• 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!

A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107:233]

Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

1.) again you are free to that opinion i disagree and want them around
2.) see 1
3.) dont know but they need that power or access to that power regardless
4.) oh so a company of scientist and medical professionals?
5.) hell no i dont want them having profit thats an instant way to lead to corruption and where would this profit come from? how?
6.) that has nothgin to do with my statment. want a quick example? what if the morals they are using arent yours? then what? no thanks
7.) so you want a group that is in charge of preventing disaster, disease out break, mass poisoning etc to be based on the entertainment vallue of motor trend?
8.) so basically after a bunch of people die people can try to sue but they wont have anything hard core to sue by because theres no FDA now. They would just have to use the opinion of a company like motor trend?

3. Again, I do not find any legitimate mandate for them to have that power or the ability to exercise it through any other department either.
4. A company of scientists, medical professionals, and whomever else they feel are necessary to provide the information their customers want.
5. The profits come from selling the information they come up with; whether it be online, in print, etc....
6. Then I don't buy their product. Nothing more.
7. I don't believe they have any mandate to PREVENT anything. They don't even have a legitimate mandate to INFORM, which is all I'm suggesting this company would/should be able to do.
8. You would also have the full weight of business law, and in civil cases the reduced burden of proof.

yeah again no thanks, that type of system would be inane and dangerous

We obviously have different visions of what the Government (or a private company) can and should be doing.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

3. Again, I do not find any legitimate mandate for them to have that power or the ability to exercise it through any other department either.
4. A company of scientists, medical professionals, and whomever else they feel are necessary to provide the information their customers want.
5. The profits come from selling the information they come up with; whether it be online, in print, etc....
6. Then I don't buy their product. Nothing more.
7. I don't believe they have any mandate to PREVENT anything. They don't even have a legitimate mandate to INFORM, which is all I'm suggesting this company would/should be able to do.
8. You would also have the full weight of business law, and in civil cases the reduced burden of proof.



We obviously have different visions of what the Government (or a private company) can and should be doing.

3.) yes you stated that before :shrug:
4.) thats better than what you previously said
5.) selling it to who? the fooddrug companies or competitors of the food companies they are rating? thats a HUGE NO THANK YOU
i can even fathom how you think that would be logical or effective
6.) so you you just proved what a worthless company they would be, thanks
7.) so again they are worthless and our drugs and food are unprotected, again no thanks
8.) yes after people are dead or harmed, no thanks

9.0 yes we do, you want our drugs and food unprotected and unregulated which is inane and extremely dangerous, i do not
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

The progesterone prescription products that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are safe for most people when used with the advice and care of a healthcare professional. However, progesterone can cause many side effects including stomach upset, changes in appetite, weight gain, fluid retention and swelling (edema), fatigue, acne, drowsiness or insomnia, allergic skin rashes, hives, fever, headache, depression, breast discomfort or enlargement, PMS-like syndrome, altered menstrual cycles, irregular bleeding, and other side effects.

Special Precautions & Warnings:
Pregnancy and breast-feeding: Intravaginal progesterone gel is LIKELY SAFE when used as part of infertility treatment. But don’t use progesterone otherwise. It’s also best not to use progesterone if you are breast-feeding. Not enough is known about how it might affect a nursing infant.

Arterial disease: Don’t use progesterone if you have arterial disease.

Breast cancer: Avoid use unless you are directed to do so by your healthcare provider.

Depression: Get your healthcare provider’s advice first before using progesterone if you have major depression now or a history of major depression.

Liver disease: Progesterone might make liver disease worse. Don’t use it.

Vaginal bleeding: If you have undiagnosed vaginal bleeding, don’t use progesterone.

If you are going to go after Plan B for side effects and disease specific warnings you are going to make most OTC meds to be prescriotion only.

hell...aspirin and Tylenol for starters.

The issue is with disease specific recommendations is that when you are told you have the disease, you are usually told to be very careful about certain drugs -many have excellent safety profiles for most people.

