(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.

What a crock of self-serving crap. I usually have respect for you Mach, but this is true insanity. Yes.. all Democrats are good and all Republicans are bad. What a joke

A more accurate description is that democrats tend to believe that the force of government should be used to make people behave in a way that they decide is good... and Republicans tend to believe that the force of government should be used to allow people to have unpopular thoughts. Not all popular thoughts are good, and Democrats have no claim of a higher moral compass.

(09-25-2012 10:49 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  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."

Couldn't agree more

(09-25-2012 12:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's no different than the other poster who asked WELL WHAT IF ITS THE TEACHER RAPING THE STUDENT AND GIVING THEM PLAN B SO THEY DONT GET PREGNANT?!

If you're talking about me, you're a moron. That isn't what I said at all, and for you to take it to this extreme shows that you can't let your argument stand on its own, so you have to "make up" what I said to win.

I believe you said yourself that children may not want their parents knowing they are having sex. If a child is having sex with someone the parent doesn't want them having sex with and not telling anyone, chances are that the child will not tell the parent about the Plan B "opt in" either. An extreme and obvious example of this would be teacher "rape". Other examples would be a much older boy (stat rape), or a "troubled" boy (one of the reasons kids can't legally consent to things like this). None of these concerns by a parent would constitute neglect in your excuse as to why parents should have to opt out. Additionally, I suspect that the nurse wouldn't or perhaps couldn't ASK who the father was, and the parents might never know if the child chose to FURTHER hide their actions from them. In other words... because of the risk of bad parenting, you are taking rights away from good parents... PARTICULARLY those with "at risk" kids who could likely benefit from their direction.

I've given you examples of good parents being denied their rights, and there is literally no way around it. If the child has a reason to hide this from their parentsw... which YOU ADMITTED they would... or the parent doesn't check their email often/carefully enough, their rights can be denied. In the alternative, you haven't shown me how opting-in would deny the child access, because there exist legal ways for a child, the school, a concerned adult to petition the courts for relief. What legal way would the parent have to opt out if they don't know about it?

You guys joke about the slippery slope, while riding it like a surfboard. You've taken a womans right to reproductive choices and a states interest in protecting children from the neglect of bad parents into usurping the rights of good parents and giving reproductive choices to minors.

without regard to the question of whether or not the state should be determining what is and is not a good choice with regard to reproduction... sort of flies in the face of the abortion fight if you ask me, but ignoring that, How can you ensure that a parent is making good choices if you can't ensure that they have made a choice at all?

If they don't sign it and the kid wants it and claims neglect, then have someone legally make that determination. Pick up the phone and call the parent and get it on the record that they don't care what the little girl does, or go to their home and sign an affidavit that the parent didn't refuse the option out of choice, but out of neglect.

Quote:I believe you said yourself that children may not want their parents knowing they are having sex.

No, I did not say that and in fact have refuted saying that a few separate times, *TO YOU*, in this thread. Learn to read my posts before you expect me to read or respect yours.

(09-25-2012 12:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's no different than the other poster who asked WELL WHAT IF ITS THE TEACHER RAPING THE STUDENT AND GIVING THEM PLAN B SO THEY DONT GET PREGNANT?!

Yes, that's clearly a situation we should plan for and change a policy aimed at stopping over 7,000 teen pregnancies over. Glad you saw this problem coming, but what of coke fueled church choir orgies, how do we combat that???!

Well, that other poster was an idiot because raping a student, as we all know, there would be no need because the students body would keep the student from getting pregnant.

(09-25-2012 12:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Robert you really need to shut the f*ck up sometimes because you only hurt whatever you're arguing for.

Why? It is a legit situation and should be brought up. As for the person saying they get another parent, what if there is no other parent?

(09-25-2012 01:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:10 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  I agree that its much more invasive but I disagree about the morality issue

That's probably because you are unaware that no research has ever been produced to show that it effects fertilized eggs. None. It's written on the label that way because of pressure from the religious right, but no one has ever shown that to be the case.

EDIT: I meant morality in the 'abortion' sense, not the parental rights sense if that's what you meant.

I think contraception in general is an interesting issue r/t morality. I do agree that I need to research the action of the morning after pill.

Quote:I believe you said yourself that children may not want their parents knowing they are having sex. If a child is having sex with someone the parent doesn't want them having sex with and not telling anyone, chances are that the child will not tell the parent about the Plan B "opt in" either. An extreme and obvious example of this would be teacher "rape". Other examples would be a much older boy (stat rape), or a "troubled" boy (one of the reasons kids can't legally consent to things like this). None of these concerns by a parent would constitute neglect in your excuse as to why parents should have to opt out. Additionally, I suspect that the nurse wouldn't or perhaps couldn't ASK who the father was, and the parents might never know if the child chose to FURTHER hide their actions from them. In other words... because of the risk of bad parenting, you are taking rights away from good parents... PARTICULARLY those with "at risk" kids who could likely benefit from their direction.

Hrmm...this is a really good poin-oh wait I forgot that a good parent who doesn't want this can opt their child out. Man, it's almost as if I've made that point a few times before, directly to you, and you keep ignoring that simple fact.

