It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama okay with morning-after pill sales at age 15?

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





This is not surprising at all, considering his stated opinions over the years. He is a Nanny Stater of the worst kind. It is clear by his own statements that he believes that the State has rights over parents. This can be seen in the Common Core Standards which run over individual state's rights and the parental authority and ability to oversee their own child's education, as well as this bit about 15 year olds getting access to abortifacient products. Besides it being a matter of wresting away power from the parents, it is part of the bigger global de-population agenda. Like you said, I am not arguing for or against abortion here but for parental rights as it should be, not the Supreme nanny State control.


The Plan B pill, which this thread is addressing, doesn't cause abortions. It prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. An abortion occurs AFTER implantation.

I see that you're promoting parental rights here. Let me ask you this, do you think a parent has the right to force their 15 year old daughter to give birth to an wanted child?




posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   
You would rather have more pregnant 15 year olds walking around, or worse, then trying to get an abortion when they are still a child themself??? I say let them prevent the pregnancy!!!



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mellisamouse
 


Aside from the question of the individual pregnancy, making this pill available to persons who are legally minors undercuts the ability of parents to do their job effectively.

If my 15-year-old is trying to buy that pill, it means that she is sexually active; I need to know that so I can help her address all the issues tied up in being sexually active. Having Walgreens and CVS make it easier for my child to be sexually active without our knowledge doesn't serve anyone's best interest.


edit on 6-5-2013 by tovenar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by tovenar
reply to post by mellisamouse
 


Aside from the question of the individual pregnancy, making this pill available to persons who are legally minors undercuts the ability of parents to do their job effectively.

If my 15-year-old is trying to buy that pill, it means that she is sexually active; I need to know that so I can help her address all the issues tied up in being sexually active. Having Walgreens and CVS make it easier for my child to be sexually active without our knowledge doesn't serve anyone's best interest.


edit on 6-5-2013 by tovenar because: (no reason given)


If your child is finding themselves in need of emergency contraceptive, you already failed in keeping her from being sexually active. The only question is which outcome do you want, teen mom or avoided pregnancy? The fact is your teenage daughter can already access some BC methods without your knowledge



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





I live in the world where pictures of people in bed together will NOT prevent pregnancy no matter how much people like you think 4 yr olds should see this.


Where, out of any of my posts, did I say anything of the sort? You are a liar. Enjoy that high and mighty moral stance as God doesn't look well upon those who lie and slander.


According to the School Health Policies and Practices Study, a national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Adolescent School Health to assess school health policies and practices, a median total of 17.2 hours is devoted to instruction in HIV, pregnancy and STD prevention: 3.1 hours in elementary, 6 hours in middle and 8.1 hours in high school.[1]


Your beef is with a proposed sex-ed curriculum in NY. And really with a q&a website. So all these 15 year olds getting the morning after pill have not been through any of the classes yet. Do I think bestiality is an inappropriate subject for kids? Yes. Do I think no matter what values are taught in the home 15 year olds can make bad choices? Yes. Grow up. Nothing you have described is actual. It is being PROPOSED. The fact you use your argument in the present tense when no curriculum is set shows you don't have a leg to stand on. Are you one of those people who searches child porn sites for "research"?

CJ

edit on 6-5-2013 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx


If your child is finding themselves in need of emergency contraceptive, you already failed in keeping her from being sexually active. The only question is which outcome do you want, teen mom or avoided pregnancy? The fact is your teenage daughter can already access some BC methods without your knowledge


Yes, "failed" is the right word.

So now what? In the real world, the story-problem isn't over with failure. As a parent, you have to keep going, keep trying to salvage the situation, help your child be their best and get the most out of life.

And no, there is not a single, "only question" regarding how she chooses to handle this one consequence of sexual activity. Whether she has already terminated the pregnancy or not, you need to keep parenting her regarding how she can understand her own sexuality going forward.

