• 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

clownboy said:
Yep, the DEA and the Department of Health and Human Services classifies drugs in this country.



Source



Congress has the power to reschedule as well. The FDA has no authority here. Their mandate is to investigate the safety and efficacy of the drugs submitted for their review. They're like the Underwriters Laboratory.
Click to expand...

so they did their job, thanks

they classified the drug, other people tried to block that classification but then decided not to.
The FDA simply did thier job.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

mpg said:
a victory for the morning after pill but a defeat for parental rights and a defeat for the right to life
Click to expand...

curious on your opinion of what parental rights are violated and how does this effect the right to life
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

lizzie said:
Yeah, that's the shame of it all. Historically, it's been women who were the nurturers and took commitments seriously. It's the glue that holds societies together.
Click to expand...

I had to think about that for a moment, because I rarely give any thought to the topic of "women"..............................
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

AGENT J said:
so they did their job, thanks

they classified the drug, other people tried to block that classification but then decided not to.
The FDA simply did thier job.
Click to expand...

No, read it again, the FDA does not classify drugs. They certify as to safety and efficacy. The HHS secretary takes their input and makes recommendations to the DEA. In this case the HHS secretary recommended the drug not be OTC. The court stepped in here and farked up deciding for the FDA where they do not have the regulatory power. The justice department should have never backed down on this.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

AGENT J said:
curious on your opinion of what parental rights are violated and how does this effect the right to life
Click to expand...
"opinion"? wtf?
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

clownboy said:
No, read it again, the FDA does not classify drugs. They certify as to safety and efficacy. The HHS secretary takes their input and makes recommendations to the DEA. In this case the HHS secretary recommended the drug not be OTC. The court stepped in here and farked up deciding for the FDA where they do not have the regulatory power. The justice department should have never backed down on this.
Click to expand...

so the FDA said its as safe as asprin
the HHS tried to classify it as something different first time ever??
and now the justice department decided they couldnt win so they backed off

again FDA didnt do anythign but their jobs
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

mpg said:
"opinion"? wtf?
Click to expand...

yes
im curious to your opinion how this impacts parental rights and how it impacts right to life

if you think its a fact thats fine too, state how it factually does then :shrug:
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

Fenton said:
What ever happened to the moral choice to wait until you were at least an adult to have unprotected sex ?
Click to expand...

It never existed historically. It exists today. However, that's not the choice everyone makes. It's a pretty modern choice to make. Considering it's only up until relatively recent that the Western families have shrunk.

Throughout history, the overwhelming majority of people have chosen to have unprotected sex early in their lives. This is proven by the average age at which women use to marry/have children before.

The "moral choice" you're thinking was to stay a virgin until marriage. Which is pretty traditional, however in vain, as most women were married off in their teens anyways.

This pill just removes more of the consequence of unprotected sex, and among immature young people gives the wrong message.

How life changing is it to have a STD at the age of 14 ?
Click to expand...

People having an STD, but being kid free is a consequence I'm willing to get behind if it means less people having kids they won't take care of. Unless you think that having kids that won't be taken care of is somehow better than some stupid kid getting an STD.

Look up the statistics and get back to me.
Click to expand...

Look up the social history of sexual relationships before you go spouting off about historical choices which only exist in the mind of historical revisionists.
 
Last edited:
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

ARealConservative said:
serious misuse of the term there
Click to expand...

Look up falso in uno, falso in omnibus. I'm pretty sure I used it in that context. However, if you need it spelled out for you:

N.o.t. a.l.l. t.h.i.n.g.s. a.r.e. t.h.e. s.a.me.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

Fenton said:
What ever happened to the moral choice to wait until you were at least an adult to have unprotected sex ?

This pill just removes more of the consequence of unprotected sex, and among immature young people gives the wrong message.

How life changing is it to have a STD at the age of 14 ?

Look up the statistics and get back to me.
Click to expand...

The universe is not going to give you a shiny badge for remaining a virgin........................
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

Hatuey said:
Look up falso in uno, falso in omnibus. I'm pretty sure I used it in that context. However, if you need it spelled out for you:

N.o.t. a.l.l. t.h.i.n.g.s. a.r.e. t.h.e. s.a.me.
Click to expand...

no, you botched it.

maybe you should read this

False Dichotomy
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

mpg said:
a victory for the morning after pill but a defeat for parental rights and a defeat for the right to life
Click to expand...

