Why are we putting age limits on the Morning After Pill?

shiraz

angelica wrote:

"inhibit" according to dictionary.com: --to hold back" In terms of "holding back" a fertilised egg from it's purpose, to some this is clearly an abortion.

--to prevent: the meaning is quite obvious in regards to preventing a fertilised egg from implanting, as I mentioned to before.

--limit, or block the action or function: thereby preventing a fertilised egg from continuing it's process as an individual entity with it's own potential remains abortion to some.

In med / biology world, inhibit =/= prevent. Inhibit = delay the process, prevent= full block of a process. There's a big difference between these 2, and either way, I just can't believe the US is restricting that pill cause of semantics. Not only this is hypocritical, but also dangerous

angelica

Pacomc79 wrote:

good info, so yeah, it's exactly like it seems, an argument over subjective semantics.

To me discerning the facts is an important part of understanding the facts.

shiraz

angelica wrote:

To me discerning the facts is an important part of understanding the facts.

So you have to understand this case should be discussed (in the US, personaly I'm shocked someone need to have a disscussion about what she is "allowed" to do with her own body) in med-deffinitions, not dictionary-deffinitions.

angelica

shiraz wrote:

So you have to understand this case should be discussed (in the US, personaly I'm shocked someone need to have a disscussion about what she is "allowed" to do with her own body) in med-deffinitions, not dictionary-deffinitions.

The point is the medical profession does not make the moral distinctions for the individual. They attempt to put forth information neutrally. By doing so they are not suggesting that individuals do not bring their personal ethics to the table--they are rather suggesting that individuals DO bring their personal ethics to the table and add that to the mix.

Is this not the heart of "choice"?

Medical or otherwise, preventing the individual unborn entity to unfold is preventing it to unfold. We can use the word "inhibit", and still it is prevented from implanting in the uterus. We cannot deny that the very purpose of this pill is to prevent such implantation.

shiraz

Pacomc79 wrote:

This is not an Abortion, and therefore not even in the midst of that debate.

Why do we need to check an ID for emergency contraception?

Why isn't this thing available for just that Emergency Contraception in pharmacies all accross the US?

All of the debate against it is moral BS about how people "could" potentially use it.

Like most topics, I don't see ruining potentially good technology for everyone simply because there are a few people who can't control themselves.

Age limits means a 16 years old girl can't have that pill, but a 18 or 21 years old woman can? If that's correct, then the whole 'semantics' argument is irrelevant for that spesific case (which makes it even more strange & stupid).

shiraz

angelica wrote:

The point is the medical profession does not make the moral distinctions for the individual. They attempt to put forth information neutrally. By doing so they are not suggesting that individuals do not bring their personal ethics to the table--they are rather suggesting that individuals DO bring their personal ethics to the table and add that to the mix.

Is this not the heart of "choice"?

Medical or otherwise, preventing the individual unborn entity to unfold is preventing it to unfold. We can use the word "inhibit", and still it is prevented from implanting in the uterus. We cannot deny that the very purpose of this pill is to prevent such implantation.

Not moral distinctions, but simply distinctions who one should consider. I meant what I said before, physically there is a big difference between an "inhibition-drug" than a "preventing drug".

And no, the main activity of Levonorgestrel pill is preventing ovulation & disrupting fertilization, that's why it has only 85% effectiveness.

btw, I didn't understand the part of "Is this not the heart of choice?".

angelica

shiraz wrote:

Not moral distinctions, but simply distinctions who one should consider. I meant what I said before, physically there is a big difference between an "inhibition-drug" than a "preventing drug".

Are you trying to say the purpose of this drug is NOT to prevent pregnancy?

Earlier you said: "Inhibit = delay the process". Are you suggesting that people are not preventing pregnancy but merely delaying it? When this pill forces the unborn entity, complete with it's individual DNA, to be aborted, that's not delaying a (edit: this specific) pregnancy.

btw, I didn't understand the part of "Is this not the heart of choice?".

Having one's full choice is about taking the scientific or medical facts and processing that individually through one's own personal beliefs. The heart of choice is where each individual chooses for themselves, based on their beliefs and how they uniquely interpret the facts. Science and the medical profession cannot interpret our values judgements for us. Nor do they attempt to take away our personal choice--rather the neutrality of science encourages our personal interpretation of the facts.

