addict, or disease infested vermin fucking said 15 year old.

Good luck with that.

I know I am joining this debate late but mlyonsd do you know the statistics for parents\relatives that molest their own children? It is around 30-40% of all child molestations.

I agree that parents should be informed but then again I realize the reality of the world we live in where the parent doesn't always have the best interest of the child. It is unfortunate but that is the way it is.

And I can also tell you first hand teenagers\young adults aren't going to be honest to their parents about having sex or taking their birth control pills until it is too late.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 08:45 AM
Ok, so you concede that we don't really have to do any of those things.

Sure, if you ignore the negative effects not doing any of those things has on society. If we ignore the damage not doing those things cause. If we don't want to view ourselves as a civilized, developed country, sure we don't have to do any of those things.

/Don't actually have a rebuttal for any of that do you? Because that didn't address anything in the post. LMAO

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 08:48 AM
You're arguing with people that think the emotions and hormones of a 15 year old are more logical, experienced, and intelligent than that of her parents. They obviously fear the parent's actions more than that of a manipulating boyfriend, abuser, drug addict, or disease infested vermin ****ing said 15 year old.

Good luck with that.

Also, what the heck does this even mean? What are you trying to say? That liberals want teenage girls to listen to drug dealers? What does have to do with anything?

patteeu
05-04-2013, 08:52 AM
I know I am joining this debate late but mlyonsd do you know the statistics for parents\relatives that molest their own children? It is around 30-40% of all child molestations.

I agree that parents should be informed but then again I realize the reality of the world we live in where the parent doesn't always have the best interest of the child. It is unfortunate but that is the way it is.

And I can also tell you first hand teenagers\young adults aren't going to be honest to their parents about having sex or taking their birth control pills until it is too late.

Kids who are molested by their parents (a tiny fraction of all kids, btw) already have an avenue for getting out from under their control. That's no reason to undermine the parental control of the vast majority of parents.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 08:55 AM
Sure, if you ignore the negative effects not doing any of those things has on society. If we ignore the damage not doing those things cause. If we don't want to view ourselves as a civilized, developed country, sure we don't have to do any of those things.

/Don't actually have a rebuttal for any of that do you? Because that didn't address anything in the post. LMAO

You're ignoring the negative effects on society of your proposed solutions. You're also ignoring other alternative solutions like adoption.

BTW, I addressed your first post and got you to admit that you were full of shit.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 08:59 AM
Kids who are molested by their parents (a tiny fraction of all kids, btw) already have an avenue for getting out from under their control. That's no reason to undermine the parental control of the vast majority of parents.

The majority of Kids are molested by a family member. And no, they don't have an avenue for getting out of control, because the vast majority of them don't tell.

- 90% are abused by someone they know, love or trust.
- Somewhere between 2/3 and ninety percent of sexual abuse victims never tell

-- More then 60% of pregnant teens have been sexually abused.

http://www.naasca.org/2012-Resources/010812-StaisticsOfChildAbuse.htm

/undermine parental control? of course not. But you love to operate in extremes. How bout just recognizing that parental control isn't always optimal.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 09:02 AM
You're ignoring the negative effects on society of your proposed solutions. You're also ignoring other alternative solutions like adoption.

BTW, I addressed your first post and got you to admit that you were full of shit.

You haven't gotten me to admit anything. You want to play word police and I am not going to play along. "have to" " Should" mean the same then to me in the context of what I wrote. Stop intentional being obtuse.

And what negative effects are there of birth control and welfare? Enlighten me.

Ignore adoption? LMAO Are you now for forcing women to get rid of kids they can't provide for? LMAO

Adoption is great, but women is the only one to make that choice.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 09:04 AM
You're ignoring the negative effects on society of your proposed solutions. You're also ignoring other alternative solutions like adoption.

BTW, I addressed your first post and got you to admit that you were full of shit.

You are ignoring the negative effects of teen births to the female and to society.

dirk digler
05-04-2013, 09:10 AM
Kids who are molested by their parents (a tiny fraction of all kids, btw) already have an avenue for getting out from under their control. That's no reason to undermine the parental control of the vast majority of parents.

Yes sexual molestation by a parent is maybe tiny in the grand scheme but it still happens every day in this country and if you have ever known a person who is molested they find it very hard to break away.

