Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 8:34:39 GMT 10
Well that's hardly anything we need to get excited about!! However I wonder how many of the young teenage girls will be taking them? Not too many I imagine ... life on the welfare gravy train is sooo much easier. Just listen to them whinge now the carpet is being pulled from under them once their kids turn 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Apr 7, 2013 9:47:13 GMT 10
Apart from the "after" pill, perhaps the scientists could design a "before" pill for all the potential fathers of these teenage babies.
|
|
|
|
Post by geopol on Apr 7, 2013 10:55:16 GMT 10
Probably need lobotomies Sonex.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Apr 7, 2013 11:07:01 GMT 10
good idea Sonex.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Apr 7, 2013 12:30:16 GMT 10
No I wouldn't trust a male to remember to take it. It would be like relying on him to wear a condom....never gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Apr 7, 2013 12:35:48 GMT 10
good for you. What a shame so many men won't. They just expect the female to take care of birth control until she reaches menopause.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Apr 7, 2013 15:25:25 GMT 10
Put more AIDS commercials up and scare this generation into abstinence instead of telling them there is a cure for AIDS when there is not a cure for AIDS and never will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 7, 2013 16:19:41 GMT 10
Well, I did my bit. I had a vasectomy after our second child. (No reflection on her!) ;D local anaesthetic? |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 7, 2013 19:51:02 GMT 10
Wimp! I had mine done under a local anaesthetic! They breed 'em tough in my part of the world ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Apr 7, 2013 20:07:01 GMT 10
Its a good decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 8:03:47 GMT 10
Apart from the "after" pill, perhaps the scientists could design a "before" pill for all the potential fathers of these teenage babies. Well of course it wasn't a problem in my day. Nice girls didn't. Used to work quite well too (I think). Course these days, teenage girls can't wait to get pregnant and start playing houses, that is in taxpayer funded houses. What a choice, to work or to play house - daddy not required except for the initial bit. Actually Sonex, you appear to be the mother of girls? Frankly if girls are the ones going to carry the kid for 9 months and then presumably look after it for the next 18 years or so, maybe they should be the ones primarily worrying about contraception? Maybe even be a bit more discerning regarding the choice of biological inseminator? |
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Apr 9, 2013 9:49:31 GMT 10
Apart from the "after" pill, perhaps the scientists could design a "before" pill for all the potential fathers of these teenage babies. Well of course it wasn't a problem in my day. Nice girls didn't. Used to work quite well too (I think). Course these days, teenage girls can't wait to get pregnant and start playing houses, that is in taxpayer funded houses. What a choice, to work or to play house - daddy not required except for the initial bit. Actually Sonex, you appear to be the mother of girls? Frankly if girls are the ones going to carry the kid for 9 months and then presumably look after it for the next 18 years or so, maybe they should be the ones primarily worrying about contraception? Maybe even be a bit more discerning regarding the choice of biological inseminator? Of course "nice" girls did, there were forced baby adoptions right up until the mid seventies. Teenagers cannot be expected to have the discernment of adults, so it is the adults who must protect them, if possible. Fond mothers of sons need to impress on them the need for restraint and the use of contraceptives. Condoms will not only protect the girl from pregnancy, but will also protect both of them from STD's. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2013 12:22:56 GMT 10
But nice girls who did, got themselves out of that predicament with their nice boyfriends, either by a termination or getting married.
That is the difference ... nice girls wouldn't dream of expecting the rest of society to provide for their children.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Apr 11, 2013 10:56:52 GMT 10
But nice girls who did, got themselves out of that predicament with their nice boyfriends, either by a termination or getting married. That is the difference ... nice girls wouldn't dream of expecting the rest of society to provide for their children. So, the nice boys carelessly impregnated their girlfriends with absolutely no responsibility, leaving the nice girl friends to go through the mental and physical trauma of an abortion or a forced early marriage. I'm missing the "niceness". |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 11, 2013 11:15:47 GMT 10
But nice girls who did, got themselves out of that predicament with their nice boyfriends, either by a termination or getting married. That is the difference ... nice girls wouldn't dream of expecting the rest of society to provide for their children. So, the nice boys carelessly impregnated their girlfriends with absolutely no responsibility, leaving the nice girl friends to go through the mental and physical trauma of an abortion or a forced early marriage. I'm missing the "niceness". Hang on! Weren't abortions illegal in those days so, firstly, an abortion would be a dangerous procedure carried out in insanitary conditions, and secondly a nice girl would be obliged to become a criminal? Like sonex, I'm missing the niceness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 11:26:54 GMT 10
 Bubblegum and the Date Rape CocktailBy Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist | 3:57PM - Tuesday, April 9th, 2013PANIC! Fainting! Pearls-clutching galore among the easily terrified and the never-orgasmic as it was announced that a federal judge just spanked the Obama Administration — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius in particular — for being so surprisingly backasswards when it comes to emergency contraception for women. Now available in Walmart gumball machines. You know, for the kids.Did you hear? After years and ridiculous politicking and inexplicable delays, a federal judge just ordered Sibelius’ FDA to finally allow emergency contraception (Plan B, et al) to be made available over the counter for women and girls of all ages.
