No, I don't have to.  You made the silly assertion, YOU prove it.

No, I'm not.

But somehow this is an idea that I can agree with.

1. I am against abortion because I believe it kills babies.

2. I am against the "abortion pill" because it pretty much does the same thing.

3. I am not against using birth control methods such as the Pill or condoms. Personally I HATE condoms. As Ar15fan said, I'd almost rather not have sex at all than use those things.

4. I am not against using a "morning after" pill. IIRC, conception doesn't occur for many, many hours after the sex act...hence no life is terminated, IMHO. Even if the timing was a little off, by say a day or so, the fertilization process is so young, I don't believe what occurs could be described as an "abortion."

[b]Now,[/b] having said all that, if this sort of "remedy" becomes widespread, I think it could introduce a whole litany of detrimental side-effects to our society. Since this pill is not a barrier type of contraception, if people (read: kids) now seize the opportunity to have unfettered sexual encounters, STDs and other physical and emotional problems could skyrocket. There may even be repurcussions that we can't even fathom right now. There may even come a time when we realize that, "Oops," this pill really [i]does[/i]  negatively affect a woman's body (developing teenage girls even worse so). Many millions of females may wish they'd never heard of such a pill.

In any case, while this pill sounds like a panacea, and on its own merits I cannot fault it, we probably should be wary of its widespread use.

Twire...your use of the phrase "some people" immediately makes me disagree with your argument. I don't give a shit about some people...and people that argue that point never take that argument to be personal. How does it effect you, do you want your daughter or wife to do this? That is your answer. Not this specious crap about some people...you aren't here to protect them from themselves.

Let's see:

No abortions
No morning after "abortion pill"
No morning after high-strength BC pill
No BC pills at all

So, a bunch of unwanted babies, particularly from those who are unprepared or can't afford it, thus more of a tax burden.  

Bullshit.

And before someone preaches abstinence, fuck off with that horseshit.  I am single and I want sex and I am not going to get married to do it.  Been there, done that.

Then they will be doing us all a favor by removing themselves from the gene pool.

So you should be able to give yourself or your kids whatever meds you want? Just making sure because most of you would have a poor understanding of what you're even treating much less what meds are indicated, their side effects, drug interactions, etc. I do not see a small amount of people for self induced medication side efects. From herbal remedies and over the counter medications.
Essentially all of our drugs are potential toxins. They work by creating certain effects within the body. If pronounced enough they are quite toxic, believe me.

FWIW, I agree with you, but I am not interested in spending the majority of my days treating self induced med side efects, some of which will be fatal. I work in an Urgent Care and have done ER work as well. I'll be the one dealing with this crap. Most people who I see can't even tell me what the hell they are taking, over the counter or prescription. Believe it or not.
Very few people are really capable of self diagnosis or adept enough to understand how to treat their problems. I do agree that people have a right to do stupid shit but I am not interested in being sued because some idiot does a crash and burn in my office after swallowing a handful of crap he doesn't know anything about.

Emergency contraception is considered effective and indicated within 72 hours after unprotected sex. I test everyone for pregnancy before hand. If they are pregnant, no way. You will also have those who will insist that they cannot be pregnant because they took their emergency contraception and that may or may not be the case, which opens another can of worms. I've seen women in labor who had no idea they were even pregnant....

As for all meds being over the counter I would  submit that you could expect that, in the foreseeable future, many antibiotics would become quite useless.

Just a few things to think about. Society has alot of decisions to make in the next decade or two with regards to medical care, no doubt about that.

Why don't we stop repeating that the "morning after" pill prevents conception.  If we're going to argue something, at least lets argue the truth.

