• 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!

Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

AGENT J said:
1.) yes because your rhetoric is very unclear
2.) yes i know this
3.) yes i know this
4.) ok THIS is where you need to explain. The FDA allowing it to be sold is not the same as the "FDA instructing people /business, to sell this drug to minors who's parents dont want it sold to them"

are you saying the law is telling the stores to see them this even against thier parenst will and nonconsent.
Ill need to see proof of that.

5.) the rest of your post is pretty meaningless to me until you give proof that what you say is actually the law.

seems to me the FDA just removed the restrictions :shrug:

if that is the case there is no parent rights infringement, no force for the child to receive this drug above the objections of a parent or harassment like you said and that was just hyperbole by you.


ALSO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND STOP DODGING THEM LMAO
-how did they violate the rights of the parents?
-does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?
-why doesnt your example apply to to every store everywhere for everybody not 18?
-are you suggesting that nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy anything without parental consent?
Click to expand...


here is the key parts:

is a 15yr old a minor or adult, the child is a minor, this drug has been available to the public for 17 and above without parental approval, but with parental approval under the age of 17, now government has stated this drug can be sold to minors, without parent approval.

their are plenty of parents who dont want their child to receive this drug,.......... unless with their permission.

the FDA instructing people /business, to sell this drug to minors who's parents dont want it sold to them, remember the drug is already available if the parent approves now we have the circumvention of the parents approval by lowering the age to include minors now.



why does the drug need to be made available to minors,??????

the drug can be already obtained if the parents want their child to have it.

this circumvention of parents rights to allow a child to receive the drug the parents would not want the child to have, because AGAIN as i stated its available ..... if the parents chose it for the child.
 
ernst barkmann said:
here is the key parts:

1.)is a 15yr old a minor or adult, the child is a minor, this drug has been available to the public for 17 and above without parental approval, but with parental approval under the age of 17, now government has stated this drug can be sold to minors, without parent approval.

2.)their are plenty of parents who dont want their child to receive this drug,.......... unless with their permission.

3.)the FDA instructing people /business, to sell this drug to minors who's parents dont want it sold to them, remember the drug is already available if the parent approves now we have the circumvention of the parents approval by lowering the age to include minors now.



4.)why does the drug need to be made available to minors,??????

5.) the drug can be already obtained if the parents want their child to have it.

6.)this circumvention of parents rights to allow a child to receive the drug the parents would not want the child to have, because AGAIN as i stated its available ..... if the parents chose it for the child.
Click to expand...

1.) lmao i read this already its meaningless to my questions and what you claimed
2.) see 1.)
so its exactly what i thought a bunch of emotional hyperbole and nothing else.
3.) proof please, seems to me they just removed restrictions

The FDA removed a restriction thats it.

4.) why does anything :shrug:

5.) yes i read that, this is also meaningless to my questions and the things you said

6.) no rights were circumvented, the parent still has the right to not allow their child access unless you can show me a law that says otherwise lol


anyway its just like i though, no rights are violated, there is zero force, there is zero harassment.

you ready to answer the questions yet or you going to keep dodging them?
-how did they violate the rights of the parents?
-does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?
-why doesnt your example apply to to every store everywhere for everybody not 18?
-are you suggesting that nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy anything without parental consent?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) lmao i read this already its meaningless to my questions and what you claimed
2.) see 1.)
so its exactly what i thought a bunch of emotional hyperbole and nothing else.
3.) proof please, seems to me they just removed restrictions

The FDA removed a restriction thats it.

4.) why does anything :shrug:

5.) yes i read that, this is also meaningless to my questions and the things you said

6.) no rights were circumvented, the parent still has the right to not allow their child access unless you can show me a law that says otherwise lol


anyway its just like i though, no rights are violated, there is zero force, there is zero harassment.

you ready to answer the questions yet or you going to keep dodging them?
-how did they violate the rights of the parents?
-does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?
-why doesnt your example apply to to every store everywhere for everybody not 18?
-are you suggesting that nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy anything without parental consent?
Click to expand...


is the drug available to minors already?...........yes, with the parents approval

will the drug be available (by this ruling) to minors .......without a parents approval............yes!

circumvention! of parents who dont approve of it for their child.
 
ernst barkmann said:
why does the drug need to be made available to minors,?
Click to expand...
The reasoning behind the change is to remove delays in receiving the drug. Time is of the essence and a minor navigating parental consent could end up pregnant.

It's not about the parent giving a yes or no, it's about the clock that starts counting down at the moment of ejaculation, not the next day when the girl realizes she has a problem to deal with, works up the courage to talk to her parents, and then more time is wasted as the parents work through the drama of what she was doing, where at, with whom, etc, etc. All of that creates delays. Lowering the age is about removing the delay.

