In the news I learnt that the morning-after pill will soon be available over the counter in Australian pharmacies. Conservative groups (who else?) are against the move on the grounds that it would encourage promiscuity between adolescents.

I am unsure of U.S law in this regard. I have been told by someone that it differs according to state, but I have yet to confirm it.

Questions for debate
Do you welcome the policy, or do you disagree with it? Do you believe the morning after pill becoming easier to pick up will increase adolescent promiscuity or is it entirely beneficial to society in that it will only lower unwanted pregnancy without resorting to abortion?




Oh, yeah. And the reason this topic is in this forum is because I couldn't decide where else it could go.

There will be some people foolish enough, I suppose, to think that it is "safe" to engage in irresponsible sexual activity, now that this is available. I would hope that there would be a strong message sent out that this medication offers no protection at all from sexually transmitted diseases, and that it is intended for emergency contraception only. I'm sure that there will be some problems, but overall I think this will do more good than harm.

My body I decide what happens to it.
I do not believe that this will lead to greater promiscuity. At least among the younger generations. They are growing up seeing the wreckage of those who came before.Lives wasted and pathetic because of early sex and drugs and alchohol. I believe more young girls are growing up realizing they are worth more than should be wasted on some fool. They are raised with more personal power and I think more self esteem.
If it stops the pregnancy and lowers the abortion rate. Excellent.

Side Note: I always feel awkward answering questions such as this as I'm male.

Do you welcome the policy, or do you disagree with it? Do you believe the morning after pill becoming easier to pick up will increase adolescent promiscuity or is it entirely beneficial to society in that it will only lower unwanted pregnancy without resorting to abortion?


I believe that this will lead to fewer abortions in the cases of date rape and condoms breaking. As such, it is a good thing.
I think the pills should be prohibitively expensive, though, in order to curtail their superfluous use. The morning-after pills should not be used in place of regular contraception, for health reasons.
Other posters have mentioned that the pills have awful side-effects, so no one would use them superfluously. I must add my own personal antecdote that they did NOT have any side effects for me. It's probably simply an individual thing, depending on a woman's body's tolerance to hormones.

An article I read this morning stated that each one-time-use pack today costs $20 to $30, about as much as a month's worth of regular birth control pills. I don't know if that price is enough to stop adolescents from buying it but I don't think it will encourage adolescents to participate in sexual relations either.

It probably will stop many unwanted pregnancies.

I can see how women who opt not to take the pill might consider this a great option, especially if they don't have real active sex lives.

Nature leads to promiscuity, not the availability of birth control. Birth control leads to safer promiscuity. The idea that there are people out there who are not having sex because they cannot get the morning after pill over the counter is ludicrous. I think this policy is a good step in the right direction.

Mrs. Pigpen, do you have any idea how silly that sounds? Why do you think so many poor people have so many children? It is because, among other reasons, the costs of birth control! What you are advocating in effect is that the MA pill should only be available to those who can afford it! Any drug can have adverse effects on the person using it - the very definition of a drug is something that alters the mind and/or body. The morning-after pill should not be treated any differently than any other OTC medication, such as tylenol or benadryl. The only reason you are advocating making the MA pill expensive is because you, like many others, believe that making this kind of contraception available will only lead to promiscuity and irresponsible sex, and therefore "superfluous" use. Even for the females who do use this in place of regular birth control - so what? Drinking alcohol everyday can also harm the body. As can using a large dose of birth control after every time one has unprotected sex. So what? They are drugs. Not hurting anyone but themselves. But, unlike alcohol, excessive use of the MA pill probably doesn't lead to motor fatalities, cirrhosis, and a host of other fun results of alcoholism and excessive drinking. So how's about making a six pack 50 dollars?
If an adolescent is raised to believe that sex is something that should only happen within a specific set of circumstances, then it is highly unlikely the availability of the MA pill would cause them to become promiscuous. That reasoning is ridiculous. The MA pill does nothing but offer another option for already sexually active individuals. What does the MA pill mean to someone who's abstinent? Nothing.
If your definition of "promiscuous" means having sex with many people, that's also ridiculous reasoning. If that were the case, then the availability of condoms would have increased promiscuity - and I haven't seen any statistics that they have. The major threat of promiscuity is not pregnancy, but STDs! How would the MA pill make people want to have sex with many people?! Wouldn't something more like an STD-cure-all pill do that?

Suzy,



Can you to supply data supporting your claim that poor people have a lot of children as compared to middle and upper income earners? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the statement seems like a stereotype.

People get pregnant because they have sex - not because they don't have access to BC. There are other forms of contraception available to people that aren't as expensive as BC pills. The male condom costs about 20 cents to $2.50 each and has a failure rate of 14 percent. Some men and women don't like to use them.

Birth control pills cost (depending on health coverage) about $5-$30 a month with a failure rate of 8 percent.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/health/2291305



I don't see Mrs P. advocating any such thing. Her concern seems to be a health issue and a desire that the MA pill not be misused.



Perhaps I am mistaken, but again, I believe you are placing words in Mrs P's mouth. Mrs P has a record of supporting a woman's right to choose. Anyone who has paid attention to her posts realizes this. Deducing that Mrs. P's belief that allowing this pill to be sold over the counter might lead to some people using it wastefully or more than it's really needed does not equal her believing it will lead to promiscuity and irresponsible sex.



What is your definition of promiscuous sex? Because Merriem-Webster gives the following definitions:

1: composed of all sorts of persons or things
2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : INDISCRIMINATE
3 : not restricted to one sexual partner

If this definition is correct, then you seem to contridict yourself in your last paragraph. But maybe I'm misinterpreting either the definition or your paragraph.

Sure, I'd supply data to support my claim that poor people have a lot of children compared to middle and upper income earners if that was indeed what I said. But I made no mention of such comparisons.
I fully realize that people get pregnant because they have sex. And my statement was this: "Why do you think so many poor people have so many children? It is because, among other reasons, the costs of birth control!"
The subtext of Mrs. Pigpen's message was exactly that, Beladonna. Make the pills expensive so that people can't afford to use them regularly, because of health concerns, yes. BUT a result of this is that even poorer people wouldn't be able to afford them at all.
And I see no contradictions whatsoever by the merriam-webster's definition of "promiscuous" and my last paragraph. The definition I was going by was having sex with many people. Technically, that could mean any number greater than one. It is dumb to believe that the MA pill will lead to greater promiscuity, because the greatest threat to people who have sex with more than one person is not pregnancy, but STDs. Promiscuous people are not going to go "oh yay, yet another way to prevent pregnancy!" They would want a way of preventing the spread of STDs. The only contraception that also prevents pregnancy are condoms. So if condoms haven't lead to a growth of "promiscuity", then why would the MA pill?

Suzy,



I realize you didn't make a comparison. I never meant to imply that you did. You made a broadbrushed statement about poor people.



And I asked you to supply some data backing up the claim. In my opinion, part of that data should compare the number of children born to poor people who you say cannot afford birth control (and the data should reflect that they couldn't afford birth control) to the number of children born to those who can. Again, I am not saying you are wrong, I just think such a statement made as fact should be backed up with data.



