Morning After Pill Now Available For 15 Year Olds

[homersapien 11,812]

I acknowledge the arguments I actually make. I call bull**** on the ones less than honest people try to put into my mouth.

Actually, I think you are somewhat tone-deaf to the literal meaning, if not implications of your posts. Either that, or you just prefer to "weasel back" from your positions.

Taking your posts for exactly what they say - or infer - is not being "dishonest" I suggest when someone restates your post to clarify it's meaning, you should try to explain a little more clearly what you meant.

Simply denying you made that argument and calling others "dishonest" for a reasonable interpretation of your post is an "intellectually dishonest" way of dealing with their misunderstanding.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Actually, I think you are somewhat tone-deaf to the literal meaning, if not implications of your posts. Either that, or you just prefer to "weasel back" from your positions.

Taking your posts for exactly what they say - or infer - is not being "dishonest" I suggest when someone restates your post to clarify it's meaning, you should try to explain a little more clearly what you meant.

Simply denying you made that argument and calling others "dishonest" for a reasonable interpretation of your post is an "intellectually dishonest" way of dealing with their misunderstanding.

Take my posts for what they actually say all day long. What they "infer" appears to be, at least from this forum's regulars, an exercise in projection or mind reading. It's especially the case when I clearly explain that your assumption is wrong. It would be one thing if this was the first time, but the same folks keep trying to use the same wrong angle of attack instead of debating the actual point. It's either ignorance or an attempt to move to ground they think they can more easily win a point on. As I've said, I'm not the least bit reticent to put forth a moral argument if I believe it's relevant to the subject. You won't have to wonder, parse or sift through the tea leaves to somehow discern if it's really a moral argument I'm making. It will be clear to anyone with a grasp of the English language.

But if you are unclear on some hidden meaning you think you're picking up on, ask. Make idiotic declarative statements about what my motivations or positions are so you don't have to address what I actually did say - get called out on it.

[Weegle777 78]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Do you have kids? You mean to tell me that if a kid knew that he or she could have unprotected sex with no repercussions of responsibility of becoming pregnant, that they wouldn't take advantage of that? If you believe that kids wouldn't, then you are incredibly naive. Kids will take advantage of any situation if there are no chances of trouble. Come on, you are smarter than this.

Well, I suppose if you think fear is a good rational for promulgating religion, it's hardly a surprise you would use it for promulgating moral sexual standards. ;D/>

You don't have kids, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Your post is ridiculous by the way. Ignorance must really be bliss.

[Aufan59 99]

That virtually no 11year old is going to have much incentive to want to take, much less take too much.

No 11 year old wants relief from a headache? A child can think multiple morning after pills could be more effective, but no child could think multiple Tylenol could be more effective?

That broken record spinning between your ears is confusing you again. I didn't say they would become sexually active because of Plan B. Address the arguments actually I make, not the ones you wish to debate against.

You were arguing about motivation, and the motivation for taking plan B is exactly why it should be available regardless of age.

I'm sorry this makes parenting a bit harder. But you know what makes parenting really hard? Having a child at age 12.

Well, while I don't carry water for Santorum, that's not what he said. Regardless, you don't facilitate the removal of good parents from adult decisions for 12 year olds because you don't like how some view sex.

I think the bigger issue is about 12 year olds who need it can't get it because of poor parenting. Good parents don't need a bit of help, the children without good parents do.

[homersapien 11,812]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Do you have kids? You mean to tell me that if a kid knew that he or she could have unprotected sex with no repercussions of responsibility of becoming pregnant, that they wouldn't take advantage of that? If you believe that kids wouldn't, then you are incredibly naive. Kids will take advantage of any situation if there are no chances of trouble. Come on, you are smarter than this.

Well, I suppose if you think fear is a good rational for promulgating religion, it's hardly a surprise you would use it for promulgating moral sexual standards. ;D/>

You don't have kids, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Your post is ridiculous by the way. Ignorance must really be bliss.

Yeah. You also think I am a 16 year-old. :-\

You really ought to try to break this compulsion for getting doped-slapped.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

No 11 year old wants relief from a headache?

No. A headache hasn't a tenth of the motivating power of being able to avoid a possible pregnancy and also keep your sexual activity a secret from your parents and his parents.

A child can think multiple morning after pills could be more effective, but no child could think multiple Tylenol could be more effective?

