Judge: 17-Year-Olds Can Have Plan B

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from butterbean and duwelon who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Umm...It already is.

A doctor writing a Plan B prescription for a 16 yr old was perfectly legal before this ruling and still is.
I assume you consider a person with a valid prescription to be under "medical supervision" correct?
If so, then how is it different from what we already have today before the ruling?

This ruling is stupid. Why stop at 17 year olds? Why not go all the way down to 11 or 12 year olds?
They should just set a permanent age of consent under the constitution and have everything fall in that age to be done with.
None of that 12 year olds getting Plan B without a prescription, while not being able to drink until 21, or vote until 18 rubbish.

The only good: I own TEVA stock. This move could *potentialy* increase earnings.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from butterbean and duwelon who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

I think doctors and FDA sans holly rolers should decide that. If it's medially safe like any other OTC medicine, then sell it. If you don't want to sell it because of Jebus, go fuck yourself.

<- had a scare couple years ago, had to wait 2 days to get plan B. Fucking bushwackos.

There is nothing wrong with having parents know what their children are taking.

What if they were, should they be able to force their daughter to have the child?

Should they be completely removed from any decision made by their minor child?

Is it their body or hers? Do parents have an inevital right to their 17 year old daughters body or not? If they do, why is mutilation of their bodies not allowed?

At age 17 she's not a little girl anymore, i knew my daughter was having sex long before that and made sure she had protection at hand, the problem is with people like you who refuse to understand that they will have sex and then don't want them to take responsibility for their own actions either.

It's fucking retarded.

People like me? More gross generalizations. My daughter is not that age, but she will not be kept in the dark either. My daughter will be raised to be informed and responsible. I dont think it is an unreasonable to keep this out of the hands of minors, as parent and their children need to discuss such issues. Lets pace it, plam b should not be a primary method of birth control.

My apologies then, i probably mistook you for someone else too so apologies for that too.

Will you make sure she has protection when she's 15 and goes out on a date?

Plan B or modern birth control pills have the same basic function IF she gets pregnant, so do IUD's which is probably the best method for preventing pregnancy that has ever been invented.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

You keep saying "under medical supervision" - that means NOT OTC, and therefore is different than the topic we're discussing. IIRC, prescription plan b is already available to most teens without parental consent, isn't it? All we're discussing is OTC plan b, which means that they would have completely unsupervised access to it, parents AND doctors both being unable to help monitor.

For the record, I believe in abstinence plus style of sex ed, where you teach that abstinence is the only surefire way to avoid STDs and pregnancy but that you give complete and accurate medical facts about all forms of birth control, disease transmission, etc.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: charrison
People like me? More gross generalizations. My daughter is not that age, but she will not be kept in the dark either. My daughter will be raised to be informed and responsible. I dont think it is an unreasonable to keep this out of the hands of minors, as parent and their children need to discuss such issues. Lets pace it, plam b should not be a primary method of birth control.

Who's saying Plan B is a primary means of birth control?

The whole argument against getting the prescription is because the effects of Plan B are time dependent. The longer you wait to take it (having to get a prescription, argue with your parents about it, etc...), the less likely it is to be effective in what it does.

People should obviously be using other forms of birth control and STD protection, like birth control pills (if the woman and her doctor feels it is safe and right for them) and condoms (for being doubly preventative - STDs and pregnancy).

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from butterbean and duwelon who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Umm...It already is.

WTF are you confused about, i didn't say shit about what IS allowed, i just gave my opinion.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

Thanks for not resorting to personal attacks.

Ok, lets make it 15. And when the medication causes complications to the mother. Do we force the parents to pay for it? What if they don't have health insurance? Lets just say for the sake of argument the 17 year old takes Plan B, has MAJOR complications, and runs up 10's of thousands of dollars of medical bills. The parents don't have health insurance or not much. Do we hold them responsible for the choice of the 17 year old? If so, then why do they not get input.

How do you resolve this conflict? Do you have an answer or do you just spout off calling people stupid pieces of shit and retarded when you don't have an answer?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from butterbean and duwelon who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Umm...It already is.

WTF are you confused about, i didn't say shit about what IS allowed, i just gave my opinion.

