Sotomayor refuses to block morning-after pill rule

[bigguy1381]

The values of being responsible. If you're going to have sex, use protection. If you made a mistake, the cost of the morning after pill needs to come out of your pocket.

[Locke]

So society can not have any values? It's all up to everyone as to what those values are? Sounds a little more like Anarchy to me. Where are the lines for the social contract?

I know we dont live in a perfect world, but i do believe if the Nuclear family still existed, if people were still accountable for their actions, we would all be in a much better place.

Just my opinion though.

There will always be universal values that are determined by social pressure: murder is wrong, you don't hit kids, you don't steal, etc. But you're talking more specific, religion based, values. It would be similar to Jews stating that no one in the U.S. should eat pork because they don't. I know everyone says this, but I think I'm one of the more moral people around. I help people where I can, and I follow the rules for the most part. But my wife and I had sex before we married. Granted, we were safe about it and never needed the pill. In that sense, there is a level of responsibility, but that's not always the reason for someone to need the pill. Since getting married, we've had to go get the pill probably 2-3 times. We haven't been in a financially stable place to have a kid yet. and after a wild night we realized we weren't using contraceptives. If we were forced to have a kid that early on, I'm not sure we could have afforded the last few years of my PhD. It's not so cut and dry.

The nuclear family has been dying since the 70s, and this birth control debate has been going on since what, the 90s? I'm not sure that's what it is. Besides, the nuclear family promoted women being inferior to men, and I'm not sure that's all that moral, personally...

[MoFinz]

There will always be universal values that are determined by social pressure: murder is wrong, you don't hit kids, you don't steal, etc. But you're talking more specific, religion based, values. It would be similar to Jews stating that no one in the U.S. should eat pork because they don't. I know everyone says this, but I think I'm one of the more moral people around. I help people where I can, and I follow the rules for the most part. But my wife and I had sex before we married. Granted, we were safe about it and never needed the pill. In that sense, there is a level of responsibility, but that's not always the reason for someone to need the pill. Since getting married, we've had to go get the pill probably 2-3 times. We haven't been in a financially stable place to have a kid yet. and after a wild night we realized we weren't using contraceptives. If we were forced to have a kid that early on, I'm not sure we could have afforded the last few years of my PhD. It's not so cut and dry.

The nuclear family has been dying since the 70s, and this birth control debate has been going on since what, the 90s? I'm not sure that's what it is. Besides, the nuclear family promoted women being inferior to men, and I'm not sure that's all that moral, personally...

Well, having grown up in the prototypical nuclearfamily, i can tell you it wasn't all hot dogs and apple sauce. But i understood, if i knocked a girl up, i was responsible for her and that kid. We had sex ed, but the scariest thing about unprotected sex was knowing that if you saw those 2 little blue lines, whatever plans you had for life after HS had to be put on hold. There were repercussions for risky actions. We learned that the hard way...first with Herpes, then with AIDS.

Now, you get pregnant and it's either an abortion or the welfare state. We glorify single mothers, instead of demeaning the absentee fathers. We reward welfare mothers with more benefits, never seeking the fathers for re-payment.

It's a slippery slope. I don't approve of abortions, but i understand that it is not my decision. It SHOULD be a decision made by the mother AND the father. And in the case of underage girls, WITH the parents. But that would offend too many people nowadays....so we get the cluster**** we have now.

[LouPhinFan]

I think the reason this is so controversial is because for some reason we Christians equate the morning-after pill with abortion. This is not abortion, it is just another form of contraception. Is it "fixing the barn door after the horse has come home"? Sure it is but it's not abortion. The only Christians that should have a problem with this are the hard-core Catholics that have 63 kids because they feel contraception is subverting God's will.

[phins_4_ever]

I think the reason this is so controversial is because for some reason we Christians equate the morning-after pill with abortion. This is not abortion, it is just another form of contraception. Is it "fixing the barn door after the horse has come home"? Sure it is but it's not abortion. The only Christians that should have a problem with this are the hard-core Catholics that have 63 kids because they feel contraception is subverting God's will.

And they are the ones probably running to the doctor and have Viagra or Cealis prescribed. Initially an attempt to solve impotency it has become a choice medication so the hubby still gets the hard-on for the wife. And why not? It is covered under almost every health care plan.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[MoFinz]

And they are the ones probably running to the doctor and have Viagra or Cealis prescribed. Initially an attempt to solve impotency it has become a choice medication so the hubby still gets the hard-on for the wife. And why not? It is covered under almost every health care plan.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Psssst......

