Plan B, the "morning-after pill" now without prescription.
 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/24....ap/index.html
Highlighting my own, just to make it easier to skim it if you don't want to read the whole thing.

So what do you think about this? I think there are two major debates at play here:

1. Do you agree or disagree that they should be available over the counter (without prescription)?
2. Do you agree with the current 18+ age restriction on their purchase? Currently, anyone 17 and younger still needs a prescription.

The poll is for quick reference, but I want everyone to post in here and spell out your opinion. And for the love of everything decent in this world, DO NOT turn this thread into an abortion debate. This pill WILL NOT cancel an existing pregnancy.

For me, I'm honestly surprised this is available now, I thought it would take a few more years. I think it's definitely a good thing, but I think the age restriction should be lowered to 16 or 15. Sure, a lot of 18+ women need this, but a lot of young females under 18 need it as well. What are your thoughts?

I am all for Plan B being readily available. Before it was OTC, I always requested it, just to have it.

I am glad that the FDA finally woke up and saw the light regarding OTC sales of Plan B, but I wish that they hadn't put an age restriction on it. To me, doing that just prevents kids from being able to get possible help they might need. I also wonder how effective the FDA's plans for enforcement will be.

1. Do you agree or disagree that they should be available over the counter (without precription)?

Absolutely. Making contraception easier and more available is almost always a good thing. Anything that reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies is a good thing, and I think reducing the number of abortions by preventing the need for them is something both sides of the aabortion debate can agree on.

2. Do you agree with the current 18+ age restriction on their purchase? Currently, anyone 17 and younger still needs a precription.

If we truly do want to reduce unplanned teen pregnancies, and I think we do, the age restriction is going to interfere, so on that basis, I think it's a bad idea.

Gilda

I'd rather people were more responsible with plan A, but plan b is a lot safer for the mother than an abortion. While I don't agree with the destruction of the zygote or fetus, this is definately the best solution for someone who won't be having the baby after it's conceived.

I'm all for Plan B -- I just wish they could figure out a way to kill the zygote in the case that they are pregnant..

They have. It's called RU486. Which is about the worst name ever, super tasteless.

/end threadjack

I view Plan B as another method of contraception, and it should be available over the counter as are the other means.

The scientific community found nothing to suggest that this pill could be harmful to young women under 18, and certainly birth control pills are available for girls through their doctor. I think the age restriction is at the insistance of those that believe that Plan B would encourage promiscuity among teens. Let's prevent the unwanted pregnancies among teens first, and let the morality police continue their work in negating the power of teen sexuality on their own time.

I like how Washington and other states have handled the age restriction by allowing the pharmacist to write the Rx. It also strikes me as silly that any kind of enforcement on the age restriction is possible. Like alcohol and cigarettes, a teen merely has to ask someone older to purchase the pill for them.

I would rather see a plan B than an unwanted pregnancy and untold traumas to mother and child later.

My opinion remains that what one woman does to her body wont make me lose any sleep.

I agree with Sister Elph. Just cause one is not old enough doesnt mean that their older sister or someone they pay to help them out wont buy them for their later consumption. After all, just because someone isnt old enough doesnt mean they are unable to beat the system. In some ways we dont give kids enough credit... and in others perhaps we give them too much.

Yeah, when I was 18 a lot of my female friends/ male friends girlfriends were younger. I was forever going to planned parenthood to get presciptions for them. The lady's there must have thought I was the biggest ho!=)

Hey baby, don't worry, you can get that morning after pill, come on don't you love me?

I have no problem with it being over the counter, but I'd predict this will INCREASE unwanted pregnancies not decrease them.

89% odds are not very good when you think of the consequences of that other 11%.

For every one who screws up and uses this as a last resort flush, there will be more who are relying on it.

Hahahahahaha :D

I'd volunteer for the young ladies that needed it. Can you imagine the small town talk about a 56 yr old in constant need of Plan B? :D

Then we probably shouldn't sell condoms as they fail and are used incorrectly a significant portion of the time?

I am interested in why you believe that, Ustwo. A "last resort flush" would be Plan A, or an early abortion, yes? Like any contraceptive method (the first resort) there will be a percentage of failures, and none are 100% effective.

