PDA

View Full Version : Judge rules ALL women should have morning after pill..



Pages : [1] 2

garhkal
04-06-2013, 07:24 PM
Saw this on Fox during lunch.. a judge has ruled that all women should be allowed access to over the counter (non perscription, no need for ID) morning after pills.. the company who makes them was smoking dope when they put an age restriction on it..
Some were quoted as saying this is a good day for women's reproductive rights..

What gets me is, if a parent is LEGALLY liable for his/her child till they turn 18 (some places its older), why should it not be up to the parent whether his daughter (or hers) has access to this pill or not?
Should the right(s) of the kid to need tat pill or get preggers override the right/responsibility of the parent?

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/05/17615372-judge-make-morning-after-pill-available-to-all-girls-without-prescription?lite

Banned
04-19-2013, 12:28 PM
Because pregnancy completely trashes a woman's body (destroyer of vaginas) :D

- a girl should have a right to the pill. If the parents are religious fanatics - well, too bad.

JD2780
04-19-2013, 01:00 PM
Because pregnancy completely trashes a woman's body (destroyer of vaginas) :D

- a girl should have a right to the pill. If the parents are religious fanatics - well, too bad.

A kid should have the right to drink. If the parents disagree too bad. Why can't parents parent anymore? Because of liberals.

sandsjames
04-19-2013, 01:10 PM
Kids should be able to choose whether they go to school or not. It shouldn't be up to the parent to determine what's best for the child (until the child attempts to pray, then it's the parent's fault for brainwashing with fairy tales).

Banned
04-20-2013, 11:48 AM
A kid should have the right to drink. If the parents disagree too bad. Why can't parents parent anymore? Because of liberals.


Kids should be able to choose whether they go to school or not. It shouldn't be up to the parent to determine what's best for the child (until the child attempts to pray, then it's the parent's fault for brainwashing with fairy tales).

Right because drinking and skipping school are exactly the same as pregnancy. Gimme a break guys.\

I know this concept drives the religious right nuts... but parents should not control their kids bodies. That means your kid gets vaccinated. Your kids get birth control. Whether or not you believe that's "god's will" is irrelevant.

sandsjames
04-20-2013, 12:27 PM
Right because drinking and skipping school are exactly the same as pregnancy. Gimme a break guys.\

I know this concept drives the religious right nuts... but parents should not control their kids bodies. That means your kid gets vaccinated. Your kids get birth control. Whether or not you believe that's "god's will" is irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with "God's will". It has to do with parents being the ones responsible and in charge of their children. It has to do with the government not being the ones to decide what's best for my kids.

Banned
04-20-2013, 04:35 PM
It has nothing to do with "God's will". It has to do with parents being the ones responsible and in charge of their children. It has to do with the government not being the ones to decide what's best for my kids.

Nope sorry. Public health and safety overrides ideology. Breaking herd immunity could potentially lead to a nation-wide epidemic - and surely you - with all your speeches about "reforming welfare" - would agree that its bad for 12 year old girls to have unwanted children.

garhkal
04-20-2013, 05:41 PM
Right because drinking and skipping school are exactly the same as pregnancy. Gimme a break guys.\

I know this concept drives the religious right nuts... but parents should not control their kids bodies. That means your kid gets vaccinated. Your kids get birth control. Whether or not you believe that's "god's will" is irrelevant.

Since the parent is legally responsible for what the kid does, including if those vaccines are not given, why should they NOT have a say for birth control?

Banned
04-20-2013, 07:08 PM
Since the parent is legally responsible for what the kid does, including if those vaccines are not given, why should they NOT have a say for birth control?

Because the actions of ignorant religious zealots affects everybody. Delusional evangelicals refusing to vaccinate their kids breaks herd immunity, and could cause an epidemic making thousands of people in their schools and communities sick. Delusional evangelicals refusing access to BC for their daughters means more kids on welfare with shitty childhoods more likely to grow up to be criminals.

If your actions negatively affect the community, the community has a responsibility to prevent you from doing that.

garhkal
04-20-2013, 08:50 PM
Strange.. Most of those i know refusing vaccines are jehovas OR athiests... not religious zealots.

JD2780
04-21-2013, 09:08 PM
Right because drinking and skipping school are exactly the same as pregnancy. Gimme a break guys.\

I know this concept drives the religious right nuts... but parents should not control their kids bodies. That means your kid gets vaccinated. Your kids get birth control. Whether or not you believe that's "god's will" is irrelevant.

Yup, kids should control their bodies. Tattoos as minors. How about we let parents be parents and teen pregnancy won't happen as much. I believe that God has many good doctors, good medicine in order to help my children. I pray for the steady hand of s surgeon, the clear thought of that surgeon. Not for God to simply heal my child without any other means.

JD2780
04-21-2013, 09:14 PM
Because the actions of ignorant religious zealots affects everybody. Delusional evangelicals refusing to vaccinate their kids breaks herd immunity, and could cause an epidemic making thousands of people in their schools and communities sick. Delusional evangelicals refusing access to BC for their daughters means more kids on welfare with shitty childhoods more likely to grow up to be criminals.

If your actions negatively affect the community, the community has a responsibility to prevent you from doing that.

I don't think its the evangelicals that are having teen pregnancies. Maybe go to the housing projects in the ghettos, the trailer parks in WT America, and the absent white collar parents. If you have open communication with your children, they are way less likely to have this issue. You're blinded by your hatred for people that believe in Jesus Christ.

Banned
04-21-2013, 11:16 PM
I don't think its the evangelicals that are having teen pregnancies. Maybe go to the housing projects in the ghettos, the trailer parks in WT America, and the absent white collar parents. If you have open communication with your children, they are way less likely to have this issue. You're blinded by your hatred for people that believe in Jesus Christ.

Fact remains the most religious states are also the ones with the highest teen pregnancy rates. Which in itself isn't as much as a problem as the fact that these rates are not declining. Progressive states are seeing a steady decline in teen pregnancy... fundamentalist states are seeing little or no improvement at all.

Banned
04-21-2013, 11:17 PM
Yup, kids should control their bodies. Tattoos as minors. How about we let parents be parents and teen pregnancy won't happen as much. I believe that God has many good doctors, good medicine in order to help my children. I pray for the steady hand of s surgeon, the clear thought of that surgeon. Not for God to simply heal my child without any other means.

Right because tattoos are exactly the same as unwanted pregnancies that will cost the Federal and state governments millions of dollars.

JD2780
04-21-2013, 11:19 PM
Right because tattoos are exactly the same as unwanted pregnancies that will cost the Federal and state governments millions of dollars.

Your argument was kids should be in charge of their own bodies.

Banned
04-21-2013, 11:32 PM
Your argument was kids should be in charge of their own bodies.

Thank you for telling me what you think my argument should have been. Too bad I never said that.

JD2780
04-22-2013, 12:05 AM
Right because drinking and skipping school are exactly the same as pregnancy. Gimme a break guys.\

I know this concept drives the religious right nuts... but parents should not control their kids bodies. That means your kid gets vaccinated. Your kids get birth control. Whether or not you believe that's "god's will" is irrelevant.

If not the parents, I guess you mean the kids. That's what you appear to be thinking.

Banned
04-22-2013, 01:53 AM
If not the parents, I guess you mean the kids. That's what you appear to be thinking.

So I take it you think those are the only two choices?

JD2780
04-22-2013, 01:55 AM
So I take it you think those are the only two choices?

Yes. Would you rather the government control my child's body? What other choices are there? The government? They control enough already.

Banned
04-22-2013, 01:59 AM
Yes. Would you rather the government control my child's body? What other choices are there? The government? They control enough already.

A parent can make decisions about the child's body up to the point that parent either proves himself incompetent, or infringes upon that child's human rights.

JD2780
04-22-2013, 02:06 AM
A parent can make decisions about the child's body up to the point that parent either proves himself incompetent, or infringes upon that child's human rights.

Like birth control? Yea I should be able to chose if my daughter takes birth control or not. There are other means to it. No the gov shouldn't be telling me or forcing me to give my daughter BC. I'm in charge of my child.

Your statement is already in place. When parents prove incompetent the state already puts the child in foster care or protective custody. They don't need to tell me to give my kid birth control. This is why we have so many whiney teens and 20 something year olds. Because America is slowly making good parenting illegal. Abusing a child is horrible. Spanking isn't abusing. Taking things away such as tv video games, outside time isn't bad for a child. It's good parenting.

sandsjames
04-22-2013, 03:14 PM
Like birth control? Yea I should be able to chose if my daughter takes birth control or not. There are other means to it. No the gov shouldn't be telling me or forcing me to give my daughter BC. I'm in charge of my child.

Your statement is already in place. When parents prove incompetent the state already puts the child in foster care or protective custody. They don't need to tell me to give my kid birth control. This is why we have so many whiney teens and 20 something year olds. Because America is slowly making good parenting illegal. Abusing a child is horrible. Spanking isn't abusing. Taking things away such as tv video games, outside time isn't bad for a child. It's good parenting.

You know better than that, JD. If you discipline your children they will grow up with emotional problems. You have to start letting them decide what's best for them at a very early age (2 or 3). That way they are completely independent by the time they are 11 or 12, the age at which human beings become rational and act with good judgement.

JD2780
04-22-2013, 03:21 PM
You know better than that, JD. If you discipline your children they will grow up with emotional problems. You have to start letting them decide what's best for them at a very early age (2 or 3). That way they are completely independent by the time they are 11 or 12, the age at which human beings become rational and act with good judgement.

Yea I really should let them play in traffic, play with matches. Heck if they want to play with my hand gun I should just give it to them. SJ I'm picking up what you're putting down.

JD2780
04-22-2013, 03:28 PM
And please, remember, if your child tells you know, don't discipline them. Sit them down (unless they choose to stand) and ask them why they feel the way they do. Find out emotionally what is causing their reaction (again, start this around age 2). They may have seen something traumatic on TV that caused them to disobey you. Remember, your child ALWAYS know what's best for them. To hamper their creativity and development is a detriment to them becoming assests to society.

I should write a book. I'm sure there are several people who would actual believe this bullshit.

Yes there are and its sad. They are causing the down fall of humanity.

sandsjames
04-22-2013, 03:29 PM
Yea I really should let them play in traffic, play with matches. Heck if they want to play with my hand gun I should just give it to them. SJ I'm picking up what you're putting down.

And please, remember, if your child tells you know, don't discipline them. Sit them down (unless they choose to stand) and ask them why they feel the way they do. Find out emotionally what is causing their reaction (again, start this around age 2). They may have seen something traumatic on TV that caused them to disobey you. Remember, your child ALWAYS know what's best for them. To hamper their creativity and development is a detriment to them becoming assests to society.

I should write a book. I'm sure there are several people who would actual believe this bullshit.

JD2780
04-22-2013, 03:30 PM
And please, remember, if your child tells you know, don't discipline them. Sit them down (unless they choose to stand) and ask them why they feel the way they do. Find out emotionally what is causing their reaction (again, start this around age 2). They may have seen something traumatic on TV that caused them to disobey you. Remember, your child ALWAYS know what's best for them. To hamper their creativity and development is a detriment to them becoming assests to society.

I should write a book. I'm sure there are several people who would actual believe this bullshit.

Yes there are and its sad. They are causing the down fall of humanity.

Banned
04-25-2013, 02:59 PM
Like birth control? Yea I should be able to chose if my daughter takes birth control or not. There are other means to it. No the gov shouldn't be telling me or forcing me to give my daughter BC. I'm in charge of my child.

Your statement is already in place. When parents prove incompetent the state already puts the child in foster care or protective custody. They don't need to tell me to give my kid birth control. This is why we have so many whiney teens and 20 something year olds. Because America is slowly making good parenting illegal. Abusing a child is horrible. Spanking isn't abusing. Taking things away such as tv video games, outside time isn't bad for a child. It's good parenting.

Such as what? Abortion? Yet another child dependent on the "nanny state"?

Measure Man
04-25-2013, 03:15 PM
Kids should be able to choose whether they go to school or not. It shouldn't be up to the parent to determine what's best for the child (until the child attempts to pray, then it's the parent's fault for brainwashing with fairy tales).

Parents can choose to pray for their child intead of taking them to a doctor for a simple procedure. The parents know what's best.

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/faith-healing-parents-arrested-over-death-of-second-child-130424.htm

Measure Man
04-25-2013, 03:24 PM
All of the sarcastic hyperbole aside...you guys are missing the point.

Prior to this ruling...girls 17 and older could get the pill over the counter. Why? Because it is medically safe.

Girls under 17 had to get a prescription. Why? Because we didn't like the idea of young girls have sex and needing it.

The medical data and the FDA have all said that the pill is safe for all girls of reproductive age...and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to get it over the counter.

Then politics got in the way....and the HHS Sec OVERULED the FDA and medical recommendations...for political reasons.

Allowing girls under 17 to buy this over the counter does not infringe on your parental rights any more than allowing them to buy a Big Gulp at 7-11 without a prescription (except the big gulp is actually worse for your child with no redeeming value whatsoever). It is a medically safe product, there is no reason for the government to impose restrictions on it. Where is all that libertarian/conservativism at??

Are you guys really asking the government to help you parent your child?

Measure Man
04-25-2013, 03:31 PM
Like birth control? Yea I should be able to chose if my daughter takes birth control or not. There are other means to it. No the gov shouldn't be telling me or forcing me to give my daughter BC. I'm in charge of my child.

where in that ruling is the govt. forcing you to do anything?

Oh wow...your 15 year is allowed to go buy a pair of shoes at Wal-mart...HOW DARE the govt force you to put wal-mart shoes on your daughters feet.??? Really?


Your statement is already in place. When parents prove incompetent the state already puts the child in foster care or protective custody. They don't need to tell me to give my kid birth control. This is why we have so many whiney teens and 20 something year olds. Because America is slowly making good parenting illegal. Abusing a child is horrible. Spanking isn't abusing. Taking things away such as tv video games, outside time isn't bad for a child. It's good parenting.

Still don't see where the govt. is forcing birth control on anyone. What you are arguing for is the govt. to take more control of your child.

Measure Man
04-25-2013, 03:33 PM
Please Mistah Gubmint...I can't control my child...will you make it illegal for people to sell her things I might not want her to have. I know, let's use the medical prescription system even though there is no medical reason this pill needs a prescription. The important thing is that is doesn't look like we want young girls to have sex.


You all have lost your minds. If there is no medical reason a product needs to be prescribed by a doctor...why the hell should it? The medical prescription is not designed to ensure parental permission.

sandsjames
04-25-2013, 03:54 PM
All of the sarcastic hyperbole aside...you guys are missing the point.

Prior to this ruling...girls 17 and older could get the pill over the counter. Why? Because it is medically safe.

Girls under 17 had to get a prescription. Why? Because we didn't like the idea of young girls have sex and needing it.

The medical data and the FDA have all said that the pill is safe for all girls of reproductive age...and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to get it over the counter.

Then politics got in the way....and the HHS Sec OVERULED the FDA and medical recommendations...for political reasons.

Allowing girls under 17 to buy this over the counter does not infringe on your parental rights any more than allowing them to buy a Big Gulp at 7-11 without a prescription (except the big gulp is actually worse for your child with no redeeming value whatsoever). It is a medically safe product, there is no reason for the government to impose restrictions on it. Where is all that libertarian/conservativism at??

Are you guys really asking the government to help you parent your child?

Very good point MM. I like the way you put it. You're absolutely right and have changed my view on this. Sell it over the counter. Make it legal. It's up to me as a parent to raise my child in such a manner that she will not have a need to purchase these. For other who do, not my concern.