If we are talking safety profiles, we need to consider that this drug will only be used on an intermittent (if not rare) basis. When we are speaking to minors, what diseases may they have that the intermittent use of MAP will cause them irreparable harm.

But like I said, if you are going to point out that this product will have bad effects to people with certain disease processes - then take Tylenol, aspirin, aleve, motrin, some vitamins, minerals, herbals , cold medicine, etc to prescription only.


"Tylenol is the leading cause of acute liver injury in the US"

Who Needs Liver Transplants - New Approach To Determine
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

If you are going to go after Plan B for side effects and disease specific warnings you are going to make most OTC meds to be prescriotion only.

hell...aspirin and Tylenol for starters.

hence child proof caps.

will plan b have those?
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

it was a forfeit because all the odds were against the other side

Hope they meet again next year. I always take the over in these kinds of match-ups!
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

3.) yes you stated that before :shrug:
4.) thats better than what you previously said
5.) selling it to who? the fooddrug companies or competitors of the food companies they are rating? thats a HUGE NO THANK YOU
i can even fathom how you think that would be logical or effective
6.) so you you just proved what a worthless company they would be, thanks
7.) so again they are worthless and our drugs and food are unprotected, again no thanks
8.) yes after people are dead or harmed, no thanks

9.) yes we do, you want our drugs and food unprotected and unregulated which is inane and extremely dangerous, i do not

4. Not really. It's just a politer way of saying it.
5. Selling the information to the general public, just as the aforementioned publications do.
6. If I don't agree with the methodology why would I buy the information?
7. That depends on how you define value and worth.
8. Again - Caveat Emptor.
9. I want the Government to limit itself to the legitimate powers and expenditures as listed in the US Constitution.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

Hope they meet again next year. I always take the over in these kinds of match-ups!

see for me i like the underdog alot but in this case i know its a no win.
so unless the spread makes it interesting ill be sitting out
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

The progesterone prescription products that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are safe for most people when used with the advice and care of a healthcare professional. However, progesterone can cause many side effects including stomach upset, changes in appetite, weight gain, fluid retention and swelling (edema), fatigue, acne, drowsiness or insomnia, allergic skin rashes, hives, fever, headache, depression, breast discomfort or enlargement, PMS-like syndrome, altered menstrual cycles, irregular bleeding, and other side effects.

Special Precautions & Warnings:
Pregnancy and breast-feeding: Intravaginal progesterone gel is LIKELY SAFE when used as part of infertility treatment. But don’t use progesterone otherwise. It’s also best not to use progesterone if you are breast-feeding. Not enough ISP known about how it might affect a nursing infant.

Arterial disease: Don’t use progesterone if you have arterial disease.

Breast cancer: Avoid use unless you are directed to do so by your healthcare provider.

Depression: Get your healthcare provider’s advice first before using progesterone if you have major depression now or a history of major depression.

Liver disease: Progesterone might make liver disease worse. Don’t use it.

Vaginal bleeding: If you have undiagnosed vaginal bleeding, don’t use progesterone.

Do you have link. ?
Was the link for oral progesterone?
Was it for long term use progesterone?

There are many strengths of progesterone and many uses.
Some progesterone is in gel form and Is inserted vaginally so it might have different side effects.
I think your list was possibly a long term oral medication used as hormone replacement for menopause or when a woman's had a complete hysterectomy.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

A victory for the morning-after pill
Opinion: A victory for the morning-after pill - CNN.com








Im glad this nonsense is over, if it met the requirements of other drugs not restricted there was ZERO reason to restrict this one.
The FDA assess danger and effectiveness etc. not morals.

Backup links:
Obama administration says it will allow all girls to have morning-after pill access | Fox News
Feds drop 'morning-after pill' appeal - CNN.com

I didn't know the pill was fighting anything.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

Liver disease, vascular disease, depression, breast cancer, vaginal bleeding. Yes. Oh my.

