U.S. Drops Bid to Limit Sales of Morning-After Pill

[BT]

There are generics ready to come to market.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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?

[BT]

in Canada they cost about $25.

The pharmacist also has to interview the patient.

The screening form can be found here

[sirs]

Nothing's been retracted, only a denouncement of your efforts on perverting my original answer.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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

<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.

[sirs]

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   

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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?

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

LOL....nothing to defend.  Yes, we are done

[BSB]

Sirs doesn't just use strawmen, he is a strawman. Be careful around matches Sirs.


BSB

[sirs]

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