Thursday, August 24, 2006

Enjoy being an Expectant Mother for up to 72 hours...

It was announced out of Washington that females, over the age of 18 years old, may buy the morning-after pill known as Plan B. But there’s a catch, the individual must show proof they are of legal age. For those individuals seventeen and under, they will need a doctor’s note to buy the pills.

Plan B is a concentrated dose of the exact drug found in many regular birth-controlled pills, allowing a woman to ingest the pill within 72 hours of having unprotected sex. Doing this lowers the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent.

Once again going back to accountability, why is stepping up and holding one accountable for their actions so hard to do? Instead, the FDA might as well be broadcasting, “Have Sex…Enjoy it…Wait 3 days…No worries…We’ll Kill the baby for you.”

Sounds simple enough, right? But guess what…the pills have no effect if a woman is already pregnant. So now, we’re going to have women popping Plan B’s like they’re tic-tacs and I have to wonder what the effect will be not only on the Mother, but the baby inside. Remember, Sperm meets Egg, Egg Fertilizes, and baby is produced. Plan B scores an “F” if the woman is already knocked up.

This is a horrible decision because this is going to lead females to a feeling that is a false sense of security, especially since it is known to be not as effective as regular birth control. Then, you’ve got to think about the predators that will potentially rape minor females and force the pill upon the victim.

I hope this topic riles you up as much as it does me. By the way, free condoms will be distributed out this Friday at my niece’s 5th Grade Show-and-Tell. Slogan on poster, “If you don’t wear the GLOVE, you don’t get any LOVE”. Hello, why not change the slogan of Public schools to, “XYZ High School- Where OUR Students Study in SPURTS!”

posted by Diego @ 8:00 PM   38 comments

38 Comments:

At August 24, 2006 8:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole subject makes me sick! Basically, our government has made it possible for anyone of any age to have sex. They might have put an age limit on the purchase of a pill but I know a lot of 13 year olds with friends or cousins over the age of 18. By making this pill available without a prescription we are give our children free reign. Whatever happen to abstinence? Whatever happen to parents teaching their children to wait for their true love? And we wonder why STD's are on the rise! We are doing a poor job of educating the next generation and instead of having to make parents stand up and teach their children the government has ONCE AGAIN stepped in and taken things into their own hands.

 
At August 24, 2006 9:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, first off, anyone of any age can already have, and is already having, sex. And really, are you serious saying that women can now be pregnant for three days and we will now kill your baby? Do you know how IUD's and the pill works? In all reality there is a fertilized egg but the uterus won't accept it. So, outlaw the pill? Outlaw IUD's? They are both killing babies, right? The patch, depo-provera, many birth controls allow fertilization. But anyhow, I don't like the over-the-counter aspect to this. Who is going to restrict these to 18+ year olds? The same people that keep them from smoking and drinking? Nice try.

 
At August 25, 2006 6:15 AM, Blogger Diego said...

Anonymous, it was a title used to play on reader's emotions, case in point...yours.

I think this decision is entirely ridiculous because you're right, there are not going to be the Plan B Patrol who is going to ensure that minors are unable to get this. Hell, in fact I'm certain there will be parents out there who will buy this for their children.

I hate the entire "risk of Pregnancy". It makes it seem like pregnancy is a bad thing. But here's the thing, if you're going to have sex, you need to be prepared to face all consequences. If the individual is not ready or is not responsible enough to be a parent, it's actually quite easy, don't have sex. Masturbate, but don't Procreate.

 
At August 25, 2006 10:35 AM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

This is an emotional issue, however, no matter how one slices it, it is also a liberty issue. A individual issue, what one might do in the bedroom is no body's business....

Anonymous made a point about the different birth control methods and how they function. Yes, one can masturbate as well. There are several options--Plan B is another....

And yes, there is a potential for abuse as well. However, I just remember a rape case locally, Denver, where a woman was brought into hospital-St. Anthony's (yes--a Catholic hospital) and was not "allowed" all medical choices, because of "hospital" policy (which is their right to--but lacks compassion)--and the doctor was not allowed to do a "referral..."

If this option was available the woman could have safely resolved the issue herself (if she had mental capacity to do so)...

Controlling the aspects of others lives whether it is from the right or left is very dangerous. We need to find the middle ground...

Personal accountability and responsibility is part of this middle ground...

Government at its best to provides informed choices to its citizenry. To protect the citizenry well being, mentally and physically, and to regulate when necessary via the people's concern...

It is not to interfere in reasonable "consenting adults" liberties, that does not break the basic social contract and rule of law....

The FDA did this, meaning that they left the choice to the person....

Diego your argument is specious and emotional, oft used, "what about the children?" Yes-- a possibility, but is a false dilemma-->

"This is a horrible decision because this is going to lead females to a feeling that is a false sense of security, especially since it is known to be not as effective as regular birth control." <--- Again not your decision, not your choice. Yes some may do this, but they will have to deal with consequences themselves.

Then you say,--->

"Then, you’ve got to think about the predators that will potentially rape minor females and force the pill upon the victim." Again, yes this is a possibility as well, but they have been raped, and have committed an "illegal act," which means if the victim speaks out, the evidence of "act" will still be there. Also, as I understand this, that two pills are required for consumption and must be taken within 12 hours of each other and within 72 hours.

This is not likely, unless the predator is willing to detain (kidnap) the minor child, and in those cases the child would more likely end up killed.

Besides that long of access would be troublesome for a predator, and This would highly indicate a family member or parent of incest.

The bottomline is this, teaching your children accountability and responsibility starts with the parents. However, shrouding one's kids in darkness is not responsible nor accountable. If one has done there job well, and have had active discussion with one's children they will surprise and make correct decisions and right choices.

Education and fully informed choices is the best one can do... After one, the parens, has done there work, free will to make stupid choices is afforded to every free person including our children....

(tried to fix some minor errors. diego if you this problem please do)

 
At August 25, 2006 10:36 AM, Blogger Diego said...

HSeldon,

My question for you is how can you say that a hospital based on Catholic belief lacks compassion? Are you saying that the woman did not have the option or ability to go to another hospital? Denver is not a small city, I’m sure there were several options for her to choose from.

Little Government control is ideal, but allowing this to be approved goes beyond “reasonable consenting adult Liberties”. You’re correct in that the choice was left up to the individual but it’s not that black and white, cut and dry.

Please explain how this is a false dilemma? Or are you one of those Kooks out there who believe a baby is not a baby until Birth? Conception is not false. I’m still trying to figure out your entire sentence about “…again not your decision, not your choice”…if a woman has sex, there are potential consequences. Getting a disease, becoming pregnant, etc. and if a woman thinks she can take a pill or two and everything is all right, that is avoiding the consequence. Put it this way, IF YOU HAVE SEX…YOU JUST MIGHT GET PREGNANT.

Concerning Predators, did you ever think about the fact that 83% of Rape victims know their attacker or that 67% of victims are repeatedly violated by the same Predator? Sixty-Seven percent, thus, a minor does not have to be “detain (kidnap)” or be killed. Though I’m sure rape victims at times would rather be dead than have to live with what they’ve been through.

Teaching children to stand up for their actions is key, but you can preach and preach and it does not mean that the children will always listen. The FDA has made this drug more easily available for everyone, not just people over the age of eighteen.

