Plan B Now OTC For All Ages

[smercer]

Just wait for the studies in a few years that show a strange increase in Plan B use and STDs in teens...


As for Sparda....Seriously man? You are in favor of him not being responisble for a child because the girl did not want him to wear a condom?
Now had she of claimed to be on birthcontrol (but wasn't), he used a condom(it broke), and she got pregnant, then maybe I could see some room for bitching about the situation. Just not choosing to wear a condom and getting someone pregnant is not a cause a being exempt from responsibility.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ackj]

Sparda's argument is another example of one of Mikey's favorite topics: female privilege. The girl can chose at any point that she doesn't want the kid, and the guy has no say in the matter. She can have second thoughts, think over some possibilities, decide whether or not to keep the kid, change her mind a few times. However, the male's decision essentially ends the second the belt unbuckles.

Both parties are responsible for what happened on that one night of conception. However, only one of the two parties has any real say on the next 9 months. Of course, the male is still expected to be financially involved.

Girl has momentary lapse in judgement and has unprotected sex? Plan B in the next day or two, or if not, can get an abortion.

Guy has momentary lapse in judgement and has unprotected sex? 18 years indebted, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

No, he should man up and take responsibility for not wearing a condom. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to go in un-gloved. He played the odds and lost.

This is a prime escape of the emerging female privilege. WOMEN do whatever they want. They can wear condoms, not wear them , whatever. They can abort, adopt, or have it against the will of another human that will be on the hook for 18 years. Men are told to "man up. " Deal with their irresponsibility. But the idea of telling a woman to "woman up" and take responsibility for her mistake is seen as an invasion of personal autonomy. Which it is. But its the same with everything. We are living in a time of female privilege.

The draft, parenthood, whatever...women get a choice...men just have the responsibility.

You are damn right men should have the right to financial abortion. Its a ridiculous double standard. And any man born after like 1975 knows what I'm talking about. We get told we have "a history of privilege", but we've never actually seen it. Dudes back in 1875 did, sure. But today's young men get less education, have huge unemployment rates, higher incarceration rates,have to register for being forced into the military or we don't get loans, have no reproductive rights, etc, etc.

And every day we're told we are somehow the privlidged ones. I personally shouldn't care because I've beaten such insurmountable odds to get where I am that anti male gender bias isn't even a chip on my shoulder...and no matter the dynamic, I'll always be fine. Its the regular Joe I feel for. We have an entire generation of boys falling behind...and nobody gives a damn...they aren't the preferred gender to be empowered...Eff em right? Who wants their sons to have an equal shot? Hell, I really shouldn't care because I think having children is a pointless exercise...

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Sparda's argument is another example of one of Mikey's favorite topics: female privilege. The girl can chose at any point that she doesn't want the kid, and the guy has no say in the matter. She can have second thoughts, think over some possibilities, decide whether or not to keep the kid, change her mind a few times. However, the male's decision essentially ends the second the belt unbuckles.

Both parties are responsible for what happened on that one night of conception. However, only one of the two parties has any real say on the next 9 months. Of course, the male is still expected to be financially involved.

Girl has momentary lapse in judgement and has unprotected sex? Plan B in the next day or two, or if not, can get an abortion.

Guy has momentary lapse in judgement and has unprotected sex? 18 years indebted, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

The woman is the only one who has any say during the pregnancy because it is her body. As far as I know, the man is not required to pay for the woman's medical expenses during the pregnancy.

Once the child is born, both parties are financially responsible. If they are not a couple, the male will have to pay child support. If the male has primary custody, he can seek child support from the female.

If the woman decides to put the child up for adoption, the man has to consent to that too.

Wear a condom!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The woman is the only one who has any say during the pregnancy because it is her body. As far as I know, the man is not required to pay for the woman's medical expenses during the pregnancy.

Once the child is born, both parties are financially responsible. If they are not a couple, the male will have to pay child support. If the male has primary custody, he can seek child support from the female.

If the woman decides to put the child up for adoption, the man has to consent to that too.

Wear a condom!

And a man's labor is his body. But he doesn't get to control it, now does he? Of course not. Men don't matter.

 

[Digsbe]

I think if a man fathers a child he should be forced to take care of it at least financially. Don't want the responsibility of having a child? Wear a condom or don't have coital sex. When your actions bring another life into this would both father and mother should have an obligation to care for that life. If they can't they may opt to put their child up for adoption.

 

[Sparda29]

Abortions should be mandatory unless both biological parents sign a form saying they want to have the child.

 

[smercer]

Abortions should be mandatory unless both biological parents sign a form saying they want to have the child.

The problem with this is it allows those who cannot afford a child to still have said child.

Lets expand this one:

If you have a child and need government assistance (Welfare), then you will be placed on mandatory birth control (the shot) until you are able to leave the welfare system. If you cannot afford 1 child, then how can you afford more.

Of course no one will go with this because it just ain't fair that someone who needs government assistance should be punished. Kind of like the little girl who bugged the politician about his bill that would remove people from welfare in Tennesse, if their child fails a grade. (Because school is so damn hard). Or those who think that it is so terrible to drug test people on government assistance to be sure the people are not abusing the system.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

If men want to go have sex without any risk of having a kid, they should get a vasectomy. For something slightly less permanent, they can always wear condoms and have some idea the woman is trustworthy, on birth control, and has similar ideas on children.

Otherwise, it takes two to tango, and if you create a kid, you are now financially responsible. You chose to perform an act, and you face any potential consequences.

