Judge OKs 'morning-after pill' for girls of all ages

[Constitutional Paulicy]

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/GenericImages/2013/04/05/d6_planb_08-4_3_r536_c534.jpg?1b79b3da202957124496e3768cfb7b67 cdb10c81

Judge OKs 'morning-after pill' for girls of all ages
11:49a.m. EDT April 5, 2013
by Doug Stanglin


A federal judge in New York, slamming the government over foot-dragging and administrative "filibuster," has ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make the "morning-after" pill available without prescription to girls of all ages within one month.

more here.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/05/morning-after-pill-judge-plan-b-girls/2055873/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

[brandon]

It's about time. Glad this judge had the balls to get this done.

[Intoxiklown]

My only issue with this subject is parents of a minor child not having to be informed. If a parent can be held legally responsible for the actions of a minor child, then that minor child doesn't have a "right to privacy" from their parents.

[Anti Federalist]

Wait just a fucking minute here...any kid can walk in and get an abortion pill OTC now?

But I, as a grown man, have to go into a database or into jail if I want some sinus medicine or weed?

Fuck this place...

[jmdrake]

Wait just a fucking minute here...any kid can walk in and get an abortion pill OTC now?

But I, as a grown man, have to go into a database or into jail if I want some sinus medicine or weed?

Fuck this place...

We already went over this. The only choice you have it to kill your unborn. And since you're male you have no choices.

[brandon]

It's not an "abortion pill". It's a contraceptive. It prevents fertilization. I think it's great that a 15 year old girl who makes a dumb decision can go get one of these pills the next day without having to worry about telling her parents. I'd much rather that than her wait and get a late term abortion or even have the baby.

[EBounding]

When it comes to killing babies and birth control, liberals are free-market champions.

[Anti Federalist]

We already went over this. The only choice you have it to kill your unborn. And since you're male you have no choices.

We both know what's going on here...but any sane and rational person on the outside looking in, well, their head would explode from the contradictions.

[brandon]

In fact, if you actually read the first 5 sentences of the article before commenting "fuck this place" you would have read

"The pill, popularly known as "Plan B," typically works up to 72 hours after intercourse, and is distinct from the so-called "abortion pill.""

[jmdrake]

It's not an "abortion pill". It's a contraceptive. It prevents fertilization. I think it's great that a 15 year old girl who makes a dumb decision can go get one of these pills the next day without having to worry about telling her parents. I'd much rather that than her wait and get a late term abortion or even have the baby.

Plan B can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

http://women.webmd.com/guide/plan-b

Regardless, that the state feels free to rip yet one more thing from the purview of parents is concerning though not surprising.

[Anti Federalist]

In fact, if you actually read the first 5 sentences of the article before commenting "fuck this place" you would have read

"The pill, popularly known as "Plan B," typically works up to 72 hours after intercourse, and is distinct from the so-called "abortion pill.""

I don't give a shit...that's not my point.

My point is the huge contradiction in terms.

[dannno]

My only issue with this subject is parents of a minor child not having to be informed. If a parent can be held legally responsible for the actions of a minor child, then that minor child doesn't have a "right to privacy" from their parents.

Right, kids shouldn't be able to buy skittles, either.

[dannno]

It's not an "abortion pill". It's a contraceptive. It prevents fertilization. I think it's great that a 15 year old girl who makes a dumb decision can go get one of these pills the next day without having to worry about telling her parents. I'd much rather that than her wait and get a late term abortion or even have the baby.

+rep

Ron Paul is ok with the morning after pill, hell I've fucking had to pay for it before.

[dannno]

And since you're male you have no choices.

Actually it opens up our choices for having sex. That AIN'T bad.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think a few have seriously missed the point. So a child can go into a pharmacy and get a morning after pill. I, a fully grown adult, cannot alleviate my tooth ache without a permission slip from a dentist. I cannot alleviate my anxiety without a permission slip from a psychiatrist and I cannot alleviate my cough without a permission slip from a doctor. Not to mention that all of these treatments cost more money than they should, and that they require me to pay a middleman. But I suppose I am not as well educated or able to make informed decisions about my health and body as the 13 year old girl. FFS I live in a backwards ass country.

[Anti Federalist]

I think a few have seriously missed the point. So a child can go into a pharmacy and get a morning after pill. I, a fully grown adult, cannot alleviate my tooth ache without a permission slip from a dentist. I cannot alleviate my anxiety without a permission slip from a psychiatrist and I cannot alleviate my cough without a permission slip from a doctor. Not to mention that all of these treatments cost more money than they should, and that they require me to pay a middleman. But I suppose I am not as well educated or able to make informed decisions about my health and body as the 13 year old girl. FFS I live in a backwards ass country.

Point fully understood.

This is not yet another argument over abortion, it's about a supposedly free country that "allows" a 13 year to make such an important decision, but grown adults can't buy cold tablets because the police state regards us all as potential meth heads.

[2young2vote]

In a free market this would already be available for the girls who want it.

[Nirvikalpa]

In fact, if you actually read the first 5 sentences of the article before commenting "fuck this place" you would have read

"The pill, popularly known as "Plan B," typically works up to 72 hours after intercourse, and is distinct from the so-called "abortion pill.""

Thank you. I almost had a heart attack.

[KurtBoyer25L]

When it comes to killing babies and birth control, liberals are free-market champions.

If you have to use rhetorical tactics to reinforce an argument, the argument is not as strong. The constant "killing babies" mantra reminds me of the social conservative arguments vs. lowering the sexual AOC. "Oh, you're pro-child molestation, pro-rape, and pro F***ing Little Kids???" If the argument that the AOC should be lowered between consenting parties was this self-evidently evil, horrible thing, then all you would have to say is "Kurt wants to lower the AOC for consenting parties" and everyone would shriek in horror, because neutral language would get the point across just fine. If you have to take something OUT of neutral language to make it sound so bad, it demonstrates a skewed perspective.

This is a pill that *prevents* a baby, or a fetus, from forming. Nobody who uses it is "killing a baby." They might be killing the future potential for a baby, but they do that every time they decide not to have premarital/unprotected sex. If you think that stopping the *potential* for a fetus before it develops is "murdering a person" then the next logical step is to argue that everyone should have unprotected sex with everyone else as often as possible, to prevent any killing of "future/potential human life." Or, you can argue that masturbation is murder, like I suppose some Catholics & Evangelicals (to a lesser degree) still do.

[abacabb]

Do we have to pay for this?

[jbauer]

Do we have to pay for this?

Not directly if its over the counter. You'll pay for it somehow though I suppose. Frankly I'm just fine with this. Now that we get a 3 day grace period about having stupid sex can we ban abortion? Junior is entitled to the same freedoms you enjoy which currently allows for life.

[Brett85]

It's not an "abortion pill". It's a contraceptive. It prevents fertilization. I think it's great that a 15 year old girl who makes a dumb decision can go get one of these pills the next day without having to worry about telling her parents. I'd much rather that than her wait and get a late term abortion or even have the baby.

But why should it be up to a judge to decide? The legislative branch of government is supposed to write laws.

[kcchiefs6465]

Last time I looked into Plan B, it costed like fifty bucks. I don't see how a teen without a job is going to afford it without her parents help. I'd imagine we are going to subsidize it somehow. Though unwanted babies and abortions and the whole mess would seem to me as being a lot more expensive route.

My issues are this, the parents should probably know, (though honestly, that is neither here nor there as it will not stop or solve anything- a friend or sister or whoever will still by it for them) and mainly that I, as a fully grown adult, am restricted in my own self-treatment options. Or rather, treatment options in general. Cocaine elixir for a toothache being one of them. Benzocaine just does not do the trick. All seems a little backwards to me.

[jbauer]

But why should it be up to a judge to decide? The legislative branch of government is supposed to write laws.

Is this writing a law or is this defining a law as to what drugs are OTC and Script? Honestly I'm not sure.

[Christian Liberty]

If you have to use rhetorical tactics to reinforce an argument, the argument is not as strong. The constant "killing babies" mantra reminds me of the social conservative arguments vs. lowering the sexual AOC. "Oh, you're pro-child molestation, pro-rape, and pro F***ing Little Kids???" If the argument that the AOC should be lowered between consenting parties was this self-evidently evil, horrible thing, then all you would have to say is "Kurt wants to lower the AOC for consenting parties" and everyone would shriek in horror, because neutral language would get the point across just fine. If you have to take something OUT of neutral language to make it sound so bad, it demonstrates a skewed perspective.

This is a pill that *prevents* a baby, or a fetus, from forming. Nobody who uses it is "killing a baby." They might be killing the future potential for a baby, but they do that every time they decide not to have premarital/unprotected sex. If you think that stopping the *potential* for a fetus before it develops is "murdering a person" then the next logical step is to argue that everyone should have unprotected sex with everyone else as often as possible, to prevent any killing of "future/potential human life." Or, you can argue that masturbation is murder, like I suppose some Catholics & Evangelicals (to a lesser degree) still do.

I'm pretty sure Catholics don't think masturbation is murder anymore, although the early Church Fathers did...

I've never heard of any Evangelical thinking that. Granted, we think its immoral, but because of lust not because of murder.

I don't know exactly what morning-after pills do, if its just contraception than I don't see the problem, but abortion is absolutely murder. Saying that abortionists supporrt murdering the unborn IS neutral terminology.

Someone who wanted to lower the AOC to 5 would, in the same way, be pro-child molestation. 16, not so much. There's no hard and fast line there, but there is a point somewhere below which saying you wanted to raise the AOC would probably result in shrieks.

[brandon]

But why should it be up to a judge to decide? The legislative branch of government is supposed to write laws.

The legislative branch has delegated these powers to administrative agencies (the FDA in this case) of which the courts have judicial review. Our country is a common law country where judges do create law through the courts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_foQoCHQq8

[Brett85]

The legislative branch has delegated these powers to administrative agencies (the FDA in this case) of which the courts have judicial review.

