Finally: Science Allowed to be Science Again

[Old Rocks]

my only concern is: taking ru486 repetitively is not good or very unhealthy for the recipient and our youth, and even some adult women, may not heed the warning to wait at least 6 months to a year, before using it again.

Well, after the first time, a little forethought in the form of birth control would seem to be in order. If the parents realize that their daughter is sexually active, then they should face facts and keep her on birth control until they are no longer responsible for her.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Damned hypocritical of them. Then there is also this male thing about a young teen man that has sex is a stud, a young teen female is a tramp. Very much part of the Conservative mindset.

As stated before, we have the most hormones at precisely the time we have the least brains. Sure fire way of keeping the specie going, and making sure that mother get gray.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Hey dingbat, I was raised in an Evangelical family. The teen pregancy among Evangelicals is extremely high. So your preaching on morality is hardly appropriate.
Dept. of Disputation: Red Sex, Blue Sex: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker


In early September, when Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for Vice-President, announced that her unwed seventeen-year-old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant, many liberals were shocked, not by the revelation but by the reaction to it. They expected the news to dismay the evangelical voters that John McCain was courting with his choice of Palin. Yet reports from the floor of the Republican Convention, in St. Paul, quoted dozens of delegates who seemed unfazed, or even buoyed, by the news. A delegate from Louisiana told CBS News, “Like so many other American families who are in the same situation, I think it’s great that she instilled in her daughter the values to have the child and not to sneak off someplace and have an abortion.” A Mississippi delegate claimed that “even though young children are making that decision to become pregnant, they’ve also decided to take responsibility for their actions and decided to follow up with that and get married and raise this child.” Palin’s family drama, delegates said, was similar to the experience of many socially conservative Christian families. As Marlys Popma, the head of evangelical outreach for the McCain campaign, told National Review, “There hasn’t been one evangelical family that hasn’t gone through some sort of situation.” In fact, it was Popma’s own “crisis pregnancy” that had brought her into the movement in the first place

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Mississippi, Vanguard of Abstinence Sex Ed, Now Boasts the Highest Teen Pregnancy Rate in the Nation | Mother Jones



His findings are drawn from a national survey that Regnerus and his colleagues conducted of some thirty-four hundred thirteen-to-seventeen-year-olds, and from a comprehensive government study of adolescent health known as Add Health. Regnerus argues that religion is a good indicator of attitudes toward sex, but a poor one of sexual behavior, and that this gap is especially wide among teen-agers who identify themselves as evangelical. The vast majority of white evangelical adolescents--seventy-four per cent--say that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage. (Only half of mainline Protestants, and a quarter of Jews, say that they believe in abstinence.) Moreover, among the major religious groups, evangelical virgins are the least likely to anticipate that sex will be pleasurable, and the most likely to believe that having sex will cause their partners to lose respect for them. (Jews most often cite pleasure as a reason to have sex, and say that an unplanned pregnancy would be an embarrassment.) But, according to Add Health data, evangelical teen-agers are more sexually active than Mormons, mainline Protestants, and Jews. On average, white evangelical Protestants make their sexual début--to use the festive term of social-science researchers--shortly after turning sixteen. Among major religious groups, only black Protestants begin having sex earlier.

 

[Ravi]

my only concern is: taking ru486 repetitively is not good or very unhealthy for the recipient and our youth, and even some adult women, may not heed the warning to wait at least 6 months to a year, before using it again.

Care, maybe someone else has already pointed this out, but the morning after pill is not the ru486.

Morning-after pills (ECPs) are not to be confused with the “abortion pill”, otherwise known as RU486, mifestone, or Mifeprex. According to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, “EC is not an abortifacient because it has its effect prior to the earliest time of implantation.” Since they act before implantation, they are considered medically and legally to be forms of contraception.

Emergency contraception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jillian]

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.

it's your job to teach your kids morality...

and, here's a hint... if your kid has to make a choice about the morning after pill...

they didn't *get* your message.

so do stop trying to impose your religious mores on others... particularly if you couldn't even get the lesson to your own kids.

 

[Care4all]

my only concern is: taking ru486 repetitively is not good or very unhealthy for the recipient and our youth, and even some adult women, may not heed the warning to wait at least 6 months to a year, before using it again.

Care, maybe someone else has already pointed this out, but the morning after pill is not the ru486.

Morning-after pills (ECPs) are not to be confused with the “abortion pill”, otherwise known as RU486, mifestone, or Mifeprex. According to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, “EC is not an abortifacient because it has its effect prior to the earliest time of implantation.” Since they act before implantation, they are considered medically and legally to be forms of contraception.

Emergency contraception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes Ravi, i did not know they were different until later in to the thread where i posted this:!

fyi FYI

I was confused myself on RU486 and Plan B, I thought they were the SAME, BUT they are NOT!

in case, anyone else was confused as me, here are some helpful links...

RU486Facts.org - Medical Information about RU-486 (Mifepristone)

Plan B®: Frequently Asked Questions

 

[jillian]

Thanks for that. I didn't realize they were different.

 

[editec]

What we need is really a PARENTING AFTER pill.

We wake up and discover that our children aren't children anymore, and we take this pill and ~ voila! ~ they're really children again.

Since we don't have that pill most of us just accept that the best we can do is to love our grandchildren.

If humans were really RATIONAL none of us would have kids, folks.

OR is right... mother nature makes hormones trump intellect because if she hadn't?