You repeatedly insulted everybody in this thread who said OTC shouldn't be allowed for teens, then stated it should be allowed under medical supervision, which it already is and which therefore implies that you agree with everybody you called idiots. Yes, you did say shit about what IS allowed.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from butterbean and duwelon who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

I think doctors and FDA sans holly rolers should decide that. If it's medially safe like any other OTC medicine, then sell it. If you don't want to sell it because of Jebus, go fuck yourself.

<- had a scare couple years ago, had to wait 2 days to get plan B. Fucking bushwackos.

There is nothing wrong with having parents know what their children are taking.

Do you feel the same way about ALL other OTC drugs? Should the law mandate that minors cannot purchase any OTC drugs?

As a practicing pharmacist, I would say yes to both questions.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: halik

Do you feel the same way about ALL other OTC drugs? Should the law mandate that minors cannot purchase any OTC drugs?

As a practicing pharmacist, I would say yes to both questions.

Ooooh, there must be some good stories here! Are you ethically allowed to share?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

You keep saying "under medical supervision" - that means NOT OTC, and therefore is different than the topic we're discussing. IIRC, prescription plan b is already available to most teens without parental consent, isn't it? All we're discussing is OTC plan b, which means that they would have completely unsupervised access to it, parents AND doctors both being unable to help monitor.

For the record, I believe in abstinence plus style of sex ed, where you teach that abstinence is the only surefire way to avoid STDs and pregnancy but that you give complete and accurate medical facts about all forms of birth control, disease transmission, etc.

Under medical supervision would mean that these are tested safe drugs, you know, like tylenol.

Abstinence education has FAILED more miserably wherever it's been implemented. Instincts trumph what the pastor and mom agrees on.

When you grow up one day and get a boner, you'll know what i mean.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

My apologies then, i probably mistook you for someone else too so apologies for that too.

Will you make sure she has protection when she's 15 and goes out on a date?

She will defiantly know the risks and consequences of her actions and what will be needed to avoid problems.

Plan B or modern birth control pills have the same basic function IF she gets pregnant, so do IUD's which is probably the best method for preventing pregnancy that has ever been invented.

Yes plan B is basically a high dose birth control pill. Birth control pills require a script, so why should one be OTC and the other not?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

You keep saying "under medical supervision" - that means NOT OTC, and therefore is different than the topic we're discussing. IIRC, prescription plan b is already available to most teens without parental consent, isn't it? All we're discussing is OTC plan b, which means that they would have completely unsupervised access to it, parents AND doctors both being unable to help monitor.

For the record, I believe in abstinence plus style of sex ed, where you teach that abstinence is the only surefire way to avoid STDs and pregnancy but that you give complete and accurate medical facts about all forms of birth control, disease transmission, etc.

Under medical supervision would mean that these are tested safe drugs, you know, like tylenol.

Abstinence education has FAILED more miserably wherever it's been implemented. Instincts trumph what the pastor and mom agrees on.

When you grow up one day and get a boner, you'll know what i mean.

You noted the abstinence part and complete (and deliberately, I'm sure) failed to notice where I said I supported completely and totally sharing all facts about sex, STDs, birth control, etc. So are you just trying to antagonize everyone regardless of their viewpoint?

And I'm both grown up and will never get a boner, since I'm female.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

Thanks for not resorting to personal attacks.

Ok, lets make it 15. And when the medication causes complications to the mother. Do we force the parents to pay for it? What if they don't have health insurance? Lets just say for the sake of argument the 17 year old takes Plan B, has MAJOR complications, and runs up 10's of thousands of dollars of medical bills. The parents don't have health insurance or not much. Do we hold them responsible for the choice of the 17 year old? If so, then why do they not get input.

How do you resolve this conflict? Do you have an answer or do you just spout off calling people stupid pieces of shit and retarded when you don't have an answer?

*sigh*

How don't you get this? There is nothing special about it, it's like aspirin or tylenol or whatever fucking drug you want.

If it's approved to be sold OTC it's as safe as any other drug sold OTC.

So a 15 year old takes a tylenol and gets sick from it, should the parents pay?