On what basis is this judge striking down the FDA's policy? I don't see any Constitutional right for young girls to buy the Morning After Pill without their parents' permission.

[brandon]

On what basis is this judge striking down the FDA's policy? I don't see any Constitutional right for young girls to buy the Morning After Pill without their parents' permission.

The constitution doesn't enumerate our rights, it's a charter of negative liberties.

[Brian4Liberty]

Get rid of laws regarding drugs.

And it does make sense to limit purchases of some things to adults over 18, but the huge caveat is that there should be no laws regarding transferring the drugs after purchase. In other words, an adult or parent can purchase them, and give them to their children, their relatives, or friends.

Drug interactions and side effects need to be addressed too. Usually with advise from pharmacists or Doctors. People need to ask questions about substances they use. There should be an anonymous AMA web application that allows people to enter all of the drugs they are taking, and it would create a custom list of interactions, side effects, and warnings, in easy to comprehend wording, not legalese.

But hey, that's just my humble opinion, with zero chance of actual implementation.

[The Gold Standard]

The legislative branch has delegated these powers to administrative agencies (the FDA in this case) of which the courts have judicial review. Our country is a common law country where judges do create law through the courts.

I don't even really disagree with you in this debate, but common law has nothing to do with creating law through the courts.

[Christian Liberty]

And it does make sense to limit purchases of some things to adults over 18, but the huge caveat is that there should be no laws regarding transferring the drugs after purchase. In other words, an adult or parent can purchase them, and give them to their children, their relatives, or friends.

I could maybe be convinced (Although even still, we shouldn't talk about this now, start with allowing adults over 18 to use whatever the crap they want) that if a parent gives their kid drugs the government shouldn't stop them, but restricting this to "Any adult" is really just as good as letting kids purchase the drugs themselves, especially since the person selling the drugs is (Most likely) an adult himself.

I don't think you should be allowed to give drugs to children anymore than you should be allowed to sell drugs to children. Same bit as far as I'm concerned. As I said, I MIGHT be convinced to make an exception for the child's parent, but personally I'd be kind of worried about a parent who wanted to give their kid drugs.

[heavenlyboy34]

I could maybe be convinced (Although even still, we shouldn't talk about this now, start with allowing adults over 18 to use whatever the crap they want) that if a parent gives their kid drugs the government shouldn't stop them, but restricting this to "Any adult" is really just as good as letting kids purchase the drugs themselves, especially since the person selling the drugs is (Most likely) an adult himself.

I don't think you should be allowed to give drugs to children anymore than you should be allowed to sell drugs to children. Same bit as far as I'm concerned. As I said, I MIGHT be convinced to make an exception for the child's parent, but personally I'd be kind of worried about a parent who wanted to give their kid drugs.
Even if it comes from an Rx bottle prescribed by a psychiatrist?

[Brian4Liberty]

I could maybe be convinced (Although even still, we shouldn't talk about this now, start with allowing adults over 18 to use whatever the crap they want) that if a parent gives their kid drugs the government shouldn't stop them, but restricting this to "Any adult" is really just as good as letting kids purchase the drugs themselves, especially since the person selling the drugs is (Most likely) an adult himself.

I don't think you should be allowed to give drugs to children anymore than you should be allowed to sell drugs to children. Same bit as far as I'm concerned. As I said, I MIGHT be convinced to make an exception for the child's parent, but personally I'd be kind of worried about a parent who wanted to give their kid drugs.

Children's tylenol? Children's Advil? Benadryl? Tums? All are drugs.

Do they still sell Bayer's children's aspirin? (Not recommended for "children" under 20?! We used to eat it like candy.)

Anyway, obviously the parents should have the final say, but if you have people over, and one of the kids needs some medicine like that, the person should not fear facing jail for it. If your buddy is over, and he has a backache, there should be no fear of jail if you give him some of your painkiller.

[pcosmar]

Judge OK's it,,,,??

It should be between the Doctor and Patient.
None of anyone else's business.

[KurtBoyer25L]

I'm pretty sure Catholics don't think masturbation is murder anymore, although the early Church Fathers did...

I've never heard of any Evangelical thinking that. Granted, we think its immoral, but because of lust not because of murder.

I don't know exactly what morning-after pills do, if its just contraception than I don't see the problem, but abortion is absolutely murder. Saying that abortionists supporrt murdering the unborn IS neutral terminology.

Someone who wanted to lower the AOC to 5 would, in the same way, be pro-child molestation. 16, not so much. There's no hard and fast line there, but there is a point somewhere below which saying you wanted to raise the AOC would probably result in shrieks.

An individual on this very board argued to me once that masturbation is murder. I dunno if he was a Catholic or a Protestant.

"Murdering the unborn" is absolutely a loaded way to describe an early-term abortion. Murder is the killing of one human being by another. Not everyone agrees with you that a week-old fetus is a human being, any more than a tadpole is a frog. We can all agree that the tadpole will, if given safety and food, *become* a frog, but we don't all agree that it IS one already. This doesn't mean by itself that week-after-conception abortion isn't immoral, but it does mean calling it "murder" is loaded.

About the AOC, my point is that if you log on to Perverted Justice or other witch-hunter organizations, they often say things like "We fight to destroy the lives of those who want to f*** little kids," yet they spend a lot of time trying to persecute say, a 16 year old lesbian and her older partner. Since what they really mean is "We fight to destroy the lives of those who have relationships with teenagers," they should say THAT instead of the "little kids" stuff. Saying "f*** little kids" just makes them look insecure about their reasons for witch-hunting, same as "don't murder that poor helpless baby" is a disingenuous way to describe aborting a fertilized egg 48 hours after it meets the sperm.

[Christian Liberty]

Even if it comes from an Rx bottle prescribed by a psychiatrist?


Children's tylenol? Children's Advil? Benadryl? Tums? All are drugs.

Do they still sell Bayer's children's aspirin? (Not recommended for "children" under 20?! We used to eat it like candy.)

Anyway, obviously the parents should have the final say, but if you have people over, and one of the kids needs some medicine like that, the person should not fear facing jail for it. If your buddy is over, and he has a backache, there should be no fear of jail if you give him some of your painkiller.

I don't know to what extent given medications help with what, but I wasn't talking about using things for a valid medical purpose. In that case I wouldn't even say that its immoral, whereas I would say most recreational drug use is immoral but should not be illegal for an adult. I more had in mind some adult giving a kid crack cocaine to try, or something. While I agree that the adult has a right to destroy his own body and mind, I cannot say the same about a child who is too young to consent. And letting just any adult give a teenager cocaine is really as good as legalizing the sale of cocaine to teenagers. If you think that's good (I don't) than that's fine, but if you don't you should not be in favor of letting any adult give cocaine to any teenager. And I didn't even consider people who are under 13 in that response.

An individual on this very board argued to me once that masturbation is murder. I dunno if he was a Catholic or a Protestant.



A LOT of people are going to Hell, in that case;)

Is there any such thing as a Rick Santorum Forum? (Rhyme, lol) I think this individual would fit better over there.


"Murdering the unborn" is absolutely a loaded way to describe an early-term abortion. Murder is the killing of one human being by another. Not everyone agrees with you that a week-old fetus is a human being, any more than a tadpole is a frog. We can all agree that the tadpole will, if given safety and food, *become* a frog, but we don't all agree that it IS one already. This doesn't mean by itself that week-after-conception abortion isn't immoral, but it does mean calling it "murder" is loaded.

About the AOC, my point is that if you log on to Perverted Justice or other witch-hunter organizations, they often say things like "We fight to destroy the lives of those who want to f*** little kids," yet they spend a lot of time trying to persecute say, a 16 year old lesbian and her older partner. Since what they really mean is "We fight to destroy the lives of those who have relationships with teenagers," they should say THAT instead of the "little kids" stuff. Saying "f*** little kids" just makes them look insecure about their reasons for witch-hunting, same as "don't murder that poor helpless baby" is a disingenuous way to describe aborting a fertilized egg 48 hours after it meets the sperm.[/QUOTE]

First off, "48 hours" is almost completely hyperbolic and rarely if ever happens. Second of all, a tadpole is absolutely a frog, and a fetus is a human. There's really no other logical way of looking at it considering it has human DNA.

And I am proud to use your "Hyperbole" to describe the murderous act of abortion. In fact, I believe it ought to be a capital crime, given sufficient evidence. Not going to happen, but that's my ideal situation.

[KurtBoyer25L]

First off, "48 hours" is almost completely hyperbolic and rarely if ever happens. Second of all, a tadpole is absolutely a frog, and a fetus is a human. There's really no other logical way of looking at it considering it has human DNA.

And I am proud to use your "Hyperbole" to describe the murderous act of abortion. In fact, I believe it ought to be a capital crime, given sufficient evidence. Not going to happen, but that's my ideal situation.

It might rarely happen but it's still something to be considered. You would "ideally" capitally punish a teenager who used a drug or other means to abort a < week old fertilized egg. I wouldn't. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree there. Please ignore the sound of the cuckoo clock in the background, I meant to turn that thing off.

A logical way of saying that a tadpole isn't a frog is that all things, including living beings, have properties. A tomato seed is different than a tomato because it has many different properties than a tomato. A human being has a brain, a heart, an independently functioning body & a sentient mind. A week-old "fetus" has none of these things. In fact, the fertilized egg at that stage of development has very different properties than a late-term fetus, so logically, scientifically, one can separate the fertilized egg, fetus, and human being into three categories, each with unique properties. Scientists have classified organisms in this way for thousands of years. Again, this doesn't mean you must agree with it, or that it's automatically right, but the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why so many centuries of science is irrational and mistaken in its basic paradigm.

[Brett85]

The constitution doesn't enumerate our rights, it's a charter of negative liberties.

I would prefer that the people vote on controversial social issues. I don't like power to be concentrated at the top in the hands of unelected judges.

