Judge: 17-Year-Olds Can Have Plan B

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Sure, but there are more people who support some form of abortion. Perhaps that's because calling those of us who do godless heathens, murderers, or immoral wasn't the best way to explain the pro-life position.

I don't remember ever doing anything like that.

You're in the minority of pro-lifers. Like it or not, the majority of arguments against abortion stem from a religious objection. And, let's face it, the loudest voice is typically the one we're going to respond to. So while you can sit back and say, "I never said any of those things," those of us who have personally been called baby killer by people driving around in vans with pictures of aborted fetuses on them are not necessarily addressing you when we talk about the ad-hominem attacks of the pro-life argument. The people screaming "God hates abortion!" at abortion rallies, the people who blow up clinics and kill doctors... these are the loudest voices in the pro-life movement. That's the face of it right now. And they're pretty hard to ignore.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Sure, but there are more people who support some form of abortion. Perhaps that's because calling those of us who do godless heathens, murderers, or immoral wasn't the best way to explain the pro-life position.

I don't remember ever doing anything like that.

You're in the minority of pro-lifers. Like it or not, the majority of arguments against abortion stem from a religious objection. And, let's face it, the loudest voice is typically the one we're going to respond to. So while you can sit back and say, "I never said any of those things," those of us who have personally been called baby killer by people driving around in vans with pictures of aborted fetuses on them are not necessarily addressing you when we talk about the ad-hominem attacks of the pro-life argument. The people screaming "God hates abortion!" at abortion rallies, the people who blow up clinics and kill doctors... these are the loudest voices in the pro-life movement. That's the face of it right now. And they're pretty hard to ignore.

It's pretty easy to ignore if you choose to. See the John Brown thread - I'll assume you're anti-slavery but not necessarily a fan of killing random Southerners. It's easy to ignore the extremists on an issue if you're truly committed to having an open mind and taking an honest look at an issue. I know - I used to be pro-choice.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Hay, are we all agreed that GOV agencies should not be controlled by religious dogma??

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I think this is a good move...

...however I do wonder about a couple of things:

1.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks of, drugs, are they now not adult enough for age of consent?

2.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, cannot the argument be made that they're adult enough to decide if they can drink?

3.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, should we not modify the Selective Service age to 17 instead of 18?

It would seem that if we're saying they're adult enough to make these decisions, they ought to be considered Adults, and not children any longer.

Chuck

Boy you sure go whole hog in your argumements. How about we let 17 year old girls (or 15 or 11) the choice to rectify the bad mistake they made the night before.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I think this is a good move...

...however I do wonder about a couple of things:

1.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks of, drugs, are they now not adult enough for age of consent?

2.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, cannot the argument be made that they're adult enough to decide if they can drink?

3.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, should we not modify the Selective Service age to 17 instead of 18?

It would seem that if we're saying they're adult enough to make these decisions, they ought to be considered Adults, and not children any longer.

No. I mean, you could argue all those things, but this doesn't present any new arguments. A person can drive, vote and join the armed forces at 18 but can't drink alcohol. It's entirely possible to maintain something other than all or nothing propositions.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

But...b-b-but killing a sixteen-celled zygote without a brain is MURDER! It's murder I tell ya! God says so!

I've never got that argument either, i mean, if you're born and don't have a working cerebral cortex you are DEAD but if you are pre-born and don't have a working cerebral cortex you are ALIVE.

Consistency doesn't work, neither does logic nor rationality, it's purely based on idiocy and an idiocy that isn't even based on the Bible which only mentions abortion when God ORDERS it and no where else.

It's what the guy who gave them the koolaid told them and they believe it, it's not Christianity, it's various sects with leaders who they believe in.

Actually, plenty of atheists and other non-religious people are pro-life for rational/logical reasons unrelated to a god in which they don't believe. They've even got a group and a website which I've posted here numerous times before. But I understand the pro-choicers always rushing to repeat the cycle of constructing/destroying the "religious fanatic" strawman, because it's so much easier for the intellectually lazy. No heavy thinking required!

Sure, but there are more people who support some form of abortion. Perhaps that's because calling those of us who do godless heathens, murderers, or immoral wasn't the best way to explain the pro-life position.

I don't remember ever doing anything like that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. It's been done by many, and that's part of the reason the debate is so vicious. The point I was trying to make is that the majority of people in the country support some form of abortion. I would be willing to bet that nearly EVERYONE supports limits on abortion at some point. It's where we draw that line that many of us disagree on. I don't want to see women getting abortions because they don't like their babies hair color. It's something I feel is best made on a case by case basis and that the best person to make that decision is the woman after consulting her physician. If God has a problem with it, he can handle it when the woman faces judgment day.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I think this is a good move...

...however I do wonder about a couple of things:

1.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks of, drugs, are they now not adult enough for age of consent?

Yes. I would take it a step further and say if they are old enough to go get an abortion without parental consent, that should BE the AOC. 18 is bullshit.

Originally posted by: chucky2
2.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, cannot the argument be made that they're adult enough to decide if they can drink?

Absolutely.

Originally posted by: chucky2
3.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, should we not modify the Selective Service age to 17 instead of 18?

Yes.

Originally posted by: chucky2
It would seem that if we're saying they're adult enough to make these decisions, they ought to be considered Adults, and not children any longer.

Chuck

You got it

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: chucky2
I think this is a good move...

...however I do wonder about a couple of things:

1.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks of, drugs, are they now not adult enough for age of consent?

2.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, cannot the argument be made that they're adult enough to decide if they can drink?

3.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, should we not modify the Selective Service age to 17 instead of 18?

It would seem that if we're saying they're adult enough to make these decisions, they ought to be considered Adults, and not children any longer.

Chuck

Boy you sure go whole hog in your argumements. How about we let 17 year old girls (or 15 or 11) the choice to rectify the bad mistake they made the night before.

Because he is making the case of far more than just having sex. Maybe re-read what he wrote.

 

[Carmen813]

I've met 16 year olds more mature than 24 year olds. The whole damn thing is arbitrary. Laws designed to control basic human behavior (i.e., sex) are doomed to fail because of the very nature of the things they are trying to control.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I've met 16 year olds more mature than 24 year olds. The whole damn thing is arbitrary. Laws designed to control basic human behavior (i.e., sex) are doomed to fail because of the very nature of the things they are trying to control.

The original rule by the FDA doesn't prohibit any age from taking the drug. For those under age 18(children), they need a prescription. Seems to make sense to me. I really don't understand how a judge would have the authority to do this and why he would do it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I don't want to see women getting abortions because they don't like their babies hair color.

Why the restriction?

It's something I feel is best made on a case by case basis and that the best person to make that decision is the woman after consulting her physician.

Why does a woman have to talk to a doctor?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I've met 16 year olds more mature than 24 year olds. The whole damn thing is arbitrary. Laws designed to control basic human behavior (i.e., sex) are doomed to fail because of the very nature of the things they are trying to control.

So where do you stand on the illegality of rape? Are you saying we really can't blame the rapist?

 

[chucky2]

@ WHAMPOM "Boy you sure go whole hog in your argumements. How about we let 17 year old girls (or 15 or 11) the choice to rectify the bad mistake they made the night before."

I'd agree in a perfect world we should. However, it's not a perfect world. As already pointed out in this thread, there are drug abuses, and bad interactions, and parents are still legally responsible for their children. The date that child is an adult is 18.

If you're now talking about giving the child the power to chose for themself what drugs they can take, when, and, how many...then you are essentially saying they're adult enough to make these serious decisions. If you're saying that, then why not consider them adults in the 3 examples I posted? Surely if they're adult enough to make the decision to ingest a drug that keeps them from getting pregnant because they're having sex (or, about to have sex), then surely they're adult enough for age of consent. If they're old enough to have sex, then surely they're old enough to drink. If they're old enough to drink, d@mn sure they're old enough to serve their country if that need ever arises.

@ jonks "No. I mean, you could argue all those things, but this doesn't present any new arguments. A person can drive, vote and join the armed forces at 18 but can't drink alcohol. It's entirely possible to maintain something other than all or nothing propositions."

See above; I do take exception that those who serve aren't allowed to drink. IMHO opinion, if you're old enough for them to send you somewhere to get yourself blown up, you're old enough to consume alcohol.

