Judge: 17-Year-Olds Can Have Plan B

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 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?

My liberal controlled schools? Where? Here in Afghanistan? At home in England?

In both countries they can get painkillers from the school nurse, they don't have to have the consent of the parents.

I know you hate US liberals so much that the frothing almost makes my monitor blurry but could you at least try to concentrate on the issue instead of political parties FOR ONCE IN YOUR STUPID LIFE?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: 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?

The question you ask at the end is a good one. How old is a person generally (any person, regardless of gender) before they can accurately evaluate their options, choices and consequences. Traditionally that line has been set at 18 but our society has screwed with it, lowering the age of consent, raising the drinking age, etc. In other cultures the ages of 13 or 15 have been considered "coming of age". You can never make a rule that is 100% applicable to all people but because we're dealing with law, we have to make the best reasonable attempt.

I suggest that we baby kids far too long in our society, and that around age 15 or 16 we have kids that should be ready to make their own life decisions. Currently we don't raise them properly to do so, but I consider it mostly to be an artificial suspended adolescence.

If we think a 16 year old is old enough to make her own medical decisions, she should be old enough to make other life-changing decisions too. Until we lower those ages though, the parents are legally and financially responsible for their kid and should be making all medical decisions.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: 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.

While I agree that this should be judged on a patient by patient basis, taking into consideration family and such, the law is incapable of doing that. Law has to have a hard line and as few gray areas as possible to prevent it from being exploited unfairly. Otherwise you have parents that are more or less persuasive, more or less able to afford a good attorney, and decisions being made by the judge's interpretation of the situation that is very skewed by other elements.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 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."

And yet NO ONE has protested school nurses handing out aspirin and tylenol and don't try to act daft, both you and me know WHY this discussion has come up, it's all about morals, not about safety or anything else, it's extremist Muslims and Christians bonded together by their mutual faith.

But feel free to start a thread about aspirin handed out by school nurses without parents consent if you REALLY think that it's something anyone would even care about.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Hacp
So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

because clearly a few hour old lump of cells (which noone knows at the time whether it actually exists) is a baby.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually, in the cases where they clarified i did apologise for the extremely common misunderstanding of "i read what you wrote".

It includes you and i thought you got that, apparently i thought too highly of you.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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.

Patient implies some sort of primary care

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).

It is HER body and SHE made a choice. There is rarely an UNDO button in life.

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.

Things seem pretty black and white to you. You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is bible thumping puritanical idiot.

 

[3chordcharlie]

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.

As a practicing pharmacist, why do you say yes to both questions?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Hacp
So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

because clearly a few hour old lump of cells (which noone knows at the time whether it actually exists) is a baby.

In all honesty - What are you, if not a lump of cells. You are somehow more important because your lump of cells has existed for years rather than hours?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Yep, I think that about all OTC drugs. A kid that pops OTC naproxyn all the time on an empty stomach is put at risk of stomach damage, for example, something a high school football player taking meds to reduce inflammation on minor injuries might not know. Some OTC acne medications mess with your hormones and can really screw you up for a period of time, as can birth control meds taken for the sole purpose of regulating your period (removing the morality question). There are plenty of OTC meds that, when mixed with alcohol, become a problem. OTC meds can be used for deliberate overdoses.

OTC doesn't necessarily mean safe; it means safe when taken as directed. Teenagers often lack the ability to accurately project the implications of their actions in the long term future. As a parent, I think it's important that you are at least aware of what your kids are taking and have the opportunity to discuss it with them and help them monitor effects.

being quite a ways outside of the teenage/highschool arena, i don't think average parents are really any more capable of doing the bolded than teenagers either.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: 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.

While I agree that this should be judged on a patient by patient basis, taking into consideration family and such, the law is incapable of doing that. Law has to have a hard line and as few gray areas as possible to prevent it from being exploited unfairly. Otherwise you have parents that are more or less persuasive, more or less able to afford a good attorney, and decisions being made by the judge's interpretation of the situation that is very skewed by other elements.

Well, the problem is that where the parents WOULD act against her decisions are the cases they should not be told because they would not let her body be hers.

In the cases where they WOULD let HER make the ultimate decision they could show support for whatever decision she made.

The only solution under your scenario AND mine is to let the patient decide.

