DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on June 11, 2013, 07:20:10 AM
-
June 10, 2013
U.S. Drops Bid to Limit Sales of Morning-After Pill
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and PAM BELLUCK
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to stop trying to block over-the-counter availability of the best-known morning-after contraceptive pill for all women and girls, a move fraught with political repercussions for President Obama.
The government’s decision means that any woman or girl will soon be able to walk into a drugstore and buy the pill, Plan B One-Step, without a prescription.
The Justice Department had been fighting to prevent that outcome, but said late Monday afternoon that it would accept its losses in recent court rulings and begin putting into effect a judge’s order to have the Food and Drug Administration certify the drug for nonprescription use. In a letter to Judge Edward R. Korman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the administration said it would comply with his demands.
The Justice Department appears to have concluded that it might lose its case with the appeals court and would have to decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court. That would drastically elevate the debate over the politically delicate issue for Mr. Obama.
Women’s reproductive rights groups, who had sued the government to clear the way for broader distribution of the drug, cautiously hailed the decision as a significant moment in the battle over reproductive rights but said they remained skeptical until they saw details about how the change will be put into practice.
The drug prevents conception if taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse.
“We will not rest in this fight until the morning-after pill is made available without delay and obstruction,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer and the executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, which represented the plaintiffs in the case.
Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood said: “This is a huge breakthrough for access to birth control and a historic moment for women’s health and equity.”
The F.D.A. issued a statement Monday night saying that it planned to drop its appeal. “To comply with the order, the F.D.A. has asked the manufacturer of Plan B One-Step to submit a supplemental application seeking approval of the one-pill product to be made available O.T.C. without any such restrictions,” the statement said. “Once F.D.A. receives that supplemental application, the F.D.A. intends to approve it promptly.”
The decision is certain to anger abortion rights opponents, who oppose letting young girls have access to the drug without the involvement of a parent or a doctor. For Mr. Obama, the decision could rekindle a high-intensity, politically turbulent debate about contraceptives even as he is already dealing with a series of distracting controversies and national security leaks.
Mr. Obama had expressed personal concern about making the drug more broadly available last year and offered support to Kathleen Sebelius, his secretary of health and human services, when she blocked a decision by the F.D.A. that would have cleared the way for nonprescription distribution to all girls and women regardless of age. He said that as the father of two young girls, the idea of making the drug available to them without a prescription made him uncomfortable.
But a federal judge angrily accused the administration of blocking the drug because of politics, not science, and ordered Ms. Sebelius to reverse her decision. Last week the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City partially refused the Justice Department’s request for a delay in the judge’s order while the government appealed.
In its letter to the court, the Justice Department outlined the procedural steps that the F.D.A. plans to take. It said the maker of Plan B One-Step, Teva Pharmaceuticals, has been asked to “promptly” file an application asking for no age or sales restrictions, and that the “F.D.A. will approve it without delay.”
Once that is done, the F.D.A. expects makers of generic versions of Plan B One-Step — the most popular of those is Next Choice One Dose — to ask for a similar arrangement. The F.D.A. will evaluate those requests, based on whether it decides to give Plan B One-Step any type of market exclusivity, but most likely generic pills will also eventually be available without restrictions.
The Justice Department said it would not remove restrictions from two-pill emergency contraceptives because it is concerned that young girls might not be able to adequately understand how to take two separate doses. But two-pill versions are a diminishing fraction of the market.
The fight to make emergency contraceptives universally available without a prescription is more than a decade old. Plan B, the trade name for the morning-after pill, was approved in 1999 as a prescription-only product. In 2001 the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a citizens petition for it to be made available over the counter or without a prescription.
By December 2011, after years of pressure from women’s reproductive rights groups and the companies selling the drug, the F.D.A. was poised to lift all age restrictions. By then the F.D.A. also said it had determined that the drug was safe. But in an unprecedented move Ms. Sebelius overruled the agency. She said at the time that she had based her decision on science because she said the manufacturer had failed to study whether the drug was safe for girls as young as 11, about 10 percent of whom are physically able to bear children.
In April, Judge Korman once again ordered the government to make all morning-after pills available without a prescription and without any sales restrictions. In a stridently worded ruling, Judge Korman wrote that Ms. Sebelius’s decision to overrule the F.D.A. “was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.”