If she can buy it herself, then the problem is simplified. She only needs to worry about getting the money to buy it. On that note, if I were raising girls I would already have Plan-B in the house, sidestepping the whole controversy. If I were a sexually active teen, I would would find a way to get Plan-B so that if there was a problem my partner and I wouldn't have to worry about age restrictions, money, and parental consent while the 72hr clock is ticking.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
is the drug available to minors already?...........yes, with the parents approval

will the drug be available (by this ruling) to minors .......without a parents approval............yes!

circumvention! of parents who dont approve of it for their child.
Click to expand...


ooooh so NOW its just a circumvention instead, you are bailing on the rights, and force and harassment statements? LMAO
nope :shrug:
the parents still have their rights

restrictions were removed thats it.

it was just a bunch of dramatic, biased, emotional, hyperbole by you that simply wasnt true
-how did they violate the rights of the parents?
-does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?
-why doesnt your example apply to to every store everywhere for everybody not 18?
-are you suggesting that nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy anything without parental consent?
 
Jerry said:
The reasoning behind the change is to remove delays in receiving the drug. Time is of the essence and a minor navigating parental consent could end up pregnant.

It's not about the parent giving a yes or no, it's about the clock that starts counting down at the moment of ejaculation, not the next day when the girl realizes she has a problem to deal with, works up the courage to talk to her parents, and then more time is wasted as the parents work through the drama of what she was doing, where at, with whom, etc, etc. All of that creates delays. Lowering the age is about removing the delay.
Click to expand...

its about what the parents want, because the child is a minor, ........not an adult.

the drug is already available to the child ------->if the parent wanted them to have it.
 
AGENT J said:
ooooh so NOW its just a circumvention instead, you are bailing on the rights, and force and harassment statements? LMAO
nope :shrug:
the parents still have their rights

restrictions were removed thats it.

it was just a bunch of dramatic, biased, emotional, hyperbole by you that simply wasnt true
-how did they violate the rights of the parents?
-does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?
-why doesnt your example apply to to every store everywhere for everybody not 18?
-are you suggesting that nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy anything without parental consent?
Click to expand...

we have seen in the past children, call the law on their parents, since this is a first of a minor purchasing a drug, ..can that child use force of law against their parents, because the government has deemed it a legal purchase.....who knows, but i would not be surprised.
 
ernst barkmann said:
its about what the parents want, because the child is a minor, ........not an adult.

the drug is already available to the child ------->if the parent wanted them to have it.
Click to expand...
Looking back on my situation in life as a teen, I knew many adults who would have sympathized with my desire to have Plan-B just in case. Adults could have bought it for me, a classic straw-perches.

I don't think parental consent should be required because this is morally identical to NyQuil.
 
ernst barkmann said:
1.)we have seen in the past children, call the law on their parents,
2.)since this is a first of a minor purchasing a drug, ..can that child use force of law against their parents, because the government has deemed it a legal purchase.....who knows, but i would not be surprised.
Click to expand...

1.) yes we have what was the outcome?
2.) its the first? factually not true my 16yr old buys "drugs" all the time so again your strawman over this ruling is nonsensical and your early statements were factually not true. Do you not have the integrity to admit that fact?

the parents still have their rights

no answer the questions or expose yourself further and dodge them again lol
-how did they violate the rights of the parents?
-does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?
-why doesnt your example apply to to every store everywhere for everybody not 18?
-are you suggesting that nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy anything without parental consent?
 
Jerry said:
The reasoning behind the change is to remove delays in receiving the drug. Time is of the essence and a minor navigating parental consent could end up pregnant.

It's not about the parent giving a yes or no, it's about the clock that starts counting down at the moment of ejaculation, not the next day when the girl realizes she has a problem to deal with, works up the courage to talk to her parents, and then more time is wasted as the parents work through the drama of what she was doing, where at, with whom, etc, etc. All of that creates delays. Lowering the age is about removing the delay.

If she can buy it herself, then the problem is simplified. She only needs to worry about getting the money to buy it. On that note, if I were raising girls I would already have Plan-B in the house, sidestepping the whole controversy. If I were a sexually active teen, I would would find a way to get Plan-B so that if there was a problem my partner and I wouldn't have to worry about age restrictions, money, and parental consent while the 72hr clock is ticking.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the points you're making, but it does beg the question - who is counselling these young girls about the Plan B pill and when they should take it, the clock ticking, as you say? If it's not the parents, who's giving the "child" the information?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree with the points you're making, but it does beg the question - who is counselling these young girls about the Plan B pill and when they should take it, the clock ticking, as you say? If it's not the parents, who's giving the "child" the information?
Click to expand...
The school, internet, peers, commercials, Planed Parenthood.....

I don't know that full-fledged "counseling" is required, the directions are pretty simple: "Take one tablet by mouth within 72hrs of unprotected sex". Turning my phone on is more complicated.
 
Jerry said:
The school, internet, peers, commercials, Planed Parenthood.....
Click to expand...

I suppose it doesn't matter, but I guess I'd feel better if the parents were actually talking to their daughters about this.

If the young girl has all this information from the sources you note, I'd hope she'd also have received a lot of counselling about not getting caught in this situation.

I still believe it's a bad idea for young teens to have to take on major adult decisions without parental involvement.
 
Jerry said:
The reasoning behind the change is to remove delays in receiving the drug. Time is of the essence and a minor navigating parental consent could end up pregnant.
Click to expand...

