What Is The Flaw In This Sentence?

[Rozman]

biology collides with legislation

If she needs contraception she is technically a woman.

Then why are there statutory rape laws?

I'm sure Libs don't have any problem whatsoever with chicks 12 years
old banging half the football team...

 

[Unkotare]

biology collides with legislation

If she needs contraception she is technically a woman.

Then why are there statutory rape laws?

I'm sure Libs don't have any problem whatsoever with chicks 12 years
old banging half the football team...

Only if you mean 'futbol' team, as in soccer.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A 14 year old is not a woman. That is the flaw in the idiot's statement about "women" no longer having to face barriers. Actual women have not had any such barriers. They have been able to get the drug OTC without a prescription. So this ruling has nothing to do with them. Therefore, when the asshole says "women" have had the barriers removed, she is talking about children.

Christ, she may as well have said, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"!

The judge said banning children from this drug was "capricious and arbitrary". What a stupid ****. It is no different than the drinking age, which is also arbitrary. Is he going to overrule that, too?

She sounds liberal too me.

 

[Ravi]

A psychologist could have a field day reading these comments from conservatives who are talking about sex with children. What a bunch of sick fucked up asswipes.

 

[BlueGin]

If this were about 18+ people then the puritan thing would be appropriate. This is basically a judge saying piss off to both parents and medical professionals when it comes to children. A parent should have a say in thier childs medical choices. If not let them emancipate the little rug rats when they start growing pubic hair.

The problem here is reverse puritanism, where some people feel the need to have ZERO restrictions on anything involving sex.

If the parent had the control you believe the parent should have the young woman wouldn't be having sex, dope.

So because parents don't establish draconian rules for thier children, thier punishment should be ZERO information about what their daughter is trying to put in thier bodies (from a pharmacist)??

Interesting corner you are painting yourself into with this line of logic.

It never amazes me how some people have such an interest in the sex lives of other people's kids.

Yet... they want you to say out of THEIR uterus. Go figure.

Whoa are these people who constantly obsess over the need to terminate pregnancy? I mean seriously, are these people breeding at such an alarming rate that thy need 24/7 access to BC& abortions?

Christ almighty... seriously?

So encouraging our young people to marshall their logic and/or ethics in order to master carnal instinct is pointless, huh?

Kids are gonna screw kids, men are gonna screw men, men are gonna screw boys .....

No sense trying to draw a line? Really?

If believing we shouldn't just surrender in the effort to control our carnal instincts makes me a "deluded puritan" then I'll wear the badge with honor.

It has nothing to do with encouraging carnal urges or carnal urges at all. It has to do with the reality that teenagers have always and will always have sex and allowing them access to emergency contraceptives saves them from becoming parents at, generally, far too young an age to be responsible parents.

You can't legislate morality, right?

And what do men having sex with men or men having sex with boys have to do with energency contraceptives? There are already laws against men having sex with boys, and do you think there should be laws that discourage two consenting adult men from having sex?

I think releasing minors from their parents' authority in matters of sex is just throwing in the towel. Maybe a teen who gets pregnant SHOULD face a big, fat hairy deal. Removing all deterrents is not going to discourage the risky and dangerous behavior. So what will?

Exactly. What makes people think that children too immature and embarrased to use birth control, are all of a sudden going to be mature and open enough to get the morning after pill from a pharmacy?

 

[BlueGin]

Jesus Christ. It's an over the counter medication. There is no reason in the world that it shouldn't be available to anyone that wants it, just like asprin or pepto.


Right wing loons and their stupidity.

Kids would also have to have parents written consent to have aspirin and pepto at school and it would have be locked up by the school nurse...not carried around in their backpack.

 

[velvtacheeze]

If your teenager girl gets pregnant, then your parental judgement is suspect at best and should not be trusted to make wise decisions about the girls future.

I mean, look at the difference between Chelsea Clinton and Bristol Palin. Chelsea is a happily married, vibrant, intelligent young woman, and Bristol is a roly-poly bumpkin with a young boy bastard. Turns out being raised in a liberal household with liberal parents is better than being raised in a conservative, christian household, huh?

 

[Glensather]

biology collides with legislation

If she needs contraception she is technically a woman.

Then why are there statutory rape laws?

To be fair, things like statutory rape and age of consent are fairly recent things. It's still gross, but there is a precedent for Ravi's post.

It's still gross.

For that matter, who decided it to be 18? I know plenty of people who are 18 that aren't emotionally mature yet. To me 18 makes about as much sense as 16. Or 20.