A child that young has likely taken Tylenol before, is familiar with it and has probably had a warning from her parents a few times about not getting into medicine like that even if it tastes good. Probably since they were 4 years old they knew Tylenol was medicine only to be taken when Mommy and Daddy give it to them and that taking too much is dangerous. A child that age likely has little to no experience with birth control pills. And the vast majority of parents, even though they've explained where babies come from and about sexual contact to some extent, probably have not had detailed talks about the specifics of oral contraceptives. They simply don't possess the same experience and frame of reference for them that they do with other medicines they've taken since they were an infant.

I also don't think the potential appeal is nearly as great for Tylenol, nor the motivation to take too much. Pregnancy/Mom and Dad knowing you had sex >>>>> headache.

You were arguing about motivation, and the motivation for taking plan B is exactly why it should be available regardless of age.

And you were pulling some notion out of your arse that meant I was arguing against this because of moral views on sex, which is not what I was doing. You read that into the argument, as usual.

I'm sorry this makes parenting a bit harder. But you know what makes parenting really hard? Having a child at age 12.

That's a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only choices.

I think the bigger issue is about 12 year olds who need it can't get it because of poor parenting. Good parents don't need a bit of help, the children without good parents do.

Good parents need every bit of help they need, more today than that ever before. Do you even have children or are you pontificating about how parenting works out of your vast secondhand knowledge?

[Weegle777 78]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Do you have kids? You mean to tell me that if a kid knew that he or she could have unprotected sex with no repercussions of responsibility of becoming pregnant, that they wouldn't take advantage of that? If you believe that kids wouldn't, then you are incredibly naive. Kids will take advantage of any situation if there are no chances of trouble. Come on, you are smarter than this.

Well, I suppose if you think fear is a good rational for promulgating religion, it's hardly a surprise you would use it for promulgating moral sexual standards. ;D/>

You don't have kids, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Your post is ridiculous by the way. Ignorance must really be bliss.

Yeah. You also think I am a 16 year-old. :-\/>

You really ought to try to break this compulsion for getting doped-slapped. :no:/>

Like arguing with a toddler. Please stop making an absolute idiot of yourself. Then again....nevermind, you have already accomplished that.

[homersapien 11,812]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Do you have kids? You mean to tell me that if a kid knew that he or she could have unprotected sex with no repercussions of responsibility of becoming pregnant, that they wouldn't take advantage of that? If you believe that kids wouldn't, then you are incredibly naive. Kids will take advantage of any situation if there are no chances of trouble. Come on, you are smarter than this.

Well, I suppose if you think fear is a good rational for promulgating religion, it's hardly a surprise you would use it for promulgating moral sexual standards. ;D/>

You don't have kids, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Your post is ridiculous by the way. Ignorance must really be bliss.

Yeah. You also think I am a 16 year-old. :-\/>

You really ought to try to break this compulsion for getting doped-slapped. :no:/>

Like arguing with a toddler. Please stop making an absolute idiot of yourself. Then again....nevermind, you have already accomplished that.

Gee. So now I have regressed from a 16 year-old to a "toddler"? :-\

Even though I have no obligation to do so, I am going to give you a little lesson on how you could have handled this like an intelligent adult. Your first mistake was not responding to my post is a more thoughtful way.

For example:

You could have responded that fear is, in fact, a primal and legitimate motivator in any situation, regardless of how many other motivating factors have been instilled in your (proverbial) daughter, such as respect for herself, respect for you and respect for her religious convictions.

You could have also pointed out that fear of things other than pregnancy - such as venereal disease - would be just as relevant in this case.

And you could have summarized that as a father, you are not willing to give up any motivational factor that might prevent your proverbial daughter from having sex.

Now, that sort of response would have turned my post right back onto myself, instantly reversing the dynamic by putting me on the defensive. And had you done so (after recovering from my shock), I would have admitted you make valid points. You would have come off as the more reasonable person and I would come off as the jackass taking cheap shots.

But nooooooooooo!

Just as I expected, you instead go straight to name calling and insults, throwing in a faulty "argument of logic" (argument from authority). This of course, just gave me another chance to "egg-on" yet further mindless responses from you. And you didn't fail to deliver: "arguing with a toddler", "absolute idiot".

I could undoubtedly keep this going. You are sooo easy. And I really enjoy the ironic humor of making you rant and rave about what a fool I am making of myself. Everyone reading this forum can see who is making a fool of themselves.