It’s true. And it’s sort of a big deal. Barring an appeal, girls under 17 can soon get emergency contraception without a prescription, without their parent’s permission, without any sort of pinched howling from the religious right who would far prefer to snuff out all young women for daring to have an active uterus in the first place.
It must be hereby noted: The stuffy FDA first recommended such contraception be made available over-the-counter to all ages back in 2011, years after such drugs have been proven safe, years after they’ve been readily available to women in smarter countries all over the world. Women’s groups in the U.S. have been clamoring for easy availability for over a decade; but, being America, the PTB fretted and delayed due almost exclusively to the flat-out ignorance and hysteria of the religious right.
Finally, along came Brooklyn judge Edward Korman, who ruled in favor of unrestricted access, because he clearly wants more 11-year-old girls to have irresponsible sex, doesn’t give a damn for teen health or morality, and wants lots of teens to contract STDs during drunken date-rape parties during which they watch “Teen Mom” marathons and huff glue. He’s also a probably a closet pedophile.
Or, you know, maybe not. Maybe none of those things is the slightest bit true and Korman is actually a highly intelligent Reagan appointee who, based on his two decisions on the matter, has studied the case thoroughly and found zero moral or legal justification for Sibelius to block such safe drugs from being made immediately available to all ages. Sort of amazing, really.
Can you guess the immediate reaction? Can you guess the sort of reply Korman’s piercing decision prompted from right-wing anti-choice groups?
I bet you can’t. I bet you can’t even come close to conjuring such a pitch-perfect line as uttered by one Karen Brauer, president of something called Pharmacists for Life, which I’m guessing is basically three very unhappy humans living in a barn somewhere in Ohio who never see sunlight, feel joy or suck wine from a lover’s tongue.
“When these [drugs] are right out there with the bubble gum, they’re going to be part of the date rape cocktail,” Brauer actually said, aloud, with a straight face, as lightning did not strike her dead on the spot. Date Rape Cocktail: One part fantasy, one part politics, two parts religious/sexual hysteria,
splash of media whoring. Shake well. Ignite.Isn’t that fantastic? Isn’t that just the sort of perfectly dumb, weirdly fantasy-projecting sort of statement you’ve come to expect from fundamentalist Christians who understand sexuality about as well as littleneck clams understand quantum physics?
But wait! Not so fast, snarky pro-sex columnist. Before we get too cocky, we must remember, it was Obama who supported Sibelius’ widely panned decision to override her own agency’s recommendation in 2011, and it was Obama himself who first uttered something about Plan B being sold in the vicinity of bubblegum. Stupidly.
And while it took a goofball of Brauer’s caliber to add the part about date rape, we must remember, the judge specifically scolded Sibelius — not the religious right — for messing with women’s rights for obvious and foul political reasons.
This much we know: Sibelius’ decision came about a year before the 2012 election, so it seems obvious Obama was trying to deprive the competition of an easy weapon. By all accounts, it was a decidedly cowardly choice, given O’s otherwise relatively stellar track record WRT women’s rights.
Meanwhile! Shooting straight through Camp Obama and all anti-sex, right-wing, alarmist parents’ groups comes a small but shocking blast of factual awesomeness that merely proves just how politically motivated and/or sexually pathetic both groups really are. WARNING: Do not use bubble gum for emergency contraception.
Unless it’s Juicy Fruit.Remember all the hysteria about Generation Facebook having riskier and more frequent sex at younger and younger ages? All the panic that 12-year-olds are making homemade porn on their iPhones and SnapChatting photos of their genitals to each other in the mall?
A lie. A myth. Inane, world-class sensationalism. Just as you suspected.
“We are seeing teens waiting longer to have sex, using contraceptives more frequently when they start having sex, and being less likely to become pregnant than their peers of past decades.”
