The Morning After Pill

[Howie]

There are many emotional thoughts on this. I have read that the FDA has OKed nonprescription ‘morning-after’ pill Decision allows over-the-counter sale of Plan B for those 18 or older. It can be effective up to 72 hours. Making a bit misleading. Will our youth view this as a new form of birth control? I realize preaching abstinence has not worked. What will? I don't feel this new pill is the answer. Maybe realistically this will cut down on the amount of abortions that go into trimesters. A lot depends on where you believe life is conceived, the point of conception. Yours --

[spoon]

It can be effective up to 72 hours. Making a bit misleading. Will our youth view this as a new form of birth control?[/b] It is a form of (emergency) birth control, albeit not particularly new. It's also not a very good birth control, nowhere near success rate of condoms/the pill. I don't think there's any danger at all of it replacing the current birth control methods - it can only help the situation (people generally take it when these methods fail or for rape). I realize preaching abstinence has not worked. What will? I don't feel this new pill is the answer. [/b] The answer to what?? Maybe realistically this will cut down on the amount of abortions that go into trimesters. A lot depends on where you believe life is conceived, the point of conception.[/b] Well, this "morning after" pill only prevents the implantation of the embryo. It's about as much of an abortion as a woman having her period is. So you lose a few more cells... meh

[Kaniaz]

I don't think this is very new, unless I missed something huge over there in the American news (is it new to America?). The morning after pill still doesn't protect you, from, say, AIDS. It's pretty much a weak solution on all accounts, although it's great for people who don't really want the "inconvinence" of a baby. It doesn't change a lot on on the morals scene, as far as I'm aware. It's just another option. The problem is, like Howetzer said, where you think the baby first becomes a 'baby'. It's a problematic question, because if you think every cell (sperm) is sacred you've got a huge problem (because cells are dying all the time whether you wish it to be so or not), whereas if you don't think the baby is a baby until it's actually born then you've got the blood of millions of murdered children on your hands, and all because some people just couldn't, you know, restrain themselves when it came to sex. As to what I think? I have absolutely no idea. Once again, define "consciousness". EDIT (ALTHOUGH I'M REALLY DEVIATING FROM THE MORNING AFTER PILL, SORRY): I'm pretty sure one Pope wrote in the Humane Vitae (sorry if I'm wrong here) that "easy access to contraceptives is eroding the morals of society" [paraphrased]. I'm not religious - you don't need to be - but he was right on the money here. I think we'd see a lot less casual sex if people knew they couldn't just get easy access to this wide array of contraceptives. But there would still be millions of "unwanted" babies born, and this would probably make it worse.

[NeAvO]

I don't agree with the morning after pill because as kaniaz says it doesn't stop sexually transmitted diseases. Also I think a person's life starts when the sperm and egg fuse together so I don't agree with killing the embryo. I think if people want to use contraception then use a condom because it prevents diseases and doesn't kill the embryo it just "prevents" one.

[DreamDudeDave]

I agree with NeAvO How can you separate life from life into life/nonlife/life? I.E. Parents (life) have sex, Woman's egg (life) gets fertilized by Man's sperm (life), embryo (life) grows into a fetus (life), fetus grows into a baby (life). Where in that process is there NOT LIFE?

[wombing]

the women who use the morning after pill are those who do not want a pregnancy, and thus would likely make poor mothers if children were forced upon them. how is it a bad thing for them to reduce the chance of wrecking their own lives, and the life(lives) of one or more children, by taking a pill?

[shark!]

is it true that some fascists in the usa try to stop the morning after pill? I know someone that had to take the morning after pill. could have saved her from having to have an abortion. It seems like a pretty great pill to me. And uh the point of it of course isn't to stop aids std's w/e etc...so its not bad just because it can't do everything perfectly.

[Joseph_Stalin]

I believe the true solution to all this will be oral male contraceptives. If easily available, abortion would probably be a far, far, less common thing. And although the church would probably still not approve, they would likely prefer this method over others. After all, most sperm (millions), albeit one, which fertilizes the egg, die during intercourse. One more is hardly a "moral" difference.