So rock on, Weegle! It's folks like you and Titan that spice up this place with a little humor.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

You could have responded that fear is, in fact, a primal and legitimate motivator in any situation, regardless of how many other motivating factors have been instilled in your (proverbial) daughter, such as respect for herself, respect for you and respect for her religious convictions.

You mean like what I said multiple times about how the motivations to run to Plan B and hide something from one's parents or the boy's parents is extremely tempting, especially if she's being pressured? Or when I pointed out that this motivation is far stronger than anything that might drive her to rush to the drugstore to surreptitiously OD on Tylenol?

You could have also pointed out that fear of things other than pregnancy - such as venereal disease - would be just as relevant in this case.

You mean like when I pointed out that being taken advantage of by a much older male might be relevant (statutory rape)?

And you could have summarized that as a father, you are not willing to give up any motivational factor that might prevent your proverbial daughter from having sex.

That's a nice point, but tends to fall more into the moral argument side of things. Not that it's a bad thing or that it's something that doesn't matter to me. But it's not what we've really been arguing. All morals aside, the statistics on life trajectory for kids that become sexually active at younger ages are dismal. That alone would be a good reason to keep as many motivational factors in place for delaying sexual activity as long as reasonably possible.

Now, that sort of response would have turned my post right back onto myself, instantly reversing the dynamic by putting me on the defensive. And had you done so (after recovering from my shock), I would have admitted you make valid points. You would have come off as the more reasonable person and I would come off as the jackass taking cheap shots.

I don't really believe that. You seem convinced that Plan B being as easily available as PEZ is an unquestioned good judging by how you've responded to answers very similar to what you say would put you on the defensive.

[Weegle777 78]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Do you have kids? You mean to tell me that if a kid knew that he or she could have unprotected sex with no repercussions of responsibility of becoming pregnant, that they wouldn't take advantage of that? If you believe that kids wouldn't, then you are incredibly naive. Kids will take advantage of any situation if there are no chances of trouble. Come on, you are smarter than this.

Well, I suppose if you think fear is a good rational for promulgating religion, it's hardly a surprise you would use it for promulgating moral sexual standards. ;D/>

You don't have kids, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Your post is ridiculous by the way. Ignorance must really be bliss.

Yeah. You also think I am a 16 year-old. :-\/>

You really ought to try to break this compulsion for getting doped-slapped. :no:/>

Like arguing with a toddler. Please stop making an absolute idiot of yourself. Then again....nevermind, you have already accomplished that.

Gee. So now I have regressed from a 16 year-old to a "toddler"? :-\/>

Even though I have no obligation to do so, I am going to give you a little lesson on how you could have handled this like an intelligent adult. Your first mistake was not responding to my post is a more thoughtful way.

For example:

You could have responded that fear is, in fact, a primal and legitimate motivator in any situation, regardless of how many other motivating factors have been instilled in your (proverbial) daughter, such as respect for herself, respect for you and respect for her religious convictions.

You could have also pointed out that fear of things other than pregnancy - such as venereal disease - would be just as relevant in this case.

And you could have summarized that as a father, you are not willing to give up any motivational factor that might prevent your proverbial daughter from having sex.

Now, that sort of response would have turned my post right back onto myself, instantly reversing the dynamic by putting me on the defensive. And had you done so (after recovering from my shock), I would have admitted you make valid points. You would have come off as the more reasonable person and I would come off as the jackass taking cheap shots.

But nooooooooooo!

Just as I expected, you instead go straight to name calling and insults, throwing in a faulty "argument of logic" (argument from authority). This of course, just gave me another chance to "egg-on" yet further mindless responses from you.

And you didn't fail to deliver: "arguing with a toddler", "absolute idiot".

I could undoubtedly keep this going. You are sooo easy. And I really enjoy the ironic humor of making you rant and rave about what a fool I am making of myself. :lmao:/>

Everyone reading this forum can see who is making a fool of themselves. :P/>

So rock on, Weegle! :clap:/> It's folks like you and Titan that spice up this place with a little humor.

My post must have really affected you. Such a long post of absolute gibberish.

[homersapien 11,812]

My post must have really affected you. Such a long post of absolute gibberish.

"Absolute gibberish"??? :-\ I don't think you even read it.

And apparently, you don't even need goading to make a fool of yourself.

[Weegle777 78]

I'm done addressing your idiocy. It is an absolute waste of my time. Good day.

[homersapien 11,812]

You could have responded that fear is, in fact, a primal and legitimate motivator in any situation, regardless of how many other motivating factors have been instilled in your (proverbial) daughter, such as respect for herself, respect for you and respect for her religious convictions.

