FDA Lowers Age for Next-Day Birth Control (Page 4)

Wow, you sure read a lot into that.  I'm not quite sure I've ever seen a single post on BT with more personal attacks than this one.

Have a nice day

reminds me of the best quote from the movie Dogma

"Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin birth, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility."

these type of threads generally have very low female participation in them...i've noticed that as well.

I made precisely one personal attack in my post.  I maintain that attack as well.

A nice day also to you.

^^^....For the win.

As the family structure continues to crumble and it becomes less and less the central building block of society, the state will naturally move in to fill the void.

Perhaps also it's the state itself that contributes to the crumbling of the family structure.

I think it's the same force that's telling you that you don't have a right to defend yourself; that you ought to let the state take care of that for you.

You're wrong, the marriage under jewish law would have involved 2 steps, kiddushin (basically betrothal) and chuppah (basically nuptials). at that point the first step may actually have involved intercourse itself, but if you want we can assume that it didn't.

The second step of the marriage process requires the consummation of the marriage. Beginning from when the Torah was received at Sinai, all marriages had to have both components, the betrothal and the consummation of the marriage, to be considered a legal marraige.

Get your facts straight because you're embarassing yourself.

Except that women do not reproduce alone.  You do not get to have all the choices on the menue with out input for the other person who will be footing the bill along with you.

THIS FTW^^  Both parties should be involved in the discussion. Also, I don't understand why people would be against the FDA decided what a safe age to take a medicine is. It is up to the parent to regulate what their child is doing. Kids get away with stuff that their parents don't want them to, yes, but it isn't the FDA's job to regulate that if the product is in fact SAFE for them. Religious beliefs belong in the household not the laws.

The news discussions on the topic drive me nuts.

Compare the sexual intercourse and pregnancy rates and compare them to access to proper sexual education and access birth control.

You can believe how think things should be, but you cannot argue with the fact that access to proper scientific sexual education and birth control does not increase the likelihood of a teens having sex, but it does reduce the likelihood of pregnancy and disease.

When I was teaching an undergrad child development class 1/2 my students wanted to challenge the text on this point, so we made an academic exercise out of it.

The rules were, you had to provide the original research report - not a summary or press release.

They then went on an academic scavenger hunt to find all of the evidence that supported their argument or counter-argument.

We then compared the research that supported and contradicted the claim in terms of the quality of research methodology, the rigor of counter-argument and possibility of alternative explanations,  and how much of a stretch there was between data and conclusions.

The "access increases" argument did not just fail, it failed miserably.

I haven't taught in a while, but I have since made it a regular assignment in my classes to compare citations of scientific claims (relevant to the class curriculum) in the media and do a critique based on the actual research studies on the topic and basic research methodology and logic.

And yes, the unintended, but hilarious, consequence is that both extremes of the political spectrum start by trying to prove their favorite media venues right. After the second round, they all switch and start to critique either a "neutral source" or the one opposite of their political views.

Do I want my children, as well as the children that I work with, to not make mistakes and do the right thing?

Definitely.

Do I want pregnancy or disease to be the consequence if they screw up?

Definitely not.

Do I see kids' lives messed up due to overly permissive parents? 

Yup.

Do I see kids' lives messed up because of denial that life and reality and not what the parents want it to be?

Yup

I have worked with a lot of families with a lot of messed up lives, but I have also worked with a lot of healthy families and ones that have prevailed through adversity.

What works?

Families with a strong sense of family and family values, but who acknowledge reality over denial.

That's a tired old logical fallacy. You know, boys are involved in this dynamic as well.

These days, instead of providing them with roll models of virtue and character, we tell them that they're not capable of controlling their passions and just to make sure they put on some plastic.  

What an awful message for young boys to hear.

We think so little of our youth that we think they can't strive to live moral and decent lives.  Then we wonder why there are so many who are so lost.

Children who have parents or roll models who smoke probably have a higher possibility of smoking.
Children who have parents or roll models who fornicate probably have a higher possibility of fornicating.

We are so intoxicated ourselves with the notion of the universal right to orgasim: anytime, anywhere, with anybody, any way; that we're willing to be irresponsible in how we're forming our young people and future generations.

OK, that's an interesting observation.

???

This is confusing.  Perhaps it's a typing-on-a-phone problem?

Just to be clear, a fraction of men who have sex with a woman that result in pregnancy financially support that woman's reproductive health--BC, the termination, the delivery, or the child--options.  I don't have current statistics on what fraction that is, but it certainly isn't 100%.

Even 100% is a fraction.

simple put there another half to the pregnancy equation; men have a right to be involved in the discussion because it affects them in a myriad of ways which is a topic for a different discussion, but includes questions such as is it ok for a woman to have an abortion when the man wants the child???

OK, yes that is one definition of a "fraction".  I was using it to be less than 100%, which is also a definition of "fraction"

I stated a personal opinion. You stated disagreement with that opinion. You mentioned that you have this argument often with religious types. It seemed like a logical assumption for me to ask that you separate me from the other arguments you have often with other people. It is not very uncommon for people to carry over their "usual argument" to other discussions. I made other comments in responce to other people. Then there were some snarky comments, and at this point I'm not sure what we are discussing.

I'm pro-choice.  Though this^ is a very unfortunate situation, I still believe it is the woman's choice.  I am also quite sure nothing I write in an internet forum will change anyone's mind on that topic, but as one of the few women participating in this discussion, I will "voice" my position.

Here's one for you, Switch....and i'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just picking your brain since this is one of those deals I'm pretty undecided about....except for the part where my daughters have options other than getting pregnant...I'm good with that.

If it is purely the woman's choice, why should a man get involved or care at all about it?

Not by my understanding. The second step could be dispensed in certain circumstances.

The sacrament of marriage in the Catholic church is formed on the two step process you lay out. But in rare circumstances even today one can have a valid marriage in the Church that is not consummated. It's not sacramental, but it's valid and legal.  It's called a Josephite marriage.

I think I lived through one of those in my first marriage.

I think as men, we're also wired to be protectors.  

There are plenty of exceptions of course, women who act as protectors and men who shirk the responsibility.

Still, when men give voice in these discussions, it's often out of a deep desire to protect the entire clan while looking down the road at what's coming.

So yes, men have a right to have a say in what happens to their children in the case of abortion.

Well then why should he be forced to pay for her decision not to?

 If you have no say then you have no responsibility.

Well your understanding is wrong, and there was no Catholic church so if they did not have sex there was no marriage.