Looking at child abuse statistics as whole 6 million kids are abused every year while 5 kids every day DIE from abuse which is worst in the world.

http://www.childhelp-usa.com/pages/statistics

I think we can all agree America is full of shitty ass parents.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 09:16 AM
The majority of Kids are molested by a family member. And no, they don't have an avenue for getting out of control, because the vast majority of them don't tell.

- 90% are abused by someone they know, love or trust.
- Somewhere between 2/3 and ninety percent of sexual abuse victims never tell

-- More then 60% of pregnant teens have been sexually abused.

http://www.naasca.org/2012-Resources/010812-StaisticsOfChildAbuse.htm

/undermine parental control? of course not. But you love to operate in extremes. How bout just recognizing that parental control isn't always optimal.

This is why I don't bother to engage you in any serious discussion anymore. In addition to being a thoughtless talking point regurgitator, you regularly say things that are clearly untrue and if I prove them wrong, you move the goal posts a bit and soldier on as if leaving a trail of fail has no bearing whatsoever on whatever it is you drop next.

First of all, we're talking about parents here, not "family members". Second, it's not true at all that the majority of kids are molested by family members. That's ridiculous. Third, parents who molest their kids generally lose their kids when the authorities become aware of it. Three strikes, you're out.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 09:18 AM
You haven't gotten me to admit anything. You want to play word police and I am not going to play along. "have to" " Should" mean the same then to me in the context of what I wrote. Stop intentional being obtuse.


See what I mean? "Have to" and "should" don't mean the same thing. I have no interest in debating with a guy who can't say what he means and who changes his position every time he's proven wrong.

The fact that you regularly post a wall of regurgitated talking point text that has little relevance to the issue at hand isn't a small part of the annoyance either.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 09:20 AM
Ignore adoption? LMAO Are you now for forcing women to get rid of kids they can't provide for? LMAO

Adoption is great, but women is the only one to make that choice.

More evidence that you're too stupid to bother with.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 09:22 AM
Yes sexual molestation by a parent is maybe tiny in the grand scheme but it still happens every day in this country and if you have ever known a person who is molested they find it very hard to break away.

Looking at child abuse statistics as whole 6 million kids are abused every year while 5 kids every day DIE from abuse which is worst in the world.

http://www.childhelp-usa.com/pages/statistics

I think we can all agree America is full of shitty ass parents.

I'm opposed to parental child molestation. If we can fashion some kind of public policy that addresses it without damaging the vast majority of parent/child relationships which don't involve molestation, I'd be glad to support it.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 09:23 AM
This is why I don't bother to engage you in any serious discussion anymore. In addition to being a thoughtless talking point regurgitator, you regularly say things that are clearly untrue and if I prove them wrong, you move the goal posts a bit and soldier on as if leaving a trail of fail has no bearing whatsoever on whatever it is you drop next.

First of all, we're talking about parents here, not "family members". Second, it's not true at all that the majority of kids are molested by family members. That's ridiculous. Third, parents who molest their kids generally lose their kids when the authorities become aware of it. Three strikes, you're out.


First, if a child is being molested by a family member, that means a close family member, and it also means that parents are not supervising their child properly. The State makes very little distinction between parent and family member for that reason.

Second, it is true that the majority of kids are molested by family members. Prove it wrong otherwise. Stating it doesn't because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it true.

My wife works for Green County Child Abuse and Neglect Division. I know what I am talking about.

Third, a parent can only lose their kid if it is reported. As I already provided, a significant amount is not reported.

Seriously, do you know how many cases my wife got where parents invited a known Sex offender (usually a family member) to stay at their house, and the authorities didn't discover it until months or years later?

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 09:24 AM
More evidence that you're too stupid to bother with.

So what is your answer to use adoption? Explain how adoption helps unwanted teenage pregnancy.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 09:25 AM
See what I mean? "Have to" and "should" don't mean the same thing. I have no interest in debating with a guy who can't say what he means and who changes his position every time he's proven wrong.

The fact that you regularly post a wall of regurgitated talking point text that has little relevance to the issue at hand isn't a small part of the annoyance either.

I haven't changed my position at all. You are just looking for a way to ignore what I say because you don't have a response. You are being lazy. LMAO

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 09:33 AM
More evidence that the majority of Abuse happens at the hands of Family members:

Who Are the Perpetrators?
Perpetrators of child abuse or neglect are most often the child’s own parents. According to NCANDS, in 2005, 79.4 percent of perpetrators were parents and 6.8 percent were other relatives. The largest remaining categories of perpetrators were the unmarried partner of a child’s parent (3.8 percent) and other perpetrators (4.1 percent). In 3.6 percent of child maltreatment cases the perpetrators were missing or unknown. In under 1 percent of child maltreatment cases the perpetrator was a foster parent, residential facility staff, the child’s daycare provider, a legal guardian, friends or neighbors, or other professionals (USDHHS, 2007).

