Remember when U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman of New York told the FDA to reconsider a 2006 decision that only allowed women 18 and over access to Plan B without a prescription?
Well, that's exactly what happened.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
seriously, the moral conservatives can all go straight to hell on this one. Lets prevent some abortions!
You realize 17 year old *girls* are not women, right?
They're children as far as the law is concerned.
@Anon,
I believe that at 17, people are capable of making decisions for themselves and being responsible for them...like adults.
That's why this is great.
Except they aren't. Teenagers are children, impulsive, usually stupid, and legally NOT capable of making those decisions.
That's why they're considered minors in the eyes of the law.
Well, the FDA doesn't agree. And I find it difficult to believe that the different between 17 and 18 years of age (the legal difference between being a minor and an adult) is really that much. To me, it's just a number. Of course, there are some 17-year-olds who will act irresponsibly, but that doesn't mean that holds true for the rest of the group.
The majority will act irresponsibly.
If they didn't, why would they need Plan B?
Plan B is something you get WHEN you have acted irresponsibly.
Kinda defeats your argument, when you say these children are mature and capable of making responsible choices, as you laud their ability to purchase a get-out-of-jail-free card.
@Anon:
You forget that sometimes contraceptives fail, and that would cause people to need Plan B and would not necessarily be a result of irresponsibility.
If you continue to make disparaging remarks about teenagers in such a generalizing matter ("Teenagers are children, impulsive, usually stupid," and "The majority will act irresponsibly."), your comments will possibly be rejected. Just a warning.
You forget that sometimes contraceptives fail, and that would cause people to need Plan B and would not necessarily be a result of irresponsibility.
Sure it would.
Why would a *child* need to have sex? Children who are in no position to provide for a child, should such an accident occur, who are not in any way emotionally mature enough to handle sex, etcetera, are irresponsible *because* they are having sex.
How about we teach them why they should be focusing on something BESIDES sex, rather than teach them "oh, don't worry, you can get out of it with no consequences!"
Actions have consequences.
If you continue to make disparaging remarks about teenagers in such a generalizing matter ("Teenagers are children, impulsive, usually stupid," and "The majority will act irresponsibly."), your comments will possibly be rejected. Just a warning.Uh, it's not disparaging to point out FACTS.
Teenagers ARE children. A minor child is an individual under the age of 18 (21 in some places). Period. If you don't like that, write your congressman. But don't get angry at me for pointing it out.
It's also a fact to note that the majority of teenagers are irresponsible. That's why the law considers them minor children, and treats them as unable to act responsibly. (Higher car insurance, etcetera.)
They are also impulsive, prone to do things without proper thought, because youth often provides feelings of invulnerability, and the "that will never happen to me" complex.
Why would a *child* need to have sex? Children who are in no position to provide for a child, should such an accident occur, who are not in any way emotionally mature enough to handle sex, etcetera, are irresponsible *because* they are having sex.Never said 17-year-olds needed to have sex. But at the very least, if you think about it, a lot of them are having sex. You calling them irresponsible for making that choice is your own moral opinion, not a fact, so I won't argue that.
And I think it is messed up, when it comes to sex, to not take it on a case by case basis. Just because a number of teenagers might do things without clearly thinking about their actions does not mean that we should assume that all teenagers will behave in such a way. It is especially unhelpful to conceive of things such as sex in this manner because teenagers are going to have sex whether you approve of it or not.
You calling them irresponsible for making that choice is your own moral opinion, not a fact, so I won't argue that.It's not a "moral opinion". It's pointing out that they are not responsible enough to make adult decisions, which is why the law does not consider them adults.
Just because a number of teenagers might do things without clearly thinking about their actions does not mean that we should assume that all teenagers will behave in such a way. It is especially unhelpful to conceive of things such as sex in this manner because teenagers are going to have sex whether you approve of it or not.And teaching them at such a young age that life has no consequences, and all trouble can be easily gotten out of is not a good thing.
@Anon:
And teaching them at such a young age that life has no consequences, and all trouble can be easily gotten out of is not a good thing.I don't understand how making Plan B available to women and men aged 17 years is teaching them that life has no consequences.
I don't know if this was brought up, but in most states (if not all) the legal consent age of sex is 16, so clearly people are ready to have sex by then. Besides all this, the statistics have shown that AT LEAST 17-year-olds need birth control and plan B, it's just that the Bush administration tried to hide that. It's something like 80% of pregnancies under 18 are unplanned. This goes without saying that without birth control and other options, it's so clearly sexist that it's despicable. Guys have condoms, but no one complains about that, though they're wasting life too. And, who gets left with the baby? The girl. This is a pointless discussion because the government decided to do something right for once.
Post a Comment