Finally: Science Allowed to be Science Again

[DiamondDave]

But that is NOT a judge's responsibility UNLESS the child is a ward of the court, which would happen if the parent is deemed unfit... and making a decision for your child that the child may or may not agree with does not make a parent unfit... it is the responsibility of the parent, for their child's care and well being, period... there is no argument of that unless you deem the minor/child emancipated from the parents or an adult

A judge does not have to intervene unless you are trying to make the government 'all powerful' with it's tendrils into even this very personal aspect of your family life and family responsibilities

But it IS a judge's province if the child can't go to the parent. In your scenario, if the child doesn't tell the parent, that's it...she has no options. The same way I don't think you can force a couple to have a good relationship by making them consult and agree on an abortion, I don't believe we can force our kids to confide in us. Believe me... I wish I could.

I agree on all points.

I'm not sure where I strike the balance on the morning after though. In general, I think that abortions by minors are medical procedures and should follow the strictures of all other medical procedures whatever they are. (Parental consent/notification -- judicial bypass). The pill presents a problem for me because it is not an invasive medical procedure. But, I'm not sure that it is without risk. If there is a substantial risk to the health of the girl, shouldn't the parents know in case something goes wrong? (I think hemorrhage is a possibility?). I would feel awful if my daughter were hemorrhaging and died and I knew nothing about any of it. Obviously.

I'm torn. Not sure what the right answer should be. I understand Dave's arguments and yours Jillian. I'm just not sure where I'm comfortable with that balance. If I was convinced it was as safe as aspirin, then I would make it legal.

Even Aspirin isn't safe sometimes. And if your child is also smoking, the pill could lead to stroke or heart attack... blood clots being far more likely than hemmorhage.... but you know what, they put all kinds of stuff in their bodies.... If they don't have to sneak around to get this stuff, they're more likely to be given proper medical advice and what to look for in terms of possible side effects. Plus, if they know their doctor doesn't have to tell their parents, I think they're more likely to call the doctor in the event something doesn't feel right after.

Am I right? Wrong? I don't know...

That's right jill.. even in that scenario the kid does not have the authority to use such a medication or have such a procedure given to them... because they are not adults... and until they are adults, just as in other medical and medicinal cases, the parents are the responsible party... they want that responsibility to get this or another procedure without parental consent, go to a lawyer and get emancipated and take responsibility for every aspect of their lives

But the thing is that a child that CAN NOT go to the parent and WILL NOT go to the parent are 2 different things... if a child truly cannot go to the parent, that is the beginning grounds right there anyway for the courts taking custody away from that parent.. and you know and i know that a child will say "I cannot" when they really mean "I will not" or "I am to scared to" or "I know I won't agree with mom and/or dad and I want MY way"

We don't have to force our kids to confide in us (or maybe in some cases, can't)... but that does not take the responsibility out of the adult's hands and put it into the case of a minor for their own care and well being

And as for the 'couple'.. if their adults, that is indeed their responsibility.. that has no relevance on the situation we are discussing here... which is parental responsibility and decision making for minors

This is exactly why we have the differences between minor and adult.. between fit and unfit.. and remember, just because a parent does not agree with what the minor wants, does not inherently make them unfit and defaulting the decision making responsibility back upon the minor

 

[JohnStOnge]

Ok. Ok, as suggested in the article and articulated at The Associated Press: Facts about the morning-after pill , it's "a high dose of a drug found in many regular birth-control pills." Like "regular" birth control pills, it's not likely to prevent implantation of a living individual member of our species but it can happen. I think it's a shame that our culture dismisses the lives of living members of our species based on developmental stage and allows their mothers to have them killed through various means for any reason they choose, but that's a broader argument.

However, I do wonder why it is that "regular" birth control pills require a prescription while this pill does not. Also, all that's happening is that they're lowering the age at which a prescription is required to 16 from 17. I'd be interested in why the "science" says a prescription is needed at 16 but not at 17, 18, 19, 20 or any other age. All of a sudden, when you turn 17 (or 18), your physiology suddenly changes so now you need a prescription?

 

[JohnStOnge]

My only issue with Palin was that she would support policies that affected OTHER people's ability to make choices. .

Most if not all laws restrict peoples ability to make choices. Laws take away, or at least discourage, any choice we might make to murder people (as long as they've emerged from the womb). Laws discourage any choice we might make to confiscate our neighbors' cars at the point of a gun. Heck, we even have laws that really do take away womens' right to do what they want with their own bodies.

We will make laws that say that a woman cannot engage in prostitution, where she really is just doing what she wants with her own body and not directly hurting any other individual (or, for sure, not somehow hurting somebody who isn't a willing participant). Yet we say woman can choose to have another individual that is a member of our species and is a separate identify killed in the name of "doing what she wants with her own body." She can take an action that is fatal to another individual in the name of doing what she wants "with her own body" but she can't legally smoke a joint if she wants to because, in that case, society has decided that doing THAT with her own body is "bad." To me, there's something seriously askew.