[Brett85]

I suppose the next thing that we'll see is a federal judge ruling that it's unconstitutional to prevent a teenager from drinking alcohol.

[James Madison]

Plan B for girls of all ages! Still must be 21 to drink.

Fuck logic.

[James Madison]

I suppose the next thing that we'll see is a federal judge ruling that it's unconstitutional to prevent a teenager from drinking alcohol.

Actually, that very much is unconstitutional and would be the pro-freedom stance on alcohol consumption.

[Intoxiklown]

Right, kids shouldn't be able to buy skittles, either.


Yeah, because my 12 or 13 year old buying skittles at a store is exactly like her going to the pharmacy to buy drugs that disrupt the chemical process of an egg fertilizing because she is running around having unprotected sex. I mean, how is that any of my business?

[Brett85]

Actually, that very much is unconstitutional and would be the pro-freedom stance on alcohol consumption.

So it should be legal for a two year old to drink alcohol?

[James Madison]

So it should be legal for a two year old to drink alcohol?

How would a two year old even obtain alcohol? Surely from a bad parent, who would provide them with alcohol regardless of the law.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, because my 12 or 13 year old buying skittles at a store is exactly like her going to the pharmacy to buy drugs that disrupt the chemical process of an egg fertilizing because she is running around having unprotected sex. I mean, how is that any of my business?
Frankly, it's not. (I do see your points in responding to danno's ridiculous post) The only way it could be argued to be your business is if you are the parent. I really don't think that teens these days could not find them someone to buy them the pill if it were 18+. Either way, parents should be involved in their child's life and try to instill a moral code that doesn't have her sleeping around.

I'm more annoyed that I cannot get my medications without a doctor's note. And that it costs so damn much to get a doctor's note. And that you have to argue with them to write a permission slip for what you want or for what you feel you need to make your situation better. (and they often times still don't) The medical system is broken. They can somehow find it okay that a child can tell someone she needs a pill and they give it to her but when I tell someone I need a pill I have to jump through hoops and catch 22s. And I'm not even talking specifically about pain pills. (which should also be over the counter or possibly behind the desk) I get an earache, fuck no I can't numbing drops. It's hard enough for me to get them to give me a bottle of ciproflaxin. I get a toothache, can I get me cocaine gel or a cocaine elixir to gargle with? Fuck no, I'd go to prison for a couple years. But they sure as hell feel fine recommending the less effective benzocaine. It's actually rather infuriating. I'm a grown damn adult. I'd sign the liability papers. Let me have the goddamn medicine I think would help.

Sorry for the rant. This decision reaffirms how broken and backwards we are. And luckily I'm not broken or backwards. Then I'd have to offer the doctors their cut and beg for a pain pill. Because some tweaker down the block might could snort a pill and we couldn't have that. Monopolies piss me off. Goooooos-fra-bah. (the only thing I can do seeing how if I wanted to calm my nerves I could be charged with a felony and thrown in a cell.. or worse yet, a goddamn tent)

[KurtBoyer25L]

Yeah, because my 12 or 13 year old buying skittles at a store is exactly like her going to the pharmacy to buy drugs that disrupt the chemical process of an egg fertilizing because she is running around having unprotected sex. I mean, how is that any of my business?

It's kind of hard to run around while you have unprotected sex. Standing or laying down is the best method. :P

[kcchiefs6465]

So it should be legal for a two year old to drink alcohol?
Parents can already give their child alcohol. (I believe so anyways, at least in the state I used to live in) I'm not sure about a two year old. I'd imagine child abuse depending on the circumstances. They used to rub liqour on babies' gums when they were teething. Probably go to jail now days though.

FWIW, no, children should not be drinking. It really isn't all that unheard of though. (not that they are running around getting hammered) I went to a restaurant when I was about 17 and ordered a margarita. They asked for my ID but I was with a parent. Hell, I could have signed up for the military and been in training to go to Iraq or Afghanistan but I couldn't have a drink. There is something wrong with that. (I am not advocating or even suggesting children, especially young, should be able to drink)

[Brett85]

How would a two year old even obtain alcohol? Surely from a bad parent, who would provide them with alcohol regardless of the law.

They would obtain it from a parent. Should a parent not be charged if they allowed their two year old to drink alcohol? If not, how far would you take it? If drugs were legal, should a parent be allowed to allow their eight year old son or daughter to use Meth or Cocaine? I mean, I'm all in favor of allowing adults to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else, but there has to be a legal age to drink alcohol and a legal age to use drugs, and an age of consent when it comes to sexual activity. The laws that we have can't treat adults and children exactly the same.

[Brett85]

FWIW, no, children should not be drinking. It really isn't all that unheard of though. (not that they are running around getting hammered) I went to a restaurant when I was about 17 and ordered a margarita. They asked for my ID but I was with a parent. Hell, I could have signed up for the military and been in training to go to Iraq or Afghanistan but I couldn't have a drink. There is something wrong with that. (I am not advocating or even suggesting children, especially young, should be able to drink)

I think that the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18, but not eliminated. There should certainly be a legal drinking age.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think that the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18, but not eliminated. There should certainly be a legal drinking age.
I agree. If a parent wants to have a beer with their child or drink a cup of wine with them I see no problems there as well. It would actually be a lot better to have a responsible adult around, when you think about it. Take the keys and what not. It's a lot better then them throwing a party with no supervision.

[Smart3]

Last time I looked into Plan B, it costed like fifty bucks. I don't see how a teen without a job is going to afford it without her parents help. I'd imagine we are going to subsidize it somehow. Though unwanted babies and abortions and the whole mess would seem to me as being a lot more expensive route.

My issues are this, the parents should probably know, (though honestly, that is neither here nor there as it will not stop or solve anything- a friend or sister or whoever will still by it for them) and mainly that I, as a fully grown adult, am restricted in my own self-treatment options. Or rather, treatment options in general. Cocaine elixir for a toothache being one of them. Benzocaine just does not do the trick. All seems a little backwards to me.

Wow, you must be from a really poor area. I've never heard of a teen who didn't have fifty bucks ready to go.

[kcchiefs6465]

Wow, you must be from a really poor area. I've never heard of a teen who didn't have fifty bucks ready to go.
Indeed I was.

And something I failed to ask, how do these teens have fifty bucks ready to go? (13-15) I'd imagine it would be their parents who gave it to them. (allowances, or whatever) Which kind of goes back to my original statement,
it costed like fifty bucks. I don't see how a teen without a job is going to afford it without her parents help. Though I suppose they could be cutting grass, raking leaves, or shoveling snow. Maybe babysitting or what have you. The teens in my neighborhood that had 50 bucks ready to go were selling drugs and other bs.

Kind of gets me on another subject though, while I'm thinking about it. Why the hell is one pill fifty bucks? I'd bet the cost of production is one fiftieth of that. And we might have funded their studies to develop it. A lot of this annoys me. The medical industrial complex is making a killing and competition will not be allowed.

[brandon]

I would prefer that the people vote on controversial social issues. I don't like power to be concentrated at the top in the hands of unelected judges.

I dont think youll find too many fans of direct denocracy here. Sounds like your more of a mike gravel kinda guy

[Brett85]

I dont think youll find too many fans of direct denocracy here. Sounds like your more of a mike gravel kinda guy

So Mike Gravel is a supporter of the 10th amendment? Interesting.

[Keith and stuff]

When my grandparents were kids, any kid could buy any illegal drug in the store (well, they weren't illegal back then). In fact, many parents instructed their children to walk or ride into town, buy a powerful drug without a prescription or ID and walk back home with the powerful drug. It was common and expected of both parents and kids. Now, 99% of Americans might be shocked by such behavior. It wasn't wrong then and it isn't wrong then.

[Keith and stuff]

I think that the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18, but not eliminated. There should certainly be a legal drinking age.
That's a pretty shocking statement. Thankfully, most people in the world disagree with such a statement. Well, at least most politicians. BTW, do you have something against Catholics? Many Catholics beleive that part of the religion is small children drinking wine. While I'm not Catholic, I don't beleive the religion should be banned. Similarly, I don't want to see every jail in the US filled with Catholics.

[brandon]

So Mike Gravel is a supporter of the 10th amendment? Interesting.


I'm not really sure what the 10th amendment has to do with any of this. Gravel supported a constitutional amendment to bring about legislation through direct voter initiatives. That sounded like the same thing you were advocating when you said you would prefer if people could vote on social issues.

The 10th amendment says that all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are left to the people and the states. As far as I know, banning contraceptives is not an enumerated power of the federal government. And this judge ruled that the federal restrictions on this type of contraceptive were not valid, which makes total sense to me. States are still free to regulate it as they like.

[Anti Federalist]

They would obtain it from a parent. Should a parent not be charged if they allowed their two year old to drink alcohol? If not, how far would you take it? If drugs were legal, should a parent be allowed to allow their eight year old son or daughter to use Meth or Cocaine? I mean, I'm all in favor of allowing adults to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else, but there has to be a legal age to drink alcohol and a legal age to use drugs, and an age of consent when it comes to sexual activity. The laws that we have can't treat adults and children exactly the same.

Pfffftttt...

http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/files/2012/09/cocainedrops.jpg

100 year from now, we'll considered monsters for giving kids, by the millions, Ritilan.

[muh_roads]

I think a few have seriously missed the point. So a child can go into a pharmacy and get a morning after pill. I, a fully grown adult, cannot alleviate my tooth ache without a permission slip from a dentist. I cannot alleviate my anxiety without a permission slip from a psychiatrist and I cannot alleviate my cough without a permission slip from a doctor. Not to mention that all of these treatments cost more money than they should, and that they require me to pay a middleman. But I suppose I am not as well educated or able to make informed decisions about my health and body as the 13 year old girl. FFS I live in a backwards ass country.

So you think we should increase taxes on those who pay less? Same argument.