Oh, sorry. I'm 110% for it then. I wish they'd allow youngsters to get it though. That 18 and over stuff is kinda silly.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooh ok, so let's go ahead and remove the age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco, too, since there are ways of people getting around it.

In fact, we should all just leave our front doors open at night since it's possible to break into a house anyway.

While I agree that the age restriction is sort of counter-productive to the purpose of the pill, and that enforcement will have its difficulty, this line of reasoning is, in my opinion, stupid. How can you justify lifting restrictions on something because "some people will find a way around it" and won't get caught?

Using that faulty rationale, all laws should be rescinded because some people will find a way around them, or will get away with breaking them.

I understand what you are saying, and you are right, rules are there for a reason.

However, if you think there are no underage drinking, smoking or other law breaking behaviors I am afraid you are sadly mistaken.

There will always be loop-holes in everything and people will always find a way around rules and laws. I do not agree with it, but it is the way of the world.

(This post is neither to be construed as fighting nor argument.)

What an interesting reply, Analog.

My belief that this pill doesn't require an age restriction is based upon the scientific evidence within the agency, that has been ignored by political appointees. But I already stated that in my first post:

The ability of teens to get around the age restriction of this pill or any other age restricted item was merely a comment on how unlikely I think it will be to enforce this plan.

Faulty thinking? I believe the term "straw man" adequately describes your response. But *that* might be faulty thinking on my part. I responded to your topic in the spirit of respect for the OP. It would appear that it is best that I refrain from posting to your topics. Easily done and not a problem for me.

Um does this have anything to do with what I said? I said I think it will increase unwanted pregancies since it has a pretty high failure rate.

I meant last resort from GETTING pregnant, if you want to flush your fetus I'd call that plan C.

Pulling out is as effective as plan B here , so perhaps that should be touted as birth control to the masses as well? All I have stated as I see this being miss used as a method of birth control which will lead to more unwanted pregnancies when people count on this as an option instead of a supplemental which is all it should be used for.

How is pregnancy defined here?

Does it begin at conception or at implantation?

That is open for debate and is a matter of personal opinion and which side of science one wishes to support. A discussion in which I shall extricate myself before it even begins.

Let me just be more clear in what I'm getting after, which is not a matter of opinion:

Can Plan B prevent implantation of a fertilized egg?

No. It cannot end a conception that has already begun.

Edit: I misread your question. A fertilized egg is conception and Plan B would not have any effect on that.

Edit after your edit: Okay. Do you have a source? It isn't clear from this article alone.

Point of information: According to the prescribing information, the 89% recuded chance of pregnancy means that Plan B reduces the expected rate of pregnancy following a single instance of unprotected sex from 8% to 1%.

Gilda

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny and failing miserably, or you think i'm 4 years old.

Of course I know those things happen- that doesn't mean you change the law to allow it just because people are going to do it anyway. Even the most wasted potheads know the "people will do it anyway, just legalize it" argument is bunk.

It would have to be, since I already said we were on the same side of the argument- the only thing I was pointing out is that making arguments such as yours and Lady Sage's will only hurt our side of the issue. I'm just not sure why you'd present what I can only see as a fallacious argument; that's all i'm saying.

And I hope you don't abandon my threads, I thoroughly enjoy a good conversation, like I've been having.

Aside: A few medical notes...

Fertilization is not pregnancy. If the egg passes without implantation, it is not a pregnancy.

The purpose of the "Plan B" pill is to keep the fertilized egg from implanting- that's all it does.

When a fertilized egg implants itself (note I am not saying "in the uterus", because it's very possible to begin an extrauterine pregnancy), that is when pregnancy begins. The "Plan B" pill is useless and completely ineffectual to an implanted egg; therefore, it is not a method for stopping a pregnancy, only preventing it from beginning.

In other words: If you find it ok that a one-day-old fertilized egg passes without implantation, but have a moral hangup about an egg the same one-day-old being pushed out if it's managed to implant already, this is the pill for you.

I think that Plan B is a great idea and just another alternative to save people from unwanted pregnancies. I would think that the abortion people would like it because it is one more avenue to take before terminating a pregnancy. There are a lot of unwanted children in this world and people are going to have sex, why not help prevent ruining an innocent, unborn child's life. As I was reading the article, I was waiting for this argument...