Truth is that you involve chastity and morals in the situation and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal nor the medical perspective that you are trying to argue.

Until you get that and come back with an argument that doesn't "smell like teen Jeeebus spirit" i won't adress your argument again.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: halik

Do you feel the same way about ALL other OTC drugs? Should the law mandate that minors cannot purchase any OTC drugs?

As a practicing pharmacist, I would say yes to both questions.

Ooooh, there must be some good stories here! Are you ethically allowed to share?

Don't want to violate HIPAA.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: halik

Do you feel the same way about ALL other OTC drugs? Should the law mandate that minors cannot purchase any OTC drugs?

As a practicing pharmacist, I would say yes to both questions.

Ooooh, there must be some good stories here! Are you ethically allowed to share?

Don't want to violate HIPAA.

Thought that might be the case. Thanks for your input to the thread.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

My apologies then, i probably mistook you for someone else too so apologies for that too.

Will you make sure she has protection when she's 15 and goes out on a date?

She will defiantly know the risks and consequences of her actions and what will be needed to avoid problems.

Plan B or modern birth control pills have the same basic function IF she gets pregnant, so do IUD's which is probably the best method for preventing pregnancy that has ever been invented.

Yes plan B is basically a high dose birth control pill. Birth control pills require a script, so why should one be OTC and the other not?

Mostly because the long term side effects are severe while the short term side effects are not, it might cause temporary uncomfort but it won't cause any of the life threatening conditions long term progesterone use will.

It's a very safe thing, by far safer than tylenol or aspirin.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

Thanks for not resorting to personal attacks.

Ok, lets make it 15. And when the medication causes complications to the mother. Do we force the parents to pay for it? What if they don't have health insurance? Lets just say for the sake of argument the 17 year old takes Plan B, has MAJOR complications, and runs up 10's of thousands of dollars of medical bills. The parents don't have health insurance or not much. Do we hold them responsible for the choice of the 17 year old? If so, then why do they not get input.

How do you resolve this conflict? Do you have an answer or do you just spout off calling people stupid pieces of shit and retarded when you don't have an answer?

*sigh*

How don't you get this? There is nothing special about it, it's like aspirin or tylenol or whatever fucking drug you want.

If it's approved to be sold OTC it's as safe as any other drug sold OTC.

So a 15 year old takes a tylenol and gets sick from it, should the parents pay?

Truth is that you involve chastity and morals in the situation and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal nor the medical perspective that you are trying to argue.

Until you get that and come back with an argument that doesn't "smell like teen Jeeebus spirit" i won't adress your argument again.

I am uncertain what FNE means here.

So if the 17 or 15 year old does not take Plan B and becomes pregnant. Do we force the parents to pay for it? What if they don't have health insurance? Lets just say for the sake of argument the pregnant 17 year old , has MAJOR complications, and runs up 10's of thousands of dollars of medical bills. The parents don't have health insurance or not much. Do we hold them responsible for the choice of the 17 year old? If so, then why do they not get input.

How do you resolve this conflict? Do you have an answer or do you just spout off calling people stupid pieces of shit and retarded when you don't have an answer?

Any thoughts on that scenario FNE?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

My apologies then, i probably mistook you for someone else too so apologies for that too.

Will you make sure she has protection when she's 15 and goes out on a date?

She will defiantly know the risks and consequences of her actions and what will be needed to avoid problems.

Plan B or modern birth control pills have the same basic function IF she gets pregnant, so do IUD's which is probably the best method for preventing pregnancy that has ever been invented.

Yes plan B is basically a high dose birth control pill. Birth control pills require a script, so why should one be OTC and the other not?

Mostly because the long term side effects are severe while the short term side effects are not, it might cause temporary uncomfort but it won't cause any of the life threatening conditions long term progesterone use will.

It's a very safe thing, by far safer than tylenol or aspirin.

I am sure it is, but it still falls under a parents need to know, IMHO.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

You keep saying "under medical supervision" - that means NOT OTC, and therefore is different than the topic we're discussing. IIRC, prescription plan b is already available to most teens without parental consent, isn't it? All we're discussing is OTC plan b, which means that they would have completely unsupervised access to it, parents AND doctors both being unable to help monitor.

