Morning After Pill for US Troops

For starters, Plan B is not an abortion pill - it is emergency contraception that you can take w/in 72 hours of your contraceptive failing/unprotected sex.

IF YOU ARE ALREADY PREGNANT, IT WILL NOT CAUSE AN ABORTION.

And since the military is NOT A RIGHT TO LIFE ORGANIZATION, I don't think these groups should have anything to say about it. :angry:

Though I appreciate the irony of them being worried about prescription medication from a "right to life standpoint" when its users are fighting a war.

Bingo

Unfortunately you can bicker over it all you want, but for many it comes down to the question of when life begins. Some argue that as soon as the sperm and egg walls meet you've got life and there's no turning back, others consider it later when the fetus could survive on it's own outside the womb, and some consider it when the baby is born. Ironically the latter is called your birth day.

Also known as the Plan B pill (or the abortion pill by opponents of its use)- it is being reported that this drug will be widely available at military installations worldwide. Pro-Life advocates have started to protest.

Does anyone else see a little irony here (protesting the murder of innocents via a pill)???

They make a little poppa stoppa sound like some kind of mom bomb.

There were actually laws on the books way back in ancient Greece against those that had an abortion and those that performed it. (ethics class) Of course, after the child was born it was often considered not worth bringing in out of the cold. So my thoughts are which was worse.....my real reason for being a part of this discussion is to say why do they call this a chat when it is like all the other forum posts...

Unfortunately you can bicker over it all you want, but for many it comes down to the question of when life begins. Some argue that as soon as the sperm and egg walls meet you've got life and there's no turning back, others consider it later when the fetus could survive on it's own outside the womb, and some consider it when the baby is born. Ironically the latter is called your birth day.

religious conservatives, libertarians, and baby ki.., er, liberals.

There needs to be a morning after pill like when you wake up with a certain someone , you take the pill and it makes you forget that it ever happened.

religious conservatives, libertarians, and baby ki.., er, liberals.

I could correct myself after starting to work zealot, but hey as long as we're throwing things around.

How does a libertarian such as yourself quantify being against abortion in any form knowing that your tax dollars will most likely go in the form of welfare to the resulting baby?

I could correct myself after starting to work zealot, but hey as long as we're throwing things around.

How does a libertarian such as yourself quantify being against abortion in any form knowing that your tax dollars will most likely go in the form of welfare to the resulting baby?

What makes you think I'm against abortion?

This simply has to be said. All due praise to Geo for bringing this out for discussion, but no one has yet answered the question I've been asking for most of my adult life, to wit:

Since women are the ones who get pregnant, and experience all the physical, mental and emotional risks, challenges and joys of pregnancy and motherhood, as well as the physical pain, risk to health, and grief in the sad event of choosing to terminate a pregnancy, what place does any man have in registering an opinion about the rights a woman should or should not have to any form of contraception?

Put another way, I have always suspected that if men were the ones who experienced the above-mentioned motherhood stuff, safe contraceptive methods in a variety of delivery methods would be distributed free in kiosks on every street corner.

Don't get me wrong -- I love men, married one and birthed three! Still, I have never understood how it happened that non-childbearing people got to be part of the conversation about something so distinctly belonging in the realm of women.

Nice

This simply has to be said. All due praise to Geo for bringing this out for discussion, but no one has yet answered the question I've been asking for most of my adult life, to wit:

Since women are the ones who get pregnant, and experience all the physical, mental and emotional risks, challenges and joys of pregnancy and motherhood, as well as the physical pain, risk to health, and grief in the sad event of choosing to terminate a pregnancy, what place does any man have in registering an opinion about the rights a woman should or should not have to any form of contraception?

Put another way, I have always suspected that if men were the ones who experienced the above-mentioned motherhood stuff, safe contraceptive methods in a variety of delivery methods would be distributed free in kiosks on every street corner.

Don't get me wrong -- I love men, married one and birthed three! Still, I have never understood how it happened that non-childbearing people got to be part of the conversation about something so distinctly belonging in the realm of women.

The only two people who should be involved are the woman, and the child. Since the child is incapable of representing itself, the state takes that responsibility. At the federal level, this is a gray area, the constitution doesn't really speak to this as it wasn't even considered by the founders. (Some argue that if asked, the founders would insist the Constitution covers an unborn child, others argue the opposite. We won't have a final decision on that until we amend.) At some point a child is granted the rights you and I have under the Constitution, but since that is not clearly defined, I think it falls to the states to decided. If states choose to grant rights to the unborn child those states have the responsibility of protecting those right, including protecting the child from its mother if she tries to violate those rights.

Of course the critical dividing line is where life begins. I prefer to fall back on science rather than religion or politics to help answer that question. I also prefer to err on the side of caution, because clearly making a mistake could cost a life.

The only two people who should be involved are the woman, and the child. Since the child is incapable of representing itself, the state takes that responsibility. At the federal level, this is a gray area, the constitution doesn't really speak to this as it wasn't even considered by the founders. (Some argue that if asked, the founders would insist the Constitution covers an unborn child, others argue the opposite. We won't have a final decision on that until we amend.) At some point a child is granted the rights you and I have under the Constitution, but since that is not clearly defined, I think it falls to the states to decided. If states choose to grant rights to the unborn child that state has the responsibility of protecting those right, including protecting the child from its mother if she tries to violate those rights.

Of course the critical dividing line is where life begins. I prefer to fall back on science rather than religion or politics to help answer that question. I also prefer to err on the side of caution, because clearly making a mistake could cost a life.

Yes, and every time I see photos of governing bodies at the state and federal levels, they are mostly men. My question remains unanswered.