Fight for what you feel you should have access to. Pain meds, or whatever. Don't play the game of "if I can't then neither can you".

Comparing a toothache to an 18 year / 9 month investment is quite retarded anyway. It reveals the mentality around here of how people view girls/women and a lack of understanding in what a person goes thru if an unwanted pregnancy isn't caught in time.

[kcchiefs6465]

So you think we should increase taxes on those who pay less? Same argument.
My argument points out the logical inconsistencies of the so-called left. (many of the 'right,' as well) Hardly the same argument. A child, who is still under her parent's responsibility, is able to purchase a pill while I, an adult, am unable to purchase a pill or prescription that I need. (without going to a doctor that is, which quite honestly, is the majority of the reason I am annoyed)



Fight for what you feel you should have access to. Pain meds, or whatever. Don't play the game of "if I can't then neither can you".
Thirteen year old kids shouldn't have access to oxycontin. I should. (not that I even would ever use said drug; I really wouldn't.)



Comparing a toothache to an 18 year / 9 month investment is quite retarded anyway. It reveals the mentality around here of how people view girls/women and a lack of understanding in what a person goes thru if an unwanted pregnancy isn't caught in time.
It is pretty ironic that you quote my 'missed the point' post to miss the point. It does not have anything to do with the child wanting and/or needing the pill. It has to do with my lack of being able to choose my treatment. I used the instance of toothaches and cocaine. (which I've gone through, and wished cocaine was available to alleviate it, topically) (I've use the example of a middle ear infection. I couldn't get numbing ear drops after arguing for an hour but I could get hyrdocodone/acetimeniphan pills which I did not want) They won't let me choose my treatment methods. THAT is my issue. I'm a grown damn man. IDGAF what the hell I think I need, I shouldn't need a permission slip for it.

What that has to do with womens' rights I'll never understand. Though since you seem to have misinterpreted my post, women should have access to plan B. Kids should have to have parental consent. (though they probably know someone 18 who will buy it for them either way so, 'meh') I SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ANY DAMN PRESCRIPTION I WANT ON MY AUTHORITY ALONE. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SMOKE CANNABIS FREELY WITHOUT WORRY OF BEING CAST INTO A DESERT.

[Anti Federalist]

I have no idea why this is so difficult for some people to understand.

The only reason this is getting muddled is because it has to do with ever fucking abortion.

Keep pressing on.

+rep

ETA - Damn it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kcchiefs6465 again.


My argument points out the logical inconsistencies of the so-called left. (many of the 'right,' as well) Hardly the same argument. A child, who is still under her parent's responsibility, is able to purchase a pill while I, an adult, am unable to purchase a pill or prescription that I need. (without going to a doctor that is, which quite honestly, is the majority of the reason I am annoyed)


Thirteen year old kids shouldn't have access to oxycontin. I should. (not that I even would ever use said drug; I really wouldn't.)


It is pretty ironic that you quote my 'missed the point' post to miss the point. It does not have anything to do with the child wanting and/or needing the pill. It has to do with my lack of being able to choose my treatment. I used the instance of toothaches and cocaine. (which I've gone through, and wished cocaine was available to alleviate it, topically) (I've use the example of a middle ear infection. I couldn't get numbing ear drops after arguing for an hour but I could get hyrdocodone/acetimeniphan pills which I did not want) They won't let me choose my treatment methods. THAT is my issue. I'm a grown damn man. IDGAF what the hell I think I need, I shouldn't need a permission slip for it.

What that has to do with womens' rights I'll never understand. Though since you seem to have misinterpreted my post, women should have access to plan B. Kids should have to have parental consent. (though they probably know someone 18 who will buy it for them either way so, 'meh') I SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ANY DAMN PRESCRIPTION I WANT ON MY AUTHORITY ALONE. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SMOKE CANNABIS FREELY WITHOUT WORRY OF BEING CAST INTO A DESERT.

[brandon]

Because some other things should be legal is no argument against why this should be legal.

[Brian4Liberty]

Some threads tonight are getting to the heart of the matter. :D

[kcchiefs6465]

Because some other things should be legal is no argument against why this should be legal.
I am not arguing against that this should be legal. (if you are referring to me) The parents should probably be stipulated to be informed, though as I mentioned earlier, it really wouldn't matter. (they'd get it) The price of said pill is something we should both be angry about. Perhaps we could get to the bottom of that. (the prices of hospital costs compared to the services they provide, as well) I would imagine you are for me, a grown adult, being able to medicate myself in any way I see fit? I'd also think you could find a couple of problems with children being granted the same affords. (especially considering what I am truly advocating- "any")

[DamianTV]

\goes off topic

What would be really nice is if we all had Leave it to Beaver families that could B: listen to a rational discussion about teen pregnancy, C: listen to a rational discussion about unexpected adult pregnancy, and most importantly A: be able to afford any form of health care that we might be in need of.

I know it sounds completely unrelated, but this is yet another of the systemic effects of a dishonest money system. A dishonest money system which does nothing but turns people to be just as dishonest. Dishonest about who your spouse is having sex with, who you are having sex with (when discussing with your siginificant other), dishonest with other parties involved about having abortions, and for the relevance of this post, how to pay for them. If we can afford it ourselves, it is less of an issue. What I really hope not to hear is how to burden others with problems we create and should be able to afford to resolve ourselves.

[kcchiefs6465]

Well, Time magazine wants to be unreasonable, but if you so want to sign up there should be a very good article on why health costs are what they are.

F*** Time Magazine for requiring email addresses all of a sudden- never subscribe to their shitty articles (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html)

This article is pretty good, if you can get it.

[kcchiefs6465]

It's called 'Bitter Pill.' TPB might have it.

[KrokHead]

It's easier to get birth control and morning afters than fucking aspirin for kids. This society fucking sucks.

[Brett85]

That's a pretty shocking statement. Thankfully, most people in the world disagree with such a statement. Well, at least most politicians. BTW, do you have something against Catholics? Many Catholics beleive that part of the religion is small children drinking wine. While I'm not Catholic, I don't beleive the religion should be banned. Similarly, I don't want to see every jail in the US filled with Catholics.

Obviously there's a difference between having a sip of wine and allowing your child to drink to the point where they start getting a buz or getting tipsy. Whether you like it or not, we do have underage drinking laws in the U.S, which most rational people support. I also don't think most people would think it should be legal for parents to allow their child to use Heroine or Meth. I think most people are smart enough to realize that the law isn't going to be exactly the same for children as it is for adults.

[Brett85]

I'm not really sure what the 10th amendment has to do with any of this. Gravel supported a constitutional amendment to bring about legislation through direct voter initiatives. That sounded like the same thing you were advocating when you said you would prefer if people could vote on social issues.

The 10th amendment says that all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are left to the people and the states. As far as I know, banning contraceptives is not an enumerated power of the federal government. And this judge ruled that the federal restrictions on this type of contraceptive were not valid, which makes total sense to me. States are still free to regulate it as they like.

If this judge ruled that the FDA's policy violated the 10th amendment, then that would be a good ruling. Somehow, I doubt if this were the case and if this judge would allow a state government to regulate the Morning After Pill.

[satchelmcqueen]

according to ron paul conception usually takes about 72hrs to happen after the sex act...so im good with this.

[kathy88]

So you think we should increase taxes on those who pay less? Same argument.

Fight for what you feel you should have access to. Pain meds, or whatever. Don't play the game of "if I can't then neither can you".

Comparing a toothache to an 18 year / 9 month investment is quite retarded anyway. It reveals the mentality around here of how people view girls/women and a lack of understanding in what a person goes thru if an unwanted pregnancy isn't caught in time.
I don't consider children an investment.

[Brett85]

according to ron paul conception usually takes about 72hrs to happen after the sex act...so im good with this.

I'm ok with the Morning After Pill being legal, but that really isn't the issue here. To me this just seems like another case of judicial activism and a case where a judge is taking away rights from parents.

[pcosmar]

I'm ok with the Morning After Pill being legal, but that really isn't the issue here. To me this just seems like another case of judicial activism and a case where a judge is taking away rights from parents.

The parents had years to educate the girl in question.

I agree that this has no place in the courts,, it is not a legal issue. (or shouldn't be)
It is a medical issue
It is a market issue
It is a private issue

[muh_roads]

I have no idea why this is so difficult for some people to understand.

The only reason this is getting muddled is because it has to do with ever fucking abortion.

Keep pressing on.

+rep

ETA - Damn it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kcchiefs6465 again.

Why are anti-statists all of a sudden wanting the state to dictate the age of adulthood anyway? I think kids should have the right to vote. Many can be much more intelligent than their parents.


Thirteen year old kids shouldn't have access to oxycontin. I should.

Yes only you should have freedoms.

[muh_roads]

I don't consider children an investment.

You know the point I was getting at.

A toothache costs = $
A child for 18 fucking years = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And if you don't have that money then the child is fucked. Being raised by a stupid 13 year old mother could lead to brain damage, autism, and all sorts of shit because she couldn't provide proper nourishment.

Or it could go very well. But the individual should make the decision. Not the state.

[robert68]

...

First off, "48 hours" is almost completely hyperbolic and rarely if ever happens. Second of all, a tadpole is absolutely a frog, and a fetus is a human. There's really no other logical way of looking at it considering it has human DNA.

And I am proud to use your "Hyperbole" to describe the murderous act of abortion. In fact, I believe it ought to be a capital crime, given sufficient evidence. Not going to happen, but that's my ideal situation.

Every cell in the human body has human DNA. You probably committed mass "murder" the last time you brushed your teeth.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Why are anti-statists all of a sudden wanting the state to dictate the age of adulthood anyway? I think kids should have the right to vote. Many can be much more intelligent than their parents.



Yes only you should have freedoms.

I've been waiting years to hear somebody else say this. Libertarians are quick to say that current society is f'd up, and that people are brainwashed. I agree. But if you went to a camp where people were brainwashed, who would be more susceptible to break out of that? The people who had been ingrained into the system for 30 years, or people who had been there only a short time?