Again, I'm not saying 17 year old females shouldn't have OTC access to this drug - I personally think they should, and it should be free. However, if you cross that line, you absolutely need to start re-thinking at least the 3 things I listed above.

Either you're an adult, or you aren't. Pick one.

Chuck

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: chucky2
@ WHAMPOM "Boy you sure go whole hog in your argumements. How about we let 17 year old girls (or 15 or 11) the choice to rectify the bad mistake they made the night before."

I'd agree in a perfect world we should. However, it's not a perfect world. As already pointed out in this thread, there are drug abuses, and bad interactions, and parents are still legally responsible for their children. The date that child is an adult is 18.

If you're now talking about giving the child the power to chose for themself what drugs they can take, when, and, how many...then you are essentially saying they're adult enough to make these serious decisions. If you're saying that, then why not consider them adults in the 3 examples I posted? Surely if they're adult enough to make the decision to ingest a drug that keeps them from getting pregnant because they're having sex (or, about to have sex), then surely they're adult enough for age of consent. If they're old enough to have sex, then surely they're old enough to drink. If they're old enough to drink, d@mn sure they're old enough to serve their country if that need ever arises.

@ jonks "No. I mean, you could argue all those things, but this doesn't present any new arguments. A person can drive, vote and join the armed forces at 18 but can't drink alcohol. It's entirely possible to maintain something other than all or nothing propositions."

See above; I do take exception that those who serve aren't allowed to drink. IMHO opinion, if you're old enough for them to send you somewhere to get yourself blown up, you're old enough to consume alcohol.

Again, I'm not saying 17 year old females shouldn't have OTC access to this drug - I personally think they should, and it should be free. However, if you cross that line, you absolutely need to start re-thinking at least the 3 things I listed above.

Either you're an adult, or you aren't. Pick one.

Chuck

There's no 'if'. There's a need to re-think those things anyway.

Either maintain 'graduated adulthood' as there is now, in which case there's little point arguing over one particular item on the list, or everything is allowed starting at one magic age.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I think this is a good move...

...however I do wonder about a couple of things:

1.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks of, drugs, are they now not adult enough for age of consent?

2.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, cannot the argument be made that they're adult enough to decide if they can drink?

3.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, should we not modify the Selective Service age to 17 instead of 18?

It would seem that if we're saying they're adult enough to make these decisions, they ought to be considered Adults, and not children any longer.

Chuck

I tend to agree. We need to decide where adulthood begins and stick with that. Having selective service mandatory at age 18, trial as adult at 16(?), and alcohol legality at 21 is already baffling enough without introducing new exceptions for those age 17.

A case can be made for making Plan-B more available but I think the larger issue is the sentiment of scorn for birth control, sex education and sex in general.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: chucky2
@ WHAMPOM "Boy you sure go whole hog in your argumements. How about we let 17 year old girls (or 15 or 11) the choice to rectify the bad mistake they made the night before."

I'd agree in a perfect world we should. However, it's not a perfect world. As already pointed out in this thread, there are drug abuses, and bad interactions, and parents are still legally responsible for their children. The date that child is an adult is 18.

If you're now talking about giving the child the power to chose for themself what drugs they can take, when, and, how many...then you are essentially saying they're adult enough to make these serious decisions. If you're saying that, then why not consider them adults in the 3 examples I posted? Surely if they're adult enough to make the decision to ingest a drug that keeps them from getting pregnant because they're having sex (or, about to have sex), then surely they're adult enough for age of consent. If they're old enough to have sex, then surely they're old enough to drink. If they're old enough to drink, d@mn sure they're old enough to serve their country if that need ever arises.

@ jonks "No. I mean, you could argue all those things, but this doesn't present any new arguments. A person can drive, vote and join the armed forces at 18 but can't drink alcohol. It's entirely possible to maintain something other than all or nothing propositions."

See above; I do take exception that those who serve aren't allowed to drink. IMHO opinion, if you're old enough for them to send you somewhere to get yourself blown up, you're old enough to consume alcohol.

Again, I'm not saying 17 year old females shouldn't have OTC access to this drug - I personally think they should, and it should be free. However, if you cross that line, you absolutely need to start re-thinking at least the 3 things I listed above.