He also accused the federal government of “bad faith” in dealing with the requests over more than a decade to make the pill universally available.
“The F.D.A. has engaged in intolerable delays in processing the petition,” the judge wrote. “Indeed, it could accurately be described as an administrative agency filibuster.”
Kitty Bennett contributed reporting
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/in-reversal-obama-to-end-effort-to-restrict-morning-after-pill.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/in-reversal-obama-to-end-effort-to-restrict-morning-after-pill.html?hp)
-
And we're supposed to be a surprise, by this administration? Of course it occurred AFTER his election. Had it been done before the elections, then THAT would have had the "political repercussions" for Obama, the article alludes to
-
True leadership is doing what is best for the country in as smooth a way as possible.
There is no reason not to allow this medicine to be sold as proposed.
-
Leadership has been the one component sorely missing in this administration....outside it leading us into a debt riddled 3rd world economic abyss. Nothing "smooth" about this, as it was done purely for political reasons, outside the repercussions of the electorate.
-
You like a lot of pregnant unwed teenagers walking around do you?
BSB
-
No. I'd like a lot of married women walking around, if they're gonna be pregnant, and if we're talking about what I'd like. There's a lot of things I'd like, but that's not really the issue here is it?
-
We are not in any sort of "third world economic abyss". But if we were, it would have absolutely zilch, nada, niente, bupkiss to do with allowing teenagers to buy an abortion pill.
Imagine a world led by a doofus like sirs. he is very close to one of those cartoon minions. The one with one eye, in particular.
-
We are not in any sort of "third world economic abyss".
We are absolutely on that unsustainable path. That's just a reality, with the current debt we're acruing
-
Again, you are full of crap, sirs.
Just one more indoctrinated lumpenproletarian.
And again, economics has bupkiss to do with abortion pills.
I am thinking that a woman who decides not to give birth by her own volition is likely to be a greater asset to society and herself than one who is forced to marry because of sirs dictating to her what she must do with her life.
-
That coolaide sure must taste great...not to mention sirs would never force anyone to marry. Just more deflective garbage from the master of strawmen
-
"No. I'd like a lot of married women walking around, if they're gonna be pregnant, and if we're talking about what I'd like."
Well good, I'm glad you agree with the administration on this.
BSB
-
Yea, our 2 positions are so aligned
NOT :o
-
I don't think they ever had their heart in it.
Incest and statutory rape really should be penalty free and easy to get away with.
-
I don't think they ever had their heart in it.
Incest and statutory rape really should be penalty free and easy to get away with.
Of course, no adult male plans to get an eleven-year-old girl pregnant, but if he does, he now has "Plan B" -- courtesy of the Obama administration. In other words, the Obama administration has halted any effort to prevent over-the-counter sales of potentially life-ending drugs to girls of all ages.
Those of us who are pro-life find abortifacients morally troublesome (although less so in cases of rape or incest, of course). But how can anyone -- anyone -- defend a policy that facilitates sexual predators covering up their exploitation of young girls by simply having them purchase and take the drug? Well, over to Planned Parenthood head and Obama ally Cecile Richards:
"The FDA’s decision will make emergency contraception available on store shelves, just like condoms, and women of all ages will be able to get it quickly in order to prevent unintended pregnancy.”
Her obtuseness (and depravity!) is breathtaking. Plan B is not "just like condoms"; condoms prevent a pregnancy from occurring, while Plan B terminates a potential pregnancy. It is the difference between contraception and abortion.
Moreover, in a world where girls have to be 16 to drive a car, 18 to vote, and 21 to drink, how does it possibly make sense to facilitate access to a life-ending drug, with effects they may not understand, and without any opportunity for a doctor or other concerned adult to become aware of possible sexual abuse or statutory rape?
We all understand that President Obama doesn't want any young girl to be "punished with a baby" -- but if he doesn't want his daughters taking Plan B without his or his wife's knowledge, why is his administration making it easier for everyone else's daughters to do so? (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/06/11/a-plan-b--for-sexual-predators-n1618089)
-
Most incest and statutory rape never gets prosecuted. Adding an unwanted child to the mess hardly helps anyone.
-
Way to throw in your support of rapists, xo
-
Yeah, sure. Women buy the pill so they can put on sexy clothing and go out and attract rapists.
Rapists do not care whether their victims get pregnant.
