Morning After Pill Now Available For 15 Year Olds

[homersapien 11,812]

Am i so naive to think there not a lot of 10 year olds doin this annd if so do they even know such a drug exists?

The number of 10 or 12 year olds who would need or do this is already astronomically low. They would almost certainly need a parent to even suggest it in the first place.

Until the classmate with the older brother or sister that's told them things inappropriate to their age tells them about it.

Good grief.

We just had a local college student die from huffing circuit board cleaner.

Moral: You just can't effectively legislate ignorance and stupidity.

This is starting to sound a gun regulation debate, only in "bizarro world".

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Am i so naive to think there not a lot of 10 year olds doin this annd if so do they even know such a drug exists?

The number of 10 or 12 year olds who would need or do this is already astronomically low. They would almost certainly need a parent to even suggest it in the first place.

Until the classmate with the older brother or sister that's told them things inappropriate to their age tells them about it.

Good grief.

We just had a local college student die from huffing circuit board cleaner.

Moral: You just can't effectively legislate ignorance and stupidity.

This is starting to sound a gun regulation debate, only in "bizarro world".

No, you said they would "almost certainly" need a parent to tell them about Plan B. My response: "Pfffft." All they need is one friend or classmate with an idiot older sibling.

[homersapien 11,812]

Am i so naive to think there not a lot of 10 year olds doin this annd if so do they even know such a drug exists?

The number of 10 or 12 year olds who would need or do this is already astronomically low. They would almost certainly need a parent to even suggest it in the first place.

Until the classmate with the older brother or sister that's told them things inappropriate to their age tells them about it.

Good grief.

We just had a local college student die from huffing circuit board cleaner.

Moral: You just can't effectively legislate ignorance and stupidity.

This is starting to sound a gun regulation debate, only in "bizarro world".

No, you said they would "almost certainly" need a parent to tell them about Plan B. My response: "Pfffft." All they need is one friend or classmate with an idiot older sibling.

Actually, I never said that. You are confusing me with someone else.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Ah, you're right it wasn't you. But that's what my answer was in response to.

[Aufan59 99]

Actually, I never said that. You are confusing me with someone else.

I think you should learn to respond with proper quote tags instead of inserting red text. That might make things more clear.

Anyways, if young girls are getting pregnant, much less conspiring to buy multiple Plan B's because they think it will work better than one.... where the hell are the parents?

Should the government play the role of the parent? We've had multiple threads that detest that the government is playing the role of the parent. It is a very confusing double standard.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

It seems when the government tells a 12 year old they can handle this on their own, they are playing the role of a parent. A permissive parent, but a parent nonetheless.

[alexava 6,974]

It seems when the government tells a 12 year old they can handle this on their own, they are playing the role of a parent. A permissive parent, but a parent nonetheless.

maybe they are saving a parent from the social and financial hell they are facing by not playing the proper role themselves.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

It seems when the government tells a 12 year old they can handle this on their own, they are playing the role of a parent. A permissive parent, but a parent nonetheless.

maybe they are saving a parent from the social and financial hell they are facing by not playing the proper role themselves.

Maybe I don't need or want the government trying to save me from things they deem "hell." It's a usurpation of the parental role.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Everyone loves the government taking a hands off approach until they don't like the government taking a hands off approach.

[homersapien 11,812]

Actually, I never said that. You are confusing me with someone else.

I think you should learn to respond with proper quote tags instead of inserting red text. That might make things more clear.

Well, I would rather do it that way myself, but as you know, some people often post rather long arguments with numerous statements that beg to be challenged. Once you start quoting each statement you wind up with dozens of bracketed quote functions and it's difficult (at least for me) to keep track of them in the editing mode.

Inserting my response directly after the sentence I want to respond to seemed to me a better way to handle it. I do admit that method compounds the complexity if the OP wants to respond to your response (there's only so many font colors that show up well.)

Maybe we should ask people to try to limit the number of points - if not sentences per post?.

Or maybe it's just me. I really try to respond very specifically to a persons actual statements (words) rather than assuming a general concept they are pushing. But after all, this is by definition a "literary" forum, not a verbal one.

[homersapien 11,812]

It seems when the government tells a 12 year old they can handle this on their own, they are playing the role of a parent. A permissive parent, but a parent nonetheless.

