(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.

Then why do things get worse?

Dems pretend to solve problems. They make things worse. And the gullible buy into their shtick.

Quote:I honestly don't know of a charity a past R President has started. They hopped on others work sure.

Carter didn't start Habitat for Humanity...he hopped on board others' work. See my point about gullible above.

(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.

Do you want your government to tuck you in at night, too?

Is personal autonomy and responsibility as meaningless to you as this post suggests?

One more thing, red states give more to charity than blue states do, you know, 'cause I got mine, and f*** you, and all.

(09-25-2012 09:19 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(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 ****** 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.

You saying 'abortifacient' doesn't somehow negate the fact that there is no evidence to support your above claim, and that you're basing your claim on nothing but right wing pandering.

I am pro-choice, sure, but I do not like abortions and I think we should limit them in every way possible. This is a cheap, safe, and very effective way of limiting abortions from unplanned, teenage pregnancies, which is why I don't understand how pro-lifers aren't supporting this 100%.

Michelle Obama solves another problem

http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson...lunch_menu

(09-25-2012 09:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:19 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(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 ****** 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.

You saying 'abortifacient' doesn't somehow negate the fact that there is no evidence to support your above claim, and that you're basing your claim on nothing but right wing pandering.

I am pro-choice, sure, but I do not like abortions and I think we should limit them in every way possible. This is a cheap, safe, and very effective way of limiting abortions from unplanned, teenage pregnancies, which is why I don't understand how pro-lifers aren't supporting this 100%.

I never said I didn't support it. I don't support the schools handing them out.

(09-25-2012 09:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't understand how pro-lifers aren't supporting this 100%.

Because sooner or later someone WILL try to force this on me and my daughter.

Read this as many times as you need to for it to sink in.

(09-25-2012 09:26 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't understand how pro-lifers aren't supporting this 100%.

Because sooner or later someone WILL try to force this on me and my daughter.

Read this as many times as you need to for it to sink in.

No they won't, and simply making a slippery slope argument over and over again isn't at all compelling to anyone who lives in reality. It's a crutch for those who can't find legitimate reasons to rationally debate the merits of a specific issue.

Quote: I never said I didn't support it. I don't support the schools handing them out.

You mean 'the schools having it available in case a teenager needs it, and their parents have not chosen to opt-out'.

Oh, they made upped the price on the local tolls WHATS NEXT? THE HOLOCAUST???! - Literally your entire argument Smaug.

(09-25-2012 09:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Oh, they made upped the price on the local tolls WHATS NEXT? THE HOLOCAUST???! - Literally your entire argument Smaug.

bull****.

(09-25-2012 09:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:26 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't understand how pro-lifers aren't supporting this 100%.

Because sooner or later someone WILL try to force this on me and my daughter.

Read this as many times as you need to for it to sink in.

No they won't, and simply making a slippery slope argument over and over again isn't at all compelling to anyone who lives in reality. It's a crutch for those who can't find legitimate reasons to rationally debate the merits of a specific issue.

Quote: I never said I didn't support it. I don't support the schools handing them out.

You mean 'the schools having it available in case a teenager needs it, and their parents have not chosen to opt-out'.

Yes, schools shouldn't hand it out. The child should have to go to THEIR PARENTS and tell them what they did. Then the parents can explain what the repercussions are, then if the parent decides the correct course of action is the morning after pill, so be it. This removes all accountability to the parent. Once the parent signs the consent then the CHILD can have sex all they want and just get the pill at school the next day. Why do you think that's a good idea? Most people don't do stupid stuff because they don't want to face the consequences. If you take that away there isn't any incentive not to do stupid chit.

(09-25-2012 09:34 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Oh, they made upped the price on the local tolls WHATS NEXT? THE HOLOCAUST???! - Literally your entire argument Smaug.

bull****.

You just stated that providing Plan B to teenagers whose parents do not opt out of this program will inevitably lead to your daughter being forced to take Plan B by the government, it is not anymore ridiculous of a statement.

(09-25-2012 09:34 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Oh, they made upped the price on the local tolls WHATS NEXT? THE HOLOCAUST???! - Literally your entire argument Smaug.

bull****.

I think I could point to the value of our dollar or our national debt as evidence the "slippery slope" argument is valid.

Quote:Yes, schools shouldn't hand it out. The child should have to go to THEIR PARENTS and tell them what they did. Then the parents can explain what the repercussions are, then if the parent decides the correct course of action is the morning after pill, so be it. This removes all accountability to the parent. Once the parent signs the consent then the CHILD can have sex all they want and just get the pill at school the next day. Why do you think that's a good idea? Most people don't do stupid stuff because they don't want to face the consequences. If you take that away there isn't any incentive not to do stupid chit.

I really do wish we lived in a fantasy land like so many of you against this measure seem to think we do, but in reality, this measure is aimed at those teens who don't have active or involved parents. They can't get Plan B without parental consent elsewhere, and seeing as how the effectiveness is drastically reduced with each passing moment, a court order or putting them in front of a judge is not realistic.

The teenager has rights, and unless the parent does their job and asserts their parental rights, the state has an interest in providing the teen with safe and effective measures to prevent pregnancy.

You're really, really, really, really bad at this whole 'logic' thing.

(09-25-2012 09:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:Yes, schools shouldn't hand it out. The child should have to go to THEIR PARENTS and tell them what they did. Then the parents can explain what the repercussions are, then if the parent decides the correct course of action is the morning after pill, so be it. This removes all accountability to the parent. Once the parent signs the consent then the CHILD can have sex all they want and just get the pill at school the next day. Why do you think that's a good idea? Most people don't do stupid stuff because they don't want to face the consequences. If you take that away there isn't any incentive not to do stupid chit.