Precisely how is the availability of this pill going to increase the number of rapes?
You are truly an imbecile.
-
Imbecilic is supporting measures that make things far easier for those to commit statutory rape & incest
-
"Plan B is not "just like condoms"; condoms prevent a pregnancy from occurring, while Plan B terminates a potential pregnancy. It is the difference between contraception and abortion."
The next thing you know the right will try to ban masterbation, claiming it's equivalent to abortion.
Trying to stop a young girl from buying the morning-after pill because of incest and/or statutory rape is pure Taliban stuff.
BSB
-
Incest and rape are not going to be made one whit easier because these rather expensive pills are available.
-
Wow...the hyperbole and ignorance the left will adopt to avoid reality, and stick to the liberal template of what is, is, is quite....illuminating
It'll have been made OTC easier. You don't think pedophiles & rapists don't have money??
-
Sure, all the rapists used to supply a free coat hanger with every rape. But now that they can buy a pill, they will carry a supply with them before every raping session.
Most incest and rapes are not reported. Most do not cause pregnancies. Most of those doing the rapes and incest do not care much about pregnancy. either.
-
Yea, that's the way to get away with a statutory rape, have the girl mame herself with a coat hanger ::) Do you ever spend any time thinking these outrageous responses out at all??
-
Like I ever raped anyone. Like I ever gave anyone a coat hanger.
You apparently are incapable of understanding anything more subtle than being slapped upside the head with a large, deceased mackerel.
You have no understanding of a joke.
There will be no relationship with this pill and rapist and incestuous relatives being prosecuted, except in the cramped confines of your teensy little mind.
-
Like I ever raped anyone. Like I ever gave anyone a coat hanger.
Strawman, after strawman, after strawman. Like I claimed you ever did ::)
You have no understanding of a joke.
Where the hell's the "joke"? Rape?...Coat hangers? You have a very twisted sense of humor if you find any of this a joke (cue the xo standard snark response that sirs is a joke)
There will be no relationship with this pill and rapist and incestuous relatives being prosecuted
That's actually the point.......this gives would be rapists & pedophiles a much easier way out of ever being prosecuted. No baby?, couldn't have been statutory rape now, could it. Incestuous relatives & child rapists applaud you
-
Correct me if I am wrong but the current status of Plan B pharmaceuticals is they are available OTC to those over a certain age? And the court ordered change is that they become available OTC to anyone with the wherewithal to purchase them, is that correct?
-
"Correct me if I am wrong but the current status of Plan B pharmaceuticals is they are available OTC to those over a certain age?"
Right, so a pedophile can buy them over the counter and supply them to his target. What does the new law change? Nothing.
BSB
-
That's actually the point.......this gives would be rapists & pedophiles a much easier way out of ever being prosecuted. No baby?, couldn't have been statutory rape now, could it. Incestuous relatives & child rapists applaud you
===========================================================================
You seriously think that they monitor this forum to seek approval?
You want the wages of sin to be unwanted babies. That is sick, sick, sick.
Rapists and incestuous relatives are not likely at all to buy expensive pills when condoms are cheap and readily available. You seem incapable of any form of rational thought.
-
I am trying to understand why the conservatives are using an emotional argument, ie incest and rapists, without showing how doing away with age requirements does in any way provide a boon to their illicit behavior.
-
I can't figure BT.
BSB
-
That's actually the point.......this gives would be rapists & pedophiles a much easier way out of ever being prosecuted. No baby?, couldn't have been statutory rape now, could it. Incestuous relatives & child rapists applaud you
===========================================================================
You seriously think that they monitor this forum to seek approval?
Ans still more strawmen..........*sigh* :o
-
The ultimate strawman: "Ans still more strawmen..........*sigh*"
How embarrassing is that?
BSB
-
You say they applaud me:
( Incestuous relatives & child rapists applaud you)
Then you say that somehow me pointing out that they have no idea what I post here is a "strawman". ::)
How can they applaud me if they do not know what I posted?
Answer me that genius. :o
-
The literal nazi pokes his head up. You don't do rhetorical well do you? It's commonly used in writing. When a person says something along the lines of they applaud you, with "they" being some nebulous group, its referred to as rhetorical, since its rather clear that "they" don't follow this forum specifically. Who the hell would think/believe that?? Now, if in a conversation, the "they" are someones that the person knows personally, then you can use the term literally.
