(09-24-2012 07:47 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Situational ethics, Blah. They're really good at it.

Creating compelling arguments, you're really bad at it.

(09-24-2012 07:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You think this is a permission slip for a museum tour or something, that's just sent home with a teenager with the expectation that they'll show it to their parents? I live in Florida, am not a parent, and *I* heard about this. If you're a NY parent taking any semblance of an active role in your teenagers life, you would know about this and would make your own decisions. Having an 'opt-in' would absolutely defeat the purpose of allowing the teenager to have options that they normally wouldn't because their parents are sh*tty human beings who shouldn't be parents.

Or... and follow along here..

You read political Bulletin boards that many do not, many work multiple jobs and might not watch the evening news. If you want a sense of how ignorant people are just look at the surveys given to people after voting about current events.

But Ill give you props for admitting that the whole reason this is an opt out is so that some kids can do it without parents knowing.

(09-24-2012 07:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 07:42 PM)blah Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 05:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The government isn't making the decision, they're providing the option.

But someone under 21 can't take the option to have a beer, someone under 18 can't make the decision to buy cigarettes, someone under 17 can't make the decision to go to an R rated movie and someone under 16 can't decide to drive a car.

It seems no one has a problem with any of these, but a 14 year old should be deciding whether or not to have an abortion by herself?

Because the teenagers/families this is aimed at include loving parents who take active roles in their lives and their responsibilities seriously. Plan B is effective, cheap, and safe, but it is only effective when taken *SOON* after intercourse. You don't want your kid given it? Take responsibility and opt out, but you're not who this program is aimed at.

School is not year round. Spring break is 2/3 weeks. Who is gonna fill in those gaps?

(09-24-2012 07:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You seem quite worried about the rights of parents who don't care about their parental responsibilities enough to simply opt-out of this program.

Just how many of these schoolkids are pregnant? If this was a majority of students, that would be one thing. But, I'm sure it is a small minority of students. If the law says that the nurse needs permission to even give an aspirin, then that same policy should apply to medication like plan B.

Wait until the first student takes plan B, and then dies from hemorrhaging and their parents didn't know. Lawsuit. Big one.

(09-24-2012 07:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point of this (I'm assuming, at least) is to give teenagers who have no parental involvement the ability to not ruin much of their lives...

Because that's what children do... They ruin your life. They're a burden. A virus. Disease that you just catch... Parasite...

(09-24-2012 07:36 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Quit worrying about everyone else's kids social cons. Worry about your own.

Quit trying to medicate mine without my permission.

Deal?

(09-24-2012 07:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 07:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You think this is a permission slip for a museum tour or something, that's just sent home with a teenager with the expectation that they'll show it to their parents? I live in Florida, am not a parent, and *I* heard about this. If you're a NY parent taking any semblance of an active role in your teenagers life, you would know about this and would make your own decisions. Having an 'opt-in' would absolutely defeat the purpose of allowing the teenager to have options that they normally wouldn't because their parents are sh*tty human beings who shouldn't be parents.

Or... and follow along here..

You read political Bulletin boards that many do not, many work multiple jobs and might not watch the evening news. If you want a sense of how ignorant people are just look at the surveys given to people after voting about current events.

But Ill give you props for admitting that the whole reason this is an opt out is so that some kids can do it without parents knowing.

Yes, I'm sure the only way any parent would know about this is through news outlets and the schools themselves would not make this policy overwhelmingly clear to any parent who takes even a minute amount of interest in their teenagers life. That sounds like common public school policy for any possibly controversial policy.

And you must have problems with comprehension because I've fairly clearly stated that this is an 'opt-out' is because those teenagers who need this the most are the ones least likely to have parents who respect their responsibilities, which include being aware of what is occurring in your teenagers school district. They're the ones who don't, for all intents and purposes, have any parents to infringe upon. It takes a lot to take a child from a parent, especially if the child does not have able or willing relatives to step in. Those children grow up, become teenagers, and unlike you or I, have no true adult supervision or guidance and therefore make bad decisions at a higher rate than those of us lucky enough to win the genetic lottery. You're advocating that they be punished even more by not giving them the same options as a teenager with an active parent, because if they cannot get them through these sorts of outlets, where can they in a timely manner? Should they try to take a cab to planned parenthood? Do you really want them to become pregnant and have the baby because of this? What chance does that baby have at that point?