Looking at stats from hrw.org (also where I received the earlier stats), teens are becoming sexual active at younger and younger ages. In some areas of the Midwest, schools have banned inspirational bracelets like the Lance Armstrong Yellow bracelet for cancer, because teens are using these bracelets to let others know how far they will go sexually. Sounds crazy right? Yep, because it is, so now we are basically promoting teens to have casual sex and not to worry about what happens. There was a time you had sex, if you became pregnant you were shipped off to live with your aunt and uncle. Now, you have sex, get pregnant, its how fast can we get down to the local “Woman’s Care”, call the Doctor, start the vacuum.

 
At August 25, 2006 2:15 PM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Diego,

Are you saying that women should be forced to have child even if they had been raped, molested, essentially forced against their will?

Are you saying that there is absolutely no situation or reason should women be allowed to abort "fetus" or baby even to the detrimate of their own life?


As for one of those Kooks<--- quote, --> "Or are you one of those Kooks out there who believe a baby is not a baby until Birth?" [my emphasis] <---

This is known as ad hominem attack, also known as a personal attack against the person, a false dilemma in that the accusser does not like what the person is saying so they attack the person. Not the argument...

Agreed, there are consequences for having sex for BOTH parties...

What I mean by, "again, not your decision, not your choice..." Is this, that women have ultimately control over their own body as much as it pains "us," those who may not like that, this is a free nation, how one believes is up to the individual--not us.

Despite those "extremists" from both sides. The Authoritarians (those from the right--who wants to be everyone's Daddy--and peek in everyone's bedroom and tell me what "moral" code one should live) and the Totalitarians (those from the left--who wants to be nannyists to everyone, pick my pocket, tell me how I should view charity, and how I should act "ethically")we, I, as human beings have free will and choice to extent of the "Grand Experiment" was founded on.

The US Constituition enobles all peoples. It is the beacon to be celebrated and cherished...

To freely choose my, our, your liberties is the right as a mortal b sentient beings...

You asked what I meant by false dilemma, this here what I mean, you say-->

"Little Government control is ideal, but allowing this to be approved goes beyond 'reasonable consenting adult Liberties.'" <-- [my emphasis]

The last half of your statement, "this" to mean the Plan B pill is somehow infringing on someone rights and that these pills will be forced down girls and women throats. Not so. This is a "free Market." Notice the operative word---"free." We, us, I and you have a say in the market place if we do not like a product we simply don't buy it, which is also known voting with our pocket books...or credit cards...

As for "going beyond reasonable consenting adult liberties..." is a emotional response not a pragmatic. Meaning, if one teaches their children well--they will make right decisions and choices.

And, as for the adults it not the FDA business to restrict women choices or access or be in judgment of women decisions of what they do with their bodies. It's mandate is to only ensure safety of the products...

(I will concede the following that of late, the FDA, in regards to safety concerns has been suspect)

Again, the FDA is not responsible for bad choices of the individual, the individual is...

As for the Catholic hospital situation, I will try to find the article in the next couple days, there were extraordinary circumstances--such as hospitalization involved...

As for my comment on "lack of compassion..", I mean this--by the hospital limiting the doctor's choices in providing care and well being of the patient... But I will get back to you on the rest of the information...

As for your point regarding predators-->

You say,"Concerning Predators, did you ever think about the fact that 83% of Rape victims know their attacker or that 67% of victims are repeatedly violated by the same Predator? Sixty-Seven percent, thus, a minor does not have to be “detain (kidnap)” or be killed. Though I’m sure rape victims at times would rather be dead than have to live with what they’ve been through." <--

You have made my point that a 'stranger' predator coerce a minor child.

But let us look at the 83% of all rape victims know their perpretator....which mean 17% do not and are not detain or in a position of control. To continue, the other 16% of the number are not in the position to repeat, or have access. Hence giving the 67% of the victims of a known perpretator who has access...

Remember, what I said that,

--> "Besides that long of access would be troublesome for a predator, and this would highly indicate a family member or parent of incest." <--
Let me add as well close family friend or friend of the victim...

Let me make a distinction of terms:

Predator, although a very descriptive term, a bit inaccurate. When I wrote earlier of the 'predator' I primarily think of this term as 'stranger, unrelated and non-repeatable...the 33%, the other 67% child molestators and rapists (which are surely predator in their own right)...

As for "preaching" to one's kids and them still making "bad decisions" and "bad choices", this is what is known as 'life lessons' to give guidance to making better choices later in life. And, it is also known as "free will" afforded to usin a republic-democracy, and afforded us in the soveriegnty of our own person--child or adult....

As for your last point, regarding teens sex life (short-hand) messages, this another symptom of society becoming disconnected. And, that is for another discussion...

And this starts at the home....

And the bottomline of your is argument we ought not do this because of the children is specious becuase ultimately we reap what we sew. In other words, one cannot control human behavior. To try do so would mean the oppression of the heart and the human spirit. To try do so would mean the end of free enterprise. And to try to do so would mean the end of freedom....

The last time that happen humanity was pulled into darkness for nearly a thousand years, and it was called the 'Dark Ages'....

 
At August 25, 2006 3:40 PM, Blogger Diego said...

HSeldon,

I never once said that “women should be forced to have child even if they had been raped, molested…” Not once. There are times that I agree with aborting the baby, when a woman has been raped or if incest/molestation is involved. So, I guess that answers your first two paragraphs. No, and No.

Your definitions:
Authoritarians- “who wants to be everyone’s Daddy—and peek in everyone’s bedroom and tell me what “moral” code on should live”
Totalitarians- “who wants to be nannyists to everyone, pick my pocket, tell me how I should view charity, and how I should act ethically”

You used the same definition for both (only using different word choice). Morals relate to ethics. Congratulations you just described the Democrat party and did not even realize you were doing so. Remember, Republicans want little Government interaction stepping in only when need be. Democrats want to know what everyone is doing AND pick your pocket.

Rules, regulations, and Laws are designed to help protect people. With this going over the counter to be sold to 18 years old and up, there is going to become a problem just like what the tobacco industry is facing. In many states, the legal age to buy tobacco is 18, there is exceptions but why is it that I see people 13-16 years of age smoking? This is because it has become readily available, plain and simple. Their friends are able to get it, or older siblings, etc.

You’re right about the free market, I can choose not to buy the product but what is going to stop a kid (yes, 18 years old is still a kid in many aspects of life) from buying this product? What is going to stop my 14 year old neighbor from acquiring Plan B from a friend? If students can obtain marijuana in Public schools, this will be no problem whatsoever for students to have Plan B.

I have to disagree strongly about “if one teaches their children well—they will make right decisions and choices”. That is bull shit. I call it. Bull Shit. Besides, you know that comment was Bull Shit because later on you state (and I quote), “…because ultimately we reap what we sew. In other words, one cannot control human behavior. To try do so would mean the oppression of the heart and the human spirit…” So which is it? You teach your child well, you imply that you reap what you sew? What happens when a child rebels because yes, kids rebel thinking they know everything? Do you honestly believe that all Good parents reap what they sew? Don’t you have a black sheep in the family? You’re trying to oversimplify this complicated matter.

Let me give you this, maybe more clearly. You have Barbara, Diane, Maggie, Jessica and Emily. 4 of the 5 potentially face being raped. I have a close family member who was raped, raped repeatedly while in College, did she immediately run and tell? NO, why? Because she feared for her life, thus, you can have repeat offenders who “know” the victim.

 
At August 25, 2006 3:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm still trying to figure out what the last part of hseldon's "book" was about. Tell me this, only because I am curious, is English a second language for you? Because hseldon makes absolutely no sense.

 
At August 25, 2006 3:46 PM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Right turns only,

This is simple...Choice is the mothers, and yes I am advocating that a person be able to make their own choices. And yes, I am allowing to practice their own beliefs. How shocking is that?