Why should a parent's rights trump the rights of the child? Children are people, not just extensions of their parents. Our interest should be the well-being of the child, not the ability of the parents to force their children to be a certain way.

Fenton said:
What ever happened to the moral choice to wait until you were at least an adult to have unprotected sex ?

This pill just removes more of the consequence of unprotected sex, and among immature young people gives the wrong message.
Click to expand...

You do realize that protection is not 100% effective and plenty of pregnancies occur despite perfect use of birth control, right? As Playdrive said above, people's opinions about their own sexuality are very seldom affected by something like this. People who want to have sex will continue to have sex. People who want to use protection will still do so. Only now those who want to have sex and protect themselves will face one less hurdle in their attempts to do so.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

question that i would like an answer
what happens to the child when she finds out she is pregnant for a month because she misses her period and takes the plan b pill to terminate the pregnancy?
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

ARealConservative said:
no, you botched it.

maybe you should read this

False Dichotomy
Click to expand...

2nd paragraph:

A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. Note that the example given above is not mutually exclusive, since the test and the program could both be wrong. It's not jointly exhaustive either, since they could both be correct, but it could be a hardware error, a compiler error and so on.
Click to expand...

There are other alternatives other than comparing vaccines to morning after pill. So yes, you presented a false dichotomy by comparing the two as there exist many more examples of situations where parental consent is not necessary in order to take medication.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

trfjr said:
question that i would like an answer
what happens to the child when she finds out she is pregnant for a month because she misses her period and takes the plan b pill to terminate the pregnancy?
Click to expand...

The same thing which would happen if she decided to take the pill 1 month after she had sex and knew she would get pregnant. Absolutely nothing. Plan B makes it clear what the abilities of their pill are:

Plan B One-Step® (levonorgestrel): Home

Plan B One-Step® is not effective in terminating an existing pregnancy. Do not use Plan B One-Step® if you are already pregnant because it will not work. Plan B One-Step® does not protect against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Side effects may include changes in your period, nausea, lower abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, and dizziness. If your period is more than a week late, you may be pregnant. You should not take Plan B One-Step® if you are already pregnant. Plan B One-Step® should not be used as a routine birth control, as it is not as effective. If you have severe abdominal pain, you may have an ectopic pregnancy, and should get immediate medical help.
Click to expand...

View attachment 67148767

It's to be taken, the day after at the latest. Not 1 month after.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

trfjr said:
question that i would like an answer
what happens to the child when she finds out she is pregnant for a month because she misses her period and takes the plan b pill to terminate the pregnancy?
Click to expand...

If you are speaking about abuses of said pill, well, that's all on the "child" who thought she was grownup enough to let some guy mount her......................
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

Paschendale said:
Why should a parent's rights trump the rights of the child? Children are people, not just extensions of their parents. Our interest should be the well-being of the child, not the ability of the parents to force their children to be a certain way.
Click to expand...

Lol, I asked that question when talking about fingerprints a week or so ago and the answer I got was that the rights of children are based on harm(whatever that is supposed to mean). In short, if the actions of the parents don't harm the child the parents can do whatever they want.
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

Henrin said:
Lol, I asked that question when talking about fingerprints a week or so ago and the answer I got was that the rights of children are based on harm(whatever that is supposed to mean). In short, if the actions of the parents don't harm the child the parents can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

And wouldn't forcing a 15 year old to carry a pregnancy against her will be doing quite a bit of harm?
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

Hatuey said:
The same thing which would happen if she decided to take the pill 1 month after she had sex and knew she would get pregnant. Absolutely nothing. Plan B makes it clear what the abilities of their pill are:

Plan B One-Step® (levonorgestrel): Home



View attachment 67148767

It's to be taken, the day after at the latest. Not 1 month after.
Click to expand...



then what will happen will it cause problems with the fetus or the mother?
why im asking because we all know many young ignorant girls will do just that they will take the pill when they are pregnant to try to terminate it
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

trfjr said:
then what will happen will it cause problems with the fetus or the mother?
why im asking because we all know many young ignorant girls will do just that they will take the pill when they are pregnant to try to terminate it
Click to expand...

Why should any of us here care ? Exactly why do you care ?..........................
 
Re: A victory for the morning-after pill

Paschendale said:
And wouldn't forcing a 15 year old to carry a pregnancy against her will be doing quite a bit of harm?
Click to expand...

Lol, charities will take care of it yo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom