If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
The newspapers tomorrow (Wednesday) will be reporting the decision
today of a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that morning-after contraceptive pills should be available to women without prescriptions throughout the U.S. Now, of course, although the FDA usually accepts the recommendations of these advisory panels, it may not do so in this case. Several influential pro-life groups are strongly opposed to this proposal. But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. So . . . consider the steady extension of reproductive choices available to women. Contrast it with the choices available to men who may not want to be forced into fatherhood. The post-conception choices available to women in the U.S. already include abortion, dropping off newborns at fire stations, etc., in many states, and (as a practical matter) a unilateral decision to put a child up for adoption. Now it is likely that women will have available to them, throughout the U.S., a morning-after pill without prescription. If this happens, they will be able to go into a drugstore at any hour of the day or night (as the National Organization for Women told the FDA) and buy a morning-after pill without a prescription. Meantime, what are the choices available to men, and how are THEIR choices being enlarged? Just to ask the question is to know the answer. Men's choices remain that of accepting the decision unilaterally made by a woman, and -- quite possibly -- paying her 18+ years of so-called "child support" to make it easier for her to bear the financial consequences of her own unilateral decision. In their coverage of this matter, will the media even mention this angle on the whole situation? Again, just to ask the question is to know the answer. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The newspapers tomorrow (Wednesday) will be reporting the decision today of a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that morning-after contraceptive pills should be available to women without prescriptions throughout the U.S. Now, of course, although the FDA usually accepts the recommendations of these advisory panels, it may not do so in this case. Several influential pro-life groups are strongly opposed to this proposal. But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. So . . . consider the steady extension of reproductive choices available to women. Contrast it with the choices available to men who may not want to be forced into fatherhood. The post-conception choices available to women in the U.S. already include abortion, dropping off newborns at fire stations, etc., in many states, and (as a practical matter) a unilateral decision to put a child up for adoption. Now it is likely that women will have available to them, throughout the U.S., a morning-after pill without prescription. If this happens, they will be able to go into a drugstore at any hour of the day or night (as the National Organization for Women told the FDA) and buy a morning-after pill without a prescription. Meantime, what are the choices available to men, and how are THEIR choices being enlarged? Just to ask the question is to know the answer. Men's choices remain that of accepting the decision unilaterally made by a woman, and -- quite possibly -- paying her 18+ years of so-called "child support" to make it easier for her to bear the financial consequences of her own unilateral decision. In their coverage of this matter, will the media even mention this angle on the whole situation? Again, just to ask the question is to know the answer. I've been thinking about this decision since I heard it announced earlier today. And I have some questions too. First, these morning after pills are marketed under the name "Plan B." I wonder what Plan A is? Perhaps Plan A is to have unprotected sex and worry about it later. If so, that is a very risky situation for men who may be tricked into having unprotected sex if the woman insists she will take Plan B. The man has no guarantee the woman will follow through and actually take the Plan B pills. In fact, I believe the availability of these pills can increase a man's vulnerability to being tricked into creating an unplanned pregnancy and the resultant 18+ years of CS payments. From what I have read, these pills are less effective than normal birth control and their effectiveness diminishes as time passes after unprotected sex. Second, the people who needs these pills the most may not be fully aware of how to get them. How will they be informed? Will the government launch a major advertising campaign to alert women to the availability of these morning after pills? Will the fact these pills get advertised increase the incidence of unprotected sex? Will women refuse to take them because they don't want to suffer the pill's side effects like nausea, vomiting, etc. and opt instead to risk a pregnancy? Third, the financial impact needs to be addressed. What are the repercussions of removing these pills from prescription status to over the counter? If health plans start to cover female contraceptive options will those plans also cover non-prescription Plan B pills? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
I'm personally waiting for the first legal action against a man who
substitutes the traditional post-coital smoke with a post-coital (doctored) drink...said action of course being instigated by the woman who wanted to get pregnant against his wishes... Will the Supremes stand behind her inalienable right to deceive him into parenthood? Of course there's the bright side - the neighborhood slut will no longer find herself stuck with the support the state can squeeze out of Joey Poorboy down the street just 'cause he happened to be the one who took her home from the bar...it'll be that much easier for her to hold out for an "oops" with Bobby Bankmanager and get what her child REALLY deserves. Mel Gamble Bob Whiteside wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The newspapers tomorrow (Wednesday) will be reporting the decision today of a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that morning-after contraceptive pills should be available to women without prescriptions throughout the U.S. Now, of course, although the FDA usually accepts the recommendations of these advisory panels, it may not do so in this case. Several influential pro-life groups are strongly opposed to this proposal. But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. So . . . consider the steady extension of reproductive choices available to women. Contrast it with the choices available to men who may not want to be forced into fatherhood. The post-conception choices available to women in the U.S. already include abortion, dropping off newborns at fire stations, etc., in many states, and (as a practical matter) a unilateral decision to put a child up for adoption. Now it is likely that women will have available to them, throughout the U.S., a morning-after pill without prescription. If this happens, they will be able to go into a drugstore at any hour of the day or night (as the National Organization for Women told the FDA) and buy a morning-after pill without a prescription. Meantime, what are the choices available to men, and how are THEIR choices being enlarged? Just to ask the question is to know the answer. Men's choices remain that of accepting the decision unilaterally made by a woman, and -- quite possibly -- paying her 18+ years of so-called "child support" to make it easier for her to bear the financial consequences of her own unilateral decision. In their coverage of this matter, will the media even mention this angle on the whole situation? Again, just to ask the question is to know the answer. I've been thinking about this decision since I heard it announced earlier today. And I have some questions too. First, these morning after pills are marketed under the name "Plan B." I wonder what Plan A is? Perhaps Plan A is to have unprotected sex and worry about it later. If so, that is a very risky situation for men who may be tricked into having unprotected sex if the woman insists she will take Plan B. The man has no guarantee the woman will follow through and actually take the Plan B pills. In fact, I believe the availability of these pills can increase a man's vulnerability to being tricked into creating an unplanned pregnancy and the resultant 18+ years of CS payments. From what I have read, these pills are less effective than normal birth control and their effectiveness diminishes as time passes after unprotected sex. Second, the people who needs these pills the most may not be fully aware of how to get them. How will they be informed? Will the government launch a major advertising campaign to alert women to the availability of these morning after pills? Will the fact these pills get advertised increase the incidence of unprotected sex? Will women refuse to take them because they don't want to suffer the pill's side effects like nausea, vomiting, etc. and opt instead to risk a pregnancy? Third, the financial impact needs to be addressed. What are the repercussions of removing these pills from prescription status to over the counter? If health plans start to cover female contraceptive options will those plans also cover non-prescription Plan B pills? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not
RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC,
it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." writes: In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. Oops, my mistake. Apologies. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. Agreed. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC,
it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." writes: In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. Oops, my mistake. Apologies. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. Agreed. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|