Progesterone does not cause breast cancer , vascular disease ,depression or liver disease.
It says not to use it if you have those diseases.
Please read warnings carefully.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

4. Not really. It's just a politer way of saying it.
5. Selling the information to the general public, just as the aforementioned publications do.
6. If I don't agree with the methodology why would I buy the information?
7. That depends on how you define value and worth.
8. Again - Caveat Emptor.
9. I want the Government to limit itself to the legitimate powers and expenditures as listed in the US Constitution.

4.) no its better, you actually added requirements, huge difference
5.) which is meaningless, how many people dont read motor trend? how many people take them seriously. it would be a waste of time
6.) didnt say you had to agree just that you proved your solution would be meaningless dangerous and worthless
7.) no it doesnt, the company would sever no real and honest protection, it would be worthless and our food and drugs would be unprotected, thats a fact unless you are leaving something out.
8.)let the buyer beware? yes thats brilliant, again no thanks that inane logic could kill a whole country. not to mention it wouldnt always be a buyer. What about the meds a person maybe given unconscious in an ambulance.

oh no it was a dangerous med but there was nothign to regulated it so that guys arm fell off, just tell him, let the buyer beware lol

9.) translation: you want our drugs and food unprotected and unregulated which is inane and extremely dangerous, i do not

sorry you arent making any sense

you are free to be unhappy with the FDA or what ever your issue is but to not want food and drugs honestly regulated is dangerous
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

A pill itself can fight? Pretty sure that's a stretch. You apparently didn't get the sarcasm.

with your history it was hard to tell, could have been a real question that you didnt know the answer too
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

with your history it was hard to tell, could have been a real question that you didnt know the answer too

That just shows you know nothing about me.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

That just shows you know nothing about me.

only what you have presented thus far and the evidence is substantial
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

translation: you want our drugs and food unprotected and unregulated which is inane and extremely dangerous, i do not. sorry you arent making any sense. you are free to be unhappy with the FDA or what ever your issue is but to not want food and drugs honestly regulated is dangerous

Our differences on this come down to a very basic conceptual disagreement. You seem to believe that it is the role and place of the Government to protect you from unpleasant drug and food issues. I do not believe that it is the role or place of the Government to do so.

From my reading of the US Constitution, it would appear to me that the Founding Fathers stand with my side of this discussion, as I have never found anyone who is able to cite an Article and Section in the document that would approve of this sort of governmental activity. Barring that changing, I don't foresee myself ever changing my stance on this issue.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

LOL!

Child proof safety caps are designed for children under 5 years of age

What is the effect of the drug on those under 5?
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

Our differences on this come down to a very basic conceptual disagreement. You seem to believe that it is the role and place of the Government to protect you from unpleasant drug and food issues. I do not believe that it is the role or place of the Government to do so.

From my reading of the US Constitution, it would appear to me that the Founding Fathers stand with my side of this discussion, as I have never found anyone who is able to cite an Article and Section in the document that would approve of this sort of governmental activity. Barring that changing, I don't foresee myself ever changing my stance on this issue.

There is something to be said for that.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

Our differences on this come down to a very basic conceptual disagreement. You seem to believe that it is the role and place of the Government to protect you from unpleasant drug and food issues. I do not believe that it is the role or place of the Government to do so.

2.)From my reading of the US Constitution, it would appear to me that the Founding Fathers stand with my side of this discussion, as I have never found anyone who is able to cite an Article and Section in the document that would approve of this sort of governmental activity. Barring that changing, I don't foresee myself ever changing my stance on this issue.

1.) nope you are wrong with this assumption

2.) weird, i didnt ask you that nor does it matter

this is what is going on

you dont want food and drugs protected and regulated, i do :shrug:
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill [W:107]

1.) nope you are wrong with this assumption

If my assumption is wrong, then where is it that you believe the FDA derives its mandate from?

2.) weird, i didnt ask you that nor does it matter

It most definitely does matter, unless you are of the opinion that the US Constitution is no longer relevant. In fact it is the entire basis for my viewpoint on this topic.

this is what is going on: you dont want food and drugs protected and regulated, i do :shrug:

I don't want them regulated because the only entity capable of doing it (the US Government) does not have a legitimate mandate to be involved in that sort of business.
 
Back
Top Bottom