For the record, I believe in abstinence plus style of sex ed, where you teach that abstinence is the only surefire way to avoid STDs and pregnancy but that you give complete and accurate medical facts about all forms of birth control, disease transmission, etc.

Under medical supervision would mean that these are tested safe drugs, you know, like tylenol.

Abstinence education has FAILED more miserably wherever it's been implemented. Instincts trumph what the pastor and mom agrees on.

When you grow up one day and get a boner, you'll know what i mean.

You noted the abstinence part and complete (and deliberately, I'm sure) failed to notice where I said I supported completely and totally sharing all facts about sex, STDs, birth control, etc. So are you just trying to antagonize everyone regardless of their viewpoint?

And I'm both grown up and will never get a boner, since I'm female.

Yeah, i really should read slower and no, i'm not trying to antagonise anyone who is sane, you seem to understand the fundamentals at least.

"Don't do it but you're going to do it anyway so here are your options"?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

Thanks for not resorting to personal attacks.

Ok, lets make it 15. And when the medication causes complications to the mother. Do we force the parents to pay for it? What if they don't have health insurance? Lets just say for the sake of argument the 17 year old takes Plan B, has MAJOR complications, and runs up 10's of thousands of dollars of medical bills. The parents don't have health insurance or not much. Do we hold them responsible for the choice of the 17 year old? If so, then why do they not get input.

How do you resolve this conflict? Do you have an answer or do you just spout off calling people stupid pieces of shit and retarded when you don't have an answer?

*sigh*

How don't you get this? There is nothing special about it, it's like aspirin or tylenol or whatever fucking drug you want.

If it's approved to be sold OTC it's as safe as any other drug sold OTC.

So a 15 year old takes a tylenol and gets sick from it, should the parents pay?

Truth is that you involve chastity and morals in the situation and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal nor the medical perspective that you are trying to argue.

Until you get that and come back with an argument that doesn't "smell like teen Jeeebus spirit" i won't adress your argument again.

Many of your liberal controlled schools do not allow children to take Tylenol in school under their zero tolerance polcies. If we can't trust kids to take Tylenol in school, can we trust them to take abortion pills outside of it?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

Thanks for not resorting to personal attacks.

Ok, lets make it 15. And when the medication causes complications to the mother. Do we force the parents to pay for it? What if they don't have health insurance? Lets just say for the sake of argument the 17 year old takes Plan B, has MAJOR complications, and runs up 10's of thousands of dollars of medical bills. The parents don't have health insurance or not much. Do we hold them responsible for the choice of the 17 year old? If so, then why do they not get input.

How do you resolve this conflict? Do you have an answer or do you just spout off calling people stupid pieces of shit and retarded when you don't have an answer?

*sigh*

How don't you get this? There is nothing special about it, it's like aspirin or tylenol or whatever fucking drug you want.

If it's approved to be sold OTC it's as safe as any other drug sold OTC.

So a 15 year old takes a tylenol and gets sick from it, should the parents pay?

Truth is that you involve chastity and morals in the situation and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal nor the medical perspective that you are trying to argue.

Until you get that and come back with an argument that doesn't "smell like teen Jeeebus spirit" i won't adress your argument again.

John, you need to differentiate between people that hold an opinion for solely moral reasons and people that hold an opinion for medical or medical mixed with moral reasons.

Several people have stated valid medical concerns with allowing ANY OTC prescription for teens, unrelated to plan b. You have failed to respond to these people and have basically attacked anyone that didn't automatically agree with you on every fine detail of the question at hand.

I also would suggest that you overestimate the safety of OTC drugs. It is possible for plan b, aspirin or Tylenol to cause life threatening and/or long term debilitating problems if used improperly without medical supervision. Trust me, I know - I was on doctor prescribed naproxyn for years and wound up with a stomach ulcer, even with the careful supervision of a doc.

OTC does NOT mean "perfectly safe under all conditions no matter what you do with it."

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Yeah, i really should read slower and no, i'm not trying to antagonise anyone who is sane, you seem to understand the fundamentals at least.

