Woman to Woman

By Billy

December 12, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this

Yes, absolutely.

By Billy

December 12, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Oh, and one reason the “Concerned Women for America” is against Plan B is “Many teenagers would be less confident in resisting sexual pressure, particularly if easy access to the pill is in the aggressor’s arsenal of coercion. It will increase the likelihood of sexual abuse of girls, and that sexual perpetrators will prolong their rapes undetected.” Yes, that came directly from CWA’s web site.

Yes! Plan B’s available over-the-counter! Now I can rape and molest all I want, covering it up with the morning after pill! No one will know what hit them, and I’ll get off!

By Billy

December 12, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Arsenal? You can’t say arsenal?

By Billy

December 12, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Ar-se-nal

By Ken

December 12, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Can a woman get birth control pills without a prescription (obviously not a woman so I don’t know)? If so, why not?

If the “morning after pill”, “emergency conraception”, or whatever it is called is a heavier does of the hormone found in conventional birth control pills, and those must be administered through a prescription, it would seem logical that this “morning after pill” should also be distributed through prescription.

By Billy

December 12, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

The morning after pill is the equivalent of around three regular birth control pills. When taken once, it isn’t going to cause serious problems. When on a regular course of birth control, you have the hormones in your system semi-permanently. Diane is right — it’s long-term with the pill and short-term with the morning after. Eating a box of Twinkies in a day would make you sick, probably, but you wouldn’t likely suffer any long-term negative effects. Especially compared with eating one twinkie every day. Or drinking a whole bottle of wine once compared with drinking a glass every single night.

And let’s remember that pregnancy, especially in teens, carries a host of health risks with it.

By Mara

December 12, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Ken what you are missing is that conventional birth control pills are meant for long term use and with that extended exposure comes the possible side effects that need to be monitored for. Do you get that? Long term use. “Plan B” is a single dose of high-concentrate hormone. One dose doesn’t cause build up in your system the way extended use can. That’s why most doctors who do not advocate OTC birth control pills see no problem with single dose “Plan B” contraception.

By Jorge

December 12, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Isn’t it embarrassing to have to ask your doctor for a prescription for the morning after pill and birth control pills? I would feel embarrassed asking my doctor for a presciption for condoms. He may not say anything, but his facial expressions will say enough. I can remember the first time that I had to purchase them. The store had them locked behind customer service. It was late at night, and they had to call the manager to the front to open the case. And then he stood there while I looked for the ones that I wanted.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

It is absolutley absurd that a woman cannot walk down an aisle and purchase BC or The MA pill. {I would like to ask the board on what age would be appropriate though…}

We would have to have a 1-800-hotline on use though and then make it illegal to sue the companies for mis-use. Otherwise, you know people will blame them in this sue-happy country.

Understand that mis-use will happen {most guys/girls STILL use a condom incorrectly for gods sake!} - and we would want to try to mitgate that.

Besides that; I find this a non-topic; and falls under the greater topic that there are still a lot of idiots in the world - and they are breading fast than us!

By mit

December 12, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

good, I need some bread for my sandwich. could you dems please make it faster? the repubs make only onion bread.

By E. Lewis

December 12, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Yes, the higher ups were guided by politics. They ignored the science and wrapped up the decision in what was truly “pseudo-science”. This decision was based on political expediency yet none of the decision makers were man enough to admit why they made the decision they did.

By Ken

December 12, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Mara… Please do not take my post as support for or against this drug. I am merely proposing a possible, logical explanation.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Doesnt this raise the question of why ANY non-addictive drug is regulated?

Is it that the general population IS that stupid to use them properly? (but can buy/use a chainsaw?)

To create a greater need for doctors/pharmacists?

Or conservatives who want to control people for the kicks or religious reasons?

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Ken,

Curious as to how that logic (I see what you are saying regarding presidence{sp?}) fits in with my ponderings above. I mean why even keep the presidence?

Care to share you thoughts?

By Ken

December 12, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

FatMoose… Not sure if I agree with you on the idea that birth control should be available by simply “walking down the aisle.”

There are multiple birth control prescriptions. I am not sure if they are simply dosage difference of the same hormone, or completely different hormones all together, but… The doctor, based on various tests, prescribes what he/she believes to be best for the woman. I am not sure it is a good idea to leave that decision (the scientific determination of the appropriate prescription NOT the decision to use birth control) to the individual, and that is exactly what you would do by having them available over the counter (The FDA makes the same types of determinations OTC/Pres for pain killers).

I am not so sure why we have such push back to going to the doctor for this type of drug. In my limited experience (for birth control), it is relatively easy, and the doctor has not ever said no. If someone can please educate me on that one, I would appreciate it. Again, I am not trying to be flippant, I simply want to understand the thought process.

By Jack

December 12, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Yes they caved. they caved with the “abortion” pill also. That is all I will say on this subject since I am a man.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Ken,

In MY experience the doctors perform no tests; but rather plug and chug in trying to find one that works BEST for the women via feedback.

There seems to be no reason this could not be done via phoning 1-800-bcontrol or such.

By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian

December 12, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Men discussing birth control as though they have some sort of first hand knowledge on the subject. You have some darn nerve! Are you men going to explain what childbirth feels like next week? PLEASE, gimme a break.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

That is all I will say on this subject since I am a man.

I agree that women should have more of a say in these matters; and weighted accordingly.

But I believe that until there are more women in the position to speak out in higher positions; it is our job NOT to be silent. For then it is just the old white crusty guys calling the shots!

By Ken

December 12, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

FatMoose… Under your scenario, you are assuming the individuals using birth control would a) use the hotline number and b) follow instruction from the hotline folks.

Given the fact that all users will not use the hotline number and of those that do not all will follow the instructions, there will be improper use of the birth control pills. Given that certainty, you are then assuming the the consequences associated with improper use of birth control are not severe enough to warrant a doctors prescription. I tend to disagree.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Sploiled;

You should learn to know your allies and not alienate them. {If this subject was on removing the need of a prescription for viagra; and you were promoting what men wanted - I would welcome you;}

You are a funny person though and add color to the blog;) Glad to see you!

By Lil' Hottie

December 12, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

My thoughts exactly, spoiled. But I’m getting a kick out of it.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Ken,

Given that certainty, you are then assuming the the consequences associated with improper use of birth control are not severe enough to warrant a doctors prescription. I tend to disagree.

Glad to hear your opinion {More positive re-enforcement is needed on this blog;}.

But I do not know of any urgent side effects. Long term use while pregnant creates the possible loss of a baby, which is trying to be prevented anyways.

I am not sure that the instructions of one tablet daily fall under the need of MORE instruction. It does not get much more simple than that. And as for plug-chug: One trys to balance side effects (Too high of a dosage = headache/nausia) with spotting {to low of dosage}.

There could be more here I do not know about - but pretty sure of my knowledge.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Glad you ladies are enjoying yourselves.

Would you really rather we not give a flip about these things? I mean there is NOT going to be a time when these areas are decided SOLEY by women {legistlature…etc}.

If you would rather men stay out totally; I have no problem backing out and letting things ride, but also find it interesting that there are NO women (besides Mara) sharing on these subjects except you two here to slam men for talking;) And that women then implore us to help make a change….

Having a great day - hope you two are also.

By Ken

December 12, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

FatMoose…

What about the basic side effect of getting pregnant?

What about the doctor keeping those types of records in your medical history so if something ever comes up about the drug, action can be taken (i.e. VIOXX)?

Or if there are known side affects when mixed with other drugs that the doctor may need to prescribe for something completely unrelated?

Taking these drugs alter a person’s body chemistry. Plain and simple. I believe it is important for a doctor to be involved with drugs of this nature. They are trained to deal with these scenarios, most people are not. It is their job to understand the different pharmaceuticals on the market and how they interract with others, most people cannot and do not.

I guess I prefer to stay on the side of caution for health and safety. Again, this is not to say we shouldn’t have these available, I just find it reasonable to have a doctor involved. Big, big difference.

By KC

December 12, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Interesting debate. Personally I find it more interesting that no one is commenting on the very first posts. I mean…submitting for discussion the idea that the “morning after pill” is supported as an excuse to commit consequence free sexual assaults and pedophilia? Wow. I mean…wow! I wonder if the follow-up to this will be a few choice statements that the holocaust never happened, the moon landing was filmed in a TV studio and that it’s a good idea to invade Russia by land.

Oh…and I support free access to the pill. There is a limited window in which to take the medicine and there are times when reaching a doctor and obtaining the prescription simply isn’t possible. And there have been documented cases both of physicians refusing to prescribe the pill and pharmacists refusing to fill the prescription. The only way to remove those obstacles to a drug that the FDA ostensibly sees as safe is to remove the prescription requirement. Half the medicines we buy over the counter were once prescription only. And let’s be clear that the FDA won’t allow doctors to write prescriptions for Cyanide. Drugs must be safe whether physician supervised (and we all know that once a person gets a bottle of pills home they never, ever violate the doctors specific dosing instructions) or freely available. So let’s not argue medical semantics and everyone be honest that this is purely an argument of morality.

Okay…that’s it. Now back to contemplating an overland invasion of Russia….

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Ken,

I guess I prefer to stay on the side of caution for health and safety. Again, this is not to say we shouldn’t have these available, I just find it reasonable to have a doctor involved. Big, big difference.

And understandably; I would like to see people be able to take responsibility of these things themselves - and I think they CAN, but if they WILL is another story.

By what I was driving at, doctors could be attained for councel - but only if one OPTED for. Otherwise - like me and my GF, we would like to (few drugs to worry about and we know how to read comprhesively) make these decisions without calling our doctors each month/year.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

KC;

I took that first post as pure sarcasm and poitning out the BS that SOME groups try to push. Seeing at we all probably agree it is a BS position; there is nothing to debate on it.

By Renee

December 12, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Morning after pill should be able to purchased without a prescription (in my opinion). I know initially this was to be for victims of rape, I’m not sure whether that still holds true for the majority of the usage. If it does, then having it as a prescription is ridiculous. Should every woman just get a prescription just in case they might be raped. If it’s not being used for rape and just as birth control, it should still be sold over the counter. Why not? Everything (and I mean everything) you take in your body presents some sort of risk. I don’t see this having more risk than other items already sold over the counter.

By David

December 12, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

I’m not sure why I continue to vote Republican when they constantly go against my social beliefs. It’s getting worse every year. 60 Minutes did a segment on this a couple of weeks ago and they talked to a teenage girl who said that she couldn’t get the morning after pill after being raped (I think she was raped… not exactly sure). The hospital she went to never offered her the pill because it was a Catholic hospital. She decided that if she ended up being pregnant she’d have an abortion. She wasn’t pregnant and didn’t have to make the decision. Can’t fundies see that there would be LESS abortions if this pill was made available?

And I do mean fundies. The person who ultimately went against the FDA board and kept the pill off store shelves was shown preaching in a church about how God used him to keep the morning after pill out.

Don’t want it? DON’T BUY IT. Democrat party… as much as I hate a lot of your ideals, you guys are looking more and more positive when put up against these religions morons.

By Whiley

December 12, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

If opponents of the morning after pill were truly concerned about the health and safety of all females, NO one would put any road blocks in front of ANY birth control. Do I need to explain the dangers what happens to your body after carrying a pregnancy & giving birth?

By halla

December 12, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

No sex on sundays, y’all, because then you won’t be able to reach your doctor! I guess that’s what the wingnuts really wanted to begin with: to ban everything on sundays.

By Wondering

December 12, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Breaking News! A recent “British study” found that ingesting an entire bottle of aspirin can have harmful side effects. In response, therefore, the FDA has just released a ruling which requires a doctor’s prescription for the purchase of every bottle of this “potentially dangerous” substance.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Wondering;

heck - drinking a LOT of water will kill you. So will too much oxygen…

By Shannon

December 12, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

As others have said, there’s a difference between long-term use of oral contraceptives and one-time use of emergency contraception. It’s no different from other medications that come in both over-the-counter and prescription forms (OTC Aleve versus prescription naproxen, for one example).

Studies have shown that emergency contraception is no more dangerous than any of a number of other OTC medications — and it’s certainly less dangerous than an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy. The only real reason OTC sales are being blocked is because of people more concerned with politics and appearances than with health and safety.

By Archie

December 12, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Diane’s use of condoms in her argument is interesting but condoms don’t go into the bloodstream so I wished she had used another analogy to make her point. I really have no definitive way of knowing how to answer the topic question. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have to get a prescription for the morning-after-pill but I am not a woman… Whatever is best for women medically is what should happen and right now it seems like going to the doctor for a prescription seems to be the best decision.

By Mara

December 12, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Ken I didn’t mean to assign a “side” to you. It seemed to me that your question was about the logic behind the long-term-use/one-time-use dangers and whether if one was regulated, why not the other. Sorry if I put words in your mouth. I have to admit that this issue in particular is of great interest to me. I don’t believe that anyone, not even the government, has the right to tell someone that she must endanger her health for benefit of another. Pregnancy inherently comes with risks including the possibility of death or permanent injury. Even were one to believe that life begins at conception (which I do not…) then requiring a woman to continue gestating against her will is the same as requiring an at-fault driver at a serious accident to give a kidney to aid an injured stranger.

By Jack

December 12, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Hi Whiley! Just reading today. Not an expert on this subject.

By Monica

December 12, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Pardon my medical ignorance…

It was my understanding that the morning after pill would destroy an egg that had already been fertilized. Is this not the case?

By Lyrazel

December 12, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

…guess the logic escapes me.

BC pills have been available..about 30 years. In 30 years of medical achievements there is still no pill for men because semen is sacred. There is still no spray-on condom and the responsibility of BC rests upon the woman because guys have condoms…that miracle of medical engineering old as 10BC! That old sacred phallus…must be in some testament…a thou shalt not or something about not having enough Bubbas in the world…

I think the truth of this conundrum that escapes both Shaunti & Diane is actually: the Medical Industry cant make as much profit off these pills than they can on selling daily pills… Profit runs the politic of America medical industry. Remember any pill with Quick Release Formula is just the same pill—but new profits through new patents can be made, i.e., higher prices can be charged to Medicare for Ibuprofen XL rather than an Aspirin…Clearly if you take 40,840,000 women off dailies for a once-in-awhile pill…my gosh dont you see all those dollars going bye bye?

With all the money taxpayers are spending supporting the medical industry the USA medical industry is clearly dictating what we can have as far as health care. So who owns your doctor? The HMO dictates which doctor you can see, which operation you can have, if you are sick enough to have said operation and how many times you and yours can vist Dr Take-A-Pill-And Chill.

By E. Lewis

December 12, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

A woman can’t buy the moring-after pill OTC, but she can buy a gun!!! Which has killed more people?

By Ken

December 12, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Mara… You are correct. My response was about the potential logic and I wasn’t even attempting to imply that it was correct. That being said…

Forget the politics of it, b/c I have no problem with the drug(s) themselves, but the usage of them. I know this issue is of great importance to people on a social basis, but I am interested in the science of the issue. Of course taking too many aspirin or other drugs can be bad, however, I am more concerned with the interactions a birth control drug may have with other prescribed drugs.

To the best of my knowledge, we still need a prescription for penicillum. Why is that? Perhaps b/c there are various types and different ones affect different people in different ways. Is there anything more basic than penicillum?

I believe that the internet and it’s vast majority of information has become a double-edged sword, particularly when it comes to medicine. On one hand, it is wonderful that we as a populous can be informed and make good decisions about our health. However, in many cases, I think this dirth of information gives us all a false sense about the quality of our decision making. If making making diagnosis and decisions about the pharmaceuticals we take were so easy we wouldn’t need general internists.

Perhaps I have also been given a flase sense of security about the medical profession. My family doctors (my wife and I see different physicians at the same practice) return calls on weekends or at all hours of the night. They will even call in prescriptions on a moments notice, and feel comfortable with that due their intimate knowledge of our medical histories. I therefore would not fear getting such a prescription on a moment’s notice. If that is not the case for others, then that is very unfortunate.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

In 30 years of medical achievements there is still no pill for men because semen is sacred.

Grossly incorrect statement - It comes down to the difficulty of stopping sperm.

First off, you only have to stop one egg with females, and if the drug is 99% effective; your success is still 99 time out of 100 acts of sex. Where-as you must stop thousands on sperm, and even IF it was the same 99% success rate; that comes out to letting 100-600 through EACH TIME YOU HAVE SEX. Which is enough to impregnate.

That is prefaced by the difficulty in stopping a daily production, vs monthly as well.

Also; Studies that have tested new drugs to stop sperm show guys are EXCITED about the possibility, and their friends are curious in a good way: “How do I get on that test list, man?”

The drug companies are dying for this to happen for the $$. Can you think about it? All in one pill of viagra and BC for $25 each!

By Jack

December 12, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

E. Lewis. uns don’t kill people, people kill people.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Ken,

Penicillin is regulated because people would abuse it; rendering it uneffective because bacteria adapts to it quickly. This has already happened WITH its regulation.

FYI

By Ken

December 12, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

FatMoose… That is one reason for the regulation of Penicillum.

Another reason is the fact that different types of penicillum can react with other drugs that may be prescribed.

Another reason is that certain types work better on some folks than others (my wife takes one that causes me severe headaches and nausea).

Another reason is that sometimes once you take it, you then need a follow prescription (i.e. some women get yeast infections after taking the penicillum and then require a prescription to eliminate that).

It is all designed to minimize risk. The debate goes back to the idea that some people believe the risk of OTC birth control, etc. is not significant enough to warrent physician supervision, some people do.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Ken,

Those are possible issues; that still can be followed and effect no-one else but the user.

Penicillin is regulated because people would abuse it; rendering it uneffective because bacteria adapts to it quickly. This has already happened WITH its regulation.

Is the only absolute reason, seeing as it affects everyone else in the world - and you are back squarely on regarding others rights.

I am not argueing the theoretical - only the known:

People Can follow directions: That is what third grade is for. Now as far as IF they will; I am not sure that is my concern - as noted by the chainsaw example plus many more…

By Ken

December 12, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

FatMoose… Again, as I stated before… Some people believe the risk with OTC birth control, etc. does not warrant prescription, others do.

By Mara

December 12, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Monica, Plan B does not destroy a fertalized egg. Basically, it blocks the hormones that allow an egg to implant onto the uterine wall. The egg is then expelled as it would be in any case that implantation never takes place. It doesn’t act on the egg at all.

Ken, you are one of the lucky ones who actually still has a “family doctor”. A lot of people, especially those of modest means, can’t afford to have a steady health care provider. Many people only go to their doctor when illness forces them to. The deductibles are getting so large that in some cases, one might as well not have insurance at all. That being said, my doctor is regularly unavailable on weekends. Or holidays. Or after 6 p.m. I think I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that my situation is more prevalent than yours. To top that off, there’s still that stigma regarding rape. Society still has the idea that if you’re a bit slutty, wear the wrong clothes, or flirt too much, then you either wanted to be raped or brought it on yourself. Women still feel ashamed and many time want as few people as possible to know. Perhaps even thier doctor or the pharmacist. That’s why I think that a drug like Plan B should be non-perscription.

By Renee

December 12, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack! I miss Georgia today. I spent 15 minutes scraping off my car just to go to lunch. This is horrible!

By Nikita

December 12, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

a) Plan B creates a relatively high dosage of the same drugs you’d get in daily form, but it’s still not dangerously high. b) As for incorrect usage, that’s a risk with all pharmaceuticals — prescription or otherwise. c) Your doctor may answer the phone at all hours, even on Sundays, and may prescribe whatever drug you request. But what of women who do not have regular physicians (and how many physicians do you know who would write a prescription without ever having seen the patient)? What of doctors with religious or moral objections? The window is small.
d) Another argument that arises is that over-the-counter usage of Plan B increases promiscuity. Any woman, however, who takes Plan B will quickly learn that it’s less painful to use other methods.

By kimberly

December 12, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

An hour ago, Monica expressed her confusion about the MAPill. Here’s what it does: it skews the hormone levels so that IF a sperm reached an egg last night, the egg will not implant in the uterus. It essentially fast-forwards the cycle past the friendly-fertile-ground stage. It is used as a PRECAUTION for people who: (a) were raped (b) experienced a failure or breakage in their chosen method of birth control (c) experienced unplanned, unexpected, or unwanted sperm contamination the night before, (d) for whatever reason, do not believe in sacrificing the next 20 years of their lives for something that DOES NOT YET EXIST.

Hope that helps.

By kimberly

December 12, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Good point, Nikita! I forgot that one. It is NOT a painless experience. The sudden flood of hormones creates a most unpleasant, though temporary, myriad of symptoms, including rapid breast swelling, nausea, and abdominal cramps. As women, we go through this discomfort every month anyway, but the morning after pill does it much more severely than usual. NOT likely to be someone’s first choice for BC.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Ken,

I agree and do not know where the limits should be set on personal responsibility and the need for professional councel {no longer regarding the MA pill - but the general concept}.

I am only going through the process of talking it out with you. And in that process; wanted to point out the clear difference with pennicillan

Enjoy.

By Monica

December 12, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

So…

if the egg is already fertilized the pill won’t allow it to implant. At what point does “pregnancy” occur? Is it when the sperm meets the egg, or when a fertilized egg implants itself on the uterine wall?

If the MAP is seen as an abortion device, then why require a prescription? I don’t think you have to have a prescription to get an abortion.

By no means do I condone the above suggestion; I was just wondering why the huge debate on the issue. I tend to agree with Lyrazel: it’s all about the money.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

December 12, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

For all the “Must have Dr. Approval Crowd” - do you know how long it can take to get a doctors appointment? I have to make an appointment, unless it is an extreme emergency, at least two weeks or more in advance. If it is an ilness,like the flu, it may take one or two days. Then I have to decide, if I want to see my regular doctor or just take the one who is available. Thank goodness for over the counter medication.

It’s not like the flu, but I would rather have another option. I see this as away to decrease unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Someone sited the probability of dosages taken incorrectly, but it would propably be the same as any other medication.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Someone sited the probability of dosages taken incorrectly, but it would propably be the same as any other medication.

Agree totally with you regarding the MA pill {and on the fence about all non-addictive drugs, but falling on the side of personal responsibilty}; although I would feel better if there was legistlation passed blocking lawsuits due to its, and other drugs, mis-use. Or a better solution would be a court that checked their validity before moving on to a lawsuit.

Although I dis-trust most doctors, it is also a fact that many {especially OB-GYNs} are packing up shop BC of insurance premiums.

By Ken

December 12, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

FatMoose… Why do you distrust most doctors…? The doctors I have visited or known are probably the most intelligent and caring people I’ve ever known.

You are correct, however, about the need for legislation to prevent lawsuits, if and when these drugs become OTC. Too many areas are losing physicians due to bogus malpractice suits (see John Edwards) and the ridiculous insurance rates they cause.

Amazed… Do you not think that a doctor would see the need for a “morning after pill” as an emergency? Again, maybe I am spoiled due to the care I receive from my physicians.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Why do you distrust most doctors…?

Most was too strong of a word; but half (which is too large IMO) would be realistic.

As for why: My father was a doctor; and 90% (really) of the time when he would be covering for another - he would see in their chart that there were conflicting meds, causing an issue that required another med; which would create X side effect; requiring yet another med for that…

Staying on top of his field by reading latest findings EACH week, he would be able to drop someone from 5-7 meds to 2-3. But…the next time covering for these doctors; the patient would be loaded-up again bc the doctors were uneducated as to what these meds were.

I know it is personal testimony, but this was regular practice, from Michigan to Florida, over 30 years.

ALL of his patients {from across the above spectrum} would visit him twice a year, no matter WHERE he was, to have him check their chart.

By Mara

December 12, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Monica, in medical terms, you become pregnant at the point of implantation. And while you do not need a perscription for an abortion, you do need a doctor.

The huge debate, which you don’t understand where comes from, is that some people believe that saving a fertilized egg, implanted or not, is worth whatever discomfort or danger the mother might experience, even if she has no desire to gestate to term. (These are often the same people who scoff at welfare families and single parents, but I digress…) The contraversy hits when those who believe that a womans health and body are her own private business want to make sex ed comprehensive, contraception easily available, ensure access to legal and safe abortions, and emergency contraception on demand. When one believes that contraception is the same as abortion, that’s when the heads start to butt.

By kimberly

December 12, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

If the MAP is seen as an abortion device, then why require a prescription? I don’t think you have to have a prescription to get an abortion.

Um.. Monica, to get an abortion in current modern-day America, you would go to a DOCTOR. (In the old days, desperate women engaged variety of DIY methods, such as coat hangers, knives, and poisons.) The MAP is not an abortion device. It prevents pregnancy; therefore it prevents abortion.

By Monica

December 12, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Mara,

I do understand where the debate comes from. It’s a debate that will not be solved until we can all agree on where the rights of one individual begin and the rights of an unborn child begin. I guess I am one of those “some people” who believe in saving a fertilized egg. I say this as a woman who has undergone two pregnancies and childbirths.

By Monica

December 12, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

I see the MAP as abortion because it eliminates a fertilized egg from the body. Why use MAP for sheer birth control when there are so many other measures?

By Brian Curtis

December 12, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

But not every fertilized egg becomes a pregnancy anyway. That’s why you don’t get pregnant 100% of the time when you have sex during a fertile interval. Most eggs, fertilized or not, get swept away and never implant. Only those that do get implanted become a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc.

By kimberly

December 12, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Two pregnancies and two childbirths certainly qualifies a person to offer knowledgeable input into the discussion. Just curious though: How many rapes?

By kimberly

December 12, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Why use MAP for sheer birth control when there are so many other measures?

Monica, you didn’t read the earlier posts. No one would opt to use the MAP for “sheer birth control.” Not more than once, anyway! I refer you to my posts of 1:26 and 1:32.

By BlindHogHomer

December 12, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Only women would have more difficulty calling their doctor for a prescription the morning after than they would having that unprotected sex the night before. Amazed - get another doctor! Lyrazel - “the responsibility of BC rests upon the woman because guys have condoms” is one of the most intelligent comments I’ve read in a long time. All this time I thought it was because you were the ones that get pregnant and wind up raising the kids. If the men got pregnant there would have been a 99.999999% effective means of birth control available for free and without prescription years ago.

By Jack

December 12, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Doctors are just like mechanics. There are good ones and bad ones. The big difference is that when a bad doctor makes a mistake, you won’t be able to find another doctor to testify against him because they cover each other just like cops. If you find a good one, keep him/her.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

(Please - be sure to read the last paragraph before replying)

I am curious. You ask: How many rapes?

If you are looking for first hand knowledge on the subject, would’nt you have to be raped and have the child to be able to make a statement on its effect on you and how you view that effect?

BC then if someone has been raped and kept the child and loved the child and was happy in THEIR decision; that would be enough to rebut anything you may have to say about it.

I believe that the right is with the woman; but irregardless of reason - once YOU make it dependant on reason; you alow for a valid rebuttal; which I do not think you intend.

By Monica

December 12, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

I wonder how many women get pregnant after they are raped? It is a horror that I wouldn’t wish on anyone.
Clearly, based on the previous posts, this option is not desireable as a means of birth control. It provides the most benefit for women who have been raped. So, if the benefit of MAP is mainly for women who are raped, then why make MAP available to the general public, via prescription or OTC? Just food for thought.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

December 12, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Ken, I don’t see a doctor treating the MC pill as an emergency. It will only be an emergency to the woman involved and probably her significant other.

I don’t think we would see many lawsuits, unless the pill causes some damage, that was found during testing and not disclosed to the public.

If full disclosure is offered - regarding damage that could occur while taking the MP pill, then the lawsuit would be baseless.

By Wondering

December 12, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

tylenol causes liver failure!
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2005/12/11/2059

make it prescription only!

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

December 12, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

BlindHogHomer - Maybe I like my doctor. I have my reasons - (1.) She’s great! (2.) She’s African-American like myself (3.)She gives excellent advice and service.

There aren’t many female african-american doctors, so I have to wait a little longer for a visit.

By Fair-Where-Is-The-Fair?

December 12, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

And if I made the comment:

Maybe I like my doctor. I have my reasons - (1.) He’s great! (2.) He’s White like myself (3.)He gives excellent advice and service. So I do not mind waiting a little longer for a visit.

If I ever forgo my needs because of race and nicities - I would like someone to give me a headslap. I have a note giving permission…

By Randy

December 12, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

I have no problem with the MC pill, provided it is used the morning after(especially with rape). But if you are raped wouldn’t you want to see a doctor anyway??? I do however have a problem with abortion. Maybe this pill would as someone has said, cut down on abortions of innocent children. I don’t want to take anybodys rights away, I just believe that unborn children have rights. They are feeling, seeing(after a point) creatures just as we are.

By kimberly

December 12, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

FatMoose, excellent points! When asking how many rapes, I was only trying to show that, while bearing children qualifies one to speak with some authority about pregnancy, that knowledge is not the sole issue regarding the MAP. If someone said, I’ve been raped, and I cannot tell you how terrified I was that I was pregnant! then that would ALSO be pertinent input into the discussion.

I’m always amazed, though, at how quickly someone who has never been raped will jump in with their presumed knowledge of rape-related pregnancy stats. My response to that is: If YOU were raped last night, you might be real eager today to prevent the possibility of implantation! Statistics don’t mean SQUAT when YOUR body has been violated, nor does anyone else’s pollyanna preaching.

By Ken

December 12, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

FatMoose… The story of your doctor makes my point. The number of drugs out there are so numerous that it takes a good doctor to keep everything coordinated. Those doctors that your father corrected were more than likely very intelligent individuals and still needed help from your father to reduce meds.

Do you think that a regular person, who has a job and other busy things going on in their lives can make a truly informed decision?

Amazed… You don’t consider prescription of the “morning after” pill as an emergency…? Or you don’t believe a doctor would consider it an emergency? Personally, I believe a doctor would consider it an emergency. The situation that requires a “morning after” pill is one that could drastically alter the health of a patient. I believe a doctor would consider it an emergency, at least a good one would.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Thanks for reading my post clearly - there are many who would have taken the opprotunity to slam!

This must remain about a persons rights - not resorts. Otherwise there are valid arguements against it.

I am curious as to IF EVER there is proof of consiousness/soul, at some point after sperm+egg, where it will lead the abortion debate (and where I would fall in it). But that seems a vast ways off, and I do not believe in making decisions out of fear.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Ken,

Do you think that a regular person, who has a job and other busy things going on in their lives can make a truly informed decision?

I do think the person involved will CARE MORE than a doctor in many instances - and therefore if felt they needed councel would attain it - as in my example. I believe my post backs this premise up nicely.

It is not that I do not see your point, but I am thinking that the individuals right to choose (abortion + meds) on their own should be the FIRST option. A use at your own risk if no councel is opted for type of system.

I am not avocating that no-one can use a doctor…think auto repair; I do not trust myself - but I have that option.

By BlindHogHomer

December 12, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Seems like a female african-american that gives great service could be called the morning after and would be more than happy to phone in a prescription for you. Or any other semi-competent physician that didn’t have ethical issues with the MAP. ‘Preferred’ BC method is moot, since I’m pretty sure this is the preferred after-the-event BC method. The issue is really the Republicants see this as appeasing their religious right bedfellows and don’t give a hoot about women’s reproductive rights. The sad part is that they really aren’t very pro-life either, in that only the lives of the unborn appear sacred to them, not the young sent to die in Iraq or the occasionally innocent person on death row. Those lifes aren’t worth s* to Mr. Bush.

By Lyrazel

December 12, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

FatMoose…actually it is easier to lower sperm count than you think (tight undies, thin racing bike seats, marijuana) but see… BC for men not going to happen in the American medical world with so many squeamish men running the parade. As far as: o so many swimmers vs 1 egg—why cant men have a monthly patch that kills their sperm before it is ever ejaculated? Why cant the medical industry come up with new BC salves for men? Why cant they? Here its been YEARS and guys still have to resort to condoms or vasectomies and in most cases its nothing because guys DO NOT like condoms… There is just so much money in keeping the status quo $$$…BUT, I will concede to you that a lot of men are excited…

By kimberly

December 12, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

BlingHogHomer: So true, so true.

By Mara

December 12, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Sorry if I sounded pompous Monica, but in your 1:42 post you said that you didin’t understand where the contraversy came from. Just trying to extend info, don’ cha know. As for when does one individuals rights become more important than a fertilized egg…when it becomes “moral” for the government (or any advocacy group) to force an individual to endanger their health or life for the benefit of another. You can’t force a person to endanger their own health for another, not even their own child. Therefore, forcing a woman to gestate, with it’s inherant risks is immoral. My opinion. Thanks for listening. Catch y’all later, gotta go.

By mit

December 12, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

ken, the only real problem with your argument for doctors to prescribe pills is time.

if based on your opinion, then everyone that wants a drug would need a prescription and that would cause havoc at an ER.
would you want to seek the advice of a doctor and pay a minimum of $20 per visit so you can take tylenol, which can easily kill you if you drink with them. So, if someone takes 2 pills and drinks 3 beers and dies, whose fault is that? i would say its the guy who didn’t read the directions.

By chuck

December 12, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

From a UK medical web-site:

If the PCP didn’t work, and I went on and had a baby, could the tablet damage it?

We simply don’t know the answer to this question.

At present, no one has shown any increase in abnormalities among babies who have been exposed to the PCP. But past experience does show that other hormones taken in early pregnancy have harmed children.

From a Women’s Health Center:

Every woman is different. Due to the risk of serious health problems, women with the following conditions may not be able to use Emergency Contraception:

Established pregnancy Past heart attack or stroke Blood clots in the legs or lungs Breast or genital cancers Liver cancer EC may not be recommended for women who plan to have intercourse within 5 days, are breastfeeding or have given birth in the last 6 weeks, have epilepsy, cardiovascular or kidney disease, migraine headaches, diabetes, or hypertension. Call your clinic to ask if EC is safe for you.

EC does not harm an established pregnancy. It acts on the uterus and cannot prevent an ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg attaches and grows outside the uterus. This can be very dangerous and requires immediate medical attention. To protect your health, watch out for the EC danger signs.

Side Effects back to top

Common side effects for women who use birth control pills for EC are nausea, vomiting, headaches, breast tenderness, dizziness, fluid retention and irregular bleeding. These side effects usually disappear after 1-2 days. Side effects are rare when Plan B is used.

Danger Signs

Women who experience any of the following symptoms while taking EC should call the clinic immediately:

Abdominal pains (severe) Chest pain or shortness of breath Headaches (severe) Eye problems, such as blurred vision Severe leg or arm pain or numbness Future Fertility back to top

EC does not prevent future pregnancies and is less effective than other methods of birth control.

Should ANY medication with these possible side effects be used without the supervision of a physician?

NO STINKIN WAY!!!

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

A lower sperm count would not be enough for any women I know!

I can hear it now: But baby, I am wearing my tighties!!!

And it IS very difficult to control the production/elimination of sperm.

why cant men have a monthly patch that kills their sperm before it is ever ejaculated? Why cant the medical industry come up with new BC salves for men? Why cant they?

That is what I addressed! Because we CANT yet - not that we/they do not want to! Because it is VERY difficult to ensure the number is down enough to call it a BC!

You seem to get the point, then loose it in the same post.

And was your BUT, I will concede to you that a lot of men are excited… sarcastic? Cannot tell…Seems double edged and would greatly appriciate a rational/polite volley.

By mit

December 12, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

mary jane will not reduce your chances of fertilizing a female if inhaled, sorry.

chuck, those side effects are the most common side effects for many meds. check your common pain killers, these also have side effects that may cause you to seek immediate medical attention. Look at the back of your toothpaste, they give you the number or tell you to contact poison control centers if needed. The is an overdose level for everything too. There is actually an OD level for lasagna. you going to make people go to the doc for prescriptions for toothpaste just in case? this would cause chaos. birth control pills are a little different in that you don’t have to go to the doctor everyday for every pill. so if plan B is by prescription only think of the number of people wasting time and space for people that really need to see a doctor.

By FatMoose

December 12, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Heading home; Have a good night all.

By Nikita

December 12, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Speaking as a woman who doesn’t have any children, and doesn’t want any at this point, I say make it available over the counter. I got it from a health clinic with an ensuite drug store and was able to deal with it quickly. But I was relatively lucky to get assaulted shortly before business hours, i suppose.

I love people telling me what to do with my body for the “innocent babies” that are so tentative that they might not even come into existence naturally, but require me to give birth to them should their father have sex with me consensually or otherwise. Does it ever occur to any of these folks what power that gives a rapist?

By E. Lewis

December 12, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Jack actually the guns don’t kill. It’s the bullets, and in any case, other medications that are more dangerous have been approved, but for some reason, good science and professional, medical opinions and research aren’t enough here.

By Monica

December 12, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

No offense taken, Mara. And no one forces a woman to gestate. Except in the cases of rape, a woman makes that choice when she decides to have sex, which brings me to another question: Why is the pill called “emergency contraception?? Obviously, a woman getting raped is an emergency. What else constitutes an emergency? The drug store was out of condoms? I met a guy at the bar and got drunk and don’t remember what happened? After the beer goggles wore off, I realized the guy was ugly and don’t want my baby to look like him? Maybe if we were a bit more responsible the issue would cease to exist.

By Ken

December 13, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

Mit… You are correct that there is an OD level for everything, so we must assume that people follow the directions. Some people, including myself, are more concerned with the alteration in body chemistry and how that could interact with potential treatments for other conditions.

Can the use of birth control or contraception cause irregular reactions to person if given other drugs?

Can the use of particular versions of the contraception put certain people at risk for more than headaches?

Can the use of the “morning after pill” cause an issue with a woman who is already pregnant and doesn’t know it?

Monica speaks of the social and moral issues, and even though I tend to agree with many of her statements, I want to keep my focus on non-partisan, scientific questions. In the end, I do believe that is what should drive the discussion. Regardless of my personal moral views, we cannot assume that everyone will conform to what we see as moral or immoral. We can only choose to not partake of certain activities.

As for the lunatics who believe that pharmceutical companies can create male contraception and they don’t b/c men don’t want it… That’s hogwash. I would jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat. My wife doesn’t take to well to ANY birth control pills so I would gladly take something if it were available.

Another poster nailed it correctly in that it is MUCH more difficult to limit the continuous production of sperm versus tricking a female body to not release an egg. Add to that the fact that some women use birth control for reasons other than birth control, and you see why the female version is here and the male version is not.

By Mara

December 13, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Monica, maybe if frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their arses when they jumped. Maybe you’re right that if people were more responsible then maybe the contraversy wouldn’t even exist. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world where everyone is responsible, accidents don’t happen, and nobody has sex until they’re ready to breed. It just ain’t so. Ideally no one could get pregnant who didn’t want to. In reality…people do get drunk, condoms do break, birth control does fail, women do get raped, and some simply don’t want to have children at that point in their lives. An emergency, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Punishing a woman for being human, having sex, or making a mistake is unreasonable and cruel. Making it harder for her to use reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of her situation will do nothing to keep it from happening again.

As for forced gestation…isn’t that exactly what the anti-choice lobby wants to do? Some think that any type of contraception is the same as abortion. And all of them (you?) think that once oen gets pregnant, you shouldn’t be able to terminate gestation, even if there are safe and effective means to do so. That is forced gestation.

By Nikita

December 13, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Am emergency is a woman not wanting to become pregnant after a sketchy situation — condoms break, sponge slips, rape occurs, or said woman fails to use birth control with 100% effectiveness. Can you please explain, again, why women should be forced to bear the (tentative) results of any sexual contact, no matter the situation?

Ken, speaking to your concerns, all of the following have been studied and the safety of Emergency Contraception has been affirmed: The effect of Emergency Contraception upon adolescents. The effect of Emergency Contraception upon women with contraindications to the ongoing use of oral contraceptives.

Also, going back to the “ECP use leads to promiscuity and carelessness” argument — Of 119 women who obtained ECPs at Planned Parenthood of New York City clinics, 92 percent stated that they would use the method again if necessary, but reported that they believed ECPs should be reserved for emergencies. Three-fourths of the sample indicated that since using ECPs, they were more likely to use precoital methods of contraception (Breitbart et al., 1998).

Also from Planned Parenthood: An evaluation of the Emergency Contraception Hotline found that while at least 76 percent of callers were able to obtain a telephone prescription or an appointment with a hotline provider within 72-hours of unprotected intercourse, 11 percent failed (Trussell et al., 2000). Although the hotline provides an important resource for women seeking emergency contraception, lack of available appointments and limited practice hours necessitate additional venues to facilitate access.

By Nikita

December 13, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

P.S. Plan B does not effect an existing pregnancy.

By Lyrazel

December 13, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Ken: As for the lunatics who believe that pharmceutical companies can create male contraception and they don’t b/c men don’t want it… That’s hogwash.

I guess thats me. I am sure many men would love a spray-on condom or a salve that works but in a country that can develop clones, artificial hearts, transplant lungs, why CANT or WHY HAVENT THEY invented something NEW for guys beyond the 10BC solution? I chose the answer of squeamishness…give me another logical answer why these government-supported companies have NOT developed a male pill/cream/lotion ANYTHING for men in the 30 years there has been BC pills for women and I will shut up and sulk until next week. :-)

By Jack

December 13, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Just say no.

By Ken

December 13, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Nikita… Your statements did not address my concerns which are basically: How would this drug interact with other potentially prescribed drugs?

Are you saying that the hormone administered has absolutely no reactions to other known medications or treatments? Are you a doctor, pharmacist, chemist that you know this?

How do we know that the “morning after” pill does not affect an existing pregnancy? A few years of research? Thalidomide was supposed to PREVENT pregnancy complications and look what it did even with a doctor’s prescription.

The point is, when we are dealing with a person’s health, we should be very careful before we just let people go do or take whatever they want.

As I have said so many times… This is not about whether or not the person should make this choice. They should simply have the guidance of a physician to make that appropriate one. Why is that so bad…?

By Monica

December 13, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

I don’t think that all means of contraception are abortion. I don’t think that sex is intended for procreation only. I do believe that sex should be reserved for a husband and wife (however, I know that’s not the case; I teach high school!). I do believe that once conception occurs, it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy. Women and men know the risks of sex and the risks of contraceptives failing. I don’t see it as forced gestation because people know the consequences of having sex. The only forced gestation I know of was the virgin Mary. Lots of people are “punished” (I’m using Mara’s word from her post) for being human. Take drinking and driving. I’m sure that a driver under the influence doesn’t plan to cause and accident and take the life of someone else. Should he not be made to rot in jail after this occurs? He is only human and was having a little fun. I don’t condemn anyone for being human and for making a mistake. I just value human life.

Going back to the medical aspect of this issue… I think the risks of making the morning after pill an OTC drug are more harmful than the benefits. I am concerned about the message to teens if the pill were made avaialable OTC, and the potential side effects it might pose for young girls who use it more than they should.

By E. Lewis

December 13, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

I am not a totel fan of this pill, but if offering it OTC decreases the number of abortion, well then……….

By Ken

December 13, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel… Unless you are a chemist or a biologist, you simply do not have any leg to stand on except your conspriacy theories.

There are many reasons as to why we do not have some of the things you mentioned. First and foremost is practicality. Is a “spray on” condom any better than the ones we have now? As a guy I can absolutely say it wouldn’t be any easier.

Second is the technology. Tke condoms for example. Do you really believe the condoms we use today aren’t any better than what we had in 10BC? Give me a break. I’ve been in a condom factory and I can assure you it is far different and the precision and testing is far better now than then.

We also have non-invasive surgical procedures that can “sterilize” a man or a woman. I actually saw a billboard the other day for a ligation procedure that left no scarring. Far better than even ten years ago.

We also have better female, hormonal contraception. The “pill” is far more advanced than it was ten or fifteen years ago. The only thing that we have not hammered down is the male, hormonal contraceptive.

Keep in mind, the “pill” does not prevent the generation of eggs, but it prevents the release of the egg by tricking the body. This is simplistic, but I don’t want to type forever. This is a relatively simple process for science to “hijack”. The same cannot be said for the male. The drug would need to either “kill” sperm or stop the production because the release of sperm is not driven by a natural cycle, but through outside stimulous. This makes the process more difficult to “hijack”. In fact, there are groups that have put forth possible hormonal solutions, but they are in testing phases.

Also… folks like you, Lyrazel, are also partly, if not substantially to blame. You cry and moan for reproductive rights and independence, well, the “pill” gives that to you. Now a woman can control everything about her reproductive cycle: she chooses with whom she has sex, when she has sex, how often she has sex, and can even take a pill to ensure with 99.9998% certainty that she will not get pregnant. Now you cry and moan aout guys not having a “pill”. Sound slike you want the freedom without the responsibility.

By Renee

December 13, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Everything on the shelf has a risk. Food has a risk, sex has a risk. This pill is no more risk than anything else currently sold. It should be OTC. The fact that it’s not is another way for the government to control (they prefer the word regulate) people from making decisions.

By Archie

December 13, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

My reasoning for saying that a prescription for the morning-after-pill should be required is based partly on the fact that it is a drug and the fact that birth-control pills require a prescription. Female condoms do exist so I think the issue of birth control is not the dominant issue. It’s all about choice and I know I will be thoroughly bashed by the women but why not get the prescription for this drug before having sex since you know that you may have unprotected sex. I say the same thing to men about condoms,i.e. get one of those first before having sex versus complaining about the results after the fact.

By Whiley

December 13, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

I can’t take the pill, I’m over 35. Pills up the chance greatly for heart attack or stroke. With my luck I’ll be able to conceive till I’m 60. I should have had my tubes tied in my 20’s like I wanted to, but no Dr. would perform it because of my age. Like someday I would snap out of it & actually want children. Ha ! What is this non-evasive procedure?

By Dr Steve

December 13, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

renee, there is risk to oneself, and then there is risk to other’s lives (either directly; depending on one;s opinion, or indirectly via “everyone does it”). The latter is the responsibility we have chosen to give to government. If we don’t like it, we need to find a more anarchist country or start our own.

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Whiley, please let me recommend modern laproscopic tubal ligation, if your insurance covers it. Piece o’ cake. TOTALLY! Past 35, the cycles get less regular. Men over 40 are even LESS likely to use condoms than younger ones, for reasons I won’t discuss here. (heh…) I also had doctors scoff at my early requests for the procedure (“OH, you’ll meet somebody and change your mind…” Seriously. Patronizing a—h—-s.) Anyway, now when I get to day 29, I no longer freak out. What a RELIEF! Truly truly.. Sweet liberty!

By Just Being Me

December 13, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

~waving~ Heyyyyy Renee! Hey Jack and Everybody!

Renee, please explain to me how mandating prescriptions for birth control (and/or MAPs) is an example of the government exercising control over people’s decision-making.

I guess this is where I’m reminded that I’m neither left-leaning or right-leaning, but somewhere in between. I acknowledge and agree that anything we ingest has the potential to cause damage, but I definitely don’t think BCPs should be offered over-the-counter.

I think someone up there ^^^ posed the question earlier about potential drug interactions? What about that? What about being made aware of side effects, and having someone monitor how you react to the BCPs? What about teenagers being left to purchase whichever pill comes in the prettiest package with the brightest colors? What about uneducated adults using the MAPs as a regular method of BC?

I’m not sold on making this an OTC drug… not yet.

By Whiley

December 13, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

“modern laproscopic tubal ligation”

Thank you Kimberly. Why don’t more people know about that?

By Ken

December 13, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Whiley’s post (about over 35, possible heart attack or stroke) is yet another example of why we need to regulate certain drugs in the marketplace.

As for the non-invasive procedure… I previously mentioned (although possibly not too clearly), I saw it on a billboard a few days back. Since I am not female, and my wife is not interested in having any procedures done right now, I did not thoroughly investigate.

By Archie

December 13, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Thanks Just Being Me for your 10:43 am post. I have been trying to say something similar to that and although I am left leaning I can’t just take the left position just because…

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

The procedure is outpatient. You’re home in a few hours. In bed for a day or two. Within ONE week, it was like nothing happened! No muss, no fuss… and some leftover “percs” to boot! AAAAAAH-lay-loooo-ya! (Um.. just get a reputable surgeon.)

By Ken

December 13, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Archie… I applaud your open-mindedness to this particular issue. I wish we could get that kind of thinking from everyone on all issues.

By Just Being Me

December 13, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Sometimes I wonder if Diane and Shaunti really believe what they’re saying, or if they just say it because they feel obligated to express their party’s values. I mean, I tend to agree with one this week, and the other the following week, so I’m not a “supporter” or fan, of either one. But, sometimes I read them and just wonder, do you really believe that???

This time, I’m wondering about Diane. I feel like she’s just saying that stuff b/c that’s what a Democrat is supposed to say. If so, that sucks.

By Mara

December 13, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Take drinking and driving. I’m sure that a driver under the influence doesn’t plan to cause and accident and take the life of someone else. Should he not be made to rot in jail after this occurs? Well, yeah. But not because he drank. Because he drank, drove, and killed someone. If you were looking for a better analogy how about making the driver drink, drive and injure someone. Should he be reqired by law to give blood to help the injured person? How about a kidney? Or an eye…? Of course not. The punishment isn’t for drinking. It’s for endangering society at large by driving afterward. If you can explain to me how my accidental (hypothetically, my 99.9% effective birth control failed…) pregnancy endangers society, I may reconsider the justice of forced gestation. Until then, unwanted pregnancy should not be used to punish women who have sex, whether they know sex can cause pregnancy or not! Especially if they made a good faith effort to not get pregnant. Readily available emergency contraception addresses that concern. Not only does it allow correction in case of accident, if used soon enough it will also inevitably lower the demand for abortions. Surely the anti-choice folks can agree with that! Unless, of course, their real agenda is making women “pay the wages of sin”…

By Archie

December 13, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Just Being Me, I have long felt that Diane and Shanti present an argument and stick to it because it fits a political ideology versus it making any sense, but you can’t complain about them because that’s what you get anytime you bring up universal healthcare. Ken, as for any openmindedness let’s really be open-minded on other issues. I don’t know if I take your earlier comment as a compliment. If I question why gambling is illegal in most states but legal in Vegas,and Jersey people say I am too liberal. They don’t see the tiny hypocrisy in that situation because I can bring back my winnings to South Carolina but back to the topic JBM did well with her 10:43 am post.

By Renee

December 13, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

HEYYYYYY JBM!!!

I think pills should be available. I can understand perhaps regulating a controlled substance, but the morning after pill and/or birth control pills??? No way! Yes, taking the pills will pose risk to some women. Place the risk factors on the packaging so one can read them and make an intelligent decision for themselves. And waiting for a prescription just seems ridiculous. You won’t know when you need it. (I’m not saying the morning after should be used as birth control either, but if someone does take that risk, they should have the right to do so). Cold medicine has a risk, alcohol has a risk. I don’t need the government to babysit me.

I don’t think creating or moving to an anarchist country is what I was saying at all. I am totally for government supportive of government policies that favor individual liberty in all matters, whether economic, personal, or social. That does not equate anarchy.

By Whiley

December 13, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Kimberly how painful is it compared to the normal tube tie? Does the Dr. have to cut through muscle & everything to do this?

By Jack

December 13, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Hey JBM & All. After our 2 children arrived, my wife was unable to take the pill because of the side effects. I got the ole “snip, snip” Best thing I ever did. (almost)

By Monica

December 13, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Mara,

I will agree to disagree if you’re game! :) That said, back to the issue, I still think it’s dangerous to put hormones of any sort OTC.

By amber

December 13, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Monica, You really believe people will stop having sex because they know the risks? The drive for sex is stronger than any risks! Always has been, always will be. Any woman who becomes pregnant and does not want to birth a child or take care of a child for the next 18-? years of her life should not be forced to have a child. People know the consequences of having sex? Do they really? When I was sixteen I didn’t believe I would be that unlucky, just as I didn’t believe I could die from riding in speeding cars. It takes some time for people to mature enough to uderstand some things. But you want a young immature woman who becomes pregnant because she doesn’t yet understand life or death or consequences, to take on the responsibility of bringing up and teaching a child? I don’t. It wouldn’t be good for the child, the young mother, or society in general. As to forced gestation have you ever read Greek or Roman myths? Virgin birth was not invented by the christian cardinals of Rome. You say you “just value human life.” Apparently not the life and personal growth and education and financial well-being of the young women you teach! Sounds like you just want them to suffer the consequences if they dare to have sex before you think they should! There are many people who do not believe sex should be reserved only for marriage and I’m one. I was divorced at 25 and have never married again; I don’t want to ever marry again. However, I still want to have sex. Do you really think a healthy 30 year old woman is never going to have sex again? Ridiculous. I value human life also. I do not believe every pregnancy has to come to term; nature will take care of it. Thousands of babies are being born every day all over the world to people who don’t want them and to those who do want them. If I were a zygote I’d rather be aborted if the woman who was pregnant did not want a child. How do we know that zygote doesn’t just float around until a woman comes along who really does want a child? We don’t! Motherhood should never, ever be forced on anyone who doesn’t want a child. The unwanted child will suffer most.