Joe, please pay attention. This is a sane argument that is very persuasive. He didn't have to pick at religious views or anything. All he had to do was make a logical argument. It's no more up to the government to regulate these pills than it is for them to regulate what's on TV.

Thank you MM.

edit: What I would have a problem if this was a prescription and the doctor was giving my daughter without my knowledge.

JD2780
04-25-2013, 04:34 PM
Such as what? Abortion? Yet another child dependent on the "nanny state"?

Nope, like condoms or this is crazy thing called being involved in your child's life. Teaching them about sex and not making the schools do it.

Crazy. I know.

20+Years
04-25-2013, 05:46 PM
Joe always jumps straight to religion. I just can't imagine there are people out there who although they don't go to church, also don't want thier daughter getting pregnant and/or ending a pregnancy. Oh gee... I'm one of them! Until my daughter reaches the age to move out of my house, I do think I have a right to oversee certain things. While Joe is afraid of one more child being on the public teat, I know that if my teenage daughter ends up pregnant I will be supporting the new mother and her child, probably for many more years than I had planned. That isn't in my gameplan at the moment, so sorry.

So how do I ensure she doesn't get pregnant? Give her access to a pill? Nope. I parent. We talk with her about important decisions, know where she goes and with who, and I am not afraid to turn a boy away when I just don't like his attitude. She is my...what the word I'm looking for?... oh! CHILD. If she was to become sexually active, I would much prefer to use something preventative to start with. Therefore it avoids any guilt at a later date. I know many women who have miscarried (which is what the pill essentially causes), even early in a pregnancy, and some just never get over it.

It will be interesting to see the first lawsuit of, "I wouldn't have killed my baby except for the pill", "my parents made me take the pill", I took the wrong pill and now my baby is dead", ect, ect, ect.

Banned
04-25-2013, 08:21 PM
Very good point MM. I like the way you put it. You're absolutely right and have changed my view on this. Sell it over the counter. Make it legal. It's up to me as a parent to raise my child in such a manner that she will not have a need to purchase these. For other who do, not my concern.

Joe, please pay attention. This is a sane argument that is very persuasive. He didn't have to pick at religious views or anything. All he had to do was make a logical argument. It's no more up to the government to regulate these pills than it is for them to regulate what's on TV.

Thank you MM.

edit: What I would have a problem if this was a prescription and the doctor was giving my daughter without my knowledge.

Irony at its best.


Joe always jumps straight to religion. I just can't imagine there are people out there who although they don't go to church, also don't want thier daughter getting pregnant and/or ending a pregnancy. Oh gee... I'm one of them! Until my daughter reaches the age to move out of my house, I do think I have a right to oversee certain things. While Joe is afraid of one more child being on the public teat, I know that if my teenage daughter ends up pregnant I will be supporting the new mother and her child, probably for many more years than I had planned. That isn't in my gameplan at the moment, so sorry.

So how do I ensure she doesn't get pregnant? Give her access to a pill? Nope. I parent. We talk with her about important decisions, know where she goes and with who, and I am not afraid to turn a boy away when I just don't like his attitude. She is my...what the word I'm looking for?... oh! CHILD. If she was to become sexually active, I would much prefer to use something preventative to start with. Therefore it avoids any guilt at a later date. I know many women who have miscarried (which is what the pill essentially causes), even early in a pregnancy, and some just never get over it.

It will be interesting to see the first lawsuit of, "I wouldn't have killed my baby except for the pill", "my parents made me take the pill", I took the wrong pill and now my baby is dead", ect, ect, ect.

Good for you. So when we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, you're assuming every single one of them is going to be a responsible parent and monitor their daughters 24/7 to ensure they don't do any icky things with boys?

sandsjames
04-25-2013, 08:33 PM
Irony at its best.



What's the irony??? The fact that someone made a coherent point that swayed my thinking on a subject?

garhkal
04-25-2013, 09:01 PM
edit: What I would have a problem if this was a prescription and the doctor was giving my daughter without my knowledge.

And how is allowing the kid to buy it without your knowledge different than her having to get a prescription without your knowledge?

20+Years
04-25-2013, 09:10 PM
Good for you. So when we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, you're assuming every single one of them is going to be a responsible parent and monitor their daughters 24/7 to ensure they don't do any icky things with boys?

Nope. Not my job to worry about everyone else. But there are other parents who are as involved as me and would like to know before thier teenage daughter (who can't even legally decide they should have a sip of alcohol) terminates a pregnancy.

sandsjames
04-25-2013, 09:13 PM
And how is allowing the kid to buy it without your knowledge different than her having to get a prescription without your knowledge?

Doctors should not be doing ANY medical care with my children without my knowledge, plain and simple. No different than a teacher handing out condoms. It shouldn't happen. No person in a position of authority should be providing my child with ANYTHING without my knowledge.

sandsjames
04-25-2013, 09:15 PM
Good for you. So when we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, you're assuming every single one of them is going to be a responsible parent and monitor their daughters 24/7 to ensure they don't do any icky things with boys?

How old is your daughter? Wait, you don't have one?

Measure Man
04-25-2013, 09:26 PM
How old is your daughter? Wait, you don't have one?

I have 2 daughters, ages 18 and 24. As a father, I would say that in the unfortunate event that one of them should need the Plan B pill, either because of a rape, momentary lack of judgement, or whatever...I would hope that their fear of telling me would NOT stand in the way of them getting what they needed.

Of course, I'd LIKE to know everything about my children...but having had 2 teenagers and a step-teenager, I know that is an impractical and naive wish.

Anyone who thinks well-parented children don't misbehave or do things behind your backs...either doesn't have children or aren't really paying attention.

sandsjames
04-25-2013, 09:43 PM
I have 2 daughters, ages 18 and 24. As a father, I would say that in the unfortunate event that one of them should need the Plan B pill, either because of a rape, momentary lack of judgement, or whatever...I would hope that their fear of telling me would NOT stand in the way of them getting what they needed.

Of course, I'd LIKE to know everything about my children...but having had 2 teenagers and a step-teenager, I know that is an impractical and naive wish.

Anyone who thinks well-parented children don't misbehave or do things behind your backs...either doesn't have children or aren't really paying attention.

Of course they misbehave and do things behind your back, that's what kids do. But not with the big things. Rape is a totally different topic so I won't address that any further.

I guess I'm just from a different world, I don't know. I know that neither me nor my two siblings (brother and sister) had sex until we were adults. I also know that my step kids did not have sex until they were adults.

People of the opposite sex were NEVER allowed in the bedroom. They were never allowed in the house when the parents were gone. There was a strict curfew and we were not allowed to "date" until we were 16. We new that if we were adult enough to have sex then we were adult enough to take care of ourselves and deal with the consequences and that's what we were told from the beginning. There was no "don't worry, we'll take care of you and your kid". We were also raised to believe that abortion, except in the case of rape, was not an option. We all respected this. What other choices did we have? None, so we didn't take the chance. It's so simple. And none of those rules caused us to dislike our parents or feel like we missed out on anything.

I realize parents now want to feel as if they are their child's friend in every situation. That's not the way I feel.

If you want your child to be able to get prescriptions from the doctor then you can give permission. If you want your child to think more about safe sex than no sex then that is your choice.

But MY choice is taken away if doctors are allowed to give my children whatever they want.

Measure Man
04-25-2013, 09:55 PM
Of course they misbehave and do things behind your back, that's what kids do. But not with the big things. Rape is a totally different topic so I won't address that any further.

I guess I'm just from a different world, I don't know. I know that neither me nor my two siblings (brother and sister) had sex until we were adults. I also know that my step kids did not have sex until they were adults.

People of the opposite sex were NEVER allowed in the bedroom. They were never allowed in the house when the parents were gone. There was a strict curfew and we were not allowed to "date" until we were 16. We new that if we were adult enough to have sex then we were adult enough to take care of ourselves and deal with the consequences and that's what we were told from the beginning. There was no "don't worry, we'll take care of you and your kid". We were also raised to believe that abortion, except in the case of rape, was not an option. We all respected this. What other choices did we have? None, so we didn't take the chance. It's so simple. And none of those rules caused us to dislike our parents or feel like we missed out on anything.

I would say that I was raised pretty much the same, and try to do the same with my kids...but kids today live in a very different world than I did. VERY different.


I realize parents now want to feel as if they are their child's friend in every situation. That's not the way I feel.

Nor I.


If you want your child to be able to get prescriptions from the doctor then you can give permission. If you want your child to think more about safe sex than no sex then that is your choice.

Hey, sure I'd like my daughters not to have sex until they are older...well, my older daughter is married, so that's fine..ha ha. I'm certainly not out there encouraging them to have sex.


But MY choice is taken away if doctors are allowed to give my children whatever they want.

I'm kind of with on you the prescription thing...because medicine requires a prescription presumably because either the child's condition, or the risks of the medicine require some medical supervision...and if it requires medical supervision, it's reasonable to assume that it also requires adult judgement in the use and care, and adult decision-making.

sandsjames
04-25-2013, 10:20 PM
I would say that I was raised pretty much the same, and try to do the same with my kids...but kids today live in a very different world than I did. VERY different. I agree with everything you said, but I dislike this excuse. Just because it's a different world doesn't mean that the same morals can't be instilled that were when we were growing up. I can't contribute to the morals of the kids my children will be hanging around, but I can instill the morals that were instilled in me.

Do I believe this is 100% effective? Of course not, I'm not that naïve. I do believe, however, it's better than the belief that so many parents have that "my children are going to do it anyway so I should try to make it as safe as possible for them". This, to me, is no different than handing the car keys to a drunk.

Measure Man
04-25-2013, 10:24 PM
I agree with everything you said, but I dislike this excuse. Just because it's a different world doesn't mean that the same morals can't be instilled that were when we were growing up. I can't contribute to the morals of the kids my children will be hanging around, but I can instill the morals that were instilled in me.

Do I believe this is 100% effective? Of course not, I'm not that naïve. I do believe, however, it's better than the belief that so many parents have that "my children are going to do it anyway so I should try to make it as safe as possible for them". This, to me, is no different than handing the car keys to a drunk.

We're not disagreeing.

Of course you can do your best to instill all your morals on your children...I'm just saying it was a lot easier to do in the 80s than it is now...probably even the 90s. It's not an excuse, it is recognizing the reality...doesn't mean you don't try. Sure, it can still be done, there are 23 year old virgins out there...I'm not saying it can't be done...but teenagers are not easy.

I've also seen what I would call very responsible parents automatically put their child on birth control shots once the child reached a certain age. I didn't do that with mine, but I can certainly understand the logic...especially for the community these parents lived in.

sandsjames
04-25-2013, 10:31 PM
We're not disagreeing.

Of course you can do your best to instill all your morals on your children...I'm just saying it was a lot easier to do in the 80s than it is now...probably even the 90s. It's not an excuse, it is recognizing the reality...doesn't mean you don't try. Sure, it can still be done, there are 23 year old virgins out there...I'm not saying it can't be done...but teenagers are not easy.

I've also seen what I would call very responsible parents automatically put their child on birth control shots once the child reached a certain age. I didn't do that with mine, but I can certainly understand the logic...especially for the community these parents lived in.

It seems like lazy parenting to me. It's almost like using the TV as a babysitter. "I don't have time to take care of you like I should so here you go..." It's a shame, really. And the situation creates more of the same for the next generation.

Measure Man
04-26-2013, 12:38 AM
It seems like lazy parenting to me. It's almost like using the TV as a babysitter. "I don't have time to take care of you like I should so here you go..." It's a shame, really. And the situation creates more of the same for the next generation.

I duuno...I don't want my kids to be in a car accident, but I still teach them to wear seatbelts.

I think it's more of a realization that when your kids get a little older you lose a certain degree of control.

really it's just a judgement you make knowing your child...kids are all different and even the best parented kids don't always turn out wonderful.

Pullinteeth
04-26-2013, 01:41 PM
Of course they misbehave and do things behind your back, that's what kids do. But not with the big things.

I guess you must live in a different world than I then because when I was a kid, the little things are the ones I tried to hide the MOST...

sandsjames
04-26-2013, 02:57 PM
I guess you must live in a different world than I then because when I was a kid, the little things are the ones I tried to hide the MOST...

That's what I'm saying. Those are the things we, as parents, know are kids are probably going to do. But we also know they are the "little things" and part of growing up. Getting pregnant is NOT part of growing up. Sleeping around is NOT part of growing up. Going to parties and lying about being hungover is part of growing up. Say you're staying at a friends house and them saying they're staying at yours is part of growing up. I tried to hide it when I was a kid but know my parents knew exactly what I was doing. The same thing with my step child. However, by letting them know that I didn't "approve" of what they were doing they were much more likely to not take it to the extreme. I also did not allow them to do it on a regular basis. Maybe once a month would I let them "stay at a friends house". It was the same way for me. I knew that if I did anything stupid and got caught it would be my ass when I got home.

garhkal
04-26-2013, 08:29 PM
Nope. Not my job to worry about everyone else. But there are other parents who are as involved as me and would like to know before thier teenage daughter (who can't even legally decide they should have a sip of alcohol) terminates a pregnancy.

Or having a smoke.. or legally being able to consent to sex.

Banned
04-27-2013, 04:10 AM
Yes, with proper parenting, a girl is guaranteed to stay nice innocent little virgin until her 20s, I would like to know what you're smoking -because I want some!

JD2780
04-27-2013, 10:47 AM
Yes, with proper parenting, a girl is guaranteed to stay nice innocent little virgin until her 20s, I would like to know what you're smoking -because I want some!

No you don't. You already said you hate religion. Also, it's a guarantee. Nothing is a guarantee.

Banned
04-27-2013, 02:03 PM
No you don't. You already said you hate religion. Also, it's a guarantee. Nothing is a guarantee.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

sandsjames
04-27-2013, 02:04 PM
Yes, with proper parenting, a girl is guaranteed to stay nice innocent little virgin until her 20s, I would like to know what you're smoking -because I want some!

Absolutely not guaranteed, but much less likely. You'd be amazed at how far respect for your parents can go. You've pointed out several times that you didn't have that so you wouldn't understand. I guess it's really not your fault.

Banned
04-27-2013, 02:12 PM
Absolutely not guaranteed, but much less likely. You'd be amazed at how far respect for your parents can go. You've pointed out several times that you didn't have that so you wouldn't understand. I guess it's really not your fault.

Actually from my experience girls with a religious upbringing are extremely conflicted and unhappy. If I ever have a daughter I'm going to try to teach her how to make responsible decisions for herself - not that she's going to hell if she associates with boys before marriage.

sandsjames
04-27-2013, 04:18 PM
Actually from my experience girls with a religious upbringing are extremely conflicted and unhappy. If I ever have a daughter I'm going to try to teach her how to make responsible decisions for herself - not that she's going to hell if she associates with boys before marriage.

That's because people are generally associated with people they relate to. From my experience, girls with a religious upbringing (and by this I mean a family who actually tries to follow the religion they claim to be part of) are much more likely to "follow the rules".

I'd love for you to show me where I said anyone would go to hell. For claiming to understand Christianity you really have no idea what Christians think, and neither do the people who claim that anyone who "sins" is going to hell. People spouting that crap don't understand a word they are preaching.

As far as trying to teach her to make responsible decisions, that's exactly how I feel. I just don't feel that teaching that birth control is a safe way to go is responsible.

You always talk about facts and science yet you fail to accept the statistics that girls who do not have sex DO NOT get pregnant. That is a FACT. That is SCIENCE.

Banned
04-27-2013, 04:50 PM
That's because people are generally associated with people they relate to. From my experience, girls with a religious upbringing (and by this I mean a family who actually tries to follow the religion they claim to be part of) are much more likely to "follow the rules".