You mean like what I said multiple times about how the motivations to run to Plan B and hide something from one's parents or the boy's parents is extremely tempting, especially if she's being pressured? Or when I pointed out that this motivation is far stronger than anything that might drive her to rush to the drugstore to surreptitiously OD on Tylenol?

You could have also pointed out that fear of things other than pregnancy - such as venereal disease - would be just as relevant in this case.

You mean like when I pointed out that being taken advantage of by a much older male might be relevant (statutory rape)?

And you could have summarized that as a father, you are not willing to give up any motivational factor that might prevent your proverbial daughter from having sex.

That's a nice point, but tends to fall more into the moral argument side of things. Not that it's a bad thing or that it's something that doesn't matter to me. But it's not what we've really been arguing. All morals aside, the statistics on life trajectory for kids that become sexually active at younger ages are dismal. That alone would be a good reason to keep as many motivational factors in place for delaying sexual activity as long as reasonably possible.

Now, that sort of response would have turned my post right back onto myself, instantly reversing the dynamic by putting me on the defensive. And had you done so (after recovering from my shock), I would have admitted you make valid points. You would have come off as the more reasonable person and I would come off as the jackass taking cheap shots.

I don't really believe that. You seem convinced that Plan B being as easily available as PEZ is an unquestioned good judging by how you've responded to answers very similar to what you say would put you on the defensive.

Sorry, but I was responding to Weegle with that post.

If you want to pull out anything I said to him and apply it to something you posted, I will be happy to respond, but I don't want to go back and try to find the post you are referring to. The examples you provide above, starting with "you mean like when I said...." are for the most part, nonsensical to me. In other words the connection is not clear.

So, please include your original post in each case for reference.

Thanks.

[homersapien 11,812]

I'm done addressing your idiocy. It is an absolute waste of my time. Good day.

My "idiocy"? You simply can't help yourself can you?

Good day to you too.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Sorry, but I was responding to Weegle with that post.

If you want to pull out anything I said to him and apply it to something you posted, I will be happy to respond, but I don't want to go back and try to find the post you are referring to. The examples you provide above, starting with "you mean like when I said...." are for the most part, nonsensical to me. In other words the connection is not clear.

So, please include your original post in each case for reference.

Thanks.

Well, when you call me out by name for your little jab at the end, I assumed you were including me in your points above it. So I thought you'd been following the conversation.

I'll see what I can do to get you specific references later when I have more time.

[Aufan59 99]

No. A headache hasn't a tenth of the motivating power of being able to avoid a possible pregnancy and also keep your sexual activity a secret from your parents and his parents.

A child that young has likely taken Tylenol before, is familiar with it and has probably had a warning from her parents a few times about not getting into medicine like that even if it tastes good. Probably since they were 4 years old they knew Tylenol was medicine only to be taken when Mommy and Daddy give it to them and that taking too much is dangerous. A child that age likely has little to no experience with birth control pills. And the vast majority of parents, even though they've explained where babies come from and about sexual contact to some extent, probably have not had detailed talks about the specifics of oral contraceptives. They simply don't possess the same experience and frame of reference for them that they do with other medicines they've taken since they were an infant.

I also don't think the potential appeal is nearly as great for Tylenol, nor the motivation to take too much. Pregnancy/Mom and Dad knowing you had sex >>>>> headache.

I was just addressing your statement that an 11 year old doesn't have much incentive to take Tylenol. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Anyways, the FDA should regulate based on the danger of the drug. It shouldn't regulate on some sort of meta-analysis with regard to children trying to avoid getting in trouble with their parents.

And you were pulling some notion out of your arse that meant I was arguing against this because of moral views on sex, which is not what I was doing. You read that into the argument, as usual.

I didn't pull it out of my arse. Your lack of explanation and posting history made that a very viable conclusion.

That's a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only choices.

I didn't present a dichotomy. I am saying that if a 12 year old fears being pregnant, having access to plan B is a good thing, with or without parental permission.

Good parents need every bit of help they need, more today than that ever before. Do you even have children or are you pontificating about how parenting works out of your vast secondhand knowledge?

Children without good parents need even more help. You don't need to be a parent to understand that.

[homersapien 11,812]

Sorry, but I was responding to Weegle with that post.

If you want to pull out anything I said to him and apply it to something you posted, I will be happy to respond, but I don't want to go back and try to find the post you are referring to. The examples you provide above, starting with "you mean like when I said...." are for the most part, nonsensical to me. In other words the connection is not clear.

So, please include your original post in each case for reference.

Thanks.

Well, when you call me out by name for your little jab at the end, I assumed you were including me in your points above it. So I thought you'd been following the conversation.

I'll see what I can do to get you specific references later when I have more time.

Well, before you knock yourself out with trying to drag me into the weeds, it would be useful for you to answer a direct question I posed to you in post #86:

You said: "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."

I responded: 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 FDA to place an age restriction on the "morning after pill" based on _______ what?

[AUcivE09 582]

Good luck Homer. Since I disagree with another post you just started I figured I would come here and let you know this is one topic we are on the same page.

Ill predict the answer: 1a) based on it should be a family decision (because all girls talk to their parents) 1b) based on everyone be rapin' and coverin' it up.

[MDM4AU 337]

Good luck Homer. Since I disagree with another post you just started I figured I would come here and let you know this is one topic we are on the same page.

Ill predict the answer: 1a) based on it should be a family decision (because all girls talk to their parents) 1b) based on everyone be rapin' and coverin' it up.

While you may agree with Homer on this issue you lack his ability to discuss it like an adult.

[Aufan59 99]

Another issue with the age limit is that proving your age isn't always a given.

Until one is eligible for a learner's permit or drivers license, one usually has no way to prove how old they are. In some states,you must be 18 to drive, but only 16 to consent to sex. If you can legally consent to sex, but have no way to prove your age, should you be denied contraception?

In my opinion, I think not, especially if the contraception is proven to be safe.

[Aufan59 99]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Do you have kids? You mean to tell me that if a kid knew that he or she could have unprotected sex with no repercussions of responsibility of becoming pregnant, that they wouldn't take advantage of that? If you believe that kids wouldn't, then you are incredibly naive. Kids will take advantage of any situation if there are no chances of trouble. Come on, you are smarter than this.

I'm thinking back to when I was twelve, going to movies and the pool with girls without parents.... having sex wasn't even on the radar. If suddenly plan B was available to the girls, things wouldn't have changed. If these girls wanted to have sex at 12, the lack of plan B wouldn't have changed their minds.

We had access to both natural and man made contraception, and yet we didn't engage in sex at 12.

[Weegle777 78]

There are more dangerous products available to 11 and 12 year olds without parental guidance. If it is safe to use, and it can benefit society and the individual, then why not?

The fact that plan B can be used to stay out of serious trouble (having a child when you are 11 or 12) is why it should be readily available to those without good parents. I am having a hard time believing that an 11 or 12 year old will decide to become sexually active because plan B is now available to them without parent consent.

Furthermore, when we have mentally deranged parents out there that believe rape is a gift from god (i.e. Santorum), I am glad that their child can ignore their mentally deranged father and seek out their own, sane, solutions.

Do you have kids? You mean to tell me that if a kid knew that he or she could have unprotected sex with no repercussions of responsibility of becoming pregnant, that they wouldn't take advantage of that? If you believe that kids wouldn't, then you are incredibly naive. Kids will take advantage of any situation if there are no chances of trouble. Come on, you are smarter than this.

I'm thinking back to when I was twelve, going to movies and the pool with girls without parents.... having sex wasn't even on the radar. If suddenly plan B was available to the girls, things wouldn't have changed. If these girls wanted to have sex at 12, the lack of plan B wouldn't have changed their minds.

We had access to both natural and man made contraception, and yet we didn't engage in sex at 12.

Different times brother. My nieces told me when they were in middle school just a couple of years ago that the girls, were the ones pressuring the boys to engage in sexual activity. Roles have reversed now and girls are the aggressors. Ask any middle school child and they will tell you this. I have a child about to hit middle school, and all I hear now is "be sure to warn him about being pressured to do stuff that kids this age shouldn't even be thinking about." It's happening and if girls see that they don't have to take responsibility for pregnancy, it will get worse.

[Aufan59 99]

Sounds like they are engaging in risky behavior even when they cannot buy plan B....

Might as well give them access to emergency contraception.... look at the bright side, it can potentially reduce the number of abortions...

[Weegle777 78]

Sounds like they are engaging in risky behavior even when they cannot buy plan B....

Might as well give them access to emergency contraception.... look at the bright side, it can potentially reduce the number of abortions...

It is an abortion my friend.

[homersapien 11,812]

Ahhh, the truth is struggling to emerge, as fact-challenged as it may be.