By Just Being Me

December 13, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Renee, you may not need the government to babysit you, but there are so many different groups of people who do (e.g. teens, mentally disabled, ignorant, etc.).

What about the woman who just has a minor illness, but one that prevents her from safely taking the MAP, and is so desperate to prevent pregnancy that she disregards her current medical condition, and warnings of potential fatality because of her current medical illness (whatever that may be) and takes the pill anyway?

And I ask again, what about the stupid teen who selects the BCP (or MAP) with the prettiest packaging, regardless of which one better suits her needs?

And, yeah, I thought that moving to an anarchist country comment was a bit over the top, too.

And, one other thing I just thought about. You know how when you sign up to be a member or subscriber of a particular website, there’s this longgggggg “terms of service” or similar agreement you have to read and accept? You know how after a while, you stop reading them and just scroll to the end and click “I Accept”. You know how many people will disregard the lengthy warnings and “what to do if you experience this side effect” just because it’s too long, or because they might think, well, Jackie took this same one so it must be safe,???

Sure, it’s their responsibility, but not everyone is responsible enough to manage that themselves. Kind of like the scam-protection some legislators are pushing for for the elderly. It’s their responsibility not to take out a second mortgage on their house for 19.8 percent, but at that age, their responsibility level may be compromised…

By Shannon

December 13, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Monica, I think you’re a little misinformed. Oral contraceptives, including the MAP, work by (1) stopping ovulation, (2) stopping fertilization, and (3) stopping implantation (primarily by thinning the lining of the uterine wall). The last is very rare compared to the first two.

A great many fertilized eggs never implant, even without contraceptives. Estimates are that up to 50% of fertilizations either never implant — with most women never even knowing it — or end in miscarriage after implantation, either before or after the woman knows she’s pregnant. (Depending on the source, about 15% to 25% of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage.)

I can understand how some people might say a fertilized egg counts as a pregnancy, but I don’t agree with that assessment. Medically speaking, you are not pregnant until the fertilized egg implants in the uterus, so oral contraceptives can avert but not terminate a pregnancy.

By Renee

December 13, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

JBM - I understand what you are saying. I might even be for regulating it at a certain age (i.e. my daughter wanting the MA pill and I have to buy it for her). I don’t think because a mentally ill person could pick the pill up not understanding the effects is reason enough to regulate society (or women) as the case may be. The only reasonable suggestion to me would be age. Other than that, I think it should be available.

By Jack

December 13, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Renee’, PLEEEEEEESE SEND US SOME SNOW!

By Just Being Me

December 13, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Jack, I am also unable to take the pill because of side effects - they can really be a beast.

And, when my fiance refused to get the “ole ‘snip, snip’” I had to trade in my hetero card for a homo one. LOL!

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Whiley, good gosh NO! Teeeeninesy lil’ incision through the belly button. No slicing of muscles or flesh. A day and a half of catching zzzz’s, followed by two or three days of crampy and bloaty, then BACK TO NORMAL! A daily dab of peroxide on the stitch in the belly button for a couple of weeks. That’s IT! (Results may vary. Get a good surgeon.)

By Monica

December 13, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Amber, What I think and what I know as reality are two different items. I know that single people have sex. I think that it’s wrong. I know the power of the sex drive. Believe it or not, there are people who can control themselves, who don’t put themselves in situations where they allow themselves to be out of control, and who choose this lifestyle (yes, I know they are few and far between, but they do exist). I didn’t make the rules. I am a Christian and follow the teachings of the Bible. I don’t apologize for the “rules.” For me, that’s how I live. I’m just exercising my right to free speech like everyone else on this post.
I do value the “life and personal growth and education and financial well-being of the young women [I] teach.” I tell them about the proactive approach of abstinence.
I am familiar with Greek and Roman myths, but I believe that they are just that: myths. I believe in truth of Christianity. The pregnancy of Mary is the reason we are all saying “Merry Christmas” right now. You said that if you were a zygote, you would make a choice to be definitely aborted rather than be subjected to a probable life of poverty. Well, not every “unwanted pregnancy” has to end in being a child of poverty. I myself was a “surprise” to my teenage un-wed parents, and I am grateful that they opted not to abort me as a zygote (as is my husband!) You stated that I wanted a “young immature woman who becomes pregnant because she doesn’t yet understand life or death or consequences, to take on the responsibility of bringing up and teaching a child.” No, I don’t want that. I also don’t want that same young and immature woman to end the life of an innocent baby, or to harm herself by going to Wal-Mart and buying a pill that could cause her harm. Again, what I want and what is reality are very different!

By Whiley

December 13, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Kimberly I’m trying to find easy to understand info on this procedure, not easy to do. I’m wondering why all women don’t know about this simple surgery !

By Bruce

December 13, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Warnig labels are on every pack of cigarettes sold but people still smoke. Now look at the mess we are in because some folks knew there was a danger but chose to smoke anyway. Companies that produce cigarettes are still paying smokers or their families because they cause cancer. So putting warning labels on the package has been proven not to work.

Question: Are the women that want to use the MAP only going to be able to use it once? I ask because there have been several comments made about ONE dose. If a woman had OTC access to MAP wouldn’t they be inclined/tempted to use it more often? I mean it is possible that some women would use the MAP two or three times in a week. Wouldn’t using the MAP 8 (3 doses x 8 times = 24) times a month be equal to taking the BCP every day? Just asking soem questions please don’t shoot me yet.

By Scalia

December 13, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

I’m so disappointed. Why hasn’t this topic led us down the path of religion and people’s views on it? I have begun to enjoy that lovely song and dance.

As for the Falcons, hell yeah, that’s what’s up. I’m glad that they won.

By Lyrazel

December 13, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Ken: this is essentially my argument: isnt it time men have options besides surgery and condoms for BC? As your statement proves…men do not. (I did not say the condom has not improved since 10BC, I said, I find it odd that with all the advancements in science why are there just 2 methods for men and one is as old as 10BC) As women gain understanding of the risks involved with daily doses of hormones potentially leading to cancers, ulcers, deformed fetuses, etc, (risks not explained by their health-care providers due to research still coming in from the generation of sexually active female guinea pigs) the pill becomes less and less desirable, thus alternatives should be more readily available to consumers. Given the proven fact the American medical industry is there for profit—not for your welfare or mine—my ramblings lean less toward conspiracy and more given to fact.

Sorry, I dont believe sperm is so much difficult to neutralize than eggs…its an excuse.

By Whiley

December 13, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Hey Monica, I’m not married. Should I not be having sex? I’m certainly not young. Why does being married all of a sudden make sex not sinful? Marriage is sacred? says who? A husband legalizes sex? That’s funny.

OK, back to the real world. Young people having sex??? Me oh my. I remember sex back then & it was wonderful. Wish I could go back to the day when I COULD have a night with a very handsome 20 something man with a good physique. I haven’t touched a rippled stomach in years.

By Scalia

December 13, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

JBM, I agree with you about the teens and that Plan B should not be taken over the counter. I know several people that have abused Robitussin by taking it. Why wouldn’t some bored teen one day experiment with Plan B? That’s how meth was created, LSD, people abusing horse tranquilizers. Or some stupid boy takes the Plan B as a dare. Or somebody else gets slipped the pill as a cruel prank or as a joke. All kinds of scenarios like this could occur.

By Renee

December 13, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Jack - you can have it all. I don’t know if you saw my comment yesterday, but it took me 15 minutes of my lunchbreak to scrape my car. And I keep hearing the same thing “this snow is nothing, just wait until later”. Up here 3 inches is considered a “dusting”.

By Jack

December 13, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Scalia. The birds may win next week but the last two games (Tampa & Carolina) are going to be rough. They should be fun to watch.

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Whiley, google “laparoscopic tubal ligation.” Techniques are advancing all the time, so you’d want a surgeon who keeps up. It wasn’t always so simple. PLUS, you do have to go under (night, night!) which carries some risk — more for some than others. It’s about $2K, but nowadays, most insurance covers it, since it’s cheaper to tie the tubes of a 38-year-old than to pay the costs of a high-risk pregnancy of a woman that age — especially if she decides to take a fertility drug and have triplets! And it IS permanent, so it’s not an option for younger women, as long as doctors maintain their preachy, patronozing, know-it-all attitude about that!

By Monica

December 13, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

As I said, Whiley, I didn’t make the rules. Hebrews 13:4 speaks of the sanctitiy of sex in marriage, as does the book of I Corinthians. A husband doesn’t legalize sex; marriage between a husband and wife does. Scalia, I’m trying to oblige with your request. How am I doing? Apparently I am the lone moralist today :)

By Nikita

December 13, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

JBM, the studies cited above indicate that those who use EC are more likely than other people to use regular birth control afterward. But let me tell you that very few people would choose to take it more than once. It’s not like a walk in the park. Most women I know who have taken it stay in bed for a day afterward.

Now, to address Ken’s concerns: “How would this drug interact with other potentially prescribed drugs?”

a) interactions are listed on the label, and were discussed with me — they would be listed on the label of any EC sold, as they are on other OTC medications, b)there have been tests, and most have indicated that short-term use of contraception is not likely to cause adverse effects with the exception of liver enzyme suppression drugs, which appear to reduce the efficacy of EC, c) counseling protocols (which already exist) can address these issues without the intervention of a doctor.

“How do we know that the “morning afterâ€? pill does not affect an existing pregnancy? A few years of research? Thalidomide was supposed to PREVENT pregnancy complications and look what it did even with a doctor’s prescription.”

Nope. 45+ years of practice. (note: there are about a dozen EC regimens, and most have been around since about 1960.) But also, as reported 8/26/2005 on fox news: In the study, which appears in the August issue of Fertility and Sterility, researchers looked at whether failed use of the morning-after pill was associated with any increased risk to the mother or fetus. The results showed that babies born to women who used emergency contraception were similar in weight and length to other babies. There were no differences in the number of stillbirths, birth defects, or pregnancy complications between the two groups.

“The point is, when we are dealing with a person’s health, we should be very careful before we just let people go do or take whatever they want.”

The point is that people in other places ARE taking OTC EC with no adverse effects. People here have been taking it since 1960 with no adverse effects (other than unintended pregnancy). So this isn’t like taking, say, LSD or methamphetamine or celebrex.

“They should simply have the guidance of a physician to make that appropriate one. Why is that so bad…?”

As mentioned above, a) they only have 72 hours to get the contraception, b) there are alternative methods of providing education/counseling, c)subjecting their decision to additional levels of oversight creates additional opportunities for refusal — and if that leads beyond 72 hours, the woman has effectively been denied her chosen health regimen.

Incidentally, there have been some interesting studies on teen mothers who were prescribed EC pre-emptively. Notably, the group that received the pills were more likely to report condom use at six months than the education-only group (Gold, et al., 2004).

By Nikita

December 13, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Additional useful info:

What are the barriers to accessing emergency contraception? • 20% of hospital emergency rooms in Massachusetts do not offer emergency contraception to victims of rape. (Mass NARAL 2002) • 45% of women aged 18-44 have not heard of emergency contraception. (KFF 2002) • Emergency contraception must be taken within 120 hours of intercourse in order to be effective in preventing pregnancy. The sooner emergency contraception is taken, the greater its efficacy. (Not-2-Late.com 2002)

What is the cost of emergency contraception? • Cost of the emergency contraception pill is approximately $20-$25. • Cost of a doctors visit for an uninsured person to obtain emergency contraception is approximately $55-$120, plus the cost of the pills. • Any health plan insurer who covers contraception covers emergency contraception prescriptions.

By Jack

December 13, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Yes. I lived in Rochester,NY for a while. Up there, 3” is a dusting. Wait until you get a good northeaster, that’ll be 3 ft.

By Ken

December 13, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel… I guess you didn’t read the entire post. There is a British company testing male hormone right now, so advances have been made.

Also… Why do you believe sperm and eggs are equally “neutralizable”? Are you a chemist / doctor / pharmacist? if not, then all you have are conspiracies based on your negative views of pharmaceutical companies.

One other thing… Even if you say that is the case, I would never believe it. You’ve never shown in the past to have any sympathy or concern for men in the past.

But in the off chance that is true, thank you very much, but I’m happy with the options I have. I can either not have sex, use a condom, or get snipped. Those are more than enough options for me. And since I, according to you from several different postings/subjects don’t really have any say in how a woman conducts her sex life, you don’t have much of a right in mine.

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

You know, Monica, I respect your right to a differing opinion and all, but when you make comments like “I am the lone moralist today,” you are no longer contributing to meaningful discussion, but are insulting the rest of us tax-paying folks here who do not live by the same antiquated rule book that YOU do. Personally, I think bringing unwanted babies into a world that is short on love and the willingness to CARE for them is IMMORAL. (MY opinion.) And don’t even TRY that “loving families want to adopt them” crap, because that’s just not true for every baby and you KNOW it. So, some of us have a different definition of MORAL that YOU do. What makes YOU right, and the rest of us wrong? A book? Your house full of adopted handicapped, mixed-race, mentally-impaired children? I don’t think so.

By Ken

December 13, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Nikita… I guess this is where you and I must agree to disagree. I do not believe we should be equating the ingestion of hormones to cough suppressents. That is basically what you are doing.

Either way, I am comfortable, b/c I personally do not oppose the usage of said pharmaceuticals. If the government makes them OTC, I’m not going to have a hissy fit, I simply think some things should be left to physicians. You want to ingest / inject / etc. hormone w/o the supervision of a physician, fine.

By Jack

December 13, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

We need Chuck and Randy to help Monica out today. She is beef-roast in shark-infeated waters. LOL

By Monica

December 13, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, Kimberly. I didn’t mean to offend you. I was referring to Scalia’s post about the path of religion. I should have used another word for “moralist.” I should have used the word “New Testament Christian.” I apologize. By the way, I don’t have any adopted children, just my two boys.

By Just Being Me

December 13, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Nikita, an abortion isn’t a walk in the park either, but I know of several women that have had more than one. In fact, when I was younger, a girl lived across the street from me that had had 9 abortions by the time she was 16. (And, she continued to have them during adulthood).

I read your commentary thoroughly, and I’m still not convinced. I don’t believe that it is that difficult to get the MAP from a doctor, or even a walk-in clinic like the one that gave my developmentally delayed 15-year-old BCPs.

Renee, I hear you, but overall, I’d rather be inconvenienced for the “greater good.” When you think about it, what more is it than just an inconvenience?

By Billy

December 13, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Sorry I’ve been gone —

My initial post was done in sarcasm. I do not plan on using the morning after pill to cover up any of my sex crimes. The “Concerned Women for Ameriaca”, however, honestly thinks people will use it for that purpose.

I also want to touch on the notion that this issue does not apply to men. Bunk! I’m the first one to say that the old white fundie men need to back out of women’s bodies. But when you come on the board and dis the men on there, the majority of whom are arguing for women’s rights, you’re not doing yourself or anyone any favors. I come from a family of doctors, so I’ve been around medicine all my life. My wife was put on bed rest around week 31 of her pregnancy. Our son was born via C-section in week 37. She was still bleeding three weeks later. I was there every step of the way. While I might not have experienced any of the pain she did, I know what women go through with childbirth every bit as much as your average high school or college age girl/woman, and they are the ones that are going to benefit from this going OTC.

So, please, before you lambast me for talking about a “women’s issue” while having a p***, you might want to consider the possibility that not all men are insensitive jerks who care nothing about women.

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Not trying to roast Monica. Respect her decision to live her life as she sees fit. There’s nothing wrong with choosing “traditional” family life in a world where so many of us live amid personal chaos. My problem comes in when the judging begins. There but for the grace of God, go I.

By Monica

December 13, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

So, Jack, am I reduced to a mere carcass yet? :)

By Jack

December 13, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

No. You are doing a good job. Keep it up. I like to tease.

By lozen

December 13, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Hey Amber, your post was a great response to Monica. She did most certainly say people who have sex know the consequences and are not being forced to have kids. What is it about some christians that they can’t ever deal with reality but go around all the time talking about what they believe everyone “should” do and what this world “should” be like? I agree with you 100 percent: no woman who does not want a birth should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. That is so obvious. But then Monica and I have a lot in common. She thinks the Greek and Roman myths were just that, myths. So I only believe in one less god than she does. I believe the christian story is also a myth. Two thousand years from now people will look back at christianity as just another myth but they’ll believe their current myth, whatever it may be, is absolute truth.

By Renee

December 13, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

JBM - I think it would be more than an inconvenience. The way this pill is “supposed” to be used, you would use it probably no more than one time. Since you don’t know when that time is, should all women get a prescription “just in case” they need it. Why shouldn’t they be able to go buy it, when they need it. My doctor in Georgia gave me problems with calling in 600g ibuprofen. So now a woman would have to go in the doctor’s office, pay a copay, get the prescription, pay the copay for that, by then half the day is gone. They could have already gone up to the pharmacy and bought it. I feel you, like I said, on the age thing, but what would be the harm of having it OTC. And I don’t see how keeping it being OTC would be for the “greater good”.

By Monica

December 13, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Lozen, just curious: why do you think that Christianity is just a myth? BTW, I have said that I know reality is much more different than what I (or other Christians) think it should be. That’s the beauty that comes from free will.

By Renee

December 13, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Good post lozen

By Nikita

December 13, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Thank you for altering that, Monica — I don’t believe in name-calling and I was concerned that you were headed that way.

Ken, I don’t see why the two are different. There are many drugs available OTC which can be misused, but which are OTC because they are better distributed to the general public, where they can do the most good for the public health, rather than behind several hundred dollars, several trips, and several long waits. In my opinion EC fits into this category.

JBM, how many more studies would you like me to cite?

By MaleShark

December 13, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Female beef-roast? Yummy, Yummy

By Ken

December 13, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Renee… Do you honestly believe women would use a “morning after” pill only once? How many women have multiple abortions, and those, I imagine, would almost have to be more painful.

You did say something interesting however… That a person would have to go to the pharmacy to purchase the drug rather than have it sitting out on a shelf. That could be a very interesting comprimise, not sure how it would work.

By Monica

December 13, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Thanks Nikita. I’m really not judgemental. I am sorry if I have come across that way. I will be the first to tell anyone that I am far from perfect, and I don’t like people to throw stones at me either. I’m just stating what my religion says about sex. Why is it that sex is the point at which many people draw the line with religion and the Bible? Why does sex always seem to make people crazy (is that a loaded question or what)?

By Just Being Me

December 13, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Nikita, are you being sarcastic?

By Renee

December 13, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Ken - you are right. Some women would use it more than once. I said I think that is how it is supposed to be used. But if they want to use it more than once, let them. They should have the right to take 20 at a time if need be. Of course it would be harmful, but so would be drinking a glass of Clorox.

By Huh

December 13, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Why is it that sex is the point at which many people draw the line with religion and the Bible?

Even better, why are primitive myths so obsessed with exuality? Every sperm is sacred, Immaculate Conception, etc etc etc.

By Huh

December 13, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Sexuality?

By lozen

December 13, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Someone also posted the fact that women in other countries have been able to get the MA pill over the counter for a long time and there’s been no harmful effects that I’ve heard of. I guess that means women in France, Germany, Norway, Great Britain, etc. are just smarter than women here who would probably misuse it!
By the way, I understand why Europeans don’t consider religion as important as people in this country do. If you are not as restricted sexually and can enjoy your natural sexual feelings without so much guilt and you have bidets, why would you need to pay much attention to religion? I’m getting a bidet! Monica, why do you think Greek and Roman religions are myths? Same reasons probably…

By Whiley

December 13, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

So because a few women would abuse the morning after pill, all women should not have it easily obtained for whatever reason? That sounds reasonable? Can you imagine what would happen if those same restrictions were put on porn or beer?

And why are we debating sex like it’s never been done? When are these ancient rules on sex ever going to disappear? When is this world going to finally grow up & realize the importance of birth control & having it available to all?

By Jack

December 13, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

The only thing God told us to do is to go forth and multiply. Why else are we here? Just like everything else, we are here to make more of us.

By Scalia

December 13, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

I read an interesting article on how sex and oppression are so important. Without oppression, the porn business, Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, etc. would go out of business. It’s people’s oppression of these things that make it that much more desirable. If racism, sexism, homophobia, all died away, what would people complain about? Just a question to think about.

By just a citizen

December 13, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

For the last several years many politicians have pandered to organized groups who feel they have the right to rule all of us in all aspects of life. Regarding availability of this drug, if I read the information released by the FDA at the time of the decision correctly, the person who actually reversed the decision was a newcomer to the matter and had a veterinary background rather than a human public health background or expertise in women and sexual health matters. After lengthy study and evaluation by qualified staff had made the original FDA decision to allow OTC sale of the morning after pill. I have never understood why many nominal Christian organizations, male politicians, male doctors, male pharmacists, male partner abusers, have such fascination and interest in controlling women’s bodies, sexual activity, and decisions on conception. Especially when their opinions are based on subjective feelings rather than scientific studies and research and medical facts. Can you imagine what would happen if women’s groups, female physicians and pharmicists, female clergy, etc., controlled male contraceptive usage or availability and forced or disallowed vasectomies or tried to judicially or legislatively regulate male sexual activity choices! At age 56 I have never heard anyone who supports a woman’s right to make her own sexual or medical choices, publically or privately, tell anyone they can or cannot, must or must not do anything. I am an adult mother and former rape crisis counselor, and rape victim. I have a 20 year old daughter who, just like me and every other female, will make her own decisions. I attend church. I have never told anyone to have sex, have an abortion, use contraception, have a baby, use a condom, get a vasectomy. I did ask my daughter not to have sex. And that was between us. It was my choice when, where, with whom, and how old to have sex, protect myself from conceiving, and have a child. As it is my daughter’s. And friends, neighbors, sisters, nieces. And every other woman’s. As a rape counselor I was trained to present facts to rape victims so they knew everything available to them and thus could make the best decision for themselves. Without influencing their decision in any way. Federal agencies, from the presidency on down, function through taxes paid by all of us and should be objective providers of service to the country. There should be morality involved with sexual decisions and actions but that morality belongs to the individual not society.

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

The texts in which God commanded man to go forth and multiply were written in times when there were few people on the planet. As a species, we have indeed multiplied. Now we should focus on sustaining the vast societies we have created, and sustaining the planet and eco-system that sustains US. (IMO)

By Just Being Me

December 13, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Whiley, nobody’s talking about filling out an application and submitting it to the White House for approval - it is still easily obtainable and equally available to all women.

Renee, I think getting it from the pharmacy with mandatory counsel is a fair compromise. But, there’s no way I’ll ever agree with having MAPs on the shelf right next to condoms, easily accessible to any and all. MAPs being offered by prescription only is not necessarily for the greater good, I may have exaggerated that. But, it definitely provides more benefits than negative affects.

I just feel like if there are no restrictions on that, then why would we restrict the accessibility of anything else?

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

The texts in which God commanded man to go forth and multiply were written in times when there were few people on the planet. As a species, we have indeed multiplied. Now we should focus on sustaining the vast societies we have created, and sustaining the planet and eco-system that sustains US. (IMO)

By Nikita

December 13, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

No, JBM, I’m not — I cited several studies above that made it clear that women who take EC are equally or more likely to use other means of contraception afterward and no more likely to have sex, which reduces the likelihood or either EC or abortion.

As for how hard it is…let me draw out the scenario. Let’s say I have reason to suspect that my contraceptive method has failed, or I have been raped, or otherwise I think I might have a chance of becoming pregnant when I do not wish to be so. Let’s say this happens Saturday around noon. If I’m lucky, I find a clinic that can see me on an emergency basis or I call my doctor, who is able and willing to prescribe me medication without seeing me. Cost: $75ish for the clinic, or free if I have that kind of relationship with my primary care person, and if I even have a primary care person. If I’m lucky I get EC within a few hours. If I have no doctor, however, I might attempt to go to the emergency room, which isn’t for this kind of thing and doesn’t necessarily have the ability or inclination to prescribe EC to me or provide it to me on site. Cost: $100 minimum, with or without my actually being given the opportunity to purchase EC. I may have to wait till work hours. By this time it has been at least 24 hours, with the efficacy of the drug decreasing with every hour that I am forced to wait. I have to take time off of work or school and travel to a doctor’s office — if I can get an appointment. What’s the opportunity cost, and what’s the actual cost? $20-80 for the appointment and about 4 hours lost. If my doctor or whoever agrees to prescribe EC to me, I proceed to the pharmacy. If not, I look for other doctors and repeat the process until I find one who’s willing — time and cost unknown. At the pharmacy, I spend $30-40 on EC, if they’re willing to fill my prescription. If not, I travel around until I find a pharmacy that is willing, which if I have transportation issues or live in a small town might not be doable. About 11% of people who call Planned Parenthood’s emergency contraception hotline report that they can’t get their prescriptions filled in a timely manner — 10% who are potentially stuck pregnant and seeking abortions or other alternatives.

More fun statistics: * Children born to teenage mothers are less likely to receive proper nutrition, health care, and cognitive and social stimulation. As a result, they may have an underdeveloped intellect and attain lower academic achievement. * Children born to teenage mothers are at greater risk for abuse and neglect. * Boys born to teenage mothers are 13% more likely to be incarcerated. * Girls born to teenage mothers are 22% more likely to become teenage mothers. * Teenage births are associated with lower annual income for the mother, 80% of whom eventually rely on welfare. * Teenage mothers are more likely to drop out of school and only about one-third obtain a high school diploma. * Teenage pregnancies are associated with an increased rate of delinquent behaviors in the fathers, including alcohol and substance abuse, lower educational level, and reduced earning potential. * In the United States, the annual cost of teen pregnancies from lost tax revenues, public assistance, child health care, foster care, and involvement with the criminal justice system is estimated to be about $7 billion.