Ron & Rand both have stories about 13 year old kids discovering the Constitution and bringing their parents in to meet them. It's not an accident.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Every cell in the human body has human DNA. You probably committed mass "murder" the last time you brushed your teeth.

Aw hell, so it comes to this -- have yellow teeth, or Freedom Fanatic will try to get the government to execute you.

[Keith and stuff]

I'm ok with the Morning After Pill being legal, but that really isn't the issue here. To me this just seems like another case of judicial activism and a case where a judge is taking away rights from parents.

The judge is recognizing the parents have rights and supporting the parents. If a parent doesn't have a child taking a medicine, the parent should tell the child. Parents are allowed to punish children. This strengthens parental rights. It is up to the parents when a child is allowed to buy something, not the law, according to the judge.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes only you should have freedoms.
Apparently you have never known someone whose heart has exploded from snorting oxy 80s. Beware of a 'hot shot.' Think you are snorting a line of powder and someone crushes up a 80 to mix in? If you're not used to it you might blow an aorta. Kids should not have access to these drugs. (maybe rephrase your argument that children ought have access to crack cocaine or heroin)

Only I should have freedom?

Stick to bitcoin.

The irony of you responding to my post about people missing the point, then missing the point, then being told the point, then missing the point yet again is something to be admired.

[MelissaWV]

Apparently you have never known someone whose heart has exploded from snorting oxy 80s. Beware of a 'hot shot.' Think you are snorting a line of powder and someone crushes up a 80 to mix in? If you're not used to it you might blow an aorta. Kids should not have access to these drugs. (maybe rephrase your argument that children ought have access to crack cocaine or heroin)

Only I should have freedom?

Stick to bitcoin.

The irony of you responding to my post about people missing the point, then missing the point, then being told the point, then missing the point yet again is something to be admired.

Kids have access to a lot of things right now. Thankfully most of them have parents or guardians to stop them from doing something overly moronic most of the time.

[kcchiefs6465]

I've been waiting years to hear somebody else say this. Libertarians are quick to say that current society is f'd up, and that people are brainwashed. I agree. But if you went to a camp where people were brainwashed, who would be more susceptible to break out of that? The people who had been ingrained into the system for 30 years, or people who had been there only a short time?

Ron & Rand both have stories about 13 year old kids discovering the Constitution and bringing their parents in to meet them. It's not an accident.
I've seen children younger than thirteen talk about turning tricks. Talked about walking 5 miles across town because the crack rock on the westside was shit. Took all my strength not to cry right then and there for humanity. It does haunt me. You would have had to have seen her house.

There are limits. And someone who gives their child crack cocaine (probably birthed the crack babies) or heroin, or methamphetimine or oxycontin or methadone or a bunch of others should not have their child. People wonder why some of these kids are running wild.

[Brett85]

The judge is recognizing the parents have rights and supporting the parents. If a parent doesn't have a child taking a medicine, the parent should tell the child. Parents are allowed to punish children. This strengthens parental rights. It is up to the parents when a child is allowed to buy something, not the law, according to the judge.

But why should this even be an issue that the federal courts are involved in?

[kcchiefs6465]

Kids have access to a lot of things right now. Thankfully most of them have parents or guardians to stop them from doing something overly moronic most of the time.
Very true. I like to think that most children who think of experimenting with some of these hard drugs have seen a family member or friend that is strung out. I've given the example of the man who dances around in a pink tutu and does yard work for a city cop. That was not a joke. While some kids will inevitibly try crack cocaine, I think if they met this man/woman whatever they would not partake down said path.

I knew a man, Randy. Ate roadkill like it wasn't a problem. Maggots and all. Wore a dead bat around his neck on a string. No joke. Drank water straight from the creek and spent his whole damn SSDI check on walnuts to feed the squirrels. Hundreds of dollars. Bit the heads off of birds and carried them in his pocket. Blew his mind out on crack cocaine and huffing airplane glue. A real nice guy, until he threw your chairs in the river. Had a heart attack and died. He was around 50. I wish more kids in the neighborhood would have met him. A real character. (FWIW, he was the nicest person when he was somewhat normal and cared for all animals, I do not mean to sully his name)

People haven't seen what I've seen. I only mention these stories so that people educate their children. I know people who were not aware of crack cocaine when it first came out. They lost a few houses, a farm, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. It really is the devil's drug. (For a disclaimer as I usually give, I have never done crack cocaine and would never do it. I have seen many people ruined from it)

[KurtBoyer25L]

I've seen children younger than thirteen talk about turning tricks. Talked about walking 5 miles across town because the crack rock on the westside was shit. Took all my strength not to cry right then and there for humanity. It does haunt me. You would have had to have seen her house.

There are limits. And someone who gives their child crack cocaine (probably birthed the crack babies) or heroin, or methamphetimine or oxycontin or methadone or a bunch of others should not have their child. People wonder why some of these kids are running wild.

There are two ways to look at it. One is that young people are evil/stupid by nature, and have to "grow up" & learn to fight all of their desires & instincts to become God-fearing, self-hating individuals who resist all such temptations. OR we can recognize the staggering numbers of adults who engage in stupid, dangerous and immoral activities, and say that kids are born OK and get corrupted as they grow up, learning these poor behavior patterns from older people whom they observe & imitate.

[brandon]

But why should this even be an issue that the federal courts are involved in?

Because as I already explained to you, the american form of government has a systems of checks and balances where judges review and rule on legislation. Its an issue because someone filed suit against the fda.

[pcosmar]

There are limits. And someone who gives their child crack cocaine (probably birthed the crack babies) or heroin, or methamphetimine or oxycontin or methadone or a bunch of others should not have their child. People wonder why some of these kids are running wild.

It wasn't a big problem before Prohibition.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02328/cocaine-tooth-drop_2328302k.jpg

http://cdn.www.babble.com/wp-content/blog_uploads/18/files/cocaine-toothache/morphinesyrup2.jpg

But the Social Controllers want to create a "perfect" society,, and so they must try to control everything.

They Fail.. Dramatically.

[kcchiefs6465]

OR we can recognize the staggering numbers of adults who engage in stupid, dangerous and immoral activities, and say that kids are born OK and get corrupted as they grow up, learning these poor behavior patterns from older people whom they observe & imitate.

Very true. I am of the belief that both parents being around to raise the child increases the chances they will end up being 'fully functioning members of society.' They really do need positive role models. The question turns to how do we reverse this mass immorality of this generation? (though I understand it is not limited to just this generation) Abortions, wars, children using hard drugs.. I really think I could go on and on. A strong family is where it begins. Anyone praying on children to hook them on drugs ought to be imprisoned. (whether that be crack cocaine or amphetamines) I often time forget how all of this is allowed to proceed and then I remember that 'money' (funny money, in this instance) rules the world. I've asked the question in another thread of what would be the punishment if I manufactured amphetamines (adderall) and directed my marketing towards children? If I have the money to buy commercial slots, skew FDA studies, and buy off a few (most) of the papers written about said drug I suppose it would be allowed. Hell, maybe even revered. Our society is a mainly morally bankrupt one. Cash is king. And people are whores. I truly believe that.

[kcchiefs6465]

It wasn't a big problem before Prohibition.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02328/cocaine-tooth-drop_2328302k.jpg

http://cdn.www.babble.com/wp-content/blog_uploads/18/files/cocaine-toothache/morphinesyrup2.jpg

But the Social Controllers want to create a "perfect" society,, and so they must try to control everything.

They Fail.. Dramatically.
Well to a point. I really want cocaine toothache drops, my tooth is cracked and bothers regularly. The parent should be able to administer them to their child as they see fit. (tooth aches and what have you)

Smoking cocaine is a little bit different than all that. (though if they are terminal I really see no problem with it)

There will never be a perfect society. We are far past that, not that there ever was. I suppose my views are largely because of what I have seen. (though I am far from a social planner) I believe children should be educated on some of these drugs. It really boils down to a societal problem, I admit. I remember the houses with no heat or electricity, the mother on Swallow St., and the child tricking for .1 grams of crack. The crack dealer on 26" rims, his car candy painted, (literally candy painted, as in, a candy wrapper) and her (10-11 years old) bragging that the east side has the best crack. How she bought a .1 from the westside, walked to the eastside and bought another one. The houses burnt down. (the majority of the road vacant, with weeds taller than I) This experiment failed, I am sad to say. I await a day for people to have to explain their ways.

[pcosmar]

This experiment failed, I am sad to say. I await a day for people to have to explain their ways.
You know,, It wasn't the people in those poor neighborhoods that had the means to import tons of Coke,, or invented the process to turn it into Crack.

And it was not the poor farmers in Columbia either.

That shit was planned and promoted at much higher levels.
You are simply seeing the results of successful plans.

I try not to blame the victims.

[robert68]

Well to a point. I really want cocaine toothache drops, my tooth is cracked and bothers regularly. The parent should be able to administer them to their child as they see fit. (tooth aches and what have you)

Smoking cocaine is a little bit different than all that. (though if they are terminal I really see no problem with it)

There will never be a perfect society. We are far past that, not that there ever was. I suppose my views are largely because of what I have seen. (though I am far from a social planner) I believe children should be educated on some of these drugs. It really boils down to a societal problem, I admit. I remember the houses with no heat or electricity, the mother on Swallow St., and the child tricking for .1 grams of crack. The crack dealer on 26" rims, his car candy painted, (literally candy painted, as in, a candy wrapper) and her (10-11 years old) bragging that the east side has the best crack. How she bought a .1 from the westside, walked to the eastside and bought another one. The houses burnt down. (the majority of the road vacant, with weeds taller than I) This experiment failed, I am sad to say. I await a day for people to have to explain their ways.