Strangely enough, that is exactly the way it works right now.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Korman ordered the FDA to permit Barr Pharmaceuticals, which was bought by Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. late last year, to make Plan B available to 17-year-olds without a prescription under the same conditions as Plan B is now available to women over the age of 18. He said his order must be complied with within 30 days.

The judge on his own has the authority to do such a thing? Isn't he limited to interpreting a law, and so what law possibly applies to forcing companies to sell this to minors?

since you are as dense as ever, he everturned the rules preventing it from being sold to minors. I don't think any company needs to be forced to sell its product to a potential client base

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Hacp
So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

because clearly a few hour old lump of cells (which noone knows at the time whether it actually exists) is a baby.

In all honesty - What are you, if not a lump of cells. You are somehow more important because your lump of cells has existed for years rather than hours?

In all honesty, what is a dead person? A lump of cells? Human cells? Living cells? Aye, just like a pre week 25 fetus.

However, it has no active cerebral cortex, you know, the part of you that makes you you? The part of you that if it's deactivated you are clinically dead? Organs harvested and down to the morgue you go?

THINK McFly, THINK!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually, in the cases where they clarified i did apologise for the extremely common misunderstanding of "i read what you wrote".

It includes you and i thought you got that, apparently i thought too highly of you.

Back to insults again. I really dont care what you think of me, But you fired insults at me and others in this thread because we disagreed with you. Grow up.

What you stated about me or others was not an extreme common misunderstanding just a blatant generalization of who you think people are.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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."

And yet NO ONE has protested school nurses handing out aspirin and tylenol and don't try to act daft, both you and me know WHY this discussion has come up, it's all about morals, not about safety or anything else, it's extremist Muslims and Christians bonded together by their mutual faith.

But feel free to start a thread about aspirin handed out by school nurses without parents consent if you REALLY think that it's something anyone would even care about.

Actually, there have been plenty of issues with schools and aspirin, not just with schools dispensing it but also with students posessing their own on campus without notes, and with students sharing with other students.

Release form: http://www.jcdsri.org/medicateform.pdf
Kids dying from abuse of OTC cough medicine: http://www.pe.com/localnews/in..._S_robo09.425167f.html
Kids turning in OTC meds as part of a contraband search: http://dpa.xtn.net/dynamic/News/Story/154400

And it's been going on for a while:
Kids suspended for sharing tylenol: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03...r-sharing-tylenol.html
and midol: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-sear...&s_trackval=GooglePM
Inhalers have to be kept with the nurse: http://www.accessmylibrary.com...mmary_0286-5208354_ITM

So yeah, people have protested kids having OTC meds at school.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Yep, I think that about all OTC drugs. A kid that pops OTC naproxyn all the time on an empty stomach is put at risk of stomach damage, for example, something a high school football player taking meds to reduce inflammation on minor injuries might not know. Some OTC acne medications mess with your hormones and can really screw you up for a period of time, as can birth control meds taken for the sole purpose of regulating your period (removing the morality question). There are plenty of OTC meds that, when mixed with alcohol, become a problem. OTC meds can be used for deliberate overdoses.

OTC doesn't necessarily mean safe; it means safe when taken as directed. Teenagers often lack the ability to accurately project the implications of their actions in the long term future. As a parent, I think it's important that you are at least aware of what your kids are taking and have the opportunity to discuss it with them and help them monitor effects.

being quite a ways outside of the teenage/highschool arena, i don't think average parents are really any more capable of doing the bolded than teenagers either.

Possibly the best point made in this thread.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually, in the cases where they clarified i did apologise for the extremely common misunderstanding of "i read what you wrote".

It includes you and i thought you got that, apparently i thought too highly of you.

Back to insults again. I really dont care what you think of me, But you fired insults at me and others in this thread because we disagreed with you. Grow up.

What you stated about me or others was not an extreme common misunderstanding just a blatant generalization of who you think people are.

Agreed. You went back and accurately read what I wrote and apologized, but that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't resort to insults as your method of disagreeing with people in the first place.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hacp
So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

You actually think that a zygote is a child?

You really need to pay attention in grade school kid because they explain that shit there.

And do you think that zygote is anything other than human life(you should have learned that in science class)? That zygote is not a fully developed child, but it does not escape moral issues either.

it is as much a human being as a frog egg is a tadpole is a frog.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Korman ordered the FDA to permit Barr Pharmaceuticals, which was bought by Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. late last year, to make Plan B available to 17-year-olds without a prescription under the same conditions as Plan B is now available to women over the age of 18. He said his order must be complied with within 30 days.

