FDA OKs nonprescription ‘morning-after’ pill
- 08-24-2006, 11:15 AM
FDA OKs nonprescription ‘morning-after’ pill
FDA OKs 'morning-after' pill without a prescription - Women's Health - MSNBC.com
I know this will probably turn into a political thread, but it's interesting news now.
Anyone know if Plan B has any "anabolic" effects in men? It is OTC, now.
- 08-24-2006, 12:04 PM
its about time, although i disagree with the age restriction. does a kid 17 and pregnant need the morning after pill any less than a kid 18 years old and pregnant?
kids under the age of 18 can go to a planned parenthood and pick up the morning after pill just as easily as an 18 year old can at a pharmacy as long as they have seen the doctor there once before, and no, parents are not informed. good job conservative politicians you can pat yourselves on the back.
Plan B is damage control....human beings, like every other organism on this planet, exist primarily to reproduce. not making it available because it might promote "promiscuity" is simply innacurate. there will be promiscuity either way.
- 08-24-2006, 12:40 PM
I agree. This puts more options on the table to realistically and safely deal with unwanted pregnancies. Since it prevents an ovuum from attaching, I don't even consider it in the same class as abortion at all. You would think this would be a nice compromise, but some have to raise the specter of "what if" it causes more promoscuity.
Sorry, but that ship sailed in about 1965. There already IS promoscuity, that's why we need the pill. lol
08-24-2006, 01:51 PM
But don't you guys think thats just a 'patch' for promiscuity? I mean its really not fixing the underlying problem but rather covering it up (not even addressing the underlying issue of "is [x] a human or not"). Just curious about your thoughts.
08-24-2006, 01:54 PM
I'm just irritated that females can buy their sex hormones OTC, but male sex hormones are a Class III Schedules substance, on par w/narcotics.
08-24-2006, 02:28 PM
Very good call.Originally Posted by Mass_69
All I know is that Plan B is simply another government instituted impingement to the perpetuation of the Mulletsoldier Illigetimate Child Army. Yet, mark my words. My plans for world domination are not moot just yet
*Mullet walks away maniacally laughing as he pokes holes in the condoms at 7-Eleven and Walgreens*
08-24-2006, 02:33 PM
Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
08-24-2006, 03:18 PM
I don't even know Mullet and a world full of his progeny scares me to death!!! LOL
08-24-2006, 03:40 PM
Originally Posted by precious_roy
It very much depends on how one views promoscuity to begin with. A religious person would be inclined to think it is bad and a sinful condition that must be avoided at all costs. Fair enough, this is a common mentality across many religions and there are probably some very pragmatic reasons for instituting this as doctrine.
I am inclined to think of promoscuity as the normal human condition, and though I do not condone young teens having sex it is foolish to pretend it does not exist or that factors X,Y Z are the ultimate cause of said condition. Humans just wanna do it..like all the time..and the more you tell them that they can't do it, the more they're going to want to even if it means having unsafe or relationship damaging sex.
Along that line of thought, we must then approach the "problem" objectively and though we will try our hardest to keep our kids from engauging in the riskiest of behaviors, we also have to have a plan B because we know that kids mess up. I certainly did when I was a kid despite good parenting and strong moral values.
To deny society the use of this pill because it "might" trigger promoscuity is simply reckless. Do we get rid of seat belts because they "might" make cause us to feel safer and drive faster? No, we wear them and try to get people to drive safely.
08-24-2006, 04:00 PM
I can't wait for the "suffer no consequences for my irresponsibility" pill and the "get no hang-over from drinking too much the night before" pill and the "cause no brain damage from my drug abuse" pill and the "rescue me from my own stupidity" pill.
The negating of the consequences of ones actions fundamentally underminds accountability and is a deterent to responsibile actions and behaviors.
This has to be one of the largest and greatest forms of enabling.
God Bless America!
08-24-2006, 04:32 PM
I think the actual fault there is the assumption that more promiscuity is a bad thing... And I say let the kids screw their brains out. How else are they going to learn about the negative consequences of such actions until the lose a significant other or two, or get a nice STD here and there? I say a slight rise in the incidence of herpes, the clap and AIDS is worth it if it saves the institution of marriage.Originally Posted by bioman
08-24-2006, 04:33 PM
B51- What you are saying negates the concept of personal responsibility by going beyond your own personal interests and moral judgements and thrusting them into other's lives. Absolutes do not apply to this situation IMO.