"Iron law of prohibition" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition)



The iron law of prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan which states that "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes." This law is an application of the Alchian–Allen effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchian%E2%80%93Allen_effect). It is based on the premise that when drugs or alcohol are prohibited, they will be produced only in black markets in their most concentrated and powerful forms...

[kcchiefs6465]

You know,, It wasn't the people in those poor neighborhoods that had the means to import tons of Coke,, or invented the process to turn it into Crack.

And it was not the poor farmers in Columbia either.

That shit was planned and promoted at much higher levels.
You are simply seeing the results of successful plans.

I try not to blame the victims.
You are preaching to the choir, brother. I await the day the DEA agents and CIA contacts have to explain themselves as well. (as well as Ollie North, Barry Seal, Don Tyson, Dan Lasiter, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, the whole damn Bush cartel etc.) Lord knows enough cocaine and heroin has been allowed to 'slip past' to fund and finance some illegal black operations.

ETA: Well I suppose Barry Seal, Don Tyson, and Ronald Reagan have had to explain themselves already.

[angelatc]

It's not an "abortion pill". It's a contraceptive. It prevents fertilization. I think it's great that a 15 year old girl who makes a dumb decision can go get one of these pills the next day without having to worry about telling her parents. I'd much rather that than her wait and get a late term abortion or even have the baby.


No, it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.

I'm on the fence here - if they're making it OTC so that anybody can just walk up and buy it, then that's a good thing. But if they're making it legal to dispense prescription medication without approval, the I'm not ok with it.

I don't want any medications behind the counter - the more freedom we have the better off we are.

[Brett85]

Because as I already explained to you, the american form of government has a systems of checks and balances where judges review and rule on legislation. Its an issue because someone filed suit against the fda.

But why should a judge rule on an issue like this when the Constitution is silent on this issue?

[James Madison]

They would obtain it from a parent. Should a parent not be charged if they allowed their two year old to drink alcohol? If not, how far would you take it? If drugs were legal, should a parent be allowed to allow their eight year old son or daughter to use Meth or Cocaine? I mean, I'm all in favor of allowing adults to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else, but there has to be a legal age to drink alcohol and a legal age to use drugs, and an age of consent when it comes to sexual activity. The laws that we have can't treat adults and children exactly the same.


I think that the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18, but not eliminated. There should certainly be a legal drinking age.

Would it be safe to say you think these laws would be "for the children"?

[Brett85]

Would it be safe to say you think these laws would be "for the children"?

I would say that these laws are just common sense. I suppose you think there should be no age of consent for sex either?

[James Madison]

I would say that these laws are just common sense. I suppose you think there should be no age of consent for sex either?

'Common sense' restrictions on personal liberty. Now where, oh where, have I heard that one before....?

No, I don't support arbitrary age restrictions on natural human behavior. I do support not infanticizing children and making their childhoods extend into their early 20s. In biology, adulthood is defined by the capacity to initiate the reproductive act. We treat every species this way except humans, who we like to pretend are innocent little angels until their wedding night (which takes place sometime around the age of 25). We're trying to outdo millions of years of evolution in a few generations...I don't like our chances.

[Brett85]

'Common sense' restrictions on personal liberty. Now where, oh where, have I heard that one before....?

No, I don't support arbitrary age restrictions on natural human behavior. I do support not infanticizing children and making their childhoods extend into their early 20s. In biology, adulthood is defined by the capacity to initiate the reproductive act. We treat every species this way except humans, who we like to pretend are innocent little angels until their wedding night (which takes place sometime around the age of 25). We're trying to outdo millions of years of evolution in a few generations...I don't like our chances.

So it should be legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 11 year old girl? Wow. What a society you advocate! If this is what the Libertarian Party represents it's no wonder they've been such a failure.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It's about time. Glad this judge had the balls to get this done.

Yeah, guessing this is going to be appealed.

[James Madison]

So it should be legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 11 year old girl? Wow. What a society you advocate! If this is what the Libertarian Party represents it's no wonder they've been such a failure.

You went with the pedophile argument ad absurdum? Seriously?

No law is gonna stop it from happening. Better for parents to teach their children what traits are desired in a mate...and how to use a gun...

Dead pedos. Problem solved.

[Brett85]

You went with the pedophile argument ad absurdum? Seriously?

No law is gonna stop it from happening. Better for parents to teach their children what traits are desired in a mate...and how to use a gun...

Dead pedos. Problem solved.

So a 6 year old kid who gets molested by a 40 year old is supposed to know how to use a gun to defend themselves? Completely unreal.

[Brett85]

Did James Madison support child molestation?

[James Madison]

So a 6 year old kid who gets molested by a 40 year old is supposed to know how to use a gun to defend themselves? Completely unreal.

And did the magical law help the victim? Laws just make our safety dependent upon armed thugs (cops) deciding if they want to defend us or not.


Did James Madison support child molestation?

Show me one fucking post where I said anything even remotely similar to this. Thats a pretty fucked up statement to be flinging around.

[Brett85]

Show me one fucking post where I said anything even remotely similar to this. Thats a pretty fucked up statement to be flinging around.

If you're arguing in favor of having no age of consent for sex, you're arguing in favor of child molestation. Any time an adult has sex with a 6 year old kid it's child molestation or child rape since the kid doesn't know what's going on and can't consent at that age.

[Brett85]

Laws just make our safety dependent upon armed thugs (cops) deciding if they want to defend us or not. .

So I take it you're an anarchist?

[James Madison]

If you're arguing in favor of having no age of consent for sex, you're arguing in favor of child molestation. Any time an adult has sex with a 6 year old kid it's child molestation or child rape since the kid doesn't know what's going on and can't consent at that age.

The problem with age of consent laws is that they are purely arbitrary. They don't protect children and serve only ruin the lives of consenting individuals (usually 18 year-old males). It's especially damning for guys who sleep with their girlfriend, who's a week away from turning 16, and end up as a registered child predator for the rest of their life. And you can bet the gun-grabbers are salivating to bar sex-offenders from owning guns. Or they go to jail, get released as a convicted felon, can't find a job, and then kill themselves. All for an act that, were it a week later, would be perfectly legal.

Yes, get rid of age of consent laws. Making and initiating sexual advances against a child is assault because they cannot give consent, as you stated. The laws are already in place to protect anyone of any age from rape and since children cannot consent, any sexual advances would be rape by default. Oh, look! Problem solved without more intrusion into our private lives!

Age of consent laws are about as un-libertarian as they come. The government is saying you're too stupid to accept responsibility for your actions. You're mature enough to drive a car (which is the most dangerous thing an average man will do in his life), but too stupid to drink, smoke, or get a bj from your gf.

Government screwing everything up yet again!


So I take it you're an anarchist?

Ideally, yes. In practice, I recognize that anarchy isn't consistent with the human species. I'm of the opinion to let God be God and manage the universe better than me.

[Brett85]

Yes, get rid of age of consent laws. Making and initiating sexual advances against a child is assault because they cannot give consent, as you stated. The laws are already in place to protect anyone of any age from rape and since children cannot consent, any sexual advances would be rape by default. Oh, look! Problem solved without more intrusion into our private lives!

I don't see what you're saying here. If there are no age of consent laws, that means that any individual can consent to sex regardless of how old they are. You stated that there should be no age of consent laws, but then you just stated that children cannot consent. It seems like you're contradicting yourself.

[Brett85]

The problem with age of consent laws is that they are purely arbitrary. They don't protect children and serve only ruin the lives of consenting individuals (usually 18 year-old males). It's especially damning for guys who sleep with their girlfriend, who's a week away from turning 16, and end up as a registered child predator for the rest of their life. And you can bet the gun-grabbers are salivating to bar sex-offenders from owning guns. Or they go to jail, get released as a convicted felon, can't find a job, and then kill themselves. All for an act that, were it a week later, would be perfectly legal.

That's completely different than the situation that I described. A judge should take a unique situation like that into account when delivering a verdict, and you could also have jury nullification in a case like that where the penalty really didn't fit the crime.

[James Madison]

I don't see what you're saying here. If there are no age of consent laws, that means that any individual can consent to sex regardless of how old they are. You stated that there should be no age of consent laws, but then you just stated that children cannot consent. It seems like you're contradicting yourself.

You're making the argument that without age of consent laws, anyone can consent, but that isn't true. Children cannot consent to sex no matter what the laws say because they are physically and psychologically incapable of sexual activity. If one cannot consent, how are age of consent laws applicable?

[Brett85]

You're making the argument that without age of consent laws, anyone can consent, but that isn't true. Children cannot consent to sex no matter what the laws say because they are physically and psychologically incapable of sexual activity. If one cannot consent, how are age of consent laws applicable?

They are physically and psychologically incapable of sexual activity, which means that there has to be age of consent laws that say that children can't consent to have sex. Otherwise it would be legal for them to consent without any age of consent laws. If there are no laws, people can do anything they want to do. That should be obvious.

[UMULAS]

......

[UMULAS]

.......

[James Madison]

They are physically and psychologically incapable of sexual activity, which means that there has to be age of consent laws that say that children can't consent to have sex. Otherwise it would be legal for them to consent without any age of consent laws. If there are no laws, people can do anything they want to do. That should be obvious.

They. Can't. Consent.

We already have laws against rape, which is defined as non-consensual sex. That's all we need; no more laws.

I don't need a law to tell me the sky is blue.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

They. Can't. Consent.

We already have laws against rape, which is defined as non-consensual sex. That's all we need; no more laws.

Sorry, but no one believes a six year old can, in sound mind, "consent" to something like that.

[Kregisen]

+rep

Ron Paul is ok with the morning after pill.

Interesting....source?

[WhistlinDave]

I sure am glad we had a boy and not a girl. With a boy, you only have to worry about one dick. With a girl, you have to worry about every dick in the neighborhood.

[WhistlinDave]

Ron Paul is ok with the morning after pill....


Interesting....source?

I think danno may be referring to this interview?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

[James Madison]

Sorry, but no one believes a six year old can, in sound mind, "consent" to something like that.