Quote:Just how many of these schoolkids are pregnant? If this was a majority of students, that would be one thing. But, I'm sure it is a small minority of students. If the law says that the nurse needs permission to even give an aspirin, then that same policy should apply to medication like plan B.

Wait until the first student takes plan B, and then dies from hemorrhaging and their parents didn't know. Lawsuit. Big one.

Yes, because if less than 50% of the high schoolers are getting pregnant, it's clearly a non-issue? Jesus man...

And for the record, Aspirin is actually more dangerous than Plan B. Far moreso, in fact. Not too mention, not taking aspirin has never led to a teen pregnancy (which is far more dangerous than both). And I find it so odd that you're so willing to absolve the parent of any responsibility to act on their own parental rights that you're arguing so vehemently for.

Quote: Because that's what children do... They ruin your life. They're a burden. A virus. Disease that you just catch... Parasite...

At 14, and without parental support, yes they would in all practicality ruin ones life along with possibly cause a large amount of heath issues. And this isn't a fetus, this is a pre-implantation preventative measure (does no effect the implantation of a fertilized egg), just so there is no confusing this with an abortion.

Quote:Quit trying to medicate mine without my permission.

Deal?

If you're too personally involved, or shirk your responsibilities enough to not be aware of something like this, then you have no permission to give. Parental rights, like everything else, work both ways. I truly find it odd that I have to say this so many times.

(09-24-2012 09:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And you must have problems with comprehension because I've fairly clearly stated that this is an 'opt-out' is because those teenagers who need this the most are the ones least likely to have parents who respect their responsibilities,

Yea cause little suzzy will only get knocked up if she is from a bad home..

(09-24-2012 05:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The government isn't making the decision, they're providing the option.

They're providing an option to someone not legally capable of selecting an option. If you can't legally choose to drink a beer, you shouldn't be allowed to choose to take hormones. What if the parent suspects she's being raped by a teacher?

(09-24-2012 06:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That is one of the worst posts I've read here today SMN. Because the government cannot help lessen the effects of all negative decisions one makes we should not allow it to help those it could?

The government set the age of consent for those other events.

(09-24-2012 06:51 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Article says parents can opt out (i.e. can tell school not to offer Plan B to their daughter[s]). Why not an opt in? Isn't it highly likely that some parents won't see the letter the school sends, or toss it aside after barely scanning it? Why not say "We're offering a program to dispense prescription drugs to your kids, so we need your authorization to do so."

I think the opt out letter BARELY covers it, but I also think it's pretty much a lock that minors are going to get these drugs without their parents having any idea that they are even available, let alone being dispensed to their own kids.

I have no problem with Plan B but we ought to be outraged if children who have not reached the age of consent are being given access to prescription medication without parental consent.

Exactly
There is a legal process to emancipate kids from neglected parents. It doesn't involve two teenagers and a bad decision

(09-24-2012 06:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Again, would you rather a 14 year old carry a child she didn't want?

There are LOTS of things I'd prefer, but they aren't my call.

(09-24-2012 06:58 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Only in NYC can a 14 year old get the morning after pill but not a big gulp. Liberal utopia.

That's un-funny

(09-24-2012 07:18 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 06:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Again, would you rather a 14 year old carry a child she didn't want?

False dichotomy. It's not: A) Notify the parents, OR B) 14 yr old gets Plan B. The problem is consent. Kids who are not old enough to do so and parents who are biologically, morally, and legally REQUIRED to do so on their kids' behalf.

ETA: The fact that some parents aren't doing their job is not enough of a justification. If the State decides parents aren't fit to participate in their kids' lives then there are legal options available. (Frankly, some of those options are pretty horrifying as well.)