I'd love for you to show me where I said anyone would go to hell. For claiming to understand Christianity you really have no idea what Christians think, and neither do the people who claim that anyone who "sins" is going to hell. People spouting that crap don't understand a word they are preaching.

As far as trying to teach her to make responsible decisions, that's exactly how I feel. I just don't feel that teaching that birth control is a safe way to go is responsible.

You always talk about facts and science yet you fail to accept the statistics that girls who do not have sex DO NOT get pregnant. That is a FACT. That is SCIENCE.

Oh yes. That must be why red states almost invariably have higher teen pregnancy rates than progressive states.

sandsjames
04-27-2013, 05:17 PM
Oh yes. That must be why red states almost invariably have higher teen pregnancy rates than progressive states.

That's a poor stat. The "progressive" states "almost invariably" have higher pregnancy termination rates than red states. Unfortunately, those stats are counted as pregnancies.

Banned
04-27-2013, 05:22 PM
That's a poor stat. The "progressive" states "almost invariably" have higher pregnancy termination rates than red states. Unfortunately, those stats are counted as pregnancies.

False (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=10&ind=465). Actually its common sense really - if the kids aren't all getting pregnant during break after bible class, of course the abortion rate will also be lower. Lower pregnancy rate = lower abortion rate.

Besides, getting an abortion is far less serious than letting that pregnancy result in the birth of an unwanted child to a mother incapable of properly caring for it.

sandsjames
04-27-2013, 05:24 PM
False (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=10&ind=465). Actually its common sense really - if the kids aren't all getting pregnant during break after bible class, of course the abortion rate will also be lower. Lower pregnancy rate = lower abortion rate.


Besides, getting an abortion is far less serious than letting that pregnancy result in the birth of an unwanted child to a mother incapable of properly caring for it.

Those who have some restraint don't get pregnant and don't need to worry about caring for an unwanted child. This is a FACT. This is SCIENCE.

Banned
04-27-2013, 05:38 PM
Those who have some restraint don't get pregnant and don't need to worry about caring for an unwanted child. This is a FACT. This is SCIENCE.

Yes... expecting horny teenagers up to their eyeballs with hormones to show restraint is SCIENCE. Or at least christian science.

FuelShopTech
04-27-2013, 08:20 PM
All of the sarcastic hyperbole aside...you guys are missing the point.

Prior to this ruling...girls 17 and older could get the pill over the counter. Why? Because it is medically safe.

Girls under 17 had to get a prescription. Why? Because we didn't like the idea of young girls have sex and needing it.

The medical data and the FDA have all said that the pill is safe for all girls of reproductive age...and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to get it over the counter.

Then politics got in the way....and the HHS Sec OVERULED the FDA and medical recommendations...for political reasons.

Allowing girls under 17 to buy this over the counter does not infringe on your parental rights any more than allowing them to buy a Big Gulp at 7-11 without a prescription (except the big gulp is actually worse for your child with no redeeming value whatsoever). It is a medically safe product, there is no reason for the government to impose restrictions on it. Where is all that libertarian/conservativism at??

Are you guys really asking the government to help you parent your child?

Agreed.

Besides, are under-age boys/girls allowed to purchase condoms?

I fail to see the difference. It's a parent's responsibility to deal with their kid's sex lives, not the government's.

sandsjames
04-27-2013, 10:16 PM
Yes... expecting horny teenagers up to their eyeballs with hormones to show restraint is SCIENCE. Or at least christian science.

Religion blah blah blah...

So because kids are horny we should just promote them fucking like dogs in heat? That's a great plan.

sandsjames
04-27-2013, 10:17 PM
All of the sarcastic hyperbole aside...you guys are missing the point.

Prior to this ruling...girls 17 and older could get the pill over the counter. Why? Because it is medically safe.

Girls under 17 had to get a prescription. Why? Because we didn't like the idea of young girls have sex and needing it.

The medical data and the FDA have all said that the pill is safe for all girls of reproductive age...and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to get it over the counter.

Then politics got in the way....and the HHS Sec OVERULED the FDA and medical recommendations...for political reasons.

Allowing girls under 17 to buy this over the counter does not infringe on your parental rights any more than allowing them to buy a Big Gulp at 7-11 without a prescription (except the big gulp is actually worse for your child with no redeeming value whatsoever). It is a medically safe product, there is no reason for the government to impose restrictions on it. Where is all that libertarian/conservativism at??

Are you guys really asking the government to help you parent your child?

I question the safety issue of this pill. Not if it's taken properly, but if it's taken like every other over the counter pill. How many girls do you think will be taking this just in the case of emergency and how many will be taking it on a regular basis? There have been studies about it's safety when taken as recommended but not when it's taken like candy. And don't let anyone be fooled, it will be taken like candy by many young girls just trying to be popular.

sandsjames
04-27-2013, 10:20 PM
Yes... expecting horny teenagers up to their eyeballs with hormones to show restraint is SCIENCE. Or at least christian science.

Religion blah blah blah...

So because kids are horny we should just promote them fucking like dogs in heat? That's a great plan.

Banned
04-28-2013, 02:08 AM
Religion blah blah blah...

So because kids are horny we should just promote them fucking like dogs in heat? That's a great plan.

Absolutely. Teenagers are going to fuck like rabbits no matter what we do.

The solution throughout most of human history was to get them married the second they hit puberty - 15, 14, 13... obviously in the modern world that doesn't work so well - so we need alternatives. Education about safe sex is the only alternative that has worked.

JD2780
04-28-2013, 02:14 AM
Absolutely. Teenagers are going to fuck like rabbits no matter what we do.

The solution throughout most of human history was to get them married the second they hit puberty - 15, 14, 13... obviously in the modern world that doesn't work so well - so we need alternatives. Education about safe sex is the only alternative that has worked.

Hey we agree. However, I don't need the government telling me/ forcing me to put my daughter on birth control. It's a decision between parents and daughters.

Banned
04-28-2013, 02:28 AM
Hey we agree. However, I don't need the government telling me/ forcing me to put my daughter on birth control. It's a decision between parents and daughters.

Ah, so you would prefer the government force the companies to force your daughter to get your permission first. Got it. You want the government to enforce YOUR viewpoints on birth control.

JD2780
04-28-2013, 02:45 AM
Ah, so you would prefer the government force the companies to force your daughter to get your permission first. Got it. You want the government to enforce YOUR viewpoints on birth control.

Nope, companies don't have a say either. It's me and my family. I don't know where you got the fact that because I don't want the gov telling me to it, that I want some company that has no interest in my kids well being telling me to do that.

Measure Man
04-28-2013, 03:12 AM
Hey we agree. However, I don't need the government telling me/ forcing me to put my daughter on birth control. It's a decision between parents and daughters.

Where do you see your daughter being forced on birth control??

Banned
04-28-2013, 04:13 AM
Nope, companies don't have a say either. It's me and my family. I don't know where you got the fact that because I don't want the gov telling me to it, that I want some company that has no interest in my kids well being telling me to do that.

Ah okay bud. Then I'm sure you would also support legislation outlawing companies from selling your daughter candy or soda without written approval from you. In fact, let's outlaw children from buying anything, because their parents might object to it.

garhkal
04-28-2013, 04:49 AM
No need. Unless the kid has his/her own money, all that is bought for them COMES from mommy/daddy (or grand parents)..

JD2780
04-28-2013, 12:40 PM
Ah okay bud. Then I'm sure you would also support legislation outlawing companies from selling your daughter candy or soda without written approval from you. In fact, let's outlaw children from buying anything, because their parents might object to it.

Ok pal, they can sell it, but my kids aren't buying it without my approval. How about we let parents be parents.

Banned
04-28-2013, 04:29 PM
No need. Unless the kid has his/her own money, all that is bought for them COMES from mommy/daddy (or grand parents)..

Most kids have money - be it spending money their parents gave them for school or a trip, or an allowance for doing chores. And since we're talking about girls of a reproductive age (so we're talking mostly girls 13 or older) - a lot of them I'm sure have part-time jobs, or baby sitting, and have their own income, albeit a small one.

I also believe I heard somewhere that a lot of school nurses have condoms that can be given upon request - so its entirely possible that with this ruling, schools will already put out BC.


Ok pal, they can sell it, but my kids aren't buying it without my approval. How about we let parents be parents.

Yes, but you're demanding that your parenting authority be enforced by the government. If you want to be a strict parent, I respect that and understand the reasoning for it - but that's entirely your responsibility. As a taxpayer, I should not have to pay money to help you enforce your household rules.

JD2780
04-28-2013, 07:36 PM
Most kids have money - be it spending money their parents gave them for school or a trip, or an allowance for doing chores. And since we're talking about girls of a reproductive age (so we're talking mostly girls 13 or older) - a lot of them I'm sure have part-time jobs, or baby sitting, and have their own income, albeit a small one.

I also believe I heard somewhere that a lot of school nurses have condoms that can be given upon request - so its entirely possible that with this ruling, schools will already put out BC.



Yes, but you're demanding that your parenting authority be enforced by the government. If you want to be a strict parent, I respect that and understand the reasoning for it - but that's entirely your responsibility. As a taxpayer, I should not have to pay money to help you enforce your household rules.

Nope you shouldn't. That's why the gov needs to stay out of it. Unless I'm abusing my kids, allowing underage drinking, neglecting stay the heck out. U

sandsjames
04-28-2013, 07:38 PM
Most kids have money - be it spending money their parents gave them for school or a trip, or an allowance for doing chores. And since we're talking about girls of a reproductive age (so we're talking mostly girls 13 or older) - a lot of them I'm sure have part-time jobs, or baby sitting, and have their own income, albeit a small one.

I also believe I heard somewhere that a lot of school nurses have condoms that can be given upon request - so its entirely possible that with this ruling, schools will already put out BC.



Yes, but you're demanding that your parenting authority be enforced by the government. If you want to be a strict parent, I respect that and understand the reasoning for it - but that's entirely your responsibility. As a taxpayer, I should not have to pay money to help you enforce your household rules.

And I should not have to pay money for those too lazy to parent.

garhkal
04-28-2013, 08:02 PM
Most kids have money - be it spending money their parents gave them for school or a trip, or an allowance for doing chores. And since we're talking about girls of a reproductive age (so we're talking mostly girls 13 or older) - a lot of them I'm sure have part-time jobs, or baby sitting, and have their own income, albeit a small one.

Which is as i said, unless they have the income themselves, they ain't getting it other than through there parents..



I also believe I heard somewhere that a lot of school nurses have condoms that can be given upon request - so its entirely possible that with this ruling, schools will already put out BC.

Heard that too.

Banned
04-28-2013, 08:23 PM
Nope you shouldn't. That's why the gov needs to stay out of it. Unless I'm abusing my kids, allowing underage drinking, neglecting stay the heck out. U

Well good. Then I'm glad you support this legislation. :)


And I should not have to pay money for those too lazy to parent.

Here let's make it simple for you - which would you prefer... to pay $20 for a bottle of pills, or a million dollars to support an inmate for life?

MACHINE666
04-28-2013, 08:53 PM
I am all for the prohibition of people reproducing, or even the remotest chance of people being able to reproduce. There are way too many dumb-asses out there, whose parents are dumb-asses, and as the fruit of stupidity doesn't fall far from the short bus tree, their kids will be dumb-asses too. If I had my way, people would have to pass a comprehensive exam before they would be allowed to screw their brains out...call it a "fuck test".

sandsjames
04-28-2013, 08:58 PM
Here let's make it simple for you - which would you prefer... to pay $20 for a bottle of pills, or a million dollars to support an inmate for life?

Neither...not getting pregnant costs nothing.

garhkal
04-28-2013, 10:34 PM
I am all for the prohibition of people reproducing, or even the remotest chance of people being able to reproduce. There are way too many dumb-asses out there, whose parents are dumb-asses, and as the fruit of stupidity doesn't fall far from the short bus tree, their kids will be dumb-asses too. If I had my way, people would have to pass a comprehensive exam before they would be allowed to screw their brains out...call it a "fuck test".

LOL... Or go the route of china, and limit everyone to 1 kid. (i jest).. Though there was a few Films based on that sort of society.. One of the crappiest i remembered was a Christopher Lambert one called Fortress.

Banned
04-28-2013, 11:17 PM
Neither...not getting pregnant costs nothing.

Yes, houses not catching fire costs nothing, banks not getting robbed costs nothing, earthquakes and hurricanes not happening costs nothing...

FuelShopTech
04-28-2013, 11:43 PM
I am all for the prohibition of people reproducing, or even the remotest chance of people being able to reproduce. There are way too many dumb-asses out there, whose parents are dumb-asses, and as the fruit of stupidity doesn't fall far from the short bus tree, their kids will be dumb-asses too. If I had my way, people would have to pass a comprehensive exam before they would be allowed to screw their brains out...call it a "fuck test".

BIG SEXY MAN makes another BIG SEXY POST!!! :eyebrows

sandsjames
04-29-2013, 12:47 PM
Yes, houses not catching fire costs nothing, banks not getting robbed costs nothing, earthquakes and hurricanes not happening costs nothing...


Of course sex and natural disasters are the same thing. Great comparison, Joe. And I agree, banks not getting robbed costs nothing. Banks should NOT get robbed.

JD2780
04-29-2013, 01:20 PM
Of course sex and natural disasters are the same thing. Great comparison, Joe. And I agree, banks not getting robbed costs nothing. Banks should NOT get robbed.

He is good at making outlandish comparisons and accusations.

sandsjames
04-29-2013, 02:12 PM
He is good at making outlandish comparisons and accusations.

Always good fun waiting for a response from him, though.

Speaking of hurricanes and earthquakes, let's keep the comparison going. Joe, if you don't want to get hit by an earthquake, don't live in a earthquake prone area. Avoid the situation. Same goes for hurricanes, tornados, mudslides, etc. Oh yeah, and unwanted pregnancy.

Measure Man
04-29-2013, 05:44 PM
Neither...not getting pregnant costs nothing.

Yes, if everyone would just not have sex...of course, even the Bible says that's not too practical.

20+Years
04-29-2013, 05:45 PM
Well here what bugs me about this. This is just a "step". Once this legislation gets crammed down our throats, it won't be too long before some goody-goody decides the pills should also be given out in school like condoms. We can't reserve the pills for just the rich, right? They have to be available to all girls, right? It may start in a low-income area, but you can all see what will happen.

Thats ok though, I'm fighting for your right to fight my right to raise my children how I best see fit.

Measure Man
04-29-2013, 05:46 PM
Well here what bugs me about this. This is just a "step". Once this legislation gets crammed down our throats, it won't be too long before some goody-goody decides the pills should also be given out in school like condoms. We can't reserve the pills for just the rich, right? They have to be available to all girls, right? It may start in a low-income area, but you can all see what will happen.

Thats ok though, I'm fighting for your right to fight my right to raise my children how I best see fit.

Nobody wants to tell you how to raise your children...at least not with this bill.

20+Years
04-29-2013, 05:51 PM
Oh, I disagree. Giving my child access to something I do not want them to have access to is very much telling me how to raise my child.

sandsjames
04-29-2013, 06:00 PM
Oh, I disagree. Giving my child access to something I do not want them to have access to is very much telling me how to raise my child.

I don't like the idea of the pill, but I don't agree with this statement. What if I don't want my children drinking soda or chewing gum? Should those things not be sold?

Again, I think this pill is ridiculous and shows how far our society has fallen, but it's no different, as far as being available to your children, than anything else in stores.

