(09-25-2012 08:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Think of anything the social cons try to legislate or interject in. The stuff the libertarians get upset with you guy's about. Gay Marriage, Mary Jane, etc etc. My personal beef is internet poker but I digress.

I might agree w/ you on Internet Poker, but I'll bet that issue is not partisan at all. Dems are loaded w/ control freaks, and both parties LOVE tax revenue.

Quote: Then you guy's go on and on about state's rights. Then this so happens to be in New York. So again, why are you complaining?

It's not that hard. State's rights doesn't mean the States should be allowed to trample all over individuals.

And this issue is just more proof to MY claim that educational professionals have gone out of their way to circumvent and damage the family. Then it's those SAME educators who claim it's not their fault that kids are unruly and don't learn..."it's the parents'"

Guy's I am going to throw you one hell of a bone. The bone the size that flipped Freddy Flintsone's car at the end of the credits. If I'm on the road traveling. I want to meet up with a social con. I strive to live my life like a social con. The Judea-Christian belief in adhering to the ten commandments. Solid Stuff. Kudos.


***********Now NEWSFLASH***********


Alot of people don't follow these sets of guidelining principles and you can't force them to do it in a free society. So we have to come up with laws that make you uncomfortable to keep the gears moving. Some things that "YOU" would never do. I get that. Just keep "YOUR FAMILY" and the govt. seperate and we will get along fine. For the last time.

YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. IT"S IMPOSSIBLE IN A FREE SOCIETY.

(09-25-2012 08:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Think of anything the social cons try to legislate or interject in. The stuff the libertarians get upset with you guy's about. Gay Marriage, Mary Jane, etc etc. My personal beef is internet poker but I digress. Then you guy's go on and on about state's rights. Then this so happens to be in New York. So again, why are you complaining?

Where do they get the money to buy the pills? This is where my beef lies, mainly. Why should the parents who opt out pay for other kids pills?

I agree with BrookesOwl in that this should be an opt in and not an opt out thing. I don't personally agree with the morning after pill but if a parent wants their child to have it then so be it. I just think it should be up to the parents doctor to prescribe it and the schools shouldn't hand it out. Niner made a good point when he said you can't buy a big gulp in NYC but your 14 year old can get an abortion. How does this make any sense to anyone?

If you make it opt-in, the program won't function for the reasons I've stated so many times I'm quite shocked that you're still stating that.

(09-25-2012 08:49 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  If you make it opt-in, the program won't function for the reasons I've stated so many times I'm quite shocked that you're still stating that.

Maybe the state shouldn't have the program. For the reasons I've stated so many times I'm quite shocked that you're still stating that.

Maybe your state shouldn't have that program? Do you live in NYC Imaty?

How can you argue on one hand for state's rights then get in a tizzy over NYC?

Just be consistent guy's! Don't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

I was for state's rights before I was against it...................

(09-25-2012 08:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Maybe your state shouldn't have that program? Do you live in NYC Imaty?

How can you argue on one hand for state's rights then get in a tizzy over NYC?

I don't live in NYC. I thought this was an internet forum where idea's are discussed?

Oh, and states rights don't include making people pay for abortions for underage girls. I'd be more ok with mandating insurance pay for it if the parents wanted it. It should be prescribed by a doctor after the parents consent.

(09-25-2012 08:26 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 08:22 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 05:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 05:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'd say we have a compelling state interest in doing all we can to prevent the pregnancy of 14 year olds, but I guess I'm just old fashioned.

How is that consistent with needing parental consent to give them aspirin? Or a physical? Or a vaccination? What about beer? Cigarettes? You can't question them in a crime without their parents consent, and if they say anything, you can't use it, but you can give them hormones?

Not saying it is, and I don't really like the idea honestly, but what if the parents say no? Do you really want to force a 14 year old to carry a baby she doesn't want because her parents either don't care (likely the most applicable situation here given the state of innercity families) or say she has to?

So the only alternative to state sponsored abortion is a pregnancy? WOW.

Yikes! UCF is going into the medical profession too.

First, it's not an abortion. There has never been any research to indicate that Plan B effects fertilized cells, instead it just makes it impossible for an unimplanted, unfertilized cell from implanting, so unless you think a woman passing an unfertilized egg is abortion (also known as menstruation), it's not abortion.

And in the case I was referring to (an absentee parent), those are the two options for a teenager in this situation as Plan B is only effective soon after coitus and there's no other way (that I'm aware of) that a teen can get Plan B without requiring their absentee parent to actually do their job.

(09-25-2012 08:56 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 08:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Maybe your state shouldn't have that program? Do you live in NYC Imaty?

How can you argue on one hand for state's rights then get in a tizzy over NYC?

I don't live in NYC. I thought this was an internet forum where idea's are discussed?

Oh, and states rights don't include making people pay for abortions for underage girls. I'd be more ok with mandating insurance pay for it if the parents wanted it. It should be prescribed by a doctor after the parents consent.

IT.IS.NOT.AN.ABORTION.

It does prevent possible abortions though, but only if it can be accessed quickly.

And IAMATY, you have stated no compelling reasons whatsoever.

again... you can't legislate morality in a free society. You would be better off trying to stop the wind.

Quote:And IAMATY, you have stated no compelling reasons whatsoever.

No where..... and may God have mercy on your soul................ because no one else will..................


Lame OOOOO..............