Well, that's a fanciful way of framing the argument. They aren't "telling" a 12 year old anything.

What they are actually doing is simply making it available without an age restriction. Gov't restrictions come from either a regulatory agency (such as the FDA) which are based on science of from the body politic. The latter restrictions are based on a combination of science and public consensus (such as for alcohol and tobacco and illegal drugs). Even then, those restrictions have a very practical basis to them, as anyone who has seen a drunk or addicted teenager can attest to.

So, what you are asking here is for the government to place an age restriction on the "morning after pill" based on _______ what?

[homersapien 11,812]

Everyone loves the government taking a hands off approach until they don't like the government taking a hands off approach.

It's all about whose "Ox is being gored" (figuratively speaking).

[Aufan59 99]

It seems when the government tells a 12 year old they can handle this on their own, they are playing the role of a parent. A permissive parent, but a parent nonetheless.

The government is allowing a 12 year old to handle it on their own. =

Just as the government allows a 12 year old to cross the street, eat chicken with bones, or watch TV with curse words. The child could get hit by a car, choke on the bones, or learn to curse. It is up to the parents to decide if the child can handle it.

If you want the government to play the role of the parent, that is fine. But is that really the role of the government?

[Aufan59 99]

Actually, I never said that. You are confusing me with someone else.

I think you should learn to respond with proper quote tags instead of inserting red text. That might make things more clear.

Well, I would rather do it that way myself, but as you know, some people often post rather long arguments with numerous statements that beg to be challenged. Once you start quoting each statement you wind up with dozens of bracketed quote functions and it's difficult (at least for me) to keep track of them in the editing mode.

Inserting my response directly after the sentence I want to respond to seemed to me a better way to handle it. I do admit that method compounds the complexity if the OP wants to respond to your response (there's only so many font colors that show up well.)

Maybe we should ask people to try to limit the number of points - if not sentences per post?.

Or maybe it's just me. I really try to respond very specifically to a persons actual statements (words) rather than assuming a general concept they are pushing. But after all, this is by definition a "literary" forum, not a verbal one.

To put your text in red is about the same effort as putting your text outside of quote boxes.

The difference is that your text isn't in a quote box that is reserved for someone else's text. When I see someone who can't use quote boxes, I tend to ignore their post because it is simply confusing, and I understand why others think you might have said things you didn't.

[homersapien 11,812]

Actually, I never said that. You are confusing me with someone else.

I think you should learn to respond with proper quote tags instead of inserting red text. That might make things more clear.

Well, I would rather do it that way myself, but as you know, some people often post rather long arguments with numerous statements that beg to be challenged. Once you start quoting each statement you wind up with dozens of bracketed quote functions and it's difficult (at least for me) to keep track of them in the editing mode.

Inserting my response directly after the sentence I want to respond to seemed to me a better way to handle it. I do admit that method compounds the complexity if the OP wants to respond to your response (there's only so many font colors that show up well.)

Maybe we should ask people to try to limit the number of points - if not sentences per post?.

Or maybe it's just me. I really try to respond very specifically to a persons actual statements (words) rather than assuming a general concept they are pushing. But after all, this is by definition a "literary" forum, not a verbal one.

To put your text in red is about the same effort as putting your text outside of quote boxes.

The difference is that your text isn't in a quote box that is reserved for someone else's text. When I see someone who can't use quote boxes, I tend to ignore their post because it is simply confusing, and I understand why others think you might have said things you didn't.

Sorry. I am easily confused.

I'll try again.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

The government is allowing a 12 year old to handle it on their own.

...which is not a decision the government should be making. 12-year olds are not adults, they are children. We don't allow children to make all kinds of decisions (your cute list notwithstanding), especially things that involve altering the natural function of their bodies without any adult supervision.

It smacks of an agenda...an agenda that comes from a view that my government thinks its parental decisions are preferable to mine. That it should be able to tell my kids when it's ok to start taking birth control rather than me. That it should take a rather natural tendency (kids hiding some stuff from parents) and exacerbate it by putting birth control on the shelves within their reach and with no mechanism to even inform me that it's being purchased and used, much less afford me any input into the situation.

Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that people really think this is a good idea.

[alexava 6,974]

The government is allowing a 12 year old to handle it on their own.

