What you don't know won't hurt you ;)

Seriously, I think any form of birth control, and the free right to have access to it, should be a basic human right.

/me puts on flame retardant suit

Yeah, I thought about that. Do I want to know or don't I? I'm not sure.

Its a choice between whether you'd rather have your kid explore geting an abortion without your knowing or buying these pills instead.

Maybe my wife can handle that and I'll make sure my boy has rubbers ;)

Folks who are hard core pro-life believe that life begins at conception. So killing a four celled blob that could someday be a human is very wrong. Even if it is causing a situation where the cells cannot form is abortion. And as a Catholic with no faith, I know that keeping the sperm from the eggs (like when wearing a condom) is frowned upon.

As long as it is mostly safe, I'm all for it.

As for not knowing what your kid is doing, good luck. With all the shit we did as kids and got away with, a parent can never know everthing. I suggest tapping the phone and a spy program on their computer. Its the only way to be sure.

I think that a parent has a right to know ANY of the pills their kid is putting into it's body. Kids have the right to not tell their parents too.

I know what you're talking about. I also dont know what you're talking about.

....... What?

Heh, typical male/female double standard. Your son gets some and he gets kudos and if your daughter does then all hell would break loose.

But hey, that's why being a man is better ;)

"like when wearing a condom"

OR pulling out, or having her swallow it or shooting a load on her face... or even worse... taking it in the ass!

Perhaps make it an an over the counter medication for adults. Keep the shit locked up behind the counter until an ID carrying adult comes asking for it.

Sure kids can get adults to buy them for them but it is a nice little feel-good device for those who need it.

Accidents happen and having a backup that is readily available is a must.

Of course we could always clip all males before puberty and then make them get licenses to have babies. Once a license is obtained they can get reconnected or have a needle jabbed into their nuts to extract some sperm. It could be a home test tube baby kit. Hypo (for him), turkey-baster, and a cork (for her).

Of course, it really depends per state on what age kids are allowed to have consensual sex with each other. If 16yr olds are legally allowed to have sex and buy (or get free) birth control, they should be allowed to get the day after pill. Its a little different than being an adult (or 18 or 35 in my case)

And I like the puberty snip snip idea. Course, if we just took the whole nutsack, we wouldn't have any problems at all except for 100% High School lesbianism.

Are you saying you don't want your 16 year old son to be able to buy condoms without your knowing either? As the law is they can already do that.

You seem to have the same firm understanding of the scenario

For men, it should include an Emergency Paper Sack, a parachute for bailing out of above-ground-level lofts, and a handy wallet-sized guide to FDA-approved common morning-after excuses, as well as the informational brochure, "So you've gotten smashed and bedded a troll....AGAIN: How a Wingman is Necessary to Successful Singles-Clubbing" by Dr. Mike Ockurts.

These days they seem to be having sex before 16 so I'll make sure he has rubbers.

My Uncle sells condoms to saliors
He pricks the tips with a pin
My Auntie does back alley abortions
Oh how does the money roll in!

That reminds me of a bit of trivia, the term "son of a gun" came about to describe kids born out of wedlock, conceived on the gun deck of ships from sailors passing from port to port, ok, enough for now, enjoy

Parents have the right to know what their kid is doing, but their kid has a right to refuse permission of the pharmacist to tell the parents.

And just how is high school lesbianism a problem? If it weren't for teen lesbians, half my porn collection would be gone :D

When I'm a dirty old man, I want a fresh supply of girl-on-girl action to watch.

Holyjuan is a dancing queen,
His silliness makes me sick,
But all that silly fag wants to do,
Is suck on a big, fat dick.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

ALL of which happened in Rev's last D&D game!

It was a crazy night at the barking dog tavern, indeed... but the experience points were worth it!

I think this might be the same pill that the FDA objected to being over the counter because it had previously been linked to the deaths of a number of teenage girls. The FDA expressed concerns about this, arguing the pill should have some sort of age limit (the girls were mostly 14 and younger, if memory serves), and the company objected.

So, the culprit could be a greedy drug company wanting to get its item onto the market or an over-zealous FDA trying to protect morality. You decide.

As a side note, wouldn't a simple overdose of birth control pills do the same thing? I'm not a doctor by any means, though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

That controversy happened over an abortion pill, which is not the morning-after pill. A few women who took that pill died, and the FDA later determined that it wasn't related to the abortion pill they had taken. And yes, taking several birth control pills at once is the exact same treatment as the morning-after pill.

Thanks for bringing me up to date on the differences.

So, if the treatment already exists just by taking several, normal birth control pills why all of the fuss? Why not just go get a perscription for some birth control pills?

I suppose the whole point of this is to make it easier for children to get access to this medicine without their parents consent, then? To make it all OTC?