20+Years
04-29-2013, 06:36 PM
I can tell your on the fence with this one, try it from this point of view. There are certain items I have no issue with my child buying in a store. For the most part, most of these items are harmless in the short term. The few things that are considered harmful for my child have age limits on them: tobacco, pornography, alcohol, ect. These things are not sold until the child is considered grown enough to make decisions of that consequence. This legislation though, has said a pill that can terminate a pregnancy in my daughter is not harmful enough to have an age limit. I'm not debating when human-life begins, but if your belief is at conception, this pill is terminating a life! It is almost insane to think that the government can place this power in my childs hand wihtout my permission, guidance, involvement... whatever you want to call it. Its not right.

garhkal
04-29-2013, 08:09 PM
Always good fun waiting for a response from him, though.

Speaking of hurricanes and earthquakes, let's keep the comparison going. Joe, if you don't want to get hit by an earthquake, don't live in a earthquake prone area. Avoid the situation. Same goes for hurricanes, tornados, mudslides, etc. Oh yeah, and unwanted pregnancy.

And name one area in the US where you are avoiding those (oh and you forgot forest fires too)?


I don't like the idea of the pill, but I don't agree with this statement. What if I don't want my children drinking soda or chewing gum? Should those things not be sold?

A number of schools have removed vending machines so sodas are not sold..

Banned
04-29-2013, 10:15 PM
Of course sex and natural disasters are the same thing. Great comparison, Joe. And I agree, banks not getting robbed costs nothing. Banks should NOT get robbed.

It must be good living in a fantasy world. Point is, these things happen. Earthquakes happen. Crimes happen. Teenagers have sex. Just denying the problem is stupid.

sandsjames
04-30-2013, 03:35 PM
It must be good living in a fantasy world. Point is, these things happen. Earthquakes happen. Crimes happen. Teenagers have sex. Just denying the problem is stupid.

And you are missing my point. I'm not denying that teenagers have sex. I'm saying that, in an ideal world, it wouldn't be happening. And if we fail to strive for the ideal then we have completely failed as a country. Admitting something is happening and understanding that it's happening doesn't mean that it SHOULD be happening.

Listen, we can argue about this 'til we're blue in the hair and we aren't going to find much common ground. Our views of how things should be are polar opposites. I don't have any problem with this product being sold. That doesn't mean that I support it or agree with the people who use it. For me and my family it's out of the question. We all deal with the consequences of our choices and, in this society, must be allowed to make those choices, right or wrong. It's a parent's job to guide their child down the path they feel is best. There's no cookie cutter definition of what is "best".

Banned
04-30-2013, 03:50 PM
And you are missing my point. I'm not denying that teenagers have sex. I'm saying that, in an ideal world, it wouldn't be happening. And if we fail to strive for the ideal then we have completely failed as a country. Admitting something is happening and understanding that it's happening doesn't mean that it SHOULD be happening.

People having sex isn't bad like you seem to be implying. Its a beautiful and natural thing. It just needs to be done safely. Teenagers ride bicycles and drive cars - we try to make sure they wear helmets and seatbelts.


Listen, we can argue about this 'til we're blue in the hair and we aren't going to find much common ground. Our views of how things should be are polar opposites. I don't have any problem with this product being sold. That doesn't mean that I support it or agree with the people who use it. For me and my family it's out of the question. We all deal with the consequences of our choices and, in this society, must be allowed to make those choices, right or wrong. It's a parent's job to guide their child down the path they feel is best. There's no cookie cutter definition of what is "best".

However if a daughter in such a family finds out she's pregnant - I have no issue with the school nurse giving her a pill, or her buying a pill at convenience store. Shit happens. And I strongly disagree with the notion that you can use the government to enforce your parenting beliefs.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/941128_553054174747300_1842137227_n.jpg

sandsjames
04-30-2013, 03:59 PM
However if a daughter in such a family finds out she's pregnant - I have no issue with the school nurse giving her a pill, or her buying a pill at convenience store. Shit happens. And I strongly disagree with the notion that you can use the government to enforce your parenting beliefs. This is the difference between you and me. You claim to be the "liberal" one around here while at the same time being intolerant of my parenting style while I, the "right wing religious nut" am more than happy to let you make the choices for your family. I find it humerous that, even when I try to find common ground with you, you are still closed minded and believe that everyone should live by your ideals. Talk about irony.

Banned
04-30-2013, 04:03 PM
This is the difference between you and me. You claim to be the "liberal" one around here while at the same time being intolerant of my parenting style while I, the "right wing religious nut" am more than happy to let you make the choices for your family. I find it humerous that, even when I try to find common ground with you, you are still closed minded and believe that everyone should live by your ideals. Talk about irony.

You can run your family any way you please... you just can't use the government and taxpayers' money to enforce it.

sandsjames
04-30-2013, 04:12 PM
You can run your family any way you please... you just can't use the government and taxpayers' money to enforce it.

You mean like having more kids so I can get more foodstamps? I agree Joe, this is wrong. Seriously wrong. The governement and taxpayers should NOT be paying for the choices made within a family. We now have that common ground. It took some time but we finally got there.

Measure Man
04-30-2013, 04:59 PM
I can tell your on the fence with this one, try it from this point of view. There are certain items I have no issue with my child buying in a store. For the most part, most of these items are harmless in the short term. The few things that are considered harmful for my child have age limits on them: tobacco, pornography, alcohol, ect. These things are not sold until the child is considered grown enough to make decisions of that consequence. This legislation though, has said a pill that can terminate a pregnancy in my daughter is not harmful enough to have an age limit. I'm not debating when human-life begins, but if your belief is at conception, this pill is terminating a life! It is almost insane to think that the government can place this power in my childs hand wihtout my permission, guidance, involvement... whatever you want to call it. Its not right.

The govt didn't place that power in your child's hands.

Your child has that power inherent as a free and intelligent human being.

You are demanding the govt. remove that freedom...we're saying, that's YOUR job, and if there is no medical reason this pill needs to be prescribed, then there ought not be a requirement to do so. You are attempting to abuse the medical profession into enforcing your desires.

The world if full of bad things you probably don't want your child to do...let's not legislate everything.

You have some crazy liberal logic going on here. It's funny how some people completely change their thought patterns depending on the topic at hand. Bloomberg limits access to Big Gulp..."MY GOD, what a liberal communist dictator trying to control us!" Remove limits for birth control "MY GOD, you are forcing my child to have sex!"

I don't believe the govt. should be placing limits in either case...not their business.

Banned
04-30-2013, 04:59 PM
You mean like having more kids so I can get more foodstamps? I agree Joe, this is wrong. Seriously wrong. The governement and taxpayers should NOT be paying for the choices made within a family. We now have that common ground. It took some time but we finally got there.

Exactly why birth control is a good idea - so we don't have more unwanted children.

What sick, twisted logic you have. You oppose feeding children - but you also oppose reasonable measures to prevent those children from happening in the first place.

sandsjames
04-30-2013, 05:59 PM
Exactly why birth control is a good idea - so we don't have more unwanted children.

What sick, twisted logic you have. You oppose feeding children - but you also oppose reasonable measures to prevent those children from happening in the first place.

I don't oppose feeding children at all. And I don't oppose reasonable measures. I understand people are selfish and have no problem with this pill being sold in stores. I've already explained this to you. It's just not for my family. I've also explained that to you. However, you seem to think that since I don't teach my family the things you teach your family then I am in the wrong. You are intolerant. You are a bigot. You have low expectations of people. For all of these reasons, I will continue to pray for you.

Banned
04-30-2013, 09:11 PM
I don't oppose feeding children at all. And I don't oppose reasonable measures. I understand people are selfish and have no problem with this pill being sold in stores. I've already explained this to you. It's just not for my family. I've also explained that to you. However, you seem to think that since I don't teach my family the things you teach your family then I am in the wrong. You are intolerant. You are a bigot. You have low expectations of people. For all of these reasons, I will continue to pray for you.

Again - you can teach your family whatever you like, but you CANNOT use government resources to enforce your beliefs.

You may believe its sinful to put out housefires, however the fire department is still going to come by and put it out, because a spreading fire hurts everyone. Same reason pills can and are being made available to as many people as possible... because unwanted children hurts everyone.

You can choose to believe what you like, but facts are fact, money spent is money spent. Its society's primary interest to ensure the good of society.

sandsjames
04-30-2013, 09:18 PM
Again - you can teach your family whatever you like, but you CANNOT use government resources to enforce your beliefs.

You may believe its sinful to put out housefires, however the fire department is still going to come by and put it out, because a spreading fire hurts everyone. Same reason pills can and are being made available to as many people as possible... because unwanted children hurts everyone.

You can choose to believe what you like, but facts are fact, money spent is money spent. Its society's primary interest to ensure the good of society.

So what are you trying to say here? I've agreed with you and would not tell you, or anyone outside of my family, what they should do. Please tell me what point you're getting at, other than you don't think it's ok for me to raise my children as I see fit?

Measure Man
04-30-2013, 10:49 PM
So what are you trying to say here? I've agreed with you and would not tell you, or anyone outside of my family, what they should do. Please tell me what point you're getting at, other than you don't think it's ok for me to raise my children as I see fit?

I've been wondering why JB keeps arguing when someone agrees with him

Banned
04-30-2013, 11:20 PM
So what are you trying to say here? I've agreed with you and would not tell you, or anyone outside of my family, what they should do. Please tell me what point you're getting at, other than you don't think it's ok for me to raise my children as I see fit?

So when you say "its not for my family" - how are you planning on enforcing that?

Just idle curiosity... I find people's unbridled rage towards a little pill fascinating.

sandsjames
04-30-2013, 11:53 PM
So when you say "its not for my family" - how are you planning on enforcing that?

Just idle curiosity... I find people's unbridled rage towards a little pill fascinating. By consistent discipline and involvement in their lives. By being a parent and not a buddy. Is it a 100% guarantee? Of course not. But it's much better than telling them it's ok to go do what they want because there's a pill.

Now please criticize my parenting. I know you want to because you want everyone to believe the way you do. Tell me how your way is the right way. Show us that you are exactly what you rant against.

sandsjames
04-30-2013, 11:55 PM
I've been wondering why JB keeps arguing when someone agrees with him

I know. I've been trying all day to agree with him but he just won't let me. I'm not sure what I'd have to do. Denounce my religion maybe? I'm sure he'd find a way to argue with that.

Banned
05-01-2013, 01:01 AM
By consistent discipline and involvement in their lives. By being a parent and not a buddy. Is it a 100% guarantee? Of course not. But it's much better than telling them it's ok to go do what they want because there's a pill.

Now please criticize my parenting. I know you want to because you want everyone to believe the way you do. Tell me how your way is the right way. Show us that you are exactly what you rant against.

Accidents happen. :D:D:D

Pullinteeth
05-01-2013, 02:09 AM
Ok, the arguments here had swayed my opinion BUT, riddle me this Batman... If my daughter was 15....why would it be that she can buy the morning after pill without my consent but she wouldn't be able to purchase super glue or spray paint? Don't get me wrong, I don't think the gov should be involved there either but if they are, why is the line there but not with this pill?

Banned
05-01-2013, 03:32 AM
Ok, the arguments here had swayed my opinion BUT, riddle me this Batman... If my daughter was 15....why would it be that she can buy the morning after pill without my consent but she wouldn't be able to purchase super glue or spray paint? Don't get me wrong, I don't think the gov should be involved there either but if they are, why is the line there but not with this pill?

ID'ing minors for spray paint seems excessive to me - that's part of the public hysteria over kids getting high.

I think its a very, very bad idea to require parental authorization for the pill - because for one they could simply not let her get it, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy and effectively ruining her life. Also - if they're extremists, they could punish her, beat her, or even kill her for having sex and getting pregnant.

garhkal
05-01-2013, 04:38 AM
Ok, the arguments here had swayed my opinion BUT, riddle me this Batman... If my daughter was 15....why would it be that she can buy the morning after pill without my consent but she wouldn't be able to purchase super glue or spray paint? Don't get me wrong, I don't think the gov should be involved there either but if they are, why is the line there but not with this pill?

Or sign up for school trips without parental consent, or driver's ed (like i had to) or get a lerner permit..

sandsjames
05-01-2013, 05:14 AM
ID'ing minors for spray paint seems excessive to me - that's part of the public hysteria over kids getting high.

I think its a very, very bad idea to require parental authorization for the pill - because for one they could simply not let her get it, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy and effectively ruining her life. Also - if they're extremists, they could punish her, beat her, or even kill her for having sex and getting pregnant.What extremists are you talking about???? And it's not the parents "not letting her get it" resulting in the unwanted pregnancy. It's her choosing to have sex. This seems to be where you have the disconnect.

Banned
05-01-2013, 06:33 AM
What extremists are you talking about????

Religious extremists I would expect - Muslims or Evangelicals or something like that. Or just D-bags in general.


And it's not the parents "not letting her get it" resulting in the unwanted pregnancy. It's her choosing to have sex. This seems to be where you have the disconnect.

So does this logic also apply to seat belts, helmets, and vaccinations? You don't seem to have an issue with other common sense measures... I'm just curious why you draw the line at the pill. Seems pretty arbritary to me.

JD2780
05-01-2013, 10:33 AM
Religious extremists I would expect - Muslims or Evangelicals or something like that. Or just D-bags in general.



So does this logic also apply to seat belts, helmets, and vaccinations? You don't seem to have an issue with other common sense measures... I'm just curious why you draw the line at the pill. Seems pretty arbritary to me.

Hmmm evangelicals are extremists. Thats about as broad as saying Muslims are terrorists.

Banned
05-01-2013, 03:34 PM
Hmmm evangelicals are extremists. Thats about as broad as saying Muslims are terrorists.

Some religious extremists are evangelicals. I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, and the English language is very hard for you, but please try to pay attention.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-01-2013, 04:16 PM
This is a sad debate to be on the side of letting kids have the pill just so they wont have a baby and calling someone an extreemist for seeing the idiocy of fighting for the right of girls under 18 to have sex. But I guess if calling those opposed to juvenille girls to have a pill extreemist, can the people advocating for the pill for these girls who are under age be called pedophiles?

Banned
05-01-2013, 04:23 PM
This is a sad debate to be on the side of letting kids have the pill just so they wont have a baby and calling someone an extreemist for seeing the idiocy of fighting for the right of girls under 18 to have sex. But I guess if calling those opposed to juvenille girls to have a pill extreemist, can the people advocating for the pill for these girls who are under age be called pedophiles?

Only if I'm trying to have sex with them. :D

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-01-2013, 04:35 PM
Only if I'm trying to have sex with them. :D

No, watching or thinking about teens being allowed to have underage sex is also quite bad.

Banned
05-01-2013, 06:17 PM
No, watching or thinking about teens being allowed to have underage sex is also quite bad.

Well I'm not watching teens having sex.

As for thinking about allowing teenagers to have sex... they were allowed to do so in biblical times when they all got married at 13 or 14. So what changed?

JD2780
05-01-2013, 07:18 PM
Some religious extremists are evangelicals. I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, and the English language is very hard for you, but please try to pay attention.

Nice come back JB. I know youre not the most logical person in the shed. Your statements are so broad and outrageous they arent even funny anymore. You're losing your edge since PYB isnt around much anymore. Some evangelicals can be extremists, much like some democrats can be, repulicans can be, Muslims can be, JB is. Its that simple. You're so narrow minded you cant even see the light of day. I'll pray for you.

JD2780
05-01-2013, 07:20 PM
Well I'm not watching teens having sex.

As for thinking about allowing teenagers to have sex... they were allowed to do so in biblical times when they all got married at 13 or 14. So what changed?

Life span. People realizing it wasnt very healthy to have children at that age. The ability to support the family.

Banned
05-01-2013, 07:45 PM
Life span. People realizing it wasnt very healthy to have children at that age. The ability to support the family.

