FDA Lowers Age for Next-Day Birth Control (Page 7)

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.

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.

I read somewhere that true disagreement is exceedingly rare. First, both parties have to agree to the facts. Then each party needs to draw differing conclusions while acknowledging the logic of the other party.

I heard what you said. It makes sense.

I still trust in what the Church Fathers concluded. That makes sense too.

In the future, I won't be so bold in making claims that have reasonable questions attached to them and are outside my wheelhouse.

If you exchange the word "friend" to "student" or "client" my wife and I can say the answer is dozens.

So much so, that I was offered a standing position on the LA County Inter-Agency Council of Abuse and Neglect's Child and Adolescent Suicide Review Team for several years.

http://ican.co.la.ca.us/home.htm

Our work contributed to reports such as this... http://ican.co.la.ca.us/PDF/death_201.pdf

How does this relate to the OP again?

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.

If you exchange the word "friend" to "student" or "client" my wife and I can say the answer is dozens.

So much so, that I was offered a standing position on the LA County Inter-Agency Council of Abuse and Neglect's Child and Adolescent Suicide Review Team for several years.

http://ican.co.la.ca.us/home.htm

Our work contributed to reports such as this... http://ican.co.la.ca.us/PDF/death_201.pdf

How does this relate to the OP again?

If you exchange the word "friend" to "student" or "client" my wife and I can say the answer is dozens.

So much so, that I was offered a standing position on the LA County Inter-Agency Council of Abuse and Neglect's Child and Adolescent Suicide Review Team for several years.

http://ican.co.la.ca.us/home.htm

Our work contributed to reports such as this... http://ican.co.la.ca.us/PDF/death_201.pdf

How does this relate to the OP again?

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.

It has been proposed by freakenomics that crime rates have gone down since the legalization of abortions.

what about versus Mathew 13:55-56

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Does this not prove that Jesus had brothers and sisters (atleast in  theory?).

So, to be as fair as possible we should propose a new law that states if the father chooses to abort the baby, and the mother doesn't then he has no legal or financial responsibility for the baby. 

I say that facetiously, but if a man can't force a woman to give birth when she doesn't want to then why should a woman be able to force a man to pay child support for 18+ years when he doesn't want to?  Sounds more fair.

So I have a question... Assume DOJ loses the appeal and the Federal Judges ruling stands, which takes away all age limitations for the dispensing of the Plan B pill, or even assume DOJ wins and it can only be dispensed to individuals over the age of 15 and they have to show proof of age...

In Florida the age of consent is 18, with one minor technical exception.  Consent is not a defense in Florida, thus hyper-technically in Florida, two 15 year olds who engage in consensual sex BOTH have committed a second degree felony.

Additionally EVERYONE in Florida is a mandatory reporter, that is, if you have reason to know or believe that a child (under 18) has been the victim of abuse or a sexually motivated crime you must report to the Department of Children and Family services hotline.  Failure to report can be a crime.

So does this mean that the pharmacist or cashier who takes an ID from a person under 18, and especially under 16 MUST then make an abuse report?

Just an interesting question how this notion of "privacy" for children under the age of legal consent dovetails with notions of what is typically called "statutory rape." 

While I haven't read the Federal judges opinion my guess is it is based upon some notion of privacy rights, which form the basis of the Griswold and Roe decisions.  But in the criminal system the notion of privacy rights and the right of freedom of association have been universally rejected as it applies to having sex with minors.  That is an adult who has sex with a minor cannot claim some type of privacy right or freedom of association that protects him/her from culpability for engaging in even consensual sex with an underage minor (statutory rape). 

It will be interesting to see how this issue is handled within the states.  A pharmacist may have to dispense the plan B pill but will that trigger the mandatory reporting requirements that are in many states? 

If they include abortion as a violent crime against the human person, their proposition would be much different.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenisist and thought along those lines.

From a project at NYU on Margaret Sanger:

In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Eugenics and the elimination and control of so-called inferior peoples is one of the foundational principles of the contraception movement, as well as the abortion movement.

That's a very interesting question.  Is there any precedent? The previous age for plan B was 17, correct?

There's an argument that the age of 17 might not trigger the mandatory reporting requirement because Florida has a weird age of consent exception, in that a person under the age of 24 may engage in sex with a person who is 16 or 17.  (that's the exception I was talking about) 

But in no case is it legal for a person under the age of 16 to engage in sex in Florida.

There's an argument that the age of 17 might not trigger the mandatory reporting requirement because Florida has a weird age of consent exception, in that a person under the age of 24 may engage in sex with a person who is 16 or 17.  (that's the exception I was talking about) 

But in no case is it legal for a person under the age of 16 to engage in sex in Florida.

Are kids <16 having consensual sex actively reported?  Actively prosecuted? Are they prosecuted as a 2nd degree felony?

Do people have to show ID to buy condoms, spermicidal jelly, etc in Florida? 

You can get an abortion in Florida, right?  What happens to kids

I don't expect you to have the answers to all these questions, these are just the one's coming to mind as discussion points.  Any Fl lawyers in the house?

In CA, there is an entire rubric for mandated reporting to address most of those questions.

For example, access to medical care related sexual intercourse is NOT part of mandated reporting because they do not want it to be a disincentive to seeking medical care.

This is my realm because I deal with this.

The ability to consent to certain medical interventions be it mental health or medical without an adult is a whole different world.

Hold the phone, am I reading that rubric correctly--mandatory reporting of oral sex for any child under 18?  No, can't be.  Really?

You can have vaginal sex but not oral sex if you're <18?

Please tell me I have that wrong. 

That is very helpful and interesting.  Thanks for posting that.

Does California have a similar law (2nd degree felony)  to Florida with regards to

Hold the phone, am I reading that rubric correctly--mandatory reporting of oral sex for any child under 18?  No, can't be.  Really?

You can have vaginal sex but not oral sex if you're

Please tell me I have that wrong.