Thursday, August 24, 2006
Victory!! And I Helped!
Well, the FDA just approved over-the-counter access to the "morning-after" pill! And I helped by writing and emailing my senators and congressmen/women! I feel so proud to have been part of that: women are now able to prevent pregnancy if something happens; like the condom breaks, or she is raped! How wonderful. Thank goodness for birth control.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
heh heh. It's really weird going from Kristi's blog to this one.
Yeah, it kinda is.
Yay! I helped too, and got creepy letters fom my congressmen in return. I mean the fact that I got a response at all was creepy, not the actual content of the letters. By the way I e-mailed you that thing you wanted so be on the look out for it.
Yay! I am really thinking of volunteering at some type of political rally or something if it ever comes up. And I got the email and sent it out already. I hope everyone else got it...
Dare I voice descent here?
The mention of rape I won't touch, because I find that a valid reason for the use of this medication.
However "If the condom breaks" seems a bit of a leap, as it suggests that kids having sex is okay, because now we have pills that can prevent it all the time. In case standard methods fail, so there's no more risk.
People shouldn't rely on a pill to guarantee avoiding pregnancy, because I doubt this pill has 100% accuracy.
The earlier you take it the more accurate it is...though I think the rate is at 78% accuracy after three days or something. And again, there is an age-limit, although how well that will be enforced I am not going to predict. As for if the condom breaks - well, that happens to adults too; and I have a feeling that women will be the one buying the pill. I'm not trying to be critical of teenage boys or young men, but I find it more likely that a guy would try to abuse this than a girl. Obviously not all guys, and obviously not all girls..but since women are the ones who take it, guys would have to force them to do that. I honestly think I have no point here..I will return when I am more fully awake. And at least the kids are using condoms at all. I don't think that having birth control available encourages kids to have sex. If they do, I want them to have all the options. Encouraging them to have safe sex if they have it at all. And since this is an emergency contraception, I think that the information given for it from the FDA and the pharmacist (cause I am thinking it will be locked away cause of the age-limit, like condoms and some other things are now, though not everywhere)can make sure people know that it doesn't replace condoms and other forms of birth control.
but I'm an idealist and anything which prevents an unplanned pregnancy I tend to be for..I understand your concern and Sara's cause we emailed back and forth on this subject.
It's hard for me to succintly describe my whole feelings on the subject within a small paragraph or two on a blog. I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, and all of them have options, variances, and none are exactly steadfast. It also would probably depend on what is the "age appropriate" for such a drug?
How I tend to view anything anymore is "how can someone abuse this?" and once I have that set, is it worth it?
You're right, albeit biased on that women would be making the decision on this, and men would force women to use it. (For the sake of arguement, We'll go with this assumption, although not all men are jackasses :) ).
So, once we have an age set, and we decide that the misuse of the pill is worth the rest of the people who would use it normally, it then boils down to moral choices.
I'm not one to really force my morals upon others, so I would agree to this little pill.
Incidentally, how long has "Plan B" been around? Have they done any long term studies on it? I just recall the heart medication that Merck brought out that had some pretty serious long term side affects, that they didn't catch because people wanted it to market sooner.
It has been on the market for about 5 years, but I haven't heard of any longterm studies on it.
My thoughts on the subject are obviously that I am in favor of this pill, if only so women have a hopefully less life-altering option than being faced with a pregnancy they don't want. And in a perfect world it would be used only if absolutely needed.
Unfortunately people will abuse it, because there always has to be someone to show the worst side of humanity. But I don't think the bad behavior of some should take away the option for everyone else (who would be in favor of using it).
hopefully less life-altering option than being faced with a pregnancy they don't want
I use this merely as a quote, and am not attempting to attack personally.
This comment seems to take responsibility out of sex. If you have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant. This is a fact. If someone doesn't want to get pregnant, why then do they simply "not have sex" Is that not an option?
Let me follow up:
I"m not entirely promoting abstience. After all, it wasn't for me. I hope it's for my kids though :)
That being said, I was aware of the ultimate point of sex, if faced with that eventuality, I would not go and say it was unwanted, or unplanned. After all, I was performing the very act that would produce it.
I'm a big stickler for what appears to be the disappearance of personal responsibility in this country, and do believe in owning up to your actions.
Yes, but you would actually stick to that responsibility. How many guys wouldn't? And where does that leave the women who would either have to have a child as a single mother, carry it to term and give it up for adoption (which in theory always sounds so wonderful, but still takes 9 months of sacrifice for a woman who doesn't want the kid) or have an abortion? And it's not really someone's fault if the condom breaks you know? I mean, you're trying to prevent pregnancy and stds and then whoops! And yes, abstinence is a good thing; but I don't think it's a cure-all. Oh, and I did look up some information: emergency contraception has been around for 30 years, available for ten years in Europe over the counter/through a pharmacist. There are so far no reported serious side effects: ie deaths or tumors or something, but there are the usual side effects from birth control: spotting, a later or earlier period, possible cramps, etc.