Sex is a natural thing. Granted, some people will use this as a means to have more sex. That is nature. Just as some people opt to use abortion as a birth control method. But, I think that the argument 'it will make people have more sex' needs to be dropped. First of all, Plan B isn't the only contraceptive. That argument might have been effective when condoms and birthcontrol pills were introduced, but not anymore with all the other pregnancy prevention means.

As for the age thing, I don't think there should be an age restriction. Kids under 18 are having sex and those mistake pregnancies are typically more damaging. People who are against letting kids get this are in denial that they are having sex. People need to see the bigger social picture of what is actually going on with the teens of America...but that's a different topic. So, yes it should be available for girls under 18.

Ah. In other words, it's not different from the abortion pill in any morally significant way.

Thanks. One vote for "It should be banned".

Let us fill the world with more unwanted children..... Personally I would rather see the child not exist than to see or hear of it suffering through its life and being a victim of the system.

I would rather see someone take a pill the morning after than have a wire hanger abortion later.

A pill is also a little less embarassing and demeaning for those of us who are victims of rape.

Actually, according to Planned Parenthood, it doesn't prevent implantation.

In fact, according to other articles I've seen, studies on animals have shown that EC has no effect either way on implantation if an egg happens to be fertilized. It should be noted, however, that there are occasions, even under normal conditions, where a fertilized egg does not implant, and EC does not seem to make a difference one way or another in the case of implantation.

I've read that birth control pills will sometimes prevent implantation instead of preventing fertilization. Did I read wrong? And if not, then why would a "concentrated dose" of birth control be any different?

I'm glad that it is available over the counter, a bit surprised that it passed, but glad that it did.

I also believe that the age restriction should be removed - at least in my opinion, unwanted pregnancy is most devastating with younger people (below 18) and miners should also have equal access.

Uh... no.

It's not the same as "the abortion pill", RU486, because RU486 will terminate a pregnancy (that's what it's designed to do). Plan B will not terminate a pregnancy.

I'm glad people on your side of the argument don't read very thoroughly.

There are two kinds of birth control pills. Without getting into too much detail, they both thicken cervical mucus which keeps sperm from joining with the egg. One of them also prevents ovulation to begin with, the other one only does that occasionally.

As for what you think you read:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...ption-pill.xml

I'm constantly amazed at how easy it is for people to make absolute moral judgments on things they aren't educated on. :)

I voted "disagree with 18+" restriction. But, really, as long as they could get it OTC with parent's consent, I would be ok with it. Forcing an 18 year old to go to a doctor's office to get a prescription would be stupid. Of course, that does require parents that have an attitude about sex that let's the "18-"s be open and honest with them. So, it wouldn't work so well in Republican's homes <snicker, snicker>

I am living proof that some forms of hormonal birth control thin the uterine lining.
Thank the gods too, could you see me with children????? The thought alone is enough to make me want a hysterectomy. Unfortunately they wont do that just cause you dont want kids or dont think you should have them.... (insert various unkind names to call doctors here)

My reading comprehension's fine. Yours could use some work. I didn't say they were the same, I said that there was no morally significant difference between the two.

Did you notice that I began by asking questions?

Then you gave me an incorrect answer, which onesnowyowl corrected.

If you're going to troll me for making a mistake, it'd be more effective if it wasn't a mistake you also made.

A very, very, very, very, very small amount of pregnancies occur due to rape.

Anyway, if people would use the birth control methods readily available to them before having sex, they wouldn't need the morning after pill. Of course, that type of thinking is radical now-a-days.

Infinite Loser, Agreed. Less than 1% of abortions are done because of rape and incest combined.

Of course this thread is about plan b, which is preventative by stopping the release of the egg from the ovary, and can prevent fertilization within 72 hours of intercourse. As stated again and again, if you take plan b and are already pregnant, it will not affect your existing pregnancy. Fertilization takes up to 144 hours (6 days) after intercourse, and after fertilization, it can take up to another 144 hours for the fertilized egg to begin to attach itself to the lining of the uterus. AFTER ALL THAT, one is pregnant. Technically, plan b can kill a zygote by detaching or preventing the attachment of the fertilized egg from the lining of the uterus, but it's not technically a pregnancy.

