Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is funny... funny (in a pathetic way) that you fail to see how this is a GOOD thing, and not some "depraved government approval for kids to have sex."
It is funny... funny (in a pathetic way) that you fail to see how this is a GOOD thing, and not some "depraved government approval for kids to have sex."
Which was never a part of my argument. Again, what is depraved is how people want to demonize others by making things up about them.
You obviously did not read my posts but also thought it would be cute to misrepresent what I've said.
I read your posts, and understood them just fine. You don't think allowing sexually active minors easy access to contraception is a good thing, so what is the alternative? Having to get their parent's permission only delays the inevitable, and in some cases, will possibly lead to them saying "never mind" (crossing fingers instead).
Do you remember being a teenager? I do, and the teenaged brain is anything but logical.
The average teen has no use for this do they? It's for those outside the average. No?
Yes, and those "outside the average" (which would have included me, by a hair) are the ones we LEAST want to get pregnant... anything that reduces those chances is good, IMO.
Of course we hope they'll wait until they are older; of course we hope they'll use condoms etc when they do have sex. But the reality is many will not, and even for those who do use standard protection, condoms can break. The MAP has to be used within a short window of time (I think 48 hours?), so by allowing them to buy it over the counter, we're lessening the chances of them missing that window.
I read your posts, and understood them just fine. You don't think allowing sexually active minors easy access to contraception is a good thing, so what is the alternative?
That is not my position.
Quote:
Having to get their parent's permission only delays the inevitable, and in some cases, will possibly lead to them saying "never mind" (crossing fingers instead).
Do you remember being a teenager? I do, and the teenaged brain is anything but logical.
Again, something I never said.
Do people's mind work in such a way that they read certain words and without putting them all together come to a conclusion not based in facts but rather their pre-conceived notions?
Yes, and those "outside the average" (which would have included me, by a hair) are the ones we LEAST want to get pregnant... anything that reduces those chances is good, IMO.
Of course we hope they'll wait until they are older; of course we hope they'll use condoms etc when they do have sex. But the reality is many will not, and even for those who do use standard protection, condoms can break. The MAP has to be used within a short window of time (I think 48 hours?), so by allowing them to buy it over the counter, we're lessening the chances of them missing that window.
That has nothing to do with why I pointed out what I did.
So, why DO you think the morning-after pill shouldn't be available (without prescription) to minors? Please explain, because obviously I am not understanding your position.
Quote:
Again, something I never said.
Do people's mind work in such a way that they read certain words and without putting them all together come to a conclusion not based in facts but rather their pre-conceived notions?
Anyone?
I hate when people address me in the third person - it comes across as very condescending.
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I was merely interpreting what I believed your position to be. Since this medication has proven to be safe, and doesn't end a pregnancy, I just fail to see where the problem lies. Is your position merely that you think they should have to tell mom/dad "I'm having sex, and didn't use birth control (or it failed) last night?" That would be nice, but if it delays their being able to prevent accidental pregnancies, I think it is unimportant in the big picture.
So, why DO you think the morning-after pill shouldn't be available (without prescription) to minors? Please explain, because obviously I am not understanding your position.
I am under no obligation to answer a question to a position I do not hold. Again, and I know it's requiring you to do something which might be hard for you, but go back and actually read all my replies.
Quote:
I hate when people address me in the third person - it comes across as very condescending.
Guilty as charged. I am a very condescending person towards those who make up positions for me and claim they are mine.
Quote:
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I was merely interpreting what I believed your position to be. Since this medication has proven to be safe, and doesn't end a pregnancy, I just fail to see where the problem lies. Is your position merely that you think they should have to tell mom/dad "I'm having sex, and didn't use birth control (or it failed) last night?" That would be nice, but if it delays their being able to prevent accidental pregnancies, I think it is unimportant in the big picture.
So you believe where we have a young girl having unprotected sex there is no obligation for someone to intervene and address this? You have no concern over her continued and increased risks for STD's including Aids and other diseases that may render her unable to get pregnant once she is of the age where she feels she can handle it?