This is your conclusion, Suzy. When you stated "What you are advocating in effect is that the MA pill should only be available to those who can afford it!" you were placing words in her mouth. Mrs P never advocated any such thing. I just think it unfair to place words in her mouth. Perhaps a better way to have said it was, "I believe that making the MA pill expensive would in effect make it available to only those who can afford it".



I guess I was confused then. This statement is what threw me off:



I interpreted that to mean you didn't believe promiscuous sex meant "having sex with many people". But then in the same paragraph you argued that this couldn't be the case because the availability of condoms hadn't caused promiscuity (having sex with many people) according to any data you had seen.

I'd think it would be hard to identify how a condom is being used. By that I mean, you don't have to fill out a stat sheet indicating the condom will be used to have sex with your wife or husband, your long time lover, that you are just looking for a one night stand, or that you are going to fill it up with water and drop it off the roof top. So as you stated, there is no way of knowing if the availability of condoms has caused an increase in promiscuity just as there may be no way to determine if making the MA pill available over the counter will increase promiscuous sex among adolescents.

As I stated before, and Mrs P will have to speak for herself, but I don't think she stated that the MA pill will lead to promiscuity. Our poll indicates that only one person believes that to be true. That person may or may not have been Mrs P, but I see nothing in her statement that remotely indicates she believes this to be true.

Chemically, birth control pills and morning-after pills are identical. But the morning-after pill is used retroactively and taken in higher dosage. Once fertilization has taken place after sex, the morning-after pill has essentially the same effect on the baby's life as the abortion pill RU-486, except that RU-486 kills babies before and after implantation, whereas it is believed that the morning-after pill for the most part kills babies only before. Thus, since the morning-after pill, like RU-486, can serve as an abortion pill, use of the pill will cause abortions. However, a question exists as to whether or not the morning-after pill will increase sexual promiscuity.

By parallel to the birth control pill, the answer must be yes, the morning-after pill will greatly increase sexual promiscuity. Although the Pill was touted as a means to control birth, and although proponents said no promiscuity would result, the truth is that within less than a decade America was clamouring for legalized abortion to combat the promiscuity generated by the attitudes surrounding widespread acceptance of the Pill. In other words, the Pill led not only to an increase in promiscuity but also to massive abortion, not only the abortions caused by the antinidatory effect of the Pill itself (the Pill kills babies trying to implant), but also the abortions that followed on the heals of cultural acceptance of the Pill and the widespread atmosphere of promiscuity it generated. The Pill is to be equated with reproductive naivete, and it was in this aura of naivete that promiscuity emerged out of the abstract fantasies people developed about controlling reproduction. For this reason, medical authorities hid facts about the Pill from the public, because they knew people would retaliate against the medical profession if the Pill did not live up to the fantasy opinions that the Pill had generated in a public as naive ours.

Today, people have trouble facing basic facts about the morning-after pill, the same as they did and continue to do about the birth control pill, even though the two are made of the exact same chemicals. They pretend it does not cause "abortions" or interrupt "pregnancy" and that it prevents a "fertilized egg" from implanting. The American public is eager to pretend that the morning-after pill will reduce unwanted pregnancies. Well, that certainly was not the case with the original "Pill", which was why America soon began clamouring for legal abortion.

Imagine this. A high school "dude" goes with one of the "girls" on a Saturday night. They don't "use anything". But they both know about the so called morning-after pill. So after they have sex he figures, "If she doesn't go off to the store and get it [the morning-after pill], then she must want to get pregnant. Then it's her problem."

We also have to remember that as young girls find out they will be risking the possibility of killing a baby by taking the pills, a beautiful baby who hatches out of the shell of his or her little egg (they're so cute), they will have a conscientious aversion to taking them, beyond even the aversion they have to taking pills which can cause horrible vomitting. But, then, when they do get pregnant, the "dude" will figure that she must have wanted to get pregnant, since she did not "just" go to the store and get the pills. For him it's a "just", but for her it means vomitting and being sickened by the thought of killing a baby if fertilization has already occurred.

In other words, by making the pills available, you will be shaping the minds of young boys, who will then naively "expect" women to take the morning-after pill, even though women will not always do so. They will not always do so, often because of their consciences against killing a baby (for example, even if they consider themselves pro-choicers, the thought of actually killing a baby themselves can still cause them to wait long enough that the morning-after pill will no longer be able to kill the baby even if they take it) along with their natural aversion to doing something as sick as that to a baby that would also make them vomit profusely.

Then we also have the increase in sexually transmitted diseases that go along with promiscuity. Young men will not listen to their partners when they say, "You need to have a condom." The young men will start to think that "that whole thing" is irrelevant, once they 'understand' about the morning-after pill, and how she can simply 'take it' after sex. The young men will start to "believe" the nonsense that the medical profession and FDA have been spewing about the pills not causing abortions; so they will copy the nonsense and say to the girl, "Besides, it's not like the pills will cause an abortion or anything. So what's the problem?"

"Forget about having a condom. Let's just do it. And if afterward you think you might be getting pregnant, you can just take those pills."

How do you like that expression ladies, "And if afterward you think you might be getting pregnant..."? And if afterward you think you might be getting pregnant... Ha!

Well, either think about it first, or get ready to get used to it, ladies. Because that is what you are going to be hearing a lot of (or that is what your daughters are going to be hearing a lot of) if the FDA decides to make the morning-after pill available over-the-counter at pharmacies.

Here's what I said:
Thanks for put words in my mouth
Why would I be against contraception for the poor, or anyone? The morning after pill IS NOT INTENDED to be used as a regular form of contraception. Your response to my post is proof that many women are not aware of that. It is intended for EMERGENCY use. In fact, the other name for the morning after pill is the ECP (emergency contraceptive pill).

Children are much more expensive than birth control. Abortions are more expensive than these pills. The pills should be more expensive than a monthly pack of pills or condoms,IMO, because they arne't designed to be used in place of the pill of condoms.

I seriously doubt that by the time a pair of horny teens gets to third base that either of them is bearing contraception in mind. They will either be prepared for safe sex at that stage or they won't. They will either have decided to go for home or not.

That said, I feel that all sexual intercourse should involve contraception unless it is specifically being engaged in for the purpose of procreation.

I would disagree with the suggestion of making the ECP prohibitively expensive, though, just as I would disagree with someone suggesting that Emergency Room treatment should be prohibitively expensive. Moral considerations asides, do we really need to make pharmaceutical companies even wealthier and more exploitative than they already are???

Good point, Wertz. I'll give you my pattern of logic on that one.

1. The pill requires a doctor's prescription, and is not available over-the-counter.
2. The pill has fewer deleterious side effects than the ECP. In fact, the ECP is harmful to health if overused.
3. Going to the doctor is a real inconvenience for anyone, especially for a teenager, or young college student in need of reliable contraception.
4. Since the EC pill will be available over the counter, but the pill is not, young people will probably be more inclined to use the EC in lieu of more reliable and responsible protection. If this pill is cheap and over-the-counter, when the pill IS NOT over-the-counter (though relatively cheap), there is no doubt it will be overused.

There are only two realistic answers that I can think of to prevent the overuse of the ECP.
Either the Morning after pill should be more expensive to make a person think twice about using it frequently....Or the pill should be over-the-counter, too.