"Don't do it but you're going to do it anyway so here are your options"?

Actually you should just grow up. So far you have insulted everyone that disagrees you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

Yeah, why not 3?

:roll:

A line needs to be drawn, but why 18?

The whole point is the decision wasn't based on science. It was based on politics. The scientific advisory board of the FDA said it would be fine to allow 17yo.s to access the morning after pill. Denying them prescription-less access was a political decision.

Let's be honest here. The new decision wasn't based on science either. Nothing scientific determined that the proper minimum age of access to Plan B is 17. The real issue here has little to do with Bush either and only the usual partisan tools in this place would make it out to be so. This is yet another skirmish in the age old battle of the reproductive rights for teens under 18, a battle that has been ongoing for years.

I can understand both sides of the argument. Parents and legal guardians for a teen under 18 years of age have a legal responsibility for them and should have some say. otoh, teens are going to have sex and should have a right to control their contraceptive requirements.

Truthfully though, this decision seems a small victory. Why is the new line drawn at 17? Why not 16 or 15? Why not any girl that has sex? Shouldn't any female be able to determine whether or not she wants to have a child, regardless of age?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.

Thanks for not resorting to personal attacks.

Ok, lets make it 15. And when the medication causes complications to the mother. Do we force the parents to pay for it? What if they don't have health insurance? Lets just say for the sake of argument the 17 year old takes Plan B, has MAJOR complications, and runs up 10's of thousands of dollars of medical bills. The parents don't have health insurance or not much. Do we hold them responsible for the choice of the 17 year old? If so, then why do they not get input.

How do you resolve this conflict? Do you have an answer or do you just spout off calling people stupid pieces of shit and retarded when you don't have an answer?

*sigh*

How don't you get this? There is nothing special about it, it's like aspirin or tylenol or whatever fucking drug you want.

If it's approved to be sold OTC it's as safe as any other drug sold OTC.

So a 15 year old takes a tylenol and gets sick from it, should the parents pay?

Truth is that you involve chastity and morals in the situation and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal nor the medical perspective that you are trying to argue.

Until you get that and come back with an argument that doesn't "smell like teen Jeeebus spirit" i won't adress your argument again.

I am uncertain what FNE means here.

So if the 17 or 15 year old does not take Plan B and becomes pregnant. Do we force the parents to pay for it? What if they don't have health insurance? Lets just say for the sake of argument the pregnant 17 year old , has MAJOR complications, and runs up 10's of thousands of dollars of medical bills. The parents don't have health insurance or not much. Do we hold them responsible for the choice of the 17 year old? If so, then why do they not get input.

How do you resolve this conflict? Do you have an answer or do you just spout off calling people stupid pieces of shit and retarded when you don't have an answer?

Any thoughts on that scenario FNE?

Ok, lets take a step further. If a 17 year old gets pregnant, but wants the child, should they be allowed to force the child to take Plan B? I'm asking for consistency. If its as safe as aspirin or tylenol, surely the parents could make a 17 year old take it?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

My apologies then, i probably mistook you for someone else too so apologies for that too.

Will you make sure she has protection when she's 15 and goes out on a date?

She will defiantly know the risks and consequences of her actions and what will be needed to avoid problems.

Plan B or modern birth control pills have the same basic function IF she gets pregnant, so do IUD's which is probably the best method for preventing pregnancy that has ever been invented.

Yes plan B is basically a high dose birth control pill. Birth control pills require a script, so why should one be OTC and the other not?

Mostly because the long term side effects are severe while the short term side effects are not, it might cause temporary uncomfort but it won't cause any of the life threatening conditions long term progesterone use will.

It's a very safe thing, by far safer than tylenol or aspirin.

I am sure it is, but it still falls under a parents need to know, IMHO.

Well, that is your opinion and i can respect that even though i can also disagree, i think this will have to be judged on a patient to patient basis.

Let's say they won't let her decide anything, then they are basically allowing whatever happens to HER body which is wrong as i see it since i do not believe that parents has the rights to their childrens bodies in this way (if they did then incest wouldn't be illegal).

There are a lot of things to take into consideration and it's not as black and white as it may seem if asked as a yes or no question.