 

[theunbubba]

1.. you cannot even but a freaking Sudafed without checking, ID, etc....
2.. This is not something like a topical cream for feminine itching or a condom... this is a much deeper issue and a much bigger decision
3... Again, treatment and medical advise given to a minor without parental approval or notification is flat out wrong
4... beer and cigarettes are 'over the counter' too... and we do not trust minors with the decisions about those.. minors also cannot purchase over the counter items such as nicotine patches

Again... as an adult... I will not argue the legality of this... where I draw the line is for minors without parental consent

1. I'm not sure that's true. I'll look into it.
2. I don't think it's a bigger decision or a deeper issue. I think that's a moral question which is a personal issue and shouldn't be the province of the FDA.
3. I don't want girls allowing themselves to get pregnant because they're afraid to tell their mom or dad what they did the night before. I think for people who object to abortion, this is a much more benign option.
4. if you smoke or drink, you aren't bringing an unwanted child into the world because you made a stupid mistake the night before. But again, I don't think it's province of the FDA (or government) to make that choice. I have very mixed feelings on this issue myself... but ultimately, there isn't any option for a woman who can't get the pill within a certain number of hours and doesn't want to (or can't) tell her parent or guardian what she needs.

I think you're overlooking the problem of a child rapist using this to cover their tracks, by making little girls take it after being raped, to keep themselves from getting caught.
Or are you a molester trying to cover for yourself?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Whether or not someone takes a safe OTC drug should be a personal choice.... not one interfered with by government because of the religious objections of a group of people:

Kudos.... this issue and what it represents, is yet another major reason the repubs lost the support of the middle.

FDA to Approve Morning After Pill Following Fed. Court Decision
By Carol Forsloff.


Obama is doing what he said he would do to put science back in business. In response to a Federal court decision, his administration is allowing 17-year-olds to obtain the morning after pill without a prescription or parental consent.
George Bush had refused to approve the use of morning after pills for young women, so this new decision has consequences politically for the Obama administration and at the same time fulfilling a promise to overturn the previous administration’s policies on matters of birth control. While some people will react this encourages promiscuity, others believe that this will in effect reduce the risk of teenage pregnancies. That’s particularly true if the teenager has been a victim of date rape, incest or one of these issues of consequence to young women. Still it is controversial.

People are confused about the effect of the morning after pill, however. Some believe it interrupts conception that has already started. Others say it simply prevents it from occurring in the first place, thereby preventing life from initiation and that it is not an abortion pill. These things are being discussed in forums already all over the Internet.

The Obama administration is following through with the promise to bring science back into the decisions about matters involving sex and family planning and follows a recent decision in Federal courts of the case Tummino v. Torti. This is a summary of its findings according to an online journal serving the legal community:


“ Judge Edward Korman held that the FDA had engaged in arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking when it refused to permit a form of emergency contraception, called "Plan B," to be made available over the counter (OTC) to women under 18. The sole question before the FDA involved whether Plan B, available by prescription, would also be made available over the counter. The evidence before Judge Korman has made quite clear that the White House itself interfered with the ordinary science-based processes of the FDA in order to restrict the availability of Plan B for irrational reasons.”


The conclusion made by the courts, the journal states, reveals how religion displaced science for the public good despite the fact that science had established opinion that opposed the Bush Administration. Instead of terminating an early pregnancy, the morning after pill, according to scientific opinion examined by the courts, prevents fertilization from occurring before conception could occur.

This new development will likely be part of the discussion of the changes made since President Obama took office this year and is certain to be part of religious discourse in some circles.

FDA to Approve Morning After Pill Following Fed. Court Decision - Digital Journal: Your News Network

ROFLMNAO... I just can't get my fill of the secular worship of "Science"; projecting that science somehow trumps sound, sustainable moral principle...

Funny stuff... but that's the nature of insanity, it's HILARIOUS!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

LOL...

We should start a pool on when the "unintended consequences" of this catastrophe start pouring in?

 

[jillian]

I think you're overlooking the problem of a child rapist using this to cover their tracks, by making little girls take it after being raped, to keep themselves from getting caught.
Or are you a molester trying to cover for yourself?

Are you suggesting that we force children to bear children of rape as a forensic exercise?

That may well be one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard in my life.

 

[garyd]

Um you are aware that kids aren't even allowed to give each other Ibuprofen on shool property? Remeber there is a supreme court case involving a young girl being strip searched over Ibuprofen on the school grounds. This has got nothing to do with science other than the almost certain fact that if this is allowed to stand you can almost certainly expect skyrocketing STD rates.

 

[KittenKoder]

Um you are aware that kids aren't even allowed to give each other Ibuprofen on shool property? Remeber there is a supreme court case involving a young girl being strip searched over Ibuprofen on the school grounds. This has got nothing to do with science other than the almost certain fact that if this is allowed to stand you can almost certainly expect skyrocketing STD rates.

Are you contending that most parents are unable to teach their children about such things?