The whole point was supposed to make it easier for all women to gain access to it, since the pill works on a timeline and it takes forever to get a prescription. And since birth control pills have been prescribed to kids for years now, supposed concerns about its safety are complete bullshit. If they impose an age limit on who can buy it OTC, then it wouldnt be any harder than buying alcohol, just show an ID. I suppose younger people are more likely to be irresponsible enough to get themselves in a situation where they would need the pill, so it would be nice if it could be used to lower the numbers of teenagers getting abortions or teen mothers. I don't see why that's a bad thing.

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

I wonder if he still has his +5 vorpal katana of burgler slaying

Nothing like your +11 Keyboard of Reposte

Holy crap.

The big question here is should this be over the counter or not.

Birth control pills aren't, nor are a lot of other things in the US for various reasons.

If this pill is essentially an overdose of birth control pills (I'm no pharmacist, nor do I pretend to be one, so if I'm way off on this I apologize in advance), then why should this company have the right to sell drugs in an OTC form that other companies must sell as a perscription?

Sure, there's a "morality" aspect to this decision, as there are in most government decisions (whether it be a question of guarding the morality of a certain religion or guarding the moral of free choice), but there may be other reasons if you want to look farther.

Thats not the big question actually, because this pill is a one-time shot. What makes long-term birth control need a doctors oversight is its cyclic length of use, not the drugs it is comprised of. As a long-term treatment, you can modify its component drug combinations to tweak it for optimal performance. You can't use Plan B as OTC birth-control pills, you use it once and your period starts so there's no way to somehow buy lots of the pills and take it every day, as if it were like using birth control pills without the prescription. With a one-time dose, all that matters is what its component drugs do that one time, so there is nothing comparable with the reasons birth control pills aren't over the counter.

As for the morality thing, that's a very good point to bring up. But there is a division of labor within the government. The FDA is there to assess the clinical scientific bodily effects of drugs only, so that other branches have factual knowledge about them when weighing other factors, such as morality perhaps. The governments scientific end has now fabricated a lie about the drug's safety, in order to circumvent any fact-based morality debate the government could do, and thats a serious problem. I won't put the blame solely on the FDA however, since the agency's doctors did their jobs and actually voted 24-3 in favor of the drug's OTC status based on its clinical safety, and it was an unusual act of vetoing by the director that held it up.

me

Care to explain what "lie" they are telling that you are referring to?

You have to really consider the way the government states things as well. While the drug may be "safe" for the person taking it, it does cause other problems for the "oops" waiting in line for life.

They have mountains of data on the safety of birth control pills on people of the age group they say they are lacking. Doctors prescribe such pills to people all the time, if there was a problem specific to them it would be documented by now. For example, accutane causes birth defects, and since children under 18 technically aren't responsible for thmselves, they are required to take birth control pills while taking accutane, because the medical community does not consider abstinance to be valid contraception. Thats just one example, but for plenty of other reasons tons of people 15 and under have taken these pills. But in order to satisfy a political agenda the FDA must feign ignorance of the safety of birth control pills on teenagers.
I can't decipher your second paragraph, but i'm guessing you mean there's like souls waiting in line for conceptions, so blocking fertilization hurts them? The FDA doesn't define a person pre-conception.

"For example, accutane causes birth defects, and since children under 18 technically aren't responsible for thmselves, they are required to take birth control pills while taking accutane, because the medical community does not consider abstinance to be valid contraception."

A.) Males taking accutane don't have to take birth control.

B.) As long as teenagers stay abstiance, then abstiance is not only a valid form of contraception but the best form.

As long as teenagers stay abstinante.

This is what happens when you try to edit your post without reading it.

A) males don't take birth control pills either.

B) The medical community knows full well that teenagers who pledge abstinance don't have pregnancy rates lower than teens who don't. They they have a bigger responsibility towards the prevention of nasty birth defects, than to trust a teen who says they will be abstinant.

You are being vague. You have not exactly responded with the lies that the Feds are telling.

The mountains of data don't really mean anything. All data can be read however you choose to interpret it. For example my comment about it being safe. Safe for whom? Ergo, the Feds have their interpretation of the data even though your interpretation says it is "safe."

As for the second paragraph yes you sort of got the meaning of what I was saying. Even if we leave the soul part out of it blocking the function of contraception could be onsidered harmful since you are applying it after the fact.

I don't mind birth control if it is used as a preventative measure. I don't agree with it being used because people are too stupid to apply the proper measures in the first place.

Yes I know people will argue that accidents happen, a rubber can break etc. I call bullshit. Both parties should be practicing the contraceptive measures for themselves to make sure that the "oops" doesn't happen.

It would be nice if we came up with a way to completely turn off the reproductive end of our system until a later date when we wanted to have a kid and then re-enable it. Rather than taking pills, having surgery, etc. we could just take one pill that stays in our system blocking the controllers that cause us to make sperm, eggs, etc. Then a few years later we could take another pill to destroy that blocker.