I should also point out before SWGB incorrectly infers something (for the thousandth time) from my posts .. my views on abortion and on Roe v Wade :

1) I do not feel the court had any right to rule on that case, they should have turned it down. The Constitution does not speak on this matter. It should be addressed through an amendment.

2) Ironically, I completely agree with the ruling. The original Roe v. Wade ruling did not make all abortions legal, far from it. It defined a trimester system and used that to define when states can have a say. First trimester, women should have unfettered access to abortion services if they so choose. Second trimester states can restrict abortion under certain circumstances but generally access to abortion services should be allowed. Third trimester (amazingly enough, starting right around the time science later showed to be the beginning of heavy brain activity in the child) states are free to restrict or even illegalize abortion services.

This for me makes perfect sense. I disagree with the religious view that life begins at conception as there's no scientific proof of that. I also disagree with the pro-choice advocates that claim there is some imaginary dividing line that occurs at birth - there's no scientific proof of that either.

In a strange twist of irony, both the hard core pro-lifers and the hard core pro-choicers are left defending their imaginary lines, or better described, their religions.

Yes, and every time I see photos of governing bodies at the state and federal levels, they are mostly men. My question remains unanswered.

Independent of Constitutional Rights of a child, do women generally feel they should have the ability to terminate a child's life whenever they see fit? If so, should anything prevent them from making that decision post child birth?

This is about the child's rights, and when it aquires them. This isn't a them (males) vs us (females) thing IMHO.

I should also point out before SWGB incorrectly infers something (for the thousandth time) from my posts .. my views on abortion and on Roe v Wade

I don't infer, I know that you're an ahole.

You guys are nice. I'm going to like it here.

Independent of Constitutional Rights of a child, do women generally feel they should have the ability to terminate a child's life whenever they see fit? If so, should anything prevent them from making that decision post child birth?

This is about the child's rights, and when it aquires them. This isn't a them (males) vs us (females) thing IMHO.

I don't know what women generally feel or think; am only feeling, thinking and speaking for myself. I don't see it as a male vs. female thing either. It is simply a woman thing, not a man thing, and it is inappropriate for men to be intruding into these decisions about what happens to the lives and bodies of women and their unborn children.

We could debate endlessly about when life begins and when rights begin, and whose rights if any should take precedence, and what about in cases of rape or incest or the discovery of some dreaded disease, or the health of the mother. But that's beside the point, which is, for me, that this is a decision properly made by women, who may or may not choose to seek the advice of men whose opinions on the subject have value for them.

I don't know what women generally feel or think; am only feeling, thinking and speaking for myself. I don't see it as a male vs. female thing either. It is simply a woman thing, not a man thing, and it is inappropriate for men to be intruding into these decisions about what happens to the lives and bodies of women and their unborn children.

We could debate endlessly about when life begins and when rights begin, and whose rights if any should take precedence, and what about in cases of rape or incest or the discovery of some dreaded disease, or the health of the mother. But that's beside the point, which is, for me, that this is a decision properly made by women, who may or may not choose to seek the advice of men whose opinions on the subject have value for them.

I respect your sentiment on that Susan. Government, or really, "we the people", should not be granted the ability to regulate personal decisions individuals make. We should be free to live our lives the way we choose. However there is a limit - if the personal choices people make negatively impact those around them, we've bestowed upon government the responsibility of stepping in to intervene and protect. That's a very important part of our social system, wouldn't you agree?

Thanks, 30AS. Yes, I agree that there are appropriate interventions by gov't when individuals or groups harm others. I just don't see this is belonging in that category. I recognize that definitions of when life begins and so on are critical to determining where the line is when it does become appropriate for gov't to step in.

Still, all these decisions are still made by men, by and large, and that is inappropriate and wrong for all kinds of reasons. Ha ha, I have a vision of the male politicians getting together and thinking they're throwing women a bone (pun intended) by appointing a committee of women to sort it all out.

Thanks, 30AS. Yes, I agree that there are appropriate interventions by gov't when individuals or groups harm others. I just don't see this is belonging in that category. I recognize that definitions of when life begins and so on are critical to determining where the line is when it does become appropriate for gov't to step in.

Still, all these decisions are still made by men, by and large, and that is inappropriate and wrong for all kinds of reasons. Ha ha, I have a vision of the male politicians getting together and thinking they're throwing women a bone (pun intended) by appointing a committee of women to sort it all out.

Agreed. In time I'd hope things even out. Things certainly have in the american workforce, the number of women recently surpassed the number of men for the first time in our history. Times they are a changin'.

Agreed. In time I'd hope things even out. Things certainly have in the american workforce, the number of women recently surpassed the number of men for the first time in our history. Times they are a changin'.

Is that because businesses only have to pay them $.75 on the dollar vs. men?

Times they are a changin'.

Yeah, just not fast enough to suit me!

You can discuss abortion all you want - but it does not change the fact that the "Plan B" Geo started the thread about is NOT an abortaficient!

It will not end a pregnancy or harm a fetus - it just prevents pregnancy from starting (hence the short time frame).

And if it isn't YOUR uterus, I think it is none of your business. You get to control your sperm and your body - beyond that you need to sit down, shut up, and quit legislating other people's major life choices! :angry:

Frankly I can think of much worse things than someone on deployment or in a war zone having access to additional contraception.

Scooterbug, I agree.

I had grown weary of keeping my mouth shut, publicly at least, about the whole issue of reproductive rights and my sense that no man has any right limiting or interfering with any woman's reproductive health decisions. To do so is just as invasive as rape, IMHO, and I think the lack of easily available, inexpensive, truly effective contraception methods is, ..... well, at the moment I just can't even think of a word for how awful and ridiculous it is. I am not often at a loss for words.

If I think of the right word or phrase, I'll be back to post it.