• 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]

Very well. I believe 15 year olds are old enough to consent to both taking contraceptives and having sex. I believe the two are related, and I would be curios to see somebody argue how a 15 year old is old enough to consent to one but not the other.

I believe that 15 year olds are going to have sex whether society says they are old enough to consent or not, ergo, even though society says they shouldn't, since they will, contraceptives should not be refused to them. It's not complicated.

Do you think they won't have sex if they are refused all contraceptives, or do you think they will just wildly less desirable consequences?
 
then i will ask a simple question, when did the executive branch of government FDA get authority to tell citizens, that 15 yr old girl will be given access to drugs over the objections of parents, i see not authority in the constitution.

weird i didnt claim they have that powere

and 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?
 
I believe that 15 year olds are going to have sex whether society says they are old enough to consent or not, ergo, even though society says they shouldn't, since they will, contraceptives should not be refused to them. It's not complicated.

I believe "adults" will have sex with "children" regardless of whether society says they should or not, and since they will, we shouldn't imprison them. It's not complicated.

Do you think they won't have sex if they are refused all contraceptives, or do you think they will just wildly less desirable consequences?

Nope, I think teens will continue to have sex, with other teens and with adults. And they should be allowed to take contraceptives as well.
 
weird i didnt claim they have that powere

and 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?


my question is this the FDA is run by bureaucrats ,not by elected officials...(accountable people), when did they receive any authority under our Constitution to issue orders to the people and say , 15 yr old girl can receive this drug.....above the objections of a parent?

if a parnet wishes the child to have the drug, that is fine, but government issuing an order...that is not constitutional.....government has no authority over the people in the u.s. constitution.
 
my question is this the FDA is run by bureaucrats ,not by elected officials...(accountable people), when did they receive any authority under our Constitution to issue orders to the people and say , 15 yr old girl can receive this drug.....above the objections of a parent?

if a parent wishes the child to have the drug, that is fine, but government issuing an order...that is not constitutional.....government has no authority over the people in the u.s. constitution.
weird are you just going to dodge my question

Iam not familiar with this issue at all so you will have to fill me and answer my question.

does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?
 
my question is this the FDA is run by bureaucrats ,not by elected officials...(accountable people), when did they receive any authority under our Constitution to issue orders to the people and say , 15 yr old girl can receive this drug.....above the objections of a parent?

if a parnet wishes the child to have the drug, that is fine, but government issuing an order...that is not constitutional.....government has no authority over the people in the u.s. constitution.



I think most parents would prefer dealing with the use of birth control by their 15 year old than dealing with their 15 year old becoming a parent............Those that haven't lost sight of all logic and proportion, that is......................
 
weird are you just going to dodge my question

Iam not familiar with this issue at all so you will have to fill me and answer my question.

does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?

from what i listened to today, the news stated the FDA ordered that this drug be made available to 15 yr olds.

the executive branch has no power to issue orders to the people in the u.s.. constitution..that what be a dictatorship.
 
I still think it's best that it be used under conditions of use use and parental consent.
 
I think most parents would prefer dealing with the use of birth control by their 15 year old than dealing with their 15 year old becoming a parent............Those that haven't lost sight of all logic and proportion, that is......................

i have no problem with the child, and parent discussing the issue and both deciding what is best.

but government!......it has no authority to issue orders, and go above the heads of parents.
 
from what i listened to today, the news stated the FDA ordered that this drug be made available to 15 yr olds.

the executive branch has no power to issue orders to the people in the u.s.. constitution..that what be a dictatorship.

So you dont like that the government told the FDA what to do? well at times i could agree with that, at times id be fine with it :shrug:
 
I believe "adults" will have sex with "children" regardless of whether society says they should or not, and since they will, we shouldn't imprison them. It's not complicated.



Nope, I think teens will continue to have sex, with other teens and with adults. And they should be allowed to take contraceptives as well.

If we stop imprisoning adults who have sex with children, we'll just beat them to death in the streets.

In the meantime, HELL NO!

Children may not be old enough to consent, and they may have sex anyway, but adults are expected to know better and WILL be punished accordingly.
 
So the easy way out is to let them get pregnant? *confused*



What does your question have to do with OTC emergency contraception?

If it's OTC, they don't need to see a doctor and thus no insurance is required.



Maybe a better policy then would be to let her get the morning after pill, but the pharmacist has to place a call to the legal guardian?

I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of preventing an unwanted pregnancy. The more bureaucracy means the less time there is to implement the MAP.



I don't think this question is relevant given that they ARE having sex and thus they are exposing themselves to the potential consequences. It only makes sense to give them access to some tools to deal with those consequences as well.

Girls are hitting puberty more and more early as time passes, likely because of the synthetic estrogens now in all the packaged and processed food people are eating. We're going to have to start getting used to the fact that girls are going to start being sexually active younger and younger because of our society's lifestyle.