Oh, and lest someone imagine this is only about teens, a woman of mature age boosts her earnings by 5% every year that she delays childbirth in her 20s. (The advantage levels off around 30.)

By Renee

December 13, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

I just feel like if there are no restrictions on that, then why would we restrict the accessibility of anything else?

In my opinion, I don’t think anything should be. I’m for the legalization of illegal drugs, and I don’t think half of what is regulated as being unaccessible should be (with the “legal” drugs).

By Jack

December 13, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

There weren’t many people on the planet when all of the rules were written.

BTW. Great post “just a citizen”

By Billy

December 13, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

“I just feel like if there are no restrictions on that, then why would we restrict the accessibility of anything else?”

Please! The morning after pill isn’t crack or methodone. There’s no euphoria involved. It’s not addictive. There’s all this concern over teens getting it. That’s who needs it most! Teens are going to have sex. Condoms will fail. All the pseudo-science that says easy availability would be bad is driven by the religious fundies who want everyone’s pregnancies carried to term, unless it is their daughters who get pregnant.

By Susie

December 13, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Yes, the prescription birth control pill is intended for long term use. However, there are idiotic women who use abortions as (retroactive) birth control, and doctors know that. If those pills were OTC, there are women who are just as stupid and teenagers who are simply ignorant who would use them all the time. And that could cause some major problems.

We are our own worst enemy…apparently we can’t be allowed access to something that stupid people could use to hurt themselves. In other words a few idiots ruin everything for the rest of us.

By Just Being Me

December 13, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Renee, whoaaa!!!!! Really? All illegal drugs? Wow, that’s interesting. We’ll have to chat about that.

Now, you said you don’t think half of what is regulated unaccessible should be… what do you think about the other half?

Nikita, you responded to something I never asked. I appreciate the info (I’m one of those who likes to know a little bit about lots of things), but none of that responds to my concerns. I don’t question whether or not MAPs users will be more likely to have sex, or to use other means of contraceptives in the future.

As for the example you used, why can’t this woman go to the free clinic to get the prescription, assuming she wasn’t raped? If she was raped, most hospitals will either prescribe her the MAP if she wants it, or refer her to another hospital/clinic/physician to get it.

Either way, if it is that important to you to prevent the pregnancy, you will do whatever you have to do.

And, chances are, if the pharmacy isn’t “willing” to fill your prescription, they’re not going to carry it OTC if/when the restrictions are lifted. You’d still have to go elsewhere, so I think that particular point is a moot one.

Now, like I said, I appreciate the stats, but I’d like to see a stat on the percentage of women who use the MAP because their responsible method of BC failed.

And lastly, if I had a doctor who wouldn’t fulfill my wishes (assuming they’re lawful and unharmful to me), he or she wouldn’t be my doctor. I guess I have a hard time imagining your scenario because my doctor would never refuse to prescribe a MAP to me.

By Renee

December 13, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

JBM - Yes, in my opinion, ALL illegal drugs should be made legal. But that’s a WHOLE ‘nother discussion, lol.

I said “half” but that was more a manner of speaking than an actuality. I would have to think about what I think should be regulated if anything. I do think possibly some things, but don’t hold me to that statement either. I have to be put more thought into it.

By Bruce

December 13, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

There were some concerns raised yesterday if men should have a any say about this subject. I as a father of three girls think I have a right to openly discuss and yes even have a say on this subject because what is decided today WILL effect my children later. As a responsible Dad I would be neglegent if I just sat by and allowed people that do not know, or care about, me or my children say what is best for them without my input. So yes men have a right to have a say on these type matters.

By lozen

December 13, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Thank you Renee.
It is my opinion that the men who made up the jewish tales of creation said go forth and multiply so they could have more sex! Yes, Whiley, when will those old, archaic, puritanical rules about sex disappear? Who, really do those old rules benefit? I think my Cherokee ancestors had it right. Young women had sex without shame or guilt untainted by western religion. If they wanted to get married, they had a little ceremony and gave each other presents. She owned the house and all household goods and the children were her children without a doubt. If she grew tired of him or he didn’t please her, she threw his stuff out of her house and they were divorced. Her brother was responsible for raising her children and teaching the boys what they needed to know. It must have been wonderful to have no shame and guilt around your sexuality; it’s hard for us to even imagine that. It may have been Toni Morrison who wrote an article about how we’ve had our beautiful sexuality and the wonderful feelings of sex taken away from us, and have been given religion in its place. I believe the church was determined to repress women’s sexuality because those old men were scared to death of it. Men, who held all the political and religious power, certainly did not want women running around freely enjoying sex all over the place and having babies they couldn’t be sure belonged to them. They had to make sure they knew the kid was theirs before they passed their title, crown, funny cardinal’s hat, or land to them. Besides everybody knows how multiorgasmic females are. (Of course when I was a young wife and mother male doctors were still writing books claiming clitoral orgasms were a sign of immaturity and real women only had v**** orgasms!!! I swear to you young women this is true. It was in the late 50’s.) One man could not possibly satisfy one woman before women were tamed and brainwashed into believing that sex could only be right if it is done in only one situation and with only one person. It really protects the male ego ;-). You know that old joke about why women are so bad at math, don’t you?

By Nikita

December 13, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

JBM:

“As for the example you used, why can’t this woman go to the free clinic to get the prescription, assuming she wasn’t raped? If she was raped, most hospitals will either prescribe her the MAP if she wants it, or refer her to another hospital/clinic/physician to get it.”

a) The clinic is not necessarily free, and what you’re saying only applies to rape victims. b) Does it matter why she needs EC? Why do we place people who are not responsible for this woman in judgment of her choices?
c) referring adds to her cost and the time required to obtain EC, increasing the chance that she will be unable to obtain it.

“Either way, if it is that important to you to prevent the pregnancy, you will do whatever you have to do.”

If you have no regular doctor, little money, no transportation, live in a restrictive environment where your options are few, etc., then you may not be able to do enough.

“And, chances are, if the pharmacy isn’t “willingâ€? to fill your prescription, they’re not going to carry it OTC if/when the restrictions are lifted. You’d still have to go elsewhere, so I think that particular point is a moot one.”

a) The point is that each refusal decreases the efficacy of the drug and the chances of EC being a viable option for the woman in question.
b) The pharmacy is one of several points at which refusal/scheduling conflicts/transportation issues/cost/other stuff can crop up, so it does matter. Also, OTC status may have effects upon its distribution, related educational efforts, and other factors which would make it more likely to be sought, and to be available.

“Now, like I said, I appreciate the stats, but I’d like to see a stat on the percentage of women who use the MAP because their responsible method of BC failed.”

a) There’s that pesky judgment thing again.
b) Those who do would almost certainly be those who were raped — since it seems illogical to take EC when you’re already on hormonal contraception.

“And lastly, if I had a doctor who wouldn’t fulfill my wishes (assuming they’re lawful and unharmful to me), he or she wouldn’t be my doctor. I guess I have a hard time imagining your scenario because my doctor would never refuse to prescribe a MAP to me.”

You have a hard time envisioning the challenges presented to other women because you have a doctor who is compliant and the means to go around him/her. All women aren’t so lucky — particularly the poorest and youngest women who would be most adversely affected by an unplanned pregnancy.

By Nikita

December 13, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Oh, here’s the closest thing I have to stats that answer your question. This study is Canadian:

Analysis of pharmacist treatment consent forms used in 2001 and 2002 showed that 56.2% of women receiving an EC reported using a method of birth control that had failed, 55.7% of pharmacist-provided ECs were obtained within 24 hours after unprotected intercourse, 1.1% of ECs were obtained for future use, antiemetics were provided to 57.7% of women receiving the Yuzpe regimen (Ovral, Preven) and to 20.5% of women receiving levonorgestrel, and women tended to seek ECs when unprotected intercourse occurred at the time of highest risk of pregnancy in their menstrual cycle. Women in greatest financial need obtained ECs more frequently from physicians than from pharmacists.

By Mara

December 13, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

just a citizen asks…Can you imagine what would happen if women’s groups, female physicians and pharmicists, female clergy, etc., controlled male contraceptive usage or availability and forced or disallowed vasectomies or tried to judicially or legislatively regulate male sexual activity choices

If that ever happened, contraception wouldn’t just be an option…it’d be a sacrament! ;^)

By Guess

December 13, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

You know that old joke about why women are so bad at math

too busy having orgasm?

Just a thought.

By Guess

December 13, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

You know that old joke about why women are so bad at math

too busy having *orgasmS?

Just a thought.

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Monica,

{Sorry people, but I cannot let this ignorance slide - Heck, I am trying to save souls!;}

Doesnt the two posts by you:

Hebrews 13:4 speaks of the sanctitiy of sex in marriage, as does the book of I Corinthians. A husband doesn’t legalize sex; marriage between a husband and wife does.

And

I should have used another word for “moralist.� I should have used the word “New Testament Christian.�

Make your brain freeze-up? Seeing as you can only site OT verses to back up those notions - yet Christ came with a NEW COVENANT {NT}; voiding the old…

I really wish people who call themselves “Christians” {who are actually Methodist, Baptist…etc; and follow the OT MORE that CHRIST} would begin to see the light in their error. Heck, Christ warns of it…

To be a Christain would mean to follow CHRIST - who, once again; brought the NEW CONTRACT; and you cannot have two opposing contracts with the same person/god.

Something to think about.

By Billy

December 13, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Furthering what Nikita said —

I’m sure you’d go to another doctor if your primary one refused the MAP. But by the time one saw you and wrote you a prescription a day or more may have passed.

I think we need to clarify things regarding pharmacies refusing to fill the prescriptions. To the best of my knowledge any chain pharmacy (CVS, Walgreen, Eckerd, etc.) will fill all prescriptions. It’s the individual pharmacists that you have to worry about. The stores would stock the pill, don’t kid yourselves.

“Either way, if it is that important to you to prevent the pregnancy, you will do whatever you have to do.� Like throwing youself down the stairs when four months pregnant to induce a miscarriage?

By Bruce

December 13, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Actually FatMoose Christ came to fulfill the OT not do away with it.

By Jack

December 13, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

What?!! Women have orgasms?

By Jack

December 13, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Hehehe!

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you ROCK. Great story about Grandma. So true. Men are so intimidated by our multi-o capabilities that they have to call us names (those of us who use it) and try to bring us down and under control. BTW, the buttoned-up religious types are the worst. They’ll take advantage of a woman’s passion — no guilt there, and then blame HER for being “bad.” Thanks, GENTLEMEN! (WWJD? I’m sure Jesus treated his chick the same way, huh?)

By lozen

December 13, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Mara you are so, so right! Abortion would be a sacrament too! Men who had abortions (if men could get pregnant) would probably be getting medals for keeping the world from becoming overpopulated. I have never believed anti-abortion people really want to protect zygotes. They are products of our puritanical and patriarchal systems of control and they want to control women’s sexuality. If we weren’t full of shame and guilt about sex we’d live in a society that had set up ways of loving and caring for children whether they were born within a marriage or not. I am amazed at the arguments against the MA pill being available OTC when women in Europe have had that option for a long time. We have come a long way sisters and we still have a long way to go.

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Actually FatMoose Christ came to fulfill the OT not do away with it.

Keep reading, there is more to him than that.

Great to see the male bashing again. Have you two (Lozen/kimberly) seen Crash? You could learn a lot from it.

I have a question my GF wanted you man-haters to answer: How many women voted in giving a woman the right to vote?

By Amanda

December 13, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

FatMoose, Be careful criticizing Monica’s ability to produce scripture only from the old testament. Last time I checked (which was only about 30 seconds ago just to confirm what I already knew) both Hebrews and 1 Corinthians are books in the NEW testament, which does jive completely with Monica’s statement that she is a New Testament Christian.

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

FatMoose, Heyyyyyy! That’s a trick question, right? Please let’s get it straight on the “male bashing,” okay. NOT bashing all males. Just pointing out that the patriarchal structure of western society benefits men who, from MY experience and observation anyway, appear to be intimidated by our sexuality, and trying to control it. We know not all men are like that, but there ARE plenty. Just like not all women’s life ambition is to take your wallet to the mall and empty it, but there ARE some, now aren’t there?

By lozen

December 13, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

FatMoose, here you go again accusing us of bashing you. What is your problem? I am not bashing men. If women felt free to have more sex without guilt and shame, would that not be of benefit to you? I’m talking about a system that was set up thousands of years ago by men. What did you have to do with that? Zip! Do you know what the word “projection” means? How about paranoia? Tell me exactly how Kimberly and I are bashing you.

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

both Hebrews and 1 Corinthians are books in the NEW testament

Contained, but read WHO is referenced in the passages; and WHAT is being referenced….it is rehashing of OT law.

Which is only one of th reasons that you have to watch what you read as NT.

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Men who had abortions (if men could get pregnant) would probably be getting medals for keeping the world from becoming overpopulated. SLAM 1

Men are so intimidated by our multi-o capabilities that they have to call us names (those of us who use it) and try to bring us down and under control. SLAM 2

It really protects the male ego ;-). SLAM 3

ALL in about 7 minutes of you showing up lozen; quite the rallying cry you got there!

By Jack

December 13, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

FatMoose is turning into the beef-roast in shark infested waters. Swim fast FM!

By Dictionary

December 13, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Paranoia is the term used by those who are not running the risk.

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

FatMoose, “Slam 1” is something we believe would absolutely be true, based on what we’ve seen in our lifetimes. It doesn’t mean you’re “bad.” “Slam 2” is based on not only years of observation, but an ACTUAL conversation I had with my (now ex-) boyfriend not two weeks ago, in which HE admitted it, AND in which he displayed the aforementioned behavior… (good Chrissschen men — OH when will I learn?)

Slam 3: Ego to the man is like air to the balloon. Not a slam, but a sociological fact. Sorry dude. It doesn’t mean we don’t LOVE you!

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

MY experience and observation anyway, appear to be intimidated by our sexuality,

Well, in MY experience (but I am smart/wise enough not to let it effect me or my choices, for example my POSTS) most women do not know their bodies worth squat {no pun intended;} and when I buy them a vibe (for use during sex or alone - I could care less, it is for THEIR fun) they freak out.

And if I mention going to masturbate - THEY have the issues of “Why am I not (insert any self depriving word/s)

Your v**** is for YOUR enjoyment, my p*** is for MINE - Women seem to have trouble with that idea.

Watch the EEEWWWs from this post alone!

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

On the contrary, Moose, dear. I only have more respect for you now. {;->

By RS

December 13, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Our bodies are our bodies. We should have dominion over them. Period. A woman should have the right to choose whatever form of BC she feels most comfortable with. Period! I’m about as pro BC/choice as one can get; I am SO turned off by our breedercentric, breeder-entitlement society. Monica, if you feel comfortable not having sex unless you’re married, that’s your choice & I respect it. But answer me this…what about a woman who’s, um, not very attractive to men & can’t get anyone to love or marry her? This is an unpleasant reality; it DOES happen. More often than we’d like to think. It even happens to some men. Sadly, the only way she can get any affection is to sleep with a man outside of wedlock. She has human feelings & urges too. Why must she be further punished for something that’s not her fault?

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

You have been choosing the wrong men then; and using that .000000002% (at most???) as your example is limiting YOUR experience; not mine. Which is ignorant, then stupid if continued.

You find in life what you think to be true, and therefore create your reality - Tao

Operative word: think.

And by your justification; the crappy {untrue as well} notions of women would be just - I rebut that on all sides - womens/mens/dogs/blacks/etc.

You really cannot see your steps?

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

I know I will get slammed on this one; but I really am starting to think I was a woman the first time round this rollercoaster.

I agree there are a LOT of idiots out there; but that is as far as you will find me defining them!

ps - dogs was added to my list to broaden the spectrum - not insult.

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Yes Moose. I am an IDIOT when it comes to men. NOOOOO argument there. None. (Earlier Monica asked why sex makes everyone so crazy. Because it blinds our sense of logic, that’s why. We create enough regret ourselves, without having to take it from others!)

Nevertheless, my decades of observation extend beyond my own bad choices, which is why I reassert that yes, SOME, and even MANY, but not ALL. mmmmm-KAY?

By lozen

December 13, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

FatMoose, okay, okay we said “men.” We forgot to put in “most men,” “some men,” etc. I am so sorry you take personal offense about these generalized statements that refer to the group that has written the laws, run the churches, and controlled all of us for thousands of years. I really didn’t realize your male ego needs to be protected. Sorry about that. I do believe men would get medals for having abortions if men got pregnant. I don’t know whether you as an individual would be for or against that. It has nothing to do with you as an individual. It has to do with a patriarchal society that is determined to control women’s sexuality. You have certainly made generalized comments about “women” on this blog that have offended me. Other women have called you a mysoginist. You deny that you are a woman hater although you make generalized statements about “women”. I deny I am a man hater in spite of sometimes making generalized statements about men.

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

But answer me this…what about a woman who’s, um, not very attractive to men & can’t get anyone to love or marry her?

No such woman exists.

I have been on dates with the prettiest of women, only for them to turn damn ugly by showing idiotic views; and vv.

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

I really didn’t realize your male ego needs to be protected. Sorry about that.

No; my right to my achievments in this backwards world deserves to be respected.

Other women have called you a mysoginist. You deny that you are a woman hater although you make generalized statements about “women�.

Only you have called me that; and it was after I pointed out what YOU were saying/doing; not women. And I have not generalized.

By kimberly

December 13, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

FM, DUDE…. you should have quite while you were ahead a minute ago. That last post was just ig’nint. Totally. There are plenty of unloved people. You just don’t see them because they’re invisible to you. Gosh!

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

If it is such a SMALL thing to GENERALIZE; why do you find the crusty old white men that did it to you so aweful?

If you faced your hypocracy; you would benefit, as would your world.

By FatMoose

December 13, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

No; I see them and hurt for them; and help where/when I can - which in some way is daily.

You do not know my actions - gosh is right.

Do not think I see through the same colored glass of your eye!

By Just Being Me

December 13, 2005 05:15 PM | Link to this

No such woman exists? Are you kidding?

Nikita, not ignoring you, but I think I’ll just agree to disagree. If time permits tomorrow, I’ll try to respond to you point-by-point.

G’night all.

By lozen

December 13, 2005 05:42 PM | Link to this

I’ve been on dates with the most handsome of men, only to have them turn damn ugly by showing idiotic views! I understand. Is this a man hating remark?

FatMoose, women don’t know their bodies because they’ve been filled with shame and guilt by the puritanical and patriarchal system we inherited (and many of us still believe in!) When I mention masturbation many of my women friends have confided that they don’t know how to pleasure themselves. What a shame that is.

Women seem to have trouble with that idea. There goes the woman bashing again! I certainly don’t have any trouble with that idea! I know that.

I have a question for you woman haters out there, my BF wants to know, how many men would freak out if their GF’s told them they got more pleasure from masturbation than from having sex with him?

By lyrazel

December 14, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Ken…gee I say derogatory things about men. S-O-B! How about that! I just find it strange the literate cannot hold their arguments without resorting to name calling or lapsing into conspiracy theorist rhetoric that is so TV boring. My husband does not think I hate men… so I believe him. What I hate, Ken, is being told how to live, what to buy, what pills I can or cannot take by my government. Let me give you a clear example how the government and American medical/insurance industry commits daily fraud against taxpayers: I have serious arthritis and like 500mg of aspirin. Can I buy it in America? Ha! Its a safe and legal dose everywhere else in the world—except in USA…in the USA you need a prescription for it, thus the insurance company can charge more to my plan for it. I can buy it on-line from other countries for 4.00/bottle (plus shipping=7.00). Do you know what the pharmacy charges: 27.00! Get a grip on your medical bureaucracy before you too are facing regulated drugs regulated by profit and not patient!

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Ken,

Just so we are square; I see where you are coming from - and agree that there are dangers to making script meds OTC. And your position makes sense - but not the only sense in this.

Harsh view: I am propelled to argue that point by thinking: if the gene pool gets cleaner by removing those that cannot read a label; it may be a good thing. The world is only getting more complex; and to regulate everything to the lowest common denominator would be a punishment to the rest.

Why couldnt it be more like driving a car? It is a privledge - not a right. And dependant on what and how many med you need, you get tested on your understanding and allowed to do your business. If you screw up, it will be evident that it was IN your capabilities; but if one chooses not to think - that is unavoidable.

Plus age parameters of 16, 18, 21, and 65 would assist.

I take three meds - fully in my control to regulate and abide by; but have to call in once every 2 weeks for the first; once every month or two for the second; and once every six months for the third. The chances I go off my meds, and lead a less fullfilled life is tied to the hassle of calling in and staying on them.

Not to mention the receptionist’s armchair diagnosis I have recieved {nicely insuting to boot}; the pharmasist denying my meds for her personal reasons; and the screw ups of calling them in, and finding they are not there at all or ready.

By Mara

December 14, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

well, haven’t we had a surprisingly civil discussion on abortion! The flamethrowers must be on vacation this week. Back to the issue of Plan B…since all medications have side effects and can be dangerous if not taken as directed, what exactly makes this particular medecine more dangerous than any other? Women in Europe have had it available for long enough for us to know that there are no long-term dangers either. So, other than morality politics, what rationale did the Stephen Galson use to justify his blocking of its OTC status? Really, it seems that the issue of women having sex without consequence is what drove it. If Viagra had no side effects would he have blocked it from being OTC? (on a side note, funding for Viagra and other impotence drugs has been restored to the Medicare budget…)

By amber

December 14, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

I’ve been reading this stuff for a while now - haven’t chosen to write much. I think FatMoose is in love with you lozen. He is so sensitive to anything you say that he takes as criticism. Your statement about men getting medals if they had to have abortions is probably true and wasn’t something most men would consider a slam against them personally I think. Be gentle with FM; he seems to desperately want your attention and approval. {:->

By Roxie

December 14, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

By Monica So, if the benefit of MAP is mainly for women who are raped, then why make MAP available to the general public, via prescription or OTC? Just food for thought.

Because condoms can break or slip off.

By lozen

December 14, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Oh, no Amber! However, I have thought about the idea that the things other people do that upset us most remind us of parts of ourselves we don’t like or that we repress. If women had run the world, been the politicians and set up all kinds of laws benefitting women and not men, invented the church with all its rules and regulations and then a man made a general statement about that like the one I made about men and abortion, I don’t think I would be so outraged about that statement. I would not take that personally because I had nothing to do with that power group that set up everything to benefit itself. I could qualify every statement with “wealthy, white, men” but that takes a lot of writing! FM claims he doesn’t generalize about women but anyone who has been reading his posts for a while knows he does. He and Deltax at one time resorted to the old name calling and were calling Whiley and me “old biddies.” That wasn’t very nice and it was certainly disrespectful of us on a very personal basis. FatMoose is very sensitive; you’re right about that. He also makes a lot of statements that are impossible to understand such as: No; my right to my achievments in this backwards world deserves to be respected. Have no idea what that means or what he was responding to… Late yesterday when I made the statements he reacted to, noone but women had been posting for a while and I was speaking to those women and not to FatMoose. Oh, well.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Your statement about men getting medals if they had to have abortions is probably true and wasn’t something most men would consider a slam against them personally I think.

But one could say that it would be considered by females another mar on men; like war: Those men are killing unborn babies now! See how UNPRODUCTIVE those statements are - we all have seen an instance to back up some inane point.

If Viagra had no side effects would he have blocked it from being OTC?

Side effects: Blue tinting in vision, headache, four hour errection if OD.

I think FatMoose is in love with you lozen. Blowing lozen a kiss;)

It is the mis-information that gets applied to MEN as a WHOLE group during a discussion of the wrongs in doing that to women that bugs me.

I agree with everything the proactive women are saying on here; but when the same is not reciprocated, yes - I find it insulting. Like being called a misogynist for bringing up a POINT, not a position; and not something I claim a fact.

Fact: At the womans march in DC this past year, which I attended; 20% were male.

Fact: An ALL MALE system voted IN womens rights.

These facts should mean something - and if you dis them long enough, they will drop.

By amber

December 14, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

It is such a distraction for women who see the world with a feminist political perspective as you do, to have men constantly accusing us of being man haters. I’m a student of women’s studies and I am proud to say I’m a feminist. I am grateful to feminism for teaching me to see what is really going on, to see the world from that perspective has been so educational.. Were you involved in the marches and CR groups in the 60’s/70’s? I’m 30 and I just keep hoping there will be another “wave” before I die.

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

to throw my two cents in on the topic, i think we can offer the morning after pill on a otc basis.

By mcm

December 14, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

The morning after pill actually reduces abortions when made widely available. Shaunti is therefore, against something that reduces the number of abortions. Is Shaunti actually pro-abortion? Hmm…

Maybe in principle she’s not, but in practice, she’s supporting something that increases the number of abortions. So for all her rhetoric, she’s actually calling for more dead babies. Interesting.

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

lozen,

do you view your everyday world as being controlled by this patriarchal, puritanical system that wealthy men created hundreds and thousands of years ago (i.e. politicians setting up laws and establishing the church and its rules). just curious.

By lozen

December 14, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Amber, I hope there’s another “wave” before I die too! I was there for the marches and was in several CR groups. It was a heady time when women believed we could change the world and we did! What we have to always remember is that as long as our political and social and religious organizations are controlled mostly by men, all those accomplishments could be lost. At this time in history there’s a concentrated backlash against women and what we gained during the days of feminism. The pill we’re talking about is one of those; powerful political and religious forces in this country have decided women have gone far enough and we should not gain further freedoms. The freedom to choose when we want to become mothers (or whether we ever want to become mothers) is slowly but surely being chipped away. If we women can’t control our own bodies we’re certainly not free human beings. It’s only been a little over 100 years ago that it was against the law in the U.S. for women to receive any information against birth control at all. The fight to control women and our sexuality continues.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

It is such a distraction for women who see the world with a feminist political perspective as you do, to have men constantly accusing us of being man haters. Not constantly; as a reply to inane statements proving so…but,

Then you should understand the opposite is true also: It is such a distraction for men who see the world with a feminist political perspective as you (did you mean “I”) do, to have women constantly accusing us of being misogynists.

I am PRO-RIGHTS; not male or female. I believe it necessary non-compartmentalization of you want to protect and further RIGHTS.