Viagra and Cialis were both originally designed to treat hypertension. Erections were the marketable side effects after they failed the hypertension tests.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Locke]

Well, having grown up in the prototypical nuclearfamily, i can tell you it wasn't all hot dogs and apple sauce. But i understood, if i knocked a girl up, i was responsible for her and that kid. We had sex ed, but the scariest thing about unprotected sex was knowing that if you saw those 2 little blue lines, whatever plans you had for life after HS had to be put on hold. There were repercussions for risky actions. We learned that the hard way...first with Herpes, then with AIDS.

Now, you get pregnant and it's either an abortion or the welfare state. We glorify single mothers, instead of demeaning the absentee fathers. We reward welfare mothers with more benefits, never seeking the fathers for re-payment.

It's a slippery slope. I don't approve of abortions, but i understand that it is not my decision. It SHOULD be a decision made by the mother AND the father. And in the case of underage girls, WITH the parents. But that would offend too many people nowadays....so we get the cluster**** we have now.

I agree that it's a mess. I'm definitely pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. I hate how many people use it as a remedy for irresponsibility. Instead of buying healthy food or medication they need, they are dropping $700 to fix something a $10 box of condoms would have prevented. Abortion shouldn't be used as a last minute fix to a drunk night out, but it seems like that's the primary function of it now. But I also believe no one should ever tell a woman what they can and can't do to themselves, so despite disagreeing vehemently with most people's use of the procedure, I'll always respect that it's a decision they are allowed to make for themselves. If they can live with it on their conscious, have at it.

In my field, there's a big push on letting natural consequences take their course. You decide you don't want to stay in treatment anymore? Fine, that's your call. But you'll have to deal with what that means for you. I wish most of these kids dealt with the natural consequences of their actions. You want to have unprotected sex and are too inexperienced to know to pull out? You better deal with having a kid now. It breeds a culture of kids who don't forward think and don't understand consequences...

[Statler Waldorf]

This is a common misconception. Scientists are debating exactly why the pills work but have all but ruled out that the pills prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. We do know that these pills stop eggs from being released and therefore from being fertilized along with other physiological effects that make pregnancy less likely.

You’re confusing contraceptive birth control pills with the “morning after” pill; the two are not the same. The morning after pill does prevent implantation, which used to be considered an abortion when pregnancy was defined as being present at conception. However, now many texts define pregnancy as implantation, which is a marketing ploy to allow the drug companies to be able to sell the “plan b” pill as a means of birth control and not as a means of abortion. Although, most actual contraceptive birth control pills have a three prong attack, and the third prong is to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. I assure you, scientists are quite aware how these things work.

Do some research. I don't think that a fertilized egg is a human but in this debate it doesn't matter since any effects tha this drug would theoretically (as in never observed) have on a fertilized egg are much rarer than its contraceptive effects. The pill does a lot to inhibit conception and there is a push to have the "implantation" effects removed from the FDA description as the science is rapidly mounting against that even being a possibility because of the supposed long time it takes for endometrium cells to mutate in the way necessary to prevent implantation.

Of course it’s a human being, it has a complete human genome, therefore it has to be a human being. I’ll have to ask my parents and brother, they are all pharmacists and are far more knowledgeable on this than me or anyone else on here for that matter. However, I do know there has been some twisting of definitions in the last few years in order to benefit the drug companies, you can look at any text from a few years ago and they all consider what emergency contraceptives do as terminating pregnancies.

Although there tends to be a 200+ year lag time on Christians accepting scientific theories, hopefully you guys will research before wasting the Supreme Court's time in the future.

Modern Science owes its birth to the Christian Reformation, learn your history.

If everyone has access to the pill, wouldn't abortion rates plummet? I feel like the only thing that could make the religious right happy is no one having sex, period...

Says the guy who supports forcing companies to pay for something they are morally opposed to paying for. It must be nice to play the game of life by two different sets of rules eh?

[spydertl79]

Statler- glad you did your research but I think you missed or ignored the studies regarding the implantation. They tried to make the pill do that but it doesn't work. The American academy of gynecology has even issued a statement to clear up that issue... Also people who know more about the subject than anyone on here.

I was referring to the plan b pill manufactured by Teva. Google it.

[Locke]

Says the guy who supports forcing companies to pay for something they are morally opposed to paying for. It must be nice to play the game of life by two different sets of rules eh?

Companies aren't churches, smart guy. The supreme court just said so. A person can individually be opposed to it, but they can't force their views on their employees. That's freedom of religion. Or does that only apply when Christians are told they can't do something? It must be nice to play the game of life by two different sets of rules eh? ****ing hypocrite...