The Morning After Pill (Plan B), Avalible To 17 Year Olds Now. Good Or Bad?

[Wrath`]

The morning after pill is used to prevent pregnancy post-sexual intercourse. It works by....

When you purchase Plan B, you get two pills. Each pill contains 0.75 milligrams of levonorgestrel. You take the first pill as soon as possible after unprotected sex, and you take the second pill 12 hours later.

Although scientists aren't completely sure how it works, they believe that levonorgestrel prevents pregnancy either by stopping the ovulation process or by disrupting the ability of sperm and egg to meet in the fallopian tubes. Some speculate that the drug may prevent the fertilized egg from implanting as well, perhaps by making the uterine lining less receptive to the egg.

* Levonorgestrel does this by disrupting the natural hormonal cycle. It contains a synthetic form of progesterone (regular birth-control pills contain it in lower doses). The high doses of progesterone in Plan B are disruptive enough to prevent fertilization or implantation.

If ovulation has already occurred, levonorgestrel will be less effective. It will be most effective if it's taken before ovulation. This is why it's important to take Plan B as soon as possible after unprotected sex. Once a fertilized egg implants, Plan B will have no effect. This explains why doctors advise women to take Plan B no later than 72 hours after unprotected sex -- the chances of it working are very low at that point.

From http://health.howstuffworks.com/morning-after.htm


This is potentially the first issue, depending on your thoughts and views on abortion. Is it life when it is first fertilized, or at a particular milestones in utero. (aka 12 weeks, 24 weeks, ect..)



The second issue is how irresponsible will some teenagers get?

It will be good for the couple that has a condom break or other contraceptive mishap, or the teenager who fell victim to date **** drugs at a party. There is however the opposite side of the spectrum, I am sure some teenagers will be all "Hey we can go unprotected as long as you take Plan B afterwards." This is were regulation will be needed. I say you can only get 2-3 proscriptions a year. I don't think the condom will break more than 3 times (unless your using wrong), and I hope to god no-one gets ***** more than 3 times a year.

I agree that it should be available for 17 year olds, especially if used correctly.

So what are your thoughts on

• Is this a form of abortion?
• Should it be regulated?
• Do you think this will lead to other worse things?
• Anything else

CNN gave me this idea, article located here.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/reuters/MTFH73964_2009-03-24_18-38-49_N23281030.htm

 

[Maniclysane]

Well, if it messes with the eggs or sperm, then no baby is really, actually being conceived. It should definitely be regulated, like all drugs should be.

It should definitely be legal, since birth has never really started. If it's banned because it's a form of abortion, people might as well ban condoms as well.

 

[SkylerOcon]

This is good. I have trouble finding freshman at my school who haven't had sex. All this about giving forms of birth control to teens being encouragement for sex is absolutely ridiculous -- they will have sex anyway. I am a teenager and I would have sex with my girlfriend/boyfriend, if the other felt that they wanted to.

It's absolutely ridiculous that some people expect teenagers not to have sex. Taking away options for birth control just makes more (usually) unwanted teen pregnancies.

 

[Narukari]

Well, if it messes with the eggs or sperm, then no baby is really, actually being conceived. It should definitely be regulated, like all drugs should be.

It should definitely be legal, since birth has never really started. If it's banned because it's a form of abortion, people might as well ban condoms as well.

The pill actually prevents a fertilized egg from proceeding into the later stages of pregnancy, and will be flushed out of the body during the girl's period.

As far as the pro life argument goes. Using the pill is considered abortion, because you are stopping the fertilized egg from being born.

I believe the pill should be available to anyone who needs it. Why should a pregnant 16 year old have to go through with the pregnancy while the 17 year old is allowed to use the pill.

 

[ArcPoint]

It's absolutely ridiculous that some people expect teenagers not to have sex.

It's ridiculous to expect someone not to do a pleasurable act that has possible consequences?

All this about giving forms of birth control to teens being encouragement for sex is absolutely ridiculous -- they will have sex anyway.