Age of consent is weird. Maybe we should limit consent to people who are capable of trigonometry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A 14 year old is not a woman. That is the flaw in the idiot's statement about "women" no longer having to face barriers. Actual women have not had any such barriers. They have been able to get the drug OTC without a prescription. So this ruling has nothing to do with them. Therefore, when the asshole says "women" have had the barriers removed, she is talking about children.

Christ, she may as well have said, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"!

The judge said banning children from this drug was "capricious and arbitrary". What a stupid ****. It is no different than the drinking age, which is also arbitrary. Is he going to overrule that, too?

There is no link to the actual ruling in the OP article.

Did you read the ruling?

And wouldn’t we rather have parents deciding such matters for their minor children as opposed to the state?

[P]hysicians and doctors advising the FDA had concluded that the morning-after pills were safe for younger adolescents and did not cause promiscuity…

If the morning after pill is safe for those under 17, the issue is underage sex, not the availability of the drug, an issue parents would be compelled to deal with regardless the decision of the court. And as there is evidence that minors drinking alcohol can be harmful, drinking age restrictions are not arbitrary.

In matters such as this, a judge is reviewing the actions of the state and the evidence justifying those actions, not when one becomes a woman or if it’s appropriate to allow those under 17 to obtain a drug absent a prescription.

If the evidence doesn’t support the state’s actions, then the judge has no other choice than to invalidate the policy.

The emotional response to this is likely the confirmation that females under 17 are having sex, not the position of the FDA or a judge on the availability of a drug.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It betrays the mindset at work. If the issue was about making it legal for a 50 year old to screw a 13 year old, you would notice right away if someone was referring to 13 year old girls as "women who no longer have to face barriers".

You're conflating biology and morality. The fact that a woman/girl/female starts menstruating has nothing to do with 50-year-olds. Lighten up already. It's a freaking word.

It is a hell of a lot more than a word. It is the government erasing parental rights and calling children adults.

Nonsense.

If anything it’s the state staying of private family matters and reinforcing ‘parental rights.’

If a 14-year-old is having sex, obviously against her parent’s wishes, whether or not a prescription for the morning after pill is required by the state is irrelevant.

Frankly, I’m rather surprised at the OP’s position on this, as he’s otherwise an objective and intelligent poster.

Something about this must have touched his inner totalitarian social conservative.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not long ago an 8 year old girl gave birth to a healthy child. Under this ruling, 8 year olds now can go down and buy a very potent and powerful medication with no oversight whatsoever. We are going to end up with some very dead little girls and it will all be the fault of this one judge. What the ruling might do, is help shield the manufacturers from wrongful death suits when these poor children start dying.

 

[Ravi]

Not long ago an 8 year old girl gave birth to a healthy child. Under this ruling, 8 year olds now can go down and buy a very potent and powerful medication with no oversight whatsoever. We are going to end up with some very dead little girls and it will all be the fault of this one judge. What the ruling might do, is help shield the manufacturers from wrongful death suits when these poor children start dying.

Damn, an eight year old rape victim gives birth and you applaud the rapist, what a surprise. Negged *****.

 

[Katzndogz]

How stupid do we want to be? Really. How stupid? Girls of a very young age use poor judgment in the decision to have sex and who with. Yet, we propose to let them use the same poor judgment in taking some very powerful hormonal medications. The morning after pill, Plan B, is like taking a handful of birth control pills all at once. They are coagulants. They cause blood clots. Birth control pills cause blood clots. Middle aged women don't know all the side effects, they just know what a side effect is and know enough to ask a doctor. A girl too afraid or embarrassed to tell her parents or a doctor that she needs the morning after pill, is going to be too afraid or embarrassed to tell her parents or a doctor when she shows symptoms of something very wrong. So how long will it be before a girl has sex one night and takes the morning after pill, then has sex the next day and takes another pill and another after that? How about the equivalent of taking a month's worth of birth control pills every day for a week? Do you think this is so safe nothing at all will happen. Will that girl of 12 years old read the directions? No. They don't read directions for cough syrup. Tell them about the danger of clots and they don't even know what that is. Women in their 20s don't know what it is.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Judge strikes restrictions on "morning-after" pill

The morning after pill must now be made available to females under the age of 17 without a prescription, and without their parents' knowledge.