 

[JBeukema]

Are you contending that most parents are unable to teach their children about such things?

*looks around*

seems that way, as of late

 

[garyd]

No madam I am contending that schools don't permit kids to bring any kind of OTC drugs on campus so how the hell can anyone say that minors rights regarding OTC drugs aren't restricted already.

 

[theunbubba]

I think you're overlooking the problem of a child rapist using this to cover their tracks, by making little girls take it after being raped, to keep themselves from getting caught.
Or are you a molester trying to cover for yourself?

Are you suggesting that we force children to bear children of rape as a forensic exercise?

That may well be one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard in my life.

You know damn good and well that's not what I said. Get it through your head. You are an enabler. I think you may even be a molester here to help yourself by defending the scumbags that would take advantage of children.

 

[Evangelical]

The fact is by allowing this the government is saying it is OK for a child to behave immorally, which goes against the moral teachings of the parents. This conflicting view is dangerous to society.

 

[KittenKoder]

The fact is by allowing this the government is saying it is OK for a child to behave immorally, which goes against the moral teachings of the parents. This conflicting view is dangerous to society.

No, the government is saying it's no longer their responsibility to raise everyone's kids.

 

[Evangelical]

The fact is by allowing this the government is saying it is OK for a child to behave immorally, which goes against the moral teachings of the parents. This conflicting view is dangerous to society.

No, the government is saying it's no longer their responsibility to raise everyone's kids.

Really? How is it doing that by allowing children to do things without their parent's consent?

You tool.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Already a thread on this

But.... I would agree if this were only for ADULTS.. .it is a different matter all together when it is a minor... the decision making and responsibility for a minor is in the hands of the parent... anything given, medicine wise and treatment wise, to a minor without the express consent of the parent is flat-out wrong

I may not agree with the premise of the pill.. but legally it is an option for adults... but as stated, when it comes to distribution to minors, that is a whole different ball of wax

So you would rather see a teen-age girl...a child really...be forced to have a child? Such pregnancies are always high risk for a teen-aged girl. Whether she got pregnant by choice , or through the ignorance fostered by the utter lack of sound, medically based sex-education in our schools does not really matter. What does matter is that she be able to prevent a pregnancy, sparing herself and the child the risks associated with pregnancy in adolescence.

 

[Bullypulpit]

They don't want to look like they condone minors having sex.

I understand that.

Same as I understand that some people feel they are condoning drug use if they legalize pot.

I think, in both cases, we'd be smarter to be realistic about these things.

Reality has had but a nodding acquaintance with the right wing/social conservative movement in this country for many more years than I have lived, and I will be 50 in a few months. Probably farther back than even the Scopes "Monkey" trial.

 

[KittenKoder]

The fact is by allowing this the government is saying it is OK for a child to behave immorally, which goes against the moral teachings of the parents. This conflicting view is dangerous to society.

No, the government is saying it's no longer their responsibility to raise everyone's kids.

Really? How is it doing that by allowing children to do things without their parent's consent?

You tool.

LOL ... if you raise your kids well ... they would ask for advice anyway.

Oh, and I am far from a tool.

 

[editec]

I don't care what laws we pass, what drugs we ban, what sentences we impose, what rights we give or take away...

teenagers are going to have sex!​

They had out of wedlock sex in the good old days when our grandparents' so-called good christian family values dominated the world.

They got knocked up out of wedlock, they disappointed their parents.

Wake up and smell the teen spirit hormones, folks.​

The morning after pill will not change young healthy human beings sexual behavior one iota, regardless of how we come down on the issue.

Where we create impossible tension is here...

On one hand we make parents responsible for our children's behaviors, and on the other hand, we deny them the parents control of their behavior.

As a society, we need to make up our minds and get consistent about it the PARENT/TEEN contract.​

Society is confused about this issue because mother nature made this issue impossible to get right.

The answer is NOT black and white and writing laws in enough subtle shades of gray to actually fit all possible situation is impossible.

 

[Old Rocks]

I appreciate your objection. But if you could step back for a moment... what OTC drugs are people allowed or not allowed to purchase depending on their age? (I'm not talking about safety for use... that's a separte issue).

If, as I believe is the case, that the answer is ... not a single one.... then the only thing that would make this particular drug different is some "moral" objection.

why do you think that has any place in distribution of safe medication?

1.. you cannot even but a freaking Sudafed without checking, ID, etc....
2.. This is not something like a topical cream for feminine itching or a condom... this is a much deeper issue and a much bigger decision
3... Again, treatment and medical advise given to a minor without parental approval or notification is flat out wrong
4... beer and cigarettes are 'over the counter' too... and we do not trust minors with the decisions about those.. minors also cannot purchase over the counter items such as nicotine patches

Again... as an adult... I will not argue the legality of this... where I draw the line is for minors without parental consent

Well, when their little angels are out screwing, did the parents give consent? It is better then for girls 12 to 18 to just be forced to have the results of a bit of foolishness? I find your position to be immoral.