Did you catch all that? That’s a quote from one Lawrence Finer, lead author of a new study just published in the May issue of the journal Pediatrics, which basically declares that most alarmist beliefs about modern teen sex are essentially full of crap. To reiterate: On the whole, teens in every age bracket are using more protection, being more careful, having sex less than anytime since around 1990, and getting pregnant less frequently. I blame the Internet.
What to make of it all? For once, an (older, white, Republican, male) judge rightly stepped in and slapped everyone’s bullshit upside the head, and suddenly young girls don’t have to panic that their parents will kill them or their boyfriends will beat them (or vice versa) if they need emergency contraception — which, by the way, they are actually less likely to need than the generation (that’s you, probably) that came before them.
Obama was wrong (and cowardly), Sibelius was wrong, the anti-choicers are wrong (again), women are hereby freshly empowered (despite ongoing hateswamps like Alabama), and teens are doing it right far more than than anyone knew. Weird world, no?• • Mark Morford on Twitter and Facebook.blog.sfgate.com/morford/2013/04/09/bubblegum-and-the-date-rape-cocktail |
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Apr 11, 2013 16:47:12 GMT 10
Will you please stop spamming the board with your jack off material KTJ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 21:39:07 GMT 10
Will you please stop spamming the board with your jack off material KTJ.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 9:41:29 GMT 10
So, the nice boys carelessly impregnated their girlfriends with absolutely no responsibility, leaving the nice girl friends to go through the mental and physical trauma of an abortion or a forced early marriage. I'm missing the "niceness". Hang on! Weren't abortions illegal in those days so, firstly, an abortion would be a dangerous procedure carried out in insanitary conditions, and secondly a nice girl would be obliged to become a criminal? Like sonex, I'm missing the niceness. Good god! There were doctors - even Macquarie Street doctors - carrying out abortions in those days. Or did you think the only alternative was the backyard abotionist? How naive! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 9:45:50 GMT 10
But nice girls who did, got themselves out of that predicament with their nice boyfriends, either by a termination or getting married. That is the difference ... nice girls wouldn't dream of expecting the rest of society to provide for their children. So, the nice boys carelessly impregnated their girlfriends with absolutely no responsibility, leaving the nice girl friends to go through the mental and physical trauma of an abortion or a forced early marriage. I'm missing the "niceness". There you go again Sonex. It takes two to tango ... how about placing some of that responsibility on the females - or do you reckon that every instance of unwanted pregnancy was the result of rape?? |
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Apr 14, 2013 10:45:28 GMT 10
So, the nice boys carelessly impregnated their girlfriends with absolutely no responsibility, leaving the nice girl friends to go through the mental and physical trauma of an abortion or a forced early marriage. I'm missing the "niceness". There you go again Sonex. It takes two to tango ... how about placing some of that responsibility on the females - or do you reckon that every instance of unwanted pregnancy was the result of rape?? No of course I don't believe that all unwanted pregnancy is the result of rape. The point I'm making is that at the moment of the sexual encounter, it takes a short time for the male to place a condom on his penis. There is no such protection a woman can use in that instance except to say no, and most of us would understand that young people at the height of their sexuality tend not to say no. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 12:03:19 GMT 10
Well I suppose these things are fairly unpremeditated and spontaneous. But if girls are going to be sexually active it's probably a good idea to be on the pill, given the fact that it's the girl who is going to quite possibly become pregnant with all the angst that brings.
However these days, females WANT to become pregnant - go out of their way to do so - and in that case I agree that males should assure they do use a condom to protect themselves from the Child Support Agency.
|
|
|
|
Post by geopol on Apr 14, 2013 12:29:47 GMT 10
I would have thought that it was a biological imperative that girls wanted to get pregnant, or most girls anyway. Our species would be in a pretty poor state if they did not have this inclination, Stella (You silly old fart...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 10:51:57 GMT 10
Good grief, I know you have cognitive problems so I'll go slowly. W e w e r e t a l k i n g a b o u t y o u n g s i n g l e m o t h e r s g e t t i n g p r e g n a n t s o a s t o c a s h i n o n t h e w e l f a r e g r a v y t r a i n.
It's got nothing to do with a biological imperative ... but everything to do with an economic imperative.
Got it??
|
|
|
|
Post by geopol on Apr 15, 2013 11:41:36 GMT 10
Stella, you appear to have missed "a universal truth".....I suspect that this is not a first for you.....
|
|