Last discussion: *By FatMoose

December 7, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Amber,

Dont lie now, I said “Touchy people.�*

In response to:

*By amber

December 7, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

RF, I’m surprised FatMoose didn’t ask if you were having your period. You touchy woman!*

By RS

December 14, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Yeah, I’m afraid that if men had periods, tampons would be free & if men could get pregnant, any & all kinds of BC would be readily available on every corner. FM, dear, I have proof that unlovely/unloved women DO exist. In today’s online “Health” section, there’s an article, complete with an enlargable photo, of a hideously disfigured young girl. Now, what do you suppose her life has been like? I am SO glad she’s being helped!!! (BTW, I’m so-o-o-o jealous you’re in love with lozen & not with me….hee!)

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

RS, I just read that article an hour ago and forwarded it to some friends of mine in the Haitian community. That was so sad, and I, too, am so glad she’s being helped. For the record, if you re-read that chain of discussion, FatMoose appears to either be confused about that “unattractive women don’t exist” thing, or he didn’t communicate clearly (which does happen sometimes - no offense, FM). You’ll see that he later said something completely contradictory to the original statement…

By Guesser

December 14, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

You could probably argue that our male-dominated society, via religion, etc, was a reaction to being controlled by women, even earlier than 2000 years ago. Most ancient gods were female, for only the female can visibly produce life and menstrual blood. and many earlier cultures, pre-desert-Jewish cultures, were headed by females. Even the early Jewish cultures, pre-Christianity, were headed by females.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Ever see a couple walking down the street that is COMPLETELY mis-matched as far as looks go?

Ever wonder how that happened?

Unfortuately the views you present convince MOST unattractive people they have NO CHOICE in the matter; where-as the fact is that is they approach people with confidence that they are good/fun/healthy people, they will have a dating life.

You all really like putting people in boxes and keeping them there at all costs - including yourselves. That is what I rally against - boxes.

By Jack

December 14, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Amber. Do you as a feminist get offended when a man opens a door for you? or pays the check? or gives up his seat on the train for you? Just wondering,I’m guilty of all of the above.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Guesser,

The problem is ANYTHING can be argued - and then be destructive to further movement.

Sure, if someone presents a backwards view - argue it; but to argue that view with someone, based on casual connection alone is insane.

How does one end war? More war, or peace?

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

No, FatMoose. Don’t try to put this on other people. Either stick to what you said, or acknowledge that it was not actually what you meant to say, or that it was misunderstood, or miscommunicated, or that you changed your mind, or was just plain wrong.

To refresh your memory: RS said, “But answer me this…what about a woman who’s, um, not very attractive to men & can’t get anyone to love or marry her?”

To that, you replied, “No such woman exists.”

After that, Kimberly said: There are plenty of unloved people. You just don’t see them because they’re invisible to you. Gosh!

And to that, you replied, “No; I see them…”

Then just now you said, “the views you present convince MOST unattractive people…”

Do unattractive people (or women) exist or not? If you can’t admit that you’ve contradicted yourself here, then I have really overestimated you.

I’m sure you’ll find a way to say that something is wrong with everyone who doesn’t understand this contradiction. Those who don’t get it are idiots, ignorant, trolls, etc. Just like above, you claimed that the problem isn’t the contradiction, but the fact that we(?) present views that convince unattractive people that they have no choice, etc. etc…. No, the fact is that unattractive people do exist, and there are some who are deformed, or in other ways unattractive that may have a difficult time getting someone to love them. For example, the young Haitian teen RS referenced.

By Jack

December 14, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

FM had it right. Confidence beats looks all the time. Why do you think Barbie dates Elmer Fudd?

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Play any instruments?

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Oh, and let me answer your questions before you accuse me of skirting the question on the floor, FM.

Ever see a couple walking down the street that is COMPLETELY mis-matched as far as looks go?

Yes, quite frequently.

Ever wonder how that happened?

No, I don’t. I’m not the one who said unattractive women don’t exist. I just told another blogger last week (I think he signed on as Nobody Important or something like that) that there is someone for everyone. So no, I don’t wonder how that happens. I already know.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Jack, yes, confidence beats looks. Absolutely. I can’t argue that, I’ve attracted many a boyfriend (acne and all… dark skin when light was in, thin when thick was in, natural hair when relaxers were in, etc.) just because I walk with my head held high.

However, my point is that FM is not clearly stating his opinion at all. One minute he said that the unattractive woman doesn’t exist, the next that she does exist. I don’t care which one he believes, he’s entitled to his opinion. But, he needs to clarify his POV because right now, it’s cloudy.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

And, Jack, where have you been? Barbie broke up with Elmer like two months ago! Word on the street is she has a crush on Wonder Woman…

By Roxie

December 14, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

By Jack

Amber. Do you as a feminist get offended when a man opens a door for you? or pays the check? or gives up his seat on the train for you? Just wondering,I’m guilty of all of the above

Although this is addressed to Amber, I will answer, as I am a femenist as well.

Heck no, I don’t get offended. Why should I? I do the same with/for my male friends. Everyone likes to get treated every once and a while.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

JBM,

“No; I see them…�

I see the physically unatractive but do not believe they can’t get anyone to love or marry them?�

I see the poor people that buy into your assertion - and therefore go home alone and do not try.

I do see where you got me wrong - I am not argueing, nor have, that unattractive people do not exist - but am argueing that they can find someone.

And the notion that they cannot find someone is propelled by your assertions that it is true; by how YOU see and treat them.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Now explain your contrdiction:

but the fact that we(?) present views that convince unattractive people that they have no choice

And

Jack, yes, confidence beats looks. Absolutely. I can’t argue that, I’ve attracted many a boyfriend (acne and all… dark skin when light was in, thin when thick was in, natural hair when relaxers were in, etc.) just because I walk with my head held high.

Sounds like choice to me….waiting for your reply…

{In the future, you can ask - and not assert, but that is YOUR choice}

By Jack

December 14, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

I play a mean air-guitar!

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Sorry,

Wrong paste got put in the first part.

Re-posting…

By Jack

December 14, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

OK. Why during the last feminist movement did females want to burn their bras? Most if not all the men I’ve talked to wouldn’t mind it a bit.

By Monica

December 14, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Jack, Thanks for opening doors for me and giving up your seat for me and for other women. I think it’s just common courtesy.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

You wrote:

No such woman exists? Are you kidding?

Regarding me saying the following does not exist:

But answer me this…what about a woman who’s, um, not very attractive to men & can’t get anyone to love or marry her?

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Jack,

I was originally a drummer and have been playing guitar for the last 3 years.

Joke for you:

A child walks up to his mother and says: “Mom, when I grow up, I want to be a drummer!”

Mom replies: “Honey, you cannot do both;)”

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

FM - I honestly believe God allowed the two of us to cross paths. I’m not sure what I add to your life, but you certainly helped me to realize that I’m not as patient as I thought I was.

Now, back to the subject.

You said: I see the physically unatractive but do not believe they can’t get anyone to love or marry them?

I think I understand what you were trying to say.

You said that you see the poor people that buy into my assertion. Would you please provide a date/time reference to the assertion of mine that you’re referring to?

Regarding your 12:49, there was no contradiction. You took a piece of my sentence (which was actually quoting you) and not the entire sentence, and that’s probably why you misunderstood.

What I said in context was: I’m sure you’ll find a way to say that something is wrong with everyone who doesn’t understand this contradiction. Those who don’t get it are idiots, ignorant, trolls, etc. Just like above, YOU [meaning Fat Moose] CLAIMED that the problem isn’t the contradiction, but the fact that we(?) present views that convince unattractive people that they have no choice, etc. etc…. No, the fact is that unattractive people do exist, and there are some who are deformed, or in other ways unattractive that may have a difficult time getting someone to love them. For example, the young Haitian teen RS referenced.

So, you see, I wasn’t saying that I believe I present views that convince unattractive people that they have no choice. I was repeating what you said as a quote that started off with the words “you claimed.”

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

I ammended that mis-paste.

And applogise for it {I should proof read my post}.

I am figuring that your post was in response to mis-understanding my reply to the notion that was presented - so no explaination needed.

By lozen

December 14, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Guesser, You could probably argue that our male-dominated society, via religion, etc, was a reaction to being controlled by women. What evidence would you use to support that argument?

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Okay, FM, so I disregarded your error, and took note of the correction. If I got this right, I think what you meant to say is that my thinking that this woman (unattractive and unable to find someone to love her) does not exist, and my 12:39 to Jack is contradictory. If that’s what you meant, the two thoughts are unrelated in that, I do not consider myself to be unattractive by any standards. My point to Jack was that despite my flaws, I am still confident - I didn’t mean to imply that I am one of the unattractive women we referred to earlier.

I still want you to answer the question in my 1:05.

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Amber, I hope there’s another “wave� before I die too! I was there for the marches and was in several CR groups. It was a heady time when women believed we could change the world and we did!

lozen, what’s changed? why don’t you think you can change the world (anymore)?

By Idealistlefty

December 14, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

While the debate over mandating pharmacists to fill prescriptions of Plan B (commonly known as “the morning-after pill”) rages on here in GA and across the country, it is important to ask: should pharmacists be involved in the debate at all?

We are focusing on the wrong question when the debate centers on whether a pharmacist can opt not to - for moral reasons - dispense it. What we should be questioning is why Plan B isn’t already readily available for over-the-counter use?

The current prescription-only status of Plan B requires a woman visit her physician and then fill the prescription (assuming her pharmacist doesn’t have a moral objection). Keep in mind this is a drug that is most effective at preventing pregnancy when taken within 24 hours –and fairly effective up to 72 hours – after sex.

Since emergency contraception is already available without a prescription from pharmacists in six states - Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maine, New Mexico and Washington – we can assume that it is not women’s health that is keeping the Plan B from obtaining over-the-counter status nationally but is more likely the result of a conservative moral agenda masquerading as concern for women’s health. Plan B is already sold over-the-counter in more than 30 countries.

Some reason that pharmacists have more information, and can be trusted to dispense the pill, when necessary, to women who request it. We have already addressed that some pharmacists won’t fill prescriptions because of personal religious beliefs, so while that logic sounds good in theory, in practice it just isn’t so. Giving the pharmacist the power to dispense the drug is injecting them into an equation in which they have no place. A woman who needs more instruction may ask a pharmacist for advice on taking the pill, but she should not be coerced into doing so. This brings up the access issue as well. Access to care, having health coverage and prescription benefits can be connected to social economic status, and minority populations can be correlated to lower access to these things. So, if you don’t have access to a physician, then what…you don’t have access to Plan B.

Perhaps the most vacuous and condescending argument is that a panicked or uninformed woman may take the pill incorrectly or use it inappropriately if she doesn’t get professional advice. Could this be any more patronizing and stereotypical of women as ditzy and ineffectual? After all, no one asks if men are competent to use Minoxidil, an over-the-counter baldness medication, which warns you to stop using it if you have chest pain, rapid heartbeat, faintness or dizziness. Yet there is no requirement for men to have a pharmacist’s counseling to alert them to the serious nature of these symptoms. The morning-after pill has only minor side-effects, and most women experience no side-effects. Plan B consists of two pills to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. The first pill is taken immediately and the second 12 hours later. Even at our most flustered, these are not difficult instructions to follow.

Another argument in favor of keeping the morning-after pill at prescription-only status is that offering over-the-counter access to it will allow women to be irresponsible about birth control. What?!? A research study published in January 2005 in The Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrated that emergency contraception does not influence the degree to which women have unprotected sex. Additionally, Plan B is expected to cost around $25, so it is ridiculous to suggest that women will use the morning-after pill as a routine birth control method. It is ludicrous logic to believe that hindering access to Plan B will decrease the rate of unintended pregnancies.

Sheer lack of space prevents me from listing numerous other reasons that make it inane to maintain Plan B’s status as prescription only. These are our bodies and these are our rights. The arguments for keeping Plan B in prescription status are specious and few. Plan B should be immediately given an over-the-counter status and should be accessible to all women. The US should follow the lead of other countries which already provide women access to this safe backup birth control method, without restrictions.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Awww heck. Now, I made a mistake… this is getting confusing. LOL.

The third line of my 1:08, please omit the word not.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

What evidence would you use to support that argument?

{here i go, argueing to point out flaws again - i should learn to stop;}

Ummm; most importantly, your post:

I think my Cherokee ancestors had it right. {were is the equality?} Young women had sex without shame or guilt untainted by western religion. If they wanted to get married, they had a little ceremony and gave each other presents. She owned the house and all household goods and the children were her children without a doubt. If she grew tired of him or he didn’t please her, she threw his stuff out of her house and they were divorced. Her brother was responsible for raising her children and teaching the boys what they needed to know. It must have been wonderful to have no shame and guilt around your sexuality; it’s hard for us to even imagine that.

And the examples he provided…

See lozen, if you were in charge; the world would be 180 degrees from sick, instead of 45. You are no better than those you hate.

By lozen

December 14, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Fact: An ALL MALE system voted IN womens rights FatMoose surely you know at what cost. After decades of speaking and trying to convince politicians, after having black men get the vote (while white and black women were told again to wait), after marches where the suffragists were called names, beaten, shoved, pelted with tomatoes and rotten eggs, after women chained themselves to posts in Washington, after women were arrested, thrown in prison and force fed until some of them died. You’re right an all male system voted in women’s rights!

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Okay, I’m totally not in this women’s right discussion, but Lozen piqued my curiosity.

Guesser said: You could probably argue that our male-dominated society, via religion, etc, was a reaction to being controlled by women.

Lozen, you said: What evidence would you use to support that argument?

Now I’m curious. What do you think was the triggering factor to our society becoming male-dominated?

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

JBM,

Asking me?

By Scalia

December 14, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Where is that hunk, Zack? He should be on here talking about how women treat men, and how society makes men look like incompetent buffoons.

By RS

December 14, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

FM: Nooo, I’d be the LAST person to put anyone in a “box”. I’m actually an advocate for the physically unnattractive/disfigured which is why the story of the Haitian girl touched my heart. I’m just telling it as I see it. I myself went through a VERY gawky stage that lasted into my 30’s. Believe me, I got out there & tried to socialize as did lot of my looks-challenged peers but it didn’t do a bit of good. So, you’re a rock musician?? Um, would I know who you are? I confess I have a thing for rock musicians & speaking of having a “thing”, from the way you described yourself, Just Being Me (you sound like a very together lady, I must say!) my husband would find you very cute!

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

scalia,

society does make men look like buffoons. but then again, they are.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

FM, no, my 1:33 is to Lozen. (But, you still didn’t answer my 1:05).

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

So, you’re a rock musician??Um, would I know who you are?

Ummm - Not unless you frequent the bigger venues from Tampa (yuck!) to ATL to DC to NY.

Mainly play for fun now - have a partime career to keep in-the-loop, and some money saved. Just the east coast for me nowadays.

I myself went through a VERY gawky stage that lasted into my 30’s. Believe me, I got out there & tried to socialize as did lot of my looks-challenged peers but it didn’t do a bit of good.

Thats too bad - I have found otherwise; but admittedly on the recieving end mostly.

By Ken

December 14, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Roxie… Perhaps I’ll rephrase the questions about opening doors, etc.

What would you think of a man who DIDN’T open the door for you, pay for the check on a date, etc.?

JBM… Not a sociologist, so this is a total guess, but I would think the answer to your question lies in what it took for a society to survive. Way back, size and strength were at a premium for survival. The male is physically bigger and stronger and therefore commanded more respect in a variety of cultures. The larger male was able to hunt, build and protect against animals or other humans.

In those cultures, a man was also necessary to have children, so the women would want to mate with the biggest and the strongest, b/c they would appear to more viral and ale to protect care for the family, which would then perpetuate that paradigm.

As we evolved our brains became more of a factor. As our brains became more of a factor, technology became more prevelent. That technology came to a point where it does not require size or strength. Women now can be seen as equal to men b/c except for a very few cases, they can do the same thing a man can. Now they can even procreate without direct contact to men.

Again, just a guess, so all of you who hate men can come our with your venomous posts.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Thanks, RS, I appreciate that. I’ve come a long way from those junior high photos! LOL!

By Scalia

December 14, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Yeah…but there are some hot buffoons.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Ken, that doesn’t explain how our culture went from female-dominated to male-dominated (as some have stated).

If “way back” men’s size, stature and strength were needed for survival, how were women ever dominant in our culture in the first place? And, how did the shift occur?

By lozen

December 14, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

FatMoose, thank you so much for keeping this from becoming a personal attack on me! Is my example of Cherokee life the only evidence you have? I was actually thinking back to the beginnings of western european culture because that has effected us all much more than Cherokee culture. It’s very difficult not to insult you back when you insist on turning this discussion into your little insulting personal vendetta.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

And, as for the men opening doors question… (I know, I’m very talkative today)…

If on a first date, a man did not:

It would be our last date.

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

sure, scalia. and i like to think of myself as one of them. ladies can be knuckleheads too. :)

By Ken

December 14, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

JBM… I question whether or not they ever were.

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

JBM, i think that’s good stuff. be a good guy on a date, get to know the other person and figure out if there’s a connection.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

First, It would be nice if you used what you knew. Your own post. And the Guesser provided the same examples I would without refreshing my memory. But I am not putting energy into your spins this time round: Hope that you will see one day that if you were in charge; the world would be 180 degrees from sick, instead of 45. You are no better than those you hate.

I agree with Kens premise coupled with I would bet this yin/yang has gone on for eons - and the reaction keeps it a going.

JBM; If I am refering to the correct question: You said that you see the poor people that buy into my assertion. Would you please provide a date/time reference to the assertion of mine that you’re referring to?

It would be the first respose you gave to my response:

No such woman exists? Are you kidding?

When you were still thining that I was ONLY speaking of unattractfullness; and not the whole statement.

By lozen

December 14, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

There is no proof according to anthropology or archeology that women were ever dominant in any society. Some feminists believe they were, but there isn’t any accepted scientific evidence for that. Of course the evidence may have been purposely destroyed in one of the many burnings of records and libraries that we do know occurred throughout history. (It could be locked up in the basement of the Vatican somewhere.) History is written by the winners! It’s very easy to change history. I don’t think we could imagine what it would be like if women ever were dominant. You can’t just take the unequal situation we have and turn it around. It’s a very interesting question JBM and one I’ve thought about a great deal but have no answers so far.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Gotcha, FM. So, you meant that you see the poor people that buy into my assertion that there are unattractive women who can’t find anyone to love them. Thanks for clearing that up. For the record, I still stand by that “assertion.” But, I think we’ve beat that subject to death! :-)

Ken, I wonder if you’re right. I don’t know enough about the subject either way.

Blablabla - yep.

By Guesser

December 14, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

*Guesser said: You could probably argue that our male-dominated society, via religion, etc, was a reaction to being controlled by women.

Lozen, you said: What evidence would you use to support that argument?

Now I’m curious. What do you think was the triggering factor to our society becoming male-dominated?*

You know, I have really no idea when and how the change happened. Perhaps men simply got the upper hand when there was a shortage of men, say from war battles/deaths. And when more women were vying for breeding rights to less men, men may have decided they had an advantage. Merely speculating here, as I do not know. What I DO know is that many ancient cultures were FEMALE based, meaning females had the power. And at some point it changed. Perhaps it was merely the village cleric woke up from too much alcohol and hashish one night and said “God came to me in a vision last night and told me Men need to be in charge”.

By Jack

December 14, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

society does make men look like buffoons, we do it ourselves.

By Jack

December 14, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

I meant “doesn’t”

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

does it matter whether or not women were ever dominant in society or not? does it matter that women weren’t given the right to vote until, what was it, 1920? is that evidence that men control society today? women have the right now, and every woman on this blog has probably had the right their entire life.

if men are so in control of society today, what are some of the things that men can do legally that women are prohibited from doing by law?

By Ken

December 14, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Amen to that Jack… I was watching TV with my wife a couple weeks back and a couple of different commercials came on that prompted me to say…

“They really make men look like cretans.”

Unfortunately, those commercials were imitating life. If you take a listen to radio and listen to some of those hosts talk about “guys being guys” it revolves around drinking, eating lousy food, strippers and football. If that is what a “real guy” is, then I’m glad not to be one.

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

and btw, i don’t mean my post to incite a fight, but i just have trouble buying into the whole, men are in control of society today concept that is offered by some of the women on this blog. when i look at my wife and i, i don’t see a whole lot out there that i can do that she can’t.

By Jack

December 14, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Somebody has to kill the bugs.

By RS

December 14, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Ladies & gentlemen, it works both ways. Yes, I agree the ads portraying ALL men as dumb buffoons are innaccurate & offensive, as are the ones that tell women we have to have perfect hair, bodies & faces. JBM, we ALL looked goofy in jr. high, I think that’s a rite of passage! Interesting first-date criteria. Mine are: If you don’t hold my hand in public, do NOT try to jump my bones in private. In fact, on a first date, bone-jumping shouldn’t even be an issue. Do NOT talk about how you’re still hung up on your ex & in no way, shape or form are you to ever indicate you’re ashamed of me & consider me inferior in any way. FM, I go to a lot of rock show; I live in ATL, am formerly from NY/NJ & lived in Florida for many years so I may very well know who you are! Hint, please??? And I’m glad you didn’t go through what I did when I was single. The sad truth is, gawky females are judged much more harshly than gawky males.

By Jack

December 14, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

I like the commercial where the man & wife are in the bathroom getting ready for work. he is brushing his teeth when the woman drops her earring into the toilet. She has a sad look on her face for about a second when he puts the toothbrush in his mouth, reaches into the toilet and gets her earring, rinses it off, hands it to her and then continues brushing his teeth. They then show her holding the earring with a puzzed look on her face. Priceless.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Jack, my partner kills the bugs for me! ;-)

Blablabla - You’ve been around long enough to see that I don’t usually get involved in the women’s rights fights. I’m not a feminist, and my passion just doesn’t lie in those sorts of things.

But, I am fascinated by this particular discussion (re: women used to be in charge, now men are, what happened?). So, to me, it doesn’t necessarily matter but I’m still intrigued and curious. And, while I don’t know if women have fewer rights than men, I do know that a few years ago women were earning $0.26 on the dollar less than men in comparable positions. I don’t know what that number is today, but back in 2000, it was 26 cents. And, that’s pretty unfair.

By Jorge

December 14, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

RS…gawky males are judged just as hard. I know what it is like to approach a female surrounded by her female friends. They judge you from diction and grammar, to attire, to if you have on white socks with black shoes, what color belt you are wearing and what color shoes (brown belt and black shoes…no), to what you say to them, do you give eye contact, did you miss a place shaving, are you polite…the list goes on and on.

JBM, I have a question for you. Did a guy follow that list, and then turn out to be a jerk later on down the line?

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

It is hard for me to think that I would be happy pre-60s; although I am male.

I would be forced to follow a whole suite of rules that I did not participate in - not to mention a gay male.

PEOPLE in control tend to abuse it - that is about what all this comes down to. And if bunny rabbits were mainly in control, they too would abuse it in general; and not BECAUSE they are bunnies.

There is a lesson that come with power - and it is a harsh teacher.

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

JBM,

your point is well made about whether or not it matters. my post was less aimed at you, since yes, i know you don’t passionate about the subject, and more directed at those who get huffy about the fact that at one point in time, women had less rights than men, as though that has some pertinence about what is going on today.

as for wages, the disparity in wages you’re talking about (over 20%) is typically not for the same jobs. were that the case i would be in 100% agreement with you, btw. we had this discussion several months back when diane quoted a study that crossed all lines of work and said women make significantly less than men. when you compare men and women’s wages within the same fields and line of work, the disparity drops to less than 5%, and in many cases is non-existent. small disparities can probably be logically explained away, but large ones should definitely be investigated and understood.

By Jack

December 14, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

You’re not envious of Ward Cleaver?

By blablabla

December 14, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

JBM,

thinking of the wages issue from a different point of view, if i could realistically get away with paying women a significant discount, wouldn’t i only hire women first? why would i ever hire a man and pay more for the same work? most people aren’t as prejudicial when it impacts their wallets.

By RS

December 14, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Jorge-that STINKS. How old were you when this happened? I know teenage girls & 20-something women are shallow like that. I also know that men, even when middle-aged, are very critical of women who are physically unnappealing.

By Ken

December 14, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

blablabla hits it on the head… It’s all about the pocketbook.

Most (and I say most) employers will pay the bare minimum an individual will accept. I’ve heard too many stories, even where I work, about compensation being offered, and when the employee states their intention to leave, they get a HEFTY increase to the offer. Why would an employer pay more if they didn’t have to?

Like anything, as time continues, and more and more women find their place in the workforce, work their way to the positions of power and gain the decision making responsibilities, the salaries will shake out. The same can be said for any “minority”. It simply takes time.

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

My criteria for first (and any) date:

• Do NOT follow rules
• Be yourself, THAT way I know if I like you!

Want to eat with your hands; have at it. I am not going to judge you, but I also wont date you;)

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

RS,

Hint - naw, I would politely prefer not;)

I had long hair until 26yrs old - Until then I did not KNOW cops gave warnings - and speeding was NOT the theme. Since cutting my hair, I have been pulled over 3 times and got warnings each time.

It is always a bad situation when someone has power but not the intellect to use it - no matter who.

The unfairness is everywhere.

By Jack

December 14, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

There were no cell phones back when I dated. It would really erk me if my date answered a call while on a date with me.

By Guesser

December 14, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Want to eat with your hands; have at it. I am not going to judge you, but I also wont date you;)

No Morrocan restaurants on the first date then? LOL

By RS

December 14, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Alas, FM, you & I are never to be…I love dining at Ethiopian restaurants & E. food IS eaten with one’s hands!

By FatMoose

December 14, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

OK -

Bad example…

By lozen

December 14, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Now I’m curious. What do you think was the triggering factor to our society becoming male-dominated? Well if that ever happened…(and this is definitely a guess)…What do you think was the triggering factor to societies being dominated at one time by Rome? Egypt? Spain? Great Britain? What was the triggering factor to native american societies that had existed for hundreds of years becoming dominated and almost wiped out by Europeans? The meek do not inherit the earth; those who are most barbaric and with the most advanced weaponry inherit the earth! And then, they rewrite history.

By RS

December 14, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

OK, Guesser, I’LL eat out with you. Oh that’s OK, FM, consider us even because I’m not about to tell you which local burlesque troupe I’m in the process of forming! (Hope this won’t drive you crazy). About being pulled over 3 times…do you have a flamboyant car, i.e. bright yellow? Controversial bumperstickers?? A lot of cops are like that…

By Jack

December 14, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Lozen. After all of us knuckle draggers kill each other off, the meek will take over.

By Guesser

December 14, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

I missed Ethiopian/hands. Nephew had a graduation party when he graduated college, he had been working at a health food store, and for all the family in he had some Ethiopian restaurant deliver the food.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Jorge, no, a guy has never followed those “rules” (which by the way, is a misnomer) and turned out to be a jerk. I’ve actually been pretty fortunate. I have only dated one guy in my entire life that I consider a jerk. As for the scores of other guys I dated - we just weren’t compatible for one reason or another.

And, I do make note of diction and grammar, attire, clean-cutness, approach, eye contact, and fashion sense. I wouldn’t necessarily rule a person out for a flaw in one of those areas, but I would certainly make a note of it.

RS, that doesn’t stink. It’s just a matter of preferences, and what characteristics a person will and won’t tolerate.

BLAblabla, in response to your 3:07, you could realistically get away with that. And, what many corporate-level execs do is hire the man - though more costly - because he is believed to be smarter, more experienced, and less likely to take extensive time off after the birth or adoption of a child.

I can’t quote any stats or studies, but I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if it were proven that men do, in fact, earn significantly more than women in the same/similar job. The perception (and perhaps reality) is that women employees pose a greater risk of lost time.

By Bruce

December 14, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Lozen your negativism is really depressing. You should see someone about that.

By RS

December 14, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Sure, I have preferrences too, but mine are based on how a person acts & how they treat others, not how they look & dress although I will say one thing. Any man that wants to be with me must be clean & not be smelly/nasty.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

RS, that’s not much different from saying that any man who wants to be with me must speak well and be well-groomed.

By RS

December 14, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

JBM, in both our cases, I don’t believe we’re being unreasonable. Anyone, male or female, who doesn’t bother speaking in an educated, respectful way and/or practices poor grooming, has little or no home training and/or has no self-respect, so how can they respect others? Makes perfect sense to me.

By Jack

December 14, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Now JBM, would you go out with someone who didn’t bathe? Pewwwww.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Jack, if I couldn’t tell by looking/smelling, then yes, I would.

By Guesser

December 14, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

on this talking bit, grammar, etc, I have always said I never judge a woman’s attractiveness until I have heard her say five words.

By Just Being Me

December 14, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

For what it’s worth, I will say that my partner of over 3 years does not have grammar as one of her strong points… funny how something can be so important to you, yet be insignificant when it comes down to it.

Now that’s definitely a contradiction.

By RS

December 14, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

I may be nearsighted AND have bad sinuses, but honey, I think I’d know if someone doesn’t bathe! LOL!

By Monica

December 15, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

Guesser, In response to your 4:20 post yesterday, Is a woman’s southern drawl a point for or against her? :)

By Archie

December 15, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Just Being Me, that’s what we men deal with from you women all the time — contradictions!!! I am no longer in the dating game but I can remember how women said they like gentleman yet would go out with someone totally the opposite. Keeping with the topic since this new pill is important I don’t understand why a person would not get a prescription in advance if they are sexually active. As someone said sex clouds logical thinking but before the act takes place a person could go get these MAP’s then when you need them you have them. In other words better to have and not need than to need and not have. Once again I am not a woman and I expect some constructive criticism. In this case given that drug companies are more concerned with profit than health I think it’s a good idea to get a presciption for these pills then as we become sure that the drug companies are not putting harmful stuff in these pills we can let them be available over the counter as we have done with some sinus medicine.

By Whiley

December 15, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

” I can remember how women said they like gentleman yet would go out with someone totally the opposite.”

That’s because women would rather go out with a jerk then have to kiss an unattractive man. You MIGHT be able to tame a jerk, ugly is ugly.

By FatMoose

December 15, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Keeping with the topic since this new pill is important I don’t understand why a person would not get a prescription in advance if they are sexually active.

I was thinking about this yesterday - not as a permanent fix, but a band-aid for the current situation.

Does anyone know if a doctor will prescribe it without the immediate need? Would this be used against a person in the argument that they are planning to use it?

And lastly, could a sexually active guy have a script for the same reasons; and how would a woman feel about it?

Think about looking in some guys bathroom cabinet for some deodorant before leaving in the morning and seeing a bottle - what would you feel?

By FatMoose

December 15, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

You MIGHT be able to tame a jerk

Nope - jerks are jerks; pain-in-the-a*-women are pain-in-the-a*-women.

Ugly you can get used to and appriciate them for who they are - and if they are wonerful people, you wont see it after you take a shine to who they actually are.

By Archie

December 15, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Women do date and marry men that don’t bathe. I know this is true because I’ve been around guys like that and they have their woman with them. I was able to date although my car at the time didn’t have such amenities as air-conditioning and a working radio. Whether the man is attractive has nothing to with the choice that women make because they treat attractive men funny. At least JBM admits to contradictions. That is a good thing because I have seen contradictory things come up on this board when it comes to dating and sex. I think women are intelligent across the board but when it comes to dating it’s like logic just goes completely contradictory to what is said. If you want a gentleman holdout for a good-looking gentleman and there are plenty available. I got what I wanted in a woman and I wasn’t picky but she is attractive,etc.

By Jorge

December 15, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

JBM, you brought up an interesting point about men being hired over women even if they are more expensive. Could it also be that men feel they have to deal with more drama if they hire a woman? Do you think that they give into the stereotype that women are emotional and sensitive and let that cloud their judgment?

By Guesser

December 15, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Monica - I was not talking ‘accent’ in that comment, more terminology and annunciation. To directly answer, as I do like the ‘southern drawl’ I would probably have to say it would be a point FOR her. But then even within the South, there are many ‘accents’ and some would indicate she perhaps never passed eighth grade.

By FatMoose

December 15, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

And to further the previous notions of taming a man. It follows the old saying: “A man marries a woman hoping she wont change; a woman marries a man hoping he will.”

Both will unfortuanately be wrong and disappointed.

One more of gods little jokes I guess;)

By Whiley

December 15, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

“Ugly you can get used to and appriciate them for who they are - and if they are wonerful people, you wont see it after you take a shine to who they actually are.”

Only if you poke your eyes out.

By FatMoose

December 15, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

As for men being hired over women and the salary difference. From what I have read, hour-for-hour, they are paid the same. The studies that show a difference do not take all facets into consideration {if you have take a higher business course, you will know that ANY a-s-s-e-s-s-m-e-n-t of $$ and productivity is determined by very complex equations}.

Two major facets most studies do not consider:

• Females ARE still, rightly or not, the ones who take days off when the kids are sick.

• Same goes for maternity/paternity leave - many places guarantee{sp?} you will have a job; but do not pay you for that time, simalar to FLMA.

• Females have not been in higher positions as long and time put in determines many of the (management and above) salary boosts.

That is not to say that there is definately not a difference; but until a complex study shows otherwise and describes accurately the issue, how can there be a fix?

When/IF this is proven to be the case; I agree a fix should be immediate.

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

ROFL @ Whiley

Jorge: Could it also be that men feel they have to deal with more drama if they hire a woman?

Yes, it could be.

Do you think that they give into the stereotype that women are emotional and sensitive and let that cloud their judgment?

I think that could be a part of it, as could the “risk” some male hiring managers perceive (i.e. women taking more time off for childbirth, childcare, etc.).

By Whiley

December 15, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

What about the risk of hiring men that show up for work with an AK-47?

What about the risk of hiring men that can’t show up for work because they spent the weekend in the fulton county jail?

(I don’t buy the drama excuse for not hiring women.)

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

FM, your last point was the only one I consider valid. The other two points should not factor into salary considerations. I realize you’re not stating what should be and shouldn’t be, so I’m not disagreeing with you per se. Just weighing in…

By Guesser

December 15, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

another factor for the disparity with women and men wages, within the same exact occupation of course, is sometimes some of the women have less years experience, for whatever reasons, which brings the average down. there has been lengthy discussions about it in IT trade print journals so I am specifically discussing IT occupations.

Lozen - perhaps I am misinformed about the role of women in primitive cultures, what I do know is that early gods were female and the Queen of the culture welded much more power than the King of the same culture. Queen of Sheba comes to mind, to name only one. In Mayan cultures the Queen held the most power as well.

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Whoa Whiley! Why do you always sound so bitter and off the wall?! I’d venture to say (without the surety of stats) that the likelihood of a woman employee taking time off for childbirth or childcare is far greater than the likelihood of a man shooting up his office… Geez.

Although I shudder to recall this (and hate to divulge it), but I once missed a day of work because I spent the weekend in jail. I take pride in the fact that I am an upstanding, productive and law-abiding citizen (and follower of Christ’s teachings) - a generally good person.

Again, I don’t have stats, but how likely is it that a corp. executive doesn’t show up for work because he’s in jail compared to the likelihood of a woman calling in sick to care for her child, or taking 6 months off for childbirth?

By Whiley

December 15, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Just being me, I was being funny. Making a point, but being funny. lol oh no you seriously missed work because of being arrested? What happened?

It is stressful for a business owner having any employee take off work for any amount of time. There is no way around childbirth & recovery, sick children etc.
Makes me thankful everyday I never had any. And sad for the women that are punished for it.

By lozen

December 15, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Statement by Paul Blank, campaign director, WakeUpWalMart.com on today’s hearing: Today, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the largest class action gender lawsuit in U.S. history. The lawsuit affects nearly 2 million former and current Wal-Mart female workers. More than 700,000 women work for Wal-Mart, which makes the Company the largest private sector employer of women in the United States (Wal-Martfacts.com) Analysis done in 2003 showed that while 2/3s of the company’s hourly workers were female, women held only 1/3 of managerial positions and constituted less than 15 % of store managers. (Financial Times, 11/20/03) For the same job classification, women earned from 5% to 15 % less than men, even after taking into account factors such as seniority and performance. This divide in pay has been growing over time. (“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforceâ€?, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003) In 2001, women managers on average earned $14,500 less than their male counterparts. Female hourly workers earned on average $1,100 less than male counterparts. (“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforceâ€?, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003)

By lozen

December 15, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

National Women’s Law Center Discrimination against women in the American workplace is very much alive and well. Although much has changed for the better in the nearly four decades since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, and other prohibitions against employment discrimination based on sex, women continue to encounter serious obstacles to equal job opportunity. Women continue to be passed over for jobs and promotions for which they are qualified; to be paid less than men for equal work; to be sexually harassed on the job; and to be disadvantaged in numerous other ways based not on their abilities or their qualifications but on the fact that they are female.

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Whiley:

It sounded like you were venting. I’m sorry I misread you. Just a couple of weeks after I moved to Atlanta, I was returning home from an evening service at church - driving west on I-20 through Atlanta heading home to Lithia Springs. I was pulled over, and the officer said I was doing 83 mph in a 55. I knew that I was driving around 80, but I had thought I-20 was a 65 mph zone, so I didn’t really think it was a big deal. Having heard enough horror stories of white officers in the south, I remained calm and just chilled out listening to my music waiting for him to issue the ticket. I knew I was wrong, so there was nothing to argue or beg for.

Anyway, after keeping me there for over an hour (I got pulled over at 11:00p, didn’t get arrested until about 12:15a), he came back to the car and said that he made an error, and that area was a construction zone so the speed limit was actually 45.

I was still calm - although it was late, I had my cell phone with me, and there was a lot of traffic going by so I felt safe. No worries at all.

Then, the officer came to my window (about 12:15a) and gave me the ticket to sign. I asked him why I had to sign (in NY, you don’t sign tickets - so this was weird to me). I even added the “sir” for good measure and ego-building. He asked me to step out of the car. I said, “Step out of the car? Why?”

Lesson learned: some officers are ego-driven, some are not; some are authority abusers, some are not; some are racist, some are not. Unless you know which one you’re dealing with, just do what they say, no questions asked. Make mental note of their name and badge no., and report it later.

Anyway, at that point, I was definitely nervous. The officer got instantly agitated (the nerve of me to question him). My heart was pounding, hands and voice shaking, I wanted to reach for my cell phone but remembered Amadou Diallo (a whole other story). There were cars whizzing by me, and it was after midnight, and I was in still-new territory - and this white man with a gun and billy club wanted me to get out of my car?!!!!

Well, I figured I could either get out, or he could drag me out. I knew that I still hadn’t done anything wrong, so I got out of the car. He asked me if I had any drugs or weapons on me, and told me to turn around and place my hands behind my back… I told him I didn’t use drugs and had no weapons… that I was coming from church… told him where he could find my ministerial license and my collar. I told him that I was from NY and I wasn’t accustomed to being asked to sign anything for a ticket. He didn’t care. I was charged with reckless driving, resisting arrest, and not having a Georgia license.

I sat in jail that night with my Dolce & Gabbana suit, Prada shoes and handbag, pearl jewelry, diamond rings, etc. basically for asking the officer a question.

Months later, all the charges were dropped. But, that was after my night in the Atlanta City Detention Center.

By FatMoose

December 15, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

JBM,

Whoa Whiley! Why do you always sound so bitter and off the wall?! I’d venture to say (without the surety of stats) that the likelihood of a woman employee taking time off for childbirth or childcare is far greater than the likelihood of a man shooting up his office… Geez.

And her reply is always left-handed:

Just being me, I was being funny. Making a point, but being funny. lol oh no you seriously missed work because of being arrested? What happened?

But will still argue the point - which was just to be funny; but making a point….to inifinity…

JBM,

As for only agreeing with the last one; if I take an hour off work - it is W/O pay {have neck issues that eats up my sick/vacation; do I see myself as PUNISHED for having degenerative spine disorder? No, it is just the hand I was dealt}. Therefore my yearly REPORTED salary will be less than my co-workers, although our hired salary is the same?

I agree the first one is a socail issue; so if, in a household, the father takes off from work, the math still works out the same.

By amber

December 15, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

And here’s more: The Wage Gap Persists. According to a 2004 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, based on U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor statistics, women who work full time earn about 76 cents for every dollar men earn. Over the past 40 years, the real median earnings of women have fallen short by an estimated $523,000 — more than half a million dollars. With a record 64 million women in the workforce, pay discrimination hurts the majority of American families. Families lose $200 billion in income annually to the wage gap—an average loss of more than $4,000 for each working family. In addition, wage discrimination lowers total lifetime earnings, thereby reducing women’s benefits from Social Security and pension plans.

The Wage Gap Reflects Sex Discrimination. Wage inequalities are not simply a result of women’s qualifications or choices. Wage discrimination persists despite women’s increased educational attainment, greater level of experience in workforce, and decreased amount of time spent out of the workforce raising children according to a recent study by the Government Accounting Office.

Education. Although the number of women attaining baccalaureate and advanced degrees now surpasses the number of men, in 1999 the median wages of female college graduates were $17,600 less than those of male graduates. Experience. Women gain only approximately 30 cents per hour for five additional years of work experience, compared to $1.20 for white men. American Assoc. of University Women

By FatMoose

December 15, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Amber,

If you look to prove a point; you will find that info.

If you look to find the truth, which IS harder, you will find data that reflects all parameters.

You should have been on the blog a few months ago - it was covered in-depth; but if I can find the {harvard?} studies that are comprehensive, I will post a link.

By FatMoose

December 15, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

And more {From The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983.}:

http://www.ncpa.org/newdpd/index.php

The Good News.

When women behave in the workplace as men do, the wage gap between them is small. June O’Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that among people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women’s earnings approach 98 percent of men’s. Women who hold positions and have skills and experience similar to those of men face wage disparities of less than 10 percent, and many are within a couple of points. Claims of unequal pay almost always involve comparing apples and oranges.

Lifestyle Choices

Women make different choices, and those choices affect how they work. Women often place more importance on their relationships - caring for children, parents, spouses, etc. - than on their careers. A study by the Center for Policy Alternatives and Lifetime television found that 71 percent of women prefer jobs with more flexibility and benefits than jobs with higher wages, and nearly 85 percent of women offered flexible work arrangements by their employers have taken advantage of this opportunity.

By FatMoose

December 15, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

I actually fall in the catagory of women - if you color this stuff black and white; I choose a lower paying, more flexible job for a number of reason that are specific to me and my lifestyle.

By Renee

December 15, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Hi everyone. I’m dropping in and out, not much time to comment.

JBM - that’s quite a story. Sorry that happened to you. That was your official inauguaration to Georgia. I had a friend (male) that was jogging down Clairmont Road. The police stopped him (they thought he was running from a crime) and asked him for ID. He had none, because he was in running gear (not a lot of pockets). The police eventually let him go after giving him a hard time, but told him “Boy, you need to wear your ID around your neck if you are going to be out here running).

I’m working 12 hour days this week, work piling up (as I type). I’ll drop in as I can. Expecting about a foot of snow between tonight and tomorrow. Fun, fun (sarcasm).

Oh, and I’m still for OTC MAP! Lol

By amber

December 15, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Yes, part of this wage discrepancy is our own fault ladies. (That is, if we can be blamed for the teaching we’ve received from a culture that has taught females to be nice, sweet, to value relationships most, to want children, and to take on most of the burden of care for our children!) We have to stop being so nice, stop valuing relationships so much, stop having children or insist that fathers take off equally as much time for sick children, to take care of a new baby, to take kids to the dentist etc. if we want to be successful and make as much money so we don’t starve when we retire and try to live on our social security. Of course then we’ll be called b*** who don’t care about anybody but ourselves and cold-hearted women who just drop our kids off at day care without a thought!

From the SF Chronicle, Jan 2005 One penny on the dollar. That’s the margin by which the typical salary of a woman working a full- time, year-round job slipped relative to a man’s average salary in 2003. For those who find cause for concern in the nation’s persistent gender wage gap, last year delivered a bit of backsliding.

Women, on average, earned 76 cents for every dollar that men brought home, down from a record-high 77 cents on the dollar in 2002, according to the latest annual report from the nonpartisan U.S. General Accounting Office.

Last year’s penny shift marked the first increase in the gender wage gap this decade, government income figures show. Some observers blame the economy in part for the recent slippage among women, saying that a downturn tends to punish them disproportionately because they hold more of the nation’s lower- rung jobs.

But the economy is just a piece of the picture. Some prominent researchers have been surprised to learn that even though women are attaining higher-than-ever levels of education — and also reaching higher rungs on the corporate ladder — that progress has not narrowed the wage gap as expected, according to the National Association for Female Executives, a New York-based women’s professional organization.

One commonly presumed factor has less to do with economics than with social convention. Simply put, are women as astute as men when it comes to bargaining for the pay they want and deserve?

Traditionally, they haven’t been, and the consequences can’t be ignored, says Betty Spence, president of the National Association for Female Executives.

“Make sure you know what your average pay is for your field,” Spence advises. “Find out what the men are earning and go in and ask for that. Smart women are taking courses in learning how to negotiate better. Too often they worry about keeping the relationship [with supervisors] warm.”

If that’s true, warm relationships offer cold comfort financially. Even adjusting for occupation, race, experience level and other factors that can cause variations in pay by gender, working women’s salaries looked slightly better, but still checked in at 80 cents on the dollar relative to each buck earned by their male counterparts.

Children have opposite effects on the earning power of men and women, according to a 2003 GAO survey. Men with kids earn 2.1 percent more, on average, than men without kids. Women with kids earn 2.5 percent less than women without kids, the GAO said.

By Monica

December 15, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Of the nearly 64 million women are in the workforce (using Amber’s stats), I wonder how many of them are teachers, compared to the number of men who are teachers? That also impacts the global wage gap stats. BTW, in the world of education, gender plays no role in salary; it’s based on experience and level of education. The only perceived bias might come in the form of coaching supplements, in which one might argue that threre are more coaching opportunities for men than for women.

By lozen

December 15, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Yes it is true there are different stories out there about the wage gap between men and women. The Bush administration doesn’t believe there’s a wage gap either. But then they did believe there were WMD in Iraq!

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Renee, you’re missed around here! The arrest actually turned out to be a really positive experience, not to mention a learning experience.

I was able to minister to two women that night, one of whom stayed in touch with me for a while. And, I became a lot more humble after that. I don’t know if anyone can sit in jail all dolled up - looking and smelling good, while being treated like a common (and I emphasize common) criminal, and not be humble. I sat among prostitutes, drug addicts, a child abuser, a woman who had just stabbed her boyfriend, men who sold drugs, a car thief, and all kinds of folks that I wouldn’t otherwise choose to be around. Definitely a humbling experience.

Hope you get some good rest this weekend. Stay warm!

By Whiley

December 15, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

“But will still argue the point - which was just to be funny; but making a point….to inifinity…”

So what’s your point Moose?

By lozen

December 15, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Monica, how many of the 64 million employed women are teachers? I couldn’t begin to guess, but I know most teachers in grammar and high school are women. Few teachers in public schools are men. Then in colleges and university’s there’s a reversal of that. When I graduated from high school there were three respectable options for females of my generation: teacher, secretary, nurse. Of course that was back in the olden days 44 years ago! But I didn’t quite get your point.

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Hey Lozen, I bet you’re right. When I was in middle and high school, my female teachers always outnumbered my male teachers 6:1 or 7:1 - and I had my first female principal in HS (she’s no longer there).

Oddly enough, this year, my daughter’s in her first year of high school - every single one of her teachers is male, and her principal is female.

By lozen

December 15, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

JBM, yes! The times they are a changin’. And I will always be grateful to those feminists (both female and male) who fought to bring about the changes we’ve seen.

By lozen

December 15, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

This is for Archie and a post from earlier this morning. Archie you must have missed the posts about how the MA pill has been available to European women for years now and there have been no bad effects. Also, you say men deal with contradictions from women all the time. You don’t think women deal with contradictions from men all the time? Show me a human being, female or male, who doesn’t contradict themselves. This is just one of those stereotypes about women that we’ve been dealing with all our lives.

By Monica

December 15, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

I was afraid I might have been unclear. My point is that if the wage gap is an average of men to women, that more women are in professions that require degrees, like teaching, but that pay less than corporate America in most cases. Does that make sense? Even though the doors have opened to women, I would venture to say that a majority of women in the work force are still in those three “golden age” professions, which is why the average slaries of women is less than the average salaries of men.

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Monica, but the studies being referenced today aren’t in regard to comparisons of average salary for women vs. that of men. The discussion is related to whether or not women in similar positions make less than male counterparts (i.e. does a female Wal-Mart manager make less than a male Wal-Mart manager in the same position, same length of service, same regional demographics, etc? Or across several companies, is the average salary for a female stockbroker lower than that of a male stockbroker? Or HR professional? Or CEO? Or CIO? Etc.

By blablabla

December 15, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

actually, jbm, amber’s reference of 76% on the dollar for women vs 100% for men (from the GAO) is across all jobs and lines of work, and is comparing apples and oranges.

the wal-mart issue is more spot-on in that it compares men and women with similar quals and length of service.

and your story about being jailed is insane. i’m sorry that happened to you.

By blablabla

December 15, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Make sure you know what your average pay is for your field,� Spence advises. “Find out what the men are earning and go in and ask for that. Smart women are taking courses in learning how to negotiate better. Too often they worry about keeping the relationship [with supervisors] warm.�

and btw, this is great advice for anybody, not just women. know what the average salary is in your field.

By Monica

December 15, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Thanks blablabla. I was referring to Amber’s stats, not the Wal-Mart stats. Seems like Wal-Mart is really taking some shots these days! Not that they aren’t warranted.

By blablabla

December 15, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

slightly different subject, but one i’m curious about hearing opinions on…

is it ok for employers to pay less to smokers who take regular smoke breaks at work on company time, and as a result end up actually putting in fewer hours on the job working than their non-smoking counterparts?

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Blablabla - I think that’s what I was trying to say… but I worded it wrong. What I should have said is that when I raised the subject yesterday, I was referring to women and men doing the same job, but being paid noticeably lower wages (i.e. stockbrokers, department store managers, district attorneys) - not the national average salary of a woman in all job functions compared to the national average salary of a man in all job functions.

And yeah, that Wal-Mart thing is quite a blip…

By blablabla

December 15, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

no worries, jbm. i understand you now. thx.

By Renee

December 15, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

blablabla -I would agree with an employer doing that.

By Nikita

December 15, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

JBM/Renee — on your arrest…where I live we have a very young and inexperienced police force and they like to make assumptions about people based on race, income, location, etc. Though I am a white girl, I used to live in a very rough neighborhood. And so on occasion I would get stopped for essentially no reason. (Including once “being stopped” when in fact my car had died — the officer pulled up and flipped on his lights as I was attempting to restart it.) I always found that a request that the officer in question call a secondary officer/supervisor before i got out of the car usually resulted in there being no issue and me being allowed to go on my way. You must know your rights — and the right to be treated with respect, to not have your vehicle searched without cause, and to not have your safety compromised are essential.

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

As opposed to the non-smokers, being paid more for not taking smoke-breaks, when they spend alot of their working time daily, doing on-line activities, blogging for example?

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Blablabla - EXCELLENT question, and if I may add to that one, how about smokers paying higher premiums on health insurance?

Concerning your question, I don’t think smokers who are salaried employees should be paid less for taking regular smoke breaks. I think that’s pretty petty, and employers should value their employees a little better than to monitor how many times they go to smoke. I wouldn’t be opposed, however, to putting a limit on the number of smoke breaks they can take, or a time limit on how long each break can last…

Actually, at my old company (which I left as of 11/16), I took “smoke” breaks myself. We had a “good ole boys” network, and allllll of them were smokers, except our CEO. Off the top of my head, I’d guess that about 40% of the employees in my building were smokers.

During a performance review, my manager expressed concern that I spend too much time on personal calls (which was true - personal business calls pertaining to my daughter’s schooling, doctor’s appointments, etc.). He had only been there for 5 months, so he didn’t know anything about my daughter’s history - and I was offended that he included that in my review. So, I apologized for talking personal business on company time, and told him (in writing) that I would be sure to only use the phone during my smoke breaks…

Which I conveniently started taking the very next day.

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Everybody who has web access from work should probably be paid less than people who do not, since we know they will probably be tempted to check out the news, order presents or other merchandise, do some fantasy football, etc. LOL

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Smoker, then what about the smokers who blog?

