Plan B available "over the counter"

[privyjo]

Thought I should swim back by and offer some clarifications on my lurking comments. Don't mean this as a flame. Just my personal experience and thoughts with the issue being discussed - Plan B.

Personally? I would rather see young people being smarter and more parents being open with them and telling them the truth about sex from a younger age than this gawd awful semi-Victorian one we live in ... Morning after pill? If one needs it, then I am happy they can get it as their personal CHOICE dictates and why not in dispensers?

Edit to add: I still think they should have been smarter to begin with and not simply because they might get pregnant. There's AIDS, herpes, warts, the big G, and syphallis still out there. There are many better reasons to still use a condom.

Agree -and put it in action - as an informed parent I bought my son his first box of condoms when he was 13 after taking him to the see the AIDS quilt laid out on the Smithsonian mall. At the time, we also lived where the highest rate of STDs in the nation were being reported among teenagers. Told him never to believe a girl when she said she was on the pill or was STD free - yeah - a little bit of a scare tactic but it worked. If HE didn't want a STD or to be a Daddy - then take responsibility for neither of them happening. Some adults felt I was condoning sex among teenagers - no - my feeling was better safe than sorry. Have known too many people who died from AIDS and too many pregnant teenagers.

If science was advanced enough to remove the fetus from the rape victim and transplant it to some other host, male or female, would you volunteer to carry the child to term and raise it as your own?

If not then you are a hypocrite.

Dealing specifically with rape - can't really see Plan A working here unless all young girls/women, have to be on the pill or taking birth control shots all the time . Or we castrate all boys/men.

WOW - I am thankful for MY partners and mostly MY smarts. BE INFORMED! In using PLAN A, we do not need Plan B.

Not sure what you are saying here - I'm dense that way. I am not flaming here - I really am stymied. But again Plan A works only if we lived in a perfect world - no violence towards anyone, no child molestors, no rapists.

I am pro-Choice but sometimes wish pro-lifers were were required to really put their beliefs to a real test - like be a surrogate birth parent for a child conceived through rape or incest if Plan B is not available to the survivors. It would be the humane thing to do both for the traumatized survivor and the unwanted child. Hence, I liked Zeb_Carter's hypothetical question to yevkassem72. It is not a question limited to just men, though, as the issue of Plan B is not limited to just women.

 

[Pure]

i think Zeb's question is well taken, esp. given that dogmatice folks like yev and the pope harp on their dedication to 'life,' while ensuring in several ways that unnecessary deaths and miserable lives abound.

it's not an argument for 'choice', but it is well to impeach the claim to occupy the moral high ground, made by the dogmatic (alleged) prolifers that are so blase about death.* to my mind it's not unlike fanatics who immolate themselves (and maybe others) for 'eternal life,' while destroying earthly instances of life.

---
*please note the restrictive clause; i do not rule out--without argument-- all abortion reservations which are expressed by rational, thoughtful, and humane persons.

 

[CharleyH]

Not so much my take...As I've mentioned I try not to have an oppinion as it has nothing to do with me in reality...Not my body so not my descision...
I just tried to add some evidence and deffinitions to help with debate as opposed to the name calling, tempers and confusion...

As for birth control I think it's the responsibility of both partners...

Never argued your intelligence. Good post BTW - what about the responsibility of disease?

 

[Oblimo]

...the pope harp on their dedication to 'life,' while ensuring in several ways that unnecessary deaths and miserable lives abound...

The Papal argument on the sanctity of life is eloquent and well-reasoned--I strongly urge anyone interested in true understanding of all sides of the debate to read the Humanae Vitae Encyclical itself--but, in my opinion, flawed, precisely for the reason you state: it prioritizes God's suffering over human suffering.

