morning after pill

Tenchiro · May 9, 2006

It's their body and their choice. Doesn't affect me at all so why should I care.

If people want to be irresponsible with their sex lives, I just don't care.

sanjuro · May 9, 2006

LordOpie said:
Abortion pill isn't as "bad" as abortion, philosophically speaking.

I wouldn't go there. Anti-abortionists believe life begins at the moment of conception. If you believe that, then the morning-after pill is even worse than an abortion, because it is a medical procedure vs popping a pill.

BurlyShirley · May 9, 2006

sanjuro said:
I wouldn't go there. Anti-abortionists believe life begins at the moment of conception. If you believe that, then the morning-after pill is even worse than an abortion, because it is a medical procedure vs popping a pill.

Agreed.

Though I like the pill better.

Andyman_1970 · May 9, 2006

While most rabid pro lifers will argue the morning after pill is an abortifacant (they argue the regular "pill" is one too) I've heard there is very little science behind that..............surprise.........

Anyway, I'm all for really reducing the number of abortions, if that means handing out condoms then so be it. Jesus as a Jewish rabbi used this method of interpreting the Text called (in English) "heavier and lighter" when one command would conflict with another it was determined which command was "heavier" (more important in the grand scheme of things........like saving a life on the Sabbath)........anyway I have personally done this with this particular issue, reducing the number of abortions is more important than trying to be the "sex police".............

Sorry............rant off.

valve bouncer · May 9, 2006

What they really need is a night before pill that makes ya get a soft-on when ya try to make the beast with that skank from the pub after 10 pints.

noname · May 9, 2006

valve bouncer said:
What they really need is a night before pill that makes ya get a soft-on when ya try to make the beast with that skank from the pub after 10 pints.

We call that Whiskey D!ck!

jimmydean · May 9, 2006

Tenchiro said:
It's their body and their choice. Doesn't affect me at all so why should I care.

If people want to be irresponsible with their sex lives, I just don't care.

But if you have unprotected sex on a one night stand, the least of your worries is a kid. I't your member that may fall of, I would put a sock on it just to keep away the nasties.

ALEXIS_DH · May 9, 2006

personal experience. i had to use one.

my gf was on the regular pill. but she said she was gaining weight (it was actually 600 grams over 3 months!, but its was her decision to not take pills anymore), so we switched for the good ol´condom for a couple months.

in the interlude, one decided to resoundingly break during the presto agitato, halting one of my best ever performances. we had to use one just like 6 hours afterwards. i dont believe we were irresponsible, just unlucky to have a condom break.
and according to the girl talk of my gf with her female friends, a few of them had been thru similar experiences.

macko · May 9, 2006

It quite possibly saved my ass once. If this thing hits the drug store shelves I'm buying stock in the company!

ALEXIS_DH · May 9, 2006

macko said:
It quite possibly saved my ass once. If this thing hits the drug store shelves I'm buying stock in the company!

are they not available at drug stores in the states??? :hot:

Matt H · May 9, 2006

The morning after pill > an unwanted baby that will probably grow up to rob me....either directly, or indirectly as my tax dollars will pay for his attorney and his food in jail.

noname · May 9, 2006

Matt H said:
The morning after pill > an unwanted baby that will probably grow up to rob me....either directly, or indirectly as my tax dollars will pay for his attorney and his food in jail.

MudGrrl · May 10, 2006

ALEXIS_DH said:
are they not available at drug stores in the states??? :hot:

um.... something like that....

"In 2000, the American Medical Association issued a non-binding recommendation that emergency contraception be available over-the-counter without a prescription in the U.S. On December 16, 2003, an advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended that the pill be made available over the counter.[8]The committee voted 23 to 4 that the drug should be sold over-the-counter and 27 to 0 that the drug could be safely sold as an over-the-counter medication.

However, in May of 2004 the FDA refused this strong recommendation and prohibited over-the-counter sale. The FDA claimed that this was due to limited experimental data on the effects of such pills on girls under 16 years of age, but critics have accused the FDA of basing the decision on political pressure. [9] One year later, a new application from the makers of Plan B requested over-the-counter status for women aged 16 and older, but the January 2005 deadline for the FDA decision on this application has come and gone without a decision. The FDA had more recently pledged to rule on the application by September 1, 2005, but this deadline has been extended for at least 60 days. However, in the United States, as of March 2006, eight states (California, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts) had passed laws permitting trained pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception without a doctor's prescription. On November 3, 2005, HR 4229 was introduced in the United States House of Representatives, which would require the FDA to make a decision on Plan B.

In a number of instances across the United States, pharmacists have refused to give women emergency contraception even with a legal prescription. These pharmacist refusals have created great controversy. Pro-life pharmacists who believe that emergency contraception is equivalent to abortion, or who, for personal moral or religious reasons oppose the use of birth control pills for unmarried women, or at all, have in a number of instances across the United States asserted a right of conscience to refuse to fill those prescriptions. The American Pharmacists Association has proposed conscience clauses or refusal clauses that would allow pharmacists to opt out of filling prescriptions they found morally offensive as long as they referred women to other pharmacists who would fill the prescription."

bjanga · May 10, 2006

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Seems to me like 'morality' and religion bleed over a bit too much.

Matt H · May 10, 2006

bjanga said:
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Seems to me like 'morality' and religion bleed over a bit too much.

Well, those lines are blurred, but specifically regarding the subject of birth, abortion, and contreceptives, it has become a major debate as to when a zygote, fetus, baby, whatever it may be, becomes a human with a life, and to terminate that life would constitute murder as it does if someone were to murder you or I.