That's where I got confused. Plan B can kill a zygote by preventing it from attaching to the uterus, but it can't prevent pregnancy because one is not pregnant until the zygote is attached to the uterus.

option 2b should have been in place a long time ago...

A pill that will terminate a pregnancy, versus a pill that will not terminate a pregnancy, are of no significant "moral" difference? How the hell does that work?

And I was wrong. Congratulations. I was remembering incorrectly. I'm not at all above admitting when I was wrong.

Either way, what I said holds true- "Plan B" is not an abortifacient. I just confused the method. I'm not building an entire personal anti-"Plan B" campaign based on erroneous information and foisting my moral judgment on others and demanding they adhere.

If someone says, "I won't use this because I feel _____" that is personal moral opinion- but when someone says to ban them outright for everyone, they're forcing their personal morals on others.

Thank you, snowy, for correcting me- not sure how I got that mixed up.

Personally, I believe that motels with hourly rates should offer Plan B right next to the condom vending machine. It's another tool for contraception, right up there with spermicide, birth control pills, and the sponge. The only difference between the morning after pill and the others, is that it can be utilized after sexual intercourse, rather than before the act.

Regarding the age restriction, it's not necesary. If high school age people can buy condoms, then shouldn't they be able to buy Plan B when they forget to bring the condom? Hence, it's name, "Plan B".

They oughta market Plan B in PeZ dispensers. That'll help increase awareness (and sales):thumsup:

Well, it kinda works this way:

Key words here: "the same one-day-old".

I can understand conception as the point - the necessary ingredients are joined and a birth, barring a natural or man-made interruption in the process, is inevitable. I can somewhat understand birth as the point, as the child is no longer biologically reliant on the mother. I can even kinda understand viability as the point, as it looks and acts too much like a human being to be easily dismissed as sub-human by most.

But what's so significant about implantation? Before, it's an embryo with no heartbeat. After, it's an embryo with no heartbeat. It looks like an arbitrary distinction to me. Morally speaking.

Campaign? It's about as much of a campaign for me as it is for you, I'd guess. And I really don't recall making a moral judgment. You might interpret my arguments in favor of criminalization to be implicitly judgmental, but you'd be wrong.

And this argument makes perfect sense for things like porn and marijuana. But it doesn't make much sense when you're talking about the personal choice of infanticide. The debate's over whether Plan Bs are more like porn or more like infanticide. And the debate's over. Apparently, they're more like porn. You can put away your overly simplistic and irrelevant logic, it's not needed anymore.

I still don't think you understand that fertilization does not occur with the Plan B pill. I accidentally said it prevented "implantation" before, when I meant to say it prevents "fertilization". If fertilization has already occured, it's powerless and ineffectual.

And you're basically saying anything past "sperm meets egg" is infanticide? Even if you were to claim anything past conception is murder, it wouldn't be infanticide. Infanticide is killing an infant, or newborn child. A zygote, the mere union of two gametes (1 ovum, 1 sperm) before they begin replicating and dividing, is not an infant. Not by a long shot.

Also, your "understanding" of viability is incorrect. Viability is when the fetus has developed far enough that it is capable of living, without support, outside of the uterus. This of course has nothing to do with "looking human", as a human fetus resembles a human baby well before viability.

So while the inaccuracies are still flying around- I'll still be here, thanks.

I do understand this. I've understood it since onesnowyowl posted it. I'm not sure how you ascertained that I don't understand it. Perhaps you ignored context.

No, I'm not. I'm saying (well, implying, technically) that anything past "sperm meets egg" is like infanticide. Like. Did you really accuse me of poor reading comprehension?

Eh, I'll give you this one. I meant as much when I said "looks and acts too much like a human being", but that's pretty vague wording on my part.

Well, that goes without saying since you're a source of them.

FoolThemAll: You do understand that this is basically a birth control pill that you take the next day, don't you? It only prevents pregnancy, and has no effect once the woman is pregnant. Therefore, any abortion debate is irrelevant to this particular drug.

Foolthemall, read Post #38. I tried to explain how it isn't abortion.

Yes, Gilda, I understood this about a page ago. Once it was clarified. ("It only prevents pregnancy" isn't clear enough, by the way.)

My comments are in response to analog's comments.

Willravel, I got that. A page ago. When onesnowyowl explained it. Please try to keep up.

