Wrong Direction Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 My understanding is that the label for this drug includes risks for stuff like stroke and heart failure with multiple uses. As a result, the drug is prescription-only for multiple uses. If this is wrong, feel free to correct me. So, the argument against OTC status is simple. If we cannot trust young boys and girls who to decide who to have sex with, how often, to use protection, or even to keep their room clean most of the time, can we really trust that they won't "overuse" this pill? Would OTC status put young girls (any girl/woman really) in real harm's way? Obama's overrule was political, but there does seem to be some risk of making this OTC. I'm not intimately familiar with the label, so feel free to correct me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amm0409 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Have you all seen the "Hand of life" photo? Its an article about abortion being wrong. Anyways, Id rather not put up the photo since its graphic. If you google "Hand of Life," click on images, it should be the fifth image over. Theres a little babies hand grasping a doctors finger, its a strong image. Even if you are against or for abortion its a pretty amazing picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 But how does that risk differ from all the other products available to them for sale?(or gratis in some cases) I'm in the minors should be under parents control camp,but that is not the law IF you are gonna allow them the right to choose a abortion then not allowing this is rather inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Making it readily available would reduce the abortion issue as a political football and make it more a personal choice.(still a life/death issue,but one with minimum govt support) The resulting loss of fund raising off it would be significant for politicians imo but hardliners, feeding off the extremists in their constituency and as evidenced in this thread page 1, still view the pill as a form of abortion. plus there's the whole "Obama supports teenage/underage sex" line that would get used against him by the right. I agree it would actually reduce the abortion issue, but political posturing on either side of the aisle typically won't let common sense get in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 so O is indulging hardliners while proclaiming let science decide he can't have it both ways w/o blowback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Well if Obama was concerned about the attack ad: "Obama wants your little girl to sex without you knowing" It can simply be changed to "Obama wants your little girl to have sex without you knowing, but only with men over 18 who can buy them the abortion pill" Simply an awful decision. Vote Cthulhu 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Gotta love playing with a woman's body. Fixed that :thumbsup: ---------- Post added December-11th-2011 at 07:26 AM ---------- Have you all seen the "Hand of life" photo? Its an article about abortion being wrong.Anyways, Id rather not put up the photo since its graphic. If you google "Hand of Life," click on images, it should be the fifth image over. Theres a little babies hand grasping a doctors finger, its a strong image. Even if you are against or for abortion its a pretty amazing picture. The story behind that pic isn't very accurate, though. It's somewhat like the polar bears global warming story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 The story behind that pic isn't very accurate, though. It's somewhat like the polar bears global warming story. it is illustrative though,like this 30 wk one of my grandchild http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/376918_2556442119572_1509549531_2760682_1544273510_n.jpg when they begin to matter or become a life is not a game to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 it is illustrative though... In all honesty, it's not even that. The fetus in the womb wasn't grasping the surgeon's finger. The fetus wasn't even alert, having been knocked out by anesthesia. All that happened was that the fetus' arm slipped out through the incision during surgery, and the surgeon was putting it back inside when the photo was taken. The baby didn't grasp anything, as it wasn't moving at the time. ...when they begin to matter or become a life is not a game to them I definitely agree :yes:...How old is your grandchild now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 6 weeks,still a month to go till he was due a nice early Christmas present already home with momma I meant illustrative vs the clump of cells narrative,once you see them as human individuals choices become less subject to rationalization. it is no longer a academic exercise;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 4 weeks,still a month to go till he was duea nice early Christmas present already home with momma I meant illustrative vs the clump of cells narrative,once you see them as human individuals choices become less subject to rationalization. it is no longer a academic exercise;) For me, it's odd so many folks can rationalize (in quite a varied manner and number of ways) the killing of fully formed totally developed humans for various reasons, but the less-developed stages are somehow different. I.E. we can live with collateral damage of non-combatants, women, teens, and children because "it's a just war" and a "strategic necessity/inevitability"...which often to me has sometimes been more a case of "some guys in power deciding something for geo-econo-political concerns that i wouldn't decide that makes me part of killing people but it's ok and moral cuz they said so." People often don't make logical sense when it's emotional, and that make sense it itself, so maybe all bets are off. I wonder if I'm pro-death and pro-abortion if I believe in war, the death penalty, collateral damage, fire-bombing Dresden and nuking Nagasaki. "Pro Death! Pro Abortion!" would make for a dandy sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 4 weeks,still a month to go till he was duea nice early Christmas present already home with momma I meant illustrative vs the clump of cells narrative,once you see them as human individuals choices become less subject to rationalization. it is no longer a academic exercise;) Oh, I agree. Once you change your definition of words like "person", then the extreme right's position makes sense. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 For me, it's odd so many folks can rationalize (in quite a varied manner and number of ways) the killing of fully formed totally developed humans for various reasons, but the less-developed stages are somehow different. I.E. we can live with collateral damage of non-combatants, women, teens, and children because "it's a just war" and a "strategic necessity/inevitability"...which often to me has sometimes been more a case of "some guys in power deciding something for geo-econo-political concerns that i wouldn't decide that makes me part of killing people but it's ok and moral cuz they said so." It's about the "greater good"...which, I suppose, is what the pro-choice side would say about abortion: it's for the greater good of the individual woman to allow her that option. But I'm imagining the "greater good" argument isn't used by too many in the pro-choice camp when it comes to collateral damage that may occur during wartime--which, as you pointed out, is what the pro-life side has to deal with when considering the "greater good" of what a war can accomplish even with collateral damage, but not allowing those same things when it comes to abortion. In other words, I always felt both sides seemed to have its contradictions (to put it generously) in the same areas when it came to their stances on life and death. ---------- Post added December-11th-2011 at 10:06 AM ---------- Oh, I agree. Once you change your definition of words like "person", then the extreme right's position makes sense. . What about when you use the definition of "individual human life"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 For me, it's odd so many folks can rationalize (in quite a varied manner and number of ways) the killing of fully formed totally developed humans for various reasons, but the less-developed stages are somehow different.. It usually helps if they are classed as different ,or less than you.