Seems to me like the govt doesn't have the balls to just stand up and pick a spot and call it the beginning of one's life. I mean sure, one side argues that a baby is not a live human until after it is born, since before then it cannot survive on it's own, it requires the mother's body (or an incubator, if you want to get technical)....And the other side argues that life starts at the moment of conception.

I personally think the most logical answer is somewhere in the middle....but that's just me.

H8R · May 10, 2006

LordOpie said:
There's two types who'd use it:
1. Those who rarely have sex, have it unprepared, and freak.
2. Those who regularly have sex and regularly use protection.

Wait, aren't you missing:

3. Fvcking retards who regularly put themselves at risk because of drugs/alcohol/stupidity and go running to get the pill after waking up all bruised and soggy after a black out night at the local meat market?

noname · May 10, 2006

Matt H said:
Well, those lines are blurred, but specifically regarding the subject of birth, abortion, and contreceptives, it has become a major debate as to when a zygote, fetus, baby, whatever it may be, becomes a human with a life, and to terminate that life would constitute murder as it does if someone were to murder you or I.

Seems to me like the govt doesn't have the balls to just stand up and pick a spot and call it the beginning of one's life. I mean sure, one side argues that a baby is not a live human until after it is born, since before then it cannot survive on it's own, it requires the mother's body (or an incubator, if you want to get technical)....And the other side argues that life starts at the moment of conception.

I personally think the most logical answer is somewhere in the middle....but that's just me.

My stand on this issue isn't moral at all. What I worry about is giving the government the ability to decide what constitutes life, and therefore, what is deserving of constitutional protections. You and I currently may look at it as when does life begin, but it is not to difficult to see it be construed as simply what constitutes life. From that standpoint the standards can then be applied to the other end of the spectrum. An arguement originally made to support abortion will 10 years later be used for euthenasia, and not just for the terminally ill.
If you think that sounds extreme, imagine going back to New York city or Richmond Va in the 50's and telling them that cigarette smoking would be all but outlawed in the U.S. You'd be laughed at so hard they'd likely suffocate from it.

noname · May 10, 2006

LordOpie said:
so you're saying that in 50 years, abortion will be outlawed for the good of society?

highly unlikely.
I'm saying the same argument that could be used to sustain/increase the legality of abortion could be used in applications other than abortion.
take the interstate commerce clause for example. If the founding fathers thought that the interstate commerce clause was going to be used to protect endangered species........
Basically, things get twisted. It's the favored game of lawers and politicians to play semantical games with language making very simple language compex and obtuse.

Changleen · May 10, 2006

Matt H said:
Seems to me like the govt doesn't have the balls to just stand up and pick a spot and call it the beginning of one's life.

Uh, Isn't it legal to get an abortion until the third trimester? Has been for a while...

H8R · May 10, 2006

Changleen said:
Uh, Isn't it legal to get an abortion until the third trimester? Has been for a while...

Can one be performed in the 168th trimester?

(that's N8's age...)

Westy · May 10, 2006

I can't believe no one has posted this yet.

New Anti-Abortion Pill

noname · May 10, 2006

LordOpie said:
So you're a lawyer or politician?

That was below the belt! I've been called some pretty nasty stuff in my day, but that.........! :rofl:

noname · May 10, 2006

whoa! I just noticed my avatars been removed! wtf!

Reactor · May 10, 2006

Andyman_1970 said:
While most rabid pro lifers will argue the morning after pill is an abortifacant (they argue the regular "pill" is one too) I've heard there is very little science behind that..............surprise.........

Anyway, I'm all for really reducing the number of abortions, if that means handing out condoms then so be it. Jesus as a Jewish rabbi used this method of interpreting the Text called (in English) "heavier and lighter" when one command would conflict with another it was determined which command was "heavier" (more important in the grand scheme of things........like saving a life on the Sabbath)........anyway I have personally done this with this particular issue, reducing the number of abortions is more important than trying to be the "sex police".............

Sorry............rant off.

That's not a rant, it's logical, reasonable, progressive thought. If you were Republican politician, you'ed in for a short career......

gsweet · May 13, 2006

if i may...i'm pretty sure that the female body automatically aborts around half of the possible pregnancies. if you ask me, this fact kinda negates the whole "life at conception" because it's now scientific fact that conception no longer equals birth. so honestly, i really don't know what the argument is about any more.

scrublover · May 14, 2006

LordOpie said:
On the other, I don't want irresponsible women raising one or more kids on the govt's dime.
.

Ah, because some irresponsible guy had absolutely nothing to do with the situation?

(not meaning to be bad on you LO)

(rant on)

It just bugs me that American society in general always goes for the throat on this one, and assumes the woman is always the irresponsible one. What about the @sshat guy who didn't think to use any protection? Or didn't stick around when the prego condition was discovered?

As a guy who was single/dating for a long time, it was important to me to use protection to ensure I wasn't someones daddy later on, and for protection against anything else. I sure as hell wasn't going to just assume the gal had thing covered.

(rant off)

DaveW · Jul 14, 2013

Andyman_1970 said:
While most rabid pro lifers will argue the morning after pill is an abortifacant (they argue the regular "pill" is one too) I've heard there is very little science behind that..............surprise.........

This Doctor is one of those.... Needs to be stripped of his license IMO. :stosh:

GP-refuses woman contraceptive pill

morning after pill

MOTHER HEN

Attention K Mart Shoppers

MOTHER HEN

Tube Smuggler

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Turbo Monkey

Master Dildoist

Monkey

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey

Tirelessly Awesome

Turbo Monkey

Tirelessly Awesome

Monkey

Monkey

AAAAH! Monkeys stole my math!

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Cranky Pants

Monkey

MOTHER HEN

Monkey

Paranoid Member

Cranky Pants

the teste

MOTHER HEN

Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

MOTHER HEN

Space Monkey