Then again, you should know this, which is why your original literal nazi effort was just another, in a long line of deflective strawmen. Quite an army of them that you've amassed
-
The ultimate strawman: "And still more strawmen..........*sigh*"
How embarrassing is that?
BSB
And for your claim to be taken seriously, you'll need to demonstrate how my comment was some supposed strawman. Your supposed superior say so, just doesn't cut it. Now, how embarrasing would that be if you couldn't
-
Quite an army of them that you've amassed
===================================
I have amassed nothing. You, however, have amassed a veritable terra cotta army of these little buggers, and they all dwell between your ears, where there is indubitably a vast expanse left for more.
-
Quite an army of them that you've amassed
===================================
I have amassed nothing.
Sure you have. Nearly every turn of where you've been asked to back up something you've said, or your position has shown to be as weak as tinfoil, you either respond with insults and/or comments that no one is arguing, and try to argue that. Your latest example.........
You, however, have amassed a veritable terra cotta army of these little buggers, and they all dwell between your ears, where there is indubitably a vast expanse left for more.
Thanks for helping to reinforce the point I was making. Your efforts are to be applauded......by a nebubulous group who don't read these posts personally/specifically
-
The ultimate strawman: "And still more strawmen..........*sigh*"
How embarrassing is that?
BSB
And for your claim to be taken seriously, you'll need to demonstrate how my comment was some supposed strawman. Your supposed superior say so, just doesn't cut it. Now, how embarrasing would that be if you couldn't
*Cue the apparent can't-be-taken-seriously crickets*
-
Every debate with the imbecile sirs ends the same way: sirs claims that everything anyone else says proves his point, which it doesn't.
All this strawman crap is just horse poop. No one takes you seriously sirs.
-
.....minus of course when I reference a fact or point being made, I can back most of everything I claim up, while hilighting where others can't
-
Most incest and statutory rape never gets prosecuted. ....
Well that little thing needs to be worked on.
-
When young girls are brave enough to denounce their fathers, stepfathers and brothers, it will happen in the case of incest.
In the case of statutory rape, the young girl is in love with the statutory rapist quiet often. Perhaps it is a mutual feeling as well.
Making a pregnant girl stay pregnant against her will is not going to help her.
-
No one says she must keep the child, and why make it even easier for such predators??
The child becomes PROOF of both the incest & the rape, with the girl not needing to denounce anyone
-
It does not work that way.
Now you want babies for the sake of evidence.
Stuff your gut full of baby for nine months and then tell us what a splendid idea this is.
Dumb shit.
-
"The child becomes PROOF of both the incest & the rape, with the girl not needing to denounce anyone"
Ha ha, yeah bring the child to term so you'll have evidence. Can you imagine?
BSB
-
When young girls are brave enough to denounce their fathers, stepfathers and brothers, it will happen in the case of incest.
In the case of statutory rape, the young girl is in love with the statutory rapist quiet often. Perhaps it is a mutual feeling as well.
Making a pregnant girl stay pregnant against her will is not going to help her.
I think the un intended effect will become the main effect, ...and the trends twards more mistreatment of young women will continue to increase.
-
It does not work that way.
What doesn't work what way??
Now you want babies for the sake of evidence.
No, I want babies to LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF LIVING!!
Stuff your gut full of baby for nine months and then tell us what a splendid idea this is.
I don't plan on getting raped. It's one of the reasons I have a CCW
Dumb shit.
And yet Bt gets all angry at me. Go figure
"The child becomes PROOF of both the incest & the rape, with the girl not needing to denounce anyone"
Ha ha, yeah bring the child to term so you'll have evidence. Can you imagine?
Completely missed the point I see. No surpise there. Those crickets get in thru the ears??
-
No one says she must keep the child, and why make it even easier for such predators??
The child becomes PROOF of both the incest & the rape, with the girl not needing to denounce anyone
I have seen no compelling argument that lowering the age at which one can buy Plan B Over the counter makes it easier for pedophiles and incestuous adults to stalk their prey.
And yet not one but two conservatives in this forum seem to want to put forth that argument emotion laden as it is without providing evidence that their argument is sound.