And it doesn't prevent implantation, according to her source.

No, it is not "like" infanticide. A zygote is in no way "like" an infant. Infanticide is the murder of an infant. Now, tell me that a zygote is "like" an infant. I dare you. Because that's what you're trying to say to cover for using the word in the first place.

I made one error in my writing, which didn't even change the tone or meaning of what I was saying. I immediately admitted to my slip-up. So now you can stop pretending like I'm making shit up. How did you come into this conversation looking to get information to form your opinion, and all you've done is bicker with the people trying to inform you? I wonder how many people have to say, "you don't appear to understand" before a person accepts that they don't understand something.

I don't think people will be relying overly on this, purely for the fact that it doesn't prevent STIs in any way, shape or form. Condoms do, and this is a backup if the condom fails.

Well, I asked my doctor, and he said it can prevent implantation. Also, I visited the Plan B website, and it confirmed my doctors information.
Plan B stops working the moment the egg attaches to the uterus. Everything before hand is fair game.

Just so we're clear, a woman isn't technically pregnant until the fertilized egg attaches itself into the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus.
So it's not like infanticide any more than eating an egg is like eating chicken. It's two distinct things with two distinct moral implications.

I'm anti abortion, and pro contraceptive. I am all for the Plan B.


Also, pregnant women are really hot.

I think it's a good idea.

Of course, if people were more serious about plan-A we wouldn't need a plan-B to begin with (Who am I kidding? People aren't that responsible)...

Call me a pessimist, but I'm willing to bet that one day there'll be a plan-C for those people who didn't take advantage of plan-A nor plan-B, and then there'll be a plan-D for those people who didn't take advantage of plan-A nor plan-B nor plan-C, and then there'll be etc. etc.

On one hand, it could be a good thing but on the other hand, it's sure to increase reckless behavior (These types of things usually do) as more people will think that they can forgo traditional birth control methods and opt for plan-B.

Edit: By the way, why do the poll results add up to a number greater than 100%?

If I remember correctly, it's because you can check more than one box. Each % denotes how many times that option was checked over the total number of votes- not checked boxes, but instances of voting. So if 4 people voted, it's showing what percentage of those 4 people chose each box. If they all chose box 1, box 1 would say 100% because 100% of those voting chose that box. If half of them also chose box 2 and the other half also chose box 3, 2 and 3 would each say 50% because half of all voters checked that box. See? :)

And since the last option has 3 people who ticked it, and it says 5% (at this moment), that means a total of 60 people voted.

Edit: I didn't realize it, but it tells you at the bottom of the poll how many total voters there were. My math was right, but I didn't realize it gave the number to us. lol

I implied that abortifacient drugs and abortions are more like infanticide than they are like porn because they harm a human being (yeah, I know, you disagree) as infanticide does, they're not an inherently harmless taboo as porn is. That's the point of the comparison, nothing more.

It certainly did change the meaning. Do you really not see how one could find a significant difference between preventing fertilization and destroying a fertilized egg?

It's not the mistake that bothered me, it's the fact that you proceeded to be snide about my subsequent mistake - which was, by the way, taking you at your word.

"You don't appear to understand" is worlds more useful when directed at someone who doesn't understand. I 'bicker' because they happen to be incorrect about my lack of understanding. What else would I do?

Fantastic. Conflicting answers. We're right back to stage one, where it's not at all clear that Plan B has nothing to do with abortion.

Just so we're clear, I couldn't care less about the start of pregnancy when the start of pregnancy is defined as implantation. I do not see anything morally significant about that point. "She isn't pregnant yet" doesn't explain anything, it's just a way of restating "the egg isn't implanted yet". Why does that point matter?

No conflict, I'm right. :thumbsup: Either way it has nothing to do with abortion. Whether it does or doesn't prevent implantation, it doesn't actually do anything after implantation, so it's not abortion. It walks right up to the line, but it doesn't cross it.
It matters because it's the difference between a contraceptive and an abortion. There does have to be a definable line between the two, doesn't there? I mean that's the whole point, yes? The start of pregnancy IS implantation, therefore anything that happens before implantation is contraceptive by definition. Anything that happens after implantation is abortion.

I'm surprised at your statement: What do YOU define as the beginning of pregnancy, and what credentials do you have that supercede the whole medical community?