[spoon]

You know, I think people are missing the point that emergancy contraceptives (like the m.a pill) arent intended to be used as birth control. They&#39;re used when other methods fail (or in cases of rape). So you can&#39;t judge it on its failure to stop AIDS or other STDS - it&#39;s not intended to. And as for you people not agreeing with it because it kills an embryo (or blastocyst), do you feel that if a woman is raped she should have to carry the baby to term? Do you think a woman should be forced to be pregnant for 9 months and have the responsibility of a child (which was unplanned/unwanted) for the rest of her life because a condom broke? It seems kind of odd protecting "life" in this instance when it is this --&#62; . big. It does not resemble a human, it&#39;s a bunch of cells. At the point before implantation it is not even growing in size (the cells are dividing). This pill does not "kill" this blastocyst, it just prevents implantation (something that happens in a lot of pregnancies anyway). <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("dreamDudeDave")</div> How can you separate life from life into life/nonlife/life? I.E. Parents (life) have sex, Woman&#39;s egg (life) gets fertilized by Man&#39;s sperm (life), embryo (life) grows into a fetus (life), fetus grows into a baby (life). Where in that process is there NOT LIFE?[/b] Where in the process of lazoring off a wart is there non life? Where in the process of bumping against something and destroying cells is there non life? Where in the process of taking anti-biotics to kill a virus is there non-life? Each of these kills (AFAIK) more cells than a morning after pill. The problem isn&#39;t differentiating between life/non-life, it&#39;s about how you define a person. I personally think that "a bunch of cells" doesnt fit that definition, and forcing a victim of rape or bad circumstances to carry this bunch of cells until it becomes a person isn&#39;t nice. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Kanaiz")</div> EDIT (ALTHOUGH I&#39;M REALLY DEVIATING FROM THE MORNING AFTER PILL, SORRY): I&#39;m pretty sure one Pope wrote in the Humane Vitae (sorry if I&#39;m wrong here) that "easy access to contraceptives is eroding the morals of society" [paraphrased]. I&#39;m not religious - you don&#39;t need to be - but he was right on the money here. I think we&#39;d see a lot less casual sex if people knew they couldn&#39;t just get easy access to this wide array of contraceptives.[/b] Sorry to keep the derail going but I really dont understand this. How are contraceptives "eroding the morals of society"? Something&#39;s bad about sex now?

[TheNocturnalGent]

Use a condom. If you fuck it up and somhow the condom breaks then go get plan B otherwise stop being an asshole. Pulling out never hurt either.

[Kaniaz]

Sorry to keep the derail going but I really dont understand this. How are contraceptives "eroding the morals of society"? Something's bad about sex now?[/b] No, of course sex isn't bad (and there are many happy customers to prove that). What was being said, though, is that easier access to contraceptives is allowing people to go out and have sex with whoever they like with no need to worry about HIV or getting pregnant or pretty much anything that can go wrong. While safe sex is an extremely good thing, the Pope doesn't think that the ability to go and have sex with whoever you like is a good thing at all. And, yes, the ability to go out and have sex with anyone you want follows on from safe sex. It means you no longer have to think about if you love a person - just go out and have sex. It's helping the rise of casual sex and 'freeing' people from having to think about what they're doing, from any morals. I'm pretty sure (and correct me if I'm wrong here, because I'm not religious) that Christians think sex is something you should celebrate but control, it's a gift from God, and certainly not something you use for pleasure with no intentions ever of creating a child. In a way, I think they're right, because contraceptives do allow you to pervert what sex is there for - you can have your orgasm but not have a baby. Wow! How convinent is that! Hooray for the modern age! The point of it all being that causal sex can help pave the way for a sexualised society with no regard for responsibilites later in life - whoops, we had a kid, ha ha, scramble its brains and kill it (it's not living, right?) - a bit of a doomsayer's view though, I know. Still, I don't think we should abolish contraceptives at all. They have probably saved millions of lives from being born into misery and saved another million in people that might have contracted HIV. But there is still the problem of your morals. There's no win situation here no matter which way you go. So this whole shebang could be just avoided if people could keep their penis in their pants.

[dreammask]

I think it makes more sense for a woman to be on the regular pill than to say, "oops! I had sex! I better go get that morning after pill!" If she's going to have sex, she should be on the pill, and if she's having sex with a partner she's unsure about his diseases, history, fidelity, etc, then they should use a condom. I think the morning after pill is a good thing for women who are raped or what-have-you, but there's no reason for a woman to not be on the regular, daily pill or other chemical contraceptive if she's going to be having sex. I don't think that contraceptives have reduced human morals. I think education and contraception has saved more lives than its morally reduced. People have sex. In places where STDs are not commonly understood, contraceptives and education helps save lives. Why? Because people have sex. It's one of those things we do. It's biochemically set in our bodies for us to want sex. We know enough about STDs here that to say its immoral to use them or that its reducing our morals by having them is just silly. People will have sex whether or not contraceptives are available. People have been having sex, well, since people have been around. You can't expect them to all stop because of religious mores, especially when everyone doesn't share those same mores and have NEVER shared those mores. Someone asked about fanatics trying to deny the Plan B pill to women.. it has most definitely happened. In fact, a few different pharmacists denied women the pill because of their own personal morals. Denied them! It was absolutely ridiculous and the pharmacy chain actually ended up going out of business altogether (at least the ones that were here went away pretty soon thereafter).