(09-25-2012 08:57 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 08:56 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 08:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Maybe your state shouldn't have that program? Do you live in NYC Imaty?

How can you argue on one hand for state's rights then get in a tizzy over NYC?

I don't live in NYC. I thought this was an internet forum where idea's are discussed?

Oh, and states rights don't include making people pay for abortions for underage girls. I'd be more ok with mandating insurance pay for it if the parents wanted it. It should be prescribed by a doctor after the parents consent.

IT.IS.NOT.AN.ABORTION.

It does prevent possible abortions though, but only if it can be accessed quickly.

A third concern is the claim that these pills cannot act as an abortifacient. In some cases, the pills prevent ovulation, but in other cases they inhibit implantation of an embryo. In cases in which an embryo cannot implant, the drug acts as a chemical abortifacient and that leads to the confusion between the two drugs. Pharmaceutical companies have addressed this issue by referencing this method of birth control as "emergency contraception" instead of the Morning-After Pill.

For UCF: An abortifacient (Latin: That which will cause a miscarriage) is a substance that induces abortion.

This just goes to the heart of what we are on this spin room for.

Democrats try to solve problems. It's in their DNA. Every fiber of their being. Think of past D presidents. Habitat for Humanity. Clinton Global initiative. You know trying to help out mankind. We see a problem we try to fix it. Unwanted pregnancies? Take this pill that won't allow it.


Republicans. Happy to keep what they have. Life is good. Govt. is the problem. Not a vehicle to help others out. It's the girl's fault she's knocked up. Pay the piper. I honestly don't know of a charity a past R President has started. They hopped on others work sure. If I'm wrong or someone else can enlighten me please do. I know W puts on a kick ass bass fishing tournamnet in Fl. in the spring.

(09-24-2012 05:07 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 04:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  All women should be on the pill.

A 14 yo is not a "woman".

Also, this isn't "the pill".

Plan B is for those who aren't on the regular pill, so it wouldn't be necessary if more women were on the regular pill. Plus the regular pill has health benefits (eg prevents ovarian cysts), so they should be made available instead or in addition.

Quote:But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label — despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does.....

“These medications are there to prevent or delay ovulation,” said Dr. Petra M. Casey, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Mayo. “They don’t act after fertilization.”

The F.D.A. declined to discuss decisions about the effect on implantation or to say whether it would consider revising labels. But Erica Jefferson, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, acknowledged: “The emerging data on Plan B suggest that it does not inhibit implantation. Less is known about Ella. However, some data suggest it also does not inhibit implantation.”

Scientists say the pills work up to five days after sex, primarily stalling an egg’s release until sperm can no longer fertilize it. Although many people think sperm and egg unite immediately after sex, sperm need time to position themselves.

Like I said before, there is no research to indicate that Plan B effects fertilized eggs, that label is only on there because the FDA put it on their to cover their asses from the religious right (who, shockingly, don't do very good research themselves).

Leave physiology to those of us who don't think the world is 6,000 years old.

(09-25-2012 09:08 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This just goes to the heart of what we are on this spin room for.

Democrats try to solve problems. It's in their DNA. Every fiber of their being. Think of past D presidents. Habitat for Humanity. Clinton Global initiative. You know trying to help out mankind. We see a problem we try to fix it. Unwanted pregnancies? Take this pill that won't allow it.


Republicans. Happy to keep what they have. Life is good. Govt. is the problem. Not a vehicle to help others out. It's the girl's fault she's knocked up. Pay the piper. I honestly don't know of a charity a past R President has started. They hopped on others work sure. If I'm wrong or someone else can enlighten me please do. I know W puts on a kick ass bass fishing tournamnet in Fl. in the spring.

R's freed the slaves. Democrats fought, and are still fighting, to keep them on their plantations. That's right, I'm drudging up old stuff!

That's the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. I don't disagree. R's have started their share of charity though and it's dishonest to state otherwise.

Democrats want Government to solve the worlds problems while Republicans want to be left alone to solve their own problems. I can't think of a time in my life where the two parties have been farther apart. Sad really. Democrats have some good ideas but some on the far right can't see that. Republicans have some good ideas but some on the far left can't see that either. Together we could solve OUR COUNTRIES problems and every man women and child would be better off but I don't see that as happening any time soon. Too much division.

(09-25-2012 09:12 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label — despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does.....

“These medications are there to prevent or delay ovulation,” said Dr. Petra M. Casey, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Mayo. “They don’t act after fertilization.”

The F.D.A. declined to discuss decisions about the effect on implantation or to say whether it would consider revising labels. But Erica Jefferson, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, acknowledged: “The emerging data on Plan B suggest that it does not inhibit implantation. Less is known about Ella. However, some data suggest it also does not inhibit implantation.”

Scientists say the pills work up to five days after sex, primarily stalling an egg’s release until sperm can no longer fertilize it. Although many people think sperm and egg unite immediately after sex, sperm need time to position themselves.

Like I said before, there is no research to indicate that Plan B effects fertilized eggs, that label is only on there because the FDA put it on their to cover their asses from the religious right (who, shockingly, don't do very good research themselves).

Leave physiology to those of us who don't think the world is 6,000 years old.

You really can't help but to be a douche can you? Your a religious bigot and a completely miserable piece of chit. You can't just admit that the plan b pill may be an abortifacient and you still support it. Just be honest...you support abortion and every method of delivering them.