The fact that you feel your argument applies to any ageis extremely telling.
Telling of what?
why his opinion is as it is of course :?
but thanks for letting me clarify, friend, I appreciate that
No clarification given.... friend...
So let's try again.... WHY is his opinion as it is (of course)? And it's not because of his argument because that's his opinion - doesn't tell me anything about the WHY. Are you trying to say, as you implied in previous posts that he (and others) are encouraging and condoning underage sex (I'm not even going to go down the 7/8 and yes, 9 year old route you have been trying to steer this thread to)? That he (and others) may be bad parents (or potential parents)? Bad citizens? Bad people?
Or maybe this 'extremely telling' bit you added was just a little flippant remark...
Just trying to understand here...
EDIT: Actually, I don't really care. I'm putting it down to flippant and histrionics. mikepegg44 might see it differently as this 'extremely telling' was directed at him.
Thanks for the needed in this strange and twisty-turny thread.
Certainly taken a strange turn, hasn't it? So far away from the intention of the OP, though, with the turn it has taken, it actually illustrates very well what the OP was saying to start with! The 'choices of mischaracterization' and 'how manipulative the media can be', etc. I'm saying not just the media!
Throughout this thread, facts were misrepresented, pathos and histrionics used (7 years old, take away parenting role,etc), very loaded words inappropriately implied from posts (eg. condone, encourage, etc.).
When facts challenged: 'Matters not.... the points have been made'. EXACTLY the stance of the media/politicians, etc. using these tactics. The points have been made, ie flawed, fallacious and misguided 'information' has been heard in the way they wished to suit their agenda. Even if these 'points' are proven false or completely flippant, they have been heard... (a bit like barristers saying stuff they are not allowed to say in court and get a reprimand, they don't care - it has been heard, it serves their purpose...).
The government here is in the full swing of this at the moment (with all the reforms here). Using words (and 'liberties' with such) and turns of phrases that present their 'case' in a totally erroneous way.
In the case of the OP with the 'abortion pill'... Sure it sounds REALLY bad that a young teen could get an ABORTION (with all that implies) without their parents ever knowing it. And probably a lot of people that are anti-abortion would agree with that (and some that aren't). But when it comes down to it being 'only' birth control, it doesn't have the same impact, does it?
“There is something about words. In expert hands, manipulated deftly, they take you prisoner. Wind themselves around your limbs like spider silk, and when you are so enthralled you cannot move, they pierce your skin, enter your blood, numb your thoughts. Inside you they work their magic.”
Or this one from George Orwell: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
“There is something about words. In expert hands, manipulated deftly, they take you prisoner. Wind themselves around your limbs like spider silk, and when you are so enthralled you cannot move, they pierce your skin, enter your blood, numb your thoughts. Inside you they work their magic.”
Or this one from George Orwell: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
why his opinion is as it is of course :?
but thanks for letting me clarify, friend, I appreciate that
No clarification given.... friend...
So let's try again.... WHY is his opinion as it is (of course)? And it's not because of his argument because that's his opinion - doesn't tell me anything about the WHY. Are you trying to say, as you implied in previous posts that he (and others) are encouraging and condoning underage sex (I'm not even going to go down the 7/8 and yes, 9 year old route you have been trying to steer this thread to)? That he (and others) may be bad parents (or potential parents)? Bad citizens? Bad people?
Or maybe this 'extremely telling' bit you added was just a little flippant remark...
Just trying to understand here...
EDIT: Actually, I don't really care. I'm putting it down to flippant and histrionics. mikepegg44 might see it differently as this 'extremely telling' was directed at him.
His opinion is the same as this judges... age makes no difference that is what I mean by telling.
I thought that would be explanatory but I guess for some reason YOU need more clarification.
so let's just let all the teens/kids keep their "dirty little secret" a secret too long till it's too late to do anything about it. let's have a bunch of pre teens waddling their way to social studies class in middle school.
how naive can anyone be to believe that a young person having sex is going to fucking tell their parents about it within 24 hours of it happening?
fucking unbelievable.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I don't care what anyone calls that pill a child should not have it without their parents permission.