So it may take several weeks for a 15 year old to tell her parents that she is having sex and may be pregnant? Or does she just take it every time she has sex, just to be on the safe side? What about 14,13,12, and 11 year olds? Shouldn't they be included as well. They are all also minors so what's the difference?
 
Jerry said:
The school, internet, peers, commercials, Planed Parenthood.....

I don't know that full-fledged "counseling" is required, the directions are pretty simple: "Take one tablet by mouth within 72hrs of unprotected sex". Turning my phone on is more complicated.
Click to expand...

15 year olds having unprotected sex can also be complicated. If "the school, internet, peers, commercials, Planed Parenthood" hasn't already told her that unprotected sex is unwise they have already failed her. You appear to feel these groups can offer information that parents can't, and unjustifiably.
 
Grant said:
By not prohibiting it they are allowing it, thereby intruding on a decision that should be known, accepted and approved by the family.

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

I will never understand how someone could see the govt *not* doing anything as "government interference" and more govt regulation as being "not interfering"

Here's a hint: It's not the govts job to raise your child. If you don't want your child to do something, then do your job as a parent
 
sangha said:
I will never understand how someone could see the govt *not* doing anything as "government interference" and more govt regulation as being "not interfering"

Here's a hint: It's not the govts job to raise your child. If you don't want your child to do something, then do your job as a parent
Click to expand...

In fact the government disallows minors from doing many things, including smoking and drinking. Why not drop all these laws? After all, it's not the govts job to raise your child. If you don't want your child to do something, then do your job as a parent
 
Grant said:
In fact the government disallows minors from doing many things, including smoking and drinking. Why not drop all these laws? After all, it's not the govts job to raise your child. If you don't want your child to do something, then do your job as a parent
Click to expand...

Smoking and drinking have been proven to be harmful.

Plan B has not.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I suppose it doesn't matter, but I guess I'd feel better if the parents were actually talking to their daughters about this.

If the young girl has all this information from the sources you note, I'd hope she'd also have received a lot of counselling about not getting caught in this situation.

I still believe it's a bad idea for young teens to have to take on major adult decisions without parental involvement.
Click to expand...
I agree, but we cannot force every parent to have a healthy relationship with their children. The law needs to account for the full range of acceptable behavior, not just the behavior we would proffer. In the event of a dysfunctional or abusive relationship, getting Plan-B without parental consent is reasonable.
 
Jerry said:
I agree, but we cannot force every parent to have a healthy relationship with their children. The law needs to account for the full range of acceptable behavior, not just the behavior we would proffer. In the event of a dysfunctional or abusive relationship, getting Plan-B without parental consent is reasonable.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but still a sad commentary on our society.
 
sangha said:
Smoking and drinking have been proven to be harmful.

Plan B has not.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make whether it is harmful or not? After all, it's not the govts job to raise your child. If you don't want your child to do something, then do your job as a parent.
 
Grant said:
What difference does it make whether it is harmful or not? After all, it's not the govts job to raise your child. If you don't want your child to do something, then do your job as a parent.
Click to expand...

If you want your child to behave responsibly, it's the parents job, not the govts

The govt prohibits minors from consuming tobacco or alcohol, with or without the parents permission because they are harmful. Plan B is not harmful.
 
Grant said:
So it may take several weeks for a 15 year old to tell her parents that she is having sex and may be pregnant? Or does she just take it every time she has sex, just to be on the safe side? What about 14,13,12, and 11 year olds? Shouldn't they be included as well. They are all also minors so what's the difference?
Click to expand...
The law has a standing tradition of affording a measure of rights to individuals who will be of-age to enjoy those rights in full within a year.

Why the number 15, and not 14 or 13, etc: That number is associated with the age of consent. It's general practice to afford at least partial rights to a minor within a year of being of-age for those rights. A 17 y/o who runs away, for example, will not be brought back since they will be legally able to live on their own within a year. Likewise, affording a 15 y/o to access Plan-B is because the age of consent for sex is 16. 14 years old is not within a year of the age of consent, so 14 was not selected.

It's an imperfect system, but it's the best we can do with the knowledge we have.

Yes, this regulation would remove a parental authority over the control of minor children, but it's an authority that parent was going to lose within a year anyway.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Looking back on my situation in life as a teen, I knew many adults who would have sympathized with my desire to have Plan-B just in case. Adults could have bought it for me, a classic straw-perches.

I don't think parental consent should be required because this is morally identical to NyQuil.
Click to expand...

when your a minor, .......you need consent.

a hospital would want consent, of an adult if a child were to seek treatment.

today, you have schools that will not give students aspirin, unless the parents is contacted and approve of it.

this ruling, in designed to get around parents so this drug can be distributed to a minor without a parents knowledge.
 
ernst barkmann said:
when your a minor, .......you need consent.
Click to expand...
Not always, no.

ernst barkmann said:
a hospital would want consent, of an adult if a child were to seek treatment.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this is not a procedure, it's a non-prescription pill.

ernst barkmann said:
today, you have schools that will not give students aspirin, unless the parents is contacted and approve of it.
Click to expand...
Schools, not pharmacies. No one is asking that schools give out Plan-B.

ernst barkmann said:
this ruling, in designed to get around parents so this drug can be distributed to a minor without a parents knowledge.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom