Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: How would you like to see the morning after pill RU-486 regulated in the US?
Available over the counter to all who want it
19
48.72%
Available by prescription only
5
12.82%
Available by prescription only with parental consent required for people under 18 years of age
What I mean is that the FDA is supposed to approve drugs based on scientific criteria, this is it's mandate from congress.
The Bush administration has been injecting their political/religious views into the process.
The FDA is supposed to determine if a drug is both safe and effective for the requested use. That's it, nothing more.
The pro life movement objects to this drug on religious grounds as it makes almost impossible for them to protest it's use of control it in any way. It effectivly makes most of their protest mechanism absolete.
Conversely, it would also effectivly eliminate one of their major talking points. This is the 'Abortion Industry'. They try to make it sound like abortion is a commerical operation, well this would remove most of that from the equation. Why aren't they/you glad that this will put many planned paeranthood clinics out of business ?
Man, this is getting so old! I have many many friends who are pro-life and are not religious. I guess to you, no one can actually care about the life of a human being without being religious.
If you read what I have posted, I don't actually advocate the avilablity of this drug OTC. Just letting the FDA do it's job without harrasement from the religious right in the GOP.
The only questions the FDA is suppose to answer are
Actually, in most cases parental concent is a good thing but it does bring up questions for which there are no easy answers.
Should you force a girl to carry the child because her parents have a religious abjection ?
How do you handle parental consent issues when you are in na rural location with limited access to courts ? In the city the child could talk to a judge possibly but it would be much harder in some places.
I agree the parental consent issue is tough, so far I see it used by the pro life movement to try and limit access. I see little concern for the girl in question or really any concern over the parents, it seems to be a convienent platform to use for the agenda.
The school trip example is to protect the school [from liability] and ear piecing is [I suspect] a school uniform issue, so neither are really relevant.
OK, so what about my friends and the thousands if not more of other girls who got pregnant and their parents FORCED them to have an abortion. All they want now, as grown women is to have their dead baby alive again. Even if they gave it up for adoption, they would rather it be alive. These parents (of women I know) made this decision for their child out of SHAME, PRIDE, and EMBARRASSMENT. They didn't think of the long term impact it would have on their daughter. Just that their "friends" wouldn't find out.
If limiting access is so bad and is just part of a religous agenda, then shoot! Why have ANY rules? I mean who cares what kids do today? Let's just kick them out at age 12 with a box of condoms or "morning after" pills and say "Good luck." They should know by then how to get along in life.
No, it's just that the Bush administration seems to be inserting his evangelical agenda everywhere he can.
The FDA is one of these places.
GW is getting his cronies to 'adjust' scientific findings based on his politics and religion.
Where's that quote about you NOT being anti-religion. That's got to be one of the most far off statements I've ever heard. I don't know how you could even say that when 90% of your posts are something slamming about religion, religious people, GW HAVING a religion, how bad religious people are screwing up your world. My goodness Nidan, have you no shame?
i think it's funny that when it comes to abortion, kids are referred to as adults who can make their own decisions, but when we talk about soldiers in the war, they are our "kids" who need protection from the government.
Where's that quote about you NOT being anti-religion. That's got to be one of the most far off statements I've ever heard. I don't know how you could even say that when 90% of your posts are something slamming about religion, religious people, GW HAVING a religion, how bad religious people are screwing up your world. My goodness Nidan, have you no shame?
Very well said and understood by many on this board
Man, this is getting so old! I have many many friends who are pro-life and are not religious. I guess to you, no one can actually care about the life of a human being without being religious.
Thats pretty much me.
I was pro-choice until we had our first child. I am pretty much pro-life now but I can tolorate abortions up to the end of the first tri-mester. Anything after would have to be life threating to the mother.
What I cannot tolorate is abortion used as birth control. There should be a 3 strikes your out rule or something for women that use abortion has such.
With that said I also think fathers should have a say in the aborting of his child. It did take two to create the child and if she were to keep the child he would be paying child support for the next 18 years.
__________________ All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
An unarmed person is a subject. An armed person is a citizen.
Portland - you're more liberal about that I am.
I'm for an 8 week limit - when there's no nervous system yet.
At 12, the fetus may have enough neural equipment to feel things.
On a side note - a question for the religious: Shouldn't human fetuses be tiny versions of humans? Why would they start as as tadpoles, moving to fish? Why does the human fetus have tail for a while?
Why do men have nipples?
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Check out Dephinger on our MySpace page.
Portland - you're more liberal about that I am.
I'm for an 8 week limit - when there's no nervous system yet.
At 12, the fetus may have enough neural equipment to feel things. On a side note - a question for the religious: Shouldn't human fetuses be tiny versions of humans? Why would they start as as tadpoles, moving to fish? Why does the human fetus have tail for a while? Why do men have nipples?
I think that would be more of a question for an evolutionist.
For the rest of your questions I do not know but God is pretty creative.
Moon Lander Champion!
All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
Linear Mode