This is what the media is discussing now not what the pill is called.
Who cares they called it an abortion pill. Big deal.
The big deal was this judge who lacked good common sense and did not address
age appropriateness. Now if he had said lets drop parental permission necessary to
15 16 maybe half the country would not be freaking as much.
Many kids can live as adults by the time they are 16. Drop our of school, drive, work etc.
But by not making this distinction he removed parents right to parent, guide, acknowledge
their children's choices at young ages when they need it.
The Op agrees with this judge so what his purpose here was to point out what term
was used which blew right over my head and others here
because of the outrageousness of this judge's actions... what gall!
Who does something like this?
Like I said myself and other posters here are not alone. Watch the news.
Drama - 'removed the parents right to parent...' No right has been removed. If this 'right' had been taken seriously by the adults to start with, the young person would probably not be in that situation. Not just the unprotected sex situation but more so the 'I can't speak to my parents about it for fear of....... (fill in the blanks). If there had been 'proper' parenting, there would have been communication.
Even if this parenting was 'top notch' with all guidance, information, sharing, etc. and this type of 'accident' happened, then the doors of communication would be wide open and the youngster/teen would KNOW that she (and potentially the 'he' involved) would be able to speak to their parents without fear and knowing they would support and help. This legislation is not for these kids.
This kind of legislation help those where there has been no parenting or very poor parenting to start with. Those that have no communication with their parents. Those that know there could be dire consequences for them (ie physical/mental abuse) if the parents found out. Or those with parents that just don't care. These are the girls that need this.
Be real and leave the histrionics of the 7/8/9 year olds behind as they are not really the issue... the US have the most teen pregnancies than any other country in the western world - by far. Cause of this??? Hmmm... let me see... poor parenting? Poor communication? Broken homes? Unhelpful legislation? Puritanism (ie 'we don't talk about sex') All of those + more.
....what his purpose here was to point out what term was used .
That was exactly the purpose of his thread. How the media will mis-inform to suit their agenda. Looks like it worked.
"Wasn't really meant to be a discussion on the MAP. Just the fact that they blatantly called it an Abortion pill, which it isn't. The subtle nature in which they mis-characterize their information is the most dangerous thing Fox does. Most people would take abortion pill at face value and automatically are against it. It is like being against birth control or condoms."
But then the first post in response went straight on a tangent.
Fine Pandora, agree to disagree. But how is it that you feel and understand rapists, murderers, criminals and the like, but when it comes to pregnancy prevention for all, you all of a sudden are livid at the judge? Go figure...
A judge that is allowing a birth control to a demographic that: a. can't talk to their parents about sex in general let alone protection and birth control, b. can't get sex ed in school because, well, I don't know why, but it's certainly not widespread, and c. it's just a voodoo topic among society in this country. We can watch and discuss crime and violence all we want but we're all real prudes when it comes to being open about sex and protection/birth control, especially with minors. What's going on with this is ground-breaking, certainly controversial, but finally, girls can get what they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy, which is a HUGE problem that's never been truly addressed until now.
Drama - 'removed the parents right to parent...' No right has been removed. If this 'right' had been taken seriously by the adults to start with, the young person would probably not be in that situation. Not just the unprotected sex situation but more so the 'I can't speak to my parents about it for fear of....... (fill in the blanks). If there had been 'proper' parenting, there would have been communication.
Even if this parenting was 'top notch' with all guidance, information, sharing, etc. and this type of 'accident' happened, then the doors of communication would be wide open and the youngster/teen would KNOW that she (and potentially the 'he' involved) would be able to speak to their parents without fear and knowing they would support and help. This legislation is not for these kids.
This kind of legislation help those where there has been no parenting or very poor parenting to start with. Those that have no communication with their parents. Those that know there could be dire consequences for them (ie physical/mental abuse) if the parents found out. Or those with parents that just don't care. These are the girls that need this.
