(09-25-2012 09:48 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(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.

I don't support that, I support effective and fiscally responsible measures to massive problems (7,000 teen pregnancies last year in New York alone). And it's clear you haven't defended your statements or argued against mine in the least, so I'll take it that you know you're wrong but would rather just storm off in a huff than admit you got bested.

(09-25-2012 09:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:48 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 09:45 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

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

(09-25-2012 09:34 AM)Smaug Wrote:  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.

I don't support that, I support effective and fiscally responsible measures to massive problems (7,000 teen pregnancies last year in New York alone). And it's clear you haven't defended your statements or argued against mine in the least, so I'll take it that you know you're wrong but would rather just storm off in a huff than admit you got bested.

Admit I got "bested"? Where are we, Middle Earth? Loser.

(09-25-2012 09:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(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.

They need for me to opt in. Not throw a blanket invitation to every horny teenager.

By forcing those who don't want their child to participate to jump through the additional hoop, rather than the ones who opt in, you're giving it away like candy.

You need a form to file away saying she CAN have it, not the absence of one saying she CAN'T.

Smaug-

What's more likely.\?

A. Once you have it on file the girl now thinks it's open season.

or

B. It's there in case you need it blanket wise. You are not giving the girl the go ahead to have unprotected sex but you do understand it's there if it happens.


What's your end goal? UCF already pointed out you can opt out. (many many many times) Whay are you trying to limit someone else? Why are you trying to drive up the cost curve?

(09-25-2012 10:19 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Smaug-

What's more likely.\?

A. Once you have it on file the girl now thinks it's open season.

or

B. It's there in case you need it blanket wise. You are not giving the girl the go ahead to have unprotected sex but you do understand it's there if it happens.


What's your end goal? UCF already pointed out you can opt out. (many many many times) Whay are you trying to limit someone else? Why are you trying to drive up the cost curve?

How is A declaring open season and B not?

My biggest problem is that this medication has some severe side effects and I don't want some half ass school nurse who can't get a real nursing job to decide whether my daughter should get an artificial hormone and put her life at risk in a non emergent situation.

(09-25-2012 10:30 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  My biggest problem is that this medication has some severe side effects and I don't want some half ass school nurse who can't get a real nursing job to decide whether my daughter should get an artificial hormone and put her life at risk in a non emergent situation.

Bingo.

This has less to do with pro-life/pro-choice (because frankly, the older both I and my daughters get, the more ambivalent I am) than it has to do with some agent of the state medicating my kid without my consent. They can't give them an aspirin, but this?

(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.

Maybe I'm getting exercised about this because I'm a parent but I'm not seeing the nuance in this that usually keeps me out of these debates. Again, for the record: I AM NOT A ******* REPUBLICAN. I'm a pro-choice, anti-death penalty, drug and prostitution anti-prohibition, let-the-immigrants-stay voter, who also happens to be a pretty big fan of the constitution (even though many of you will say that last thing cancels out a bunch of the prior things). This says one thing to me: We have a problem (unwanted pregnancy) that can be "fixed" by the State for some citizens (pregnant minor girls) at the expense of other citizens' (their parents) rights. Nothing to do with a moral platform at all.

You see the pregnant girl whose parents don't care. This is bad, I agree. But I also see the parents who, for any number of reasons, won't see the letter or won't read it thoroughly, or simply aren't paying enough attention to their kids. Mistakes? Sure, but it doesn't mean they don't care. More importantly, it doesn't mean they don't have rights. And that's where this really becomes clear to me. There is only one set of people whose rights will be infringed here.

Look, I have no problem with these girls seeking Plan B, or even an abortion, WITH THEIR PARENTS' CONSENT. I have a huge problem with the government providing prescription drugs to minors. And by the way, you know how you can fix this? Determine that the age of consent is 14. Figure out how to justify that and get it passed as law and all the rest of this is a piece of cake. THERE are your "state's rights."

And don't expect a 14 yr old to make an informed decision about their health considering they made such a negligent decision to put them in that position to begin with.

The first girl they give this too that ends up with a pulmonary embolus (blood clot that travels to the lung and considered a medical emergency) will be the first huge civil suit against the school system. I'm not one to consider suing but this would be a circumstance that I wouldn't hesitate doing.

(09-25-2012 10:52 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  And don't expect a 14 yr old to make an informed decision about their health considering they made such a negligent decision to put them in that position to begin with.

The first girl they give this too that ends up with a pulmonary embolus (blood clot that travels to the lung and considered a medical emergency) will be the first huge civil suit against the school system. I'm not one to consider suing but this would be a circumstance that I wouldn't hesitate doing.

THIS

Yes, a team consisting of a harried, low-level bureaucrat and a 14 year old girl will be making these healthcare decisions.

I would be ashamed if any parent actually approved this for their daughter. It would tell me two things.

1). They expect someone else to do the parenting for them
2). They exhibit gross negligence concerning their CHILD

(09-25-2012 11:16 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  I would be ashamed if any parent actually approved this for their daughter. It would tell me two things.

1). They expect someone else to do the parenting for them
2). They exhibit gross negligence concerning their CHILD

I can only speak for the way I raised my daughter and would never try to tell anyone else how to raise theirs. She was not allowed to be unattended by an adult at this age...especially around horny ass teenage boys. There was very little opportunity for her to get knocked up at age 14 and 15. When she turned 16 and wanted to date?...at my insistence....My wife took her in for implanted contraception. We protected her against her own stupidity. Caveated with the rare exception of failed contraception...There really is NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.