Yep.

(09-24-2012 07:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Um, no? The options, for those teenagers who would fall into this situation, are more accurately 1) Allow them access to Plan B or 2) sit back while they become pregnant despite not wishing to, carry the child to term, and as their parents aren't involved anyways, grossly negatively affect their lives and burden the taxpayers with the expense.

Unless, of course, you think parents taking an active role in their teenagers lives wouldn't opt out of this?

The government shouldn't make you have to opt-in to your constitutional rights.

(09-24-2012 07:36 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies. I would think that a girl may "chance it" if her parents might find out she's been doing the horizontal limbo. Anything that could prevent an unwanted pregnancy. That should be our number 1 goal. Quit worrying about everyone else's kids social cons. Worry about your own.

Im no social con, but I believe in rights and responsibilities. If you also support eliminating the age requirements for licenses and drinking and r rated movies and murder, then fine.

Interesting that UCF admits that kids wouldn't want to tell their parents if they don't have to, and then mach argues that parents against abortion wouldn't opt in... unless of course the kids didn't want to tell their parents they were having sex...

If you want to take parental rights away, then do it legally. Sending a letter home that can easily be diverted does not pass legal muster

(09-24-2012 09:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 09:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And you must have problems with comprehension because I've fairly clearly stated that this is an 'opt-out' is because those teenagers who need this the most are the ones least likely to have parents who respect their responsibilities,

Yea cause little suzzy will only get opted into this Plan B availability if her parents don't even care enough about her to request she is opted out.

FIFY

Quote: They're providing an option to someone not legally capable of selecting an option. If you can't legally choose to drink a beer, you shouldn't be allowed to choose to take hormones. What if the parent suspects she's being raped by a teacher?

They're providing the option to those who have no active parental units in their lives. Do you think the only teenagers who should have the ability to take Plan B are those whose parents are active in their lives? I can't really comprehend how you're not seeing the idiocy of that circular reasoning.

As for the rape comment, what the f*ck? How is a teacher raping a student anyway applicable to this?

Quote: The government set the age of consent for those other events.

And they also allow ways in which those age of consents can be changed in certain circumstances. In this case, there is little to no danger to the teenager, and the parents can easily not allow the school this right. It's that simple. Do your job as a parent and you have nothing to worry about. Period.

You all seem so willing to defend sh*tty parents while writing off irresponsible teenagers, it's really quite asinine.

Quote: The government shouldn't make you have to opt-in to your constitutional rights.

Um, yes they should. Unless of course you think they should force every american to own firearms, throw out every confession by any criminal, force people to join a church, etc etc etc GOD YOU'RE NOT GOOD AT THIS LOGIC THING.

(09-24-2012 07:36 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies. I would think that a girl may "chance it" if her parents might find out she's been doing the horizontal limbo. Anything that could prevent an unwanted pregnancy. That should be our number 1 goal. Quit worrying about everyone else's kids social cons. Worry about your own.

I am absolutely floored by this. Judging by the many tests folks post here from time to time, I am socially more to the left than some of the liberals posting here. I'm sure there are some who will leverage their pro life agenda to protest this action because of Plan B, but at its core this is all about the State taking away the rights of citizens. How can you argue this is cons "worrying about everyone else's kids"? This action is EXACTLY a school/state agency worrying about everyone else's kids, instead of allowing parents to worry about their own.

(09-24-2012 10:06 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 07:36 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies. I would think that a girl may "chance it" if her parents might find out she's been doing the horizontal limbo. Anything that could prevent an unwanted pregnancy. That should be our number 1 goal. Quit worrying about everyone else's kids social cons. Worry about your own.

I am absolutely floored by this. Judging by the many tests folks post here from time to time, I am socially more to the left than some of the liberals posting here. I'm sure there are some who will leverage their pro life agenda to protest this action because of Plan B, but at its core this is all about the State taking away the rights of citizens. How can you argue this is cons "worrying about everyone else's kids"? This action is EXACTLY a school/state agency worrying about everyone else's kids, instead of allowing parents to worry about their own.