-
It makes it easier because now the girl can do it, while the actual predator can avoid any suspecting eyes of a man purchasing otc BC. Can't get much sounder
-
It makes it easier because now the girl can do it, while the actual predator can avoid any suspecting eyes of a man purchasing otc BC. Can't get much sounder
So a predator with a vasectomy is home scot free?
-
How does the child form with the inclusive vasectomy? You're not making any sense here, Bt. You pretty much asked how this change in Obama justice policy make things easier for predators. I just gave you a sound one that does. What exactly are you trying to micro-parse?
-
The child would not form with a vasectomy , nor most likely would it form with a condom , nor would it form with contraceptives, nor would it form with penetration of orifices other than the vagina, yet allowing Plan B to be openly sold over the counter is now the chance all the predators have been hoping for so that they leave no evidence behind.
It is almost as if you are saying that the VICTIM of such abuse should be charged with tampering with evidence if she so dares minimize the potential damage of such an attack
Your argument has serious flaws
-
The child would not form with a vasectomy
So the predator that doesn't foster a child is a little more fortunate. Ok. I still answered your question with a sound answer, devoid of the emotion you were trying to attach to the "conservative criticisms". You merely provided a subset of those predators that are more likely to get away with it, since the whole argument regarding these plan B pills is moot to the vasected Predator
It is almost as if you are saying that the VICTIM of such abuse should be charged with tampering with evidence if she so dares minimize the potential damage of such an attack
Not even remotely what I'm saying, or even almost. Your deduction is what's seriously flawed here, I'm afraid ::)
-
If you're a store owner, and an armed robber comes into your store, let him shoot you so the police will have some evidence.
BSB
-
And yet that is exactly what you said in 42:
No one says she must keep the child, and why make it even easier for such predators??
The child becomes PROOF of both the incest & the rape, with the girl not needing to denounce anyone
ergo the VICTIM would be destroying evidence if she purchased Plan B OTC
-
If you're a store owner, and an armed robber comes into your store, let him shoot you so the police will have some evidence.
Naaa, I'll just shoot him in self defense. Nice to see you compare a baby to bullets though. Interesting insight into that keen mind of yours
-
How many fourteen year old girls are in danger of pregnancy and are not victims ?
Must be a few.
-
And yet that is exactly what you said in 42:
No one says she must keep the child, and why make it even easier for such predators??
The child <HAPPENS TO> become PROOF of both the incest & the rape, with the girl not needing to denounce anyone
ergo the VICTIM would be destroying evidence if she purchased Plan B OTC
Wow, now you're joining BnonameB in completely missing my point of that comment. Bravo. Yea, that's what I'm saying, the teen must keep the baby for evidence, or that PlanB would be destroying it. Good god, you 2 can't be that obtuse. Let's throw all common sense out, is the new mantra?
-
And yet that is exactly what you said in 42:
No one says she must keep the child, and why make it even easier for such predators??
The child <HAPPENS TO> become PROOF of both the incest & the rape, with the girl not needing to denounce anyone
ergo the VICTIM would be destroying evidence if she purchased Plan B OTC
Wow, now you're joining BnonameB in completely missing my point of that comment. Bravo. Yea, that's what I'm saying, the teen must keep the baby for evidence, or that PlanB would be destroying it. Good god, you 2 can't be that obtuse. Let's throw all common sense out, is the new mantra?
If a young girl can buy some of this stuff every few days , all of her problems will be solved.
-
Indeed, with her parents no worse for the wiser
-
I dunno. the statement you made seems pretty clear to me.
A pregnancy provides proof of the crime.
Plan B eliminates that proof.
Making life easier for the predator.
-
How many fourteen year old girls are in danger of pregnancy and are not victims ?
Must be a few.
I would suspect more than a few. High schools are chock full of young love. Even among kids the same age.
-
At least now we know why sirs runs around armed: so he won't get raped and become pregnant.
But maybe some clever dude will slip him a roofie and he will be caught unawares...
-
Indeed, with her parents no worse for the wiser
I suspect that if the young woman were to buy Plan B every other day her parents would know about it.
or they should.
-
Being as it costs around $90, I am sure of it.
It would be easier just to take BC pills.
-
If your house is on fire, whatever you do, don't call the fire department.
BSB
-
I dunno. the statement you made seems pretty clear to me.