Quote:I've given you examples of good parents being denied their rights, and there is literally no way around it. If the child has a reason to hide this from their parentsw... which YOU ADMITTED they would... or the parent doesn't check their email often/carefully enough, their rights can be denied. In the alternative, you haven't shown me how opting-in would deny the child access, because there exist legal ways for a child, the school, a concerned adult to petition the courts for relief. What legal way would the parent have to opt out if they don't know about it?

You're right, there is no way around this measure that a concerne- oh wait I forgot that a good parent who doesn't want this can opt their child out. Man, it's almost as if I've made that point a few times before, directly to you, and you keep ignoring that simple fact.

Quote:without regard to the question of whether or not the state should be determining what is and is not a good choice with regard to reproduction... sort of flies in the face of the abortion fight if you ask me, but ignoring that, How can you ensure that a parent is making good choices if you can't ensure that they have made a choice at all?

No one asked you, because it's not at all relevant, and if you do not make any choices for your children, what the hell can you complain about?

(09-25-2012 01:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 12:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Robert you really need to shut the f*ck up sometimes because you only hurt whatever you're arguing for.

Why? It is a legit situation and should be brought up. As for the person saying they get another parent, what if there is no other parent?

It is not a legit situation, and not one where we should base wide-reaching legislation on, especially this sort of legislation. Just stop because you make weak arguments that hurt your position more than help it.

(09-25-2012 01:26 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:10 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  I agree that its much more invasive but I disagree about the morality issue

That's probably because you are unaware that no research has ever been produced to show that it effects fertilized eggs. None. It's written on the label that way because of pressure from the religious right, but no one has ever shown that to be the case.

EDIT: I meant morality in the 'abortion' sense, not the parental rights sense if that's what you meant.

I think contraception in general is an interesting issue r/t morality. I do agree that I need to research the action of the morning after pill.

Yeah, I guess this could fall under being morally ambiguous if you were a hardcore catholic or thought that any sex outside of procreation is immoral, but I don't really pay attention to people who think that wet dreams are literally embarrassing little holocausts.

Hambone-------

Sometimes I post stuff to get under people's skin. It's like that little devil on my shoulder. It tells me Post It, Post It. I knew it would get a rise out of some. But............. it's not that R's are bad. They just don't look to do the big things like Clinton and Carter.

(09-25-2012 01:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone-------

Sometimes I post stuff to get under people's skin. It's like that little devil on my shoulder. It tells me Post It, Post It. I knew it would get a rise out of some. But............. it's not that R's are bad. They just don't look to do the big things like Clinton and Carter.

Like fail?

And Hambone, in regards to this -

Quote:In the alternative, you haven't shown me how opting-in would deny the child access, because there exist legal ways for a child, the school, a concerned adult to petition the courts for relief.

I have shown and restated many times how opting in effectively denies the child access to Plan B. Each hour that passes significantly reduces the rate of effectiveness from 90+% within the first 24 hours to ~25% within 48 (from memory, could be off slightly). If you require a process like you describe above, you're effectively denying them the ability to take Plan B.

(09-25-2012 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone-------

Sometimes I post stuff to get under people's skin. It's like that little devil on my shoulder. It tells me Post It, Post It. I knew it would get a rise out of some. But............. it's not that R's are bad. They just don't look to do the big things like Clinton and Carter.

Like fail?

Yeah Clinton sure f*cked this country up good, huh?

(09-25-2012 01:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And Hambone, in regards to this -

Quote:In the alternative, you haven't shown me how opting-in would deny the child access, because there exist legal ways for a child, the school, a concerned adult to petition the courts for relief.

I have shown and restated many times how opting in effectively denies the child access to Plan B. Each hour that passes significantly reduces the rate of effectiveness from 90+% within the first 24 hours to ~25% within 48 (from memory, could be off slightly). If you require a process like you describe above, you're effectively denying them the ability to take Plan B.

You assume opting in after the kid gets horizontal. Every year my kids start school, they send home a ream of paper for my signature. What's one more?

"I give my permission for the school nurse to administer Plan B to my kid if she asks for it. BTW, you'd better damn well tell me asked for it."

Signed, Parent.

(09-25-2012 01:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 12:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Robert you really need to shut the f*ck up sometimes because you only hurt whatever you're arguing for.

Why? It is a legit situation and should be brought up. As for the person saying they get another parent, what if there is no other parent?

It is not a legit situation, and not one where we should base wide-reaching legislation on, especially this sort of legislation. Just stop because you make weak arguments that hurt your position more than help it.

Yeah, you are right. Incest NEVER happens.

(09-25-2012 01:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 12:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Robert you really need to shut the f*ck up sometimes because you only hurt whatever you're arguing for.

Why? It is a legit situation and should be brought up. As for the person saying they get another parent, what if there is no other parent?

It is not a legit situation, and not one where we should base wide-reaching legislation on, especially this sort of legislation. Just stop because you make weak arguments that hurt your position more than help it.

Yeah, you are right. Incest NEVER happens.

Run along, Robert. Adults are talking.