It was less than hundred years ago Right Turns Only that your own medical care was made for you.

Females health care was less than adequate to be polite. In fact, it was downright deadly...

It was less than hundred years ago, when women were not allowed to vote...

Would you return to such times?

Who is ultimately responsible for ones own body?

I think, I can figure answer that answer, but let me assure that the principles is guided by one primary component in the philosphy and message--free will, to make bad decisions, good decisions, wrong decisions....

I will this ask question, would take a life the Osama Bin Laden?

Isnt "all" life precious?

Would you put to death Saddam Hussein?

Tim McVey? (moot point, but I think you get my drift?

Would you put death someone who murdered your mother, father, sister, or brother?

You say, --> What are you saying that a life has the right to take a life just because it lives inside them for nine months?<---

No, what I do say--it is not my choice in the end... It is the woman's. I respect the person's choice, even if I disagree. They ultimately have to live with it in the end and the consequences thereof...

Yes, to address your broader point, which if I understand correctly, that Americans have become too accustomed to their coveniences is valid...

Nonetheless, would we, I, and you give them back?

The computer which you typed on, would give it back?

The elecricity which supplies the computer, and your house, what would you give back?

Give back your job (assuming that your not a homemaker--and obvious answer in that case not)?

Your cell phone, television, radio, SUV,truck, car, phones, grocery stores, Walmart, Sam's Club and so forth, what would give up?

It is often be said, we need to return to the Golden Age, meaning the 1950's, the last favored memory of family...

If so, what of that list above would you give up? Would you give it all up?

You say, or should imply, that I am the following

-->

"FYI synonyms for liberalism"

--- Yes, I lean socially left, but fiscally conservative. Meaning that I am capital Liberitarian....
that I have "tolerance, broadmindedness, open mindedness," I would like to think so....

"moderation, freethinking," What is wrong with being pragmatic, to reach a compromise for the whole of society.

"laissez-faire," Not even close and that is where I draw a line.

and last but not least, you imply "narrow-mindedness. Where the hell is the pill for that [?]!!!!"

Yes, admittedly I have been in the past, but that is part of being human...

So, I would asto be a conservative by definition is to be the direct opposite of your list then?

That to be a conservative then means to be oppressive, condescending, authoritarian. In essence, do as I say, not as I do. Which both sides are guilty of....

Earlier Diego pointed to a time when the girl or women went "away for a vacation.." But those vacation for those who could afford it, went to send their precious child for abortions as well...

Yes, you are correct there are other options, and hopefully those will be examined fully..... But "all" choices should be made available. It is only way to be truly free

Instead of bounded, oppressed, and subjugated to anothers ideals and beliefs....freedom of choice is a must, a little girl named Anne Frank knew this, Helen Keller knew this, Anne Coulter knows this, and so does Magaret Thatcher, and did Princess Diana...and so did Mother Theresa....and so does Condi Rice...


(ps let us not debate the merits of marriage either, or lack thereof)

 
At August 25, 2006 4:04 PM, Blogger Diego said...

First off…bad analogy for the Osama, Saddam, and Timmy. You’re comparing people who killed others and deserve to die, versus babies inside the womb. How can you expect anyone to side with you when you give horrible analogies?? Life is precious but the bastards you mentioned took lifes. Not just babies, but mommies and daddies, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc. I am really disappointed in your poor attempt at an analogy.

Buddy, in the 1950’s many Americans had electricity, cars, grocery stores, you must be talking about the 1850’s before all of this, right? Or are you that naïve to believe we as Americans were that suppressed? Once again, keep trying with the analogies, you know what they say, “Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.”

Girls went off on “vacations” as you put it, not necessarily to have abortions but *Surprise* to have babies!! 9 months these girls would return and be babysitting their "niece". Abortions were not big in the 1950’s even the 1960’s. Once again…nice try.

Lastly, if you’re going to mention Ann Coulter and women’s rights on abortions…please back your statement up with how she feels…you will contradict your entire argument.

 
At August 25, 2006 4:04 PM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

In the last six years can you name a spending bill that the present leader of the Republican party has vetoed...

Other than stem cell research bill and thats for another debate later...

Again, you use the argument that kids are the issue might get a hold of these pills....

This is also true of alcohol, drugs, and guns...

And, yes if some adults contribute to their own children demise...

Again, I say how will you control this?

As for you, I said that You made for no exceptions... Your "argument" gave the impressions of no exceptions....

Your arguments seem to be of emotion something that democrats are often accused of....

This is not a theocratic nation, it is a nation of laws, regulation, and principles...the "grand experiment" is not the divine right of kings and God, but of the prinicipality of men , and of the people...

And before goes off half-cocked about the use of God throughout the documents of the US Constitution and Declaration understand this divining of God--meant Universal opportunity of God, in that, the People are the benefactors of their choices---not to subjugated one singular God....

That is why there is the First Amendment, freedom of choice, and the freedom of religion....

Have to go now be back later...

 
At August 25, 2006 4:23 PM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Again, Diego we speak past each other. Your through emotion... Vacation as I put it, meant both abortion and having babies...the abortion was an addendum to your earlier....

Yes, obviously people of 1950's had cars etc, pay attention not everyone did, not the sharecropper (both black and white btw), a good portion of rural was still be wired, a car was a luxury, as was a TV, or a radio, or a phone. The 1950's was truly one of the last time that every was not as kinetic and sensory as it is 2day....

I get the impression from this group that one can control human behavior, that individuals can besieged away from there own decisions.

Get this point, ultimately, ultimately it is the individual that makes their own choices in life....

So if we decided to let ourselves be terrorized by the extremes then it is our fault in the end that we let oppressors take us.....

Fascism of the 1930's was not siezed but elected...


And btw, I used moral and ethics for the defining the right and the left...listen to the extremes argue sometimes-- The left will use term is not ethical this or that so on and so forth, while the right will say is moral this or that....

There is say, he is so left he might as well be right.... Or similar he is so right he might as well be left....

Authoritarian/Totalitarian are of the same coins (it use to mean that there was some fiscal responsibility on the one side--but not any more)

bye guys....gotta head out to a friends for movie night....later

 
At August 25, 2006 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush has not vetoed spending on one bill, but I think of one that Clinton did right off the bat...National Defense. We're about to remember a 5 year anniversary because of Clinton and his cuts on this defense. Thanks Bill.

 
At August 25, 2006 5:41 PM, Blogger Diego said...

What were you saying about Predators?

 
At August 25, 2006 7:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First off hseldon...shut up!!!! Make your point and then shut up! We don't need a book everytime you have something to say.

Second...we live in a coutry where everyone has the FREEDOM of choice. If women want to use Plan B that is there right. Do I agree with it NO...but once again...we live in a country that has fought for hundreds of years to give us all that freedom.

I do not agree that this pill should be so readily available. The ONLY reason I could see a right for it's use is in the case of rape or molestation. If we keep the pill under perscription only this will force some women that would never report their rape or molestation to receive Plan B...Once again do I agree with Plan B? Would I take it if I was raped? The answer is...NO! But this is my choice...as an American...as a woman...as a human being.

If this pill is so easily available for woman it's going to give them a false hope. Do woman enjoy taking a birth control pill every day? No not necessarily...so if you could be given the choice between birth control every day and a pill just the morning after sex which one would you choice? The problem you ask? Traditional birth control pill taken accurately has an efficiency of 99% Plan B is only 89%. Yes this is still a decent percentage but it also leaves room for error.