Either you're an adult, or you aren't. Pick one.

Chuck

Be fair, it's an ongoing problem in our country. We've determined that people aren't able to handle alcohol until age 21, yet they can be put behind the wheel of a car at age 15. We don't trust children to give consent before age 18, but we'll treat 11-year-olds as adults in murder trials. Oregon has mandatory minimum sentences for violent offenses that go into effect as soon as a person is 15; the mandatory minimum sentence for stealing another kid's jacket is over 7 years.

There are lots of age requirements in our country that don't make sense. But to say that we can't make a drug available OTC without fixing every one of the other age requirement problems we already have is simply asinine. They are marginally related in terms of how we, as a society, view the passage into adulthood and where we draw the lines. But legally, each of them is independent, and must be treated as such. We can't be expected to redo the age scale every time we come up with some new age-dependent law to be enacted.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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 <deleted> 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 disagree, for the simple reason that strongly religious parents would rather have both their daughter and her child die than for her to have an abortion, it's kind of a Christian honorary murder. You know, like the ones we hear about Muslims doing all the time (even if it's less than 12 a year and each and every one of them are from Indian families in the UK).

It's between her and her doctor, i think the doctor can give better advice than her parents, of course, that would mean that even girls that are sexually active are as free as boys that are sexually active and that is just WRONG in the heads of the utter retarded dipshits.

Plan B is NOT between the young woman and her doctor. It's between a young woman and her conscience, exactly as it should be.

Plan B is an over-the-counter medication. It doesn't require a doctor's oversight, just as many other medications with potential harmful effects are also over-the-counter. Anti-Plan-B'ers who are oh-so concerned about negative side-effects are strangely silent about the potential side effects of other over-the-counter drugs. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I think this is a good move...

...however I do wonder about a couple of things:

1.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks of, drugs, are they now not adult enough for age of consent?

2.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, cannot the argument be made that they're adult enough to decide if they can drink?

3.) If the 17 year old is now adult enough to decide when to take, and the Risks, drugs, should we not modify the Selective Service age to 17 instead of 18?

It would seem that if we're saying they're adult enough to make these decisions, they ought to be considered Adults, and not children any longer.

Chuck

Yep. Pick one age of responsibility and stick to it for everything. I personally think that it should be younger rather than older; artificially suspended adolescence has done a fair bit to screw up our society by giving people in their late teens the idea that they are not responsible for their own actions.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I've met 16 year olds more mature than 24 year olds. The whole damn thing is arbitrary. Laws designed to control basic human behavior (i.e., sex) are doomed to fail because of the very nature of the things they are trying to control.

Doomed to fail some of the time, yes. Actually, all laws are doomed to fail in their intent some of the time. Laws are absolute, life isn't. Law should strive to apply to the great majority of situations, and good laws have provisions for those exception situations. However, there is no way to forsee all exceptions, and there is no way to enforce equal protection/rights if there is no law at all, or if the law is subject to an individual's interpretation without reference to other previous interpretations. It's one of the drawbacks to trying to live justly in an imperfect world.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Carmen813
It's something I feel is best made on a case by case basis and that the best person to make that decision is the woman after consulting her physician.

Why does a woman have to talk to a doctor?

Because it's a decision that has a medical impact...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Carmen813
It's something I feel is best made on a case by case basis and that the best person to make that decision is the woman after consulting her physician.

Why does a woman have to talk to a doctor?

Because it's a decision that has a medical impact...

So does taking NyQuil. Do you support an age limit on that?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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 <deleted> 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 disagree, for the simple reason that strongly religious parents would rather have both their daughter and her child die than for her to have an abortion, it's kind of a Christian honorary murder. You know, like the ones we hear about Muslims doing all the time (even if it's less than 12 a year and each and every one of them are from Indian families in the UK).

It's between her and her doctor, i think the doctor can give better advice than her parents, of course, that would mean that even girls that are sexually active are as free as boys that are sexually active and that is just WRONG in the heads of the utter retarded dipshits.

Plan B is NOT between the young woman and her doctor. It's between a young woman and her conscience, exactly as it should be.