You're partially right. Mostly due to economics. It is simply impossible for someone to support a family at that age.


Some evangelicals can be extremists, much like some democrats can be, repulicans can be, Muslims can be.

Yes congratulations. You correctly read my post and understood its meaning - for the first time in your life. I'm so proud of you buddy. What super human feats will you show next? Dribble a basketball with one hand?

Measure Man
05-01-2013, 08:56 PM
Life span. People realizing it wasnt very healthy to have children at that age. The ability to support the family.

Perhaps...but, even the Bible says it's not practical to expect people to just not have sex.

JD2780
05-01-2013, 09:21 PM
Perhaps...but, even the Bible says it's not practical to expect people to just not have sex.

He asked about people getting married at 13 and 14. I simply explained why it changed.

Measure Man
05-01-2013, 09:36 PM
He asked about people getting married at 13 and 14. I simply explained why it changed.

Got it.

So..in the Bible, Paul said it's better to remain celibate, but if you can't, then get married so you don't "burn". Admitting, essentially, that it's not practical to expect people to not have sex, even if it's what God would prefer.

Now, if we say the people Paul was talking about were 13 and 14...(not sure if that's true or not)...Couldn't we then conclude that God, through Paul, admitted that 13 and 14 year olds may burn with desire for sex...in other words, it's not really practical to expect them not to have it?

Granted, I think 13 and 14 might be pushing it a little....but let's say 16 and 17.

If Paul could not necessarily convince/expect his followers to abstain from sex...do parents really think your powers as parents to get your children to listen to you are that much better than the powers of Paul to get people to listen to God?

sandsjames
05-01-2013, 10:07 PM
Got it.

So..in the Bible, Paul said it's better to remain celibate, but if you can't, then get married so you don't "burn". Admitting, essentially, that it's not practical to expect people to not have sex, even if it's what God would prefer.

Now, if we say the people Paul was talking about were 13 and 14...(not sure if that's true or not)...Couldn't we then conclude that God, through Paul, admitted that 13 and 14 year olds may burn with desire for sex...in other words, it's not really practical to expect them not to have it?

Granted, I think 13 and 14 might be pushing it a little....but let's say 16 and 17.

If Paul could not necessarily convince/expect his followers to abstain from sex...do parents really think your powers as parents to get your children to listen to you are that much better than the powers of Paul to get people to listen to God?

The whole point of those passages, in my view, is that those "burning" to have sex should get married. I don't think the point of it is to just go out and bang whoever you want. Again, age is relative to the times. At the current time, the "legal" age in most places is 17/18. Until that point, parents are responsible. If a parent is allowed to make charges in statutory rape cases than they should also have a say in all sexually related situations. If the government wants to say it's ok for underage to have sex then the stat rape charge needs to go away all together.

As far as your last question, my answer is yes. I think, and have experienced, that kids want to please their parents and are willing, wanting, and very capable of behaving as their parents teach and expect. I also believe that when a parent tells their child that there are "options" and "just in case" choices then the child takes that as permission.

Measure Man
05-01-2013, 10:28 PM
The whole point of those passages, in my view, is that those "burning" to have sex should get married.

Yes, and at the same time it is conceding that there is a "burning" that, at least some, can't really overcome, or won't.


I don't think the point of it is to just go out and bang whoever you want.

Of course not.


Again, age is relative to the times. At the current time, the "legal" age in most places is 17/18. Until that point, parents are responsible. If a parent is allowed to make charges in statutory rape cases than they should also have a say in all sexually related situations.

Hmmmm...not totally sure I agree on this....also, I don't think 18 is the right age, really. Yeah, maybe we don't WANT girls younger than that to have sex, but to say they are too young to consent to it is sort of a backwards way about it. There is certainly an age, but 18 is too old...14 or 15 is probably closer.


If the government wants to say it's ok for underage to have sex then the stat rape charge needs to go away all together.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying it is "okay"...but it is a practical way of facing the reality.

This is for "other" people's kids, though, not yours.



As far as your last question, my answer is yes. I think, and have experienced, that kids want to please their parents and are willing, wanting, and very capable of behaving as their parents teach and expect. I also believe that when a parent tells their child that there are "options" and "just in case" choices then the child takes that as permission.

Okay. I truly hope it works out that way for you and your family.

I think, and have experienced, that kids are as much of individuals as adults...and not all of them work out despite the best parenting.

Hell, even God himself couldn't keep Adam and Eve from disobeying...was he a bad parent? Didn't they disobey in a pretty big way? Or were Adam and Eve bad parents when Cain killed Abel? Also kinda big.

sandsjames
05-01-2013, 11:02 PM
Hell, even God himself couldn't keep Adam and Eve from disobeying...was he a bad parent? Didn't they disobey in a pretty big way? Or were Adam and Eve bad parents when Cain killed Abel? Also kinda big.

We are human. We are sinners. There is no way to avoid it. That doesn't mean we just give up trying. Otherwise, we'd just throw out all rules and laws because people are just going to break them anyway.

Measure Man
05-01-2013, 11:04 PM
We are human. We are sinners. There is no way to avoid it. That doesn't mean we just give up trying. Otherwise, we'd just throw out all rules and laws because people are just going to break them anyway.

Exactly...

Banned
05-01-2013, 11:35 PM
If society pays for those mistakes - then logically - shouldn't society also make every effort within reason to prevent those mistakes from happening?

sandsjames
05-01-2013, 11:36 PM
If society pays for those mistakes - then logically - shouldn't society also make every effort within reason to prevent those mistakes from happening?

Agree. We should make every effort, within reason, to PREVENT those mistakes. Good call. You do get the point every once in awhile.

sandsjames
05-01-2013, 11:39 PM
Hell, even God himself couldn't keep Adam and Eve from disobeying...was he a bad parent? Didn't they disobey in a pretty big way? Or were Adam and Eve bad parents when Cain killed Abel? Also kinda big.

And to add to this, he "kicked them out of the house". He made it clear that if they weren't going to obey then they were on their own. They would have to work much harder for survival. He could have allowed them to stay and taught them that there weren't consequences to their actions, but he did not. He gave them the rules and told them what would happen if they broke those rules. When they broke the rules, he didn't back down. He followed through.

Pullinteeth
05-02-2013, 02:09 AM
ID'ing minors for spray paint seems excessive to me - that's part of the public hysteria over kids getting high.

I think its a very, very bad idea to require parental authorization for the pill - because for one they could simply not let her get it, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy and effectively ruining her life. Also - if they're extremists, they could punish her, beat her, or even kill her for having sex and getting pregnant.

May be a bad IDEA but in practice if you look less than 30, you have to provide ID.... A parent could do the same for a kid getting high or tagging, doesn't make the rule right or wrong....


He asked about people getting married at 13 and 14. I simply explained why it changed.

Why what changed? Minors can still get married...and have sex-at least in most states....

JD2780
05-02-2013, 10:24 AM
Oh dear JB is proud of me. WOW, my day is complete. Good thing nobody really cares what others think of them on the internet.

I explained what changed and you acknowledged it already. No you can go and paint your sign, and have utter contempt for those that do believe in Jesus Christ and do practice their religions. Thats ok, thats your right to be intolerant of others. Much like there are Christians out there that are intolerant of other, same with Jews, Muslims, Athiests. Not sure of any buddhists that are intolerant, they're pretty peaceful. Bring on your hate JB.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-02-2013, 11:28 AM
Well I'm not watching teens having sex.

As for thinking about allowing teenagers to have sex... they were allowed to do so in biblical times when they all got married at 13 or 14. So what changed?

They were "married"?

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-02-2013, 11:36 AM
ID'ing minors for spray paint seems excessive to me - that's part of the public hysteria over kids getting high.

I think its a very, very bad idea to require parental authorization for the pill - because for one they could simply not let her get it, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy and effectively ruining her life. Also - if they're extremists, they could punish her, beat her, or even kill her for having sex and getting pregnant.Yeah, cause no one on the pill gets pregnant. Like condoms never break. Sex seems like one of those activities that maybe you should wait to do till you can provide and take care of what may result from that action. Kind of like not putting your only car in a demolishion derby if you have no means to replace that car.

sandsjames
05-02-2013, 01:26 PM
Yeah, cause no one on the pill gets pregnant. Like condoms never break. Sex seems like one of those activities that maybe you should wait to do till you can provide and take care of what may result from that action. Kind of like not putting your only car in a demolishion derby if you have no means to replace that car.

Probably not a good example. JB recently totaled his car (guess I can probably expect my rates to go up). But yes, you're right. Though we are in a society now that needs everything instantly. Personal gratification has become much more important than personal responsibility.

Banned
05-02-2013, 03:48 PM
Yeah, cause no one on the pill gets pregnant. Like condoms never break. Sex seems like one of those activities that maybe you should wait to do till you can provide and take care of what may result from that action. Kind of like not putting your only car in a demolishion derby if you have no means to replace that car.

I've got no evidence for this - but in the back of my mind I sometimes wonder about these "accidents" that happen. Did the pill really "fail" - or did the woman simply "forget" to take it that day? Having children is a pretty huge biological urge, so I sometimes wonder what the real story is.

I do agree with your philosophy - especially for males - be really really really careful who you choose to have sex with.


Probably not a good example. JB recently totaled his car (guess I can probably expect my rates to go up). But yes, you're right. Though we are in a society now that needs everything instantly. Personal gratification has become much more important than personal responsibility.

And I see you still have no idea how insurance works. Let me break it down:

Uninsured drivers - or patients - drive up costs because they increase risk, and increase expenditure without putting any revenue into the system.

An insured driver - or patient - needing to cash in on his insurance that he paid for does not increase your rate.

Measure Man
05-02-2013, 04:19 PM
An insured driver - or patient - needing to cash in on his insurance that he paid for does not increase your rate.

Sure it does.

The insurance company plays statistics...if they expect 5 out 100 people to get into an accident, they charge the 100 to pay for the 5 accidents (plus a profit of course).

If you are one of those five...there would have been 4 accidents without you, and rates COULD go down.

If you were the sixth...then rates could go up. It's the people with the accidents that cause the rates to go up though.

Banned
05-02-2013, 04:41 PM
Sure it does.

The insurance company plays statistics...if they expect 5 out 100 people to get into an accident, they charge the 100 to pay for the 5 accidents (plus a profit of course).

If you are one of those five...there would have been 4 accidents without you, and rates COULD go down.

If you were the sixth...then rates could go up. It's the people with the accidents that cause the rates to go up though.

So by this same logic, me being a "safe driver", and not getting into an accident for a period of years (and receiving a discount for it) saved you money?

Also - I'm pretty sure you're grossly oversimplifying this. Yes, its a numbers game, but its also taking into account age, sex, the vehicle driven, legal history, etc. It may increase my rate (or might not) - but I'll bet my next paycheck your rate is unaffected... you game for that bet?

Measure Man
05-02-2013, 05:48 PM
So by this same logic, me being a "safe driver", and not getting into an accident for a period of years (and receiving a discount for it) saved you money?

certainly...just not sure if your accident wiped all that out. :-)


Also - I'm pretty sure you're grossly oversimplifying this. Yes, its a numbers game, but its also taking into account age, sex, the vehicle driven, legal history, etc. It may increase my rate (or might not) - but I'll bet my next paycheck your rate is unaffected... you game for that bet?

Well, in theory...in reality, your individual accident would have affected it a negligible amount. Rates go "up", but to such a small degree that it won't register within the 2 decimal places that are the cents.

But if 99% of the insured got into an accident this year...rates would go up even for the 1% that didn't

Banned
05-02-2013, 07:14 PM
certainly...just not sure if your accident wiped all that out. :-)

Most likely. :D


Well, in theory...in reality, your individual accident would have affected it a negligible amount. Rates go "up", but to such a small degree that it won't register within the 2 decimal places that are the cents.

I'm still not tracking - there's already a set probability for how likely a 24 year old male with a blue Nissan is to get into an accident. Now if for some reason 24 year old males started to get increasing rates of accidents - then the cost of insurance for that specific demographic group would go up... but 60 year old grandmas would still be paying the same rate.


But if 99% of the insured got into an accident this year...rates would go up even for the 1% that didn't

Sure, but if the accident rate only went up for one group - let's say it was mine, 24 year old males - then the rate for that age range would go up, not for the entire group.

sandsjames
05-02-2013, 07:19 PM
Most likely. :D



I'm still not tracking - there's already a set probability for how likely a 24 year old male with a blue Nissan is to get into an accident. Now if for some reason 24 year old males started to get increasing rates of accidents - then the cost of insurance for that specific demographic group would go up... but 60 year old grandmas would still be paying the same rate.



Sure, but if the accident rate only went up for one group - let's say it was mine, 24 year old males - then the rate for that age range would go up, not for the entire group.

It raises the "overall" price for everyone. Almost comparable to inflation. As MM said, the increase is so minute that it's not even really noticeable but as one risk group increases so do all the others. The increases would be smaller the lower the risk group. For instance, I've never been in an accident and have driven the same "class" of car for the last 15 years. My rates have gone up. Not a lot, and still much cheaper than the "high risk" group, but up nevertheless. In theory they should have gone down as I show a very low risk, but that hasn't happened. With the amount of insurance I've paid in over the last 22 years, while never using it, I could have purchased a brand new "luxury" vehicle.

Banned
05-02-2013, 07:36 PM
It raises the "overall" price for everyone. Almost comparable to inflation. As MM said, the increase is so minute that it's not even really noticeable but as one risk group increases so do all the others. The increases would be smaller the lower the risk group. For instance, I've never been in an accident and have driven the same "class" of car for the last 15 years. My rates have gone up. Not a lot, and still much cheaper than the "high risk" group, but up nevertheless. In theory they should have gone down as I show a very low risk, but that hasn't happened.

Then you should switch insurance providers.

I also find it ironic I'm getting this lecture from a guy who is proud that his family is uninsured, and would get emergency health care straight from the public coffer if a surprise injury or illness happened.


With the amount of insurance I've paid in over the last 22 years, while never using it, I could have purchased a brand new "luxury" vehicle.

Even if you can afford to buy a whole new vehicle if you wreck yours, that doesn't mean you'll be able to also buy the other person you hit a whole new car. Before you go "live within your means" - remember the other guy might have a much higher income, and much more expensive ride than you.

garhkal
05-02-2013, 08:27 PM
Hmmmm...not totally sure I agree on this....also, I don't think 18 is the right age, really. Yeah, maybe we don't WANT girls younger than that to have sex, but to say they are too young to consent to it is sort of a backwards way about it. There is certainly an age, but 18 is too old...14 or 15 is probably closer.



So what then? We have all sorts of different ages for stuff.
Smoking - 18
Driving - 16
Marriage - 17 with parental consent in some places
Drinking - 21
Joining the mil - 17 with parental consent.

Measure Man
05-02-2013, 09:25 PM
Most likely. :D

I'm still not tracking - there's already a set probability for how likely a 24 year old male with a blue Nissan is to get into an accident. Now if for some reason 24 year old males started to get increasing rates of accidents - then the cost of insurance for that specific demographic group would go up...

e-gads...YOU are part of that probability...that you had an accident necessarily drives up the accident rate. If you had not had an accident, then the accident rate would be lower.


but 60 year old grandmas would still be paying the same rate.

I don't believe any demographic group is entirely independent of the others...unless by you getting into an accident, you prevented a 60 year grandma from getting into one, your accident raises the risk for everyone. But if that grandma is in your town, or drives a similar car, or is in the state, etc. then she is part of your group somewhere.


Sure, but if the accident rate only went up for one group - let's say it was mine, 24 year old males - then the rate for that age range would go up, not for the entire group.

I'm not entirely sure about that...your theory may work only if your accident was offset by a decrease in another groups accident. If all other groups continue to have the same accidents, then your accident reflects one more for everyone...would certainly affect your risk groups more...you are not just a member of 1 risk group, but of a number of intersecting groups...male, 24, sports car, city, etc, and one of those groups is also "everyone"....but everyone is in the group of everyone, and that group has one more accident because of you.

I really think you owe all of us an apology.

Measure Man
05-02-2013, 09:32 PM
So what then? We have all sorts of different ages for stuff.
Smoking - 18
Driving - 16
Marriage - 17 with parental consent in some places
Drinking - 21
Joining the mil - 17 with parental consent.

Not sure what your point was...my point was that a 16 year old girl having sex voluntarily is old enough to know what she is doing...therefore I don't agree that she is "too young to consent" and therefore raped.

...and so like a 16 year old drinking a beer isn't "too young to consent to a beer, therefore a victim"...she would be guilty of underage drinking.

garhkal
05-03-2013, 03:13 AM
My point is we have varying ages for lots of thing.. would you rather put them all at one age? If so which?

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-03-2013, 12:02 PM
Planned Parent hood is a business, and the more they marginallize sex, the more they make it "ok" or "just natural fact of life", the more unwanted pregnancies and the more abortions they can preform. This gives them a higher profit margin and the dems back them as much as they can. They are the crack and coke pushers of the 21st century plain and simple.

Measure Man
05-03-2013, 02:03 PM
My point is we have varying ages for lots of thing.. would you rather put them all at one age? If so which?

1) No, I wouldn't put them all at one age.

2) N/A

garhkal
05-03-2013, 09:13 PM
So you would want a lowering of the age of consent for sex, but keep the rest as is?
Padeos will love you.

Measure Man
05-03-2013, 09:31 PM
So you would want a lowering of the age of consent for sex, but keep the rest as is?
Padeos will love you.

What I'm sayin' is if a 17 year old sleeps with a 19 year old, she wasn't really raped.

Who is Padeos?

JD2780
05-03-2013, 09:33 PM
What I'm sayin' is if a 17 year old sleeps with a 19 year old, she wasn't really raped.

Who is Padeos?

Yes she was. An adult took advantage of a minor. The law says so.

Measure Man
05-03-2013, 09:52 PM
Yes she was. An adult took advantage of a minor. The law says so.

Thanks, Capt.

JD2780
05-03-2013, 09:54 PM
Thanks, Capt.

Ok, apparently you can't completely lay on the sarcasm via the Internet.

garhkal
05-04-2013, 03:55 AM
Who is Padeos?

Short hand for pedophile.

Mcjohn1118
05-08-2013, 12:56 PM
Here's a question for those against the morning after pill being made available to 15 year old girls OTC (that's over the counter). I'm taking the debate of when life begins out of it because it doesn't need to be discussed. I would like to know if you are against this pill being available OTC to 15 years olds because of the age factor? If so, then I presume you're against condoms being available OTC for 15 year old boys? I mean, way back when when I was 16, while it was embarassing, the clerk at CVS pharmacy didn't ask for my ID when I bought my first condom. I don't think they card you now, do they? I mean I don't see signs at the check-out informing consumers that they must be born after a certain date to buy a condom like I see the signs for cigarettes and alcohol. So, again, I ask those against this ruling...are you clammoring for stores to stop selling condoms OTC to young men and women without parental consent?

Shaken1976
05-08-2013, 01:28 PM
Although my daughter is only 10 right now... I hope that she and I will have an open enough relationship that she can talk to me if something happens. HOWEVER, I would much rather her have access to the morning after pill than try to hide a pregnancy and hurt the baby...or....wait and have an abortion that could hurt her. I don't think there should be a restriction on the morning after pill.

Let's say your 16 year old dd is at a party with friends...someone slips something in her drink and bam...she is raped.... Let's say she is too afraid to say something to you. Wouldn't you want her to be able to get that pill... Or would you rather her wait and then tell you she is pregnant. Shit happens. Kids don't make good choices.

JD2780
05-08-2013, 01:34 PM
Here's a question for those against the morning after pill being made available to 15 year old girls OTC (that's over the counter). I'm taking the debate of when life begins out of it because it doesn't need to be discussed. I would like to know if you are against this pill being available OTC to 15 years olds because of the age factor? If so, then I presume you're against condoms being available OTC for 15 year old boys? I mean, way back when when I was 16, while it was embarassing, the clerk at CVS pharmacy didn't ask for my ID when I bought my first condom. I don't think they card you now, do they? I mean I don't see signs at the check-out informing consumers that they must be born after a certain date to buy a condom like I see the signs for cigarettes and alcohol. So, again, I ask those against this ruling...are you clammoring for stores to stop selling condoms OTC to young men and women without parental consent?

Never heard of somebody ingesting a condom.

Mcjohn1118
05-08-2013, 02:38 PM
Never heard of somebody ingesting a condom.

Drug mules do it to hide the heroin. All kidding aside, I se what you're saying. Having access to a drug without parental consent is a lot different that having access to a condom. I was trying to see if some who are against the pill are also against condoms being available.

Banned
05-08-2013, 08:36 PM
Never heard of somebody ingesting a condom.

LOL wow? So that's what your argument is now? Birth control pills are TOTALLY different from condoms because you *ingest* them? Okay cool then.

JD2780
05-08-2013, 09:09 PM
LOL wow? So that's what your argument is now? Birth control pills are TOTALLY different from condoms because you *ingest* them? Okay cool then.

Just one argument.

sandsjames
05-08-2013, 09:32 PM
If the women would just ingest the night before they wouldn't need to ingest the morning after...

garhkal
05-08-2013, 09:41 PM
Here's a question for those against the morning after pill being made available to 15 year old girls OTC (that's over the counter). I'm taking the debate of when life begins out of it because it doesn't need to be discussed. I would like to know if you are against this pill being available OTC to 15 years olds because of the age factor? If so, then I presume you're against condoms being available OTC for 15 year old boys?


Yes i am. I was against it when i heard the school i graduated from had bins of them for anyone to grab from at any time as to me it feels like it is 'authorizing' them to be promiscuous.

sandsjames
05-08-2013, 09:44 PM
Yes i am. I was against it when i heard the school i graduated from had bins of them for anyone to grab from at any time as to me it feels like it is 'authorizing' them to be promiscuous.

+1. If they are going to do this they should also offer the nicotine patch/gum free at school too. We all know how dangerous smoking is.

Banned
05-08-2013, 10:01 PM
+1. If they are going to do this they should also offer the nicotine patch/gum free at school too. We all know how dangerous smoking is.

An idiotic comparison. Nicotine is addictive. Birth control is not.


If the women would just ingest the night before they wouldn't need to ingest the morning after...

If men could get pregnant, there would be birth control dispenser machines in every bathroom, an abortion clinic on every street corner - and Christians would be insisting that birth control/abortion is holy and God's will.

JD2780
05-09-2013, 12:04 AM
An idiotic comparison. Nicotine is addictive. Birth control is not.



If men could get pregnant, there would be birth control dispenser machines in every bathroom, an abortion clinic on every street corner - and Christians would be insisting that birth control/abortion is holy and God's will.

Sex is addictive to some people. This could be labeled as an enabler. Much like alcohol. Also, nope the Christians would still feel how they feel. Yet since men can't get pregnant we are both simply guessing. I know my church understands there is a reason for abortions, and its not because a lack of responsibility.

Measure Man
05-09-2013, 12:24 AM
Yes i am. I was against it when i heard the school i graduated from had bins of them for anyone to grab from at any time as to me it feels like it is 'authorizing' them to be promiscuous.

Like a spoon authorizes people to overeat.

RobotChicken
05-09-2013, 12:51 AM
:preggers Not.even.going.here!!! :attention

Greg
05-09-2013, 01:25 AM
Enabling risky behavior is...enabling risky behavior.

RobotChicken
05-09-2013, 02:31 AM
:preggers Just give 'em a DIME to hold between their knees....100% effective.....:lock1

sandsjames
05-09-2013, 01:41 PM
Like a spoon authorizes people to overeat.

Nope, not a spoon, but a pill that promises to block fat intake.

Banned
05-09-2013, 03:22 PM
Nope, not a spoon, but a pill that promises to block fat intake.

You're coming up with all kinds of far-fetched and ridiculous analogies, but why do you refuse to even acknowledge the most simple comparison - a condom.

Why? Oh right - because this was never about morals. This is about controlling females.

sandsjames
05-09-2013, 03:29 PM
You're coming up with all kinds of far-fetched and ridiculous analogies, but why do you refuse to even acknowledge the most simple comparison - a condom.

Why? Oh right - because this was never about morals. This is about controlling females.

What? Huh? You still with us?

Banned
05-09-2013, 03:34 PM
What? Huh? You still with us?

You complain about a girl being allowed to go get a pill from the school nurse, and insist that the government enforce your religious beliefs - yet don't utter a peep about BOYS having sex.

sandsjames
05-09-2013, 03:41 PM
You bitch and moan about a girl being allowed to go get a pill from the school nurse, and insist that the government enforce your religious beliefs - yet don't utter a peep about BOYS having sex.

That's because the conversation isn't about boys. It's about a pill that girls take. Boys should also NOT be having sex. They are just as responsible as the girls. If my son came home and told me his girlfriend was pregnant I'd hand him the classifieds to look for a job and a house. You wanna be a man, act like one. Keep you dick in you pants. My views are no different on this for men than they are for women.

Banned
05-09-2013, 03:43 PM
That's because the conversation isn't about boys. It's about a pill that girls take. Boys should also NOT be having sex. They are just as responsible as the girls. If my son came home and told me his girlfriend was pregnant I'd hand him the classifieds to look for a job and a house. You wanna be a man, act like one. Keep you dick in you pants. My views are no different on this for men than they are for women.

Right, so that's why you talk about magic spoons that make McDonalds meals low-fat - instead of making the obvious comparison - condoms. Why?

Measure Man
05-09-2013, 03:45 PM
Nope, not a spoon, but a pill that promises to block fat intake.

Stop ingesting condoms!

sandsjames
05-09-2013, 03:47 PM
Right, so that's why you talk about magic spoons that make McDonalds meals low-fat - instead of making the obvious comparison - condoms. Why?

What the fuck are you talking about? Ok...lets start over. My feelings are no different about schools handing out pills than they are about schools handing out condoms. Are you planted anywhere near reality when you respond to posts? Or do you just make the shit up as you go along?

Fine...here's an analogy with condoms. If handing out abortion pills is like handing out pills that allow you to eat all you want with zero consequence then handing out condoms is like handing out gastric bypasses to help people avoid the consequences of being pigs.

sandsjames
05-09-2013, 03:47 PM
Stop ingesting condoms!

But they make great bubbles when I burp.

Banned
05-09-2013, 03:55 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? Ok...lets start over. My feelings are no different about schools handing out pills than they are about schools handing out condoms. Are you planted anywhere near reality when you respond to posts? Or do you just make the shit up as you go along?

Fine...here's an analogy with condoms. If handing out abortion pills is like handing out pills that allow you to eat all you want with zero consequence then handing out condoms is like handing out gastric bypasses to help people avoid the consequences of being pigs.

Yup. Abortion pills are just like pills that make fatty meals low fat. One of the most brilliant inventions in the history of mankind. You mad bro?

sandsjames
05-09-2013, 03:56 PM
Yup. Abortion pills are just like pills that make fatty meals low fat. One of the most brilliant inventions in the history of mankind. You mad bro?

Nope, not mad. Just frustrated, like trying to teach a retarded kid to tie his shoes. No matter how simple it seems I just need to realize that some people just can't grasp certain concepts.

Banned
05-09-2013, 04:03 PM
Nope, not mad. Just frustrated, like trying to teach a retarded kid to tie his shoes. No matter how simple it seems I just need to realize that some people just can't grasp certain concepts.

Don't worry, when your silly religion is a thing of the past, no one will have an objection to abortion pills. :)

sandsjames
05-09-2013, 04:05 PM
Don't worry, when your silly religion is a thing of the past, no one will have an objection to abortion pills. :)You do crack me up sometimes...can your trolls get any more obvious?

Measure Man
05-09-2013, 04:10 PM
Preventing pregnancy encourages people, or at least gives them permission, to have sex when they otherwise might not.

I suppose that's probably true to some extent...I'm not so convinced it's completely horrible though. And of course a certain segment are going to have sex anyway...really what we're trying to do is allow them to prevent pregnancy.

Like curing lung cancer might encourage, or at least give permisssion for people to smoke when they otherwise might not...so let's not cure lung cancer. In fact, let's write our congressmen to insist that the govt. stop helping to research lung cancer cures because nobody wants children to smoke.

Banned
05-09-2013, 04:42 PM
You do crack me up sometimes...can your trolls get any more obvious?

Still haven't explained why this is bad, aside from the magic spoon argument.

sandsjames
05-09-2013, 05:58 PM
Still haven't explained why this is bad, aside from the magic spoon argument.

Ummm...if you'd read you'd see I never mentioned a spoon, but way to use someone else's comments as mine...

JD2780
05-09-2013, 06:32 PM
Still haven't explained why this is bad, aside from the magic spoon argument.

I have and you just blew it off.

sandsjames
05-09-2013, 06:51 PM
It's really a shame...almost embarrassing. I'm starting to feel sorry for Joe. His grasp on reality seems to be slipping every day. He can't read posts fully and he can't comprehend what's actually in the post. Reminds me of my Grandma. Confused but harmless. I'd love to be able to take him seriously but just can't. It's to the point of being painful to watch him losing it.

garhkal
05-09-2013, 06:55 PM
You complain about a girl being allowed to go get a pill from the school nurse, and insist that the government enforce your religious beliefs - yet don't utter a peep about BOYS having sex.

That's because the conversation isn't about boys. It's about a pill that girls take. Boys should also NOT be having sex. They are just as responsible as the girls. If my son came home and told me his girlfriend was pregnant I'd hand him the classifieds to look for a job and a house. You wanna be a man, act like one. Keep you dick in you pants. My views are no different on this for men than they are for women.

And my comment about boys not having condoms readily available without my knowledge shows i have the same belief for both joe..


Don't worry, when your silly religion is a thing of the past, no one will have an objection to abortion pills. :)

Joe.. Several years back when i was having a nice heated discussion in our shop on abortion, most of those who said they oppose it are 'closer to agnostic' than they are to a recognized religion.. Several other times i have had group discussions, a good chunk of those who are against it were atheist. So its NOT all religious nuts who oppose it.

Measure Man
05-09-2013, 11:02 PM
I'm not really in favor of free condoms at school...if a guy wants to get laid, the least he can do is spring for a pack of condoms.

If there is a jar of free condoms at schools, my guess is a large portion of them get used as water ballons or in other practical jokes.

Mcjohn1118
05-10-2013, 12:32 AM
I'm the one who brought up the analogy between the pill being available at stores to 15-year old girls without parental consent and condoms being sold to boys. Again, I was taking religious views out of the equation. I do this because personally, I don't like the idea of abortions, but I'm a dude. Who am I to tell women what to do to? Let's face it, while there may be some small percentage of women who get abortions and not think twice about it, I believe most women agonize over the decision. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, my original intent was to see if those who oppose selling the pill to girls without parental consent are also against condoms being sold to boys. I wasn't wading into the waters of free condoms at school, but the sale of them in grocery stores, pharmacies, Wal-Mart, AAFES, the commissary, etc. Condoms are hanging freely on the hooks. You don't need to take a card to the counter so they can card you and I certainly have never witnessed a checker ask anyone for ID to buy a box. Mind you, just because I never saw it doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Back to my original point: If you are against the pill being sold to minor girls, are you against condoms being sold to minor boys? If you are, did you petition the stores, Congress, or whomever like people are doing now about the pill. Now, on a separate note, and doing some quick research, the morning after pill works in two ways, Once it delays the release of an egg by up to 2-3 days so it can't be fertilized. Now, if an egg was already released, the pill is less effective but still may prevent it from implanting in the uterus. Why'd I bring this up? Well, because while I'm no doctor, this doesn't quite seem like an abortion to me. Just my opinion; feel free to blast me. And no this doesn't mean I condone kids having sex, but I also have realistic thoughts that it will occur like it did when we were kids.