 
At August 26, 2006 8:50 AM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Milk momma,

I have one response to you 1st. This comment is going to take a while. So grab a cup of coffee or a beverage of your choice.

2nd. No one is forcing you to read my comments.

3rd. The childish thing to say to you is "Make me! Nanny nanny poo poo..."

"What are you going to do about it?

Take away my birthday?

Shoot me in the head for expressing my opinion?

Heard of the First Amendment?

Part of the problem with America today is that we are so impatient, and very much intolerant, that we want everything put simply to us....

Diego keeps say that these issues are not black and white, its more complicated. He is right. However, it occurs to me that this discussion whether it is in regard to Plan B or any choices available to women has given women the ability to use their full potential. The advancement of technology in regards birth control gave women more access to the free market. Much too long of discussion of how this affected Western American culture...

but the very fact you have access to a pc is one of them...

With that change came also the way our culture views sex...

Milkmomma, you point is noted. FDA is is not the mandate the morally of its citizenry, but to ensure the safety of them.

Will there be some women who will abuse this pill. For the concerns of what about the children? Children no matter how controls we put in place have access to drugs, alcohol, and guns. They also have access to condoms, and other birth control measures.

When I see girl (obviously underage) buying condoms at my store (i am assistant manager at a convenience while I am in school)I think someone has done at least a good job impressing upon her the need for protection from not only from preganancy, but as well STDs.

Yes, nothing is one hundred percent...

I may not like her choice in having sex, but again it is not place to berate her or to demonize for her choice.

There is something called free will that is very important in America...

Free will is important. At least, she is being enough to limit those consequences... Again nothing is hundred percent...

Remember The Plan B pill is not the RU486 which aborts the fetus with 49 days...

The Plan B pill is simply a stronger dose version to help prevent pregancy within 72 hours....

Yes, this is simply another available for women in the free market place...

This pill is for the women, who were being resposnible (setting aside the rape issue) and the condom broke and its the weekend or whatever scenario Plan B otc is now available to them...

As for minor girls getting hold of this easier, thats a moot point, they already have friends over 18 and access to a doctor to get it from them....

It is already been done anyway...

As for a person's promescuity, its none of our damn business. Its that pesky free will thing again. Each of us need to follow our paths to what make us happy.




Crankyright,

Yes I do believe in capital punishment. I am a Pro Choice, in other words, I do not believe in interfering in a person's right to choose.

My point of asking whether Osama and gang should be put to death is that I find it interesting those advocate life for the unborn are also arbiters of death in capital cases.

I am no advocate for abolishing the death penalty. It should be on case by case. Jury of one's and to make use of all technology available to have certainty that the person "the People" say is guilty of the capital crime and put them if that is the decision....

 
At August 26, 2006 8:54 AM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Crankyright,

here is more of a complete--last paragraph edited and fixed...

I am no advocate for abolishing the death penalty. It should be on case by case basis. Jury of one's peers and to make use of all technology available to have certainty that the person "the People" say is guilty of the capital crime and put them to death if that is the decision....

(what happens when I dont drink my coffee in the morning)

 
At August 26, 2006 1:03 PM, Blogger Diego said...

Yes...Minors have access to the items you mentioned, but why make it more readily available?

By the way, just because you see some girl buy protection, does not necessarily mean she will have whoever use it. What happens when the guy says,"Baby, it feels better going natural"? All of a sudden she starts to contemplate not using the condoms, so your notion is ill conceived. Meaning...being bought does not always correlate into being used.

"This pill is for the women, who were being resposnible (setting aside the rape issue) and the condom broke and its the weekend or whatever scenario Plan B otc is now available to them..." <---Do you honestly believe 1/2 the crap you say? I think it comes down to the point you like to ramble on and on...and on.

"As for a person's promescuity, its none of our damn business. Its that pesky free will thing again. Each of us need to follow our paths to what make us happy." You're right, it is none of my business what someone does in their free time...but it does matter when our tax money goes to help aid these women who are "promescuity" led. If I'm paying for it, why should I be happy that the woman cannot keep her legs closed?

"The advancement of technology in regards birth control gave women more access to the free market...but the very fact you have access to a pc is one of them..." Make your comments make sense, how did the advancement of technology in BC lead to Milk Momma having a pc?

By the way, how we view sex started changing long before the invention of BC. Do not be fooled. Prostitutes and hookers have been around longer than what you think. Of course, now that I think about it so has Birth Control. It's called abstinence. Don't want kids, don't have sex. How's that for Women's Rights on Abortion?

 
At August 26, 2006 3:49 PM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Diego,

I feeling I am banging my head against wall....

Yes, birth control has been around since person started having sex....

Once again we are talking pass each other instead of listening my answers to you would be even longer if I covered every contingency of your concerns....

The bottomline for you is that you "feel" that it is women are immoral for freely impressing their sexuality....

Diego are you a complete idiot or do I have to explain every bit of the argument to you? (And yes, I just personally attacked you) I see you quote me --->

"This pill is for the women, who were being resposnible (setting aside the rape issue) and the condom broke and its the weekend or whatever scenario Plan B otc is now available to them..." <---Do you honestly believe 1/2 the crap you say? I think it comes down to the point you like to ramble on and on...and on. <--- (Ad hominem attack again you must not like the argument here--huh?)

What did you not understand? That plan is not an abortion pill?

The fact a woman would take responsibility for the mistake?

The fact that you do not like that she is having out of wedlock?

Oh, married women have sex to by the way, may be the condom broke for the married couple and they want to make sure themselves that conception does not take...

72 hours is 72 hours--try to get a hold of Dr.'s office on a Saturday or Sunday...

I get the impression that you had not thought of married couples might use the option as well for whatever reasons--ie finance etc....

The free market Plan B otc availability is for them as well...

Let me state this again.. Plan B is not abortion bill it is a magnified birth control pill to prevent conception...

So Diego, are you one of those throwbacks that men only should be "experience" one?

What is amazing to me sometimes we can sometime watch some of the most violent scenes on tv, movies, or video games and some of us hardly blink an eye, but the moment a bit of sexuality no matter how minor in content--one would think a nuclear bomb had been just dropped....


You are absolutley Diego,

I hope from your quote here that you apply this for both sexes -->

By the way, how we view sex started changing long before the invention of BC. Do not be fooled. <-- (This is what I mean by do I have to explain every nuance of an argument. Of course I know this -->

(Diego you know the difference between the two?)--->Prostitutes and hookers <---- have been around longer than what you think. Of course, now that I think about it so has Birth Control. It's called abstinence. Don't want kids, don't have sex. How's that for Women's Rights on Abortion? <--- This is a quaint belief (let ask the following

Are you married?

If so, do you have any kids? \

If so, now that you have them, did you stop having sex not have any more?

Or are you folks using protection? If so, of course, you both are willing to deal with the consequences--yes?

Or do you simply tell your spouse no sex today I dont want any more kids?

If single, or when you were single did you have sex?

If so, did you use protection when you did? (Sounds like you didnt from your comment earlier --ya probably didnt)

And, why are you so angry about this Plan B pill?

Your right, some of the women, who did not think about the consequences of their action cost society not only in taxes, but we lose some of the culture of the family along with it.

By the way, this is true for everyone white, black, latino, hebrew, or moslem....

You know Diego, your Daddy control gene is showing again...

Recall what I said about the Right vs Left-- both extremes in the end want to control/oppress the masses for their own good....

Abstinence, eh? Yea that will work....

 
At August 26, 2006 4:31 PM, Blogger Diego said...