Is there going to be abuse of this pill? Probably, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be around for those people that made a mistake or who had a condom accident. It's certainly better than an abortion.
Do people abuse steroids for all the wrong reasons? You betchya, but one of the main messages of this board is responsible use to supplement excellent diet and training..ie personal responsibility. Much of the choice of that responsibility has been taken away by the govt, so here we sit speaking about them as hypotheticals.
If it boils down to girls being denied birth control options to guard against some hypothetical loss of all morals or letting there be an option to avoid unwanted children being raised by irresponsibe teens..I'll take the latter because the world is already full of enough people that don't get it and never will.
08-24-2006, 07:20 PM
Accounatbility and responsibility is fundamental. I never suggested anything close to thrusting a moral on anyone. Had I suggested "it is murder" or something like that then maybe I could see how it may appear as a moral highground.Originally Posted by bioman
We use extreme hypotheticals to support pro's and con's for everything. When a sperm and egg comes together it causes pregnancy. This is not a revelation to anyone. Where dose the line get drawn regarding enabling irresponsible behavior. At the end of the day life has consequences. Consequences happen.
The use of this drug in extreme cases of rape, incest, birth defects and other extreme situations seems like a reasonable solution to an otherwise non self perpetrated situation. Making this sort of drug OTC is unwarranted and irresponsible IMO.
08-24-2006, 08:16 PM
so lets go back to when you were 18, were you exactly thinking corrently when you were about to get down with your girlfriend? maybe you forgot to put on the rubber, or what if it broke? would you want plan B to be available? i certainly wouldOriginally Posted by B5150
like i stated before, kids have sex, adults have sex, bacteria have sex, deer have sex, bandy-legged macaques have sex (i think i got that from you bioman), and everything else that doesnt have sex has some other way of reproducing. It is the most basic instinct a human can possess. Morals and responsibility pale in comparison to this fact, and in most cases get thrown out the window in the heat of the moment.
basically, either way kids will have sex, we can other prevent the consequences or just let teen pregnancies continue to occur. its really a no brainer.
08-24-2006, 08:34 PM
In all fairness since teen pregnancy wasn't always a mass problem it is not correct to simply dismiss B5150's arguments. If kids will screw no matter what why is teen pregnancy skyrocketing? Either kids were being more responsible while having sex at one time in the past, or they were having less sex. And if they were doing either one then it is perfectly reasonable to question the morality and ethics of such a pill in the light of alternatives, no matter the no brainer decision as to its legality. The 'need' for such a pill is belied by the fact that in the past it was not 'needed' by anywhere near as many people.Originally Posted by jomi822
08-24-2006, 09:13 PM
For many hundred and thousands of years teen pregnacy was also called parenthood.
When you engage in the act of sex (which btw is aka: procreation) as a recreational activity there is the potential for the occurance of a side effect called pregnancy. If you are not willing to live with the consequences or are not responisible or mature enough to prevent pregnancy then you have no business engaging in this recreational activity in first place. It stands true for today as it did 20, 50 or hundreds of years ago.
Teen pregnancy is a symptom and all that Plan B may or will do is cover the symptoms. We are not evolving we are disolving.
BTW, I'm looking forward to seeing the drug they manufacture for the day after teen suicide. That aught to be a huge success as well.
08-25-2006, 12:30 AM
Wow, this is hardly believable considering the conservative regime we're under. Gonna have to do more research to see who the manufacturers board members and investers are. My guess is, it's probably a few high ranking politicians looking to make some bank when they make abortion illegal.
One can only hope the trickle down effect will save us additional taxes in the future for not having to pay for all the expenses associated with unwanted children of children.
Many good points made above by others. Just like to add, with the development of new STD's likely to result from the preferred use of plan B v. barrier protection, the conservatives answer to global warming can be heard loud and clear. As a result of these new diseases we will see the population thinning out while the people in power make even more money investing in the development of new and even more expensive medicines to fight them off.