[SpaceFlower]

Well here is something I am an expert on. Let me explain: three years ago while i was in college me and my bf at the time were having sex one night and the condom actually broke inside me. I was 20 at the time. Flat broke, just trying to make it through school day by day. I couldn't sleep after that so I got in the internet and researched the pill. First off, it takes up to 72 hours for sperm to travel to the uterus to get to the point where it can fertalize an egg. It does not happen immediatley. The way a pill works is it prety much forces a period expelling the egg out of the uterus so it cannot be fertalized. In other words - IT DOES NOT KILL AN EMBRYO. It prevents fertalization from ever happening. Second, Women will not get into the habit of doing this over and over becuase it is expensive and painful. Periods are painful enough when coming naturally nevertheless when they are forced. I have never seen the pill advertized as std prevention and anyone who actually thinks that must be a moron. Yes condoms are a better bet but they break and slp off - they are not perfect. That is why they are 99% effective and not 100%. As dreammask pointed out we do not live in a perfect world. I genuinely think most of the "good guys" out there would be shocked if they realized how often date rape actually happens. I know not one, but 2 women who lost their virginity becuase some ashole found them sleeping or passed out and just went on and rammed them. WHen they awoke they didn't have the strength to get the guy off them. Do you know what the sad part is? When a girl in this situation goes looking for emergency contraceptive they are treated like a whore. In my situatin at the time (prescription only) I had to call seriously about 10 different #'s before anyone would bother to thelp. Then I had to actually make a gyno appmt. Just to basically tell my story to get the prescription. Then I had to pay for the pill as well - which turns out to be 2 pills. The whole thing ended up costing me about $150.00 dollars. Would have been less if I did not have to pay for the Dr appmt. Plus I had to call a bunch of differet offices to get an appmt forced in and leave work early otherwise I would have missed the "emergency window". Even with my bf at the time chipping in we were barely able to afford it. So it will definately not replace regualr contraception. It is just a backup. Becuase emergencies DO happen.

[dreammask]

I genuinely think most of the "good guys" out there would be shocked if they realized how often date rape actually happens. I know not one, but 2 women who lost their virginity becuase some ashole found them sleeping or passed out and just went on and rammed them. WHen they awoke they didn't have the strength to get the guy off them. Do you know what the sad part is? When a girl in this situation goes looking for emergency contraceptive they are treated like a whore. [/b] It's so angering that these things happen so often in our country, but they do. My best friend lost her virginity to a date rape. It's horrible and a young woman, or even an older woman, should not be forced to have a child through such a hideous act. Then there's the psychological treatment they receive when they seek help, which is poor at best. It's ridiculous that you had to call so many places, and I'm sure your friends didn't have it any easier. The cost is also ridiculous. That's one of the reasons I'm a supporter of being on regular birth control pills if you're having sex regularly, but in the case of rape, that isn't something you're exactly planning.

[NeAvO]

I genuinely think most of the "good guys" out there would be shocked if they realized how often date rape actually happens. [/b] Wow sorry I didn't think of that before. I think on some level the pill can be used like in rape or if the doctors knew there was going to be trouble at child birth. Although I can't say I fully agree with the pill, I think in some cases people should go through with the birth and if they don't want the baby then they could put it up for adoption but then it depends on the whole situation.

[wombing]

Although I can't say I fully agree with the pill, I think in some cases people should go through with the birth and if they don't want the baby then they could put it up for adoption but then it depends on the whole situation.[/b] you do know the earth is becoming increasingly over-populated? that there are already millions of orphans? what is your reasoning?