Hseldon,

1st off, you said, “I feeling I am banging my head against wall…”
Question: Would that be the little head or the big head? If little head- I’m glad to see you practicing masturbation and not procreation.

I’ve never been called an Idiot by an individual who has a hard time with spelling, sentence structure, etc. Of course though, the name calling would be the Liberalism coming out in you. It’s ok…like what Michael Savage says, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” and I know you cannot help it.

I have never, not once, nada, said that “women are immoral for freely impressing their sexuality…” It’s that Liberalism coming out in you again. If an individual has sex and contracts a disease, what are the chances the individual will try to cure the disease? Probably pretty high. It’s a consequence, chances are they will not be able to get rid of the disease and will have to continuously treat it. Now, another consequence- individual gets pregnant. Instead of aborting the baby, why not “treat” the consequence? Treating in this case is fulfilling the entire pregnancy. Instead, the individual wants to abort the baby eliminating the consequence all together. Unlike aborting the baby, the first consequence really cannot be avoided if a disease is contracted.

You’re right that I do not like the argument because you make it really, really difficult to interpret your writing skills. Though, I am proud of myself because after reading your bile I can now understand Ebonics a little bit better.

Prostitutes and hookers- yes the exact same meaning but different words, however, different areas of the U.S. use different words for the same meaning (i.e. Redneck used in the South; Hoosier used in the Midwest). So, let me clarify the difference of the two words for you using them in a sentence: Pastor Smith was caught with a Prostitute or
Senator Teddy Kennedy was drunk while with a hooker. Both words mean the same thing, but have different meaning to each individual. Just like Abort is to kill, you find people like yourself using Abort because how dare they say, “Kill”.

Damn, all your questions are turning my response into a freaking book. I am married, I have a child, still enjoying my sex life (with my wife), not using protection, when I was single, I had sex, used protection, and hopefully that answers your questions.

Sexual intercourse at one point in time was supposed to mean something to the individuals. Our society has made sex a nonchalant thing even to young kids. Public schools teaching 4th graders about condoms, what happened to Dad or Mom talking to their children about the Birds and the Bees? What happened?

Things like Plan B will devalue even more the outlook we have (as a society) in regards to sex. Obviously your intellect is slightly on the below average standard so let me remind you that Abstinence works, it keeps people from getting pregnant everyday.

 
At August 27, 2006 5:23 AM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Diego,

Your shear perfection I bow down to you... Oh Mighty Diego, Oh Mighty Diego...

I was wrong. You are absolutely right...

In case, you have not noticed I am a Libertarian--not a liberal..

But consider where you are posited, I might as well be a liberal...

Talking to you to is like to talking to a wall...

My apology for not proof reading my responses better towards your obviously superior skill and knowledge....

Oh Mighty Diego or Diegho whatever, I ask for your forgiveness....

I’ve never been called an Idiot by an individual who has a hard time with spelling, sentence structure, etc. ---->

Actually Diego the name calling began with you....

--> "Of course though, the name calling would be the Liberalism coming out in you." <--- And I quote. -->

"Or are you one of those Kooks out there who believe a baby is not a baby until Birth? Conception is not false."

In other words, if I did not believe the way you do about conception, I was a Kook. No, I do not believe the way do about conception. (Your Liberalism is showing...)

But again for the narrowminded individual, someone having a different opinion results in name calling...

I am guilty of this as well...
So we all have our moments, dont we?

(It shows here for Michael Savage here as well-->)

"It’s ok…like what Michael Savage says, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” and I know you cannot help it. <--- (And so is Religious Fanaticism and moralism, I know you cant help either....)

Okay, now please translate this sentence below for me? I am going to "bite" and ask you what exactly do you mean?

Is this some sort of "racial" remark? (yes, I used the "R" word).

Is this to demonstrate your superiority? -->

"Though, I am proud of myself because after reading your bile I can now understand Ebonics a little bit better."<--

Are you falling into the category that the Liberal Far Left demonizes the Far Right or Conservatives as bigots and prejudice?

I thought better of you until that comment....

Another ad hominem attack (personal attack) Ouch....

(Take note later, I will imply that you are liberal for the rest of the commentary below...(by the way liberals can be bigots and prejudice too))

You made a comment about kids learning about sexuality in the 4th grade...let me get this correct

-->"Public schools teaching 4th graders about condoms, what happened to Dad or Mom talking to their children about the Birds and the Bees? What happened?"<--

Answer--> Nothing is stopping Mom or Dad talking to them now or in conjunction with schools doing this...

With information so readily available today outside the home, unfortunately, a sign of the culture as well, Mom or Dad may have to "the talk" alot sooner than they want...

(Do I have to go negative and say that they are some very uptight indiviudals in regards to expressing the sexuality? Do I have to draw on a specific stereotypical scenarios of these individuals? The MSM has certainly given enough example of them...)

Do I have to point out one of your own arguments? Personal responsibility and accountability (PR&A) and that is first demonstrated at the home...

Or not demostrated in the home in some cases....

It seems to me Diego that, you displaying the classic role of the victim....
-->
Society is doing this, society is doing that etc. "I am victim of the Liberalism..." so on and so forth

I am impressed with your (PR&A) there Diego....

(And yes, you didnt say that... But it is certainly implied (unstated)in the tone of your comments....)

As for your comment regarding my intellect (Another personal attack--ouch) --->

Obviously your intellect is slightly on the below average standard so let me remind you that Abstinence works, it keeps people from getting pregnant everyday. <---

Ouch, obviously your intellect did not catch the sarcasm of my comment...

Yes Abstinence works, duh? But there is this pesky thing called human nature...

To see an example of this, see the Chinese... in the 1940's there was a population just over 400 million, in the 1960's just over 800 million when the instituted the "Two Child" and the last reported number 1.3 billion (2004)--- even in a communism regime where freedom is highly restricted curtailing human the condition did not work very well...

Furthermore, although in some circles the Abstinence talk programs has shown a decline among some teenager categories, it has not fully worked. The problem has been how the program is implemented, human nature, and society counter messages regarding sexuality. Too many variable to discuss here....

Finally Abstinence only works, if the person is willing to commit to it. Duh, obviously...

Abstinence tends to decrease among teenagers, when the parent of the child are engaged. If a parent is too uptight to discuss even this with thier child success falters greatly...

You see Diego, the parent has to be willing to have the "sex-talk" along with Abstinence talk as well...

One great American pass time is avoidance or procrastination (another discussion for another time....)

Remember Diego a child first learns their culture from their parents, which includes PR&A, empowerment (or lack of), victimization, etc...

As for the rest of your commentary that -->

I have never, not once, nada, said that “women are immoral for freely impressing their sexuality<---

True, but has certainly been implicit(meaning unstated) in your tone of your comments

-i.e.
-->

"This is a horrible decision because this is going to lead females to a feeling that is a false sense of security, especially since it is known to be not as effective as regular birth control." <--

Implying that FDA is responsible for its citizens decisions...

Again no, the FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of the citizens food and drugs not how they use it in their daily lifes..

You say, -->

I hate the entire "risk of Pregnancy". <--

This is an emotional statement and a judgment...(I know this was in reference to the terminology of The Plan B site)

"It makes it seem like pregnancy is a bad thing."<-- (This is a judgment statement)

"But here's the thing, if you're going to have sex, you need to be prepared to face all consequences."