Okay, first, it's good to hear about the "no long term affects" at least physically for the woman.
Next point: Responsibility goes for both men and women.
Sure men can run away (present company excluded) from such a responsibility, or at least try. Courts tend to be harsh on dead beat dads anymore.
But you again seem to avoid saying it's a woman's reponsibility for getting pregnant, just as much as the man's. Maybe it's just a bit old fashioned of me to think that if you're willing to bump uglies, you better be willing to raise a child.
I just realized I said bump uglies while trying to make a point.
Never debate on an empty stomach -
I had thought about what's bugging me here, and I guess it may go back to a topic you and I discussed before. So, if allowed, let me sum up:
Here is some assumptions in my argument:
Sex is mutual
Consequences of sex are also mutual.
If BOTH the father and the mother decide to end the pregnancy, well I have nothing more to say on it, they both made their choice.
If one has a differing opinion, well many talks should go forward.
If the man leaves, well the decision becomes much easier since one no longer have to reach a consensus.
But to simply remove the father from the equation is, well, sexist.
Give the guy some credit before he's eliminated from the decision.
then why use birth control at all? why not just risk it by not using a condom or the pill or anything if you're willing to raise a child? If you're NOT, or aren't ready to, then that's why you use birth control, isn't it? I mean, yeah, it fails and all, but the point of birth control is to control a birth. And I think it's both parties' responsibility...but in the case of long-term relationships, etc. most of the birth control responsibility falls on the woman - because while a man might be willing to buy condoms, use them, etc. after awhile, it's easier to say, okay, we don't have to worry about STDs anymore, let's use the pill. And by let's, we mean, I (the woman). Therefore, preventing a pregnancy becomes her responsibility. And if you're willing to have/raise a child, why use birth control in the first place?
And yes, consequences of sex, if the sex is mutual (in a perfect world it is) are mutual...to a degree. And while I don't want to be sexist, and I admire all men willing and able to go the distance and be good fathers/partners to their pregnant partner..well, they may be willing, but biologically can NOT atually do the whole pregnant thing. SO unless the woman is prepared to make a huge sacrifice - and it could be extremely huge on her part: work, salary, health, etc. you're basically asking her to have a child she doesn't want just because the man is willing to assume the responsibility. And I don't think any woman should be forced, either through violence, or coercion, even gentle, loving coercion to go through 9 months and labor just for a baby she doesn't want but her man does. And I think that that is sort of what it comes down to.
I don't mean to remove the father, and of course, the decision should be made mutually...but in the end, who has to deal with the consequences, physically, mentally, etc. to the largest degree? The woman...it's not our fault! We didn't make it that way! And if we could have men share in the responsibility (which would probably make the world much more equal!) we would...or at least, I would. Imagine being able to trade off pregnancies?! But in the end it has to be what the woman is willing and able to do...the man can decide but can't force her...although in a good relationship, it may just be that she's scared and he has to reassure her that he's willing to assume the responsibility, etc...so yes, communication is good.
I agree that the woman is the one to deal with the majority of the pregancy. There's no two ways about it, that's how we're built. But you use that as a reason to ultimately rule out the man's decision is, again, sexist. To use the point again, It's not our fault we can't carry the kids.
And to force her to have a child would come into play with responsibility. They did the deed to create it. He wants it, she doesn't: Why then does his opinion become moot because genetics decide he's not the one to carry it nine months?
Course I'm being idealistic here as well. Becoming a father myself give you a very different perspective on things.
You say it isn't a man's fault that he can't carry kids, but it also isn't a woman's fault that she can.
And sure in an ideal world everyone should wait to have sex until they can deal with the consequences, but people don't. Some women (and men so as not to be sexist) may still want to have sex and not ever want to have children and this pill is way for her to prevent that without having to resort to abortion or going through with the pregnancy giving the child up, if the condom breaks.
And she (or he) may be able to face the consequences of her actions, but she/he just doesn't want to. It may be harsh but in a free society, people should still be allowed to make these kinds of choices.
Because it is a personal choice for everyone and some people will choose differently than you.
My question is, WHEN are the researchers and scientists going to create a MAN'S pill?? The equivalent to a womans, one they need to take daily, or a patch weekly....something to kill the swimmers? Have they tried, I don't know....I'm too busy to look it up at the moment. Does anyone know???sis
Post a Comment