Morning-after Pill Decision Put On Hold

[jonb]

Originally posted by brainzz_n_dong@Aug 29 2005, 02:07 PM
Teens are famous for thinking they're indestructible.  We've spent years and untold amounts of money trying to get active teens to use condoms that not only help prevent pregnancy but protect against a whole host of STD's.  Now, since many teens never think they can get sick or die from something, the mere presence of the morning-after pill and it's (proposed) easy availability might compel them NOT to be as strict about the use of condoms, which will in turn possibly lead to more teens with STD's, not to mention the king of STD's, AIDS.

Actually, it's the thirtysomethings who get HIV (which isn't the same as AIDS, BTW) more than anything. At least you aren't advocating abstinence education with its deliberate misinformation. Most of the faction against the morning-after pill are also against access to condoms, the Pill, or any number of other contraceptives.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

Warmsunshine,

I think that hell, a 12 year old should be able to get life-saving medication or surgery without her parents' permission (in the case of those Christian Scientist parents, remember?)

I'm not making any statements on Christian Scientists and their views on children receiving medication or surgery, you are. I don't agree with those parents who do try to deny either to their children based on their views, for what it's worth.

If the moral stand I have on this subject comes off as "moral superiority", then I'm sorry you feel that way. I read through the attacks directed against my original posting, read through the other threads, and did a little back-reading to see what the Left had to say about the position in light of the most recent decision by the FDA. The only driving force I could come across behind any of it was "we need to get this pill to market pronto" (essentially) and nowhere was there any discussion of the paradox of having the age of majority at 18 but wanting to let girls as young as 16 (and originally younger in the 2003 discussions) have unrestricted access to the pill. That is solely a matter of policy and not morality.

Since I saw no strict moral arguments in favor of bringing the pill to market, and only constituent-based reasoning, I felt it legtimate to make the obvious point that my opponents inside the chat room apparently had no moral qualms about the subject. Again, sorry you take it as superiority and not just what I intended it as: concern.
It is a subject for another thread, but if you want to brag about how Hillary had removed her "hold", then we can have a discussion about how there is no excuse for allowing senators to affect public policy by holding legislation or nominations in the dark. That goes against the whole idea of accountable government.

And, yes Jonb, I'm aware AIDS and HIV are not one and the same. Haste will sometimes make you mis-type things. Thank you for reminding me of that. Time is short for me tonight, but it might shock you to know we could have some common ground on a subject you'd bet the farm otherwise we wouldn't.

 

[warmsunshine]

and did a little back-reading to see what the Left had to say about the position in light of the most recent decision by the FDA.

But, as you should know, there WAS no decision. Just some mealy-mouthed statements and a big put-off.

The only driving force I could come across behind any of it was "we need to get this pill to market pronto" (essentially)

Huh? Pronto? You act like they just discovered the thing last month and are trying to rush it to the shelves. Do some more research and come back with a more informed opinion please.

nowhere was there any discussion of the paradox of having the age of majority at 18 but wanting to let girls as young as 16 (and originally younger in the 2003 discussions) have unrestricted access to the pill.

This makes no sense in that there is no paradox. Unless you're comparing the age to vote with abortion for some weird reason. There are wildly varying ages at which people can do certain things. Driving, one age. Responsibility for criminal acts, another age. Voting, one age, drinking another age. Legal sexual activity, one age, entering the military, another. Hardly ANY of these ages are the same and hardly any of them have 18 as the magic number.

Again, sorry you take it as superiority and not just what I intended it as: concern.

By the way, I in no way think you're "superior". Maybe a bit self-righteous, but certainly not superior.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Sunswhine: Just because the FDA hasn't normally decided issues based on parental notice does not make it a non-issue. The fact that young girls who do not want their parents finding out they got pregnant will use the pill without their notice is definately a factor in most voters' minds. Like I said, I don't care. But they do. This drug is surrounded by its own set of circumstances and ramifications and should be treated as such.

 

[warmsunshine]

ooooh, how mature of you....well, since YOU insist:

GottaBigMouthandFaultyReasoning

Just because the FDA hasn't normally decided issues based on parental notice does not make it a non-issue. The fact that young girls who do not want their parents finding out they got pregnant will use the pill without their notice is definately a factor in most voters' minds. Like I said, I don't care. But they do. This drug is surrounded by its own set of circumstances and ramifications and should be treated as such.

The point is that they (the FDA) is supposed to be above "social issues" like this and decide on drugs based upon their safety, not whether some religious wingnuts like yourself can stand on the street corner with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other shouting at the top of their lungs that the world is ending because of abortion, or whatever nutball issue they like to pontificate on.

It is only an issue because of them, not because it is actually a real issue. Sort of like the right wingnuts wanting scientists to accept "intelligent design" when there's no evidence of either intelligence or design. They should keep their opinions confined to the church building and leave people who know actually know what they are doing alone.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by warmsunshine@Aug 30 2005, 04:55 AM
ooooh, how mature of you....well, since YOU insist:

GottaBigMouthandFaultyReasoning

Just because the FDA hasn't normally decided issues based on parental notice does not make it a non-issue. The fact that young girls who do not want their parents finding out they got pregnant will use the pill without their notice is definately a factor in most voters' minds. Like I said, I don't care. But they do. This drug is surrounded by its own set of circumstances and ramifications and should be treated as such.

The point is that they (the FDA) is supposed to be above "social issues" like this and decide on drugs based upon their safety, not whether some religious wingnuts like yourself can stand on the street corner with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other shouting at the top of their lungs that the world is ending because of abortion, or whatever nutball issue they like to pontificate on.