[spoon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Kaniaz")</div> While safe sex is an extremely good thing, the Pope doesn&#39;t think that the ability to go and have sex with whoever you like is a good thing at all. And, yes, the ability to go out and have sex with anyone you want follows on from safe sex.[/b] You have the ability to go out and have sex with whoever you want right now, regardless of contraception. All contraceptives do is give you the ability to do it without worrying about pregnancy or disease (the majority of the time). The pope may have a problem with people having sex, but you can&#39;t just blame contraceptives for it. It means you no longer have to think about if you love a person - just go out and have sex. It&#39;s helping the rise of casual sex and &#39;freeing&#39; people from having to think about what they&#39;re doing, from any morals.[/b] Whats wrong with casual sex? You don&#39;t go out an indiscriminately have sex with anyone, you still have to be attracted to them. Why should the standard for sex be love instead of attraction? Having causal sex does not free you from thinking about what you&#39;re doing, and it certainly doesn&#39;t free you "from any morals". It may free you from the idea that sex is a moral* act, but what makes you think that it is? *(moral, rather than amoral. not moral as opposed to immoral) In a way, I think [the christians are] right, because contraceptives do allow you to pervert what sex is there for - you can have your orgasm but not have a baby.[/b] Ahh.. so because sex can lead to having a baby - this makes it a moral act? So its immoral to use it for any other purpose? Would you think that sex after menopause is degrading morality as well? Sex with a sterile person? How about mutual masturbation? Oral sex? Anal sex? Like using contraceptives, none of these things lead to babies - yet are used in lieu of babymakin&#39;. Just because sex can lead to children doesn&#39;t mean that is what it&#39;s &#39;there for&#39;. Sex is there, it can make babies but it can also fulfil other functions. Why bring morality into it? Morality can come with the consequences of sex (or the circumstances of the act), but is not inherent in the act. The point of it all being that causal sex can help pave the way for a sexualised society with no regard for responsibilites later in life - whoops, we had a kid, ha ha, scramble its brains and kill it (it&#39;s not living, right?)[/b] I really don&#39;t see how casual sex stops you from regarding responsibilities, especially casual sex with contraceptives. People use contraceptives because they have a regard for the consequences and responsibilities. As for abortion, again people have it because they are aware of the responsibilities that come with having a kid. If you had no regard for the responsibilities you&#39;d go through with a pregnancy when you were clearly not able to. Also, your trivialisation of abortion just doesn&#39;t exist in the mainstream. Noone uses abortion as lightly as you portrayed or as a birth control method. And for the record, noone believes that embryo/fetus is not living - its about whether or not it is a person and warrants the rights of personhood. Generally it&#39;s illegal for abortions to be performed after the higher brain functions arise, a sensible place to draw the line. But labelling abortion moral/immoral does not mean that sex isn&#39;t amoral. It is a consequence of sex (sometimes), not something inherent in the act of sex. But there is still the problem of your morals. There&#39;s no win situation here no matter which way you go. So this whole shebang could be just avoided if people could keep their penis in their pants.[/b] Consider this. If every man having casual sex used condoms; If every woman having casual sex was on the pill; If every time a condom broke a couple immediately got a morning after pill - then there would be no consequences of casual sex to speak of. If there are no consequences, such as abortions, that you could judge immoral - sex would not lead to anything you&#39;d label an immoral act. If sex is, at core, an amoral act and people having casual sex without contraceptives leads to things you&#39;d label immoral - wouldn&#39;t it be more correct to say that "not using contraceptives degrades our morality" rather than the other way round? -spoon (likes sex, hates babies)

[icuurd12b42]

I've heard that the abortion pill is actually the same as the last 2 pills in the standard 28 day birth control set. The pills responsible for forcing a period... I heard it a few year back from the "Saturday (or is it Friday) Night Sex With Sue" show... I could not find a site talking about it though I did find this one which shows relevance to the fact. Here Kinda makes you wonder about the price of the MA pill now and a few other morality issues of this ancestor product. I use a condom + I pull out. I don't mind the girl being on birth control pill or using the morning after pill either. If the abortion debate goes further, one day you'll be charged for having a wet dream and flushing the swimmies down the toilet in a tissue LOL.

[dreammask]

I've heard that the abortion pill is actually the same as the last 2 pills in the standard 28 day birth control set. The pills responsible for forcing a period... I heard it a few year back from the "Saturday (or is it Friday) Night Sex With Sue" show... [/b] That definitely isn't the case. The last 7 pills in a standard 28-day pill set are completely placebos. They aren't even needed. It's the fact that you're not on the chemicals anymore that induce a period. It's actually not "forcing" you to have a period... it's giving you the off-time to do it. You don't even have to take the last 7 pills... there's nothing in them. So... the morning after pill (which can't be an "abortion pill" in any way) cannot possibly be the same chemicals used in the last two days of a standard 28-day bc pill set. I don't understand why people can be okay with standard bc pills, but be against the morning after pill. Seems contradictory to me.