Do you feel we are under no obligation to determine why a 13 year old girl got in this position in the first place? If it was a family member, it's best to just let her get the pill in secret and go back to what caused the problem in the first place?
Thank you for clarifying. Now we are pretty much on the same page. I want to be the one to show my daughter the personal responsibility she has for her body, and not get that information from a high school counselor, a Planned Parenthood representative or a Walgreen's pharmacist or her boyfriend. I want to be the one to show her each and every option she has. Too many teenage girls think they have no options and too many are being raised without taking personal responsiblity for their body. With much freedom comes much responsiblity. Thank you for clarifying.
PS - I just want to add, Mike, that, for me, when my daughter is making these types of decisions, I want her to be a researcher and a critical thinker so that when she walks away, she is feeling extremely good about herself in every decision, with the knowledge that she relied on her intelligence and not someone who doesn't care anything about her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC
I do, too. Which is why I would strongly discourage them from engaging in sex because of the consequences that are numerous and unnecessary to list here. But, if they are going to do it, I want them to be empowered with the knowledge and the choices to resolve all outcomes to the maximum extent possible.
A teen girl should not at anytime ever being afraid to come to her parents and say, "I made a mistake and here was the solution I chose to correct it." Because that is lot more palatable than her coming to a parent in several months - pregnant - choosing to keep the baby, which in turn leads to long-term responsibilites to address, i.e. raising the child. Think of the worst case scenarios, aside from the financial issues: she could abandon the baby at the local fire station, she could be an unfit mother, she could be left raising the child alone, she could quit school, she could never gets the chance to work on her future, she could become a welfare recipient, OR WORST - she could get a late-term abortion.
[let her solve the 'problem' early and hopefully she'll learn from it]
I am under no obligation to answer a question to a position I do not hold. Again, and I know it's requiring you to do something which might be hard for you, but go back and actually read all my replies.
Yes, it is often difficult for a librarian to read well.
I read the first few pages (of the now 12 pages of this thread), which included your replies that I quoted. Did I miss a later post, where you said you do NOT oppose allowing the MAP to be available without prescription to minors? If so, why are we even arguing about it?
Quote:
Guilty as charged. I am a very condescending person towards those who make up positions for me and claim they are mine.
Again, does that mean you do support this proposal? That is the only position I have "claimed is yours," in reality.
Quote:
So you believe where we have a young girl having unprotected sex there is no obligation for someone to intervene and address this? You have no concern over her continued and increased risks for STD's including Aids and other diseases that may render her unable to get pregnant once she is of the age where she feels she can handle it?
Do you feel we are under no obligation to determine why a 13 year old girl got in this position in the first place? If it was a family member, it's best to just let her get the pill in secret and go back to what caused the problem in the first place?
Speaking of putting words into one's mouth, and making up positions for them - pot, meet kettle!
I never said any of that, but do believe it's all a moot point when a girl is faced with needing the MAP. This is something that has to be used within 48 hours of unprotected sex, in order to prevent a pregnancy from occurring. It is not possible to "intervene" AFTER the fact, nor is it possible to analyze all of these issues in such a short time period. Most of the time a pregnancy scare scares those who aren't desiring a pregnancy, so no, I don't believe this will lead to them continuing irresponsible behavior. But even if it does, I'd rather see them using a contraceptive-type of device than resorting to multiple abortions or unwanted babies. Also, considering condoms & standard birth control pills are still cheaper (and easier to get/use), it's unlikely this will suddenly become the preferred method.
See, I'm thinking more in terms of what is, and you are thinking more in terms of what should be... and while I do think a 13 year-old having sex (especially without protection) is a concern, keeping them from easily accessing this pill isn't the best solution for that problem. Education and PRE-interventions are a better idea, not withholding something that could safely prevent a pregnancy. Not to mention, "under 17" also includes 16 year-olds, who are more likely to be needing this than a 13yo.
Last edited by gizmo980; 04-06-2013 at 04:49 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