(be it color,religion,education,culture or smaller versions They are not like us,or get in the way of a higher purpose is pretty effective in the main. We are a wonderful and fearsome critter,sometimes at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 "adolescent girls would benefit from having access to a pregnancy prevention" How is this pregnancy prevention? Hasn't conceptoin occurred by the time the pill is taken? Honest question as I don't recall the exact physiology of conception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I agree. It's amazing that there is even a discussion about this. If accepted and readily available the decrease in abortions in this country would be substantial. It seems radical "pro-lifers" are against this. Makes me question their motives on all counts. We have daughters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 For me, it's odd so many folks can rationalize (in quite a varied manner and number of ways) the killing of fully formed totally developed humans for various reasons, but the less-developed stages are somehow different. I.E. we can live with collateral damage of non-combatants, women, teens, and children because "it's a just war" and a "strategic necessity/inevitability"...which often to me has sometimes been more a case of "some guys in power deciding something for geo-econo-political concerns that i wouldn't decide that makes me part of killing people but it's ok and moral cuz they said so." People often don't make logical sense when it's emotional, and that make sense it itself, so maybe all bets are off. I wonder if I'm pro-death and pro-abortion if I believe in war, the death penalty, collateral damage, fire-bombing Dresden and nuking Nagasaki. "Pro Death! Pro Abortion!" would make for a dandy sign. This argument is all about where on a finite continuum it's ok & acceptable to society to voluntarily kill a life. Life does begin at conception. It has too. There is a definitive beginning & ending to life. Pretty simple. All the other contortions & rationalizations aside this is what's it's about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 "adolescent girls would benefit from having access to a pregnancy prevention"How is this pregnancy prevention? Hasn't conceptoin occurred by the time the pill is taken? Honest question as I don't recall the exact physiology of conception? No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception "Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"—are drugs intended to disrupt ovulation or fertilization in order to prevent pregnancy (contraceptives). There is controversy about whether such drugs may in some cases act not as a contraceptive but as a contragestive, a drug that prevents the implantation of a human embryo in the uterus, although one study has concluded that this mechanism is unlikely." Sometimes conceptions occurrs DAYS after having sex. Somewhere along the line it became an urban myth that these things prevent implantation, which it is always possible that they do, but that isn't ALL theyu do, and there isn't really any evidence that they actually do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 "one study has concluded that this mechanism is unlikely." There's a lot of room between that and "no." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 "one study has concluded that this mechanism is unlikely."There's a lot of room between that and "no." It is unlikely there will ever be more than study done. The known biology is that it prevents ovulation/fertilization and not implantation. One study as done that essentially confirmed the known science. Unless something new is learned, that'll probably be the end of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 It is unlikely there will ever be more than study done. The known biology is that it prevents ovulation/fertilization and not implantation.One study as done that essentially confirmed the known science. Unless something new is learned, that'll probably be the end of it. Makes sense. After all, I saw one study that said global warming was bunk. We need to make up our minds in this country. I realize I'm going to be on the losing end of this overall battle, and that's fine, but let's at least find consistency. If mom wants an abortion, the doctor can perform it legally. But if she wants the baby, and is (God forbid) murdered, the killer is charged with two counts. But wait....I thought it wasn't murder unless you were taking a human life, right? Hmm... Now to the prescription side of this. Last I checked, contraceptive pills were by prescription only, right? But they want this one to be available without a prescription, and to minors. (17 IS a minor in most states.) And I don't see anything about requiring parental notification either (which doesn't shock me at all.) This is being pushed by the people who don't want kids to get fillings without parental consent, but are cool with kids having anesthesia, and an invasive procedure, to remove a POTENTIAL human life; without parental consent. And yet those of us who want consistency, and notification for medical procedures involving our kids, are the "radicals?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Makes sense. After all, I saw one study that said global warming was bunk. We need to make up our minds in this country. I realize I'm going to be on the losing end of this overall battle, and that's fine, but let's at least find consistency. If mom wants an abortion, the doctor can perform it legally. But if she wants the baby, and is (God forbid) murdered, the killer is charged with two counts. But wait....I thought it wasn't murder unless you were taking a human life, right? Hmm... Now to the prescription side of this. Last I checked, contraceptive pills were by prescription only, right? But they want this one to be available without a prescription, and to minors. (17 IS a minor in most states.) And I don't see anything about requiring parental notification either (which doesn't shock me at all.) This is being pushed by the people who don't want kids to get fillings without parental consent, but are cool with kids having anesthesia, and an invasive procedure, to remove a POTENTIAL human life; without parental consent. And yet those of us who want consistency, and notification for medical procedures involving our kids, are the "radicals?" The difference being w/ respect to global warmign there are lot's of studies that say it is happening, including the basic underlying science, which is over 100 years old and is unrefuted. In this case, there is no science refuting the known biology (i.e. that they are NOT preventing conception). Kind of like the basic scinece and global warming. I know it is a difficult concept, but I'm sure if you think about it for a while, you can get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Maybe one of these days we'll find a pill that prevents condescension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Maybe one of these days we'll find a pill that prevents condescension. I'm editing this. Sorry. There never was a reason to believe these pills are preventing an after conception step (they were desinged based on known biology to prevent pre-conception steps), despite that people actually checked to see if they were and they found that they weren't, and I'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 The same for idiocy. I wasn't going to go that far, but make sure they don't have any drug interactions before taking them together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.