By Renee

December 15, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

lol

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Nikita, I agree with you on knowing your rights. But, I have to say that while it can be useful to ask for a supervisor, that does not always work for people of color. Unless recording devices are being used, the officer can always deny that the request was ever made…

By Netbanker

December 15, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Hey kids! Just in from California…why did I come back here for this weather?

This decision was so blatantly political it isn’t even funny. And the points by supporters of it are so hypocritical. One should be personally responsible to bear the consequences of one’s actions in regard to sexual acts, but not the consequences of swallowing some pills.

By Monica

December 15, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

JBM, According to stereotypes, people in the north aren’t as hospitable as people in the south. Based on your experiences at work and on the interstate, I’d say you have reason to argue against that stereotype! Please don’t judge Georgia on these situations you have experienced.

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

JBM - you are just one step ahead of me.LOL

Was going to comment: Can see it now, you go into the interview, begin discussing pay. “we have one rate for the non-smokers who do not have web access from work. And lower rate for the smokers, and yet even lower rate for the people who smoke who need web-access as part of their job, since we know time will be awasted”.

There are Official break periods at most companies. I had one job for four years, cigs were at 10:00a and 2:30p. And during lunch hour. Little better here, anytime, however if the work need arose, the cig would get delayed.

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Of course the multi-tiered pay-rate company would probably have high turnover. LOL

By blablabla

December 15, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

jbm, i don’t see any reason why people who smoke shouldn’t pay higher health insurance premiums. unfortunately there’s a potential slippery slope that appears when you start saying that anybody who does anything that isn’t in their best interest should pay more for health insurance.

when trying to get life insurance, the insurance company definitely tries to figure out if you smoke, use smokeless tobacco, and test for the presence of illegal drugs in your system. and they do this bc for them, it’s a risk assessment. for some reason, perhaps the slippery slope i allude to above, or for some unbeknownst reason, they don’t do it with large corporate health insurance plans.

By Whiley

December 15, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

And why should I pay for higher insurance because I’m female? I don’t want to pay for PREGNANCY coverage ! I don’t need it.

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

I can understand the risk assessment resulting in higher insurance premiums for smokers. That is different than being paid less for taking what is generally a legal break. I am salary, should I charge them more when I have to work late for some emergency? Actually this company is so great, if I worked a Saturday, a rarity, I would get a day of comp-time.

By Netbanker

December 15, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Here’s another one…why is it usually cheaper to add a 2nd person and then family than it is to insure a single person? If the cost the company charges is $65 per pay period for a single person then why isn’t each additional person $65? Why should singles supplement the cost of pregnancy and child medical expenses of others?

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

I can understand the risk assessment resulting in higher insurance premiums for smokers

Now if they would just charge higher premiums for the Have-McDonalds-For-Lunch-Everyday crowd we would be getting somewhere.

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Monica, unfortunately, that’s one of those stereotypes that have a ring of truth to them - generally speaking. I would never say that northerners are rude (we’re generally just a bit faster-paced and abrupt so it often comes across as rudeness), but I would DEFINITELY say that we are less hospitable than southerners.

I haven’t judged Georgia based on that situation, but I have to admit, I do have a hard time respecting and trusting police officers. But, anyway, like I said it was overall a beneficial experience.

Smoker: hilarious scenario!!! LOL!

Blablabla: I think you’re right, and I agree with the slippery slope thing, but smoking goes beyond just not being in your best interest. It can kill you. Overall, I agree with you, though. If you raise premiums for smokers, you have to consider chronically overweight, people who don’t get preventive care, etc…

I vaguely remember reading an article about a company who offered discounts to non-smokers, and employees who regularly attended company-sponsored exercise classes at the gym.

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Smoker - please don’t say that too loudly. I’m one of those “Have-McDonalds-For-Lunch-Everyday-and-Sometimes-For-Breakfast-And-Dinner-Too-Because-I-Love-It-Just-That-Much” people…. :-)

By lozen

December 15, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

I guess this means people who drive like maniacs should pay higher insurance premiums, along with people who have unprotected sex, and people who skydive, ski, or ride horses, and people who don’t watch where they’re going, and people who drink too much. Let’s just raise everybody’s insurance because the insurance companies surely need the money! Right. Smokers are addicted to a substance and most of them became addicted before they knew the danger of smoking; we have turned them into the new group to hate.

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

The Point was Obesity is also a health problem in this country but you do not see the diet that is the cause being attacked like smoking, or higher insurance rates for people who will also have associated health problems.

As Lozen just stated, smokers are the new PoliticallyCorrect group to hate. Gotta have someone to hate, you know. LMAO

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you’re getting a bit dramatic. Nobody said anything about hating anybody - and I certainly don’t hate smokers. Anyone who is injured while skydiving, skiing, driving, or riding horses usually had an accident - regardless of whether it was careless or not, it was an accident. Smoking is a decision.

Just because I don’t want to pay high premiums to care for someone who’s not taking reasonable care for himself, I’m now a part of a hate group? Aye aye aye…

By lozen

December 15, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

JBM, I am sorry for your experience also. Glad you turned lemons into lemonade. Now, I have a question for you since you are a minister… Do you know why Dorothy Parker named her parakeet Onan?

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

JBM - chill, chill, we are using hate generically, like “I just hate going througt that intersection during rush hour”

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Anyone who is injured while skydiving, skiing, driving, or riding horses usually had an accident - regardless of whether it was careless or not, it was an accident. Smoking is a decision.

See that is the fine-line judgement call BlahBlah was discussing. It is a decision to do the “very unnatural act of jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft”. (To quote Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge). Now if I was anti-risk-taking activities, I would have to add those things to activities requiring higher insurance premiums.

Rode a motorcycle for years, but still had life insurance.

fine-line, fine-line.

By Renee

December 15, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Smokers are addicted to a substance and most of them became addicted before they knew the danger of smoking; we have turned them into the new group to hate.

Smokers have always known the dangers, they just ignored them. Nobody hates smokers (I hate smoke, and think it’s a disgusting habit but that’s a totally separate subject). Someone should be allowed to smoke their lungs away if they want. But I think if lung cancer comes into play, they alone should pay the cost. And no lung transplants, just like I don’t think an alcoholic should be on the liver transplant list. You do it intentionally to yourself, you have the right, now suffer the consequences.

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

I completely agree with Renee - ‘nuff said.

Lozen, I don’t even know who Dorothy Parker is, let alone how she chose her parakeet’s name.

By lozen

December 15, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

JBM, I will try very, very hard not to get too dramatic for you! It was a trick question in a way. It appears you don’t know who Onan is, and I thought you would since you said you’re a minister. Here’s the story: (and talk about dramatic!)

King James Bible (Gen. 38, 6-10): And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.

Dorothy Parker, who was a very funny writer in the 30’s and 40’s, named her parakeet Onan because he spilled his seed on the floor. She’s also the one who said, “Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.”

By lozen

December 15, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Oh, Netbanker, so good to have you back. As usual you go right to the heart of the discussion and tell it plainly and succinctly: This decision was so blatantly political it isn’t even funny. And the points by supporters of it are so hypocritical. One should be personally responsible to bear the consequences of one’s actions in regard to sexual acts, but not the consequences of swallowing some pills.

By lozen

December 15, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Smokers have always known the dangers, they just ignored them. Renee, how old are you, mind if I ask? Back when I smoked in high school the cigarette companies were still suppressing the evidence that cigarettes killed people. All the glamarous people smoked and smoked on camera in the movies. Before that, during the Korean War and WW II GI’s were issued free smokes along with their food. Up until 1989 I worked in offices where people smoked indoors. My doctor smoked when I visited his office in 1990. You’re wrong about smokers always knowing the dangers.

By Just Being Me

December 15, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I’ll concede that they may not have known the extent of the dangers, but they knew it wasn’t healthy.

By Smoker

December 15, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

When I was in grade school in the 60s hih school STUDENTS could smoke in the lobby of the high school gym, during class breaks. grades 1-12 were all in one complex.

funny about ONAN, I sent that story to someone.

By Renee

December 15, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

I’m not young, I’ll just say that.

They may not have listed all the dangers of cigarettes, I don’t remember when they started putting the surgeon generals warning on cigarette packs. I do know this, if you are smoking tobacco, regardless of what lists of warnings might have existed and you thought it presented no dangers then you weren’t very intelligent. (I’m saying you, but that is not directed to you Lozen, its a general you). It may have been more glamorized, but I find it hard to believe thst anyone smoking didn’t think it presented any health risks. Puhleeeze.

By B.C.

December 16, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

Ummmm. Its called the EMERGENCY Contraception. It must be taken within a certain time frame to be affective. I don’t lean one way or the other when it comes to abortion rights. But I see this issue like this; IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, it is redundant to think you can get a prescription from a doctor in time for the contraception to work. What happens if the pill is needed on a weekend, or during the holidays, or hell on a trip out of town. You can’t stop people from having sex, nor can you punish them for having sex. I personally think, all birth control should be OTC. Why do i need a doctor’s permission to tell me that i need to be on the pill. What doctor won’t prescribe birth control….. So what really is the point. Nway, since thats not reality, EMERGENCY Contraception should be OTC for adults 18 and over. Any one less must have parental or guardian consent/without a prescription. What wrong with that.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

Renee, and anyone else…

Curious…

How is But I think if lung cancer comes into play, they alone should pay the cost.

When you are stating it because one knows the possible outcomes any different than:

But I think if pregnancy comes into play, they alone should pay the cost.

Both are chosen activities that carry risks that are KNOWN. And both risks are for a lifetime…

By Renee

December 16, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

Fatmoose - you can’t be serious? You equate pregancy with smoking? Pregnancy is not a risk (it carries risk, as do all activities) but it is ultimately a joy. I can’t even debate the similarities between pregnancy and smoking.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

Renee,

{First, I kick around ALL posibilities - it is not that I EVER have an adjenda}

Seriously {which does not mean that it is valid yet; but that is why one kicks around the possibilities};

Both situations have simalar parameters: Smokers gain pleasure from smoking, peer pressure plays a role, and the longevity of both activities are ignored for the immediate pleasure.

You think: You do it intentionally to yourself, you have the right, now suffer the consequences. {this, of course, excludes rape}

Respond decently please, I am curious as to your take; whithout a blanket “its different.”

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

To be clear:

Sex has the risk of pregnancy.

I was not speaking about getting pregnant and the risks IT entails…

By Renee

December 16, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

If you are pregnant, then theoretically yes, you should be prepared to pay the cost of the pregnancy, without insurance.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Thank you for clearing that up. That makes more sense.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Lozen, I happen to know who Onan is - not because I’m a minister, but because I was once a Sunday School teacher and taught from that story once or twice. I just didn’t know who Dorothy Parker (as I indicated).

FM, regarding your 8:33, what lifetime risks requiring medical attention would pregnancy carry? And, more importantly, how do the odds of injury or illness as relates to pregnancy compare to that of smoking? Which would cost more?

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Ohhh, you’re referring to pregnancy as a risk of having sex… I get it.

Boy, FM, sometimes your posts are so confusing.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

HEYYYYYYYY JBM!!!! I finally responded to you, lol.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Heyyyyyyy Renee! And, I responded right back! :-p Check out that link I sent you.

By Whiley

December 16, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

My niece developed diabetes due to her pregnancy. A coworker in the 90’s had a brain aneurysm during her delivery. A woman that used to baby-sit for my two brothers & I had a heart attack in the middle of giving birth.

I suppose they should have thought about the consequences of having sex with their husbands.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

NM -

I thought it out already;)

Do not want to further that line of conversation for FEAR of rousing the natives;) Was looking at the absolute responsibility aspect that was brought up.

JBM,

I had the same experience: I was driving to a have dinner with a friends parents in atl; and while getting on 85S a motorcyclist was messing with us on the on-ramp. Well, it was going to merge soon, and when we slowed, so did he, so we would speed up, and again - so did he. Well, he was on a cycle and I floored it and it was a dumb chicken-type event now (we really did not want a part of this) that a car would win anyday. He slowed at the last possible second, and we both merged without incident.

But, a cop was under that overpass and clocked me at 85mph in a 55 zone {Motocyclist can break faster, and was ingored}. We were cuffed, on our knees for 1.5hrs waiting for the drug dogs {I would not allow a search}, dogs arrived and found nothing {we all would drink, but that was/is the extent}. The cops was so frurious that we were clean, he arrested us {cops discression} since it was 20+ over the speed limit.

Missed dinner, had to inform them we were jails. Never got my watch or ear-rings back {they claimed I had no possessions}; and costed me $350 in bail. And spent the nigh with the same dregs you mentioned.

Bad night.

Same event happend on the bypass in Jacksonville {but doing only 7mph over! Yet it was durring the drive-by shootings in the area}; without the arrest. Cops do not like longhairs who drive Acuras {especially with surfboards on top} - they thought we were running guns!

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Repost that I would really like feedback on:

Keeping with the topic since this new pill is important I don’t understand why a person would not get a prescription in advance if they are sexually active.

I was thinking about this yesterday - not as a permanent fix, but a band-aid for the current situation.

Does anyone know if a doctor will prescribe it without the immediate need? Would this be used against a person in the argument that they are planning to use it?

And lastly, could a sexually active guy have a script for the same reasons; and how would a woman feel about it?

Think about looking in some guys bathroom cabinet for some deodorant before leaving in the morning and seeing a bottle - what would you feel?

By Whiley

December 16, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

“Think about looking in some guys bathroom cabinet for some deodorant before leaving in the morning and seeing a bottle - what would you feel?”

honestly? weirded out. Those pills aren’t for him to ingest.

I would rather see his cabinet filled with spermicide & condoms. Using both properly, there is very, very little need for a pill.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

Of course it is not for HIM…

The condoms are in the drawer, as well as spermicide too; but as you stated yourself - it can be faulty.

So, The guy keeps a couple MAPs, so if a girl does get pregnant - she does not have to call a Dr.

Have a real response?

By Nikita

December 16, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

EC is legal without prescription in 9 states, I think. And is prescribed without cause relatively routinely outside the US. There was an interesting study on prescribing and giving EC vs. simply giving information and quick access to prescriptions from a clinic. The women receiving EC before needing it were no more likely to need it/ask for it, but took it on average 12 hours earlier. So it would appear to be in our interests as a society to prescribe it beforehand, or to provide it without a prescription whenever possible.

By Whiley

December 16, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

IF I had spent the night with a new “lover” & discovered this I would be bothered by it. If it was someone I was in a serious relationship with & I discovered it, I would be more bothered. He is obviously promiscuous & is so much so that he needs a morning after pill for his date. That would also tells me he’s probably selfish in bed. Meaning, he’s one of the many men that won’t wear condoms because “they can’t feel anything” with one on. I realize nothing is 100%. But the combination of spermicidal along with a condom (not just a condom that has spermicide in the wrapper) is EXTREMELY effective.

By Nikita

December 16, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Oh, just offering answers to all the non-sequitur questions out there: a. Smokers and non-smokers are entitled to the same breaks and should take equal amounts of time off. If that’s not the case, then that’s a management issue.
b. Pregnancy should not be covered by insurance. After all, it’s elective. c. JBM, I’m so sorry about your experience.

By Whiley

December 16, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Allowing some men to have the morning after pill is like giving out the date rape drug to college boys.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

So, I would be in the right calling a woman obviously promiscuous if she had the drug pre-prescribed?

This is based on your statement alone: He is obviously promiscuous & is so much so that he needs a morning after pill for his date.

By Whiley

December 16, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

“So, I would be in the right calling a woman obviously promiscuous if she had the drug pre-prescribed?”

That would be your opinion. A right one? Only you can decide that. Depends on what you think is promiscuous.

“This is based on your statement alone: He is obviously promiscuous & is so much so that he needs a morning after pill for his date.”

That is my opinion of a man that would keep the morning after pill in stock. I don’t have the same opinion for a woman. (unless she has a case of them) Men don’t need the morning after pill, they need condoms that they ACTUALLY NEED TO USE. Single men shouldn’t have this pill on hand. (my opinion)Thats just creepy. I repeat. A spermicide along with a condom is extrememly affective. I would actually be shocked if I ever did see the morning after pill in a single man’s bathroom. Single men as a rule don’t even like to use condoms, most of the time just assumed the woman was on the pill. You’d be surprised how many don’t even ask. Come to think of it, I would be AFRAID of a man who has the morning after pill in his bathroom. lol

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

FM, on your knees??? OMG, I’m so sorry for you. I’m an activist, and I get really passionate about injustice. Stories like that make me so angry - and at the same time, they make me feel so helpless…

Whiley,

My niece developed diabetes due to her pregnancy. A coworker in the 90’s had a brain aneurysm during her delivery. A woman that used to baby-sit for my two brothers & I had a heart attack in the middle of giving birth.

If your co-worker and former babysit didn’t survive those tragic incidents (for the moment I’ll assume they didn’t), then they had no major adverse effect (and certainly not an ongoing effect on health insurance premiums. Your niece’s diabetes is not uncommon, but can be mitigated with proper diet and exercise.

I suppose they should have thought about the consequences of having sex with their husbands.

This goes back to my question about the odds. The odds of getting lung cancer or other lung diseases because of smoking or second-hand smoke is greater (I think) than those of having a brain aneurism or heart attack because of having sex and getting pregnant.

By Monica

December 16, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Thanks for allowing me to post with you this week. I’m out for Christmas holidays the next two weeks (one of the perks in education!). My kids have been taking final exams, which is why I have had time to post (I’m not neglecting my teaching responsibilities). Please understand that though my views may have sounded harsh, I truly believe in God’s grace and love. I am no better than anyone else; I have simply found the gift of God’s grace. May you all have a Merry Christmas.

By whiley

December 16, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Just being me you are right. Hard to believe cigarettes are even legal.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

Fair enough.

I would, like you but vv, be creeped out if a woman I went home with had MAP in her possession.

I was trying to understand the contradiction of MY thoughts vs what I promote as rights.

But, I guess that is where keeping it a right but not necc wanting to participate/condone come in.

The women I date are on BC and we use contraceptive films - as for STDs: I do not do one-night-stands, and when we get to the point of sex; we go to the clinic together and share results. If she has an issue with that, it is time to move on.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Why shouldn’t they be legal?

By Whiley

December 16, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

“The women I date are on BC and we use contraceptive films - as for STDs: I do not do one-night-stands, and when we get to the point of sex; we go to the clinic together and share results. If she has an issue with that, it is time to move on.”

Good for you FatMoose ! I’m glad to see you protecting yourself & the woman you decide to love. Where were you when I was younger? lol With you being equally responsible for birth control, your chances of becoming a baby-daddy are slim to none.

I think all young women should keep a morning after pill. Date rape is all too common, & not in every circumstance can a young person go to the police & hospital. (underage drinking, drugs, parents, afraid to tell, etc)

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

cigarettes:

Either all substances should be legalized (my personal opinion of what should happen) OR I agree, cigarettes should follow suit and be outlawed.

The # of drug users has not changed by more than 2% since outlawing heroine, pot, etc…So all we have done is create criminals.

By pursuingmedicaltruths

December 16, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Suprising how many people are explaining medical and bioligical knowledge without having been to medical school. Why would anyone portray opinions as sound medical science knowledge? Don’t see anyone here, including me, that has been through medical school, but see a lot of medical advise and “knowledge” being espoused.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

I definitely feel as if all substances should be legal. Under the reasoning of making drugs illegal, cigarettes would follow under that as well. It seems like the government likes to pick and choose arbitrarily what they want to regulate.

Nicotine is classifed as a drug and should be treated as such. However, I’m all for legalizing any and all drugs. Walgreens could have an entire aisle dedicated to coke, heroine etc…

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

Don’t see anyone here, including me, that has been through medical school, but see a lot of medical advise and “knowledge� being espoused.

One of the caveats of a blog - you get ALL opinions, and some stated as fact. The less absurd ones you have to let go since most people find being educated by another an insult.

I do challenge the opinions that can do harm.

Renee, It seems like the government likes to pick and choose arbitrarily what they want to regulate.

Unfortunately it is a systematic process of ‘Christian’ religion - and the govmt caved. Just like this topic of MAP.

Check out The History of Drugs on the history channel sometime - incredible program, and eye-opening.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

Renee, my jaw drops every time you say something like that. How could you support the sale (and ultimately, the promotion) of cocaine, heroine, methamphetamines, crack, angeldust, ecstasy in your local CVS?

Wouldn’t you say that making it readily available has the potential of increasing abuse by teens, mentally disabled, schizophrenics, manic depressives, and other hopeless adults?

What about the crimes that people commit while under the influence of these drugs, couldn’t that potentially increase?

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Pursuing - much of what is said is said with the caveat that it is based on opinion, not fact and/or cited with a reference. Spend a day or so on this blog and you’ll see that not much gets by these folks without the demand of a valid reference to cited “facts.”

Sure, they may not be medical doctors, but they can read the reports medical doctors have written and reference them. Furthermore, they can make inferences and draw conclusions - whether accurate or not - and state them here on this blog.

You sound smug.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

lol, JBM, pick your jaw up. I am for age regulation, however, but I do think drugs should be legal. Statistically, crime would decrease, and usage would initially increase but then it would decrease as well.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

JBM,

Wouldn’t you say that making it readily available has the potential of increasing abuse by teens, mentally disabled, schizophrenics, manic depressives, and other hopeless adults?

Know what snake oil that was sold in every town actually was? 100% HEROINE! So, we already know the outcome: People went to work, came home, and did their thing.

What about the crimes that people commit while under the influence of these drugs, couldn’t that potentially increase?

The crimes only increase when we made these people jobless by criminilizing these substances - Look to other countries for further proof; or better yet: Our history.

How does one control another person in the most effective way? Control their pleasure - not punish. And that is what the church set our to do - control.

{their is a part of me that would LIKE people to be different; but they are not, so lets start recognizing reality for what it is.}

By pursuingmedicaltruths

December 16, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Sorry JUST BEING ME, did not mean to sound smug, only asking if political and social opinions are using “medical facts” to emphasize what is being said. Also, regarding medical knowledge, I really try to separate that from even passionate and heart felt non medical advise.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Renee, age regulation doesn’t necessarily work. As usual, I don’t have stats, but I’d be willing to bet that the majority of kids under 21 have had alcohol before, and the majority of kids under 18 have tried a cigarette, or already have a smoking habit.

FM, I might be too young or too northern to know what snake oil is. And, very few drugs cause pleasure, so no one is trying to control people’s pleasure by not legalizing the sale of drugs.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

I think it’s safe to assume that most intelligent people separate professional medical opinion from passionate and heartfelt non-medical advice.

By Mara

December 16, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

Hola, y’all. On the difference I see between a man that has the EC in his medicine cabinet and a woman who has it: Since it will have no effect on a man, one should assume his purpose is to give to a woman. Now the question becomes does he do so on her request or does he just “slip her a mickey”, as the saying goes? That question would be the only reason it’d kinda creep me out. A woman, on the other hand, probably has it for her own use. And a man finding it in her cabinet should at least feel reassure that she isn’t intending into “trapping” him into 18 years of child-support.

In regard to smoking. I’m ambivilent about this one. As a smoker, I don’t think I should be penalized for smoking. Just as the obese guy doesn’t want to be penalized for his lifestyle. Personally, I think that smoking on company time is really a lot like stealing from the company. If it’s not on a scheduled break, you probably should be doing something more productive. (I should talk! Sitting here wasting company time and resources…) But once I get off work…that’s my time and my boss shouldn’t have any input on the completely legal activities I engage in off the clock. Dangerous is dangerous, whether it’s smoking or rock climbing. And remember, not everyone who smokes gets ill.

And my .02 about region and hospitality…go WEST to find truely kind and generous people. Montana, Wyoming, the Pacific Northwest…now those folks know how to be hospitable! After all, Montana, the 4th largest state in the Union, has less than 1,000,000 people. If you want to have anyone to talk to, ya gotta learn to be nice to everybody! :^)

By Nikita

December 16, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Gonna disagree here…The Pacific Northwest is not nice. Not at all. I once had a telemarketing job — and this cry of anguish would go up when the computers would transfer us into the Pacific time zone because those people were not only hard to sell, but very aggressive. But then I actually went there, several times, and discovered that Seattle, Portland, and all the places in between were populated by people who are just as mean to tourists and random people as they are to telemarketers. Lots of angry, depressed people in those areas — and I also seem to recall reading somewhere that Seattle is statistically the place where the largest amount of government-sponsored methadone is sent. For my money, most of the South is pretty gregarious — but so are New York and New Jersey. I love those places. Everyone there seems to believe that everybody’s an axe murderer EXCEPT YOU. I can’t tell you how many nice people have given me directions I didn’t ask for, walked me to my destination or train, or otherwise gone the extra mile to make sure I didn’t get lost, attacked, or mugged. Including tiny 88 year-old ladies who, I suspect, would be worthless if I were attacked.

As for drugs, I say make ‘em all legal — nearly all can be done responsibly, and are actually more likely to be done that way if the supply is standardized.

By RF

December 16, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

I’ll throw in on this thread. Moose, criminalizing drugs doesn’t make anyone unemployed, the drug habit is the cause. My sister was addicted to crack cocaine, and only worked to buy the drugs. She could get it readily without it being illegal. She lost jobs due to the drug and its effects on her mind. She laid out of work because she was strung out and thus lost jobs.

I’m not sure how I feel about legalizing them entirely. It’s kinda like discussing closing the barn door after the horse is out. Legal or not, there are millions of addicts who buy and use without ever being criminally prosecuted. I don’t think I ever want to walk into CVS though, and see them on the shelves.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Mara, I don’t know where to begin with your post…

As a smoker, I don’t think I should be penalized for smoking. Just as the obese guy doesn’t want to be penalized for his lifestyle.

There’s a difference between what should be and what a person wants to be. I don’t care who wants to be what. I’m concerned about what should be.

But once I get off work…that’s my time and my boss shouldn’t have any input on the completely legal activities I engage in off the clock.

What about detectable legal activities that add cost to his expenses or compromise the productivity or efficiency of his employees?

By Mara

December 16, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

JBM…very few drugs cause pleasure!!!???? Heh, heh, heh…yeah, only the sedatives, the muscle-relaxers, the anti-anxiety pills, the opiates, etc. Heh, heh, heh. I don’t mean to laugh, but sometimes ya just gotta.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Mara - that’s hardly pleasure.