I say this, incidentally, as a person who has "been there". Had the ECP been available when I was in college, I know I would have used it more than the one time I did (after the condom broke).

UltimateJoe,

It is well known that the Pill created a sexual revolution, which one might interpret as an increase in promiscuity, to use a morally charged vocabulary. It is also well known that demand for abortion skyrocketed on the heals of the attitudes and promiscuity introduced by the Pill. The Pill made people "think" sex was under control in a mythical sort of way. This aura of naivete infected society at large. The result of unwanted pregnancy became so shocking that America began to clamour for legal abortion. However, if the era of the Pill had actually reduced the problem of unwanted pregnancy, the drive for legal abortion would have lessened compared to in the 50s; instead, it skyrocketed. The reason was that even though the Pill prevented a number of unwanted pregnancies, the mythical aura of reproductive control surrounding the Pill, combined with the episode of promiscuity created by the Pill's introduction, led to a culture in which unwanted pregnancy abounded along with a denial of responsibility. The formation of people's consciences had been transformed to believe in the mythical "Pill" to such an extent that they no longer focused on the responsibilities of sex, regardless of whether or not they included the Pill in their sexual activity.

Because public infatuation with the Pill was so strongly naive, the ACOG, AMA, and FDA were afraid the public would retaliate if they informed the public that the Pill could kill children between fertilization and implantation, and thus cause an abortion. The public did not want to face disillusionment because it would have seemed like a reproach for acceptance of the Pill in the first place. The ACOG and AMA knew the public would then retaliate against the medical community for not having yet discovered the ideal "Pill" and the FDA knew it would be blamed for having allowed the Pill to become popularized in the first place. So, even to this day, and even though the Pill contains the exact same chemical ingredients as the morning-after pill, neither the FDA, ACOG, nor AMA will admit that the Pill can cause abortions between fertilization and implantation. Instead, the FDA, ACOG, and AMA conspired as early as 1965 to redefine conception as implantation so that the Pill could be called a "contraceptive" without anyone being the wiser, and they redefined pregnancy as beginning at implantation, so no one would need to be informed that the Pill can cause an early abortion.

For the reasons stated in my previous post, the morning-after pill will increase clinic abortions and promiscuity, because it will lead to a culture of irresponsibilty and sexual naivete, just like the Pill did. Boys are going to think, "Anyway, what's the problem, if afterward she thinks she might be getting pregnant, she can just go to the drug store and get some of those pills." But young women will have many reservations about taking the pills. One is that they will eventually learn that the pills kill babies by aborting them up to the time implantation is secure. Another is that the pills can make her vomit terribly. But boys will not understand any of that. The formation of their consciences will be warped by new expectations surrounding their mythical view of the morning-after pill; in effect, they, more so than women, will believe the myths created for the pills. Thus, they will not hesitate to expect girls to simply "rely" on the pills.

But for girls it is much more complicated. If they take the pills, they have to live with the guilt and uncertainty surrounding the fact that they may have aborted a baby already conceived. Plus, the will get sick sometimes. Some will think, "Maybe I won't get pregnant anyway." Once they delay a certain time, they will either have to keep the baby, or, after the baby implants they will have to use a more powerful abortion pill like RU-486, which also has a number of serious maternal side effects (including death), or they will have to go to the abortion clinic to kill the baby. On top of that, since boys will not think condoms are important any longer, they will spread more STD's.

Right now, boys think condoms are important because otherwise, if she is not going to keep the baby, she will have to have an abortion. But because authorities are teaching boys that the morning-after pill does not cause abortion (which really is not true) each boy will figure there is no good excuse for "him" to have to wear a condom, unless he is worried about the girl "having something". In other words, boys often do not think they are the ones who could be carrying a disease. So if he is not worried about the girl having a disease, and if he is led to believe the pills do not cause abortions, he will figure, "Then why wear a condom. If she thinks she might be getting pregnant, then afterward she can just take those pills!"

So the morning-after pill, if popularized, will undoubtedly increase male expectations, promiscuity, abortion, and frequent lapses in condom use among those who would have otherwise used condoms more regularly. Now, if you are interested in references to substantiate what I have said, you may wish to check my posts on related forums; also, you may wish to check the timeline between the introduction of the Pill and the advent of the movement to legalize abortion.

Finally, you should reflect that parallels between the Pill and the morning-after pill are to be expected, since the morning-after pill is simply the Pill used retroactively in megadose form. In this respect, we might call the morning-after pill a "retroceptive" version of the original Pill, now with a new dosage and retroactive usage. Like the Pill in original form, the morning-after pill can kill a baby between conception and implantation; the difference is that with the morning-after pill, a megadose of the Pill's chemicals increases the probability that an early abortion will occur before implantation if a baby has been conceived.

You should also note that the lack of credibility and honesty exhibited by the ACOG, AMA, and FDA surrounding the morning-after pill parallels the same way they presented the Pill to the public; in other words, these authorities continue to contribute to the naivete of American culture. And since it was in an aura of naivete that promiscuity and abortion errupted on the heals of the Pill's original introduction, there is every reason to anticipate that the same thing will happen with the Pill's reintroduction in megadose form as the morning-after pill.

Make the side effects known very publicly is what I suggest. People are going to have sex...lots of sex regardless. Its a different society. Teenage pregnacies are on the rise even with the application of modern contraceptives. The pill may have been the initial catylist but the reason has morphed. People have sex because its a socially liberal society. Women's rights pushed the movements as far as im concerned not the invention of the pill. Sex is a good thing. Anything that increases sex is a good thing. This is true trickle down economics. From the bottom up. Pharmecuticals get rich. Politicians get support from drug companies. The people are allowed a greater choice on their future and the universal plus for all Americans less fear of sex. It isnt a perfect drug (does such a thing exist?) but make the side effects known and let the people decide. One night stands for everyone.

Is this your opinion or do you have data to back up this statement?





Again, is this your opinion or do you have data to back up this statement?

beladonna,

It is well known that political demand for legal abortion skyrocketed in the years after the Pill was introduced. The Pill was introduced in 1960, and the increased political demand for legal abortion can be traced thereafter in the form of legislation and caselaw. In view of this observation, one is left to explain why political demand for legal abortion INCREASED in the wake of the Pill, compared to a lesser political demand for legal abortion found in decades prior to the Pill's introduction. For, at least in theory or according to ideal, many would have thought that the Pill's introduction would have lessened demand for abortion. In contrast, the contrary proved to be true.

The rationale I have given for this contradiction of general expectation is that the Pill was made to fit people's fantasies. As a consequence, the formation of people's consciences was adversely affected, such that they thought control of reproduction had been conquered in a magical sort of way. This lack of formation about true responsibility and consequences led to false expectations even among those who did not actually rely on birth control pills. Because of this, people became less inclined to take responsibility for the consequences, and so political demand for legal abortion skyrocketed. It was part of the denial process.