It is only an issue because of them, not because it is actually a real issue. Sort of like the right wingnuts wanting scientists to accept "intelligent design" when there's no evidence of either intelligence or design. They should keep their opinions confined to the church building and leave people who know actually know what they are doing alone.

[post=339138]Quoted post[/post]​

:rofl: Anyone who knows me, knows how fucking ridiculous that is. This goes back to a point I made in another thread: Don't assume that I defend or oppose a certain issue because of some pre-concieved notion you have of the people who tend to defend or oppose certain things, it is intellectually reckless. I said twice that i personally do not care, only that it would be a consideration for those with kids of pubescent age.

The FDA does not only consider the safety of drugs when deciding whether or not it should be available over the counter, there are a number of factors. Strength of dosage and propensity to be abused are just two of them. A CHILD taking a drug without notifying their parents is a child who is abusing a drug.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Oh and since we're being childish, i will now be referring to you as "warmsunSHIT"

hahahahahah :rofl: I'm so fucking clever!!!

 

[warmsunshine]

Anyone who knows me, knows how fucking ridiculous that is. This goes back to a point I made in another thread: Don't assume that I defend or oppose a certain issue because of some pre-concieved notion you have of the people who tend to defend or oppose certain things, it is intellectually reckless. I said twice that i personally do not care, only that it would be a consideration for those with kids of pubescent age.

Nah. I think you are lying. People like you like to do that on a regular basis.

hahahahahah  I'm so fucking clever!!!

Well, that makes one of you who thinks so at any rate.

A CHILD taking a drug without notifying their parents is a child who is abusing a drug.

Well apparently you consider any person 16-18 a child, huh? Well i'm not aware of many 17 year old children that ask their parents before they take cold medication or an aspirin or have a shot of coffee or soda (caffine you know...a drug).

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

WarmSunshine,

I hope your particular degree of inanity serves you well in your everyday life.

And, by the way, I thought "religious wingnuts" were mechanial parts on the Pope-mobile.

 

[madame_zora]

Um, GBO's an atheist! What was THAT all about Warmsunshine?

Anyway, here's what I found:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-...-home-headlines

It seems that the only issue in question is actually the politicians who have gotten in the way. I realise that physicians do not legislate, but it sure would be nice if our legislators would do their damned job without letting their personal philosophies get in the way. Just more neocon bullshit dragging women's lives into the dark ages.

Hey, has anyone ever heard of condom breakage, puncturing, birth control pill failure, all froms of birth control have an error rate, but ONLY women have to deal with the consequences and be judged accordingly. Yeah, I know, we're all dirty whores and should learn to keep our pants up, but just who do you think we're dropping them FOR?
This pill should satisfy the wing-nuts that's it;s not an abortion pill, but who knows what those dufuses will come up with next. I resent these people making all heteros look like "breeders". There are some of us who do not consider it our life's mission to plop out as many kids as humanly possible.

 

[warmsunshine]

Um, GBO's an atheist! What was THAT all about Warmsunshine?

Well, he's certainly sounding like the religious freaks, that's all.

This pill should satisfy the wing-nuts that's it;s not an abortion pill,

You're wrong on that score. The wing-nuts believe that "life" begins at conception and that it's a baby as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg, so for them, it's still an abortion pill.

 

[jonb]

Actually, they have a problem with the Pill which prevents ovulation too. They say it causes abortion. Because life begins the moment you think about sex.

I'm surprised Bush hasn't funded Roy "Little Sun" on his AIDS prevention yet. He's an Indonesian "Hopi elder" who tours among other places South Africa and has claimed among other things that condom companies specifically put HIV in them.

 

[warmsunshine]

I'm surprised Bush hasn't funded Roy "Little Sun" on his AIDS prevention yet. He's an Indonesian "Hopi elder" who tours among other places South Africa and has claimed among other things that condom companies specifically put HIV in them.

You know, I don't usually believe in the traditional version of Hell, but if I did, I sure hope there's an especially nasty place in it reserved for this asshole.

 

[KinkGuy]

"Morality", "Religion" and "Tunnel Vision" aside,
anyone here aware of the fact that this very pill,
has been available OVER THE COUNTER
in many European countries for over a decade?
It was developed and the patents are owned by French
pharmaceutical companies.

Answer any of your FDA approval, who profits questions?

 

[madame_zora]

I invested in Barr laboratories stocks back in 2001 when the testing began, for that and several other drugs. FWIW, it's good to invest in drug companies if you have any reason to believe their pending patents will be approved, their stocks usually increase dramatically the day of the approval. All was going well until Sept 11 hit, I sold the day the markets opened again, I think the 13th and ONLY doubled my money instead of the quadrupling I would have gotten had I been able to keep it longer under stable conditions. Scrappy little company, I have faith in them to get their shit approved.

 

[Dr Rock]

warmsunshine is the new chimeraTX.

 

[warmsunshine]

Well, to descend to your level Rock

"No, you are"

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by warmsunshine
Well, to descend to your level Rock

"No, you are"

That was so bad that somewhere Aloofman is gasping in horror.

 

[warmsunshine]

It was meant to be stupid and awful...just like Rock

 

[GottaBigOne]

Would the morning after pill even be necessary if people just were on birth control, or using condoms?
It is strikingly ridiculous that thoise that oppose abortion so vehemently, are also the ones who oppose methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies. Seems to me that if they want to reduce the number of abortions, attacking unwanted pregnancies would be the correct tactic.
Some people just fucking confuse the shit out of me.
I hate the human race...