In the traditional Catholic (Summa Theologica) view, sin causes God to suffer ultimate anguish. Just as the eucharist transubstantiates into the flesh of Christ as he suffers on the Cross, so to does all human sin throughout all time transubstantiate into Christ's body and soul as he experienced the Passion, a timeless moment of transcendental pain. It is this suffering that the Catholic Church prioritizes above all others, which is why the Vatican refuses to even consider the ABC alternative ("abstenance before condom," which I refer to as "Please don't have premarital sex, but if you are going to do it anyway, then for Fuck's sake where a condom you idiot.")

Mother Theresa's words still chill me to this day. There she was, standing in the slums of Calcutta, her orphanages and charities grossly underfunded, saying, "Don't use contraception, don't abort your babies. Give your babies to me."

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

In a nutshell, we have many pro-choicers taking offense to one pro-lifer's arguments. Admittedly, he acts much like amicus. In fact, if he hadn't sparred recently with amicus, and if amicus weren't rather brazen without the use of an alt, one might be forgiven for thinking that he is amicus.

Okay, so far, yev's argument seems to run along the same basic lines as the Pope's and other anti-abortion militants. Let me summarize what I see as the basic points:

1. Abortion is unjustifiable homicide, in that it takes the lives of human beings without any rational, legal, or moral justification for the taking thereof. (It is evident that he will continue to insist that the fetus is clearly a viable, sentient human life/soul, whatever, whether or not this is proven by scientific data.)

2. Unjustifiable homicide is murder by definition, hence, those who have or perform abortions are automatically murderers (we will not yet address the issue of intentional, deliberate homicide, which he seems to have overlooked).

3. Murder is already forbidden in all societies, so abortion should be forbidden as well, being a form of infanticide.

4. Abortion is a crime motivated by greed and a desire for convenience (note that he consistently avoids the issue of trauma, as if it were a blind spot for him).

5. Abortion cheapens human life, contributing to a "culture of death" that threatens the sanctity of human life in general.

6. Many pro-choice people are "prudes who can't live by their own damned rules", and thus resort to "murder" to cover up their tracks. I find this argument the most spurious of yev's by far. I am surprise, frankly, that no one took him to task on it. Perhaps it is because it is so laughable to think that SMUT WRITERS are prude. Enough said on that matter.

Did I miss anything?

Lisa, Pure, Sarah, Zeb, and several others make the following arguments:

1. We can not be sure that life begins at conception, or for that matter, at any point during pregnancy. It is an uncertain situation, creating a legal grey area, with the benefit of the doubt, to use yev's own words here, to be given to women's right to control and decide for themselves, rather than be forced to procreate by the coercive power of the State.

2. Hence, opposition to abortion should be regarded as a matter of personal scruples, rather than legislation or governmental policy. This is often summed up in the bumper stick slogan- "Against Abortion? Don't Have One."

3. Forcing women who have been raped to have children against their will exacerbates the trauma and suffering of the rape victims in question, thus making them victims of the State as well as the rapist.

4. Women, being free citizens like men, should have the same complete control over what happens to their bodies as men do, including decisions as to what to do with a foreign body inside themselves. They should be treated as people, not "brood mares" to quote a certain, beloved late member of the AH.

5. Birth control doesn't always achieve its purpose, hence the concept of "Plan B".

6. Those unwilling to adopt unwanted children, but willing to force women to have them, are hypocrites (Zeb's argument primarily, if I recall correctly).

7. Yev, and others like him, are hard-bitten "dogmatists", to quote Pure, who simply don't want to be "confused with the facts". This is sometimes a valid point, though perhaps generalizing too much at times.

8. Lisa makes the argument that proposing an abortion ban, but refusing to adopt an unwanted child oneself, is "irresponsible". Interesting notion. Its validity probably depends on specific situations and circumstances. I also believe this to be the argument that yev initially found so offensive.

Just wanted the debate points clarified for the record. There seems to be some confusion, not the least exaggerated by yev's unfortunate and frequently inflammatory choice of rhetoric. Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. Let the bomb-throwing and name-calling resume, if it must. This thread is rapidly resembling the GB.