The same thing is happening with the morning-after pill. Young boys will be taught myths about the pills like "they don't cause abortions." Accordingly, they will simply learn to expect that girls will "know" to take the pills after sex if "they think they might be getting pregnant." They will also think there is less of a need to wear a condom, since "she can just take those pills if she thinks there is going to be a problem." But girls are not going to always take the pills after sex. For one thing, they will eventually learn that babies do cute things like hatching before implantation, and many will develop or at least wrestle with a conscience against actually killing one of the babies themselves, even if they consider themselves to be supporters of so called Choice. Another problem is that the pills are extremely unhealthy in the sense they can make a woman vomit profusely. However, since the pills only work in a narrow timeframe, if she delays past implantation, she will either have to keep the baby, or she will have to make recourse to another abortion method to kill the baby. But by the time these problems are realized, it will be too late, because boys will have already learned to "expect" girls to rely on the pills to take care of the consequences of having sex.

So, you are going to have less respect for women, more expectations from men, more abortion (not only the chemical abortions caused by the pills but also RU-486 abortions and clinic abortions as well), more promiscuity, and more sexually transmitted diseases (since boys will feel less of a need to use a condom, since they will figure the girl can just take those pills). Remember, if you are eager to find out facts, you should first take a look at the ACOG (American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists), the AMA (American Medical Association), and the FDA (U.S. Food & Drug Administration). If you pay attention closely, you will find that they are teaching the public the same sort of naive, mythical paradigm concerning the morning-after pill that they did for the original Pill. Even to this day, the ACOG, AMA, and FDA refuse to teach the public that the Pill can cause abortions up to the time of implantation, even though they admit that the morning-after pill, which contains the exact same chemicals as the Pill, does the same. Instead, they are teaching the public mythical acceptance.

Mythical acceptance does harm to the formation of the human conscience. This in turn results in an unwillingness to take responsibility for the consequences of reality. This is why political demand for legal abortion skyrocketed on the heals of the Pill. A culture of mythical acceptance wrecked the formation of people's consciences in a way that left them dumbfounded and unaccepting of the consequences of sex. People assumed technology had conquered the control of reproduction when it really had not. The effect on people's consciences was so absurd that even those who did not actually rely on the Pill somehow thought they were immune to reproductive consequences. Moreover, the new attitudes created by the Pill led to an environment of increased expectation regarding sex, which in turn led to more casual sexual relationships. But since the formation of people's consciences had been wrecked, particularly by our medical community and a government which reinforced naive impressions about sexual matters such as the Pill, people were left too shocked and in denial when the consequences of sex led to unwanted pregnancy.

So, political demand for legal abortion skyrocketed. First there were a number of state laws passed to legalize abortion, then the whole nation went for it in Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade became an extension of the naivete that came with the Pill. For example, instead of facing the fact that abortion means the baby dies, and that causing an abortion apart from accident is an act of homicide, instead the U.S. Supreme Court prattled to an eagerly naive nation about "viability" and various other abstractions. Today, Americans remain in such naive denial that babies are stabbed in the backs of their heads exiting the womb, and Americans treat it as just another matter for their opinions to consider. For example, rather than calling the coroner to confirm that the cause of the child's death was a homicide, the high court relies on testimony from the ACOG, which promotes mythical acceptance of the act. It is as if Americans truly believe that their choices have an absolute controlling influence on reality.

In this saga of naivete, the morning-after pill is yet another chapter in American history. The consequences, nevertheless, will be real.

You keep saying this, but to quote a wise man: "I do not think it means what you think it means."

Seriously Freechildren, if all of the data that you present was well known, the issue of abortion would not be such a heated debate. Perhaps providing some sources is in order if you truly want to convince people that your way is the right way.



I feel that it is beneficial to society even if it does cause an increase in adolescent promiscuity, which I am not convinced that it will. There are other dangers involved in having sex besides pregnancy that are far greater...such as death. The best that we can do is to provide information to our youth about the risks involved in becoming sexually active and hope that they will make good choices when the time comes.

As Mrs. P said, it is much less convenient to get a prescription for the pill than it is to buy the morning-after-pill over the counter, but that being said, people who choose to use the morning-after-pill instead of birth control will a.) be spending a lot of money on morning after pills, which would be prohibitively expensive b.) not having much sexual activity for the same reason or c.) using condoms, and resorting to the use of the morning after pill only in the event of breaking condoms. I just don't see it replacing the pill as a form of birth control.

You raise the economic issues. What happens if poor people are given more (e.g. free) access to the morning-after pill by people who "dread" the thought of "those people" reproducing?

Another problem I find with your a-b-c logic is that you assume people will have great discipline and consequently have less sex and resort to condoms if they rely on the morning-after pill. On the contrary, boys will "expect" girls to rely on the morning-after pill, because the FDA and medical community have been giving the morning-after pill the magic status of a cold remedy that keeps the stork at bay. Thus, they will figure there is no need for condoms since if the girl "thinks she might be getting pregnant" she can just go and get the pills.

Remember, the morning-after pill is taken retroactively. Boys will be thinking, "Worry about it tomorrow." If the girl does not have the money, or if she has reservations about taking the pill, the boy will not feel the need to worry about it. He will think "she can deal with that after, it's not like she needs to get it right away."

There will be stories about, "Don't worry, my friend owes me 30 bucks. He should be paying it back in a couple of days." There will be questions like, "Are you sure you really might get pregnant this time? Because if you think you're not, then why spend the money just to make yourself vomit for nothing?"

Plus, like I said, babies are at their cutest at hatching time, which is before implantation. As more and more people watch videos of babies hatching, and as more and more people know that those pills kill these beautiful babies, more and more girls will feel inclined to hesitate when it comes to taking the pills. But remember, boys are hard to control; once you let them get expectations in their heads, it can be impossible to correct. So, once you put the pills out there, and tell everyone to believe in their magic, you will be wrecking the formation of young men's consciences in a very serious way, and that will have a great impact on the expectations they have about a woman's ability to control reproduction, along with the role he should have in cooperating with that control. He will be taught to figure, "She's the one who takes the pills, let her worry about it." He will allow his naive picture of the pills to shape the overall way he sees sexual responsibility. And whose fault is that? Who gave him the picture?

Also, there is the profound disrespect that exists between a man and a woman when they know that they will be threatening a child's right to life according to the manner in which they have chosen to pursue their sexual behaviors. This results in a cycle of lost esteem and inferior behaviors.

I think you need to consider the facts.

freechildren,



I would like to pose you that challenge.

You deliberately redefine words in an attempt to get an emotional response out of people. Quite poorly, might I add.

What you refer to as an embryo, is actually called a zygote.
What you refer to as a baby, is actually called an embryo.







But I guess dictionary.com is part of that "misinformation conspiracy" you were referring to.



The 6-8 cells are cute? How about atoms? They're adorable! And quarks are downright sexy.

I won't even touch your "meaningful" and "relevant" analogies for now.

1. It's not about "dreading" that "those people" will reproduce. If they actually wanted to reproduce, they wouldn't be visiting an organization looking for the morning-after-pill in the first place. Making options available to people who do not have the means to support a child is positive, in my opinion, and no one is forcing people to have sex, take birth control pills, have abortions, or take the morning-after-pill. Each of these are choices made by the individual.

2. In cases where people visit organizations such as Planned Parenthood, seeking the morning-after-pill because of an accident, the prudent thing to do would be to give the person information about all of their options, allow them to make a choice of which route to take, and then if they choose the morning-after-pill, offering them the choice of birth-control as a preventative option in the future.