That's what I just said...

[Brett85]

They. Can't. Consent.

We already have laws against rape, which is defined as non-consensual sex. That's all we need; no more laws.

I don't need a law to tell me the sky is blue.

Any sex with a 6 year old would be non consensual sex, since a 6 year old can't consent to sex. That's why you need an age of consent law that says that any time an adult has sex with a 6 year old it's a crime. If you don't have that law, it's legal for an adult to have sex with a six year old. I don't see how much more obvious this can be. If there are no age of consent laws, any person of any age can have sex with anyone unless they so "no." A child isn't in the position to say "no," which is why you have to have age of consent laws.

[Brett85]

What the... so the Gov. must make biological laws?

We should have the laws that we have now, which is that if a 40 year old has sex with an 11 year old, that 40 year old gets thrown in prison since the 11 year old isn't in a position to consent. It's amazing to me that we're even having this debate.

[James Madison]

Any sex with a 6 year old would be non consensual sex, since a 6 year old can't consent to sex. That's why you need an age of consent law that says that any time an adult has sex with a 6 year old it's a crime. If you don't have that law, it's legal for an adult to have sex with a six year old. I don't see how much more obvious this can be. If there are no age of consent laws, any person of any age can have sex with anyone unless they so "no." A child isn't in the position to say "no," which is why you have to have age of consent laws.

It would already be illegal since any sexual advances on a child would fall under the rape category.

We both acknowledge that children cannot consent, but you feel it is necessary to catalog this in the form of a law, something imperfect that will have unintended consequences. Just as Ron stated in the debates, you don't need a law telling you to not use heroin. It doesn't stop drug use and gives rise to gang violence, out of control prison complexes (which destroy jobs), and the police state.

[brandon]

No, it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.

I'm on the fence here - if they're making it OTC so that anybody can just walk up and buy it, then that's a good thing. But if they're making it legal to dispense prescription medication without approval, the I'm not ok with it.

I don't want any medications behind the counter - the more freedom we have the better off we are.

No the primary mechanism of action is to block fertilization.

[jmdrake]

I think a few have seriously missed the point. So a child can go into a pharmacy and get a morning after pill. I, a fully grown adult, cannot alleviate my tooth ache without a permission slip from a dentist. I cannot alleviate my anxiety without a permission slip from a psychiatrist and I cannot alleviate my cough without a permission slip from a doctor. Not to mention that all of these treatments cost more money than they should, and that they require me to pay a middleman. But I suppose I am not as well educated or able to make informed decisions about my health and body as the 13 year old girl. FFS I live in a backwards ass country.

+rep! I can't get why have of the people responding to this thread don't get ^this.

[Ranger29860]

No the primary mechanism of action is to block fertilization.

Kinda splitting hairs here aren't we? Both cases the egg is not acting in a symbiotic relationship with the mother yet.

[Ranger29860]

What the... so the Gov. must make biological laws?

No but the governments role is to hold people accountable for breaking the rights of others and the enforcement of contracts. If a child cannot consent due to lack of understanding of the action then it is a valid role of the government to prosecute on behalf of that person, the person who violated their rights. If we did not hold this true in society today, then murders could walk free since the victim cant personally seek retribution.

So a set of laws defining the line that is violation of someones rights is not only morally and ethically right, but a legal necessity.

It has always been and will always be about property rights.

[jmdrake]

Actually it opens up our choices for having sex. That AIN'T bad.

Dannno. Remember this ruling is about girls as young as 11 being able to buy plan B over the counter. So....what sex choices are you wanting opened up? :rolleyes:

Plus, from the male point of view, changing consequences does not change choices. You always have the same amount of choices regardless of the consequences. You can choose to go and murder someone. You've just chosen the consequence of possibly getting life in prison or death. Without a government you risk relatives wanting to kill you. You can choose to have sex with a 12 y/o girl. You face being labeled a sex offender for life and a stiff jail sentence. Without a government, you risk relatives wanting to kill you. Note, I'm not saying this at all to be "pro government." I'm saying you're kidding yourself if you think this has somehow increased "male choices".

And again, you and others are missing the point. Skittles? Yeah, they'll be banned before Plan B. There are some aspects of our lives that "progressives" want us to have "freedumb" and some that they don't.

[I<3Liberty]

I commented on an article about this via Yahoo! and was shocked at the number of thumbs down and negative comments I got from a predominantly liberal website. While I definitely believe that 15-year-olds are way too young for serious relationships and sex, I think they should have access to Plan B, as well as allergy and cold medicines, etc. A 15-year-old is physically capable of becoming pregnant and closer to a full grown adult than a child. This pill is for emergency use only and contrary to common belief, is not going to promote teen sex. The issue of casual teen sex is embedded in much deeper and difficult societal issues, as well as the lack of deferred gratification in youth.

Some people have called it an "abortion drug", but this is misleading. Yes, a fertilized egg could fail to implant, but there's many other causes for this. Being overweight, underweight, stressed out (these three things effect hormone levels that contribute to fertility), genetic abnormalities in the gametes and zygote, etc. can all result in failure of a zygote to implant. Naturally, about 1 out of every 5 zygotes do not implant. If people concerned about this (mostly the Roman Catholics) were consistent, they would actually promote use of contraceptives because with a condom or the pill, less zygotes are created and therefore, less fail to implant than going au natural. Notice a lot of the Roman Catholics are against all forms of contraceptives (even barrier contraceptives such as condoms.) The "pill and plan B cause abortions" appear to be a weak attempt to conform information and present it in a manner that favors their argument.

I also find it interesting that they only go against products clearly labeled that they are for contraceptive use. There are countless pharmaceuticals and even natural herbs and what not on the market that will have the same effect on fertility as plan b or "the pill." Why do you think direct-to-consumer ads often add "if you are pregnant or planning on becoming pregnant, please consult with a doctor" or something of that variation.

[Carson]

I've had some thoughts listening to this topic coming up.


Is it really wise to just hand something like this out?

Can anyone walk away with a handful of these pills?

Will the pills be subsidized like so much else now though some type of socialism?

Are there any side effects that would allow both male and female to be able to tell if they've been given a dose?

Will charges be brought against those dosing others unknowingly? Even if there was such a law would the new world order of things go against one of their own mandates (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mandates)?

[paulbot24]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kcchiefs6465 again. Damn it.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Plan B is an extremely high dose of birth control. It's a well known fact that birth control can have harmful side affects to people of adult age who take it responsibly. Now you're talking about letting children of all ages purchase an extremely high dose of hormones. If I were a parent and my 13 year old took an extremely high dose or hormones I'd be extremely concerned for her health. Nevermind the fact that children shouldn't be having sex. If a child is too irresponsible to use some form of protection, is she really that much more responsible that she's going to magically remember to take the morning after pill afterwards? And this isn't a pill you take every weekend. It's an extremely high dose of hormones. As a parent, this isn't something you want your pre-pubescent child taking. But I guess if the FDA gives us permission it MUST be safe. ;)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

My only issue with this subject is parents of a minor child not having to be informed. If a parent can be held legally responsible for the actions of a minor child, then that minor child doesn't have a "right to privacy" from their parents.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Plan B is an extremely high dose of birth control. It's a well known fact that birth control can have harmful side affects to people of adult age who take it responsibly. Now you're talking about letting children of all ages purchase an extremely high dose of hormones. If I were a parent and my 13 year old took an extremely high dose or hormones I'd be extremely concerned for her health. Nevermind the fact that children shouldn't be having sex. If a child is too irresponsible to use some form of protection, is she really that much more responsible that she's going to magically remember to take the morning after pill afterwards? And this isn't a pill you take every weekend. It's an extremely high dose of hormones. As a parent, this isn't something you want your pre-pubescent child taking. But I guess if the FDA gives us permission it MUST be safe. ;)

As a parent, sure, but parents want all sorts of things, but their off spring are their own individuals and own themselves. I find it fascinating a magical 'age' confers rights. A bunch of hogwash. Our humanity endows us with rights, not some fucking arbitrary age limitation.

[QueenB4Liberty]

This has nothing to do with rights though. It's that women/girls under a certain age shouldn't be taking this medication period. There are tons of medications I would encourage people never to take. There's an easier way than taking the morning after pill to prevent a pregnancy. Not having sex, using a condom, using regular birth control, any option is better than the morning after pill if you're reproductive system hasn't fully developed yet.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

We should have the laws that we have now, which is that if a 40 year old has sex with an 11 year old, that 40 year old gets thrown in prison since the 11 year old isn't in a position to consent. It's amazing to me that we're even having this debate.

How again is a 11 year old not have the cognitive abilities to make such decisions? Because you say so, or because you might not like such decisions they make? The very fact that they DO make a decision shows their cognizance. Hell, humanity has a long history of so-called 'children unable to think or act cognitively' according to you 'modernists' that have done much more than you will ever do in your lifetime. From commanding armies and nations, to raising families and getting married, to tending farmlands and vast swaths of land, etc.

According to your own 'sacred texts' Saul was 14-15 when he led armies against the Philistines. I wonder how long before the age of children is expanded even more. Maybe in 200 years we'll be more 'enlightened' and the 'age of consent' laws will be 25 or 30. I mean, like 'young adults' now-a-days make the best decisions *sarc sarc*.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This has nothing to do with rights though. It's that women/girls under a certain age shouldn't be taking this medication period. There are tons of medications I would encourage people never to take. There's an easier way than taking the morning after pill to prevent a pregnancy. Not having sex, using a condom, using regular birth control, any option is better than the morning after pill if you're reproductive system hasn't fully developed yet.

What lol? It has everything to do with rights, in fact, it is square in the middle of where rights come from - SELF-OWNERSHIP. The ability to do with our bodies what we so choose to do regardless of whether any other individual agrees or not. Period. End of story.