 

[Guest]

Just wanted the debate points clarified for the record. There seems to be some confusion, not the least exaggerated by yev's unfortunate and frequently inflammatory choice of rhetoric. Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. Let the bomb-throwing and name-calling resume, if it must. This thread is rapidly resembling the GB.

Nice summary, SEV, but I think the name-calling is already over.

And, no, this thread does not resemble the GB.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Nice summary, SEV, but I think the name-calling is already over.

And, no, this thread does not resemble the GB.

Here's hoping that you're right.

 

[Guest]

Here's hoping that you're right.

 

[Couture]

Plan B certainly adds a lot of confusion to an already confusing issue. However, it does seem to pass the test for what should be considered as birth control.

It works by either keeping the egg from becoming fertilized or by preventing the egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus.

I would think that the majority of people would agree that in the case of the former, there is little that seperates it from current preventatives. I think the latter is where the anti-choice people have an objection. Because if life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg, then this must surely be infantcide.

However, what about people who get medical assistance for having children? Usually, a whole crop of eggs are fertilized and only one will be implanted. So what if you store the little zygotes in ice? They are never going to grow to adulthood. Are these parents all murderers? What about plan A? It also works to prevent implantion of the egg, are the 50% of women who have taken plan A murderers? And guys - according to the bible, you aren't supposed to be spilling your seed in the earth anyway. Every time you jack off - a baby dies.

Like many people, I happen to be stuck somewhere in the middle on this thorny issue. I think birth control is a good thing. I'd hate to think of what the world would be like if everyone was having 10 kids like back in the old days. I happen to think that Plan B is a form of birth control. By the same token, I also think the extreme pro-choice argument is equally hypocritical. It's your body. Sure, but, at some point there is a child with rights of its own. Could you imagine two parents starving their 5 year old child and saying, "It was our choice and our food."? They would both end up in jail.

 

[Jilly J]

Every bit of DNA that that person will ever have is present at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. To do anything to kill this tiny person is wrong. Abortion, morning after pill, makes no difference.

Actually...it makes all the difference in the world. You just said, from "from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg" which is precisely what the morning after pill prevents. And if the person is already pregnant, it has ZERO impact on the pregnancy. It cannot cause an abortion. The two terms are not interchangable.

And yes, it can also prevent implantation after fertilization, but if accessed in a timely manner (which is the point of having it OTC) it will work before that. And implantation isn't a forgone conclusion of fertilization anyway.

 

[Jilly J]

If a woman becomes pregnant because of forced incest or rape and she feels financilly unable to care for the child then putting the child up for adoption is always available.

Please tell me that you don't seriously think that financial reasons are the reasons that most victims of rape and incest choose not have have their attacker's child?

That aside, I stand behind my statement that knowing that this pill is available OTC will cause many younger teens who are naive enough to think that catching STDs always happens to someone else to stop using condoms.

That's pretty much the same as the making condoms available causes kids to have sex argument. It doesn't really wash.

 

[Jilly J]

This debate, and any debate that turns into an abortion debate always reminds me of this friend I had in college. We couldn't have been more opposite in our views, in everything, but this in particular. I was pro-choice, she was pro-life. I remember when she ran for our student government, and she was asked what her views on abortion were (because that was going to be critical when they hammered out the meal plan for the following semester), she said, "I'm pro-life, but that's my choice." And she never said a negative word about a pro-choicer, and I never respected anyone more. She recognized that her views were simply that, HERS, the same way that mine were mine. I lost touch with her long ago, but I never forgot that.

 

[Pure]

a couple corrections, sev,

SEV summarized 'prolife' 1. Abortion is unjustifiable homicide, in that it takes the lives of human beings without any rational, legal, or moral justification for the taking thereof. (It is evident that he will continue to insist that the fetus is clearly a viable, sentient human life/soul, whatever, whether or not this is proven by scientific data.)

P :Actually he insists that the fertilized egg is a human being--this is before implantation, before the existence of embryo or fetus.