When services are rendered for free, I see no reason why an organization can't dictate the terms of those services to insure that they aren't being abused, including the number of times a person is able to take advantage of them at no cost.

If people are willing to pay for those services out of their own pocket in the future, all power to them.



No. What I'm saying is that economically speaking, people making an active choice between the use of birth-control pills and the morning after pill would be more likely to choose birth-control, because if Bela is correct that a morning after pill costs between $20 - $30 dollars for a one time usage, it would not be a feasible choice as a replacement for birth control considering how often people generally have sex.

Given the costs associated with the morning-after-pill, it only makes sense to use it as a last resort when an accident has occured unless a person wants their sex life to slow to a near grinding halt or they have incredibly deep pockets.



There are more reasons to wear a condom than just pregnancy, and that needs to be continually stressed, but even those irresponsible enough to have sex without a condom will have to think twice about using the morning after pill as their main form of birth control for the reasons that I have already mentioned.



Unfortunately, you are correct that the bulk of the responsibility will have to be upon the girl, but I don't see how this is any different than things are without the morning-after-pill being readily available. Girls need to be taught to take care of their own bodies, because they can't rely on someone else to do it for them. The same argument applies to birth control.

My first point was that if people distribute the pills freely to the poor community, then your argument of prohibitive costs will vanish. My second point was that even in general, boys will not consider the costs "prohibitive" because they will just let the girl worry about it.

My third point I need to clarify. Morning-after pills are taken retroactively. Predominately, the basis for taking them is "oops, I made a mistake." We all make mistakes. But it is generally fair to suppose that people with less discipline will be more likely to make certain kinds of mistakes than people with more discipline.

Thus, the morning-after pill is targeted to the less disciplined population more so than the well-disciplined population. But most of your arguments stress the "discipline" of using the morning-after pill. The problem with that is that the people who are most likely to seek the pill are precisely the ones with the least amount of discipline. This includes both the boyfriends and girlfriends.

And you know what will happen in an undisciplined environment where the boy has illusions about how those pills really work. He will put all the expectations on the woman, and he will throw his condoms out the window.

Girls will not always take the pills, but they will not always get pregnant. This will make girls question the probability of the need to take the pills. But the boy will assume she will take the pill if she needs to, because he will have fantasy expectations about the pill. Remember, the people the pill caters to the most are precisely the ones who lack sexual discipline. So, with boys thinking they do not need condoms, and with girls questioning whether they feel they really might get pregnant this time, and with girls questioning whether it is wrong to take the chance of killing a baby (especially after seeing videos about babies hatching), and with girls dreading another episode of vomiting again--the end result is you are going to have undisciplined people using the pills on a random-roulette basis. Yet they will still forgo condom use because the pills are taken retroactively. The motto of undisciplined people is "play now, worry later." The pills encourage that motto.

But then when she gets pregnant the boy will be dumbfounded. "Why didn't she take those pills? That's not supposed to happen. It's her stupid fault!"

That is what happens when you introduce a fantasy that is not real into the lives of undisciplined people who need a strong formation of conscience in order to guide them in ways of responsible behaviors. On top of that, since boys will be throwing condoms out the window and telling girls they can just get the pills, they will be spreading a lot more sexually transmitted diseases.

Remember, the pills predominately cater to the undisciplined. So when you use expressions like "it only makes sense to use the pills as a last resort" you are forgetting that the pills cater precisely to those who do not follow sense.



Dorland's Medical Dictionary in 1994 fell prey to the "preembryo" conspiracy (originated by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine or ASRM). Consequently, Dorland's introduced the term preembryo to mean the baby during the first two weeks of life, and defined the term embryo to mean the baby from the second to eighth weeks. But by the 2000 issue, Dorland's was so embarrassed for calling the baby an "embryo" only after a week after hatching, and a preembryo both before and after hatching, that Dorland's wanted to change the definitions altogether. But the ASRM pressured Dorland's into 1) keeping the term preembryo, 2) not adding a definition for hatching, and 3) not restricting the term embryo for life between conception and hatching. Instead, Dorland's was pressured so that preembryo was redefined to include the first 3 days of life (so that the term would not have application after hatching) and the term embryo was redefined to include life from the fourth day after fertilization to the end of the eighth week.

As far as dictionary.com goes, 50 years ago doctors thought it was acceptable (for incorrect reasons) to call the baby an "ovum" throughout pregnancy. If dictionary.com had been around then, they probably would have included that definition. But that does not change the fact that we now know it is (obviously) wrong to call a baby an ovum throughout gestation. Similarly, in view of the hatching event it is obviously wrong to call a baby an embryo at any point other than from conception to hatching. Likewise, the term preembryo has no biological meaning. It is merely a contrivance of the abortion camp. Accordingly, Dorland's incompetent vacillation is simply a product of political influences. Anyone of competent discipline knows a baby is an embryo only from conception to hatching.

Remember, I cannot make references correct retroactively simply because they were written by the experts you want me to quote. If the people you think are experts have been calling babies ovums or embryos incompetently, I cannot go back in time and correct their writings so that today I will be able to quote them as giving an accurate source or reference. That is what happens when you rely on profoundly incompetent people for your experts.

There is a third possibility as well: Make the ECP also available only by prescription. I do see the problem with the ECP being readily available while the contraceptive pill is not. Personally, though, I'd lean toward making both available over-the-counter.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


You've got it backward, freechildren. If you are eager to use "facts" to support your arguments, it is up to you to provide those facts. Don't expect the other members here to do your homework for you. You have been requested repeatedly to provide documentation for all of "facts" you keep citing - here and in several other threads.

Allow me to draw your attention to the section of the Survival Guide which concerns Credibility - Establishing and Maintaining:
That does not appear in our guidelines because we thought it would be a fun notion for people to ignore. Perhaps you should at least consider doing what every other member does here as a matter of routine...


That would be much easier if you ever provided any.

I am not posting this to be overly critical. Your credibility here is in serious doubt - and I'm just trying to help you salvage it. I fear that, as a contributor to America's Debate, you are not being taken as seriously as, perhaps, you should.

More examples:
What's your source?


What's your source?


What's your source?


No one is expecting you to go back in time. We would just like to know how you come by your wealth of information. Who are these experts that you are refusing to quote? How do you know what went on between Dorland's and the ASRM? How do you know what doctors called a baby fifty years ago? Do you just make these things up? Without any foundation whatsoever for any of your statements in these threads, freechildren, you simply cannot expect to be taken seriously about anything.

cyan,

Okay. Here is the scenario.

1) The morning-after pill caters to those with less discipline more so than those will greater discipline.
2) Boys are going to be thinking, "Why worry about it now, she can just take some of those pills afterwards."
3) The media, government, and medical community have created a fantasy vision of the morning-after pill.

All of this boils down to one thing: SOME people are going to be relying on the morning-after pill for so called 'birth control'.

But here is the clincher. I bet you did not know this. People capable of at least typical use would be better off using the RHYTHM METHOD than they would to use the morning-after pill. Don't believe me? Look what Princeton University has to say:


Subtracting these risks from 100% gives a 62% chance of not having an ongoing pregnancy using Preven and a 81% chance of not having an ongoing pregnancy with Plan B. In contrast, the rhythm method (for typical users) offers a 87% chance of not having a pregnancy at all (including pregnancy between fertilization and implantation, a time during which Preven and Plan B will cause early abortions).