The woman gets to ultimately decide because her life will change a lot more dramatically than a man's ever would. She risks her life (slightly, but still a possibility) to carry a kid. Afterward, especially if she keeps the kid, her life changes forever. The man's too, if he sticks around, although in the beginning not as much. If he doesn't, it's only a financial hit.

All of that said, if a woman lied to a man about being on BC, poked holes in condoms, stole his semen, etc., I am of the opinion that she should, if nothing else, have any child produced taken away from her.

Side note: I also do not like when men are incarcerated more for the same crimes, nor do I like that the woman often gets the children automatically in divorce court, and I hate male stereotypes just as much as I hate ones on women. Not that this has anything to do with owning up to your responsibility, but figured I'd get that out there.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

Abortions should be mandatory unless both biological parents sign a form saying they want to have the child.

Abortions are a surgical procedure. Women face (slight risks but still there) possible morbidity and mortality during one.

You're honestly suggesting that some man a woman maybe barely knows should have the right to force her to go through a medical procedure she doesn't want? Some women have ethical reasons to be against them, and last I checked, we respect that. It may not be my belief, but it's a lot of people's. And all the birth control in the world can fail.

Yeah, it sucks that some woman can carry a child and get child support from some man she may have hardly known before she got pregnant. But there's a kid involved that someone has to support, and if it's not the man, it may very well be you and me through tax dollars.

If you don't want to risk paying for some kid, don't have sex, and especially don't have sex without multiple forms of birth control.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Nope. It's divided between two camps of ideologues, one camp of idiots that think they look "reasonable" by advocating for the sum average thoughts of a bunch of ideologues, and the minuscule minority that comprises everyone else that is actually capable of thinking outside of the false left-right dichotomy.

While centrism can often between the moderates of 2 idealogues at first, here is what wikipedia says it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrist

"Centrism emphasizes meritocracy." which you see me advocating in this forum, but liberals and conservatives don't clash over. Meritocracy is not democratic, but it just make sense to have a system where more qualified people's vote carry more weight.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

15 does seems reasonable, though. Maybe 13 or 14 if you stretch it. But, again, access to birth control has been deemed by the government to be more important than access to life maintaining and saving drugs...so I actually agree with you in your political assessment. I'm rather shocked they stopped at 15. Anything that perpetuates the emerging female privilege is bulletproof in this country. Just a few weeks ago they passed something hilariously called the "Violence Against Women Act" as if men and hermaphrodites aren't important enough to not be violent against. I frequently feel like I'm the only person noticing the degree of idiocy coming out of the government and our society in general.

LOL. There is a lot of political correctness that went overboard, and got politicians doing all kinds of tricks to win their voter base. Politicians might be slimy, but they are not stupid (usually). So I think a big part of the moves coming government is a reflection of the idiocy of the society. That's why I want meritocracy. A system where highschool drop outs out-numbers and out-votes Ph.Ds just doesn't lend to good governance.

 

[pezdispenser]

I heard a store now keeps Plan B in the photo department.

 

[Momus]

I heard a store now keeps Plan B in the photo department.

I will tell my store to put it next to chocolate, tampon & alcohol department >_>; No popping up kids and making us pay for it.

 

[Ackj]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/health/fda-grants-exclusivity-to-plan-b-one-step.html?_r=0

Interesting. The "OTC for all ages" doesn't apply to generic versions, only actual Plan B.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

We got our Plan B in those plastic DVD lock cases after some kid ran off with one literally the first night they were put on sale in a nearby store. I'm sure that won't stop them. Its nothing a hammer can't get around. It would be easier just to have cards in the aisles and have them bring them to me, but apparently the law says we can't do that. Which is idiotic. They have to check out, anyway. If they are bashful, they will chose to have me in back wearing the white coat ring them out anyway. Where I will them to buy Next Choice because its A) Made in America, not Budapest B) The same damn thing for $10 cheaper and C) We can't put them out in the aisles, anyway, and I need to get rid of a lot of stock.

We've already established that the reproductive rights of women are more important than the right to life saving medications for everyone due to Obamacare's free birth control mandate that sees people still paying copays for literally everything else. That this happened doesn't surprise me at all. The woman lobby is one of the strongest lobbies in the universe. A system in which giving some woman free Ocella for worry free sex outweighs the need to give some other person free flecainide for their heart condition should be considered among the most ridiculous situations in modem America. For whatever reason, I seem to be the only person that has noticed how ridiculous this is.

Now the reproductive rights of women are more important than corporate America's right to loss prevention and increased profit. This, conversely, really shocks me. I assumed that was the most powerful force on the planet. Somehow, it has been usurped.

A ****ing meteor could be hurling towards Earth...but if a space shuttle launch to intercept the thing got in the way of people having access to birth control, there would be a congressional investigation and we'd all just have to die. I'm convinced of this. In American society, there is LITERALLY nothing more important than a woman getting birth control.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Well, WVU, have to say you totally called it on this one. But I wouldn't blame Obama too much one this one, he was actually against it. I'm a bit surprise how the pro-female forces is able to win even when the liberal administration joins with the moderates and conservatives. But you definitely called it on this one.

I guess women can play both the gender equality side and at the same time "but I'm a girl" side, whichever suited the issue. That's not an option for men, and too many men consider it too unmanly/ethical to not yielding to females. Until that changes, there can be no true equality, men will continue to be on the losing side.