Whether she shares your values or not, you still have work to do; explaining the risks and pitfalls of future sexual behavior. If she has an ongoing relationship with a male, how will her pregnancy (terminated or not) affect that relationship? Does she even want to continue the relationship, in the wake of pregnancy? Many teenage boys get very defensive when they learn they've impregnated a girl--the relationship very rarely survives for long.

Again, we come back to the fact that for a pregnant teenager in our culture, her most valued resource is almost always her parent(s). Even when she disagrees with their value-system, she cares most about what they have learned in their own lives, and what they see as realistic options going forward.

If the law gives her a chance to avoid having that discussion with even a caring parent, most teenage girls will indeed avoid such a painful "talk".

And the government, as always, works to limit the ability of parents to effectively nurture their own children, in the name of the child's 'privacy'.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
On a side-note, notice how the proponents of this pill claim it doesn't produce an abortion, "since the egg never adheres to the uterine wall."

Yet it is listed as an abortifacient, and such remedies were forbidden by the original Hippocratic oath.

oh well.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


Surgery was also a violation of the original Hippocratic Oath.


a·bor·tion [uh-bawr-shuhn] Show IPA noun
1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage


Because the Morning After Pill prevents pregnancy, no fetus or embryo is removed. Plan B is NOT an abortifacient.

Are you also opposed to "The Pill", NuvoRing and IUD's?



edit on 6-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Because the Morning After Pill prevents pregnancy, no fetus or embryo is removed. Plan B is NOT an abortifacient.

Are you also opposed to "The Pill", NuvoRing and IUD's?



edit on 6-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


Technically, the Morning after pill doesn't "prevent pregnancy."

Fertilization DOES in fact occur, or has already occurred, when pharmaceutical's chemical quality takes effect and causes the fertilized egg to be flushed out of the uterus. The fertilized egg is not technically called a fetus until the 8th week of pregnancy, but a one day old fertilized egg holds the same genetic information, and maintains homeostasis (one of the hallmarks of independent life), as it will on day 55 (not officially a fetus) versus day 56 (now officially a fetus).


The morning-after pill allows women who use it the feeling that they are making a choice without any particular ethical implications "since pregnancy never occurs" according to official medical doctrine. The fact is, their choice is ending a specific potential human life---perhaps a necessary choice, or the best choice for their own life-story; but also perhaps a choice that some of those same women might not make if they were aware of the science involved, and its ethical implications.

It is not only Catholic Christians who object to the morning after pill; the ethical texts of both major branches of Buddhism consider both the morning-after pill and IUDs to be unethical, and for the same reason--they make the human life impossible, after fertilization has already taken place.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
What´s the big deal here?

There is nothing wrong with selling these to 15 year-olds. Banning would be same as banning condoms,although these can not be compared.

Here sex is allowed after 14 legally, so if a 21 year-old is with a 14 year-old it is legal. Although when considering that sex is allowed why are not the emergency pills allowed? Most/Lots of kids lose their virginity at around that age anyways, whether it is legal or not.

Schools should educate the negative effects of it, although this solution is far better than abortion. This is not an abortion and these pills cost a lot (at least locally), so overuse for a 15 year-old is very unlikely. When there is an emergency, I see nothing wrong in using these.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


Again, I'm going to state my claim, that the biggest purchasers of these pills are going to by pedophiles - and they are going to feed these pills to their victims - haphazardly - with no concern of the health repurcussions of the young girls - pre-pubescent, or early teens.

This is a gift to the pedophile.

Cash only - no documentation of who buys it, or who it is being fed to.

This is also the obozo's regime. Continueing pedophile with no consequences - and infertile woman (or worse.)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


Strange, how this bill comes out when they are trying to grant amnesty to all the poor, illiterate mexicans who are crossing the border.

God help those poor, young prostitutes.

And God strike down all of those who are victimizing them.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


It is unlikely, as these cost much more than usual.