Banned
05-10-2013, 04:15 AM
Magic sky man spoke to me in a vision today, causing me to change my view points. All birth control is bad. Sex outside of marriage, or under the age of 37, is evil. Anyone caught having sex in this matter is to immediately be confined to a monstary. Males will be sent to the Order of Milton Friedman, where they will learn the wonders of the invisible hand, and the evils of the scientific method and every human discovery since 1864 (During the War of Northern Aggression, when magic sky man's holy prophet on Earth, Billy-Bob Lee IV, was killed by a marauding band of feral yankee negros).

All promiscuous females will be sent to the Order of Ann Coulter, where they will be taught the evils of sex and lust (except when objectified and degraded by Conservative talk radio hosts, such as Holy Inquisitor Rush Limbaugh), and any woman who wants silly things like rights is a slut.

Banned
05-13-2013, 07:32 AM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/247544_297623780372740_1684505286_n.jpg

JD2780
05-13-2013, 11:31 AM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/247544_297623780372740_1684505286_n.jpg

Yea and that's clearly her option. One sin doesn't a reason to go and just say screw it. If she were to keep the baby then good for her, she can also give it u to adoption. Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned for adultery. Maybe she realized a mistake doesn't want to continue sinning. It's ok though, I know you'll just make fun of anything religion since anybody that believes in Jesus is an uneducated redneck idiot in your eyes.

Rusty Jones
05-13-2013, 12:12 PM
Yea and that's clearly her option. One sin doesn't a reason to go and just say screw it. If she were to keep the baby then good for her, she can also give it u to adoption. Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned for adultery. Maybe she realized a mistake doesn't want to continue sinning. It's ok though, I know you'll just make fun of anything religion since anybody that believes in Jesus is an uneducated redneck idiot in your eyes.

You know what I make fun of religion for? It's followers forcing themselves to do things that they don't want to do, because they believe that God told them that they have to do it.

Like the woman in the pic. Had she not gotten pregnant, she could have kept the adulterous act a secret and continued her marriage like nothing happened. Or, she could tell her husband, maybe they'll work something out, maybe they won't.

BUT, she's having another man's baby. The marriage is shot (unless, of course, her husband is a total pussy). Yep, she's giving up her marriage. Breaking up her home. All because she believes that God requires her to have this baby.

She's a slave to religion, just like other Christians. Or Jews, or Muslims, or any other person who belongs to any other religion.

My life as atheist is simple: do what you want, as long you're not hurting anyone else and your responsibilities are being taken care of.

Banned
05-13-2013, 12:38 PM
You know what I make fun of religion for? It's followers forcing themselves to do things that they don't want to do, because they believe that God told them that they have to do it.

Like the woman in the pic. Had she not gotten pregnant, she could have kept the adulterous act a secret and continued her marriage like nothing happened. Or, she could tell her husband, maybe they'll work something out, maybe they won't.

BUT, she's having another man's baby. The marriage is shot (unless, of course, her husband is a total pussy). Yep, she's giving up her marriage. Breaking up her home. All because she believes that God requires her to have this baby.

She's a slave to religion, just like other Christians. Or Jews, or Muslims, or any other person who belongs to any other religion.

My life as atheist is simple: do what you want, as long you're not hurting anyone else and your responsibilities are being taken care of.

Knew a girl once who was a Christian - and honestly - it fucked her up in the head. Always asking "Would god want me to do this or that?" - when she did do something that made her happy, she felt guilty because she thought she was betraying god by being "selfish".

I would always just ask her that if this "god" actually existed, would he want her to be completely fucking miserable? And also - if this god is such a giant piece of shit that he can't be bothered to do anything to help the millions of people suffering and dying every day - WHO CARES what he thinks, fuck him.

Banned
05-13-2013, 12:44 PM
You know what I make fun of religion for? It's followers forcing themselves to do things that they don't want to do, because they believe that God told them that they have to do it.

Like the woman in the pic. Had she not gotten pregnant, she could have kept the adulterous act a secret and continued her marriage like nothing happened. Or, she could tell her husband, maybe they'll work something out, maybe they won't.

BUT, she's having another man's baby. The marriage is shot (unless, of course, her husband is a total pussy). Yep, she's giving up her marriage. Breaking up her home. All because she believes that God requires her to have this baby.

She's a slave to religion, just like other Christians. Or Jews, or Muslims, or any other person who belongs to any other religion.

My life as atheist is simple: do what you want, as long you're not hurting anyone else and your responsibilities are being taken care of.

Knew a girl once who was a Christian - and honestly - it fucked her up in the head. Always asking "Would god want me to do this or that?" - when she did do something that made her happy, she felt guilty because she thought she was betraying god by being "selfish".

I would always just ask her that if this "god" actually existed, would he want her to be completely fucking miserable? And also - if this god is such a giant piece of shit that he can't be bothered to do anything to help the millions of people suffering and dying every day - WHO CARES what he thinks, fuck him.

JD2780
05-13-2013, 12:55 PM
You know what I make fun of religion for? It's followers forcing themselves to do things that they don't want to do, because they believe that God told them that they have to do it.

Like the woman in the pic. Had she not gotten pregnant, she could have kept the adulterous act a secret and continued her marriage like nothing happened. Or, she could tell her husband, maybe they'll work something out, maybe they won't.

BUT, she's having another man's baby. The marriage is shot (unless, of course, her husband is a total pussy). Yep, she's giving up her marriage. Breaking up her home. All because she believes that God requires her to have this baby.

She's a slave to religion, just like other Christians. Or Jews, or Muslims, or any other person who belongs to any other religion.

My life as atheist is simple: do what you want, as long you're not hurting anyone else and your responsibilities are being taken care of.

Wow, nice one. The guy is a pussy for accepting something catastrophic happened and would be able to move past it. Whe you see a pussy, I can possibly see somebody that is incredibly strong and can see past it. I'm not sure I could do that. Yes, I pray on certain dilemmas and sometimes it guides me down a path quite a bit harder than the other. So you make fun of people for believing in something. My life is simple as well, do what I feel is right as long I'm not hurting myself or others. Feel free to make fun of me though for believing in Jesus and God. I don't sit here and tell you you're going to hell for not believing. I don't make fun of Athiests. It's your right to believe or not believe.

Banned
05-13-2013, 12:58 PM
Wow, nice one. The guy is a pussy for accepting something catastrophic happened and would be able to move past it.

No, I'm sorry, but that's 100% correct. If a woman goes and gets knocked up by some other dude, and the husband doesn't divorce her on the spot - his man card is revoked.

Banned
05-13-2013, 01:03 PM
Wow, nice one. The guy is a pussy for accepting something catastrophic happened and would be able to move past it.

No, I'm sorry, but that's 100% correct. If a woman goes and gets knocked up by some other dude, and the husband doesn't divorce her on the spot - his man card is revoked.

JD2780
05-13-2013, 01:09 PM
No, I'm sorry, but that's 100% correct. If a woman goes and gets knocked up by some other dude, and the husband doesn't divorce her on the spot - his man card is revoked.

Wow very narrow minded of you. Good work joe. So then the single mother begins getting welfare, wic, working two jobs, the kid will most likely grow up without both parents being around. Hmm, yup the guy would be an obvious pussy.

Banned
05-13-2013, 01:12 PM
Wow very narrow minded of you. Good work joe. So then the single mother begins getting welfare, wic, working two jobs, the kid will most likely grow up without both parents being around. Hmm, yup the guy would be an obvious pussy.

So why would he spend his entire life raising a whore and a child that isn't his? Yes, its one thing to pay taxes and support kids without dads, but its quite another to completely bitch out and stay with a woman who not only blatantly betrayed you, but then pulled the "I can't abort it because I believe in a magic cloud man" bullshit, and pops out the kid anyways. If she had the sense to abort the thing and conceal the pregnancy, we could at least give her points for common sense and practicality.


So why are you defending this behavior so compassionately? Just wondering bro...

Rusty Jones
05-13-2013, 01:15 PM
Wow, nice one. The guy is a pussy for accepting something catastrophic happened and would be able to move past it. Whe you see a pussy, I can possibly see somebody that is incredibly strong and can see past it.

Let's be totally honest with ourselves. In this very situation, what percentage of men who stick around do you honestly think are doing it because of their religion and/or actual honest-to-goodness forgiveness?

Being in the military, I'm sure you've seen this scenario. Especially coming back home from a deployment. And in just about every case, when the husband stays with her... either his wife is usually the dominant partner in the marriage, or he looks like a fucking dork and you wonder what the hell his wife is doing with him - the implication being that he's desperate, or afraid that he's going to be alone. Or, he's simply a pushover who allows people to walk all over him.


I'm not sure I could do that. Yes, I pray on certain dilemmas and sometimes it guides me down a path quite a bit harder than the other.

God's plan not to your liking? That's what prayer is for! Because His plan is so unimportant, that He'll change them just because you asked Him to!


So you make fun of people for believing in something. My life is simple as well, do what I feel is right as long I'm not hurting myself or others. Feel free to make fun of me though for believing in Jesus and God. I don't sit here and tell you you're going to hell for not believing. I don't make fun of Athiests. It's your right to believe or not believe.

No, your life is NOT that simple. If it is, you're not a Christian.

There are all kinds of rules that you have to live by, even if disobeying those rules doesn't hurt anyone.

JD2780
05-13-2013, 01:16 PM
So why would he spend his entire life raising a whore and a child that isn't his? Yes, its one thing to pay taxes and support kids without dads, but its quite another to completely bitch out and stay with a woman who not only blatantly betrayed you, but then pulled the "I can't abort it because I believe in a magic cloud man" bullshit, and pops out the kid anyways. If she had the sense to abort the thing and conceal the pregnancy, we could at least give her points for common sense and practicality.


So why are you defending this behavior so compassionately? Just wondering bro...

I'm defending it because a former student of mine had that exact situation happen to him. He was pretty dead set on ending his own life over it, heavy drinking, vocalized the thought of death, then simply came to the conclusion that he loved his wife, and she made a horrific terrible mistake. They went to a few years of counseling. By a few years I mean usually twice a week intense therapy. He is still raising the child, and they still have the usually problems like any couple. The child is happy, the family appears to be doing well. I'm not saying I could do what he did. It also depends on how the wife handles it. If she just shrugs her shoulders and tells him to get over it, then she might need a kick to the curb, but if she is sorry, and I don't mean just saying sorry, but showing and it appears sincere. Again, I can't say I would be able to do the same, but I don't know either.

JD2780
05-13-2013, 01:19 PM
Let's be totally honest with ourselves. In this very situation, what percentage of men who stick around do you honestly think are doing it because of their religion and/or actual honest-to-goodness forgiveness?

Being in the military, I'm sure you've seen this scenario. Especially coming back home from a deployment. And in just about every case, when the husband stays with her... either his wife is usually the dominant partner in the marriage, or he looks like a fucking dork and you wonder what the hell his wife is doing with him - the implication being that he's desperate, or afraid that he's going to be alone. Or, he's simply a pushover who allows people to walk all over him.



God's plan not to your liking? That's what prayer is for! Because His plan is so unimportant, that He'll change them just because you asked Him to!



No, your life is NOT that simple. If it is, you're not a Christian.

There are all kinds of rules that you have to live by, even if disobeying those rules doesn't anyone.

My pastor specifically spoke of rules this week. He said why do things because they are rules, instead of doing them because they are right. Life is that simple. Even at my church the pastors are very reasonable and say living with Christ doesn't mean living a rigid life style, but does mean living a different life style.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-13-2013, 01:39 PM
No, I'm sorry, but that's 100% correct. If a woman goes and gets knocked up by some other dude, and the husband doesn't divorce her on the spot - his man card is revoked.

Agreed with Joe....OMG.

Pullinteeth
05-13-2013, 01:50 PM
So what then? We have all sorts of different ages for stuff.
Smoking - 18
Driving - 16
Marriage - 17 with parental consent in some places
Drinking - 21
Joining the mil - 17 with parental consent.

In some states you can get married MUCH younger than that....


Yes she was. An adult took advantage of a minor. The law says so.

In a handfull of states maybe...in most states, no...

20+Years
05-13-2013, 02:03 PM
I feel alot like you do JD. I live my life, and try not to have much impact on anyone elses. I do however want people to treat me the same, and not push things onto me or my family that I don't beleive in.

And Joe, you can keep putting down religion in every post and cursing the God that some of us believe in. Just know that while you continue to do that, I will keep being curteous to you, and will respect the fact you have your own beliefs. Hmmm.

Banned
05-13-2013, 08:02 PM
I'm defending it because a former student of mine had that exact situation happen to him. He was pretty dead set on ending his own life over it, heavy drinking, vocalized the thought of death, then simply came to the conclusion that he loved his wife, and she made a horrific terrible mistake. They went to a few years of counseling. By a few years I mean usually twice a week intense therapy. He is still raising the child, and they still have the usually problems like any couple. The child is happy, the family appears to be doing well. I'm not saying I could do what he did. It also depends on how the wife handles it. If she just shrugs her shoulders and tells him to get over it, then she might need a kick to the curb, but if she is sorry, and I don't mean just saying sorry, but showing and it appears sincere. Again, I can't say I would be able to do the same, but I don't know either.

Then that guy is a pussy. Should have kicked her to the side and found a new girl who's not a lying cheating whore. Instead of drinking and whining like a desperate loser.

I feel alot like you do JD. I live my life, and try not to have much impact on anyone elses. I do however want people to treat me the same, and not push things onto me or my family that I don't beleive in.

And Joe, you can keep putting down religion in every post and cursing the God that some of us believe in. Just know that while you continue to do that, I will keep being curteous to you, and will respect the fact you have your own beliefs. Hmmm.

The nice thing about basing your beliefs on observable facts is that it is irrelevant whether or not other people respect those beliefs.

JD2780
05-13-2013, 10:09 PM
Then that guy is a pussy. Should have kicked her to the side and found a new girl who's not a lying cheating whore. Instead of drinking and whining like a desperate loser.


The nice thing about basing your beliefs on observable facts is that it is irrelevant whether or not other people respect those beliefs.

Lying and cheating are two different things. Maybe she didn't lie. Maybe she told him about it. He's not a pussy actually.

JD2780
05-14-2013, 12:12 AM
Yeah, because if you lie to me; all bets are off? But cheating? Oh, sure; go on ahead!



He had a chance to prove that he's not. He pissed it away.

Ok, are any of you guys in his shoes? Have you been in his shoes? I don't think so. So you actually have no idea what you would do. As for him not being a pussy, he's proved it repeatedly on the battlefield.

I didn't say either of those were ok. Joe says she was lying and cheating. She did one. Both are horrible, but I'm not in his shoes.

JD2780
05-14-2013, 12:13 AM
Yeah, because if you lie to me; all bets are off? But cheating? Oh, sure; go on ahead!



He had a chance to prove that he's not. He pissed it away.