[url]http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/men/men_01pillmorningafter.html[/url]

[size=2]How does it work? [/size=2]
There are a few possibilities. The pills [b]may[/b] delay ovulation or impair thetransportation of the sperm or egg, thus preventing conception. Since conception can occur anytime from a few hours toabout 2 days after intercourse, these mechanisms [b]COULD[/b] come into play if the pills were taken soon enough after intercourse and during the right part of the woman's cycle. The other mechanism of action is for the pills to alter the lining of the uterus, making it very difficult for the embryo to implant if conception has occurred. [b]If implantation were prevented, a new life would be destroyed[/b] . If conception (fertilization) has already taken place, this is the only mechanism by which the pills could be effective. With currently available technology there is no way for a woman to know, at the time she takes these pills, whether or not she has already conceived. A pregnancy test cannot give her this information. [b]Therefore, there is always the risk that a new life will be destroyed. [/b]

SNorman, THAT sort of thinking is why a lot of people, while they oppose abortion, are uncomfortable with the "Pro-Life" crowd.  There is simply no way that the majority of the American people are going to accept the incredibly silly, nonsensical notion that an hours-old fertilized egg is legally a human being.

I agree and strongly encourage contraception(wasting my time mostly, BTW), provide same as well as emergency contraception. I will not refer anyone for an abortion.

Again Yes it should be OTC and also the morning after pill is actually two pills that cost $50 dollars. It isn't going to be treated like candy, I don't believe that it will be used recreationally.

You don't believe it will be used recreationally?

Do you have any idea how many abortions there are in this country every year? Far more invasion and difficult to obtain, yes?

Likely alot less people will worry about condoms, OCPs, their Depo shot, etc. Just stop at the drugstore in the morning...
Of course, it will be used recreationally. Better than an unwanted pregnancy but try to be at least a little realistic.

I'll bet it outsells everything except tylenol and advil.

I was actually gonna edit it again to say for the most part I don't believe it would be.

Anyways, I change my opinion on how I think it would be used but, I still think it should be OTC (It basically is in CA and it is useful from personal experience, and no it wasn't used recreationally)

It's crazy not to be for this. It will cut the unwanted pregnancies down especially for yound single women. This will save the welfare system a ton of money in the long run. Do you know how many women out there that are underage that have children that end up on welfare are? Welfare for two for 18 years stopped by a pill.

Brilliant! But coming from a Californian, not unexpected.

I simply don't see what is silly or nonsensical about repecting human life.

The FDA has determined that there are no harmful or adverse affects from taking said pill. Therefore, there is no [b]governmental[/b] need to regulate the availabilty of the pill. Therefore it should be available OTC.

Some opponents say the availability of said pill will encourage more sexual behavior and removes the responsibility of said behavior.

Sadly, this is probably true. However, my point is that I don't think the [b]government[/b] should be used as a tool to regulate human behavior. That should be the job of family and (the quality) of your upbringing. If the pill is not physically harmful, the only reason that it would be regulated would be to control its availability in an attempt to do just that; regulate human bahavior (sex). If it is regulated (less available), then the idea of less responsible, more recreation sex and be controlled. This is NOT the job of government. We should not WANT the government to be used in such a way.

Does the unregulated availabilty of alcohol promote people to become alcoholics? No. At least it shouldn't.

Unfortnantely, this sounds like another case where the government will be used as a tool to regulate our behavior because we, as a (generalized and stereotypical group) society, have forgotten how to take ANY DEGREE of personal responsibility.

My personal belief is that government should have certain, limited functions. Other than that, we should regulate ourselves.

Nothing.  What's silly and nonsensical is that you've expanded your definition of "human life" to include an hours-old fertilized egg.

ANY med has potential for harmful or adverse effects. Do you know how many deaths in this country occur secondary to tylenol?



Couple meds with human folly and there WILL be problems. Just wait...

In that case, define "human life" for me. Apparently, I'm not up to speed.[B)]

 I won't argue the pros and cons of abortion,  but I will leave you with a few pertinent medical facts, care of my significant other (An RN and previously the managing nurse of the local Planned Parenthood clinic, ie: she's been thoroughly trained in all this crap):

1) The MEDICAL definition of pregnancy is a fertilized egg WHICH HAS BEEN IMPLANTED IN THE UTERUS.  Until it sticks, it aint a pregnancy. Your definition may differ, but from a medical (rather than emotional) standpoint, you would be wrong.