I endorse fully plan B. I do however reject the idea that giving this out without parental consent is fine. I have to admit that I am one that thinks that there are 14 year old girls capable of making decisions for themselves and age of consent is a shaky concept at age 14. I will however defer to what the age of consent in NY is. This is a States rights issue also.

Quote:I endorse fully plan B. I do however reject the idea that giving this out without parental consent is fine. I have to admit that I am one that thinks that there are 14 year old girls capable of making decisions for themselves and age of consent is a shaky concept at age 14. I will however defer to what the age of consent in NY is. This is a States rights issue also.

As long as the parents in the school district are made blatantly aware of this policy and the process in which one can opt their child out, which I will agree is an extremely important aspect for this policy to pass muster, then I don't have a problem with this due to the obvious problem with an opt-in type program. That of course being, to opt in, you have to show at least some semblance of responsibility towards your child and those aren't the teenagers that this program is aimed at helping with the providing of Plan B. And the mechanism of Plan B of course being such a time-sensitive one, along with the proven safety of the drug as a whole, makes a compelling enough reason IMO for schools to offer it to teens who do not have other options.

If I were a parent, I would allow it for my teenager. Not because I want my teenager to resort to that, but because I realize that the most important aspect in my childs life is her safety, that teen pregnancies are riddled with risks, and that Plan B must be taken quickly for it to be effective. I'd much rather have that option, should it occur, than to have to question a true abortion or having her take the pregnancy to term.

But for the record, you sound like a pretty swell parent.

(09-25-2012 10:34 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 10:30 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  My biggest problem is that this medication has some severe side effects and I don't want some half ass school nurse who can't get a real nursing job to decide whether my daughter should get an artificial hormone and put her life at risk in a non emergent situation.

Bingo.

This has less to do with pro-life/pro-choice (because frankly, the older both I and my daughters get, the more ambivalent I am) than it has to do with some agent of the state medicating my kid without my consent. They can't give them an aspirin, but this?

No, it really doesn't. Find me research which shows those significant risks, and I'll show you research that shows teen pregnancy is exponentially worse. And again, comparing this to tylenol isn't the same because a headache doesn't become a major health concern if not treated like unprotected sex can.

And for all you worried parents, claiming it shouldn't be opt-in because ITS UR RIGHT GRRRR. Would you not opt-out? If so, then you have nothing to worry about.

(09-25-2012 11:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 11:16 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  I would be ashamed if any parent actually approved this for their daughter. It would tell me two things.

1). They expect someone else to do the parenting for them
2). They exhibit gross negligence concerning their CHILD

I can only speak for the way I raised my daughter and would never try to tell anyone else how to raise theirs. She was not allowed to be unattended by an adult at this age...especially around horny ass teenage boys. There was very little opportunity for her to get knocked up at age 14 and 15. When she turned 16 and wanted to date?...at my insistence....My wife took her in for implanted contraception. We protected her against her own stupidity. Caveated with the rare exception of failed contraception...There really is NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.

I endorse fully plan B. I do however reject the idea that giving this out without parental consent is fine. I have to admit that I am one that thinks that there are 14 year old girls capable of making decisions for themselves and age of consent is a shaky concept at age 14. I will however defer to what the age of consent in NY is. This is a States rights issue also.

Contraception? Come on! Just teach her abstinance. THat is all that is needed.

Teen pregnancy is a big health issue. However, its not a risk the morning after a perceived conception.

(09-25-2012 12:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 11:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 11:16 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  I would be ashamed if any parent actually approved this for their daughter. It would tell me two things.

1). They expect someone else to do the parenting for them
2). They exhibit gross negligence concerning their CHILD

I can only speak for the way I raised my daughter and would never try to tell anyone else how to raise theirs. She was not allowed to be unattended by an adult at this age...especially around horny ass teenage boys. There was very little opportunity for her to get knocked up at age 14 and 15. When she turned 16 and wanted to date?...at my insistence....My wife took her in for implanted contraception. We protected her against her own stupidity. Caveated with the rare exception of failed contraception...There really is NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.

I endorse fully plan B. I do however reject the idea that giving this out without parental consent is fine. I have to admit that I am one that thinks that there are 14 year old girls capable of making decisions for themselves and age of consent is a shaky concept at age 14. I will however defer to what the age of consent in NY is. This is a States rights issue also.

Contraception? Come on! Just teach her abstinance. THat is all that is needed.

After all you are the poster child for abstinence. You know nothing about children, since you, thank god, have none and will never have any.

(09-25-2012 12:12 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  Teen pregnancy is a big health issue. However, its not a risk the morning after a perceived conception.

Well, that's why you give the Plan B, so there is no conception and one can avoid the health problems and moral issues involved in either carrying the child to term or having an abortion. In this case, time is of the essence, and I have yet to see anything about Plan B which presents itself as a significant enough danger to offset the true dangers which are possible without it.

(09-25-2012 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 12:12 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  Teen pregnancy is a big health issue. However, its not a risk the morning after a perceived conception.

Well, that's why you give the Plan B, so there is no conception and one can avoid the health problems and moral issues involved in either carrying the child to term or having an abortion. In this case, time is of the essence, and I have yet to see anything about Plan B which presents itself as a significant enough danger to offset the true dangers which are possible without it.

The only issue I have with it is that a half assed nurse is supposed to assess and Medicare my daughter without my consent. A phone call would clear this up. She cannot make a rational decision based on her level of development.