So the rhythm method has 6 more percentage points of effectiveness than Plan B and 25% more percentage points of effectiveness than Preven; plus, the rhythm method does not harm babies from fertilization to implantation in order to achieve its effectiveness, unlike Preven and Plan B, which rely on an antinidatory effect to achieve their so called "effectiveness".

Here is what SexInfo101.com has to say about the rhythm method.


By using a colored necklace to keep track of days, the Alan Guttmacher Institute indicates that a version of the rhythm method called the Standard Days Method can be practiced both by abstinence or withdrawal during days 8-19 for women with regular menstrual cycles lasting 26-32 days (day 1 being the onset of bleeding). In the journal called International Family Planning Perspectives, AGI reports that this method has a failure rate of less than five pregnancies per 100 woman-years during the first year of correct use. That essentially means better than 95% effectiveness, and no children are harmed between fertilization and implantation as with the Pill or morning-after pill.

Thus, one concludes that as more and more people naively rely on the morning-after pill for family planning, there will be more and more abortions, over and above the abortions caused by the pills themselves between fertilization and implantation, and more unwanted pregnancies. Also, expectations will change in a way that puts more of the burden on women, and women can get very sick from taking the pills. Thus, the morning-after pill is a very bad thing for society and we have a careless campaign misinformation to thank for it.

Freechildren, I have repeatedly tried to ask you why redefining some terms is ok (ovum, model of the universe, etc.) but with other's (pregnancy) it's a conspiracy.

Are only the definitions that suit you the correct ones, and definitions either change to fit YOUR view (becoming right), or to another view (misinformation conspiracy).

I'm sorry, but it's kind of a rule of thumb I have: If it has less cells than a well-formed scab, it's not a person.

Looms,

Scabs do not have spacesuits with a little astronaut inside, and scabs do not make you buy diapers 266 days after they are formed. You should show your knowledge of life between fertilization and implantation, which is properly known as life during prenidial gestation. Prenidial (pre-nid-e-al) means before implantation.

To answer your other question, probably the main conspiracy is that Americans play a game where they want to pretend they are so gullable, and so they have their 'experts' do the dirty work of painting the picture their illusions demand. Then Americans become resentful that anyone would challenge the so called experts.

Let us look at the facts. The morning-after pill is less effective than the rhythm or withdrawal methods. So why the big political push to promote the pill?

The answer appears to be that the political drive to promote the morning-after pill came on the heals of the partial-birth abortion controversy. To understand the logistics of this political scenario, consider the fact that some people believe that if they can make abortion murder at the end of pregnancy, then there will be no where to draw the line going all the way back to fertilization.

Because pro-choice groups perceive this as a threat, to counter this a movement was started to convince women to desensitize themselves to life between fertilization and implantation. The rationale is that if life between fertilization and implantation does not "count" then there will be no where to draw the line going in the opposite direction.

So, attention for the so called morning-after pill, which kills babies between fertilization and implantation and is less effective as a family planning method than even the withdrawal or rhythm methods, is merely a politically-oriented misinformation campaign geared at desensitizing the nation to the value of life between fertilization and implantation. This campaign hopes to serve as a strategic block to the ambitions of those involved in the campaign to ban partial-birth abortion.

The ECP has a two percent failure rate, the rhythm and withdrawl methods around 15 to 20 percent. Your "facts" are highly inaccurate.

Ok, you DO realize that we are talking embryos, not astronauts right? Once again, you make this analogy out to be a literal fact. It's like saying we shouldn't eat potatoes because they have eyes. And you keep ignoring the actual QUESTIONS I pose, instead relying on deluded analogies. And repeating the same thing over and over, that does not answer a single thing I asked.

If you just came out and admitted that this is just your personal moral judgement, not based on fact, that would be fine. I can respect the fact that people's morals differ. What I can't understand is why you cannot gather up the testicular fortitude to do so.

No. You are wrong. And this is a good example of how misinformed women are about the morning-after pill.

Here is what Princeton University has to say about effectiveness:


With Preven the annual risk of 'pregnancy' is 38%; 100%-38%=62%, which means with Preven you only have a 62% chance of not getting 'pregnant'. With the rhythm method in typical use, you have an 87% chance of not getting pregnant. Plus, with the rhythm method, not getting pregnant means not getting pregnant in the real and total sense. In contrast, with Preven, not getting 'pregnant' does not mean it in the real and total sense, because the pills can actually cause early abortions between fertilization and implantation. The same is true of Plan B. With Plan B you have a 19% chance of getting 'pregnant', not counting the real pregnancies that occur between fertilization and implantation but that are terminated by the pills; 100%-19%=81%, which means with Plan you have only a 81% of not getting 'pregnant'. In contrast, with the rhythm method in typical use, you have a 87% chance of not getting pregnant; also, with the rhythm method it means an 87% chance of not getting pregnant at all, because unlike the morning-after pill, the rhythm method does not kill any babies between fertilization and implantation.

You do not realize what a misinformation campaign you are being subjected to. And once women with illusions about the pill start relying on it because their young boyfriends expect them to, there are going to be a lot more RU-486 and clinic abortions because of it. Plus, when women eventually learn that the chemicals in the pill prevent implantation, but are not so effective at doing this, they will try to take mega-mega doses of the pills if they are available without a prescription. Since the morning-after pill is already a mega-dose of the chemicals found in the birth control pill, and the birth control has serious side effects for some women, and given that the morning-after pill in its standard dosage is already powerful enough to make women vomit horribly, the effect on women's bodies from trying to take more than the recommended dosage to compensate for the ineffectiveness of the pills will have harmful consequences to women.

What you are getting confused by is that the "failure rate" you were quoted means per time. You only have a certain chance "per time" even without using anything (pills, condoms, withdrawal, etc.). Here is what Princeton University has to say:


When they say "reduction in the risk of pregnancy" here they mean per time. But when we compare to other methods, other methods are quoted "per year" not per time. A 75% reduction in 'pregnancy' per time translates into only a 62% chance of not getting 'pregnant' per year. In contrast, with the rhythm method in typical use, you have an 87% chance of not getting pregnant per year. This is why Princeton University emphasizes that "ECPs [even] when used perfectly are not as effective as other methods of ongoing contraception when used perfectly." ECP stands for emergency contraceptive pills, which means the morning-after pill.

Note also that the risks of 'pregnancy' they speak of do not include the true risks associated with the time between fertilization and implantation. That is why the copper IUD has such a higher figure, because it has a much stronger antinidatory effect (it kills the baby between fertilization and implantation, thus causing an early abortion).

Freechildren, my argument merely illustrates that the morning-after-pill is not a reasonable replacement for birth control. Being available over the counter makes it convenient to acquire compared to birth control pills, but it is also significantly more expensive.

This also adds weight to Mrs. P's argument that the morning-after-pill should remain at a slightly higher price to insure that it is not abused.

The possibility that the morning-after-pill will be made available through free clinics to low-income individuals does not change that argument, it merely adds a new dimension to it for one particular group of people, and I have already discussed what my opinion is about how free clinics should deal with the possibility of abuse of the morning-after-pill.

and how does all of this relate to the original topic? If the morning after pill is not a more convenient over the counter replacement for birth control, it does not prevent STDs, and it comes with uncomfortable side-effects, I fail to see how it will cause any further increase in promiscuity among adolescents than the pill has, because it's usage will be lower.