Approximately 40 percent of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.3 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 17.3 percent were abused by both parents (USDHHS, 2007).


http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics.html

/Facts are talking points only when you disagree with them

patteeu
05-04-2013, 09:35 AM
First, if a child is being molested by a family member, that means a close family member, and it also means that parents are not supervising their child properly. The State makes very little distinction between parent and family member for that reason.

Second, it is true that the majority of kids are molested by family members. Prove it wrong otherwise. Stating it doesn't because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it true.

My wife works for Green County Child Abuse and Neglect Division. I know what I am talking about.

Third, a parent can only lose their kid if it is reported. As I already provided, a significant amount is not reported.

Seriously, do you know how many cases my wife got where parents invited a known Sex offender (usually a family member) to stay at their house, and the authorities didn't discover it until months or years later?

You're a moron who apparently doesn't realize he's a moron.

The estimates for the United States vary widely. A literature review of 23 studies found rates of 3% to 37% for males and 8% to 71% for females, which produced an average of 17% for boys and 28% for girls,[157] while a statistical analysis based on 16 cross-sectional studies estimated the rate to be 7.2% for males and 14.5% for females.

Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#United_States_and_Europe)

Most children aren't molested by anyone, much less a "family member", and even much less than that, a parent.

If a molesting parent is reported, the child is removed. That's an avenue for getting out from under the control of a molesting parent. If a 15 year old can make decisions about the morning after pill, she can make a decision to report her scumbag father.

I don't really want to hear any more from you. You don't know what you're talking about and I don't have the patience to walk with you through iteration after iteration of your argument until it starts to make some sense.

And no, I don't know anything about how many cases of any type that your wife sees. I don't know anything about your wife except that she married a moron. She must think she can fix you.

dirk digler
05-04-2013, 09:46 AM
I'm opposed to parental child molestation. If we can fashion some kind of public policy that addresses it without damaging the vast majority of parent/child relationships which don't involve molestation, I'd be glad to support it.

My overall point pat is that America is full of shitty ass parents that abuse their kids whether it is sexually, physically or mentally so there has to be some kind of exception.

And Loneiguana is right, most kids don't tell and keep quiet. All you have to do is look at the molestation of children that the Catholic Church has perpetuated to know that is true.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 09:47 AM
You're a moron who apparently doesn't realize he's a moron.



Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#United_States_and_Europe)

Most children aren't molested by anyone, much less a "family member", and even much less than that, a parent.

If a molesting parent is reported, the child is removed. That's an avenue for getting out from under the control of a molesting parent. If a 15 year old can make decisions about the morning after pill, she can make a decision to report her scumbag father.

I don't really want to hear any more from you. You don't know what you're talking about and I don't have the patience to walk with you through iteration after iteration of your argument until it starts to make some sense.

And no, I don't know anything about how many cases of any type that your wife sees. I don't know anything about your wife except that she married a moron. She must think she can fix you.


Ah, so for some reason you think we have been saying all kids are molested? LMAO You lack fundamental reading comprehension.

Let see if I can make this crystal clear for some one with a third grade reading level.

Of the kids who are molested, the majority of them are molested by family members.

You are intentionally obtuse just to get out of arguments. You are pathetic.

patteeu
05-04-2013, 11:00 AM
My overall point pat is that America is full of shitty ass parents that abuse their kids whether it is sexually, physically or mentally so there has to be some kind of exception.

And Loneiguana is right, most kids don't tell and keep quiet. All you have to do is look at the molestation of children that the Catholic Church has perpetuated to know that is true.

Most kids aren't molested. America is not full of shitty ass parents that abuse their kids. And for the minority cases where molestation is involved, making the morning after pill available to little girls without their parents' involvement isn't really a solution. What's next, an education campaign to encourage fathers who have sex with their daughters to use a condom?

patteeu
05-04-2013, 11:03 AM
Ah, so for some reason you think we have been saying all kids are molested? LMAO You lack fundamental reading comprehension.

Let see if I can make this crystal clear for some one with a third grade reading level.

Of the kids who are molested, the majority of them are molested by family members.

You are intentionally obtuse just to get out of arguments. You are pathetic.

