Morning-After Pill May Go Over The Counter (for women 18 and above only)

[almaty 19]

i hope it does indeed take place..people need to make their own choices based on what they wish to do with their lives and/or body and not the federal gov't

[danae 0]

And I still think, if someone doesn't want to take the pill, great, that's fine, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's choice to take the pill themselves. Yeah, it would be great if all birth control was 100% effective 100% of the time, but it's not, and not only that, women are HUMAN beings... *shock, horror*...and we DO make mistakes on top of less-than-perfect methods of birth control.

And as for teaching morals and abstinence...great, but we see how far that's gotten us.

Why can't we just leave other women's bodies to themselves to make choices instead of judging and blaming? GRRRRRRRRR

[Canuck Carrie 1]

*claps hands for Frances and Almaty*

[incanada1234 0]

It becomes a baby at the fetus stage when it begins to live. Two cells floating together is not a life. One it implants itself and begins the parasitic fetal stage, it is alive-the mother's body makes it so.

Gotcha

[Fandango 1,439]

I don't know exactly where I stand on the actual morning-after pill, but I just feel that it doesn't need to be made THAT easy.

What's the big dealio with going to the dr? And pls no one post that 'Bush forced me to have an abortion' shite....it's called personal responsibility!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't know exactly where I stand on the actual morning-after pill, but I just feel that it doesn't need to be made THAT easy.

What's the big dealio with going to the dr? And pls no one post that 'Bush forced me to have an abortion' shite.... it's called personal responsibility!

The point there was that unbeknownst to you your doctor could have made a personal 'moral/ethical' decision not to prescribe the pill, and you wouldn't necessarily find this out until you need to have it, at which point you might have to do a lot of running around trying to find another doctor or health professional in time.

The pill serves a purpose - it should be readily-available to those who need it. Seems fair to me.

Edited August 2, 2006 by erekose

[JAYKE 0]

Why can't we just leave other women's bodies to themselves to make choices instead of judging and blaming? GRRRRRRRRR

Well, as far as abortion, SOMEONE has to stick up for the unborn babies.

I agree, and at the point where a baby becomes a baby I have a huge problem with that.

But not when it's a fetus?

It becomes a baby at the fetus stage when it begins to live. Two cells floating together is not a life. One it implants itself and begins the parasitic fetal stage, it is alive-the mother's body makes it so.

I'm curious (and not at all confrontational), is that the church's definition, or your personal one?

The reason I ask is because some religious groups are very opposed to using in-vitro embryos for stem-cell research... If the church does not feel it's a life until implantation, then why not use them in an effort to help humanity? After all, these "stem cells" embryos are only 50-150 cells. If the church feels that is "destroying life", then what is the difference with the morning after pill? In both scenarios, both are stem cells, none specialized for "life functions", and neither are implanted. The only difference is just a relatively minor difference in the amount of stem cells.

[Traviesa 0]

Why can't we just leave other women's bodies to themselves to make choices instead of judging and blaming? GRRRRRRRRR

Well, as far as abortion, SOMEONE has to stick up for the unborn babies.

I agree, and at the point where a baby becomes a baby I have a huge problem with that.

But not when it's a fetus?

It becomes a baby at the fetus stage when it begins to live. Two cells floating together is not a life. One it implants itself and begins the parasitic fetal stage, it is alive-the mother's body makes it so.

I'm curious (and not at all confrontational), is that the church's definition, or your personal one?

The reason I ask is because some religious groups are very opposed to using in-vitro embryos for stem-cell research... If the church does not feel it's a life until implantation, then why not use them in an effort to help humanity? After all, these "stem cells" embryos are only 50-150 cells. If the church feels that is "destroying life", then what is the difference with the morning after pill? In both scenarios, both are stem cells, none specialized for "life functions", and neither are implanted. The only difference is just a relatively minor difference in the amount of stem cells.

I honestly have no idea what the church's definition is or which church we're referring to or anything like that...this is the definition I've come to based on what I learned in biology class...I very possibly might be wrong, but it doesn't have anything to do with religion.

[incanada1234 0]

And pls no one post that 'Bush forced me to have an abortion' shite....it's called personal responsibility!

You know that article was sarcastically posted right?

[chri'stina 190]

Why can't we just leave other women's bodies to themselves to make choices instead of judging and blaming? GRRRRRRRRR

Well, as far as abortion, SOMEONE has to stick up for the unborn babies.

I agree, and at the point where a baby becomes a baby I have a huge problem with that.

But not when it's a fetus?

It becomes a baby at the fetus stage when it begins to live. Two cells floating together is not a life. One it implants itself and begins the parasitic fetal stage, it is alive-the mother's body makes it so.

I'm curious (and not at all confrontational), is that the church's definition, or your personal one?

The reason I ask is because some religious groups are very opposed to using in-vitro embryos for stem-cell research... If the church does not feel it's a life until implantation, then why not use them in an effort to help humanity? After all, these "stem cells" embryos are only 50-150 cells. If the church feels that is "destroying life", then what is the difference with the morning after pill? In both scenarios, both are stem cells, none specialized for "life functions", and neither are implanted. The only difference is just a relatively minor difference in the amount of stem cells.

me again...

Glad you mentioned that because for me, I wouldn't want to get rid of a fertilized egg, meaning the moment the egg and sperm join. It's still life in my opinion at that moment, a separate being in the process of being formed. ( I know you may not have the same opinion but just stating my view on why I personally would not then want to take the morning after pill). Whether it's called a fetus yet or not, I personally think it's still a life.