[dannno]

How again is a 11 year old not have the cognitive abilities to make such decisions? Because you say so, or because you might not like such decisions they make? The very fact that they DO make a decision shows their cognizance. Hell, humanity has a long history of so-called 'children unable to think or act cognitively' according to you 'modernists' that have done much more than you will ever do in your lifetime. From commanding armies and nations, to raising families and getting married, to tending farmlands and vast swaths of land, etc.

According to your own 'sacred texts' Saul was 14-15 when he led armies against the Philistines. I wonder how long before the age of children is expanded even more. Maybe in 200 years we'll be more 'enlightened' and the 'age of consent' laws will be 25 or 30. I mean, like 'young adults' now-a-days make the best decisions *sarc sarc*.

Ya they are talking about raising the age of smoking cigarettes in New York to 21. Why? They don't cause traffic accidents that I'm aware, it's just to keep 'kids' off cigarettes. I hear people talking about college students a lot like they're still children. You treat a young adult like an adult, they might actually act like one. You treat them like a kid, they'll probably act like one.

[QueenB4Liberty]

What lol? It has everything to do with rights, in fact, it is square in the middle of where rights come from - SELF-OWNERSHIP. The ability to do with our bodies what we so choose to do regardless of whether any other individual agrees or not. Period. End of story.


Yeah, I'm just saying the discussion should't be able rights. And remember that children also don't have the same rights as adults. Children can't buy alcohol, vote, etc. So why they should be able to take a drug that will harm them is beyond me. Just like I don't know any libertarian that thinks it's good for people to encourage heroin use in children. Same concept here. No one should be encouraging children to take something that will harm them. I mean, it's fine, it's morally unsettling for children to be taking drugs because they've had irresponsible sex, and will almost uncertainly have adverse health reactions, but I guess if you want to see society head further downhill, this is a great thing.

I just don't see why with contraception already being so widely available, we are encouraging children to take a drug that will potentially harm them. I mean, yeah, it's great if you don't end up pregnant, but think about what that one extremely high dose of hormones will do to your body? And what if you think it's cool to take one every weekend? Not a good idea, but ok. Your child doesn't have many of the same rights you do, but just give them the right to decide if they want to take a harmful medication. That's so messed up.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, I'm just saying the discussion should't be able rights. And remember that children also don't have the same rights as adults. Children can't buy alcohol, vote, etc. So why they should be able to take a drug that will harm them is beyond me. Just like I don't know any libertarian that thinks it's good for people to encourage heroin use in children. Same concept here. No one should be encouraging children to take something that will harm them. I mean, it's fine, it's morally unsettling for children to be taking drugs because they've had irresponsible sex, and will almost uncertainly have adverse health reactions, but I guess if you want to see society head further downhill, this is a great thing.

I just don't see why with contraception already being so widely available, we are encouraging children to take a drug that will potentially harm them. I mean, yeah, it's great if you don't end up pregnant, but think about what that one extremely high dose of hormones will do to your body? And what if you think it's cool to take one every weekend? Not a good idea, but ok. Your child doesn't have many of the same rights you do, but just give them the right to decide if they want to take a harmful medication. That's so messed up.

Tell me again how making something legal is encouraging any behavior? If I defend freedom of speech am I encouraging assholes and misogynists? I've no where made a normative statement whether one should or should not use them, or the medical benefits, or adverse reactions. My only statement was that individuals have the right to purchase said substance - Period End O'Story.

Also, anyone else find it a bit disturbing how so many 'adults' look at children as having the cognitive abilities of Terry Schiavo. If that is 'progress' I want none of it.

[LibertyRevolution]

I look at this as a personal property issue... Do you own your own body?
If your body is your property, who is the government to tell you what you can or cannot do with it?
The fact the the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body is just proof we are all their slaves...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ya they are talking about raising the age of smoking cigarettes in New York to 21. Why? They don't cause traffic accidents that I'm aware, it's just to keep 'kids' off cigarettes. I hear people talking about college students a lot like they're still children. You treat a young adult like an adult, they might actually act like one. You treat them like a kid, they'll probably act like one.

It is only going to get worst because of the Puritans on both sides of the aisle. Talk about fait accompli!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I look at this as a personal property issue... Do you own your own body?
If your body is your property, who is the government to tell you what you can or cannot do with it?
The fact the the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body is just proof we are all their slaves...

Worse yet, when you realize that there is hardly anyone to speak up for children. How much more abuse and servitude can you get. We'll outlaw the ability of you to make a living for yourself so you're stuck either being property of your parents, or the State. Aren't we so kind and loving? /barf

[HigherVision]

Plan B can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

http://women.webmd.com/guide/plan-b

Regardless, that the state feels free to rip yet one more thing from the purview of parents is concerning though not surprising.

I think the real crux of the debate here is whether or not chemically preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg constitutes an abortion. Not many people are against the simple prevention of fertilization itself I don't think. I tend to believe that the prevention of implantation of fertilized eggs/embryos doesn't constitute an abortion because many fertilized eggs do not get implanted naturally. There's apparently evidence that breast feeding for example induces this same barrier effect. It'd be interesting to get some more opinions on this issue specifically.

I personally don't believe that teenagers are truly children though and think that treating them as such infantilizes young people artificially but that's a different issue.

[I<3Liberty]

Plan B is an extremely high dose of birth control. It's a well known fact that birth control can have harmful side affects to people of adult age who take it responsibly. Now you're talking about letting children of all ages purchase an extremely high dose of hormones. If I were a parent and my 13 year old took an extremely high dose or hormones I'd be extremely concerned for her health. Nevermind the fact that children shouldn't be having sex. If a child is too irresponsible to use some form of protection, is she really that much more responsible that she's going to magically remember to take the morning after pill afterwards? And this isn't a pill you take every weekend. It's an extremely high dose of hormones. As a parent, this isn't something you want your pre-pubescent child taking. But I guess if the FDA gives us permission it MUST be safe. ;)

The proposed cutoff is 15, not 13. Plan B is only taken once and in the event of an emergency - it is not taken continuously. The consequences of abortion or a complicated pregnancy (which occur in higher rates among young teens) are likely going to have much higher risks than taking plan B once.

Yes, 15-year-olds are legally "children", they are physically closer to an adult than a child. In most other countries, 15-year-olds are considered adults and treated as so. While I agree that 15-year-olds should not be having sex, they should have plan B available. While 15-year-olds are considered "children" by our society, they have to deal with some pretty adult things. I can recall almost every friend of mine from middle and high school, carrying midol or tylenol in her bag even though you had to have a note from a parent and were supposed to have a nurse keep it (talk about ridiculous.) :rolleyes: At 15, you're certainly capable of utilizing medications responsibly.

[I<3Liberty]

I think the real crux of the debate here is whether or not chemically preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg constitutes an abortion. I tend to believe it doesn't because many fertilized eggs do not get implanted naturally. There's apparently evidence that breast feeding for example induces this same barrier effect.

So can fluctuations in hormone levels from stress, being under or overweight, or other medications. Through unprotected sex, more zygotes fail to form and/or implant than through contraceptives, so as I said before, this argument is invalid.

[HigherVision]

So can fluctuations in hormone levels from stress, being under or overweight, or other medications. Through unprotected sex, more zygotes fail to form and/or implant than through contraceptives, so as I said before, this argument is invalid.

Thank god

[bolil]

If you choose to fuck, be ready for the possible consequences. That is all. If you want to kill a child, go for it, and sleep well.

[QueenB4Liberty]

The proposed cutoff is 15, not 13. Plan B is only taken once and in the event of an emergency - it is not taken continuously. The consequences of abortion or a complicated pregnancy (which occur in higher rates among young teens) are likely going to have much higher risks than taking plan B once.

Yes, 15-year-olds are legally "children", they are physically closer to an adult than a child. In most other countries, 15-year-olds are considered adults and treated as so. While I agree that 15-year-olds should not be having sex, they should have plan B available. While 15-year-olds are considered "children" by our society, they have to deal with some pretty adult things. I can recall almost every friend of mine from middle and high school, carrying midol or tylenol in her bag even though you had to have a note from a parent and were supposed to have a nurse keep it (talk about ridiculous.) :rolleyes: At 15, you're certainly capable of utilizing medications responsibly.

I was just reading in the OP where it says "oks pill for girls of all ages." And I know how it works. But I'm talking about girls who think this is an easier solution than taking regular birth control or using a condom. You use it once per irresponsible sexual escapade. That doesn't mean you can't take it every weekend. There's no limit. Especially if it's going to be given out for free, like regular birth control is now free. I don't think it'll help the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions go down. Contraception is already so widely available.

[HigherVision]

If you choose to fuck, be ready for the possible consequences. That is all. If you want to kill a child, go for it, and sleep well.

Is taking a morning after pill killing a child? I don't think so for reasons stated above. Maybe abortion is.

[I<3Liberty]

I was just reading in the OP where it says "oks pill for girls of all ages." And I know how it works. But I'm talking about girls who think this is an easier solution than taking regular birth control or using a condom. You use it once per irresponsible sexual escapade. That doesn't mean you can't take it every weekend. There's no limit. Especially if it's going to be given out for free, like regular birth control is now free. I don't think it'll help the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions go down. Contraception is already so widely available.

Alone, it probably won't have a significant effect, but it will reduce it to some degree. A 100% effective plan A (options currently in clinical trials like Vasalgel) is most desirable. I'm also all for pushing safe sex information and PSAs, as well as encouraging abstinence until marriage (I believe it can be done through both religious and non-religious means.) Education is key -- go to Yahoo! Answers (at your own risk, haha) and read some of the questions teens ask. 1) the majority of them are so incoherent with like 18 spelling errors per paragraph. 2) You can tell they have no clue about basic biology. I've seen questions like "I had unprotected sex 3 weeks ago with 4 different guys and haven't taken birth control in months. If I take it now, can I have safe sex?" It's like, SERIOUSLY? You should not even be dating. :mad: