• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Plan B will continue to be offered ONLY behind the counter

So three times in four months is "regular birth control"?

Again, on what planet?

If you're only having sex three times in four months, it could be. Kind of like a condom.
 
Considering that Plan B is an acute dose of the hormones used in regular, daily birth control, which requires a prescription to get and some women cannot get that prescription due to health problems they have, yes. 3 times in four months using a drug that is described as "emergency" contraceptive is too much and needs to be left behind the counter so that the person using it that often understands the increased risk from using it that often (which I'm sure there is). At the very least the pharmacist can take a minute or two to explain the risks and offer alternatives to women who are taking using it as regular birth control.

Ok let's use your example here.

You're saying that a woman who uses it 3 times in 4 months is going to actually listen to a pharmacist talk about how bad it is?

Here's a hint, she's using the plan B because she has ALREADY HAD unprotected sex. She doesn't want to get pregnant. The pharmacist can lay down any speech they want, that woman does NOT want to have the baby. Whether or not that is behind the counter or not is not going to stop it.

I'm for it being behind the counter for those under age. I do believe parental consent should be required for something like this for underage people.
 
Last edited:
Considering that Plan B is an acute dose of the hormones used in regular, daily birth control, which requires a prescription to get and some women cannot get that prescription due to health problems they have, yes. 3 times in four months using a drug that is described as "emergency" contraceptive is too much and needs to be left behind the counter so that the person using it that often understands the increased risk from using it that often (which I'm sure there is). At the very least the pharmacist can take a minute or two to explain the risks and offer alternatives to women who are taking using it as regular birth control.

How often do you think women fear getting pregnant? Do you think that all single women or women of childbearing age just go out and have sex every night or every other night? The girl I know had sex very little. Those times for her wanting to take Plan B most likely also corresponded with those nights that she had sex without a condom.

It was claimed that Plan B would be used as "regular birth control". Obviously it would not.

Whether it is "too much" is a meaningless statement, as it is not supported with any evidence that such use would have a detrimental effect on a persons' health. My brother has diabetes and, as a result, had more medical emergencies than the three times in four months cited above. Is that "too much?"

You're damn right it's "too much", but that's life. What are you going to do; Ban medical emergencies?

Face it. You're "too much", and you're being "sure there is" an increased risk (without any cite to back it up) is nothing more than your own squeamishness about someone elses sex life.

Now, can you imagine a girl who was able to get the money anytime she needed it and who had unprotected sex more than once a week who decided Plan B would work better for her than regular birth control pills? Some like their lives of ignorant bliss, believing nothing will happen to them. Then they get scared and use the quick fix to deal with what may become a problem, with no regard for the future consequences of those actions.

No, I do not share your delusional nightmare
 
If you were to take the morning after pill about 3 times a year, you would probably have some sort of lasting negative effects. Have they tested this yet? Does anyone know?

Also, they said took it once and thought about taking it 1 or 2 more times in 4-5 months. That makes it 2 to 3 times in 4-5 months. For this type of medicine, that is not healthy.

You have no evidence to back up that claim. How exactly do you think this drug passed FDA standards to be made available without a prescription?
 
You have no evidence to back up that claim. How exactly do you think this drug passed FDA standards to be made available without a prescription?

Really? Do you think that might be why after I wrote the sentence you bolded, I wrote Have they tested this yet? Also in the EXACT sentence you bolded I wrote PROBABLY.


Also, the FDA tests things for its typical and prescribed usage. If you are using it differently than prescribed then it has not been tested.
 
Really? Do you think that might be why after I wrote the sentence you bolded, I wrote Have they tested this yet? Also in the EXACT sentence you bolded I wrote PROBABLY.


Also, the FDA tests things for its typical and prescribed usage. If you are using it differently than prescribed then it has not been tested.

You have no reason to even say that is "probably" true. That's your wishful thinking showing. Once again, this is not a prescription drug. When something is offered over the counter, gee you might assume that people will take it more than once in their life. I assure you the FDA thought of this possibility long before you did, and it has been deemed safe to do so. So to answer your question, yes they have tested it. Of course.
 
You have no reason to even say that is "probably" true. That's your wishful thinking showing. Once again, this is not a prescription drug. When something is offered over the counter, gee you might assume that people will take it more than once in their life. I assure you the FDA thought of this possibility long before you did, and it has been deemed safe to do so. So to answer your question, yes they have tested it. Of course.

We're not talking about just a couple of times throughout a person's life. This is the same drugs as birth control, which requires a prescription. Birth control can cause blood clots. If a woman is taking this, even as a backup to birth control, she can easily be getting way more than the recommended dose of the hormones they have. Some women are really bad at remembering to take their birth control pills. I was one of them before I found out I shouldn't have been taking them at all. I can easily see a woman like this figuring that she can use Plan B for those months that maybe she forgot a pill or took a couple out of schedule, just in case.

Not to mention, I'm wondering if they actually did do any tests on this being mixed with different types of birth control.

Just because it is the FDA, doesn't mean they have thought about everything.

Hell, most doctors I've come across have never heard of my blood disease. I usually know more about it than they do. Most of them have to look the information up. Then I get tested for a couple other ones that I already know I don't have and they finally come back with the same answers "you shouldn't take certain types of birth control, your pregnancies will be high risk, and you can't give blood, besides that you are completely healthy".
 
No, Roguenuke you are obviously more qualified to decide if this drug is safe than the FDA. It's not recommended as a primary form of birth control or routine use. You have no evidence that people are using it this way besides your speculations. Pulling it off the shelves because somebody somewhere might abuse it makes absolutely no sense and would clearly do more harm than good. I'll say it again, and it's still true. The average person could do much more harm to themselves by abusing ibuprofen or tylenol. It would make more sense, but still be absolutely retarded to argue to pull these drugs off the shelves.
 
Last edited:
No, Roguenuke you are obviously more qualified to decide if this drug is safe than the FDA. It's not recommended as a primary form of birth control or routine use. You have no evidence that people are using it this way besides your speculations. Pulling it off the shelves because somebody somewhere might abuse it makes absolutely no sense and would clearly do more harm than good. I'll say it again, and it's still true. The average person could do much more harm to themselves by abusing ibuprofen or tylenol. It would make more sense, but still be absolutely retarded to argue to pull these drugs off the shelves.

It's not on the shelves right now. It is behind the counter.

The average person does do harm to themselves by abusing ibuprofen and Tylenol.

The average person also wouldn't need to pick up pseudoephedrine from behind the counter either, since most people are not making meth, yet we still have to get it from behind there.
 
Obama: Morning-after pill decision 'common sense'


What do you think? Should this pill be allowed to be sold next to the condoms? They are about $50, according to the article, so people most likely wouldn't be buying them as they do condoms. Also, think of how often the pharmacy is often open. I know that sometimes when I have a cold by the time I can get to the store the pharmacy is closed. The sooner you take this pill the more effective it is. So what do you think?



Plan-B is a powerful drug. It should remain behind the counter.
 
It's not on the shelves right now. It is behind the counter.

The average person does do harm to themselves by abusing ibuprofen and Tylenol.

The average person also wouldn't need to pick up pseudoephedrine from behind the counter either, since most people are not making meth, yet we still have to get it from behind there.

By "on the shelves" I mean available without a prescription, which it is. I wasn't really able to tell your point from the rest of that. Pseudoephedrine and meth labs are another debate which doesn't relate to birth control in any way. You agree the average person does harm to themselves by abusing tylenol but you can't provide any evidence of similar harm done by abusing plan B or that people even are abusing it.
 
By "on the shelves" I mean available without a prescription, which it is. I wasn't really able to tell your point from the rest of that. Pseudoephedrine and meth labs are another debate which doesn't relate to birth control in any way. You agree the average person does harm to themselves by abusing tylenol but you can't provide any evidence of similar harm done by abusing plan B or that people even are abusing it.

But this is about bringing Plan B from behind a pharmacist's shelf and having it available OTC. It is basically available now without a prescription. All a woman 18 or older has to do is ask the pharmacist for it, the same as if she wanted pseudoephedrine. What is the problem with that? That is where most people are arguing it should stay so that the pharmacist can at least have the opportunity to explain to whoever is getting it that it does have side effects, is meant to be used as "emergency birth control", can possibly check the person's history or give answers about Plan B, and point out that if a woman is using Plan B often that other birth control options would probably be much cheaper, if not safer.
 
But this is about bringing Plan B from behind a pharmacist's shelf and having it available OTC. It is basically available now without a prescription. All a woman 18 or older has to do is ask the pharmacist for it, the same as if she wanted pseudoephedrine. What is the problem with that? That is where most people are arguing it should stay so that the pharmacist can at least have the opportunity to explain to whoever is getting it that it does have side effects, is meant to be used as "emergency birth control", can possibly check the person's history or give answers about Plan B, and point out that if a woman is using Plan B often that other birth control options would probably be much cheaper, if not safer.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! I lot of people on here seem to think plan B shouldn't be available without a prescription and I've been arguing that they are either misinformed about the risks or just have a problem with this kind of birth control that is not related to the health of the women taking it. Since you seemed to chime in and side with them, I assumed you were on the same page. Glad that you're not.
 
Last edited:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! I lot of people on here seem to think plan B shouldn't be available without a prescription and I've been arguing that they are either misinformed about the risks or just have a problem with this kind of birth control that is not related to the health of the women taking it. Since you seemed to chime in and side with them, I assumed you were on the same page. Glad that you're not.

Actually, I think there are a lot of people who really want it to just be available from behind the pharmacists' counter (with a few exceptions). I believe the biggest thing for most people is just to ensure that women are getting some sort of information about what the drug is and can do. I don't believe most of those who don't want it OTC actually want a person to have to go to their doctor or to a clinic to get the prescription, then go to the pharmacy. Unless I'm reading wrong, many just want the pharmacist to control its dispensing.

Most pharmacies have now gone to requiring that pharmacists explain the side effects of any medication they give to a person from behind the counter (it probably protects from lawsuits). This is a very good thing. And it would definitely be better than just putting the side effects for Plan B on the package and assuming they are read.

I'd even say that pharmacists should be giving info about free or income-rated health clinics that could help a girl/woman get birth control if she needs it so that she isn't taking Plan B a lot.

I also wouldn't mind Plan B being available at every hospital pharmacy to those who aren't raped in those instances when a pharmacy isn't open or a pharmacist available 24/7/365. The person should still only have to pay about as much or less as they would at the pharmacy, but it definitely would allow another option, which would even cover those times when the entire pharmacy/store is closed (Christmas day comes to mind) and not just the actual pharmacy drug counter.
 
Back
Top Bottom