(09-25-2012 12:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Robert you really need to shut the f*ck up sometimes because you only hurt whatever you're arguing for.

Nobody is hurting your argument more than yourself. The Industrial grade stupidity you exhibit must be painful. We're aware of Rob's intellectual heft and mostly ignore it.

As many have said here the main objection is that of the state medicating a child without a parent's permission. And you know d@mn well it WILL happen, probably a lot.

Your default position seems to be that parents should willingly give control over the health decisions of their child to the state (schools) because OTHER kids might have uninvolved parents. The problem is that the government should have no involvement in a child's health decisions. That is the job of the parents and is why this should be an opt-in program.

There are other avenues that can be pursued to tackle the problem of teen pregnancy and ideas have been offered but you seem unwilling to listen.

Just like a child you want this enacted because some kids find themselves in a bad place of their own making. That they MIGHT have uninvolved parents, it becomes a crisis in your mind. "It's not FAIR!!"

"It's for the children," you know. That is the excuse most often trotted out when the left wants to curtail rights. Find another way to attack the problem rather than placing the onus on all parents, who might never know about this because not all students will deliver the correspondence to their parents.

(09-25-2012 01:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And Hambone, in regards to this -

Quote:In the alternative, you haven't shown me how opting-in would deny the child access, because there exist legal ways for a child, the school, a concerned adult to petition the courts for relief.

I have shown and restated many times how opting in effectively denies the child access to Plan B. Each hour that passes significantly reduces the rate of effectiveness from 90+% within the first 24 hours to ~25% within 48 (from memory, could be off slightly). If you require a process like you describe above, you're effectively denying them the ability to take Plan B.

You assume opting in after the kid gets horizontal. Every year my kids start school, they send home a ream of paper for my signature. What's one more?

"I give my permission for the school nurse to administer Plan B to my kid if she asks for it. BTW, you'd better damn well tell me asked for it."

Signed, Parent.

No, I didn't assume anything, I was explaining how his example (one in which the students wasn't opted in and then went through an appeals process to get approved or something) wouldn't work due to the mechanism of action in Plan B.

And guess who fills out that paperwork? Not the parents of children who most need this policy. Not every kid lives in a supportive and caring household, and this is a stopgap measure to give those kids an option besides pregnancy or abortion.

I don't know what district you live in, but where I live, you get all your paperwork in order or you don't enroll.

(09-25-2012 01:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:... you are taking rights away from good parents... PARTICULARLY those with "at risk" kids who could likely benefit from their direction.

Hrmm...this is a really good poin-oh wait I forgot that a good parent who doesn't want this can opt their child out. Man, it's almost as if I've made that point a few times before, directly to you, and you keep ignoring that simple fact.

Let me make the point a little differently. BAD parents can have their rights taken away. Your point appears to be that it's ok for a school to subvert the rights of parents who are probably not as attentive as they should be, but nevertheless may love and worry about their kids.

Quote: As many have said here the main objection is that of the state medicating a child without a parent's permission. And you know d@mn well it WILL happen, probably a lot.

No, no I do not. Good parents know when their childrens big projects are due and which teacher gives the most homework. Decent parents know what sports and positions their kids play, and when they need to be picked up/taken to practice, passable parents fill out all the forms required and are aware of any major changes in their childs school district that could effect their child.

Quote:Your default position seems to be that parents should willingly give control over the health decisions of their child to the state (schools) because OTHER kids might have uninvolved parents. The problem is that the government should have no involvement in a child's health decisions. That is the job of the parents and is why this should be an opt-in program.

No, my position is that without parental advisement otherwise, the state takes the health and well being of the minor into account in regards to health decisions, which they unequivocally do and rightly so. You don't want your teenager to have the safest option available for moral reasons? You have to opt out of it. It is no different than JWs and blood transfusions.

Quote: There are other avenues that can be pursued to tackle the problem of teen pregnancy and ideas have been offered but you seem unwilling to listen.

No compelling ones, but feel free to give it a try. The only ones offered would result in a significant decrease in the effectiveness of Plan B, ultimately rendering it ineffective and resulting in more abortions which are far more invasive and dangerous.

Quote: Just like a child you want this enacted because some kids find themselves in a bad place of their own making. That they MIGHT have uninvolved parents, it becomes a crisis in your mind. "It's not FAIR!!"

I want it enacted because I don't like paying for teenagers to have children instead of offering Plan B, I want productive, healthy, and happy citizens as countrymen. And as far as cost/benefit goes, you really can't beat making Plan B available to teenagers.

Quote:"It's for the children," you know. That is the excuse most often trotted out when the left wants to curtail rights. Find another way to attack the problem rather than placing the onus on all parents, who might never know about this because not all students will deliver the correspondence to their parents.

'Think of the children' is traditionally a right-wing sentiment, though it can be used in the left wing occasionally I suppose. And again, this isn't the 1940's where we send report cards home with students and hope the parents get them, this is the day and age of PTAs/Email/mutiple open houses a year/24 hour media coverage/internet/etc. I guess that's why the school schedule never changes from year to year, because simply notifying concerned parents is an impossibility. Oh, I mean easier than it's ever been.