This is parents worry about other peoples children. You don't this for your child, opt them out. It's that simple. If you do not opt them out, you have chosen not to exercise your parental right for that particular issue and therefore you cannot complain.

Personal responsibility, and I'm more concerned with that of our states responsibility to provide options for teenagers who don't have any other than to protect some sh*tty parent who doesn't take any sort of active role in their teenagers life getting upset. That's on them.

(09-24-2012 09:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 09:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 09:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And you must have problems with comprehension because I've fairly clearly stated that this is an 'opt-out' is because those teenagers who need this the most are the ones least likely to have parents who respect their responsibilities,

Yea cause little suzzy will only get opted into this Plan B availability if her parents don't even care enough about her to request she is opted out.

FIFY

Right because no kids with caring, loving parents might... I don't know... Be embarassed about a stupid decision and keep it from them.

Nurses... for Pete's sake! They cant prescribe medication to take care of a headache. But it's ok to go ahead and hand out hormone pills..

(09-24-2012 10:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Personal responsibility, and I'm more concerned with that of our states responsibility to provide options for teenagers who don't have any other than to protect some sh*tty parent who doesn't take any sort of active role in their teenagers life getting upset. That's on them.

bwhahahahahaah.... Oh man if he can talk about personal responsibility when in fact nobody should be held responsible for there behavior then there is no point..

Quote:Right because no kids with caring, loving parents might... I don't know... Be embarassed about a stupid decision and keep it from them.

Then you show that you're an active and responsible parent, and opt your child out of it. Problem solved. Personal responsibility and all that good stuff. Unless of course you think that being aware of something like this is too much to expect from a responsible parent.

Quote:Nurses... for Pete's sake! They cant prescribe medication to take care of a headache. But it's ok to go ahead and hand out hormone pills..

Not really sure how many more times I have to state it but Aspirin is more dangerous than you'd likely think, and not treating a headache can't lead into a teenage pregnancy. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to one of the most dangerous times in a womans life.

(09-24-2012 10:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 10:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Personal responsibility, and I'm more concerned with that of our states responsibility to provide options for teenagers who don't have any other than to protect some sh*tty parent who doesn't take any sort of active role in their teenagers life getting upset. That's on them.

bwhahahahahaah.... Oh man if he can talk about personal responsibility when in fact nobody should be held responsible for there behavior then there is no point..

I don't think you read so good

(09-24-2012 10:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 10:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 10:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Personal responsibility, and I'm more concerned with that of our states responsibility to provide options for teenagers who don't have any other than to protect some sh*tty parent who doesn't take any sort of active role in their teenagers life getting upset. That's on them.

bwhahahahahaah.... Oh man if he can talk about personal responsibility when in fact nobody should be held responsible for there behavior then there is no point..

I don't think you read so good

Whatever you say sally,

Your ok with a government position that defaults to "medicate peoples kids without permission". Somehow to you that preserves "personal responsibility"

(09-24-2012 10:35 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 10:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 10:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 10:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Personal responsibility, and I'm more concerned with that of our states responsibility to provide options for teenagers who don't have any other than to protect some sh*tty parent who doesn't take any sort of active role in their teenagers life getting upset. That's on them.

bwhahahahahaah.... Oh man if he can talk about personal responsibility when in fact nobody should be held responsible for there behavior then there is no point..

I don't think you read so good

Whatever you say sally,

Your ok with a government position that defaults to "medicate peoples kids without permission". Somehow to you that preserves "personal responsibility"

The government does default to 'you must care for your children or we will step in to do so' in every aspect when it comes to children. This is absolutely no different.

Again, you're defending sh*tty parents rights which they don't even care enough to exercise, while throwing their kids under the bus.

(09-24-2012 10:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Again, you're defending sh*tty parents rights which they don't even care enough to exercise, while throwing their kids under the bus.

I'll defend the rights of any person, weather I like the way they parent or not..