It is cheaper to use other birth control methods: condoms, baby pills, spiral. If used correctly all of these 3 are efficient.
edit on 7-5-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


When a pimp is making $500.00 a pop on a 10 year old girl - I don't thing $50.00 a pill - and probably a lot cheaper in bulk, is going to make a difference.

Child prostitution.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tovenar
reply to post by mellisamouse
 


Aside from the question of the individual pregnancy, making this pill available to persons who are legally minors undercuts the ability of parents to do their job effectively.

If my 15-year-old is trying to buy that pill, it means that she is sexually active; I need to know that so I can help her address all the issues tied up in being sexually active. Having Walgreens and CVS make it easier for my child to be sexually active without our knowledge doesn't serve anyone's best interest.


edit on 6-5-2013 by tovenar because: (no reason given)


In a perfect world maybe, but unfortunately, not many parents ARE doing their jobs, which is how this could happen, even me as an older sister watched my siblings like a hawk, so they would wait for sex anyways, but too many kids have absentee parents or abusive parent who won't help them...



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tovenar

Originally posted by windword

Because the Morning After Pill prevents pregnancy, no fetus or embryo is removed. Plan B is NOT an abortifacient.

Are you also opposed to "The Pill", NuvoRing and IUD's?



edit on 6-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


Technically, the Morning after pill doesn't "prevent pregnancy."



Definition of Pregnancy from MedicineNet.com
Pregnancy: The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.



Fertilization DOES in fact occur, or has already occurred, when pharmaceutical's chemical quality takes effect and causes the fertilized egg to be flushed out of the uterus.


It can take up to 7 days for fertilization to happen after sex. Ovulation has to occur.


Yes the morning after pill AKA Plan B or Emergency Contraception prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation. It also makes the cervical mucus too thick for sperm to easily move through. If you have not ovulated Plan B will stop you from releasing a mature ova (egg) if you have ovulated - Plan B will try to stop the sperm from fertilizing the egg. This is why the pill works better - the sooner you take them. Plan B will not stop a pregnancy that has already implanted in the uterine wall and there is no evidence to support Plan B prevents a fertilized egg (embryo) from implanting in the uterine wall. EC is 89% effective when taken in the first 72 hours, it is most effective in the first 24 hours, it offers some protection when taken up to 120 hours (5 days) after unprotected sex.
wiki.answers.com...



The fertilized egg is not technically called a fetus until the 8th week of pregnancy, but a one day old fertilized egg holds the same genetic information, and maintains homeostasis (one of the hallmarks of independent life), as it will on day 55 (not officially a fetus) versus day 56 (now officially a fetus).


The fertilized is not technically called a fetus because it ISN"T a fetus. A zygote is not an independant life by a long shot!


The morning-after pill allows women who use it the feeling that they are making a choice without any particular ethical implications "since pregnancy never occurs" according to official medical doctrine. The fact is, their choice is ending a specific potential human life---perhaps a necessary choice, or the best choice for their own life-story; but also perhaps a choice that some of those same women might not make if they were aware of the science involved, and its ethical implications.


Okay, so you're against contraception altogether! You think contraception is immoral in general, because women can have sex without having to consider "ethical implications".


It is not only Catholic Christians who object to the morning after pill; the ethical texts of both major branches of Buddhism consider both the morning-after pill and IUDs to be unethical, and for the same reason--they make the human life impossible, after fertilization has already taken place.


Who cares what Christians or any other religious body of people think about other people's sexual practices and their desire to procreate or not?! You can't legislate your religious moralities and proclivities onto others! You can't force a woman, little alone a 15 year old girl, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term in the USA!





edit on 7-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword


Okay, so you're against contraception altogether! You think contraception is immoral in general, because women can have sex without having to consider "ethical implications".



You wish.

I'm not against contraception altogether. I'm not even against it for 15-year-old girls, if they have someone like a doctor or school nurse or guidance counselor helping them make informed life choices.