Who knows, maybe in the future we'll have it.

All right, going with the pre-conception thing, it harms that soul waiting in line to be born to a teenage mother. Wouldn't it be nice instead of being born into a life of poverty and strife by random chance of being the next available conception, if that conception was prevented and the next available space could be a planned situation instead? Oh, abortion's wrong, nobody asks the 8-celled ball what it wants, oh boo hoo, but devise a way to avoid that mess and those same people are against that too? Where did the compassion for the baby go? No shit the people who were irresponsible don't deserve an easy way out, but that baby does, its as guiltless as the embryo, nobody asked if it wanted to be born to irresponsible parents, remember?

Whats vague? The FDA's justification is that they don't know enough about potential side effects in people under 16 to ensure the drug's safety, even though they know full well otherwise.

Wow, I'm coming into this thread late, but you're wrong on that one, MW.

My wife's old roommate was on acutane for quite a while, beginning when she was 17. She was required to take birth control pills, even though she was certainly not at any risk of getting pregnant (excluding rape, of course). If she'd refused the birth control pills, her insurance wouldn't have covered the acutane.

My wife was on acutane right before we got married, and had to go off of it right before because, while we got married, she was only going to be using one form of birth control - the pill - where as before, abstienance counted as the other form (although, that alone should certainly be enough...). Her old insurance company required two forms, and she wasn't interested in getting any shots nor were we interested in using any alternative methods if you know what I mean.

Neither my wife nor her roommate minded, though. The pill can really help keep skin clear, and keep users "regular".

Acutane's some scary stuff and it causes some terrible birth defects. It's also been known to cause depression and other mood disorders, which can lead its users to do things they other wise might not do, like randomly get pregnant. Can't be too careful around it, so insurance companies are keeping themselves covered.

I'm wrong on which one, that males taking accutane don't have to take birth control pills?

Males never have to take birth control pills.

Since Che brought this one back up I figured I'd go ahead and recognize this.

They they might have a bigger responsibility towards the prevention of nasty birth defects but they certainly don't behave like that. If the medical community cared about preventing nasty birth defects then they'd spend more of their time studying the nasty birth defects and how to prevent them and less of their time giving teenagers medication to stop zits.

Uh, hate to break it to you MW but there's a lot of work done on preventing birth defects, and a lot of that is done through education - telling women what to eat, what not to eat, not to drink alcohol, smoke, etc. Utah, for example, strongly encourages women to go to the doctor at least 13 times while pregnant to check for those irregularities and to make sure women are aware of the risks.

Acutane is known to CAUSE severe birth defects, and the only way to prevent this from happening is by not becoming pregnant while you are taking it. If you ever pick up a box of it, you'll see warning labels all over them - even small warning labels on each dot you punch pills through - reminding female users not to get pregnant.

Your point regarding men not having to take birth control is pointless at best. Of course men don't have to take it in this case (not that I know of any oral contraceptive for men, actually) - it is entirely impossible for a man to become pregnant, so no treatment is needed. Also, if a male was to impregnate a female while he was taking acutane, no harmful side effects would occur to the child.

Really, MW, I'd expect better of you than this.

I suspect that requiring 2 forms of contraception is one of the medical community's ways of getting around people who believe that abstinance alone is enough. I have a co-worker whose 15 year old daughter is on acutane plus birth control pills. Her insurance company, rather than requiring 2 forms, simply requires one form that isn't abstinance, and she's partly offended that they don't consider her daughters abstinance to be valid contraception, but she also understands that its nothing personal. From a policy-setting level, it just makes sense to reject abstinance as effective contraception. Its not a clinical sterilization technique, and furthermore looking at the stats they know that a teens judgement can't be trusted. Its not that they are saying her daughter specifically can't be trusted, but that they can't afford to grant that individual judgement to everyone.

Wouldn't it be easy to avoid the misunderstandings and require "clinical sterilizations" instead of "contraception"?

The best way (and only 100% effective way) to prevent having kids is, of course, abstaining from sexual intercourse, so it's certainly an effective means of birth control.

I suppose the problem here is that a lot of teens would rather not have to admit to their parents they're sexually active, and would rather lie to the doctor and continue with their lives than own up to their actions. Requiring birth control pills in that case certainly makes sense for any insurance company from a financial and ethical point of view - better to pay a little money up front to prevent expensive and terrible birth defects from happening.

I've never encountered a girl, even a Mormon girl, who's been opposed to it. Most actually like it for reasons of regularity and it also helps clear up the effects of acne.

My wife was on it before we got married, which was pretty convenient actually. We did maintain pre-marital abstinence, but she was going to have to start the pill a while before we got married anyways and Acutane let her start ahead of time - and stock up on cheaper pills through her parent's insurance plan.