2) The health risks associated with birth control pills, (barring allergy and freak reactions) are related almost entirely to the LONG TERM use of these pills.  You would see the same health effects in those with hormonal imbalances, as the hormones used in BC pills are naturally produced by the human body anyway.

3) The "morning after pill" does not destroy an implanted, fertilized egg, nor has it's use been shown to have any negative effect on the pregnancy should the pill be taken after the egg implants.

4) Similar methods have been in use for MANY years, recently with perscription pills. Before purpose-made pills were made for this purpose, doctors would perscribe numerous standard BC pills (I have no idea the exact regimen, but I have a hazy recollection that it may have been a whole pack at once).

5) "Morning after pills" have been available by perscription for years, and have been implicated in less complications than Claritin, which I'm sure nobody protested when IT went OTC.

 Questions?  I'd be happy to ask the girlie (or any of her co-workers) anything the peanut gallery would like to know.. Just shout.

A human life would be defined as a functioning human being.  A fertilized egg with NO internal organs, NO brain, NO heart, NO nervous system and NO circulatory system doesn't qualify.
One could argue that a few-weeks old fetus qualifies, as it has a functioning heart, brain, nervous system, etc... but an hours-old fertilized egg does not.

Hey SNorten, read my 4th point.

As an M.D., I'm well aquainted with the medical "facts." As an R.N. paid by Planned Parenthood, I think the words you were looking for were "thoroughly indoctrinated" not "thoroughly trained." PP has an agenda that they merely passed on to her.

Nobody's arguing medical definitions. There are hundreds of medical definitions that differ from the common usage. On this particular subject, the zygote usually begins uterine implantation in 5-7 days after conception IIRC. There are several OTC pregnancy tests out there that claim to be accurate in the first week. So if a woman conceives, gets a EPT positive on day 4, but the conceptus isn't implanted, is she pregnant? She thinks she is. So the definition of pregnancy is irrelevant to this arguement.

And trust me, I not operating on emotion. I don't have any.

That's not entirely true in regard to LONG TERM use. The point I was making was different. Let's say we [i]are[/i] comparing long term use. Is the use of a "high dose" BCP once a week any different. The answer is...nobody knows. But I wouldn't bet against it.

Can't disagree there.

Bad medicine.

Nobody protests if it means less dollars. Unfortunately, the fact that a medicine is OTC is no indication of its purported or true safety. Can you say Phenylpropanolamine?


Again, PP has their own agenda.

This is America in the 21st century...  We got a pill that cures whatever ailes you.

Can't eat spicy food...  take a nexium.

Can't sleep at night...  take a valium.

Can't get out of your own head...  take a ritilin.

Can't breathe in the spring...  take a claritin.

Can't stay away from MickyDee's...  take a zocor.

Can't get it up...  take a viagra.

Can't use a condom or take birth control...  take a ...

You get the idea.  What a society we live in.

 
I think education involving the use, abuse, and dangers of a particular medication might better be termed "training".  I will certainly agree that PP has an agenda, and that agenda is a well-beaten horse.  Some of the ideas they hold dear make me shiver, but EVERYONE has an agenda, buddy.



Not irrelevant at all when antis of one sort or another try to blur the line between contraception and abortion.  If you can offer a better, more factually correct definition of pregnancy, please do so.  My point in presenting the medical definition of pregnancy was to try and bring some facts to the table, perhaps something a bit more logical than "every sperm is sacred".  I don't really have time to go back through the thread, but if I falsely accused you in particular of operating on emotion rather than reason, I humbly apologize.  



 If the stats aren't out there, they should be.  There are any number of teenagers (think 13..14..) whose primary and preferred method of birth control is currently the "morning after pill".  A woman can walk into any Planned Parenthood clinic or numerous other womens clinics and get that pill for the asking.  One big downside to making it OTC hasn't been mentioned, and that would be that normally if a clinic sees a pattern like that developing, the staff will offer counselling to the patient in an effort to get them on a more effective, full-time method of birth control.  OTC this won't happen.