Yes it was clear......until you preceded to tweak into into some literal requirement that the baby come to term, otherwise its tampering with evidence. That's ridiculous....which is probably why you tried to imply that's what I was saying. Try asking a straight forward question, I'll again provide the straight forward answer.......then begin the process of continuously having to re-correct your efforts to twist my response away from their intentions
A pregnancy provides proof of the crime.
HAPPENS TO...AS A MATTER OF FACT...END OF STORY....NO NEED TO GO ANY FURTHER (unless of course the idea is to pervert the point being made into something other than it is)
It's the making the pills more available that'll make life easier for the Predator *gads*
-
If your house is on fire, whatever you do, don't call the fire department.
BSB
And yet another dropped ball. Brady has to be getting pretty frustrated, by now
-
It's the making the pills more available that'll make life easier for the Predator *gads*
How so?
-
Asked and answered already
-
Right i believe your answer was that there would no longer be proof of the crime.
-
Being as it costs around $90, I am sure of it.
It would be easier just to take BC pills.
Is there a diffrent solution for those of modest income?
-
Right i believe your answer was that there would no longer be proof of the crime.
Actually that was your re-worked version, and not my answer to the question asked
-
Right i believe your answer was that there would no longer be proof of the crime.
Actually that was your re-worked version, and not my answer to the question asked
Well lets imagine a girl in that predicament.
Is she better off being able to hide her victimisation?
-
I dunno. the statement you made seems pretty clear to me.
A pregnancy provides proof of the crime.
Plan B eliminates that proof.
Making life easier for the predator.
Oh no nonononono...
That cannot happen.
-
There are generics ready to come to market.
-
Right i believe your answer was that there would no longer be proof of the crime.
Actually that was your re-worked version, and not my answer to the question asked
Well lets imagine a girl in that predicament.
Is she better off being able to hide her victimisation?
This is delving onto personal morals. Hide her "victimization" from whom? Is the idea to enable the rapist? What exactly is her "predicament", and how did it come about? More detail to the hypothetical is needed to form some judgements
-
So you are retracting your 42 and your reworked version of 42 in 57?
Slick how you inserted <happens to> inside my quote. Also dishonest.
And you mention that no one is saying the victim has to bring the child to term, which begs the question are you advocating abortion?
-
in Canada they cost about $25.
The pharmacist also has to interview the patient.
The screening form can be found here (http://www.planb.ca/pdf/screening.pdf)
-
Nothing's been retracted, only a denouncement of your efforts on perverting my original answer. And no, the "happens to" was again an effort to demonstrate how you were wrong in your original conclusion. Nothing dishonest about it, as I made it clear that I added it. Didn't think it was needed, but with the ongoing perversion efforts, apparently it was. And apparently effective in even better outlining my point, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to connect some dishonest tag to it
And now the added perversion of trying to tweak to imply I'm advocating abortion. Good god
If you wish this to continue, please try to get serious, and ask a simple question. Otherwise I think we're done, and you, Xo, and BnonameB can continue with the perversion party
-
If the pregnant victim does not need to bring the baby to term, what is she to do?
And i really don't see how i am perverting your words , they are exact quotes.
-
If the pregnant victim does not need to bring the baby to term, what is she to do?
"need"? I'm curious, but when does any pregnant woman "need" to bring a baby to term? The only scenario I can think of is when parents are trying to have a child so as to provide something like a bone marrow transplant. That would be a "need". Otherwise its simply a choice to have a child and raise it, or not, in which case there are many barren families who may embrace to idea of adoption
Perhaps you can rephrase the question
And i really don't see how i am perverting your words , they are exact quotes.
And perverted to mean something they were never intended to mean, such as destroying evidence. My reference to the "happens to" pretty much made that effort moot
-
<happens to> was added after the fact by you and it doesn't change the meaning of your statement that if OTC plan b's are available without age restriction then it makes the predators life easier because they destroy hard proof of their crime.
-
It was never meant to "change it", it was meant to clarify what already didn't really need any further clarity....until you brought about your efforts to muddy it up. Simple as that. Sirs is claiming that a pregnant woman can't take it because it would be destroying evidence, good gravy. Right up there with we have to pass it to see what's in it ::)
-
42 says different
The child becomes PROOF of both the incest & the rape.
What child? The one formed by the actions of the predator upon the victim.
WHat happens if the victims uses plan b.
no proof.
I really don't see how i perverted your words.