Be real and leave the histrionics of the 7/8/9 year olds behind as they are not really the issue... the US have the most teen pregnancies than any other country in the western world - by far. Cause of this??? Hmmm... let me see... poor parenting? Poor communication? Broken homes? Unhelpful legislation? Puritanism (ie 'we don't talk about sex') All of those + more.
Pandora, you seem stuck on 9 year olds having sex. I'm not going to say its never happened, but I will say that its not happening much. If there is the stray pre-pubescent child having sex, I doubt they are aware of this pill or abortion for that matter. This pill should be and over the counter option for ANY woman/girl that needs it just as condoms are.
Thisdoesnt mean parents can't still educate their children about consequenses of their actions. Just because a young girl has sex, doesn't mean they should be forced to have a baby.
my daughter is 6 years old. she's not even at the age of thinking boys are gross yet, never mind thinking they are hot, never mind even thinking sexually about them. to her, boys are just friends who use a different bathroom and play rougher than the girls do.
to believe that a 7/8/9 year old is going to be having sex and, not only that, having the knowledge to go on their own to the pharmacy to ask for a morning after pill is absolutely ludicrous, and basically so stupid that the mere notion should be considered baiting.
the judge is merely keeping the door open for those extreme cases where a girl may be raped and as a consequence might get pregnant from it, and not have a parent as defined in the proposed legislation.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I am glad you don't care for accurate reporting. I mean, who cares right, why not call it the murder pill? or better yet, baby poison? That won't cloud anyone's opinion on the matter.
But maybe my trying to understand what a young person goes through at that age in regards to sex is too foreign a concept for some. What they need isn't a parental lecture, trust me when I say, the experience of going to get this pill, taking it, and sweating through that stuff is quite a lesson and it is usually learned.
What about the kids who don't have parents who give a shit? what about the kids who need it now but won't see their dead beat mom or dad for 3 days? It isn't a perfect world, who are you to say what is right for everyone else and what they need and should get from their parents...they may not have any.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This pill should be and over the counter option for ANY woman/girl that needs it just as condoms are.
This is an excellent point. Why are we relying on one methodology when the other is more effective at doing the same thing. So are children not to be allowed to buy condoms over the counter, or without parental slips?
What 7 or 8 yr old girl (or boy for that matter) have you heard of having consensual sex. My 8 yr old daughter still thinks boys has cooties. Except for Justin bieber.
you need to set your daughter straight... justin beiber DOES have cooties.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I believe in consequence for actions Mike. A huge part of good parenting.
A huge part of a good society.
Children must learn this to make the right choices in their adult life.
There is a big difference in allowing all ages without parental permission
then allowing young adults access without parental permission.
The fact that you feel your argument applies to any age is extremely telling
and makes about as much sense as this judge.
Do you want to tell the homeless teens I work with every week that they need parental consent to buy something or should I? and yes, some are extremely young
Do you want to tell the teen age prostitutes that sell themselves to live that they are making a mistake and that, because some people believe in consequences (most do by the way, you aren't alone, but consequences don't have to be life altering to be effective) they are not able to buy something that would help them not get pregnant because the last john didn't use a condom?
Or better yet, why don't we just give them a lesson in consequences, they haven't experienced too many
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
As a parent of three girls all within the ages that have been talked about here (11, 13, 15) I think the judge actually showed a huge amount of common sense.
I get that it's a sensitive subject, but feel strongly about it.
There aren't too many girls who are of 'reproductive age' but still very young, having sex. Yes, girls are starting puberty earlier, but that doesn't mean they are having sex. It doesn't mean they know what sex is, let alone want to do it! And the chances of those super young girls even knowing they have access to the pill or walking into a pharmacy and buying it are pretty slim also.
Now...I live in the real world and I understand that there ARE young girls out there having sex. In my opinion way too young to be having sex but it happens. Whether it's through rape, incest, peer pressure or just curiosity it happens. And the morning after pill is a contraceptive that can be used in an emergency situation to prevent a bigger situation happening down the track.