Again, this is no different than things are right now with birth control pills. Some people are irresponsible and some are not, but I think that you greatly underestimate the ability of teenagers to make decisions about their bodies. This includes the decision to have protected vs. unprotected sex, to be on birth control, or to take the morning after pill if necessary.

You think that boys will just let girls worry about it, but it is in their best interest to worry about it as much as the girl unless they want to be paying child support for the next twenty years, especially in a time where it is sometimes viewed as being "cool" for a young girl to have a baby. Girls are just as capable of lying as boys are.

My feeling is that teenagers should be given as much knowledge as is possible, so that they can make their own informed decisions about their bodies and their sexuality.



...and thanks be to that. The last thing that the world needs is people without any discipline having accidental babies.



I already addressed this, but I just want to say again that this is a very good reason to empower our daughters to take responsibility for their own bodies, because they can't rely on men to do it for them.



I just don't see that freechildren. The morning-after-pill is what it is. Where is the fantasy vision?

No, no, no, no! It is much different. It is different because unlike the traditional Pill, the morning-after pill is taken retroactively. For boys to be made to believe in a magical, retroactive means of 'birth control' will reinforce the "play now, deal later" motto that the world had been trying so desperately to rid them of.

With the traditional Pill, the girls says "I'm not taking the Pill" and that is that. But with the morning-after pill, the boy could care less, because he will believe she can just start taking the new 'Pill' retroactively. Meaning, she can deal with it after they have played.

Now, when you combine that mentality with the extremely low effectiveness of the morning-after pill, you have a disaster on your hands. One of the problems with the professions in charge of our nation (legal, journalistic, medical, etc.) is that they have lost sight of good judgment in their effort to serve special interests. The morning-after pill is an extremely dumb thing to promote. It is harmful to women, and to children during prenidial gestation. But because some people are so eager to deny respect for children at this stage in life, they could care less how the pills will harm women and society.



Where is the fantasy vision? Take a look at Mrs. Pigpen's recent post. Women do not realize that this new breed of magic pill is less effective than the rhythm method. Kids would be way better off being taught to use even the rhythm method than to rely on the morning-after pill. Those are just the facts. Now, as with the original Pill, women may want the facts to be different, and they may "wish" the medical community had invented an effective regimen that can be used as a magic pill, in this case retroactively. But that is not how the morning-after pill works.

See my own post above (with references) if you are not convinced.

Yes, yes, yes.... Some people already have the "play now, deal later" motto. We need to encourage kids to wear condoms no matter what type of birth control they are using, because there are far worse things that can happen during sex than pregnancy, but even with that knowledge, some people just won't use them especially if the female is on birth control pills, because they would rather have the momentary gratification of condomless sex. Should we get rid of condoms or birth control pills because of these irresponsible people or should we let the irresponsible people deal with the consequences of their actions?

My feeling is that the morning-after-pill will have a positive effect on society, reducing the number of abortions that occur from "accidents." I don't feel that it will cause any significant increase in premiscuous sex among adolescents as I have explained, and for those who do decide to use the morning-after-pill in an irresponsible manner, the consequences are there to be dealt with.



Freechildren, some boys give up when a woman isn't on the pill, some don't. Some use condoms. Some say they will pull out. Some don't care one way or another. If we teach adolescents all of the consequences that can occur and the ways that they can protect themselves, they can take that information and make their own decisions. If their choices are bad, they will have to live with it.



Freechildren, the rhythm method is a form of birth control, the morning-after-pill is an emergency solution, and it does not replace traditional forms of birth control. The rhythm method requires a woman to be acutely aware of her body and regular in her cycle. It's not for everyone.

Kids would most definitely NOT be better served by using the rhythm method or the withdrawl method as a way to prevent pregnancy.

1) The withdrawl method can automatically be eliminated from consideration as a method of pregnancy prevention in every case except for a serious monogamous relationship. In order for the rhythm method to be effective both parties have to know when pregnancy is a high risk and when it isn't. In a night of casual sex between two adults, teen or otherwise no one is going to take the time to calculate the cycle and the two people do not know each other at that level. This method also completely ignores the possibility of a condom breaking during sex. Therefore, this method is the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with your life.

2) The withdrawl method is equally bad and can also be eliminated as a method that should be suggested to anyone having sex that does not want to get pregnant. It takes a very small amount of semen to get pregnant when conditions or right. Lets take a few examples... what teen boy is going to be disiplined enough to withdraw before any semen is discharged right at the height of pleasure? What man is going to be able to withdraw at the right moment when both parties have been drinking and have impared judgement? This method is almost worse than the rhythm method.

The purpose of the morning after pill is not to be used as an every day contraceptive, it is a valuable tool that can be used by women in situations where every procaution was taken or something unexpected happened (a condom broke, a woman was raped, a condom was forgotten in a moment of drunken passion). People in all age groups have increased their use of condoms and the birth control pill due to education and the proper use of the morning after pill should be included in that education.

I would imagine that some people will make the mistake initially of using the pill in lieu of contraceptives. However, after the majority of women use the pill they will discover two things 1) It is not a cost effective method of birth control 2) it is not a pleasurable method of birth control. I am willing to submit that some people will use the pill because it is now easier to obtain, but after they sit in the bathroom for 6 hours the next day puking their guts out I am willing to bet they'll think twice before using it again unless it is an emergency.

Because women will "puke their guts out" after taking the morning-after pill, they will figure they better take an added dose since they will be puking anyway. They will feel the need to take an added dose because they will eventually learn about the greatly limited effectiveness of the pills and so they will want to increase the dosage to increase the antinidatory effect. You see, that is the whole idea behind the morning-after pill. The morning-after pill is simply an increased dosage of the chemicals used in the traditional birth control pill, with the understanding that the antinidatory effect of the chemicals can be used to terminate an early pregnancy before implantation. Thus, without prescriptions to regulate use, boys will expect women to use the pills even though they are not in their best interests (both health-, parenting-, and pregnancy-wise), and then girls will be faced with the prospect of taking MORE than the recommended dosage to increase the antinidatory effect of the pills, so they "don't end up puking their guts out for nothing and making their boyfriends mad". Plus, some girls will think, "If I end up getting pregnant anyway, my boyfriend will think I was too stupid and didn't take the pills. So, I better make sure they really work when I take them [by exceeding the recommended dosage established by prescription]."

Your other question involves natural family planning (NFP). NFP has gotten a bad rap because 1) the Catholic church only wants married couples to be taught, or couples in marriage preparation, and 2) feminists dread the preoccupation boys will have with their bodies. But, as the Alan Guttmacher Institute points out, even a simple counting version called the Standard Days Method can be 95% effective with normal use. Plus, no children are harmed, whether before or after implantation, contrary to other methods that claim to prevent 'pregnancy' but really kill babies between fertilization and implantation (like the copper IUD, the birth control pill, and the birth control pill's double-dose cousin, the morning-after pill). NFP can be augmented by monitoring temperature or cervical mucus, for example.