<-- (This is a judgment statementand a implied morality statement about women since they are the only ones who can get pregnant)

You say, -->

"If a woman has sex, there are potential consequences. Getting a disease, becoming pregnant, etc. and if a woman thinks she can take a pill or two and everything is all right, that is avoiding the consequence. <--

(Again, a judgment value statement, and imply that there is something wrong with her expressing her own sexuality. A moral implication statement Diego. (Set aside sexual orientation debate), where is the male's role in this discussion? He is the one as well who is contributing to the spread of disease, pregnancy etc...).....

Since you did not bring up the male's role in their PR&A, it implies that you dont believe they are (I suspect that is not your intent).

You said,

Put it this way, IF YOU HAVE SEX…YOU JUST MIGHT GET PREGNANT. <--

(Since you are using caps, it shows that you are angry, maybe frustrated, or hostile. Also, since women are the only ones who can get pregnant it seems to me that this anger is toward women in general. This is also an implied moral judgment Diego, that somehow their behavior is immoral.)

Too continue...

Then you say,

-->"If the individual is not ready or is not responsible enough to be a parent, it's actually quite easy, don't have sex."<--

(Again, I presume, you mean if the person is single.

Again this is a judgement statement and implied implication of the person's morality.

Though morally your okay with masturbation,) see here-->

"Masturbate, but don't Procreate."
<-- (In some religious quarters, this is not acceptable, so I guess that makes you a "liberal.")

Your willingness to accept abortion in some cases, such as rape and incest, also makes you a "liberal" too...

So you have the "Liberalism disease" too, ouch Diego...

Meaning, that some of Far Right see no exception at all. This makes you a "liberal" to them....

You said, "Damn, all your questions are turning my response into a freaking book."--> (You didnt have to answer, ya know. You had a choice not to...)

"I am married, I have a child, still enjoying my sex life (with my wife), not using protection,"-->

(But is she on the pill or using some other form of BC?

If she is then, she would be viewed as "aborting" babies in some circles--such as Catholicism.

(Barring health issues (of both of you), and presuming a marriage longer than a couple of years, your statement, "I have 'a' child"<--indicates that this may be the case...)
<--

You say,

"when I was single, I had sex, used protection, and hopefully that answers your questions." <-- (Yes it does, so you did not practice Abstinence either.

So you risked procreating as well, hmph interesting...

Why doesnt that surprise me?

Obviously, you were willing to take the consequences of your actions if the condom broke. Yes?

Hopefully, her decision coincided with yours. Ultimately, the final decision would have been hers. And, if Plan B had been available OTC, then would she have had chosen to use it? (Would she have told you?)

But that is a what if scenario...

So you are one of those do as I suggest not as I did people...

Interesting free will and choice decisions Diego....

Your decision to have sex outside of marriage is again considered in some circles a "Liberal" decision. You Lefty you...

Damn Diego, you have that Libralism disease bad...)

(now i am rambling)

Bottomline, I believe a person has the inalienable right to freely chose to make "stupid" mistakes, good decisions, bad decisions, right and wrong decisions. FDA mandate is not to "protect" its citizens from their choices...

To protect a person from temptation or choice is not free will, it is simply restriction of liberty...And, although you may not like this liberty does not forbade you from participating in it and setting the example of morality...

 
At August 27, 2006 5:37 AM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Diego, one more point....

Before you once again, berate me with that this is not a black and white issue.... That much is obvious, my point is this:. We can only be responsible for our own actions. This is what I mean about teaching children, this is what I mean by we reap what we sew. Essentially, setting the example is not enough--sometimes our failure to recognize our own hypocriticalness blinds us to what we may have sewed.

No matter how you believe, humanity's free will is expressed in its duality. Such inconsistencies are consistent--yes?

 
At August 27, 2006 7:52 AM, Blogger Diego said...

HSeldon,

First off, the Ebonics was directed in the fact you have a difficult time making complete words, complete phrases, complete sentences which make complete paragraphs. Not trying to be racist at all, you know…Ebonics is an actual language thanks to the ACLU.

Next…tell me why a Mom or Dad should almost have to be forced to give the Bird and the Bees talk at such a young age? There was a time (it seemed like to me), you did not worry about sex until you were old enough to drive a car and now they want our youth thinking about sex before their even in double digits age wise. Why can the schools take God out but bring condoms and sex in, especially at that young of an age? So we are on the same page, I am saying that society is fucking up by pushing sexuality so hard and so fast on our youth. Let them be kids, not mommies and daddies.

I looked at your abstinence point as two ways, possible sarcasm or sheer stupidity. My bad, I did not give you enough credit.

Now, let’s assume a person practices abstinence, how often do you think they will either become pregnant or get someone pregnant? If you answer “they won’t pregnate themselves or anyone else”, then Abstinence works.

I believe whole-heartedly that Men and Women are responsible for consequences of sex. If a man gets a woman pregnant and is not there for the baby, financially, as a father, etc. he is a freaking loser. You misjudged me, it goes both ways- the responsibilities are on both the pregnant one and the “Daddy”.

When I wrote in all caps about having sex, getting pregnant, I actually pictured how the wording would be on a bumper sticker, or a “Here’s your sign”. I’m not upset when I wrote it, just wish people would use common sense when it came to sex.

My comment about an individual being ready or is not responsible enough does not mean single. It means, ready to be a parent, to be in a position to financially help themselves and the child. If a person cannot answer yes to those two questions, why try to reproduce? It’s a consequence and truly aborting (getting away from Plan B) is killing.

My Wife is not on any protection. No Birth Control, no Trojan condoms, no spermicidal, nothing. If we get pregnant I am 100% ready to be that baby’s Daddy, protector and provider.

Before I was married having sex with my soon-to-be wife, I was prepared to face the consequences. If I got her pregnant I would be there for her and the baby. You ask my wife, aborting our baby never crossed our mind. Some people look at babies as nuisances and those are the ones who abort. So to answer your question, I was fully prepared to take the consequences of my actions. 100%.

 
At August 27, 2006 11:47 AM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Diego,

It is my fault that I dont proof read my commentary (several times) like I do my post. My bad. (I may think the words, sometimes even read the words on the screen as complete, but I have annoying habit of what I call the "missing word syndrome" after type it left out. I need another person to proof when I write....)

If your 'Ebonics' comment was to illustrate my lack of clarity and grammar issues, then for future references state that there is no need to use the 'Ebonics' reference. It has too many connotations towards racism. It is simply not funny period.

As for it being a course at UCLA, I agree with you in it being taught is an absurdity...

In my opinion, it reinforces stereotypes, and furthers classism between the races, and fodder for those who chose to be bigots and prejudice..

As for your other point,
-->You say,

"Next…tell me why a Mom or Dad should almost have to be forced to give the Bird and the Bees talk at such a young age?"

(I agree with you here, and I am older, and I clearly remember this time as well. It is unfortunate that such talks are necessary so early. If this too change, we as citizens, must petition, get elected to school board, etc. to change the curriculum at schools. What we must not do is surrender.) -->


"There was a time (it seemed like to me), you did not worry about sex until you were old enough to drive a car and now they want our youth thinking about sex before their even in double digits age wise. Why can the schools take God out but bring condoms and sex in, especially at that young of an age? So we are on the same page, I am saying that society is fucking up by pushing sexuality so hard and so fast on our youth. Let them be kids, not mommies and daddies." <-- (I concur)

Have a nice a day, Diego. I think we have burnt out the subject of Plan B and surrounding topics for this week...

Be safe and take care...

 
At August 27, 2006 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The pill does not interfere with an existing pregnancy, it simply prevents one. Ergo, it does not cause an abortion since there is no pregnancy to abort.

Abstinence is not an accomplishment by any means; it is bnetter to have sex at 16 than it is to be a virgin at sixty.