I do not believe for a second that this decision takes away the rights of the parent to actually parent. Those rights (more like responsibilities actually) are still there and will always remain there. But take this situation for example:
13 or 14 year old girl, goes to a party with trusted friends. Parents are good parents, drop her off and pick her up, they know where she is, who she's with and are happy to let her go. Unbeknownst to them, there is alcohol at the party....or even no alcohol, just a particularly rambunctious boy there. The girl, either through her own silliness, or through drink spiking, or through peer pressure has a drink or two.....and loses any sense of consequence she may have had and ends up having sex......or in the case of no alcohol, the boy pressures said girl into having sex. She knows she doesn't really want to...or maybe she does cause teenage girls ARE fickle creatures.....whatever the reason, she ends up having sex with this boy.
Is it not better that girl has access to a pill that can prevent pregnancy and stop her one mistake becoming a lifelong consequence? What if she is scared to tell her parents and waits and then is faced with the decision to either abort or continue with a pregnancy. Both of those options have bigger, more far reaching consequences than taking a pill. (which btw, is not an easy fix - from what I understand there are a lot of nasty side effects, and taken once, would probably have the effect of a fantastic deterrent for sex in the future).
This does not mean that she should not be educated about how condoms should be used to prevent STD's, that any pill, not just the morning after pill, does not protect you 100% from pregnancy and does not protect you at all from STD's. That she should not be educated on making smart choices.
It means that they judge is well aware that teenagers, young and older, WILL make stupid decisions. And that one stupid decision should not have a consequence that follows her for the rest of her life.
My girls are educated, and they know right from wrong. They are good girls and I always know where they are and who they are with. But am I naive enough to think that they will never be in a situation that isn't ideal? That they will never succumb to peer pressure, that they will never have a drink and make stupid mistakes?
No.
I understand that despite my best education and intention, they may well end up in some situation that means they make a stupid decision. I would much rather they have the ability to go and get this for themselves in the first 24 hours, and worry about having to tell me later, than have them stressing out and scared and tell me later when it's too late.
This doesn't even begin to touch the surface of all the other situations out there where a young girl might need to take this pill and might not be able to tell her parents. What if she's going to get a beating if she talks to them? What if they are not around? What if they are around but don't care? What if she's been raped and is too scared and ashamed to talk? What if......
There are honestly so many scenarios that make this a decision in favour of common sense, that I find it unfathomable that anyone would be upset about it. But that's just me.
As a parent of three girls all within the ages that have been talked about here (11, 13, 15) I think the judge actually showed a huge amount of common sense.
I get that it's a sensitive subject, but feel strongly about it.
There aren't too many girls who are of 'reproductive age' but still very young, having sex. Yes, girls are starting puberty earlier, but that doesn't mean they are having sex. It doesn't mean they know what sex is, let alone want to do it! And the chances of those super young girls even knowing they have access to the pill or walking into a pharmacy and buying it are pretty slim also.
Now...I live in the real world and I understand that there ARE young girls out there having sex. In my opinion way too young to be having sex but it happens. Whether it's through rape, incest, peer pressure or just curiosity it happens. And the morning after pill is a contraceptive that can be used in an emergency situation to prevent a bigger situation happening down the track.
I do not believe for a second that this decision takes away the rights of the parent to actually parent. Those rights (more like responsibilities actually) are still there and will always remain there. But take this situation for example:
13 or 14 year old girl, goes to a party with trusted friends. Parents are good parents, drop her off and pick her up, they know where she is, who she's with and are happy to let her go. Unbeknownst to them, there is alcohol at the party....or even no alcohol, just a particularly rambunctious boy there. The girl, either through her own silliness, or through drink spiking, or through peer pressure has a drink or two.....and loses any sense of consequence she may have had and ends up having sex......or in the case of no alcohol, the boy pressures said girl into having sex. She knows she doesn't really want to...or maybe she does cause teenage girls ARE fickle creatures.....whatever the reason, she ends up having sex with this boy.