Do these pills promote reckless and irresponsible behavior? Of course. I never got anyone pregnant before I got married, and I have no problem looking down my nose at people who do because they can't keep it in their pants. I have no problem lecturing people on how simple it is to not fuck everything that walks, and how contraceptives are easy to use, etc. The thing is, all my huffing and puffing won't stop people from doing anything. They'll still go out and shag, many without protection. There will be more unplanned pregnancies, and many more abortions. Because I clearly can't stop people from being irresponsible ponces when it comes to unproteted sex, all I can do is try to help them avoid having an abortion. Call it plan B.

Plan B sounds like an excellent adjunct to keep those who's genes and viewpoints I would not like to see in the next generation from reaching said generation.

Ain't science grand?

But it's not clear that there's a significant moral difference.

But what moral difference is there between an abortion and a contraceptive that prevents implantation? I don't see one, unless you're going by the viability criterion (and I don't).

I'm not interested in a semantics argument. I accept this definition of pregnancy. I do not accept that the start of pregnancy, as defined, is morally significant.

That's not my concern in this thread. My concern is whether reckless and irresponsible behavior endangers human life. Now it looks like it does.

Of course it's reckless, and of course it is dangerous. Idiot people can't control their sexuality and it's partially to blame for overpopulation. If it were up to me, there would only be abortion in the extreme cases of rape or incest. Of course it's not up to me, so I do what I can to promote contraceptives like Plan B.

Maybe I should ask you this: are you against condoms, spermacide, or the regular pill?

One important point to note, since part of the discussion is now focusing on implantation, is that the primary function of Plan B is prevention of fertilization. It can prevent implantation, but that is not its primary function, just as, for example, dutasteride prevents hair loss by reducing DHT levels, but is designed for the purpose of treating prostate disease.

Fertilization takes a day or two at a minimum and can take longer than that. If the Plan B is takn in that time, it effectively prevents fertilization. Preventing implantation, and thus preventing the pregnancy in the first place, is a secondary effect, just as with birth control pills, which function in much the same way.

Gilda

Condoms, no. Spermicide, no. Pill, assuming that analog erroneously 'corrected' my understanding of it, yes.

While this would be important information if you could know what stage you were in when you were taking it, since you can not, its sort of irrelevant. If you thought of abortion as morally wrong, then could you support an 'emergency' method of birth control which may or may not be causing termination after conception? I would think not.

My fear of course is that plan B will be used by some as a primary birth control not an emergency one which will cause an increase in unwanted pregnancies. I still hold as a rule that those who wish to remain out of the gene pool should be allowed to, as it will be beneficial to the gene pool.

Not completely true....

Emergency contraceptives are not effective if the woman is already pregnant. Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium).

It does prevent fertilization, but it also prevents implantation after fertilization. (That info is from the perscribing information for doctors)

Me too.

I didn't know you were catholic.:lol:

I'm all for plan b. I have no problem with "killing" previable unborn babies either, not that that's what plan b does at all.

Oral contraceptive:
What's with the misconceptions? The information on these products is readily available to anyone who can google.

I can't imagine that it will be inexpensive enough to be used as "primary birth control." If you have to take it after every episode of sex, and it's OTC and therefore not covered by most insurance programs, it's not going be cheaper than, say, condoms.

Would you care to state who those people are that you would like "out of the gene pool"? This is not at all consistent with some of your other statements on reproduction. Speaking as someone who's sitting at the cabana at the moment, but not yet in the gene pool...

Maybe I can field this one. When I was a lot younger and just learning about ideas like natural selection and evolution, I figured that natural selection worked with humans for hundreds of thousands of years, but was becoming less prevelant because of medicines and modern empathy (allowing mentally or physically retarded children to live). Looking back, my attitude was infantile and morally reprehensable, but I had that attitude none the less. Later I realzed a few things:
1) Morals are a large part of what seperates us from less intelligent animals. It is an important facet of our humanity, and it something to develope and understand, not something to ignore. Morality is important.
2) If someone is born and survives, that is because the environment allows for it. If a child is born with a disability and survives, that is because he or she lives in a society that can care for a disabled person. Because we, as a socierty, are able to pity and empathize with those who are less fortunate, the reality of living in our environment, and thus natural selection, has changed.

So when Ustwo is (hopefully joking) about keeping people out of the gene pool, he is referring to a way of thinking without the above considerations.

Its not the price that worries me it’s the, 'Don't worry baby, we will go and get the morning after pill tomorrow.' angle that does.

One thing to remember is that every one of us who is alive today is here because of an unbroken chain of people who reproduced. The desire to not reproduce is as big a flaw, genetically, as sterility. In the end it doesn't matter what you do, your line has ended. The types of people who tend to commit genetic suicide also tend to be the types of people who I think are flawed in their political views. And really you have to wonder, if someone does not seem to think species survival is important, just how sound their judgement is when it comes to other matters of survival. Rejecting what is basic, 4 billion years old, and necessary for survival, for whatever reason, makes you have to trust their judgement in other matters. Now obviously just using this plan b or any other birth control doesn't mean you won't reproduce, hell my wife was on the pill for 10 years, but I would like to keep it safe and easy for all who wish it and I'd hate for them to have an accident, though they can always have an abortion.

Now while this may seem cold and calculating, its not. I simply want people to live their lives in a manner that works for them, and if there are benefits in the long run, all the better.

The problem with the idea that abortion keeps people out of the gene pool is that a great many people who have abortions also have children at some point. People who get abortions aren't removed from the gene pool. Access to abortions does tend to reduce the number of unwanted children in the world, which is generally a good thing for the rest of us.

edit:ustwo addressed this while i was typing my post.

Yeah, I would've been better off with google instead of relying on answers given in this thread. But hey, hindsight's 20-20.

So you're arguing that Plan B can prevent implantation, but the pill can't. Is that right?

From that link, it appears that scientists lean toward "the pill doesn't prevent implantation", though the issue isn't settled. Sound right to you?

Correct (as far as I know). I suspect that the pill can prevent implantation, but it is less likely to do so than Plan B.

When did this become a LIFE BEGINS debate? Get back on point! Should the pill be OTC? YES! Is a restriction based on age needed. NO!

Now get on the web:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-in...ortion#Methods


"Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."

Considering that Plan B - apparently - is capable of preventing implantation, I disagree that a "LIFE BEGINS debate" is off-point.

It's always beneficial to define terms so there is a standardized platform, so people are certain what they are agreeing to or disagreeing with. I know that certain branches of Christianity at least teach that life begins with the union of the sperm and the egg, and the process of zygote implantation is not a consideration in their abortion stance. To folks with that view, I believe they would consider daily b/c to be morally unacceptable.

If people's vote in this poll depends on their view of when life begins, then this discussion is part and parcel of the thread. If folks request and give input/clarification, snarkiness not withstanding, thats a viable part of the thread.

I'm glad Plan B is OTC. I am torn about whether it should be available to under-age kids, as on one hand many kids will need it frankly, and will not get it if they have to involve their parents.

On the other hand, if this kind of thing is happening in a family, I do think the parents should know about it. Who knows what else the kid is doing/going through, and the parents could help. I don't imagine that all the parents in America would be so horrible to their kids that it would be horribly traumatic to get the parents informed/involved. Getting parents involved at that stage could prevent things from going to bad to worse. It's called consequences, and I'm not huge on making it so easy for children to avoid it (avoid getting the parents involved, I DO NOT mean don't make it easy for kids to avoid teen pregnancy).

Regarding the arguement that it will lead to greater levels of dangerous promiscuous behavior (resulting in pregnancy, anyways)...I disagree. When I researched RU486 back in college (lo these many years ago, admittedly), studies showed that there weren't a greater number of abortions being performed, just that a percentage were being done with the pharmaceuticals, rather than a full-blown medical procedure. Yes, I know studies and research can be slanted. I read more than one, so *shrug*. Anyways, I think Plan B would be used in much the same way. In the end, one needs to focus on the intention of the pharmaceutical's use, rather than the potential mindset of the potential consumer (and yes of course I realize that this pharmaceutical has the potential for abuse, just like every single other one out there, lurking on drugstore shelves. I often have to ask a store clerk to unlock the antihistamines I need because of the meth makers. Grrr). There has been promiscuity and unwanted babies for millenia, just now we have a few more tools to hopefully address the prevention of the issue.