Face it you made a silly argument and can't defend it.
-
42 doesn't say different, no matter how many times you want to pervert it to say otherwise. Yes it DOES provide proof. That does NOT make it evidence in some court case, unless the situation, at some point, goes to court. GET IT??
Now, do you have a simple question, or are we done?
-
42 doesn't say different, no matter how many times you want to pervert it to say otherwise. Yes it DOES provide proof. That does NOT make it evidence in some court case, unless the situation, at some point, goes to court. GET IT??
Now, do you have a simple question, or are we done?
It's obvious you can not defend 42 so yes we are done.
-
LOL....nothing to defend. Yes, we are done
-
Sirs doesn't just use strawmen, he is a strawman. Be careful around matches Sirs.
BSB
-
It's painfully obvious that you apparently don't know what the term strawman is used for in debates. That's ok, you're never too old to learn something new. We'll do what we can to educate you. Simply follow any of Xo's comments, and you're bound to run across some, complete with an EXAMPLE OF HOW IT IS A STRAWMAN
-
The idea of sirs educating anyone about anything is horrific to contemplate.
He actually wants raped and abused teenagers to experience nine months of pregnancy and change their lives forever to supply "evidence".
This was the situation before the Plan B pill was available. How many rapists did this catch? How many cases of incestuous relationships?
But not to worry, no one will get sirs knocked up, 'cause he's packin' heat.
-
He actually wants raped and abused teenagers to experience nine months of pregnancy and change their lives forever to supply "evidence".
That is certainly the way 42 reads.
And he apparently stands by that statement.
-
I really doubt that the sale of Plan B will have any negligible effect on convictions of statutory rapists or incestuous abusers. Most are not convicted now, and that is not likely to change.
Of course, if an 18 year old guy has consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, that is what I would call a definite gray area.
-
He actually wants raped and abused teenagers to experience nine months of pregnancy and change their lives forever to supply "evidence".
That is certainly the way 42 reads.
And he apparently stands by that statement.
I stand by my statement, but don't by your perverted twisting of it. See how you completely misrepresented it, even after I tried to provide a clarifyer? Naaaa....sirs had to mean something completely stupid....because....well, he had to have a nefarious alterior motive. Just had to have.
Great example Bt
-
"He actually wants raped and abused teenagers to experience nine months of pregnancy and change their lives forever to supply "evidence"."
I wonder if he thinks that the girl was probably asking for it? You know, wearing shorts, or whatever? So, she of course should pay for her sins by carrying the rapist's child. Strange how people like Sirs, or members of the ultra-conservative Taliban, think.
BSB
-
He actually wants raped and abused teenagers to experience nine months of pregnancy and change their lives forever to supply "evidence".
That is certainly the way 42 reads.
And he apparently stands by that statement.
I stand by my statement, but don't by your perverted twisting of it. See how you completely misrepresented it, even after I tried to provide a clarifyer? Naaaa....sirs had to mean something completely stupid....because....well, he had to have a nefarious alterior motive. Just had to have.
Great example Bt
I don't see how i twisted your statement when i quoted it directly.
-
Like Clockwork. I've already demonstrated how you twisted the "direct quote" (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/u-s-drops-bid-to-limit-sales-of-morning-after-pill/msg154866/#msg154866). You, B & xo can keep playing in the sand. I'll go back to trying seriously debate issues and answer serious questions, when posed
-
Every debate ends the same. sirs talks himself into stupid corner and denies that he is wearing the dunce hat.
-
lol.....oh the irony
-
Like Clockwork. I've already demonstrated how you twisted the "direct quote" (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/u-s-drops-bid-to-limit-sales-of-morning-after-pill/msg154866/#msg154866). You, B & xo can keep playing in the sand. I'll go back to trying seriously debate issues and answer serious questions, when posed
Please! 79 was nothing but whining.
You still haven't shown how i twisted your words. You just asserted i did, as if, that made it so.
-
You have a strange definition of irony, dunce.
-
Every debate ends the same. sirs talks himself into stupid corner and denies that he is wearing the dunce hat.
Perhaps the mercy rule should come into play.
Like in little league when the opposing team is down 15 runs or so.
-
absolutely..........3 vs 1 and you guys down by 15? Shame
-
absolutely..........3 vs 1 and you guys down by 15? Shame
Poor baby