SundaySilence

angelica wrote:

You've obviously considered these issues. I encourage each person to consider their own personal ethics/morals code for themselves. For some people, the EC pill can equal abortion.

In each situation, the individual is responsible for their each choice, whether they are aware of all the variables. Therefore, it's very important that each person be as aware of as many variables as possible, as per their own personal inner code of ethics.

You can speak for yourself, or a prevalent idea. You cannot speak for everyone.

There's not much to consider. The answers are obvious to most. But I'm speaking in terms of the public arena. Personal inner codes have no place in legislation of the general populace.

shiraz

angelica wrote:

Are you trying to say the purpose of this drug is NOT to prevent pregnancy?

Earlier you said: "Inhibit = delay the process". Are you suggesting that people are not preventing pregnancy but merely delaying it? When this pill forces the unborn entity, complete with it's individual DNA, to be aborted, that's not delaying a (edit: this specific) pregnancy.




Having one's full choice is about taking the scientific or medical facts and processing that individually through one's own personal beliefs. The heart of choice is where each individual chooses for themselves, based on their beliefs and how they uniquely interpret the facts. Science and the medical profession cannot interpret our values judgements for us. Nor do they attempt to take away our personal choice--rather the neutrality of science encourages our personal interpretation of the facts.

1. delaying the process of implantation = might prevent pregnancy. Eetrogen derived pills are preventing implantation. I thought the ethical problem starts only AFTER fertilization, not before (hence, there's still no new individual DNA).

2. Science medical profession = another source of info who can help us decide what is good for us and what's not. That's why understanding med-deffinitions is important.

2. So the choice should be mine & mine only, I don't need someone else to decide for me what age should I use it etc', the only thing I might need is an un-biased recommendations & info, not rules.

4. What about that age thing I've asked about?

1970RR

angelica wrote:

Having one's full choice is about taking the scientific or medical facts and processing that individually through one's own personal beliefs. The heart of choice is where each individual chooses for themselves, based on their beliefs and how they uniquely interpret the facts. Science and the medical profession cannot interpret our values judgements for us. Nor do they attempt to take away our personal choice--rather the neutrality of science encourages our personal interpretation of the facts.

And the science/medical profession has spokan and said that this drug is safe for sale over the counter. The whole reason this pill has been held up from over-the-counter sales is because the Feds want to make this choice for you, against the advice of the professionals.

angelica

SundaySilence wrote:

There's not much to consider. The answers are obvious to most. But I'm speaking in terms of the public arena. Personal inner codes have no place in legislation of the general populace.

Apparently, certain personal/ethical codes are rampant throughout legislation of the general populace. The opposite is to go by an anarchistic system. It doesn't look like that's happening at this time.

angelica

1970RR wrote:

And the science/medical profession has spokan and said that this drug is safe for sale over the counter. The whole reason this pill has been held up from over-the-counter sales is because the Feds want to make this choice for you, against the advice of the professionals.

I've not spoken to this point at all--my concern was with certain fallacies that I saw being presented.

angelica

shiraz wrote:

1. delaying the process of implantation = might prevent pregnancy. Eetrogen derived pills are preventing implantation. I thought the ethical problem starts only AFTER fertilization, not before (hence, there's still no new individual DNA).

Do you realise that fertilisation happens at conception--when sperm meets egg, which is clearly before the pregnancy itself occurs??--before implantation in the uterus?

Your above "point" above, about when the ethical problem occurs, indicates exactly what I'm concerned with: misinformation, misunderstanding, and misconstruing of the facts.

shiraz

angelica wrote:

Do you realise that fertilisation happens at conception--when sperm meets egg, which is clearly before the pregnancy itself occurs??--before implantation in the uterus?

Your above "point" above, about when the ethical problem occurs, indicates exactly what I'm concerned with: misinformation, misunderstanding, and misconstruing of the facts.

This is exactly what I said - the only ethical problem starts AFTER fertilisation ,hence before implantation. Like I've said, main activity of Levonorgestrel pill is preventing ovulation & disrupting fertilization, that's why it has only 85% effectiveness - it MIGHT prevent pregnancy if you took it after fertilisation already occured.