Nikita - I’m glad to hear you’ve had such favorable experiences in NY. I agree with you that our overall mentality is that everyone is an axe murderer, except you! :-)

But, believe me - addictive drugs such as crack, cocaine, heroine, and meth can NOT be done responsibly. Perhaps Vicodin can, sleeping pills, muscle relaxers… but not ALL (or nearly all) drugs can be done responsibly.

By kimberly

December 16, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

When what you have is mostly pain, then relief IS pleasure.

By Mara

December 16, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Well JBM, what activities would that be? Smoking? It doesn’t affect my productivity or efficiency. I’ve never lost a hour, a day, a week, or any other time to anything that could reasonably be blamed solely on smoking. If we do intend to give our places of employment the right to dictate how our off-time is spent, what is to keep them from imposing their ideals of what a “decent lifestyle” means? Do you think that just because someone is willing to pay you to do a job, it means that they can dictate how you live? Will you advocate a “moral” oligarchy, then? Because they can afford to make money off your efforts, they have the right to decide what is better for you!?

*As a smoker, I don’t think I should be penalized for smoking. Just as the obese guy doesn’t want to be penalized for his lifestyle.

Maybe I should have used “should” in both places, but I was trying not to repeat “should” over and over again. Sorry for trying to mix it up a little. I’ll repeat and repeat and repeat all my terms properly from now on.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Good point, Kimberly… hadn’t thought of it that way, but I think I still disagree. Relief is relief. If I have a nagging headache, and I take Tylenol - or painful gas and I take Rolaids - I get relief, not pleasure from Tylenol or Rolaids.

How do you spell relief? NOT p-l-e-a-s-u-r-e! :-) (I know, corny, corny, CORNY joke!) LOL

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

FM, I might be too young or too northern to know what snake oil is.

Sure you do! In all the old west movies; the guys selling cure alls {hair tonic…}- it was 100% morphine.

RF,

As for losing jobs over drugs; those people {like your sister - no offence} will be in that scenario no matter what BC of their choices and being an out-of-control addict; and the number of addicts has not changed by more than 2%.

What I am saying is the person that does contain it and is a functional addict {or social—>heavy user} will loose his job from spending time in jail (be it 2 days, a week, or a year) and loosing his license, etc… because it is criminilized - not to mention random drug testing…

By Renee

December 16, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

if you don’t do your drugs responsibly, then there would be consequences, of course. If your drug use infringes on someone else’s liberty or personal safety then that would not be tolerated.

As a smoker, I don’t think I should be penalized for smoking. Just as the obese guy doesn’t want to be penalized for his lifestyle.

If some is obese due to their overeating and not a medical condition, then it should not be our responsibility to assist to pay their medical costs. Same with a smoker. Also, there is a difference between obesity and smoking. Someone being obese affects me not at all, someone smoking nasty cigarettes and blowing that toxic smoke next to me, puts me at a health risk.

Hey RF, long time no see.

By Kyle

December 16, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

if the gov’t is gonna draw the line somewhere and make some “drugs” illegal while allowing others, choosing where this line is drawn will inevitably be arbitrary - that’s just how it works. not quite sure how i feel about allowing all substances to be legal though. i can definately see pros and cons to each approaches. the current system does seem a little paternalistic, and i don’t think it is the government’s position to protect people from themselves (except for minors). in my opinion, if people can’t make responsible decisions on their own then that’s their problem - i only worry about how other peoples irresponsible decisions will affect the public. i guess that would be the gov’ts logic behind their current system - the rights of the one must sometime give way to the saftey of the masses.

By Nikita

December 16, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

JBM, all drugs can be abused. However, many drugs which are now illegal and routinely abused also exist in legal, regulated form because they have benefits for us. Furthermore, buying from drug dealers is very dangerous comparatively and leads to a lot of preventable misery — namely crime, tainted supplies, premium pricing based on availability, and the simple matter of not knowing what you’re taking because the purity is variable. Legalizing drugs of all sorts (with the exceptions i’ll outline below) in a standardized form mitigates all of the negative aspects above. It also increases the likelihood that people will learn to use them responsibly.

Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and some forms of stimulants can legalized, because they can be done responsibly and are, by quite a few people who are securing them illegally. “Distilled” versions such as crack would not be recommended, ditto meth. and there’s no legitimate use for PCP.

By Kyle

December 16, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Mara, fyi… people have recently filed suit agianst Wall-Mart for their attempts to screen out the unhelathy job applicants. apparently, the job applications had all sorts of questions about what they do in their spare time and also whether or not they drink/smoke/etc…. those who had “unfavorable” lifestyles were highered, if at all, at a much lower rate. Wall-Mart said they were attempting to cut down on health care costs. this seems like a bunch of crap to me - i hope wall-mart get screwed on this one.

By RF

December 16, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Hey Renee and JBM! :- ) Been out some this week with a sick baby. Renee- I have to ask you if you’ve ever known anyone who could use anything other than a little marijuana or alcohol responsibly. Other drugs are much more addictive and mind altering, and thus cannot be used responsibly. The addiction controls the use. Most drug addicts can’t hold jobs or think rationally for very long, if at all. I’ve seen my sister steal from her own parents and not feed her own children to fulfill the cravings the addiction brings.

Moose- I see your point. I’m thinking about drugs like crack and heroin where the use is harder to control and still be functional. Meth seems to be creating a similar addictive lifestyle. I saw my sister pull it together every now and then long enough to keep a job short term. From my experience however, the true addict on anything more than marijuana, alcohol, or prescription pain relievers has a hard time being functional. I do know of a couple of functional alcoholics who work and maintain a household and drink constantly when not at work.

By lozen

December 16, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

The results of our puritan heritage are really jumping out today all over the place! Anybody who does needs to be punished by _ . Judgment after judgment… In Europe people use a little drugs, drink a lot of wine, smoke cigarettes, eat rich foods (but don’t get fat), ignore religion, and they do just fine.

JBM, just because I’m curious, what was the lesson you were teaching in sunday school when you talked about Onan?

By Renee

December 16, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

RF - to be honest, I’ve seen all levels of drug users, from the very worst, to the once in a while occasional people. I have had friends who have been on their job for years, but every weekend they are cokeheads until Monday morning.

When I say legalizing drugs, I’m not saying just giving drugs to addicts. I’m saying make it legally accessible. People do commit crimes to obtain their drugs, but honestly if the drug was more accessible there would be less reaons to commit crimes.

For instance, how many people rob liquor stores for liquor. And there are hard core alcoholics. (There are no absolutes in anything, I’m sure someone has a story of an alcoholic who was sticking people up at gunpoint). If you have children, and your drug use is preventing you from caring from your children, your chilren should be gone. If you don’t have money to obtain your drugs, and you hold up someone at gunpoint, off to jail you go.

Personally, I don’t do drugs or smoke cigarettes. I do drink socially. I don’t understand someone knowing the harm they are doing to their body, someone knowing this could kill them and continuing to do it. It’s not very bright to me.

By lozen

December 16, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

There should have been a blank after Anybody who does….

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

RF,

I’m thinking about drugs like crack and heroin where the use is harder to control and still be functional.

But the point with THOSE drugs, the number of users of them is same number of out-of-conrtol people either way. Someone who wants to get THAT blasted will FIND a way - legal or not. So, lets free up the jails from people purchasing/making/pushing - and jail the ones that reveal themselves destructively. At the same time, we will put the dealers out of business and tax the heck out of it!

By lozen

December 16, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Renee, it sounds as if you’ve never been addicted to anything, lucky you. So I can understand it would be hard for you to understand alcoholism, addiction to nicotine, addiction to food, addiction to tv, addiction to sex. If one has ever been addicted, then it’s easy to understand. Many addicts know they’re doing something that isn’t good for them but they can’t stop. They try to stop and they can’t. I sympathize with them. Why judge those people so harshly? I agree if someone is inflicting their second-hand smoke on you then you have a right to ask them to stop or walk away. You don’t have a right, in my opinion, to be rude and tell them how stupid they are! And that behavior has become common in this country. The other day I was standing outside with two friends and they were smoking. A woman comes walking by us and makes all kinds of swiping motions with her hands and coughs and gives us dirty looks. Why? They weren’t smoking inside. They weren’t smoking near a doorway. They were outside in the air minding their own business. I just don’t think people have the right to be rude to anyone because they disagree with that person’s lifestyle. We are all fallible human beings and most of us at one time or another are addicted to something or someone.

By RF

December 16, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Moose- good point about the jails. Just like cigarettes, those who want the drugs would buy them with the taxes.I guess my conservative roots are showing today. After seeing what crack and meth specifically have done to people I knew, I have a hard time thinking logically about legalizing them. Do you think we’d ever legalize such addictive drugs as crack,heroin, or meth? I have a sneaking suspicion in the next generation or two we’ll likely legalize some drugs. I doubt we’ll see crack,heroin, or meth legalized. At least I hope not.

Renee- I see your point, but I wonder if legalizing the drugs would discourage the addicts from stealing. They steal to get the money, so even if the drugs were legal, they’d still have the problem of paying for them. Whether they have to go to the store or ‘the corner’ to get the drugs, the money to buy them would still be an issue for hardcore addicts.

By Nikita

December 16, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

I’ve known recreational cocaine users — dozens of them. Ditto opium and heroin and marijuana. All people with jobs. Some people with high trust-type jobs, some in industries where non-covert on-the-job drug use is pretty routine. Few are addicts. The potentil for addiction, of course, is always there — but it’s not inevitable.

By Kyle

December 16, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Fatmoose - i see your point in wanting too free up jail space and police power for those that are actually destructive (whether or not addicts/dealers are destructive is another issue). at the same time, i don’t think it is a valid reason to do away with any law just becasue you think people will continue to break it. the reasoning behind a law shouldn’t go away b/c it is repeatedly broken. either it has a valid purpose, or it doesn’t.

By RF

December 16, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Have a wonderful weekend all! I have to run and pick up my youngest so the other can get home for medicine- he’s at work with me today. Enjoy the weekend and cooler weather!

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Do you think we’d ever legalize such addictive drugs as crack,heroin, or meth?

No.

Heck, I have little hope for pot being even de-criminalized. It is still hard for me to believe that we have drugs that are based on opium - and creating more each year; but it is illegal to test with THC.

By HadTheDrugClass

December 16, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

The opiates, heroin, morphine, and opium, are the only illicit substances, including tobacco and alcohol in that, that do not cause harm to the body as a result of long-term use. All others do.

And smoking opium years ago was the best high I ever had.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

When was I rude lozen? I was expressing my opinion. This is a blog, soley for the purpose of expressing opinions. Personally, I don’t think it’s very bright to smoke. We all know the dangers, the surgeon generals warnings, we see smokers die of lung cancer at an early age, we see people speaking with voice boxes because of smoking. That makes me not understand someone picking up a cigarette, for instance, that has never smoked. I don’t see someone continuing to smoke. Of course they are addicted, nicotine is a drug. Choosing to use drugs (whatever the drug may be) and potentially destroy your life is not very smart and people will judge you for this.

And for the record, I didn’t call anyone dumb. I said (in case you missed it) that “it’s not very bright to me”. “It’s” refers to the decision to do it, not the person. People making dumb and stupid decisions all the time, and we all have to live the consequences.

By lozen

December 16, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Nikita, like you I’ve known people who used cocaine marijuana, ecstasy, acid, poppers, and other things I don’t even remember the names of, as recreational drugs. I was there during the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s …. There are many mature, upstanding, professional people who smoke a little pot, drop acid once a year for spiritual enlightenment, take ecstasy on certain occasions because they believe it helps their relationship. I believe these drugs should be legal. I don’t know about heroine although I know people who tried it a time or two just to see what it was like. Believe me, if you do ecstasy with the right companion, it is not only pleasurable; it’s blissful. Many people consider it a religious experience. It melts their hearts they say and they feel at one with everything and everybody; they love everyone. Human beings have always loved things that let them experience a change of consciousness and as soon as they can cover their basic needs, they learn to ferment something.

By lozen

December 16, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Wrong choice of words Renee. I was using the generic “you” when I said I don’t think you have the right to be rude. Sorry I was not more clear. You did say you think it isn’t bright. It has nothing to do with bright or not; it has to do with addiction. And there is no treatment program a smoker can check into although smoking is harder to kick than heroine according to reports I’ve read. Smoking has a very strong emotional component along with the chemical addiction. I never thought I would ever be able to quit but, with the help of the patch and a good scare with bronchitis I did. Bless the man who invented the patch!

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Kyle,

*at the same time, i don’t think it is a valid reason to do away with any law just becasue you think people will continue to break it. the reasoning behind a law shouldn’t go away b/c it is repeatedly broken. either it has a valid purpose, or it doesn’t. *

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the personal freedom was removed under the premise that we could reduce the number of addicts, pot/opium makes our ‘white-women’ easily seducable, they made you wild “like the mexicans” {not my words, but the pushers of legistlation} and other false notions (lies actually).

Seeing as those reasons are false {and actually were increased: prostitution, crime, job loss} - the criminality of the substances should be removed.

Booze was no different with prohabition {sp?}, except that ENOUGH white - upper crust people - were being jailed or ignored of what they were doing. The most famous speak-easy is not a historic resturant.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Addiction is still a choice (unless you were born a crack baby). You make the initial choice to smoke something that you know carries the danger of addiction. For me to try crack tonight, knowing the dangers surrounding crack and the possibility that I could be crackhead by Tuesday, would not be a very bright decision. And if I became a crackhead by Tuesday, how much sympathy would I get from people as I say “I’m addicted”. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out, and yes there are avenues to get cleaned up, but to begin with, it would not have been a very bright decision to put myself in the danger of being addicted.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I’m glad you had bronchitis.

And, I taught from that passage several times, one was a year-long topical study of the Old Testament, so we went through the entire book of Genesis, including the stories of Judah and his family. Another time was a lesson on the consequences of decisions (that was one of many scriptural references used); and another was a lesson about the “sin” of Onan, as that act is commonly called.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

I must have missed the conversation lol. JBM I have to know why you said that??

Lozen, I’m glad you had bronchitis.

By Nikita

December 16, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Renee, not getting into the earlier discussion, but you say that “Choosing to use drugs (whatever the drug may be) and potentially destroy your life is not very smart and people will judge you for this.”

Yes, people will judge you for it — but again, it’s perfectly possible to do some drugs sparingly, to enjoy them, and have them enhance rather than infringe upon your potential. And I don’t understand why we as a society make these drugs available, but only to those who are prescribed them or are willing to go “underground” to acquire them.

Personally, I don’t like being dependent on anything. Anything. I haven’t smoked in about 15 years, I rarely drink, and I very rarely do anything beyond that. But it annoys me that for my supposed own good I am restricted from things that I can do responsibly and enjoy. It annoys me doubly that I am told that such things can only lead to a downward spiral of dependency and whatnot when I know that’s not true. And triply when I consider that drugs that are demonstrably harmful upon the body and (in the case of smoking) not particularly recreational are legal.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Intelligence has little to nothing to do with addiction.

Go to an AA or NA meeting sometime, and you will see people with the same problems; but of varied mental abilities.

I believe that we inherit, to a large extent, this Obsessive-Complusive behavior - and like AA, you are always in recovery.

By Wondering

December 16, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Is the sin of Onan the same as the unmarried guy in Nebraska who spent 30 years trying to create life in a sock

By Zack

December 16, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

I’m sure glad my Mom didn’t share the same beliefs as the Diane Glasses of the world (and if anyone has a snide comment toward my Mom coming, you can do so in person).

The morning-after pill is a form of abortion. Let’s get it straight: There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Constitution that supports abortion or any form of it. Life is to be protected, not compromised for the sake of sexual immorality.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

I’m totally with Renee on this one. Well, not totally as I’m not for legalizing drugs… but I agree that addiction is a choice - and NOT a bright one.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

But it annoys me that for my supposed own good I am restricted from things that I can do responsibly and enjoy. It annoys me doubly that I am told that such things can only lead to a downward spiral of dependency and whatnot when I know that’s not true. And triply when I consider that drugs that are demonstrably harmful upon the body and (in the case of smoking) not particularly recreational are legal.

I’m not sure if you think I’m against legalization of drugs, because I’m not. I personally choose not to do drugs, because I am probably the person who could not do it recreationally (without becoming an addict) and I don’t want to be in a drugged induced state. My choice. But I think any and everybody should be able to make up their own mind.

Intelligence has little to nothing to do with addiction.

You are correct. I said the decision is not bright. Not the person, the decision. Intelligent people make less than intelligent decisions all the time, it’s human nature. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the reasoning or the problems of what can make someone strung out on something addcitive. Even though it can be understandable, and you can have compassion towards it, doesn’t make the decision any more intelligent.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Renee, Lozen’s 2:52, second-to-last sentence.

FM, no one said that intelligence has anything to do with addiction. Smart people make bad decisions all the time. Ask me! :-)

Making a stupid decision doesn’t mean you’re not intelligent, it just means you made a dumb choice.

And, as for enjoying drugs without getting addicted, why take the chance? My (play) sister was addicted to weed for about 10 years before she realized she was really addicted. I won’t even tell you the horrors of her story, but believe me, it’s a tearjerker.

Back in July, I had an impacted wisdom tooth extracted and was prescribed Vicodin. I was terrified to take it in the first place, but even more frightened when I ran out and was still in pain. When the doctor gave me another prescription, I asked him if there was anything OTC I could take that might help? I was terrified of becoming addicted. He told me that it would be okay, that another 4 or 5 days wouldn’t cause me to become addicted, but i wasn’t willing to chance it and called two other doctors and my sister the nurse for additional opinions.

It may not be the drug-taker’s intention to become addicted, but it’s ALWAYS a possibility.

By Nikita

December 16, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

wow, Zack — I love the way you assume an attack while you’re attacking Diane Glass. Muy classy, bucko!

As for your mother and her choices — Emergency contraception is no more abortion than is regular contraception. So, are you for a contraception-free world so that women will become de facto baby factories? That’s what it sounds like — please clarify.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

JBM, well it’s good to know you are with me halfway, lol

By Nikita

December 16, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Renee, that’ll always be a possibility. and for some a probability.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Renee,

What you are missing is that if it was purely choice (yes - even the first time) there would be no such thing as AA/NA.

This is a wholistic desease - and it begins before you ever have a drink/hit/whatever. People are drawn to it BC of internal (spiritual/mental/physical) issues that exist BC of your upbringing.

One who is an alcoholic, but does not drink, is a dry drunk. Like-wise, if your father did not EVER drink, but was raised by an alcoholic, his behavior would STILL be affected; if he never addressed that behavior {work-a-holic…}, he would pass that on to you.

I worked in A&D clinics for 5+ years and know what I am talking about here. Ask questions, please;)

By lozen

December 16, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Yes, the sin of Onan is masturbation. Don’t do it! You’ll go blind. You’ll grow hair on your palms. You might become addicted to that! You might learn what really pleases you. Whatever you do, do not enjoy the pleasure of your own body; it’s a sin. Repress, repress, repress brothers and sisters.

Zack, the morning after pill is not a form of abortion. It prevents abortion. Abortion, however, is legal for all women in the U.S. It has to remain legal because no woman should ever be forced to become a mother if she’s not ready. Women who are forced by anyone at any time, to carry every pregnancy to term, might as well be slaves. Women must control their own reproduction (noone else ever should control that) or they are not free human beings. Motherhood by choice, not by force.

By Kyle

December 16, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Moose - that clears things up. i honestly had no idea that these laws against certian drugs were backed up by such ignorant reasons. if these are indeed the only policies behind the laws then i see no reason for them to remain. if the only reason for outlawing these drugs is to push one’s morals on the rest of society, then they certianly have no right to remain. fine by me to protect the minors from themselves, but my rights, or anyone’s rights, shouldn’t be infringed b/c of someone elses morals or stupidity.

Zack - just to play devil’s advocate here, the right to an abortion supposedly comes from one’s “right to privacy” which justices have implied from the 5th and 14th amendment right to liberty. kinda scary to think that the supreme court is allowed to read into the constitution whatever “ends” they need to meet thier desired “means”. although you are correct, and many justices would agree, no where in the consitution is their a specific right to an abortion. if you really wanna p** some people off, just say that nowhere in the constituion does it say that church and state should be seperate.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Yes, I believe once an addict always an addict.

Having said that, an addict has a choice whether to choose the addictive behavior or choose another path. If you were raised by an alcoholic, you choose how you let that behavior affect your life. And for some, they may allow the powers of the addiction to take over and make that choice for them, but it is still ultimately their choice. I’m not saying that people don’t have continuous struggle to work through their addiction. But we all make our beds and we all lie in them. The addiction can control you, if you allow it to. And you made the choice to do whatever drug or behavior you are addicted to. As a human, we are all addicted to something, whether it’s chocolate, tv, or this blog, or a workaholic. But all addictions are not destructive, and unless your body has been taken over by aliens, you have a choice.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Moose - that clears things up. i honestly had no idea that these laws against certian drugs were backed up by such ignorant reasons. if these are indeed the only policies behind the laws then i see no reason for them to remain. if the only reason for outlawing these drugs is to push one’s morals on the rest of society, then they certianly have no right to remain. fine by me to protect the minors from themselves, but my rights, or anyone’s rights, shouldn’t be infringed b/c of someone elses morals or stupidity.

Precisely! Check out the history of drugs though - scary stuff as to the reasons behind the laws and the process.

(First time around; Pot was legal IF you aquired the stamps to prove it was “prescribed” to you by the gvmt - The govmt never made a stamp - and denied all those who requested them. So, TLeary {i believe that is correct} took it to the supreme court, and won. The next year the govmt passed the controled substance act. This is all in the sixties and is still ALL based on christian lobbyist in the 40s or so {would have to look that date up} which was related to the colonies, and the eastern mass immigration that brought opium)

By lozen

December 16, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Anyway, I know a woman who is 47, married and has five kids. The youngest is 14 and the oldest is 24. She spent 16 years of her life having children, nursing children, caring for infants and toddlers. She went back to school to get her masters when the youngest started kindergarten. She has a PhD now and teaches in university. She is going thru menopause and didn’t worry when she skipped two periods. You guessed it. The birth control failed, she is pregnant again at 47. By the time this one reaches 18 she would be 65! She’s having an abortion Zack. Of course she’s upset about having an abortion but she’s already spent most of her life mothering. You would demand this woman give birth to a sixth child at her age? You call her immoral! I’m all for protecting this woman’s life and health and anybody who insists she should take this pregnancy to term is certainly not for protecting her life!

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

but it is still ultimately their choice.

The point is that they cannot trust their choices - so in effect, hey have no choice but to be an addict, or pass it on; or they can be pro-active and start a program {which most people would think absurd}. Most people just do not do X - but that solves nothing as far as liniage{sp?} goes.

If, for example, you have inherited addiction; but never acted on it. But you have a child, they would most likely find their drug of choice.

As long as a addict, active or not, thinks it comes down to choice, and that they have one - they are furthering the disease.

Crazy thing about this disease is that it progresses even without the drug of choice. If you wait until you are 50 to have a drink - it will ‘catch up’ with you as if you have been an addict the whole time.

By HuhAgain

December 16, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

nothing in the Constitution that supports abortion or any form of it.

Is that why a fetus is written into the Constitution, to be counted for the census count as, what is is?, slaves were 3/5 a human, and fetuses were 1/5 or was it 4/5 for white fetuses and 1/5 for slave-fetuses? In other words fetuses were not even counted.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

FM - Still a choice. I am predisposed to drug addiction, it runs in my family, and I have what some psychologists call an “addictive personality.” I won’t go near (most) drugs because I fear addiction.

I made the choice not to go near illegal drugs and ANYBODY can make that choice.

By Renee

December 16, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Well we will just have to agree to disagree.

I say everything you do in life is by choice. To tell people that it is not a choice is a cop out to me. As far as trusting your choice, you can learn to make better decisions like anything else. If your behavior does not warrant you making postive choices, then you choose to get help to help you make better choices.

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

I’m with you Renee. (Halfway… LOL!). Your 4:34 is right on point.

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

We will agree to disagree about choice - but understand the drug is only a physical manifestation of the real issue.

If what you say is true, and you have not addressed it in any long-term form {a program} but to abstain - your kids will inherit the same seed, putting them at high risk.

At risk of starting the past discussion - these are the things that manifest IN a realtionship, and hence why I find them a litmus test of sorts.

New topic to close the day? Something uplifting?

{What do you call a drummer without a girlfriend?}

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

{homeless;}

By lozen

December 16, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Have a good weekend… MPORTANT NEWS FROM SANTA CLAUS

A new contract for Santa Claus has finally been negotiated. Please read the following carefully…

From: Santa Claus To: The Southern States

I regret to inform you that, effective immediately, I will no longer be able to serve the Southern United States on Christmas Eve. Due to the overwhelming current population of the earth, my contract was re-negotiated by North American Fairies and Elves Local 209. I now serve only certain areas of Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan. As part of the new and better contract, I also get longer breaks for milk and cookies, so keep that in mind.

However, I’m certain that your children will be in good hands with your local replacement, who happens to be my third cousin, Bubba Claus. His side of the family is from the South Pole. He shares my goal of delivering toys to all the good boys and girls; however, there are a few differences between us.

Differences such as:

Won’t be long before Christmas, so get ready.

Sincerely yours, Santa Claus Member, North American Fairies and Elves, Local

By Just Being Me

December 16, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

If what you say is true, and you have not addressed it in any long-term form {a program} but to abstain - your kids will inherit the same seed, putting them at high risk.

FM - Surely you’re not implying that if I (who has never, ever abused a drug in my life) don’t join a “program,” my children will become at high risk for drug abuse??? That makes absolutely no sense.

Now, I might consider accepting that if you said that if my children didn’t join a “program” they might be at risk… but there’s no way that my entering a program (with my non-drug using self) could “save” my children from being predisposed to addiction…

By FatMoose

December 16, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

Now, I might consider accepting that if you said that if my children didn’t join a “program� they might be at risk… but there’s no way that my entering a program (with my non-drug using self) could “save� my children from being predisposed to addiction…

THAT is exactly what can break the cycle {you NOT using AND eliminating the behavior before your kids learn it} - what do you have to loose, you do not use anyways.

You really have not read a thing I posted - huh?

It does not MATTER if you use; but that your were a part of a family that has used or was affected by its use.

NM - I respect you choice not to address it.