FDA Lowers Age for Next-Day Birth Control (Page 6)

Don, they've recently done studies that this is not the actual mechanism.  In a study comparing women who used Plan B before and after ovulation occurred, they found that women still got pregnant if they had already ovulated.  As such, the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology ruled that Plan B does not prevent implantation.

The same is not true of Elia and RU-486; those mechanisms are still unknown.

ETA: I see people beat me to this, but I'm leaving my comment anyway. 

Right, and not to say that is good or bad, but it is just reality. If you can't force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term... then no, the man indeed has no choice, or say in the matter. As distasteful as that may be for what ever reason. And that is where I have to stand... that regardless of all the philosophical debates... the woman has rights, and that's a hard legal fact, and that's the end of the discussion. And I'm good with that.... but since I have a penis, this is all irrelevant.

Right, none what so ever.

No but then why should she have the right to force significant hardship on the man in terms of having to pay support without at least allowing him to have a say.

Actually my original post was in response to why men should have a say in women's reproductive matters not to resolve any such issues.  Men have a say because it has significant impact on them...

So, can we take this a bit further?  You're saying that having a "significant impact" (financial)="say in pregnancy".  If two people who have no financial means to support their offspring choose to reproduce, do I as a taxpayer have a say?

If you want to play this stupid game, if every time someone decides to eat corn DO I HAVE A SAY (corn subsidies)

If a kid doesn't do their homeowork DO I HAVE A SAY I PAY FOR THEIR SCHOOLING.

If you eat like crap and have a heart attack DO I HAVE A SAY

You sound equally ridiculous, why don't we try addressing the point instead of making overblown garbage comparisons.

I just wanted to specifically address you LB, as you have very quickly become one of my favorites:) 

I have a very, very liberal open attitude toward sex, that I don't want to really get into any more here.  As I wrote earlier, I don't think 15 year-olds are mature enough to handle all of the complexities and possible complications of having sex.  That being said, between consenting adults, there is no reason why a man should get involved unless both parties want him involved.  The "caring" issue is a little more complex, but I would say if  a man is inclined to "caring" he should pursue women who want that.  Conversely, if a woman wants a man to be involved and wants "caring" she should chose her sexual partner(s) accordingly.

Mayor Bloomberg says you should.

So do a lot of my fellow Californians!

can we start a new thread about how much we agree with bloomberg because that would be great haha

Not according to two thousand years of tradition in both the East and the West.

I understand your point about not reading it through modern eyes. It's a good point.

But the early Church Fathers were reading it with near contemporary eyes.  

There's no reason why the early Church Fathers would need to conclude that Mary's virginity was perpetual.  It changes nothing theologically that comes before the birth of Jesus.  However, this is what they concluded.

That's excellent.  Even though I used the word I never thought about the "caring" part as you wrote it, but you are exactly right. Thanks.

actually in jewish law that did not change until about the 13th century when the two halves of the marriage rite were combined due to problems involving persecution and seperation of the betrothed before the rite could be completed.  I can't speak to any of your other church beliefs or conclusions, but under jewish law they would have had to sleep with eachother. sorry i got a bit heated earlier i just tend to get annoyed when people claim to know things about judaism when they in fact don't. the common non-jew seems to have a very narrow understanding of judaism IMO.

Just had to add crass into what was actually a rather respectful discussion.  Not even funny crass at that.

I'm sorry you feel this is stupid.  I think it's valid and that is how we, as a society, effect change.  We do pass laws (or allow or governing bodies) to regulate our desires.  School performance standards, nutritional warning labels, and even sugary drink bans.  I do feel that, as a taxpayer, I have a financial say in this matter.  My taxes supporting a child (and mother )"in the system" > tax funded abortion > tax funded birth control.  I've never understood the people who want to force the responsibility of having a child onto a person who wasn't responsible enough not to get pregnant.  I guess I'm being too pragmatic and obviously I have no morals.

So morally you think that it is your place to decide whether someone must have an abortion, because it will cost you some amount of money from your taxes?

Haaaa      you must be new here...

I was pointing out a fact in a discussion about reproduction and and BC methods. I believe that one to be the most effective behind abstinence.

No worries about getting heated or defending your faith. I'd be the last person to criticize you for doing that.  

I'm no expert in Jewish law.  I appreciate you speaking up.

This is what I understand. Matthew writes that Joseph and Mary were betrothed.  He writes that Joseph then takes her into his home.  His writing about what happened after that is not definitive, they may have had intercourse, they may have not.

The Early Church Fathers, who would have had more knowledge of Jewish law than a guy like me on the internet, concluded that the marriage was both legal and that Mary's virginity was perpetual.  They didn't have a theological need for doing this; their claims regarding Jesus' divinity or Mary's immaculate conception remain valid without perpetual virginity.  They also didn't have political reasons for doing this; the growing Christian culture was emancipating women, not subjugating them as might be thought if virginity was held to be more important than consummated marriage.

You conclude that it was not legal.

It's probably among the least of the issues you and the Church Fathers are in disagreement about.

Don't bring up abstinence on the day this report is released!

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6217a1.htm?s_cid=mm6217a1_w

We don't want to push the abstinent against their will over the edge.

Something to think about: Have you ever had a friend who had a really crappy upbringing with irresponsible parents wish they had never been given the chance at life? I have some friends who were raise in bad situations. I none of them wish they had been aborted.

Back to the OP.  I am pro life. I am not against birth control. I am not 100% sure how I feel about this day after pill. I believe life begins at conception, so that would be the deciding factor for me.

I work with a lot of teens too. Not all have good parents or parents at all and some that do have good parents are not going to talk to them. A 13 YO that wants birth control at least has the opportunity to talk to an adult. Someone, clinic worker, dr., pharmacist, etc. That is not the perfect answer, but it is something. I am against a child (under 18) just being able to pick up this product off the shelf like a snickers bar.

Yeah sure.

Take it easy on him, he's got a lot of potential...