SEV,6. Many pro-choice people are "prudes who can't live by their own damned rules", and thus resort to "murder" to cover up their tracks. I find this argument the most spurious of yev's by far.

If you look at the RC church's stated reasons against abortion, one of the first and primary, historically was that abortion is used to cover up adultery.

But I think you are right that most prolifers, yev, amicus, etc. have the position (derivative from the above) that it's desirable for irresponsible or immoral people to be made to face the consequences (I.e. abortion is a sleazy attempt to avoid them).
===

SEV on prochoice

1. We can not be sure that life begins at conception, or for that matter, at any point during pregnancy. It is an uncertain situation, creating a legal grey area, with the benefit of the doubt, to use yev's own words here, to be given to women's right to control and decide for themselves, rather than be forced to procreate by the coercive power of the State.

This is the most extreme 'choice' position--at any point in the pregnancy. Also it seems extreme to characterize an 8 mo fetus as an 'uncertain' case of human life, since it can be removed and start an independent existence. So many 'choice' people including myself have no problem with limited protections for the late fetus, e.g after 24 weeks.

However you've left out the key point. [1*] Conceding that a late fetus is a human being would not give it an unconditional right to life, e.g., at the expense of the mother's. IT is not a concession that a prochoice person finds fatal or impossible to deal with.


Most prolife people concede [some or all of] the 'life of the mother' situations [as justifiable]; there it's a clear case of mother's life versus the fetus's, and there are good arguments that the mother should normally make the choice, and that it should be in favor of her own life (e.g. out of duties to her own other children). The Orthodox Jews analyze the situation as analogous to a right of self defense.

Dealing with cases of justifiable homicide creates grave or fatal problem for the prolife position.

 

[pink swirl]

This debate, and any debate that turns into an abortion debate always reminds me of this friend I had in college. We couldn't have been more opposite in our views, in everything, but this in particular. I was pro-choice, she was pro-life. I remember when she ran for our student government, and she was asked what her views on abortion were (because that was going to be critical when they hammered out the meal plan for the following semester), she said, "I'm pro-life, but that's my choice." And she never said a negative word about a pro-choicer, and I never respected anyone more. She recognized that her views were simply that, HERS, the same way that mine were mine. I lost touch with her long ago, but I never forgot that.

That's lovely, but doesn't that make your friend pro-choice, i.e., she's saying she would never choose an abortion and her views are opposed to abortion, but she's not going to tell others what to do? Isn't that really all that pro-choice is? Pro-choice supporters aren't out there telling women they should choose abortions. They're saying women should be allowed to choose for themselves, like your friend.

Going back to lurk mode.

 

[Lisa Denton]

8. Lisa makes the argument that proposing an abortion ban, but refusing to adopt an unwanted child oneself, is "irresponsible". Interesting notion. Its validity probably depends on specific situations and circumstances. I also believe this to be the argument that yev initially found so offensive.

I don't think so. Let the bomb-throwing and name-calling resume, if it must. This thread is rapidly resembling the GB.

Why you pig.

Not really. Hahahhahahahahahahahahaha.

But to clarify.

I was talking to him about that because he admitted he would never adopt a child and may have used those exact words. But my initial post about peoples with similar opinions being irresponsible have to do with the total lack of concern after the child is born.

From several discussions on that issue with other peoples, I got one person to state that it was a raped womans financial obligation to pay for doctor visits and healthy nutrition and exercise during pregnancy, he added as if he were being generous that only after she was unable to pay for it would I (taxpayer) then have to pay for it. But after birth I cannot find anyone who demands that the child be born, that will say they will pay for anything themselves.

They argue that the woman, now mother, whether she was raped or not, should provide all, or, they say the taxpayers should provide all. All taxpayers, whether they agree or not, should be forced to pay for the child that the mother was forced to deliver.

I have long been fasinated with the subject, and was once told that me and my peoples (I was lookin behind me to see if some peoples was back there) were trying to distract from the issue by bringing up what should happen after birth.