And don't worry, I'm a molecular biologist (MSc), we are inventing these kind of pills (:

angelica

shiraz wrote:

This is exactly what I said - the only ethical problem starts AFTER fertilisation ,hence before implantation. Like I've said, main activity of Levonorgestrel pill is preventing ovulation & disrupting fertilization, that's why it has only 85% effectiveness - it MIGHT prevent pregnancy if you took it after fertilisation already occured.

And don't worry, I'm a molecular biologist (MSc), we are inventing these kind of pills (:

If someone is concerned with and opposed to causing an "abortion" in the sense that the fertilised egg is DIS-allowed to implant in the uterus, they are not going to be happy knowing that with this pill it MIGHT not happen. To some people, the slightest possibility of deliberately aborting their own child is highly repugnant. And I respect that point of view, and it's validity.

Again, the intentions of the individual taking the pill--obviously in order to prevent pregnancy--is of prime importance when assessing accountability, by any ethical standard. For some it may be viewed as acceptable, for others it is viewed as highly unacceptable. I respect the individual's right to decide for themselves, and I support the individual in assessing their own personal moral fibre in choosing. Yes, science provides understanding and a very valid key to making a good personal choice. At the same time, the choice falls to the individual, ultimately, and not science itself, which, at least in theory, avoids trampling personal choice.

Obviously, the legalisation or not of the pill, including for certain age groups, is an extension of individual moral choice and it's ramifications.

decides2dream

nonetheless...there should be no age restriction put on access to these pills. whether one considers them abortion or not is irrelevant. the subject is the age limit...and the question is: WHY? condoms may be sold to anyone, any age...no restrictions. a girl may go and buy BC pills, no age restriction. a girl may have a LEGAL abortion in this country, no age restriction. the EC pill is LEGAL. so then, WHY the age restriction? makes zero sense.

Pacomc79

decides2dream wrote:

nonetheless...there should be no age restriction put on access to these pills. whether one considers them abortion or not is irrelevant. the subject is the age limit...and the question is: WHY? condoms may be sold to anyone, any age...no restrictions. a girl may go and buy BC pills, no age restriction. a girl may have a LEGAL abortion in this country, no age restriction. the EC pill is LEGAL. so then, WHY the age restriction? makes zero sense.

Perception..........

shiraz

angelica wrote:

Obviously, the legalisation or not of the pill, including for certain age groups, is an extension of individual moral choice and it's ramifications.

I still haven't got an answer about the age limitations - why is it morally ok for a 19 years old girl to use it, and it wouldn't be morally ok for a 16 years old to use it? The drug is allowed, so this has nothing to do to with abortion arguments. What's the real reason for doing this kind of thing?

decides2dream

Pacomc79 wrote:

Perception..........

point is, who gives a shit? it should NOT be about perception. if it is legal, which it is, access should be readily available for ALL. it's bullshit, nothing more.

i personally couldn't care less what anyone's personally held beliefs are in reagrds to abortion, BC, etc...as long as it does not infringe on my rights, or the rights of women in general to safe, legal access to all. you don't want it? don't use it. but do not try to infringe on others. it has no place. and usre, yada, yada...we can get into the whole 'abortion debate'...which never ends, rights of the fertilized egg....etc. honestly, doesn't matter here. it's ALREADY been decided: it is LEGAL.

so then, the question remains....WHY is access to a completely legal form of BC, EC, being denied access for a segment of the population? it's wrong.

blackredyellow

decides2dream wrote:

point is, who gives a shit? it should NOT be about perception. if it is legal, which it is, access should be readily available for ALL. it's bullshit, nothing more.

i personally couldn't care less what anyone's personally held beliefs are in reagrds to abortion, BC, etc...as long as it does not infringe on my rights, or the rights of women in general to safe, legal access to all. you don't want it? don't use it. but do not try to infringe on others. it has no place. and usre, yada, yada...we can get into the whole 'abortion debate'...which never ends, rights of the fertilized egg....etc. honestly, doesn't matter here. it's ALREADY been decided: it is LEGAL.

so then, the question remains....WHY is access to a completely legal form of BC, EC, being denied access for a segment of the population? it's wrong.

Only to play devil's advocate here, but doesn't a woman need a prescription to get the birth control pill or patch or whatever? And unless I am wrong, I think a minor can still get plan B if a doctor prescribes it.

That being said, I think that this is a good move to put it OTC...