 
At August 27, 2006 11:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since when was a blastocyst created by rape entitled to implant ontyo the rape victim's womb?


Michael Ejercito

 
At August 27, 2006 11:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I notice that some people here are actually advocating abstinence.

Abstinence is an unnatural, deviant lifestyle, just like homosexuality is an unnatural, deviant lifestyle.

Michael Ejercito

 
At August 27, 2006 9:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boy, have I missed the party...

Plan B, Oh where to start. I think this decision to make Plan B OTC is a huge mistake and a very irresponsible move by the FDA. This was done to appease the pro-abortion crowd. No woman is better off by this being available at Walgreens.

Why:

1. Women will “abuse” plan B. They will use it as birth control, not for rape, broken condom, etc. They will be popping these things like tic-tacs. They will be an excuse to screw around.

2. Girls under 18 will get these. Period.

3. Overuse of Plan B will cause irregular periods & other nice side effects of high progesterone levels like acne, bloating, weight gain, increased appetite. Remember one birth control pill has 10mg of levonorgetrel, this has 75mg/pill.

4. Women will use it wrong. It is indicated only during mid-cycle, when a woman would be ovulating. Using it early or late in the menstrual cycle is pointless. Barr Pharmaceutical certainly doesn’t care that women will wasting money on the stuff.

5. They will “OD” trying to compensate for the 72 hour window. “If you need 2 pills at 72 hours, maybe 8 will work for a missed period.” Wrong.

6. Plan B is an abortifactant. It is not contraception—you conceive, you just don’t allow implantation. Basically, you kick the kid out before he can attach to the uterus.

That leads me to anonymous’ comments. Birth control pills (BCP), DepoProvera, and IUD’s are not abortifactants. They prevent ovulation. Older IUD’s did prevent implantation while allowing ovulation & fertilization, but the newer ones with hormones implanted in them block ovulation as well. The “foreign body” reaction caused by the presence of the IUD in the uterus causes inflammation that is deadly to sperm. Any sperm getting into the uterus is killed by the white blood cells present. (Personally, I would never use an IUD on the off chance that fertilization would occur, even though the research shows that it should not with ones like Mirena.) Hormonal contraception like BCP & Depo not only block ovulation, they thicken cervical mucus, making it basically impossible for sperm to enter the uterus. They work by preventing follicle development and thus ovulation. Ovulation, if it does occur secondary to missed pills/antibiotic treatment/etc. can lead to fertilization and implantation. Just ask anyone who has gotten pregnant on the pill.

Before relying on Plan B, how about having a Plan A and using it. A as in abstinence. How about Plan M and get married before you have sex…

Oh, and for “when does a blastocyst created by rape have the right to implant into a victim’s womb?” Since it was created. I’m sick of the rape excuse. Rape is a terrible, violent thing. However, one of the most loving, patient mothers I have ever seen was a victim of rape. That “blastocyst” turned into a beautiful baby girl that was in fact half her mother. She was just as much this woman's daughter as the rapist's. She was a human life, and she was loved (and still is at the age of 16) very much. I have also seen a woman endure a complicated pregnancy and c-section for a child conceived by rape. She gave up the child for adoption after delivery. She could not bear to remember the ordeal each time she looked at him, but could not bear the thought of killing him. These 2 incredible women show that it is not impossible to do.

Didn’t your mom ever tell you that 2 wrongs don’t make a right?

 
At August 28, 2006 6:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, your advocacy of Plan A, abstinence, is as sick as someone else advocating Plan L, lesbianism. It is amazing how GLBVT advocates advocate their lifestyle in almost every conceivable issue.

The mere creation of a blastocyst does not entitle it to implantation onto a womb. This is certainly not the case with rape victims. What you are arguing is that rapists give these bastocysts the right to implant in their victim's womb. The morning-after pill prevents a baby from being made, and is certainly less traumatic than actually cutting up a baby in the womb.

The difference between morning-after pills and abortions are as clear as night and day- one involves letting the blastocyst go, the other involves cutting up the baby. Two radically different actions.


Michael Ejercito

 
At August 28, 2006 1:38 PM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Angel,

Major misinformation on your part. Plan B is not an abortifactant, it is NOT a RU486 type pill it does not abort fetus/or babies, period.

And I cite directly from the Duramed is a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. page
--->


"Plan B® is an emergency contraceptive that can still prevent a pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected sex.


Plan B® should be taken within 3 days (72 hours) of unprotected sex and can reduce the risk of pregnancy by 89%. But the sooner you take it the more effective it will be.


Plan B® is not RU-486 (the abortion pill); it will not work if you are already pregnant."

This pill is design to prevent conception not abort an already impregnanted woman.....

The side effects are and I cite Duramed again -->

"Important Safety Information

Plan B® is used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure.

Plan B® should not be used if you are already pregnant (because it will not work), if you are allergic to levonorgestrel or any of the ingredients in Plan B®, or for regular birth control.

Menstrual bleeding may be heavier or lighter, earlier or later after taking Plan B®. If your period is more than a week late, pregnancy should be considered.

Plan B® does not protect against the AIDS virus (HIV) or other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Common side effects associated with the use of Plan B® included nausea, abdominal pain, tiredness, headache, menstrual changes, dizziness, breast tenderness, and vomiting. .


Important Safety Information

Plan B® is used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure.

Plan B® should not be used if you are already pregnant (because it will not work), if you are allergic to levonorgestrel or any of the ingredients in Plan B®, or for regular birth control.

Menstrual bleeding may be heavier or lighter, earlier or later after taking Plan B®. If your period is more than a week late, pregnancy should be considered.

Plan B® does not protect against the AIDS virus (HIV) or other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Common side effects associated with the use of Plan B® included nausea, abdominal pain, tiredness, headache, menstrual changes, dizziness, breast tenderness, and vomiting.

It may be your that Plan B is an abortifactant but that is not the reality...

Lets deal with your other points,

The FDA is not the morality police its mandate is to ensure the safety of citizens through regulation and testing of "free market goods"...

The citizenry can either reject it or accept. This can be done multiple ways:

1. Stores can reject selling either through their corporate philosophy

2. Or, through consumers response to the store...

3. You as a citizen dont have to buy it...

4. Pharmacist, dont have to sell it to the consumer, based on their "beliefs," principals what have you....


The above is what is called free market forces....


As for the women you quoted as keeping the children after their rapes, those women are to be commended for sure, but that was their "free will" choices--period.

Not everyone believes the way you do, nor should they be forced to, its their inalienable rights to make bad, good, right or wrong decisions....

We, I, and you as a society may not like it, but that is the nature of things. Human nature that is....


As for the rest of your points are false dilemmas and major assumptions on your part, you say

-->
1. Women will “abuse” plan B. They will use it as birth control, not for rape, broken condom, etc. They will be popping these things like tic-tacs. They will be an excuse to screw around. <--

(Yes, there is a possibility of abuse, but that is true for most things. Your assumption that women will not use it for the reason is YOUR belief, and not correct, because SOME women will use it for those precise reason...

And popping like pills--is your judgment...)


2. Girls under 18 will get these. Period. (This would happen anyway and already most likely happened through friends supplying the drug who are 18 and able to get the drug)

3. Overuse of Plan B will cause irregular periods & other nice side effects of high progesterone levels like acne, bloating, weight gain, increased appetite. Remember one birth control pill has 10mg of levonorgetrel, this has 75mg/pill.