...which is not a decision the government should be making. 12-year olds are not adults, they are children. We don't allow children to make all kinds of decisions (your cute list notwithstanding), especially things that involve altering the natural function of their bodies without any adult supervision.

It smacks of an agenda...an agenda that comes from a view that my government thinks its parental decisions are preferable to mine. That it should be able to tell my kids when it's ok to start taking birth control rather than me. That it should take a rather natural tendency (kids hiding some stuff from parents) and exacerbate it by putting birth control on the shelves within their reach and with no mechanism to even inform me that it's being purchased and used, much less afford me any input into the situation.

Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that people really think this is a good idea.

ok, parents who wish that their 12 year olds not buy plan B or birth control don't let them have sex or get raped or go into pharmacies. if you are in control of all aspects of you child's life then this should not affect you. you have input into where your child goes or money she has, you have input. don't restrict the young girls who do not have the benefit of parenting your child does into letting an awful situation worsen.

[Aufan59 99]

...which is not a decision the government should be making. 12-year olds are not adults, they are children. We don't allow children to make all kinds of decisions (your cute list notwithstanding), especially things that involve altering the natural function of their bodies without any adult supervision.

It smacks of an agenda...an agenda that comes from a view that my government thinks its parental decisions are preferable to mine. That it should be able to tell my kids when it's ok to start taking birth control rather than me. That it should take a rather natural tendency (kids hiding some stuff from parents) and exacerbate it by putting birth control on the shelves within their reach and with no mechanism to even inform me that it's being purchased and used, much less afford me any input into the situation.

Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that people really think this is a good idea.

The government is not making the parental decisions for you. Just as you might not want your child drinking a caffeinated beverage or taking children's Tylenol (which alter the bodies natural functions), government allowing children to buy these products does not mean they are making parental decisions for you.

If a product is legal for a child to buy, then the government is making parental decisions for you? I think this is a ridiculous stance.

The only thing that smacks of an agenda is the outrage over anything to do with Plan B or contraception.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Caffeine and high dose hormones aren't in the same class.

Birth control is serious stuff. Not just the taking of it but what the taking of it means, particularly for children. This is something a child should not be able to decide for themselves without parental involvement. Period. It's our government saying in essence, "Hey little girl that's way too young to be having sex and hiding it from her parents, allow us to facilitate your potentially dangerous clandestine sex life by offering a quick fix Mom and Dad don't even have to know about. Well, unless you experience the vaginal bleeding and other side effects. They'll wonder what the hell's going on since they had no idea you too high dose birth control (and your stupid friend told you to take an extra just to be sure), but *pffft*. Details. Don't trust them, we know better."

I mean, what kid doesn't want a way out of a dangerous and stupid decision without having their parents find out? And now the government has decided to make that even easier.

You people are effing nuts.

[Aufan59 99]

What about the child who thinks multiple Tylenol will cure her headache faster, and ends up in the emergency room or even dead?

The government isn't the parent. In this case, the government is allowing you to be the parent by not making decisions for your child.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Is taking Tylenol a sign that the child is engaging in risky behavior their parents should know about? Doubtful. They probably just have a headache and got bad advice.

This is different. You know it.

You've got it twisted. The government is making it harder for me to be the parent. You can't parent what you don't know about. The government has decided this is none of my business and will make it easier for a kid to conceal dangerous behavior, not to mention taking serious medication without my knowledge. The government isn't being a parent by setting an age limit on purchasing the product. If they told me I couldn't buy it for them and allow them to take it, THAT would be parenting the kid for me. When they say that my kid can purchase this with no input from me, they have undermined my ability to parent.

[Aufan59 99]

When they say that my kid can purchase this with no input from me, they have undermined my ability to parent.

Then they undermine your ability to parent with every product they don't put an age limit on.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

When they say that my kid can purchase this with no input from me, they have undermined my ability to parent.

Then they undermine your ability to parent with every product they don't put an age limit on.

If you assume that all products without age limits are created equal. Some things involve more serious matters than others.

[Aufan59 99]

If you assume that all products without age limits are created equal. Some things involve more serious matters than others.

Which is my point, your agenda is against the product.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

If you assume that all products without age limits are created equal. Some things involve more serious matters than others.

Which is my point, your agenda is against the product.

It's not agenda. A sexually active 12-year old, or a 12-year old that's being preyed upon by a significantly older male, is a more serious matter than a 12-year old with a headache.