Is it not better that girl has access to a pill that can prevent pregnancy and stop her one mistake becoming a lifelong consequence? What if she is scared to tell her parents and waits and then is faced with the decision to either abort or continue with a pregnancy. Both of those options have bigger, more far reaching consequences than taking a pill. (which btw, is not an easy fix - from what I understand there are a lot of nasty side effects, and taken once, would probably have the effect of a fantastic deterrent for sex in the future).
This does not mean that she should not be educated about how condoms should be used to prevent STD's, that any pill, not just the morning after pill, does not protect you 100% from pregnancy and does not protect you at all from STD's. That she should not be educated on making smart choices.
It means that they judge is well aware that teenagers, young and older, WILL make stupid decisions. And that one stupid decision should not have a consequence that follows her for the rest of her life.
My girls are educated, and they know right from wrong. They are good girls and I always know where they are and who they are with. But am I naive enough to think that they will never be in a situation that isn't ideal? That they will never succumb to peer pressure, that they will never have a drink and make stupid mistakes?
No.
I understand that despite my best education and intention, they may well end up in some situation that means they make a stupid decision. I would much rather they have the ability to go and get this for themselves in the first 24 hours, and worry about having to tell me later, than have them stressing out and scared and tell me later when it's too late.
This doesn't even begin to touch the surface of all the other situations out there where a young girl might need to take this pill and might not be able to tell her parents. What if she's going to get a beating if she talks to them? What if they are not around? What if they are around but don't care? What if she's been raped and is too scared and ashamed to talk? What if......
There are honestly so many scenarios that make this a decision in favour of common sense, that I find it unfathomable that anyone would be upset about it. But that's just me.
/thread
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Comments
Telling of what?
but thanks for letting me clarify, friend, I appreciate that
So let's try again.... WHY is his opinion as it is (of course)? And it's not because of his argument because that's his opinion - doesn't tell me anything about the WHY. Are you trying to say, as you implied in previous posts that he (and others) are encouraging and condoning underage sex (I'm not even going to go down the 7/8 and yes, 9 year old route you have been trying to steer this thread to)? That he (and others) may be bad parents (or potential parents)? Bad citizens? Bad people?
Or maybe this 'extremely telling' bit you added was just a little flippant remark...
Just trying to understand here...
EDIT: Actually, I don't really care. I'm putting it down to flippant and histrionics. mikepegg44 might see it differently as this 'extremely telling' was directed at him.
Certainly taken a strange turn, hasn't it? So far away from the intention of the OP, though, with the turn it has taken, it actually illustrates very well what the OP was saying to start with! The 'choices of mischaracterization' and 'how manipulative the media can be', etc. I'm saying not just the media!
Throughout this thread, facts were misrepresented, pathos and histrionics used (7 years old, take away parenting role,etc), very loaded words inappropriately implied from posts (eg. condone, encourage, etc.).
When facts challenged: 'Matters not.... the points have been made'. EXACTLY the stance of the media/politicians, etc. using these tactics. The points have been made, ie flawed, fallacious and misguided 'information' has been heard in the way they wished to suit their agenda. Even if these 'points' are proven false or completely flippant, they have been heard... (a bit like barristers saying stuff they are not allowed to say in court and get a reprimand, they don't care - it has been heard, it serves their purpose...).
The government here is in the full swing of this at the moment (with all the reforms here). Using words (and 'liberties' with such) and turns of phrases that present their 'case' in a totally erroneous way.
In the case of the OP with the 'abortion pill'... Sure it sounds REALLY bad that a young teen could get an ABORTION (with all that implies) without their parents ever knowing it. And probably a lot of people that are anti-abortion would agree with that (and some that aren't). But when it comes down to it being 'only' birth control, it doesn't have the same impact, does it?