Plan B is an over-the-counter medication. It doesn't require a doctor's oversight, just as many other medications with potential harmful effects are also over-the-counter. Anti-Plan-B'ers who are oh-so concerned about negative side-effects are strangely silent about the potential side effects of other over-the-counter drugs. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.

You're rehashing arguments that have already happened in this thread.

-- Plan B is an over-the-counter medication. When taken as directed It doesn't require a doctor's oversight, just as many other medications with potential harmful effects are also over-the-counter.
Opposing argument 1: It is not necessarily reasonable to expect 17 year olds to take as directed.
Opposing argument 2: Parents are legally and financially responsible for the health and well-being of their underage children, including any medical costs associated to use or misuse of plan B. It is unfair to give the child the total right to decide when to take this and then hold the parents accountable for the fact that they took it. Therefore either the parents should have the decision-making power in this situation or the teen should have bear the legal and financial responsibility for their own medical health, particular related to the taking of plan b.

--Anti-Plan-B'ers who are oh-so concerned about negative side-effects are strangely silent about the potential side effects of other over-the-counter drugs.
Opposing argument: Actually, there have been plenty of concerns about other OTC meds. I linked several articles earlier in the thread.

 

[shira]

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

Maybe you ought to read a little more about Plan B and its method of action:

Wikipedia on Plan B

The United States FDA states that progestin-only ECPs like Plan B work by preventing ovulation. It also says "it is possible" that progestin-only ECPs may interfere with the embryo implanting in the uterine lining, and that they have no effect on pregnancies if taken after implantation.

Recent studies in rats and monkeys have shown that post-ovulatory use of progestin-only and combined ECPs have no effect on pregnancy rates. Studies in humans have shown that the rate of ovulation suppression is approximately equal to the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills, suggesting that might be the only mechanism by which they prevent pregnancy.

Because of the difficulty of studying embryos inside the uterus and fallopian tubes prior to implantation, both sides of this debate concede that completely proving or disproving the theory may be impossible.

And, by the way, you DO understand, don't you, that the length of time between fertilization and implantation is about 7 to 10 days? So even in this might-well-be-impossible, theoretical edge-case universe of yours, we're talking about at most a 10-day-old embryo.

So because it MAY be THEORETICALLY possible for Plan B to prevent a 10-day-old embryo from implanting, YOUR conclusion is that this court decision is "a license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies."

You're a nutcase.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Carmen813
It's something I feel is best made on a case by case basis and that the best person to make that decision is the woman after consulting her physician.

Why does a woman have to talk to a doctor?

Because it's a decision that has a medical impact...

So does taking NyQuil. Do you support an age limit on that?

Yep. As stated earlier, I think parents should be the arbiters on any medication taken by their child until the child is of age.

I also think that that we should lower the age of legal and financial responsibility, moving teens into adulthood earlier.

So I'm not opposed to teens having the same access to OTC plan b (or other OTC meds) as adults, I'm only opposed to it as long as the parents have the responsibility for the effects but not the power to make the original decision.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I've met 16 year olds more mature than 24 year olds. The whole damn thing is arbitrary. Laws designed to control basic human behavior (i.e., sex) are doomed to fail because of the very nature of the things they are trying to control.

So where do you stand on the illegality of rape? Are you saying we really can't blame the rapist?

Of course not. Rape is also not "basic human behavior" unless you believe it is normal to want to rape someone (and I'm not talking sexual fantasies). It is normal for sexuality to develop as a teenager. I was referring to laws that arbitrarily set an age-limit, for example, alcohol is legal at 21 while tobacco is legal at 18, and most people can drive at 16. The age of consent is 18, which also seems arbitrary (along with being at to vote at 18, ect). Based on the 18 year old I've been around that doesn't necessarily make them more mature than someone who is 17 or 19.

I believe a woman should have to consult with a medical professional regarding an abortion only so she fully understands the risks involved. The doctor should not provide anything more than medical fact. I mentioned hair color as an example of where I'd draw the line. All other things aside, if the only reason the woman is getting an abortion is because of of the babies hair color I would consider that immoral. However, despite my personal feelings on it, I don't think it's my job to tell someone else how to live.