It is not only Catholic Christians who object to the morning after pill; the ethical texts of both major branches of Buddhism consider both the morning-after pill and IUDs to be unethical, and for the same reason--they make the human life impossible, after fertilization has already taken place.


Who cares what Christians or any other religious body of people think about other people's sexual practices and their desire to procreate or not?! You can't legislate your religious moralities and proclivities onto others! You can't force a woman, little alone a 15 year old girl, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term in the USA!



I never mentioned anything about legislating anything--you did. I never talked about forcing anybody to carry a baby they don't want, either. You read my words and jumped off into your own personal nightmares that anyone who thinks about morality is automatically out to judge you.

I gave examples of two large (and quite distinct) demographics who believe that contraceptive choices have profound ethical consequences. I get it --- you don't like huge swaths of the human race, based on the fact that they believe different things than you do. Point taken.

I also gather that you have a huge problem with anyone trying to make choices with regard to their own personal values or moral code.

It's funny, I only wrote about trying to help a 15-year-old (one's own daughter, presumably) make a momentous decision based on her own beliefs. I even referenced the possibility that she doesn't share her parent's morality or belief system---that most teenagers want to know what their parents believe, even when they disagree with it, at the same time teens fear talking openly with parents about sex.

Never laid out any policy mandate, never quoted scripture, never demanded that someone else DO ANYTHING different than what they damn well please.

I only ever pointed out that parents couldn't help with a tough choice, if they didn't even know when their daughter is facing it.

You seem to operate from the assumption that anyone who is concerned with morality is looking to judge and control people. That is not always the case.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 





I never mentioned anything about legislating anything--you did. I never talked about forcing anybody to carry a baby they don't want, either. You read my words and jumped off into your own personal nightmares that anyone who thinks about morality is automatically out to judge you.


This thread is about the court ruling, a "law", that allows for women from the age of 15 and up access to over the counter emergency birth control, and Obama's approval of such a "law." You have provided pro-life morality arguments as to why this law shouldn't have been enacted.


I gave examples of two large (and quite distinct) demographics who believe that contraceptive choices have profound ethical consequences. I get it --- you don't like huge swaths of the human race, based on the fact that they believe different things than you do. Point taken.


No, you made sweeping generalizations based on religious demographics.


Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the United States have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.
www.reuters.com...




I also gather that you have a huge problem with anyone trying to make choices with regard to their own personal values or moral code.


I am pro-choice.



I only ever pointed out that parents couldn't help with a tough choice, if they didn't even know when their daughter is facing it. You seem to operate from the assumption that anyone who is concerned with morality is looking to judge and control people. That is not always the case.


Be concerned about your's and your own family's morality and let me worry about mine.




edit on 7-5-2013 by windword because: ,



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Be concerned about your's and your own family's morality and let me worry about mine.


Exactly. I have daughters. And the state providing them access to birth control without consulting an adult--not a doctor, not even a pharmacist---is all about you imposing your values (or lack of same) on my family, and my family's ability to raise its children.

The girls cannot legally buy cigarettes, because it carries health RISK,

YET they can now dose themselves with hormones that mimic pregnancy (thus elevating risk of cervical and breast cancer, which runs in the family) without my knowledge. Before they've even passed a 2nd-year health science class.
edit on 7-5-2013 by tovenar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


Then I suggest that you employ some preemptive talks, explaining your's and your family's concerns, history and basic birds and bees facts before they find themselves believing that they are in need of emergency birth control aids.

It's unfortunate to think that some 15 year old might obtain and use "Plan B" after a heavy petting session, believing that they may be pregnant, or that jumping up and down after douching with Coca Cola will prevent pregnancy after coitus. Education and open communication is key.

7 states trying to gut sex ed and promote abstinence

EDIT:
I would also advise any parent of a teenage daughter that they think MAY become sexually active to purchase Plan B and tell your daughter that you have it, under lock and key, and that if they ever think that they may need it to come and talk to you about it.


edit on 7-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join