You are unintentionally incapable of saying what you mean. I'd say that makes you more pathetic. I'm usually reluctant to be this blunt, but I'm glad we had this talk. I hope it helps.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 01:38 PM
You are unintentionally incapable of saying what you mean. I'd say that makes you more pathetic. I'm usually reluctant to be this blunt, but I'm glad we had this talk. I hope it helps.

Considering I was responding to this comment you made (which started the whole thing):

Kids who are molested by their parents (a tiny fraction of all kids, btw)


The context of the conversation was around "Kids who are molested." Now, some reading such sentence could take the meaning to be kids who are molested, a tiny fraction of the molestation are by parents. This is where most of the responses came from. If you wanted the statement to only mean that a small number of kids are actually molested, than you needed to be more precise in your wording and shaped the statement like this "a tiny fraction of all kids are actually molested, btw"

The response you received were under the context of "Kids who are molested". This notion that anyone was implying that a majority of kids are molested is completely invented by you despite the fact you are the one who started the entire context with "kids who are molested."

Also, none of the links provided for you in anyway implied or said that "majority of kids are molested". The websites are very clear that they are talking about Kids who are molested.

Again, I claim you are being intentional obtuse.

Another thing, only a tiny fraction of kids being molested in no way affects the argument that birth control needs to be made available for teenagers. Public Policy cannot be made upon an ideal that all kids come from great parents; Public Policy has to be made to include all children. And if even one naive teenager out of a broken home become pregnant, then that is one too many. The the cycle of broken homes and poverty will likely continue.

KC native
05-04-2013, 01:42 PM
This is why I don't bother to engage you in any serious discussion anymore. In addition to being a thoughtless talking point regurgitator, you regularly say things that are clearly untrue and if I prove them wrong, you move the goal posts a bit and soldier on as if leaving a trail of fail has no bearing whatsoever on whatever it is you drop next.
.

Irony

patteeu
05-04-2013, 01:55 PM
Considering I was responding to this comment you made (which started the whole thing):




The context of the conversation was around "Kids who are molested." Now, some reading such sentence could take the meaning to be kids who are molested, a tiny fraction of the molestation are by parents. This is where most of the responses came from. If you wanted the statement to only mean that a small number of kids are actually molested, than you needed to be more precise in your wording and shaped the statement like this "a tiny fraction of all kids are actually molested, btw"


Stop making excuses. No amount of context saves your asinine statement. You could have said "most of those kids" or "most molested kids" or "most of the kids you're talking about", but instead, you said "most kids are molested". This is just one in a long line of examples of you molesting the English language only to wiggle from one position to the next when your errors are pointed out. Get back to me when you can get it together.

Loneiguana
05-04-2013, 02:01 PM
Stop making excuses. No amount of context saves your asinine statement. You could have said "most of those kids" or "most molested kids" or "most of the kids you're talking about", but instead, you said "most kids are molested". This is just one in a long line of examples of you molesting the English language only to wiggle from one position to the next when your errors are pointed out. Get back to me when you can get it together.

So, you choose to ignore you statement which started the entire conversation and set up the context. Ignore the websites provided. To focus on the comment that directly quoted "Kids who are molested"(which you also ignore), to continue to not at all engage any of the points made.

LMAO

patteeu
05-04-2013, 02:09 PM
So, you choose to ignore you statement which started the entire conversation and set up the context. Ignore the websites provided. To focus on the comment that directly quoted "Kids who are molested"(which you also ignore), to continue to not at all engage any of the points made.

LMAO

I'm focused on the issue we've been discussing. And dirk started the entire conversation about molestation, not me. My response to dirk was clear and unambiguous. Your response was false on it's face and in no way references the context that you now claim.

mlyonsd
05-04-2013, 02:46 PM
My overall point pat is that America is full of shitty ass parents that abuse their kids whether it is sexually, physically or mentally so there has to be some kind of exception.

And Loneiguana is right, most kids don't tell and keep quiet. All you have to do is look at the molestation of children that the Catholic Church has perpetuated to know that is true.What does molestation have to do with the topic?

I must be missing something.

mlyonsd
05-04-2013, 02:51 PM
No where in my post did I say any of that. Is making things up the only way conservative argue?
I wasn't necessarily singling you out but if you think 15 year olds should be able to pick up a morning after pill with no questions asked you're not allowing any chance of intervention if the girl is being manipulated by bad people. So if this is the case yes, you are who I'm talking about.