There'd be NO human race.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

So you kill an unborn child and teach your children that there are consequences in life and human life means absolutely nothing?

Let's take murder and 40 weeks of inconvenience and put those on the ol' scales of reason, ethics, and morality

 

[jillian]

This isn't a discussion about abortion, genius...

it is a discussion about the morning after pill and whether, philosophically, it should go to girls 17 and under.

stick with the program.

 

[HUGGY]

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

Slut!

 

[AllieBaba]

Every discussion you enter into is a discussion about abortion, Jillie. It's you're #1 priority. Wipe out all those who are less relevant than yourself.

 

[jillian]

no dear... that's you.

now stop trying to insult me, love. you get embarrassed every time you do it.

 

[Care4all]

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.

So you kill an unborn child and teach your children that there are consequences in life and human life means absolutely nothing?

Let's take murder and 40 weeks of inconvenience and put those on the ol' scales of reason, ethics, and morality

If you believe there is an unborn child, when the egg is not even attached to the woman's uterus yet, (the definition of conception)by most), then I don't know what to say... There is no baby, EVER, if the fertilized egg does not attach to the uterus, which in nature, does not attach well more than 50% of the time all on its own, without any plan b pills or birth control pills.

I can understand the concerns of people like Dave who believe they should control all aspects of their children's lives until they are 18....

Having an Italian born mother, I can say that age NEVER stopped my mom from wanting to control her child's life...I'm a few decades past such and my parents still feel this is their duty!

I suppose I am more Classical Liberal than most on this board, and I find it hard to believe that people can not continue to teach their children the values they consider important by having this Plan B available to 17 year olds, who are considered by law, of the age to be able to consent to having sex, can hurt or affect or damage what the parents themselves teach their children? I do not understand why "the government" has to enforce what you believe verses the next person or the next person or the next person?

Making plan b birth control available for those who are 17 that need it for various reasons does NOT in any way prevent those who object to such, to teach their children to reject such a measure without speaking to them first?

Our government, should not control such things, when it is already perfectly legal to get any other kind of birth control for these 17 year olds and even on school grounds, having these kind of drugs are not punished, as it would be with advil in certain schools that have deemed such.

In addition to this, because this drug is already over the counter legally for 18 year olds and up, if a child of 17 wanted to get it, they could have an 18 year old to get it for them.

So what the law does, won't stop this from happening...but you, (you in general) who have kids still need to DO YOUR JOB and rear your kids according to your will...and hope and pray that something sticks...imho.

This is not government's job. Their job is to make certain it is not harmful to take...the rest is up to you, and this is what freedom is ALL about!

Care

 

[JBeukema]

Growth, division- the mechanisms of life begin prior to implantation in the uterus,very shortly after the sperm enters the egg

 

[Steerpike]

This is not government's job. Their job is to make certain it is not harmful to take...the rest is up to you, and this is what freedom is ALL about!

Care

Well, you know the Conservatives don't want to rely on the family teaching moral values to their children and instilling principles in their kids as they are raising them. They'd rather sit back and rely on the government to handle it for them by banning the pill for their kid.

 

[DiamondDave]

This is not government's job. Their job is to make certain it is not harmful to take...the rest is up to you, and this is what freedom is ALL about!

Care

Well, you know the Conservatives don't want to rely on the family teaching moral values to their children and instilling principles in their kids as they are raising them. They'd rather sit back and rely on the government to handle it for them by banning the pill for their kid.

Utter and complete bullshit.. and if you would actually read what I as a conservative posted, instead of merely interjecting what you WANT to believe their/our position to be, you might have actually brought something to this thread.. but alas, you did not

 

[Care4all]

Growth, division- the mechanisms of life begin prior to implantation in the uterus,very shortly after the sperm enters the egg

yes, they do begin before such....

first with the development of the sperm and egg themselves, and with fertilization of the egg by the sperm....

HOWEVER the fertilized egg....all on its own, does NOT make it to the uterus and attach itself to the wall of the uterus to make the woman''pregnant'' the majority of the time.

Most fertilized eggs, never become offspring or ''babies'' in our natural cycle of things.

This is why, the plan b pill itself is not of great concern to me....i do not see it as killing a human at that point in the process....if it is killing then why did God form us the way he did, to allow more than half of the fertilized eggs be ''killed'' in a natural manner???

The issue of premarital sex, or sex of a child under 18 yrs old or protecting your own child from sexually immoral behavior etc etc etc...should not be part of the FDA's responsibility imho.

care

 

[JBeukema]

Growth, division- the mechanisms of life begin prior to implantation in the uterus,very shortly after the sperm enters the egg

yes, they do begin before such....

first with the development of the sperm and egg themselves, and with fertilization of the egg by the sperm....

begins at fertilization. Until that point, the child doesn't exist- only cells from two people exist

HOWEVER the fertilized egg....all on its own, does NOT make it to the uterus and attach itself to the wall of the uterus to make the woman''pregnant'' the majority of the time.

Most fertilized eggs, never become offspring or ''babies'' in our natural cycle of things.

And everyone dies eventually. Some are even stillborn or die from disease as infant. Does that justify homicide?

This is why, the plan b pill itself is not of great concern to me....i do not see it as killing a human at that point in the process....if it is killing then why did God form us the way he did, to allow more than half of the fertilized eggs be ''killed'' in a natural manner???

Because your god had nothing to do with it