(Most forms of BC have side-effects even on a single dosage, such as the pill)

4. Women will use it wrong. It is indicated only during mid-cycle, when a woman would be ovulating. Using it early or late in the menstrual cycle is pointless. Barr Pharmaceutical certainly doesn’t care that women will wasting money on the stuff.

(Now your just attacking women intelligence--and a big assumption on your part.Unless, of course, you know for a fact this true)

5. They will “OD” trying to compensate for the 72 hour window. “If you need 2 pills at 72 hours, maybe 8 will work for a missed period.” Wrong. (Major assumption on your part, and this what is called a what if scenario, possible, probable, but most of the time not likely...)

6. Plan B is an abortifactant. It is not contraception—you conceive, you just don’t allow implantation. Basically, you kick the kid out before he can attach to the uterus.

Your objections seems is the morality issue, and you can not force your beliefs on another individual--its that pesky free will thing...

As for the rape and incest, I ask one question: Do you believe that women should "forced" to have the babies, if they get pregnant?

 
At August 28, 2006 2:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a sperm and an egg unite to form a single cell, a new life is formed. It is called conception. By blocking implantation you are causing this new life, ie, baby, to abort. Less gruesome than a D&C or D&E, but same effect. The pregnancy is terminated, therefore it is an abortifactant. I know it is not RU486. It again has the same results.

As someone who has worked in the medical field, I am not underestimating the intelligence of women. Yes, I am a woman, but I do think that every woman out there is capable of reading and understanding how to use this stuff. Half of them probably can't tell you the date of their last menstrual period, when they last ovulated, or the length of their cycle. How are they supposed to know if they need the stuff or how to use it if they don't have basic knowledge to build upon?

Yes, I think women who are raped should carry their children to term. If they cannot raise the child (emotional or socioeconomic reasons), then put them up for adoption. Don't tell me that they should abort the child to "forget" about the rape and so that it does not remind them of it daily for the next 38 weeks. Do you honestly think that they wouldn't think about it? A life is a life, regardless of how it came into being--planned, accidental, rape, in vitro. One violent act does not call for another. I grow weary of this argument from the pro-abortion crowd. Less than 1% of all abortions are performed for rape or incest.

I do not support situational ethics or doing what is convenient. I have firmly held beliefs and what is right is right, what is wrong is wrong. Period. Intentional taking innocent human life is wrong.

 
At August 28, 2006 2:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

angel,

Without implantation, there is no pregnancy. Without pregnancy, there is no abortion.

Michael Ejercito

 
At August 28, 2006 3:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pregnancy: the condition of a female from conception until childbirth. Stedman's Medical Dictionary.

Contraceptive: Means of preventing conception.

Conception: Joining of a sperm & egg.

Plan B does not stop fertilization, it stops implantation. It is not an "emergency contraceptive"--it is an abortifactant. Why do you think so many doctors have refused to prescribe it? And it's not just the Catholic ones, either. It's because they understand how it works and refuse to be responsible for ending a life.

How is Plan B a contraceptive? How is it not abortion?

 
At August 28, 2006 6:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, angel.

If a sperm fertilizes an egg in test tube, who or what is pregnant?

The reason doctors refuse to prescribe it is because they are under the impression that there is a duty to allow implantation, even though no such duty exists. No such duty can exist because, unless fertization occurred in vitro , the egg donor has absolutely no idea that the undifferentiated cell mass actually exists . You can not very well have a duty to provide food, water, or shelter to anything that you have no knowledge of.


Michael Ejercito

 
At August 28, 2006 8:45 PM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Crankyright I am going to ask Angel the magic question....(And by the CR, I did not want any confusion about Plan B, since Angel lied and continues to lies about the Plan B because of her beliefs...)


Angel, do you believe persons such as Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein should be put to death?

Do you think that Timothy McVeigh should have been put to death?

As you say, -->

I do not support situational ethics or doing what is convenient. I have firmly held beliefs and what is right is right, what is wrong is wrong. Period. Intentional taking innocent human life is wrong.

<----

The above scenario Angel, I gave you is a situational possibiity....

Thankfully Angel, we live in a free society, where everyone for the most part has free will and choices, and that we do not live in a theocratic society like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or pre Afghanistan under Taliban rule despite some efforts fanatical religious right such as yourself to convert the US Constitution into the Theocratic Evangelical Constitution...

 
At August 28, 2006 9:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What angel seems to be implying is that refusal to nourish someone is murder.

In order for refusla to nourish to be murder, there has to be a duty to nourish . Such duties exist with parents towards their children and armies towards their prisoners of war.

In order for such a duty to exist, the person has to know that another person exist.

Implantation is the first physical connection between the mother and child, the start of the mother-child relationship. One can infer, under most circumstances, that from then on, at least temporarily, the mother has a duty to nourish the child.

Before implantation, there is no way to know (In most cases) that there is a blastocyst waiting to implant. The woman can not possibly have a duty to allow something that she does not know exists to implant anywhere inside and outside the body. Thisd is much different than abortion. In abortions, it is almost certain that there is a baby in a womb. In emergency contraception, no such certainty exists.


Michael Ejercito

 
At August 29, 2006 7:26 AM, Blogger Gregory Stewart said...

Michael,

I want the answer from Angel....

She left the door open regarding when she said

-->

I do not support situational ethics or doing what is convenient. I have firmly held beliefs and what is right is right, what is wrong is wrong. Period. Intentional taking innocent human life is wrong.


and she said,

-->

Didn’t your mom ever tell you that 2 wrongs don’t make a right?

<--

Let Angel answer her own question...

She may split hairs and say that they are not 'innocent'...

However, if all life is sacred (she implies) since she feels (implied) the prevention of implantation and fertilization of is an abortive drug, then does she extend that life is life and not to be terminated no matter how foul...

Doesnt capital punishment offend you religiously, spiritually, or whatever?

Ask this because you broke this down to the minute....

 
At August 29, 2006 9:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, let me try to make this brief--I have a lot to do today.

1.) Fertilization in test tube: No one is pregnant until the embryos are placed into the fallopian tube or uterus (depending on technique). All embryos should be placed into the mother--not left in "cold storage". Remember, not all embryos will implant, even when everything is "natural". A woman has somewhere around a 20% chance of conceiving & having the embryo implant per cycle if everything is normal.

2. Death Penalty: To be honest, in the past I have favored the death penalty. Currently, I am leaning to the opposition side, because it does bother me. Let these evil men sit in solitude. Maybe they will change, maybe they won't. Regardless, keep them locked up until they die. The "eye for an eye" and stoning allowances in the Bible are in the Old Testament and were nullified with the new covenant with Christ. If you still want to abide by them, then you should also be doing animal sacrifices, taking passover, and following the hygeine laws of Leviticus.

(From a fiscal point of view, anyone who cares about govt. spending should oppose the death penalty. It costs much more to try to execute someone than to keep them alive in prison for the remainder of their lives.)

If Osama bin Laden or anyone else is killed during an act of war, so be it.

3. Mother-child relationship. Since I am presumably the only female currently participating in this discussion (milk momma & RTO haven't commented as of late), how can any of you know anything about a mother child relationship? I loved my children when they were just thoughts, an egg, and a sperm. The arguement that the relationship cannot exist until implantation or a positive pregnancy test is invalid.

4. Our country as a theocracy--our foundation is built upon the fact that we are a moral society with morals built upon the teachings of the Bible. We are not a theocracy--and it was never intended to be that way. The constitution forbids it. The fact that there shall be no state established religion is purely so that something like Henry's creation of the Church of England cannot happen here. It does not by any means imply that were are to be an athiestic society.

That's it for today, boys.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home