Currently, only women age 17 or older can obtain emergency contraception pills without a prescription. Point-of-sale restrictions require that all women present identification to a pharmacist before obtaining the drug.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman said the FDA's rejection of requests to remove age restrictions was "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable."

The Center for Reproductive Rights has given two thumbs up to this judicial ruling.

See if you can find what is wrong in the sentence I bolded:

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, hailed the ruling. "Women all over the country will no longer face arbitrary delays and barriers just to get emergency contraception," she said

The word woman. They are giving these contraceptions to children now.

 

[Synthaholic]

The government doesn't allow parents to give their children peanut butter sandwiches in their school lunches...but it's okay for children to get drugs from the government without the parents' knowledge.

Go figure.

How did you get so ******* stupid?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not long ago an 8 year old girl gave birth to a healthy child. Under this ruling, 8 year olds now can go down and buy a very potent and powerful medication with no oversight whatsoever. We are going to end up with some very dead little girls and it will all be the fault of this one judge. What the ruling might do, is help shield the manufacturers from wrongful death suits when these poor children start dying.

You truly are desperate, and consequently ridiculous.

The issue has nothing to do with accessing the morning after pill under a certain age, but what went horribly wrong in the life of an 8-year-old where she became pregnant.

Otherwise, the right’s opposition to the ruling is predicated upon their inane and legally irrelevant position that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and the incorrect perception of the morning after pill as some form of ‘abortion,’ which it clearly is not.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Not long ago an 8 year old girl gave birth to a healthy child. Under this ruling, 8 year olds now can go down and buy a very potent and powerful medication with no oversight whatsoever. We are going to end up with some very dead little girls and it will all be the fault of this one judge. What the ruling might do, is help shield the manufacturers from wrongful death suits when these poor children start dying.

Damn, an eight year old rape victim gives birth and you applaud the rapist, what a surprise. Negged *****.

Let the eight year old victims parents decide what to do with their child. - Jeri

 

[Synthaholic]

Bullshit. Not even close.

Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed, eh? So you don't mind 50 year old men humping 13 year olds?

The ability to produce sperm or ovulate is not what makes someone an adult. The brain of a child has not developed the judgement centers to maturity. This is scientific fact. A child is literally incapable of the judgmental abilities of an adult. That is why a parent needs to be involved in their decisions.

A fifty year old can run circles around a kid mentally.

We don't let kids get tattoos without parental consent, but we are going to let them get contraceptive medication without it?

Or maybe a girl of 14 will have sex with a 14 year old boy. Or 17 year old young man. Statutory rape is beside the point.

The fertilized egg isn't even a fetus yet while the morning after pill is effective. Now the girl can avoid an abortion. Don't we all want abortions to be rare? Teenagers WILL have sex whether they have access to emergency contraceptives or not. At least this way there may be fewer abortions.

Quit being deluded puritans.

So encouraging our young people to marshall their logic and/or ethics in order to master carnal instinct is pointless, huh?

Kids are gonna screw kids, men are gonna screw men, men are gonna screw boys .....

No sense trying to draw a line? Really?

If believing we shouldn't just surrender in the effort to control our carnal instincts makes me a "deluded puritan" then I'll wear the badge with honor.

How about you worry about controlling your own, and mind your business about everyone else?

 

[Synthaholic]

biology collides with legislation

If she needs contraception she is technically a woman.

Then why are there statutory rape laws?

Because 'technically' is not a pseudonym for 'legally'.

 

[Synthaholic]

A 14 year old is not a woman. That is the flaw in the idiot's statement about "women" no longer having to face barriers. Actual women have not had any such barriers. They have been able to get the drug OTC without a prescription. So this ruling has nothing to do with them. Therefore, when the asshole says "women" have had the barriers removed, she is talking about children.

Christ, she may as well have said, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"!

The judge said banning children from this drug was "capricious and arbitrary". What a stupid ****. It is no different than the drinking age, which is also arbitrary. Is he going to overrule that, too?

The problem is that there are some parents unwise enough to force a 14 year-old girl to carry a pregnancy to term. Laws sometimes must be created to protect society from its dumbest and most cruel elements.

Good old governence by exception. Because of a few bad examples parents all over the place now can have no say in what medicine the children they are legally responsible for can put in thier bodies. Like I said, if progressives want to set the bar lower for this one item, set the bar lower for everything. Delcare people in the majority at 14 and release the parents from the rest of thier responsibilites in a manner consistent with their inability to control access to medication.

It's only 'medicine' if you believe pregnancy is a sickness.