[Gwendolyn]

If you don't agree with the pill, don't use it. Nobody is asking you to swollow the shit.....Why do people insist on removing personal choice from the equation? Did anyone every think about who'se decision it is to carry a baby to term anyway? It's the woman's body, so why not let her choose? If taking the morning after pill is what she chooses, who is anybody else to judge? Although I don't necessarily plan on using it, I like having my options open. I also like as much freedom as possible, even if it is controversial. IF you let people tell you what you can take for birth control, it's like telling others to choose the food you eat for the ultimate benifit of society.

[Burns]

the women who use the morning after pill are those who do not want a pregnancy, and thus would likely make poor mothers if children were forced upon them. how is it a bad thing for them to reduce the chance of wrecking their own lives, and the life(lives) of one or more children, by taking a pill?[/b] I agree with wombing here. IMO, it's better to take the pill if you have to and prevent suffering of the child if the mother would've just been a poor parent anyway. We have enough unwanted, unloved kids in the world - why add to it if we don't have to? So it will definately not replace regualr contraception. It is just a backup. Becuase emergencies DO happen.[/b] Thanks for sharing your story, SpaceFlower. It really puts things in perceptive when it happens to you or someone close to you. Everyone's situation is different but you're right, emergencies DO happen - and it's good to have a drug like this available just in case. If you don't agree with the pill, don't use it. Nobody is asking you to swollow the shit.....Why do people insist on removing personal choice from the equation? Did anyone every think about who'se decision it is to carry a baby to term anyway? It's the woman's body, so why not let her choose? If taking the morning after pill is what she chooses, who is anybody else to judge? Although I don't necessarily plan on using it, I like having my options open. I also like as much freedom as possible, even if it is controversial. IF you let people tell you what you can take for birth control, it's like telling others to choose the food you eat for the ultimate benifit of society.[/b] My thoughts exactly, Gwen. I'm pro-choice, and nothing makes me angrier than someone telling me (or other women) what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Of couse in the case of abortion, or the morning-after pill, I believe the father should also have a choice and the women doesn't just go and do it behind his back.

[Amethyst Star]

I just wanted to throw out the factor of age as well. It's one thing if a rational adult, who is capable of making their own decisions, is permitted to use this, but it's quite another if we're talking about someone underage. By offering this pill in any drug store, we are essentially giving more lisence to teens to go out and "do it" and that's something that I definitely disapprove of. I'm not saying that teens are unintelligent by any stretch of the imagination, but for as much as they think they know, there is a whole lot more to watch out for that you don't become aware of until later in life, or at least will admit could be a problem. For me, it's not an issue as to whether or not it's an abortion, but rather an issue of morality. I'm not anti-sex at all, but I believe that it should be kept within the confines of marriage, saved to be something special between the person you decide to spend your life with. I'm not here to argue morality, but I wanted to share my views.

[Gwendolyn]

I also agree with you Burns, in that you should not do it behind the man's back. I mean, it takes two to have kids, right?

[Kaniaz]

By offering this pill in any drug store, we are essentially giving more lisence to teens to go out and "do it" and that's something that I definitely disapprove of. I'm not saying that teens are unintelligent by any stretch of the imagination, but for as much as they think they know, there is a whole lot more to watch out for that you don't become aware of until later in life, or at least will admit could be a problem. For me, it's not an issue as to whether or not it's an abortion, but rather an issue of morality. I'm not anti-sex at all, but I believe that it should be kept within the confines of marriage, saved to be something special between the person you decide to spend your life with. I'm not here to argue morality, but I wanted to share my views.[/b] Yeah. This is exactly what I was trying to say (spoon and other various cutlery take note), and not doing a very good job of. Although I do have personal opinions I kind of mix in there. So it gets complex.

[Howie]

I believe that the argument is quite simply, that it is not just your body at this stage, that you are making decisions for. QUOTE(Gwendolyn @ Aug 31 2006, 12:33 AM) * If you don't agree with the pill, don't use it. Nobody is asking you to swollow the shit.....Why do people insist on removing personal choice from the equation? Did anyone every think about who'se decision it is to carry a baby to term anyway? It's the woman's body, so why not let her choose? If taking the morning after pill is what she chooses, who is anybody else to judge? Although I don't necessarily plan on using it, I like having my options open. I also like as much freedom as possible, even if it is controversial. IF you let people tell you what you can take for birth control, it's like telling others to choose the food you eat for the ultimate benifit of society. My thoughts exactly, Gwen. I'm pro-choice, and nothing makes me angrier than someone telling me (or other women) what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Of couse in the case of abortion, or the morning-after pill, I believe the father should also have a choice and the women doesn't just go and do it behind his back.