This person told me he knew what I was doing, and that many like him therefore had a policy that thier responsibility ended after safely seeing that child brought into the world.

When I innocently asked wasn't that convieniant, he called me a baby-killer and started frothing at the mouth.

I just wonder whether there is anyone who will say this is my opinion and I will pay for one child, if they cannot adopt then to pay to help support this child, if he/she is not adopted and a ward of the state. But they all say this is my opinion and you (taxpayer) should pay for it.

If my thread starts resembling the GB then I can only assume the GB is getting better, he, he.

Peoples will disagree over everthing, I don't want everyone to pay for my opinions, and don't want to pay for thier opinions. And I have never heard a radical anti-abortion person ask "who will love this child".

So whats important. To me, having Plan B avaiable over the counter is.

 

[Liar]

That's lovely, but doesn't that make your friend pro-choice, i.e., she's saying she would never choose an abortion and her views are opposed to abortion, but she's not going to tell others what to do? Isn't that really all that pro-choice is? Pro-choice supporters aren't out there telling women they should choose abortions. They're saying women should be allowed to choose for themselves, like your friend.

Going back to lurk mode.

Those terms do nothing but mud the waters.

"Everyone is pro-choice and pro-life, it's for or against abortion you're arguing about." - Penn Jilette

 

[Pure]

the real problem--note to Jilly,

J she said, "I'm pro-life, but that's my choice." And she never said a negative word about a pro-choicer, and I never respected anyone more. She recognized that her views were simply that, HERS, the same way that mine were mine.

Your friends view aren't outside the mainstream.

The rightwing prolife people however, want governments involved to enforce their pov, and jail the others who act on theirs. (See the case of El Salvador passing laws approved by the RC bishop.)

There is a basic difference as regards 'government enforcement of morality.' It is, of course, the view of Calvinists, Catholics (Vatican), and Islamic authorities that governments should get involved in policing vaginas (antiabortion; antiadultery), bloodstreams (anti-liquor), lungs (anti-pot smoking). The correlative issue is of privacy, esp. privacy of one's body.

 

[Jilly J]

That's lovely, but doesn't that make your friend pro-choice, i.e., she's saying she would never choose an abortion and her views are opposed to abortion, but she's not going to tell others what to do? Isn't that really all that pro-choice is? Pro-choice supporters aren't out there telling women they should choose abortions. They're saying women should be allowed to choose for themselves, like your friend.

Going back to lurk mode.

There are many pro-choicers who will attack and condemn pro-lifers, simply because they have a differing view. Just because they aren't telling them to get abortions, doesn't mean that they live and let live. My point is, despite the fact that she didn't believe in abortion, and would never have advocated for anyone having one, she also recognized that it wasn't within her right to tell others to feel that way. It doesn't make her pro-choice.

When I worked for the State Senate in MA, my boss was adamently opposed to gay marriage. But he voted against the constitutional ban, because he recognized that it wasn't his right to legislate someone else's committment or love based on his personal beliefs. Did that make him pro gay marriage? Trust me, it didn't.

Meanwhile, when I first read your post I misread the end and thought you were telling me to go back to lurking...I was highly offended for a split second! LOL

 

[Oblimo]

Jilly, it sounds there is a blurring of the distinction betwen the legal theory, morality, and political activism of abortion. The legal theory of abortion concerns the question: to what extent can the state regulate abortion? This is a separate issue from the morality of abortion because we live in a pluralistic society.

 

[deathlynx]

Never argued your intelligence. Good post BTW - what about the responsibility of disease?

Thank you...I like a good debate, so long as it stays civil...Although I've debated with a friend about the nature of insults and cursing in debates as well

As for disease? It's everyones responsibility to maintain their own health...Although in this case I think it's both partner's responsibilityI'm off the camp that you should be responsible for your own body but also give fair warning if you aren't well...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

SEV summarized 'prolife' 1. Abortion is unjustifiable homicide, in that it takes the lives of human beings without any rational, legal, or moral justification for the taking thereof. (It is evident that he will continue to insist that the fetus is clearly a viable, sentient human life/soul, whatever, whether or not this is proven by scientific data.)