The judge on his own has the authority to do such a thing? Isn't he limited to interpreting a law, and so what law possibly applies to forcing companies to sell this to minors?

since you are as dense as ever, he everturned the rules preventing it from being sold to minors. I don't think any company needs to be forced to sell its product to a potential client base

So maybe we shouldn't allow adults or children to make the decision to take Plan B?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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."

And yet NO ONE has protested school nurses handing out aspirin and tylenol and don't try to act daft, both you and me know WHY this discussion has come up, it's all about morals, not about safety or anything else, it's extremist Muslims and Christians bonded together by their mutual faith.

But feel free to start a thread about aspirin handed out by school nurses without parents consent if you REALLY think that it's something anyone would even care about.

Actually, there have been plenty of issues with schools and aspirin, not just with schools dispensing it but also with students posessing their own on campus without notes, and with students sharing with other students.

Release form: http://www.jcdsri.org/medicateform.pdf
Kids dying from abuse of OTC cough medicine: http://www.pe.com/localnews/in..._S_robo09.425167f.html
Kids turning in OTC meds as part of a contraband search: http://dpa.xtn.net/dynamic/News/Story/154400

And it's been going on for a while:
Kids suspended for sharing tylenol: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03...r-sharing-tylenol.html
and midol: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-sear...&s_trackval=GooglePM
Inhalers have to be kept with the nurse: http://www.accessmylibrary.com...mmary_0286-5208354_ITM

So yeah, people have protested kids having OTC meds at school.

Did you even read your own links?

IF you did, did you read my post?

Can you understand how all your links and my posts challenge are completely unrelated?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hacp
So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

You actually think that a zygote is a child?

You really need to pay attention in grade school kid because they explain that shit there.

And do you think that zygote is anything other than human life(you should have learned that in science class)? That zygote is not a fully developed child, but it does not escape moral issues either.

it is as much a human being as a frog egg is a tadpole is a frog.

Originally posted by: charrison


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

when it comes to matters like this, the views of the minor should take precedence over the parents.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hacp
So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

You actually think that a zygote is a child?

You really need to pay attention in grade school kid because they explain that shit there.

And do you think that zygote is anything other than human life(you should have learned that in science class)? That zygote is not a fully developed child, but it does not escape moral issues either.

it is as much a human being as a frog egg is a tadpole is a frog.

You are correct, but it still is human life as it cannot be anything else.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Korman ordered the FDA to permit Barr Pharmaceuticals, which was bought by Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. late last year, to make Plan B available to 17-year-olds without a prescription under the same conditions as Plan B is now available to women over the age of 18. He said his order must be complied with within 30 days.

The judge on his own has the authority to do such a thing? Isn't he limited to interpreting a law, and so what law possibly applies to forcing companies to sell this to minors?

since you are as dense as ever, he everturned the rules preventing it from being sold to minors. I don't think any company needs to be forced to sell its product to a potential client base

So maybe we shouldn't allow adults or children to make the decision to take Plan B?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hacp
So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

You actually think that a zygote is a child?

You really need to pay attention in grade school kid because they explain that shit there.

And do you think that zygote is anything other than human life(you should have learned that in science class)? That zygote is not a fully developed child, but it does not escape moral issues either.

it is as much a human being as a frog egg is a tadpole is a frog.

Originally posted by: charrison


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

when it comes to matters like this, the views of the minor should take precedence over the parents.

And why is that? All parents are idiots?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually, in the cases where they clarified i did apologise for the extremely common misunderstanding of "i read what you wrote".

It includes you and i thought you got that, apparently i thought too highly of you.

Back to insults again. I really dont care what you think of me, But you fired insults at me and others in this thread because we disagreed with you. Grow up.

What you stated about me or others was not an extreme common misunderstanding just a blatant generalization of who you think people are.

If you think that was an insult then i really don't know what to say, i tried to be polite but you had to wave your dick because you noticed there was a female around...

At least that is what i got from it because before she said that, you and me were having a pretty nice polite discussion.

Doesn't matter, i'm out of this thread as it's gotten completely useless with logical fallacies and irrelevant arguments left and right.