“There is something about words. In expert hands, manipulated deftly, they take you prisoner. Wind themselves around your limbs like spider silk, and when you are so enthralled you cannot move, they pierce your skin, enter your blood, numb your thoughts. Inside you they work their magic.”
Or this one from George Orwell:
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
I thought that would be explanatory but I guess for some reason YOU need more clarification.
how naive can anyone be to believe that a young person having sex is going to fucking tell their parents about it within 24 hours of it happening?
fucking unbelievable.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
This is what the media is discussing now not what the pill is called.
Who cares they called it an abortion pill. Big deal.
The big deal was this judge who lacked good common sense and did not address
age appropriateness. Now if he had said lets drop parental permission necessary to
15 16 maybe half the country would not be freaking as much.
Many kids can live as adults by the time they are 16. Drop our of school, drive, work etc.
But by not making this distinction he removed parents right to parent, guide, acknowledge
their children's choices at young ages when they need it.
The Op agrees with this judge so what his purpose here was to point out what term
was used which blew right over my head and others here
because of the outrageousness of this judge's actions... what gall!
Who does something like this?
Like I said myself and other posters here are not alone. Watch the news.
Even if this parenting was 'top notch' with all guidance, information, sharing, etc. and this type of 'accident' happened, then the doors of communication would be wide open and the youngster/teen would KNOW that she (and potentially the 'he' involved) would be able to speak to their parents without fear and knowing they would support and help. This legislation is not for these kids.
This kind of legislation help those where there has been no parenting or very poor parenting to start with. Those that have no communication with their parents. Those that know there could be dire consequences for them (ie physical/mental abuse) if the parents found out. Or those with parents that just don't care. These are the girls that need this.
Be real and leave the histrionics of the 7/8/9 year olds behind as they are not really the issue... the US have the most teen pregnancies than any other country in the western world - by far. Cause of this??? Hmmm... let me see... poor parenting? Poor communication? Broken homes? Unhelpful legislation? Puritanism (ie 'we don't talk about sex') All of those + more.
That was exactly the purpose of his thread. How the media will mis-inform to suit their agenda. Looks like it worked.
"Wasn't really meant to be a discussion on the MAP. Just the fact that they blatantly called it an Abortion pill, which it isn't. The subtle nature in which they mis-characterize their information is the most dangerous thing Fox does. Most people would take abortion pill at face value and automatically are against it. It is like being against birth control or condoms."
But then the first post in response went straight on a tangent.
A judge that is allowing a birth control to a demographic that: a. can't talk to their parents about sex in general let alone protection and birth control, b. can't get sex ed in school because, well, I don't know why, but it's certainly not widespread, and c. it's just a voodoo topic among society in this country. We can watch and discuss crime and violence all we want but we're all real prudes when it comes to being open about sex and protection/birth control, especially with minors. What's going on with this is ground-breaking, certainly controversial, but finally, girls can get what they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy, which is a HUGE problem that's never been truly addressed until now.
Well said, all of it!!
Thisdoesnt mean parents can't still educate their children about consequenses of their actions. Just because a young girl has sex, doesn't mean they should be forced to have a baby.
to believe that a 7/8/9 year old is going to be having sex and, not only that, having the knowledge to go on their own to the pharmacy to ask for a morning after pill is absolutely ludicrous, and basically so stupid that the mere notion should be considered baiting.
the judge is merely keeping the door open for those extreme cases where a girl may be raped and as a consequence might get pregnant from it, and not have a parent as defined in the proposed legislation.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I am glad you don't care for accurate reporting. I mean, who cares right, why not call it the murder pill? or better yet, baby poison? That won't cloud anyone's opinion on the matter.
But maybe my trying to understand what a young person goes through at that age in regards to sex is too foreign a concept for some. What they need isn't a parental lecture, trust me when I say, the experience of going to get this pill, taking it, and sweating through that stuff is quite a lesson and it is usually learned.
