Loons? The doctors and scientists at the FDA approve of the use of OTC Plan B for all ages. The New England Journal of Medicine approves of its OTC use for all ages.
Yes, loons. Because something has been approved for all ages doesn’t automatically mean that parents get no say in what their minor children use. How hard is that to understand? Pretty fucking hard, seemingly. This isn’t an issue about whether it’s safe to use, but about whether parents have any say in what their minor children can or can’t have access to without said parents permission.
When you emancipate all children from all parental controls and give them full rights as citizens, then this would be fine. Children would have access to cigarettes, alcohol, or birth control without the parents having any say. Until that time, attempting to put this in the terms of what’s SAFE (according to the FDA) is kind of a silly argument, IMHO.
Jesus, you’re comparing birth control to cigarettes and alcohol? Why not compare birth control to, oh I dunno, other forms of birth control? Condoms, for example, are available over the counter – do you also have a problem with minors buying them? Why should we stigmatize young girls by forcing them to talk to pharmacists and parents for Plan B access, while boys buying condoms is a-okay?
No, I’m comparing things that are restricted to minors. Again, how hard is this to understand?
AFAIK, minors (under 15 years of age) can’t buy condoms either without an adult. I could be wrong about that…feel free to provide a cite if I am. I think that there is a difference between condoms and a morning after pill, as one prevents multiple problems (i.e. it prevents some forms of sexually transmitted disease AND prevents pregnancy, while the other simply prevents pregnancy), but to me the real issue is one of parents having a say in what their minor children should or shouldn’t have access too. Once someone becomes an adult I have no issues with them having access to whatever they like, including other things our society currently chooses to restrict, but minors are under the guidance and authority of their parents until the DO become adults with full rights. Again, this doesn’t seem a very difficult thing to understand, to me anyway.
My main beef here is the claim that this proves Obama is a right winger or other fucking crazy shit like that, since afaik most people on either side of the political spectrum are going to agree that children under 15 shouldn’t have unrestricted access to things like morning after pills WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS CONSENT. Again, feel free to show me polls or whatever showing that this is only right wingers who would have a problem with this.
Other than the people whose brains have been eaten inside-to-out by slugs that force them to agree with everything Barack Obama says and does, yes, that is the major group of people who oppose this–people who oppose contraception in general. Asking if he has a problem with minors buying condoms may get you a horrifying answer that doesn’t match what you expect.
So you DON’T want them to get pregnant, you just want to make it illegal for them to buy contraception.
Yeah, that makes a whole fucking pile of sense.
I’m getting the sense that you really don’t want to understand what I’ve been pretty clearly saying. So, since I don’t want to be insulting I’ll just assume it’s because you choose not to understand what I’m saying and leave it at that.
How would you feel about making the parents legally responsible for the child resulting from their minor daughter’s pregnancy?
I’m good with that. Parents ARE supposed to be responsible for the actions of their minor children, after all. I’d have to say that the parents of the male who knocked them up would equally be responsible for the actions of their male child…or, if he was an adult, he’d be responsible equally as well (which, correct me if I’m wrong, is already the case).
It’s been studied for safety in 11 year olds? Really?
Condoms are not restricted to minors – they have no age-limit. This is common knowledge. And most states allow minors to consent to contraceptive services. So no, you are not “comparing things that are restricted to minors” – you made that up.
This argument makes no sense. What does the quantity of benefits have to do with a person’s right to access it?
It’s difficult to understand because “parents having a say in their childrens’ lives,” while important, is not as important as the health of their children. “Kids keeping secrets from their parents” is not a good enough reason to prevent their access to birth control, which would potentially prevent a great deal of teen pregnancy and abortion.
I’ll also add that, when a medication is kept behind the counter (like emergency contraception is now), it reduces access to adults as well as minors, compared to if it were available OTC. There’s no good reason this should be happening.
“Things that have 2 benefits and things that have 1 benefit are different in some way that should obviously determine whether the age limit to access them is 15 versus 16” is obviously grasping at ridiculous straws to pretend that his position has a reason behind it. That puts him firmly in the “I have to find SOME WAY to justify Obama’s unjustifiable position on this, because admitting Obama is wrong makes my brain hurt!” camp.
You’re wrong. However, I don’t know how to provide a cite for that, because there’s no universal list of things it’s legal to sell to minors. Can you provide a cite that it’s legal to sell apples to minors? I’m afraid the onus is on you to provide a cite that condoms are restricted for sale to minors. Your claim, your support.
Fair enough, but keep in mind, I mean that the grandparents are legally responsible for that child until that child turns 18 and not until the mother of that child turns 18. And yes, the same goes for the parents of the father as well.
Not wanting to put words in your mouth – so please tell me if I’m off base here – but this proposal appears to mean that a minor (18 in the US, no?) could be of the age of consent (laws varying by state), but unable to acquire contraception without parental agreement, and on becoming pregnant could be forced to carry the baby to term provided the (grand)parents agreed to be financially responsible?
Wait, so if my 17 year old son gets a girl pregnant, I have to pay for care of the child until the child turns 18, or in other words until my son is 35??? Why shouldn’t my son, when he becomes an adult, be responsible for the care of his kid?
I don’t believe this is true. Parent’s are not strictly liable for everything their minor children do. They can be liable for negligent supervision, but as kids get older I don’t think it is negligence to allow them to be in situations where they could POSSIBLY sneak off alone together and have sex.
If you are allowing teen orgies at your home, then I might agree, but simply because you child gets/gets someone else pregnant that a parent should be liable? I very much disagree.
When I was 16, my doctor told my mother to leave the exam room, and I managed my own healthcare (including birth control) from that day forward.
Teenage sex may not always be a good thing, but teenage pregnancy is basically always a bad thing. Even if the morning after pill did promote promiscuity (which it doesn’t), I’d rather have more promiscuity and fewer unwanted babies.
If you prevent him from accessing birth control, sure. At that point, you are the one deciding to make the sex unprotected against reproduction, so why shouldn’t you have to deal with the consequences?
No, not true. I don’t know where **Cyros **is getting this from.
While grandparents who are raising their grandchildren do owe them support for the time period they are raising them (acting in loco parentis), and if the minor parents get state aid, some states require the grandparents to provide support, this all ends when the parents are 18.
I wouldn’t prevent him from access to birth control, but if a parent would, the decision is ultimately on him whether to have sex. Not all kids are “doing it.”