Edited August 2, 2006 by stina&suj

[incanada1234 0]

Glad you mentioned that because for me, I wouldn't want to get rid of a fertilized egg, meaning the moment the egg and sperm join. It's still life in my opinion at that moment, a separate being in the process of being formed. ( I know you may not have the same opinion but just stating my view on why I personally would not then want to take the morning after pill). Whether it's called a fetus yet or not, I personally think it's still a life.

I think the argument is that some people believe that if it's only an embryo, it's not a life yet. Or something. Not sure how that can be though since the heart forms almost right away after implantation.

[Traviesa 0]

Glad you mentioned that because for me, I wouldn't want to get rid of a fertilized egg, meaning the moment the egg and sperm join. It's still life in my opinion at that moment, a separate being in the process of being formed. ( I know you may not have the same opinion but just stating my view on why I personally would not then want to take the morning after pill). Whether it's called a fetus yet or not, I personally think it's still a life.

I think the argument is that some people believe that if it's only an embryo, it's not a life yet. Or something. Not sure how that can be though since the heart forms almost right away after implantation.

That's why I believe that after implantation, it's a life. Before implantation, it's not a life to me...and maybe I am making an exception to justify myself, I don't know...maybe if I had never been in the situation where I felt like I needed to take it, my beliefs would be different...

[JAYKE 0]

Why can't we just leave other women's bodies to themselves to make choices instead of judging and blaming? GRRRRRRRRR

Well, as far as abortion, SOMEONE has to stick up for the unborn babies.

I agree, and at the point where a baby becomes a baby I have a huge problem with that.

But not when it's a fetus?

It becomes a baby at the fetus stage when it begins to live. Two cells floating together is not a life. One it implants itself and begins the parasitic fetal stage, it is alive-the mother's body makes it so.

I'm curious (and not at all confrontational), is that the church's definition, or your personal one?

The reason I ask is because some religious groups are very opposed to using in-vitro embryos for stem-cell research... If the church does not feel it's a life until implantation, then why not use them in an effort to help humanity? After all, these "stem cells" embryos are only 50-150 cells. If the church feels that is "destroying life", then what is the difference with the morning after pill? In both scenarios, both are stem cells, none specialized for "life functions", and neither are implanted. The only difference is just a relatively minor difference in the amount of stem cells.

I honestly have no idea what the church's definition is or which church we're referring to or anything like that...this is the definition I've come to based on what I learned in biology class...I very possibly might be wrong, but it doesn't have anything to do with religion.

Gotcha

I was honestly only asking because I am a firm believer in "you can't criticize what you don't understand" and I was under the impression that your definition was faith-based (or rather based on the teachings of a specific faith), and I apologize for the assumption. As someone who has great difficulty understanding very strong religious faith (but do not neccessarily have contempt for it), I was just looking for clarification. Further, I respect your decision (enough so not to ask what your personal view on stem-cell research is, lol), and your opinion, which is why I asked.

----

Back to topic, I don't think they should be an over-the-counter drug. The pill isn't, nor is the patch... Why? Because they are hormones that can play with your body. I did some dumb things at 18, 19, 20 (the cream of wheat diet springs to mind). I can see many panicked young women so worried about being pregnant that maybe they take two or three, "just to be safe". Yes, they can do it with a prescription too, but at least then there'd be some record of what they may have taken. There's just too much risk to it.... Hmm, I guess the same can be said for tylenol, advil, etc., but I think the panic factor for an unwanted pregnancy may be cause for more desperate measures than a headache.

Wow, I'm babbling. I'll blame the heat.

[Fandango 1,439]

I don't know exactly where I stand on the actual morning-after pill, but I just feel that it doesn't need to be made THAT easy.

What's the big dealio with going to the dr? And pls no one post that 'Bush forced me to have an abortion' shite.... it's called personal responsibility!

The point there was that unbeknownst to you your doctor could have made a personal 'moral/ethical' decision not to prescribe the pill, and you wouldn't necessarily find this out until you need to have it, at which point you might have to do a lot of running around trying to find another doctor or health professional in time.

The pill serves a purpose - it should be readily-available to those who need it. Seems fair to me.

The point is, then go to a doctor that doesn't have a moral dilemma. As far as my comment about personal resposibility...isn't it our own responsibility to know what kind of doctors that we go to? Surely as a woman...if I felt a certain way about this that and the other, I would make sure I was at a doctor who wouldn't stand in the way of certain morally-questionable 'treatments' That article was written in a very blame-game-eque way...oh it's this one's fault, that one's fault....how about searching out a planned parenthood? How about going thru the yellow pages? Nah, work's busy, and whatnot...so let's just blame Bush. Please don't let this get into a political debate...but I feel that the author did not manage her own health responsibly.

If the 'moral' issue is such a rampant issue in the area of wherever that article's author was from...what's to stop pharmacists from having the same exact issue? This OTC does nothing to combat that problem...it's just making it easier to obtain. Hey...no condom? Get thee to CVS after the fact!

If one had to go see a doctor or planned parenthood before obtaining the MAP, one would be more diligent to make sure one didnt' have a accident. Not, hey...let's go bareback and I'll just take a pill in the am. As I said, I don't know where I stand on the actual pill itself...but it should be monitored better than just going to the drugstore & getting it.

[Traviesa 0]

Hey...no condom? Get thee to CVS after the fact!

If one had to go see a doctor or planned parenthood before obtaining the MAP, one would be more diligent to make sure one didnt' have a accident. Not, hey...let's go bareback and I'll just take a pill in the am. As I said, I don't know where I stand on the actual pill itself...but it should be monitored better than just going to the drugstore & getting it.

I still just simply cannot see anyone actually doing that. Spend $5 for a pack of condoms or $30 for two little pills....what would you do?