What about the kids who don't have parents who give a shit? what about the kids who need it now but won't see their dead beat mom or dad for 3 days? It isn't a perfect world, who are you to say what is right for everyone else and what they need and should get from their parents...they may not have any.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This is an excellent point. Why are we relying on one methodology when the other is more effective at doing the same thing. So are children not to be allowed to buy condoms over the counter, or without parental slips?
you need to set your daughter straight... justin beiber DOES have cooties.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Do you want to tell the homeless teens I work with every week that they need parental consent to buy something or should I? and yes, some are extremely young
Do you want to tell the teen age prostitutes that sell themselves to live that they are making a mistake and that, because some people believe in consequences (most do by the way, you aren't alone, but consequences don't have to be life altering to be effective) they are not able to buy something that would help them not get pregnant because the last john didn't use a condom?
Or better yet, why don't we just give them a lesson in consequences, they haven't experienced too many
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I get that it's a sensitive subject, but feel strongly about it.
There aren't too many girls who are of 'reproductive age' but still very young, having sex. Yes, girls are starting puberty earlier, but that doesn't mean they are having sex. It doesn't mean they know what sex is, let alone want to do it! And the chances of those super young girls even knowing they have access to the pill or walking into a pharmacy and buying it are pretty slim also.
Now...I live in the real world and I understand that there ARE young girls out there having sex. In my opinion way too young to be having sex but it happens. Whether it's through rape, incest, peer pressure or just curiosity it happens. And the morning after pill is a contraceptive that can be used in an emergency situation to prevent a bigger situation happening down the track.
I do not believe for a second that this decision takes away the rights of the parent to actually parent. Those rights (more like responsibilities actually) are still there and will always remain there. But take this situation for example:
13 or 14 year old girl, goes to a party with trusted friends. Parents are good parents, drop her off and pick her up, they know where she is, who she's with and are happy to let her go. Unbeknownst to them, there is alcohol at the party....or even no alcohol, just a particularly rambunctious boy there. The girl, either through her own silliness, or through drink spiking, or through peer pressure has a drink or two.....and loses any sense of consequence she may have had and ends up having sex......or in the case of no alcohol, the boy pressures said girl into having sex. She knows she doesn't really want to...or maybe she does cause teenage girls ARE fickle creatures.....whatever the reason, she ends up having sex with this boy.
Is it not better that girl has access to a pill that can prevent pregnancy and stop her one mistake becoming a lifelong consequence? What if she is scared to tell her parents and waits and then is faced with the decision to either abort or continue with a pregnancy. Both of those options have bigger, more far reaching consequences than taking a pill. (which btw, is not an easy fix - from what I understand there are a lot of nasty side effects, and taken once, would probably have the effect of a fantastic deterrent for sex in the future).
This does not mean that she should not be educated about how condoms should be used to prevent STD's, that any pill, not just the morning after pill, does not protect you 100% from pregnancy and does not protect you at all from STD's. That she should not be educated on making smart choices.
It means that they judge is well aware that teenagers, young and older, WILL make stupid decisions. And that one stupid decision should not have a consequence that follows her for the rest of her life.
My girls are educated, and they know right from wrong. They are good girls and I always know where they are and who they are with. But am I naive enough to think that they will never be in a situation that isn't ideal? That they will never succumb to peer pressure, that they will never have a drink and make stupid mistakes?
No.
I understand that despite my best education and intention, they may well end up in some situation that means they make a stupid decision. I would much rather they have the ability to go and get this for themselves in the first 24 hours, and worry about having to tell me later, than have them stressing out and scared and tell me later when it's too late.
This doesn't even begin to touch the surface of all the other situations out there where a young girl might need to take this pill and might not be able to tell her parents. What if she's going to get a beating if she talks to them? What if they are not around? What if they are around but don't care? What if she's been raped and is too scared and ashamed to talk? What if......
There are honestly so many scenarios that make this a decision in favour of common sense, that I find it unfathomable that anyone would be upset about it. But that's just me.
Your girls are fortunate.
/thread
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014