But feminists dread this and so they have misinformed the public about the effectiveness of the method. And the Catholic church has not challenged the misinformation because they do not want kids learning it either.

Why do feminists dread it so much? Consider the following scenario. Johnny the high school quarterback is in the back seat of the car with Susie the cheerleader. She says she is "not using anything" and "doesn't have anything". Johnny says he does not have any condoms, either. But rather than spoiling the moment by getting in the front seat and driving to 7-11 for condoms, Johnny asks Susie a simple question: When was the start of your most recent period? Johnny looks at his hands and starts counting on his fingers. Funny, Johnny never showed an interest in math before. He thinks the day sounds right. But to make sure, he asks to check Suzie's cervical mucus. Then he clicks his thumb and forefinger together a few times and declares, "Looks safe to me."

Even though the Standard Days Method is highly effective, feminists dread this scenario so much (they dread having boys preoccupied with women's bodies and their cycles for those sorts of reasons, meaning sex) that they do not want the public to be made aware. Consider two sets of regular condom users: one couple knows the Standard Days Method and the other does not. Since most couples lapse in condom use, let us see what happens between the two. The couple that also knows the Standard Days Method will be alerted to the fact that today of all days is not a good day to do it without a condom. But the other couple will just be playing roulette.

For information on the effectiveness of the Standard Days Method, check this publication of the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Unfortunately, it is mainly in an effort to teach the method in poor countries that attention for the method is now getting recognition. But here at home, women in feminist organizations simply dread the idea of the method being taught, and so the topic is ridiculed rather than taught at all, even as a back-up method. In contrast, feminists want to teach the morning-after pill as a back-up method, even though it is by far less effective.

Obviously, there is a lot of misinformation about sex and reproduction in this country. Since women insist on killing their children, and since American society goes along for the ride, the level of corruption and complacency affects the ability of our society to make basic healthful decisions concerning reproduction. The introduction of the morning-after pill, combined with the massive misinformation campaign supporting it, is compelling evidence of our inability to make basic healthful decisions as a nation concerning reproduction.

Says who? You. You're describing motivations and behaviours which have no basis in actual fact - you are making some huge assumptions here. And even if some people abuse a system, that does not in itself condemn the system - if it did, there would be no systems left at all!



So wait - now the feminists are in on the conspiracy? And the Catholic Church? Who are these feminists, and how did they decide to misinform people? What meetings did they attend? What secret contract did they sign?



Again, please cite who exactly these feminists are. Then you make up some bizarre scenario, and claim that these "feminists" are afraid of it... and then you ascribe to "feminists" their motivations, and what they are afraid of. As if you knew. As if "feminists" consist of some monolithic block of single-mindedness.



Yes - and obviously, here at America's Debate, most of that misinformation and paranoia is being spread by your unsubstantiated, paranoid arguments...

I think you have a skewed view of sexual relations between people who are not married.

First, whether or not a man and a woman have sex is a decision made by two parties, not just one. Second, both parties also decide to either accept or reject the risks of various birth control methods and protections from STD's.

I don't know what your experience was with women growing up but I can assure you that men do not hold all the cards as your examples seem to suggest. Women do not simply succumb to their passions and throw away better judgment because a man is too lazy to find a condom. The feminists you refer to in your post would probably take offense to your line of reasoning, that they are helpless to the will of men.



Again this example is not only ridiculous and completely unrealistic, but it also works against your arguement. I can speak from considerable personal experience that there are only two likely outcomes to this example: 1) The boyfriend grudgingly agrees to go get a condom at the store 2) The woman says no and johnny isn't getting any tonight.

You suggest that going to the store would "spoil the moment", but what you suggest is even worse. I have met very few women in my life, and none of them during my high school years, who would be comfortable talking to a man about their period so bluntly unless they were in a serious long term relationship or married. Furthermore, I don't know of any woman of high school age which would let you "check their cervical mucus" in the backseat of a car. If anything kills the mood it is that, not to mention that most women aren't comfortable with a man doing something like that and especially so at that age.

Sure this is coming from a man, but I would be willing to bet money that many of the women of America's debate could back me up provided they didn't consider the question too personal.

You are getting warmer, but you have not made the connection. The answer is that because women feel that way, they do not want boys learning about the method and then developing new expectations about things like that. American women dread the idea of boys learning about their cycles to monitor them for times of having sex. American women do not want the method popularized in this country, even if the method makes sense, particularly as a back-up plan. Alan Guttmacher Institute says the Standard Days Method is 95% effective. That effectiveness can contribute to a back-up plan on days when a couple is thinking about possibly neglecting condom use, for example. The simple counting method reflected by Standard Days can be supplemental by checking cervical mucus, for example. Although women in this country involved with politics will okay the method for poor women in other countries, it remains a taboo subject in ours and there is a definite inclination to douse any questions with laughter about "who would want to know how it really works anyway".

Do you see what kind of country you live in?

Here is a link that shows a picture of the necklace that is used to help people do the counting properly for the Standard Days Method. With a 95% effectiveness rate, the Standard Days Method is similar or better in terms of effectiveness to many other commonly used birth control options.

Now the morning-after pill is said to be indicated only as a back-up plan with highly limited effectiveness. (Although most people remain grossly misinformed about just how limited the effectiveness really is.) But the Standard Days Method can also be used as a back-up plan. If you are thinking about "risking it" without a condom for example, the simple counting method of the Standard Days Method can serve as a back-up plan to help you better evaluate your decision of whether to risk it or not. And by adding things like an examination of cervical mucus, the Standard Days Method can presumably be enhanced.

So why don't women's groups teach the Standard Days Method? True, the morning-after pill has retroactive application. But that does not change the fact that the Standard Days Method, as a back-up plan, is 95% effective, as opposed to the morning-after pill, which is only 62% (Preven) to 81% (Plan B ) effective, when compared using studies of ongoing use. Also, the Standard Days Method does not require chemicals or harm babies between fertilization and implantation.

So why don't women's groups teach the Standard Days Method? Why do they insist on misinforming the public that this kind of method is something to laugh at? Well, the answer is simple. You hit the nail on the head:



Politics may sound one way on tv, but in America girls are still girls. Our whole society has to work its way around it. This is why the public is misinformed about things like the morning-after pill and the Standard Days Method.

Well that is a perfectly paranoid conclusion...

Women do not discuss such things with boys because they are uncomfortable doing so, particularly during the teens and early twenties (as a generalization, there are of course exceptions). I would highly doubt that American women and the government have conspired to keep everyone in the dark about this amazing birth control method you are touting.

Everyone is more sexually active, but most people still don't "talk" about sex in a frank manner. This is especially true of people who are just starting to gain experience since they have all kinds of insecurities about their body.

75% effective...not bad when you are talking about post-coital, emergency contraception after another preventative method or lack thereof has failed.



You're comparing apples to oranges. NFP is a method of birth control. The morning-after-pill is intended for post-coital usage when other methods fail...for example, when the NFP method fails...

According to the FDA natural family planning methods are only 75% effective with typical use. When you compare this percentage with other forms of birth control, this is an extremely low success rate.

This method requires frequent monitoring of bodily functions and a predictable cycle. It is certainly a feasible option for some women, but it requires maturity and extreme dedication on the part of both the male and the female in a relationship.