The easy way out is not getting them to talk to their parents about getting this pill for them or better yet getting put on birth control. This will not prevent pregnancies in the long run. It will just delay them to a later date. It provides an easy, although certainly not cheap, way for teens to feel that it is okay for them to have sex without having to worry about anything. They will figure "well there is always Plan B" when they feel like having sex. And no, it won't be all teens, but it will likely be those teens least likely to go to their parents about this in the first place. After all, if they were responsible, they wouldn't have to worry about needing the MAP in most cases because they would be on regular birth control, they would be using condoms, they wouldn't be having irresponsible sex to begin with as teens.
 
If we stop imprisoning adults who have sex with children, we'll just beat them to death in the streets.

In the meantime, HELL NO!

Children may not be old enough to consent, and they may have sex anyway, but adults are expected to know better and WILL be punished accordingly.

That's a logical contradiction. If it's ok for them to have sex then it shouldn't matter who they are having sex with. If it's not ok, then it shouldn't matter either. In either case, it shouldn't matter.
 
YEs, we must punish children who have sex!!!

Thanks for demonstrating why parents should not be informed

Wrong. There are many consequences of sex. The least wanted is actually an STD of some sort that we don't yet have a cure for. Pregnancy is there, but pregnancy is much better prevented by actually getting a teen who is having sex on birth control and explaining to them why the MAP should be used as emergency birth control, not their main form. And if they can't go to their parents when they need Plan B, it probably means they aren't on birth control, since you need a prescription for birth control.

The consequences of having sex and needing Plan B should be going to actually ask your parent to get it for you, even if that means facing them with what you did. Most teens would not be turned out by their parents for it. They may face some disappointment from them but so what? What is the big deal about having parents who are disappointed in their children temporarily for having sex while a teenager? Pretty sure many parents would feel at least some pride in their child coming to them when they make a mistake. Most of the fear that parents are going to harm or disown a teen for having sex is just irrational fear of a teenaged mind. Very few parents would actually kick their teenaged daughters out for having sex. They would merely fell disappointed in them.
 
That's a logical contradiction. If it's ok for them to have sex then it shouldn't matter who they are having sex with. If it's not ok, then it shouldn't matter either. In either case, it shouldn't matter.

Guess what? It does matter. If you do it, you'll get arrested, and very FEW people are going to cry for you. Get over it!
 
I think most parents would prefer dealing with the use of birth control by their 15 year old than dealing with their 15 year old becoming a parent............Those that haven't lost sight of all logic and proportion, that is......................

I think most parents would prefer knowing that a teen needed to take Plan B so that they could discuss with their teens better, less expensive methods of birth control not to mention the other risks that the teen is taking if they are having unprotected sex.
 
i have no problem with the child, and parent discussing the issue and both deciding what is best.

but government!......it has no authority to issue orders, and go above the heads of parents.



I wonder whether the subject is even broachable with a teenager. Most teenagers in this country are just a catch bin for archaic folk knowledge, outdated science, bizarre misinterpretations of adult life, and a plethora of inadequacies and dysinformation they've picked up from their parents and peers.....................
 
Guess what? It does matter. If you do it, you'll get arrested, and very FEW people are going to cry for you. Get over it!

The sky is blue.
 
So you dont like that the government told the FDA what to do? well at times i could agree with that, at times id be fine with it :shrug:


the FDA is part of the executive branch, there is not no one elected to it, its run my appointed bureaucrats....who are not accountable to the people.

they have no authority to issues any orders to the people, no authority over the rights of parents.

this is another step of government outside the Constitution.

as i stated to earlier, i have no problem with the drug being available, but government does not dictate to the people.

the Constitution gave government no authority over the people at all.

in following the constitution.... government has only authority in d.c. and were the feds and the state have agreed on, and that pertains to buildings only.

government has no authority on private or state property to come and go at will and harass the people.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the OP talks about the FDA basically accepting the court ruling without challenging it. Who do you think advised the Secretary of HHS on the matter?

Of course they're not challenging it. There are no legal grounds for overturning it.
 
the FDA is part of the executive branch, there is not no one elected to it, its run my appointed bureaucrats....who are not accountable to the people.

they have no authority to issues any orders to the people, no authority over the rights of parents.

this is another step of government outside the Constitution.

as i stated to earlier, i have no problem with the drug being available, but government does not dictate to the people.

the Constitution gave government no authority over the people at all.

in following the constitution.... government has only authority in d.c. and were the feds and the state have agreed on, and that pertains to building only.

government has no authority on private or state property to come and go at will.

That's an interesting point. The government interfering in your relationship with your child, telling YOU as a parent that it is okay for your minor child to take medications without your permission or knowledge. These are just children who are NOT yet self-sufficient, who rely on their parents for support, and again the parents are responsible for every single action that their child takes.

I'm not against this pill per se, but just against the government interfering in a parent/child relationship in such a way. A nice little loop hole for them to use to be interfering nannies.
 
I'm very concerned about the potential long-term effects on young bodies of this pill and also about the easy-to-imagine abuse of it by kids.

The drug is not used on a long-term basis so it's safe to say that there are not effects from a use that is not actually occurring.
 
weird i didnt claim they have that powere

and 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?

He wants the govt to decide who can buy what.

Some people will justify unlimited amounts of govt power so long as it is consistent with their moral code
 
Back
Top Bottom