Hmmm...If only we could figure out this fuel problem...Oh yeah we already did, we'll go invade the middle east and take theirs.
08-25-2006, 12:43 AM
Just my 2 cents, but since the legalization of the morning after pill, abortion should be banned only to the most extreme cases. THere really is no excuse for it due to this drug. This drug may promote promiscuity but promiscuity would be better then having young teens raising children who will grow up without fathers and eventually end up on the street or criminals. It may also stop abortion especially late stage abortion.
anyhow it doesn't really matter to me, the government will do what the government will do.
08-25-2006, 12:34 PM
I really hate the politics involved with this. some good points above though. It sounds like the pill is some sort of estrogen pill? anyone know what it is. I guess its different from ru469(RU486)
08-25-2006, 12:51 PM
Actually, it was a couple of Senators that were against the Bill, voting Yes, so that the nomination for the new Head of the FDA would also get approved.Originally Posted by tomall2
It's Levonorgestrel (L-Norgestrel), a progestin. Some birth-controls contain it, but in a smaller dose.Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2
08-27-2006, 07:33 PM
Well I knew this would go political but I'd like to see some information on it's value to body building (if any) which it probably doesn't since it's probably like RU486 as a progestin?
08-28-2006, 01:30 AM
The odd thing was even at 13 (first time it was an issue of any kind) I had no problem figuring out how a condom worked. Yes we were young and very stupid but we still understood the basics and what was need to prevent us from being grounded for the next 18 years. And if I ever didn't have one then I ended up with a cold shower. I don't necessarily have a problem with the morning after pill but B5150 has a point, there are always consequences to sex, always. And not all of them are just getting pregnant. I can remember back not to long ago that schools were sure that passing out condoms would reduce teen pregnancies. The problem was that it didn't work ether.Originally Posted by jomi822
This is really a parental problem as it has always been. I understood from the first date that I ever went on that I would take care of the girl, and there was no misunderstanding of what that meant. It was surely not encouraged but there was always an acknowledgement of the underlying reality. And really there is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy now days; there are simply too many options too easily available. If you screw up you should be willing to take the consequences.
08-28-2006, 09:26 AM
To start, this isn't an abortion pill. If you read the product info, it is meant to be used up to 72 hours (i believe) after intercourse, before there is any fertilization.
Why should having a child be a consequence? Lets increase the population of unwanted kids in this country.. it will solve so many problems.
Plan B is an emergency contraceptive. Plan B, as in when Plan A fails. Yes there will be teens who use this, and why should this prevent responsible women from getting this? A lot of couples rely on condoms as some women have a hard time on birth control pills. Condoms can and do break. Given the choice between possibly getting pregnant long before the couple is ready (financially, emotionally, etc.) or taking Plan B for the same reason as using the condoms that failed, what would you do? Its concentrated birth control pills, nothing more. If you are against this, you should be against birth control pills, condoms, and anything else that PREVENTS pregnancy except abstinence.
The reason why this needed to be otc is that it is only effective in 72 after sex. See how fast you can go to the doctor (finding one that will prescribe this in the first place) and get a prescription, find a pharmacy that will actually have it (many do not) and then find one that actually has it in stock and doesn't have to order it for you first. What is ironic is that many doctors that prescribe birth control pills will not prescribe Plan B. The same pills they do prescribe everyday can and are used for the exact same purpose. Its the successful propaganda against it that has even medical professionals associating Plan B with 'abortion pill.'
08-28-2006, 11:08 AM
I'd say no to the pill if I lived in any other country where their child wouldn't be a tax on me but since I do save me some tax dollars !
Similar Forum Threads
- By AdelV in forum SupplementsReplies: 8Last Post: 06-30-2011, 10:44 AM
- By marcwithac in forum General ChatReplies: 1Last Post: 12-21-2009, 02:41 PM
- By jmh80 in forum SupplementsReplies: 60Last Post: 01-20-2009, 05:42 PM
- By Yjyankee in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 10-08-2005, 04:26 PM
- By hamper19 in forum PicsReplies: 6Last Post: 02-13-2004, 09:25 PM