P :Actually he insists that the fertilized egg is a human being--this is before implantation, before the existence of embryo or fetus.

SEV,6. Many pro-choice people are "prudes who can't live by their own damned rules", and thus resort to "murder" to cover up their tracks. I find this argument the most spurious of yev's by far.

If you look at the RC church's stated reasons against abortion, one of the first and primary, historically was that abortion is used to cover up adultery.

But I think you are right that most prolifers, yev, amicus, etc. have the position (derivative from the above) that it's desirable for irresponsible or immoral people to be made to face the consequences (I.e. abortion is a sleazy attempt to avoid them).
===

SEV on prochoice

1. We can not be sure that life begins at conception, or for that matter, at any point during pregnancy. It is an uncertain situation, creating a legal grey area, with the benefit of the doubt, to use yev's own words here, to be given to women's right to control and decide for themselves, rather than be forced to procreate by the coercive power of the State.

This is the most extreme 'choice' position--at any point in the pregnancy. Also it seems extreme to characterize an 8 mo fetus as an 'uncertain' case of human life, since it can be removed and start an independent existence. So many 'choice' people including myself have no problem with limited protections for the late fetus, e.g after 24 weeks.

However you've left out the key point. [1*] Conceding that a late fetus is a human being would not give it an unconditional right to life, e.g., at the expense of the mother's. IT is not a concession that a prochoice person finds fatal or impossible to deal with.


Most prolife people concede [some or all of] the 'life of the mother' situations [as justifiable]; there it's a clear case of mother's life versus the fetus's, and there are good arguments that the mother should normally make the choice, and that it should be in favor of her own life (e.g. out of duties to her own other children). The Orthodox Jews analyze the situation as analogous to a right of self defense.

Dealing with cases of justifiable homicide creates grave or fatal problem for the prolife position.

Well, I was actually summarizing the basic arguments used by the pro-lifers and pro-choicers in THIS thread. Yev appears to come at this issue from a rather different viewpoint than even amicus, in that he is evidently socially liberal in all other ways. He argues, basically, for what he calls "the procreative principle". He forgets that not everyone in favor of the "procreative principle" thinks that it should be imposed on everyone in all cases. He is a rather clear case of "politics making strange bedfellows". Yev is clearly such a mismatch, being on the same side on this issue as people that he would admit ARE prudes. It's bizarre, but further proof of Murphy's Law. Like I said, it's also his most spurious argument, in that none of the people he is calling "prudes" on here seem to fit that description (being smut writers, after all).

I apologize if I misunderstood or mischaracterized anyone's position here. I made a point of asking "did I miss anything", however.

Yev is obviously an odd duck, politically, but if he becomes more civil in his approach, he might still find his niche here, I suppose.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, and yev's comment on the "vote" thread has me even more confused. How many pro-lifers are flirting with anarchism again, revolutionary or otherwise? It's not a group that I hear much of- Anarcists For Life?

Not to make fun of him too much, or be too mean, but it ranks up there with Monarchists For Zyuganov (the Russian Communist Presidential candidate in 1996).

 

[rgraham666]

There's lots of anarchists around.

But they generally call themselves Libertarians.

Anarchy has such a bad rep. And who can be against Liberty?

 

[Jilly J]

Jilly, it sounds there is a blurring of the distinction betwen the legal theory, morality, and political activism of abortion. The legal theory of abortion concerns the question: to what extent can the state regulate abortion? This is a separate issue from the morality of abortion because we live in a pluralistic society.

Actually, my point was sort of the exact opposite, that she didn't blur them together, but held her private beliefs completely seperate from what she felt the government had the right to legislate.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

There's lots of anarchists around.

But they generally call themselves Libertarians.

Anarchy has such a bad rep. And who can be against Liberty?

Being somewhat Libertarian in my views, I've never regarded myself as an anarchist. Oh, well.