I really do wish we lived in a fantasy land like so many of you against this measure seem to think we do, but in reality, this measure is aimed at those teens who don't have active or involved parents. They can't get Plan B without parental consent elsewhere, and seeing as how the effectiveness is drastically reduced with each passing moment, a court order or putting them in front of a judge is not realistic.

The teenager has rights, and unless the parent does their job and asserts their parental rights, the state has an interest in providing the teen with safe and effective measures to prevent pregnancy.

You're really, really, really, really bad at this whole 'logic' thing.

You're really bad at thinking outside of your little warped sliver of reality...and not being an a@@hole.

(09-25-2012 09:37 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:34 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Oh, they made upped the price on the local tolls WHATS NEXT? THE HOLOCAUST???! - Literally your entire argument Smaug.

bull****.

I think I could point to the value of our dollar or our national debt as evidence the "slippery slope" argument is valid.

You could point to it, but it wouldn't be compelling. We've make minor incursions and limitations to all of our civil liberties that have been both widely accepted (yelling fire in an elevator, handgun registration) and despised. Stopping legislation which isn't an incursion into someones liberties isn't an effective way to prevent either from happening, its just an excuse to stop legislation you don't like yet can't find valid cause.

(09-25-2012 09:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  this measure is aimed at those teens who don't have active or involved parents.

Who decides what is sufficiently "active or involved"?

You? Some bean-counter looking at some actuarial table, who doesn't know a damn thing about my kid, except she ovulates?

(09-25-2012 09:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:Yes, schools shouldn't hand it out. The child should have to go to THEIR PARENTS and tell them what they did. Then the parents can explain what the repercussions are, then if the parent decides the correct course of action is the morning after pill, so be it. This removes all accountability to the parent. Once the parent signs the consent then the CHILD can have sex all they want and just get the pill at school the next day. Why do you think that's a good idea? Most people don't do stupid stuff because they don't want to face the consequences. If you take that away there isn't any incentive not to do stupid chit.

I really do wish we lived in a fantasy land like so many of you against this measure seem to think we do, but in reality, this measure is aimed at those teens who don't have active or involved parents. They can't get Plan B without parental consent elsewhere, and seeing as how the effectiveness is drastically reduced with each passing moment, a court order or putting them in front of a judge is not realistic.

The teenager has rights, and unless the parent does their job and asserts their parental rights, the state has an interest in providing the teen with safe and effective measures to prevent pregnancy.

You're really, really, really, really bad at this whole 'logic' thing.

You're really bad at thinking outside of your little warped sliver of reality...and not being an a@@hole.

I'm not the one claiming that every teenager can just sit down with their reasonable parents, have a discussion about plan b, and come to an agreement about what steps to take. Sounds like you're the one living in a 'little warped sliver of reality'.

(09-25-2012 09:45 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:37 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:34 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Oh, they made upped the price on the local tolls WHATS NEXT? THE HOLOCAUST???! - Literally your entire argument Smaug.

bull****.

I think I could point to the value of our dollar or our national debt as evidence the "slippery slope" argument is valid.

You could point to it, but it wouldn't be compelling. We've make minor incursions and limitations to all of our civil liberties that have been both widely accepted (yelling fire in an elevator, handgun registration) and despised. Stopping legislation which isn't an incursion into someones liberties isn't an effective way to prevent either from happening, its just an excuse to stop legislation you don't like yet can't find valid cause.

It's good to know that because you don't find it a valid reason no one else will. When did you become spokesmen of the world?

Anyway, its clear we're getting no where. You support cradle to grave state supported bought and paid for voters. I don't. Good day.

(09-25-2012 09:45 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  this measure is aimed at those teens who don't have active or involved parents.

Who decides what is sufficiently "active or involved"?

You? Some bean-counter looking at some actuarial table, who doesn't know a damn thing about my kid, except she ovulates?

You do, by not opting your child out of a program in school you don't like. You don't want you daughter to have this option, opt her out. If you don't opt her out, then don't claim an infringement of your parental rights as you gave them up (much like if you don't care for your child, you give up your parental rights).

Your daughter has rights, they are limited, but she does and unless you specifically override her wishes by opting her out, the state has a compelling interest to let her choose to not go through a potentially dangerous pregnancy especially when the alternative is as safe and effective as Plan B.

TL;DR Be a parent and this is a non-issue.

(09-25-2012 09:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:Yes, schools shouldn't hand it out. The child should have to go to THEIR PARENTS and tell them what they did. Then the parents can explain what the repercussions are, then if the parent decides the correct course of action is the morning after pill, so be it. This removes all accountability to the parent. Once the parent signs the consent then the CHILD can have sex all they want and just get the pill at school the next day. Why do you think that's a good idea? Most people don't do stupid stuff because they don't want to face the consequences. If you take that away there isn't any incentive not to do stupid chit.

I really do wish we lived in a fantasy land like so many of you against this measure seem to think we do, but in reality, this measure is aimed at those teens who don't have active or involved parents. They can't get Plan B without parental consent elsewhere, and seeing as how the effectiveness is drastically reduced with each passing moment, a court order or putting them in front of a judge is not realistic.
:confused:The teenager has rights, and unless the parent does their job and asserts their parental rights, the state has an interest in providing the teen with safe and effective measures to prevent pregnancy.

You're really, really, really, really bad at this whole 'logic' thing.

You're really bad at thinking outside of your little warped sliver of reality...and not being an a@@hole.

What was not reality in what he said?