 
 Why do you think so?  Do the health risks involved outweigh the benefits?  


Everyone has their own agenda Doc, even you.  Care to clue us in on yours?

[b]ANYTHING[/b] that prevents more children is [u]definately[/u] a good thing !!

I don't really have an agenda in regard to this subject. I am not a rabid pro-lifer by any stretch of the imagination. But it is frustrating to "dismissed" as such for simply believing in a pro life stance. For some reason, defining life as beginning at conception is immediately regarded as...and I quote this thread...silly and nonsensical. Yet no one on the other side of the argument will present their own definition of human life. Probably because its an indefensible position. (Or possibly because its been beat to death on this site hundreds of times)

I find it unacceptable to infer that a fertilized egg might [i]not[/i] be a human life, so its OK to eliminate it. I consider that it might be a human life, why not protect it.

If that's an agenda, I'm guilty.

That it is doc.

Exactly. Maybe it would cut down on the number of crack babies and those found dead in dumpsters!

I didn't post this as my opinion. I am stating it as fact. All medicines are regulated by the FDA. The question was to what degree? The FDA has determined that this drug does not required the tighter control that would make it an Rx (prescribed) drug. Therefore, it becomes a generally available OTC med.

The 'question lying beneath the surface' isn't whether it should be on OTC, it is whether it should be generally available because of its mere existance may cause some type of social and/or moral lapse in our behavior (i.e. - causing people to be less concerned with the outcome of having sex and therefore more promiscuous). Many people seem to be hinting that they are wanting the FDA to be used to control the medication BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL AFFECT that it may have on human behavior. My take on this is that this is NOT a role that government should play. Period. The FDA should regulate its the drug depending upon its health effects, not its moral or social effects.  

From [url]http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/fda101/sld001.html[/url]

Stated most simply, FDA's mission is to promote and protect the public health by helping safe and effective products reach the market in a timely way, and monitoring products for continued safety after they are in use.

IMHO, this should be a corporate responsiblity issue. I don't think they should have ever made the damned thing at all. However, that doesn't pay the bills. Corporations exist to make money for the shareholders, to employ workers, to pay the workers, etc. I wish whoever its manufactuer was had said something like "You know, this isn't something we want to be known for". That however is a pipe dream.

I never stated whether I agree, disagree, etc. Personally, the drug scares the hell of me. The mere 'convienence' that the drug exists for is VERY SCARY. Like I mentioned in my first post, just another (yet much larger and more important) part of our life that we no longer have to be responsible for. [b]What scares me even worse are the people who would invite the Fed Government (in this case its the FDA) in to regulate human behavior, OUR behavior.[/b] That is not the FDAs mission. Anyone ready to give up more of the few rights that we have left and submit to further government control in their personal lives worries the shit out of me. OVER.

i find the arguement to be like this.. Do you as a person belive the state has a right to force a rape victim to keep the pregnancy of that act? do you think a regular pregnancy should be allowed to be aborted? if you think that it's ok in the case of rape to abort but not for a regular woman what are you saying? Punish the woman for having sex. The actual "life" of the fetus is unimportant. But if you say it's not OK to Abort a pregnancy of a rape then plain and simple your an evil asshole.

Troy is right. This is something that is already being done. Women can be given a packet of BC pills, and are told to take 4 pills if a condom breaks, don't use protection, etc. The morning after pill is the same thing, it just ensures that women get it THE MORNING AFTER instead of getting an appointment, waiting 3 weeks to see a doctor and being pregnant.

I am all for anything that means my taxes won't have to support more children whose parents aren't smart enough or responsible enough to take care of themselves.

Ahhhh; once again Troy and I are reading off the same page. I couldn't say it better, so I'll just repost his words[:D]