Ok, are any of you guys in his shoes? Have you been in his shoes? I don't think so. So you actually have no idea what you would do. As for him not being a pussy, he's proved it repeatedly on the battlefield.

I didn't say either of those were ok. Joe says she was lying and cheating. She did one. Both are horrible, but I'm not in his shoes.

Rusty Jones
05-14-2013, 12:16 AM
Lying and cheating are two different things. Maybe she didn't lie. Maybe she told him about it.

Yeah, because if you lie to me; all bets are off! But cheating? Oh, sure; go on ahead!


He's not a pussy actually.

He had a chance to prove that he's not. He pissed it away.

Rusty Jones
05-14-2013, 12:27 AM
Ok, are any of you guys in his shoes? Have you been in his shoes? I don't think so. So you actually have no idea what you would do.

I kicked my first wife to the curb for cheating, and there wasn't even a pregnancy involved. If there was a pregnancy involved, it would have only made the decision far much easier.


As for him not being a pussy, he's proved it repeatedly on the battlefield.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with him letting others shit all over him.

You know what the big problem is? She was going to have the baby, with him or without him. She told him this. She cheated on him an got pregnant. And then SHE set the terms of reconciliation. Told him that if he can't handle her having the baby, that he could leave. And what did he do?

"Oh, no, no, honey! We can work this out!"

Afterall, if he had any pull, he'd have had her abort the baby. Christianity be damned - Christ died for your sins anyway, right?


I didn't say either of those were ok. Joe says she was lying and cheating. She did one. Both are horrible, but I'm not in his shoes.

And I'm saying: it doesn't change a thing. What I'm saying is that in the case of a pregnancy resulting from adultery, lying should be the least of any man's worries.

JD2780
05-14-2013, 12:37 AM
I kicked my first wife to the curb for cheating, and there wasn't even a pregnancy involved. If there was a pregnancy involved, it would have only made the decision far much easier.



Which has absolutely nothing to do with him letting others shit all over him.

You know what the big problem is? She was going to have the baby, with him or without him. She told him this. She cheated on him an got pregnant. And then SHE set the terms of reconciliation. Told him that if he can't handle her having the baby, that he could leave. And what did he do?

"Oh, no, no, honey! We can work this out!"

Afterall, if he had any pull, he'd have had her abort the baby. Christianity be damned - Christ died for your sins anyway, right?



And I'm saying: it doesn't change a thing. What I'm saying is that in the case of a pregnancy resulting from adultery, lying should be the least of any man's worries.

I'll say we can agree to disagree. The guy ain't a pussy. I'd trust him with my life. I see that you guys already worth in off though. Nce to know if it happened to a guy in your unit you guys wouldn't support him whatever decision he made. Peace be with you.

RobotChicken
05-14-2013, 05:01 AM
:faintZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz: noidea

20+Years
05-16-2013, 06:19 PM
RUH-OH!!!! Guess what????

...tricked girlfriend into taking abortion pill

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/tampa-doctors-son-accused-of-killing-unborn-child/2121162

This will only be the tip of the iceberg!!!

Measure Man
05-16-2013, 06:28 PM
RUH-OH!!!! Guess what????

...tricked girlfriend into taking abortion pill

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/tampa-doctors-son-accused-of-killing-unborn-child/2121162

This will only be the tip of the iceberg!!!

Tip of what iceberg?

He forged a prescription and tricked the girl into taking a prescription pill.

Your argument has no merit...the pill didn't commit the crime, the person did.

Why take the pill out of the hands of thousands of law-abiding citizens because this nut case committed a crime with it?

JD2780
05-16-2013, 06:30 PM
Tip of what iceberg?

He forged a prescription and tricked the girl into taking a prescription pill.

Your argument has no merit...the pill didn't commit the crime, the person did.

Why take the pill out of the hands of thousands of law-abiding citizens because this nut case committed a crime with it?

No replace pill with gun.

Banned
05-16-2013, 06:32 PM
No replace pill with gun.

Yes because a pill and a gun are totally comparable.

Magic Sky Man commands it.

Banned
05-16-2013, 06:35 PM
"Why take the pill out of the hands of thousands of law-abiding citizens because this nut case committed a crime with it? "

And there goes the entire gun argument in one shot.....lol.

Now... MM, your debating skills are sad at best, watch, I can do it too. "Your argument has no merit. Now that the pill will be easier to get, this can happen more often".

Yup. Because a pill that could - at worst - be used to kill a fetus... is completely comparable with a weapon that could be used to kill dozens of people by a single shooter.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-16-2013, 06:39 PM
But he was just saving her from that evil parasite of lumpy fetal tissue. How can this be murder?

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-16-2013, 06:39 PM
Tip of what iceberg?

He forged a prescription and tricked the girl into taking a prescription pill.

Your argument has no merit...the pill didn't commit the crime, the person did.

Why take the pill out of the hands of thousands of law-abiding citizens because this nut case committed a crime with it?

Still need strickter backround checks. If women can be tricked into thinking a baby inside them isnt alive, why would a guy, especially the 15 y/o boy, have any regrets of doing this to an even more nieve teenage girl friend who would want to keep a baby? The sad part is, a gun isnt intended to harm anyone that isnt first threatening to do harm to you first. The pills are only intended to do harm 100% of the time to someone that has no illintentions for anyone yet.

20+Years
05-16-2013, 06:40 PM
"Why take the pill out of the hands of thousands of law-abiding citizens because this nut case committed a crime with it? "

And there goes the entire gun argument in one shot.....lol.

Now... MM, your debating skills are sad at best, watch, I can do it too. "Your argument has no merit. Now that the pill will be easier to get, this can happen more often".

20+Years
05-16-2013, 06:41 PM
Oh.... now your all touchy feely about comparisons. Kettle... meet Joe. Joe... kettle.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-16-2013, 06:42 PM
The reasoning makes it so. The guy committed the crime, not the pill. Has a gun ever gone into a store, or a Mother's Day parade and fired off rounds by itself?

Other than forging the Rx note, what is the crime to liberals? It wasnt like it was a living being in their mind, so maybe its should just be a mistermeanor of "minor destruction of private property".

Banned
05-16-2013, 06:43 PM
"Why take the pill out of the hands of thousands of law-abiding citizens because this nut case committed a crime with it? "

And there goes the entire gun argument in one shot.....lol.

Now... MM, your debating skills are sad at best, watch, I can do it too. "Your argument has no merit. Now that the pill will be easier to get, this can happen more often".

Yup. Because a pill that could - at worst - be used to kill a fetus... is completely comparable with a weapon that could be used to kill dozens of people by a single shooter.

20+Years
05-16-2013, 06:43 PM
Its amusing how quickly the supporters of "the pill" got defensive.

JD2780
05-16-2013, 06:46 PM
Yes because a pill and a gun are totally comparable.

Magic Sky Man commands it.

The reasoning makes it so. The guy committed the crime, not the pill. Has a gun ever gone into a store, or a Mother's Day parade and fired off rounds by itself?

20+Years
05-16-2013, 06:49 PM
Its amusing how quickly the supporters of "the pill" got defensive.

JD2780
05-16-2013, 06:49 PM
Its amusing how quickly the supporters of "the pill" got defensive.

Like a match near gasoline.

Measure Man
05-16-2013, 08:30 PM
No replace pill with gun.

Glad you picked up on that.


Still need strickter backround checks. If women can be tricked into thinking a baby inside them isnt alive, why would a guy, especially the 15 y/o boy, have any regrets of doing this to an even more nieve teenage girl friend who would want to keep a baby? The sad part is, a gun isnt intended to harm anyone that isnt first threatening to do harm to you first. The pills are only intended to do harm 100% of the time to someone that has no illintentions for anyone yet.

Not relevant either way...point is both are legal to be obtained, and could potentially be used in crimes.

A hypocrite, might say... "Well the pill is bad, and here is a crime that proves it"...but at the same time would say "Guns are not bad, punish only the criminal not everyone else"

See the hypocrisy there?

Whereas, someone like me would say..."Do not restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens in either case...punish the criminal"



"Why take the pill out of the hands of thousands of law-abiding citizens because this nut case committed a crime with it? "

And there goes the entire gun argument in one shot.....lol.

Now... MM, your debating skills are sad at best, watch, I can do it too. "Your argument has no merit. Now that the pill will be easier to get, this can happen more often".

See what I mean by hypocrisy.

20+Years
05-16-2013, 08:57 PM
Yep, I see why you might think its hypocrisy. Nothing however says I have to have the same belief on the two subjects. I do agree as the poster above, MY guns are not intended to end human life. The pill is...every time.

Mcjohn1118
05-16-2013, 10:54 PM
Yep, I see why you might think its hypocrisy. Nothing however says I have to have the same belief on the two subjects. I do agree as the poster above, MY guns are not intended to end human life. The pill is...every time.

Even if you believe life begins at conception, your assertion about the morning after pill may be incorrect. I've done some research and many sites (not just Planned Parenthood or the makers of this pill) all state the same thing. The morning after pill delays ovulation by up to two days. Many studies have been done and all are in agreement: This pill does not abort or prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. This is why it's important for women to follow the 12-hr and then 72-hr instructions for both pills in the package. If ovulation is delayed, there can be no fertilization in the fallopian tubes, therefore there is no conception. The rate of success for preventing pregnancy is about 89%. Then again, these studies may be wrong.

Banned
05-17-2013, 12:09 AM
Its amusing how quickly the supporters of "the pill" got defensive.


The reasoning makes it so. The guy committed the crime, not the pill. Has a gun ever gone into a store, or a Mother's Day parade and fired off rounds by itself?

I just find this fufillment of a negative stereotype interesting. All these concerned citizens demanding that women should be restricted in their access to the pill - but Oh no, no restrictions on guns! Guns are just and good!


Yep, I see why you might think its hypocrisy. Nothing however says I have to have the same belief on the two subjects. I do agree as the poster above, MY guns are not intended to end human life. The pill is...every time.

Interesting. So a pill that simply prevents a sperm from reaching its target (something many males do every day, if you catch my drift) is murder - but a tool explicitly designed to kill is totally legit? Mmmkay........

20+Years
05-17-2013, 01:03 AM
Wow McJohn, good post. That is one of the most logical, convincing posts I have seen so far.

As usual though, Joe just continued to cloud his post with hate of those who think differently. Poor Joe.

JD2780
05-17-2013, 03:06 AM
I just find this fufillment of a negative stereotype interesting. All these concerned citizens demanding that women should be restricted in their access to the pill - but Oh no, no restrictions on guns! Guns are just and good!



Interesting. So a pill that simply prevents a sperm from reaching its target (something many males do every day, if you catch my drift) is murder - but a tool explicitly designed to kill is totally legit? Mmmkay........

Guns are restricted to adults or an adult can purchase a rifle for a child. Are you seeing it JB or should I color a picture for you?

RobotChicken
05-17-2013, 04:27 AM
:cheer2 Let 'em all have kids, we need more voters!!! :kev:flying:preggers:lock1

sandsjames
05-17-2013, 01:35 PM
If I have sex with a woman then, in the morning, drop a pill in her coffee without her knowledge can I be charged with any crimes down the road if she finds out about it?

Measure Man
05-17-2013, 01:47 PM
If I have sex with a woman then, in the morning, drop a pill in her coffee without her knowledge can I be charged with any crimes down the road if she finds out about it?

That would be interesting...I'm sure at the very least you're guilty of some kind of assault...same as if you slipped anyone a pill, whether you slept with them or not.

Measure Man
05-17-2013, 02:48 PM
Yep, I see why you might think its hypocrisy. Nothing however says I have to have the same belief on the two subjects. I do agree as the poster above, MY guns are not intended to end human life. The pill is...every time.

Fair enough...I do find that "people who call themselves conservative" and "people who call themselves liberal"...both want the govt. to control subjects they dislike, but not subjects they like. Nobody really wants freedom if it means letting the other guys do stuff.


Anyway, that that some kid forged a prescription and snuck a pill to his girlfriend is some kind of tip to some kind of iceberg is not relevant to this who discussion. It does no more to advance your point that prescriptions should therefore be required to purchase the morning after pill, than the constant litany of people breaking the law with guns advances the argument that law-abiding citizens should therefore not be allowed guns.

Which is why I said your argument lacks merit.

sandsjames
05-17-2013, 03:08 PM
That would be interesting...I'm sure at the very least you're guilty of some kind of assault...same as if you slipped anyone a pill, whether you slept with them or not.

Most likely. I'm just curious as to whether there could be any more severe charges.

20+Years
05-17-2013, 03:23 PM
Fair enough...I do find that "people who call themselves conservative" and "people who call themselves liberal"...both want the govt. to control subjects they dislike, but not subjects they like. Nobody really wants freedom if it means letting the other guys do stuff.


Anyway, that that some kid forged a prescription and snuck a pill to his girlfriend is some kind of tip to some kind of iceberg is not relevant to this who discussion. It does no more to advance your point that prescriptions should therefore be required to purchase the morning after pill, than the constant litany of people breaking the law with guns advances the argument that law-abiding citizens should therefore not be allowed guns.

Which is why I said your argument lacks merit.

Unfortunately, you took my comment out of the context it was meant, which is easy to do on a forum. Several pages back I had stated that there would be a slew of lawsuits that would come from the use of this pill. I mentioned the person who would mistakenly take the wrong pill (ending a pregnancy), the pills that would be given unknowingly, and the remorseful user (why was that option so easy, I killed my child reaction).

The fact that this article popped up so quickly is why I said it will be the tip of the iceberg, the iceberg being made up of lawsuits against the pill or manufacturer.

Measure Man
05-17-2013, 03:24 PM
Unfortunately, you took my comment out of the context it was meant, which is easy to do on a forum. Several pages back I had stated that there would be a slew of lawsuits that would come from the use of this pill. I mentioned the person who would mistakenly take the wrong pill (ending a pregnancy), the pills that would be given unknowingly, and the remorseful user (why was that option so easy, I killed my child reaction).

The fact that this article popped up so quickly is why I said it will be the tip of the iceberg, the iceberg being made up of lawsuits against the pill or manufacturer.

I guess we'll see. Note that the pill in the article is a different pill and did require a prescription...so, requiring a prescription for this pill would not have prevented that crime either way. Could it perhaps be easier for someone esle to commit a crime of the Plan B pill is more available? I'm sure.

I suppose it should be obvious that making something more available also makes it more available to people who want to use it for criminal action. I don't think that's a good reason to restrict it though, for the most part.

Rusty Jones
05-17-2013, 03:48 PM
That would be interesting...I'm sure at the very least you're guilty of some kind of assault...same as if you slipped anyone a pill, whether you slept with them or not.

Here you go!

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/fbi-agents-arrested-the-son-of-a-tampa-doctor-for-the-murder-of-his-unborn-child

Rusty Jones
05-17-2013, 03:48 PM
Here you go!

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/fbi-agents-arrested-the-son-of-a-tampa-doctor-for-the-murder-of-his-unborn-child

Measure Man
05-17-2013, 03:53 PM
Here you go!

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/fbi-agents-arrested-the-son-of-a-tampa-doctor-for-the-murder-of-his-unborn-child

Yes, this article has already been posted.

Completely different case...this woman was 6 weeks pregnant and wanted the child.

sandsjames
05-17-2013, 03:54 PM
Here you go!

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/fbi-agents-arrested-the-son-of-a-tampa-doctor-for-the-murder-of-his-unborn-child

Interesting article but that is a little more cut and dry. In the article, she was already pregnant and aware of it. I'm talking about an instance where there hasn't actually been a pregnancy yet. Just a morning after thing. A "just in case". If the pill isn't actually terminating a fetus and has no side effects then if I drop one in her coffee am I doing anything wrong?