They're going to do it anyway? Think of babies as a consequence of having sex. Every time you had unprotected sex, you had a baby. Now, contraceptive X has a 100% chance of protecting you from having a baby. You have essentially removed the consequence of having sex (In this scenario). Are you going to tell me that people are going to do said act regardless of the consequences, and that removing these consequences is NOT going to increase the frequency of this act? What on earth?

Eliminate the consequences on overspending (Debt) : People are going to overspend anyway!
Eliminate the consequences of murder: People are going to murder anyway!
Eliminate the consequences of sex: They're going to do it anyway!

All I'm doing is challenging the claim that "they will do it anyway" I'm not arguing for or against contraceptives in general with the above.

-------

That said I don't consider these pills being available to 17 year-olds being a good or bad thing. I don't consider it abortion if it's preventing the union of the sperm and egg (Which condoms do). Does it need to be regulated? That's a little broad, are you referring to the regulation of use or the regulation of the drug itself?

 

[Narukari]

They're going to do it anyway? Think of babies as a consequence of having sex. Every time you had unprotected sex, you had a baby. Now, contraceptive X has a 100% chance of protecting you from having a baby. You have essentially removed the consequence of having sex (In this scenario). Are you going to tell me that people are going to do said act regardless of the consequences, and that removing these consequences is NOT going to increase the frequency of this act? What on earth?

Like in the condoms in school debate, rarely is the lack of protection a deterrent to teens having sex. They will just try other methods of protection. "Pulling out" is a famous example of protection teems try to use. You can't make them not have sex, you can only make safer sex more difficult to achieve.

Eliminate the consequences on overspending (Debt) : People are going to overspend anyway!
Eliminate the consequences of murder: People are going to murder anyway!
Eliminate the consequences of sex: They're going to do it anyway!

Nobody thinks we should remove the consequences of killing people. I don't see where that is a logical argument to having the pill available.

It does not eliminate the consequences, it reduces them. If a 17 year old girl still gets caught by her parents that she has been having sex, then she is still very likely to get into trouble with them. If the pill fails, then she still has to deal with the pregnancy.

Eliminating consequences is a good thing, your personal values that sex should be punished by having to raise a child shouldn't be forced upon everyone. If they can come up with ways to protect people from sexual diseases and unwanted pregnancy, they shouldn't be banned because some people want diseases and unwanted pregnancy to be forced upon other people that don't share their beliefs.

All I'm doing is challenging the claim that "they will do it anyway" I'm not arguing for or against contraceptives in general with the above.

"They will do it anyway" is the reason why we have sex education in high schools now. They tried teaching abstinence to everyone, and it didn't work. There was a much better responce from teaching teens about how to protect themselves from diseases, and how to avoid getting a girl pregnant.

That said I don't consider these pills being available to 17 year-olds being a good or bad thing. I don't consider it abortion if it's preventing the union of the sperm and egg (Which condoms do). Does it need to be regulated? That's a little broad, are you referring to the regulation of use or the regulation of the drug itself?

The pill doesn't prevent the union of the sperm and the egg.

In really simple terms, it makes the woman's body think that it never got pregnant, and lets her go through her period as usual. Except that the fertilized egg will be flushed out instead of an unfertilized egg.

 

[ArcPoint]

Like in the condoms in school debate, rarely is the lack of protection a deterrent to teens having sex. They will just try other methods of protection. "Pulling out" is a famous example of protection teems try to use. You can't make them not have sex, you can only make safer sex more difficult to achieve.

Trying other, ineffective methods is borderline stupidity, or misinformation. With these "methods" they THINK they are reducing the consequences, when they aren't. So they're still AWARE of the consequences, and wish to AVOID the consequences, however they think that other methods can reduce these consequences (Which sex ed classes are trying to eliminate these misconceptions).

Nobody thinks we should remove the consequences of killing people. I don't see where that is a logical argument to having the pill available.

I completely agree, good thing I was trying to argue the availability of the pill. Keep in mind the context of what this was countering - Skyler's statement that "they're going to do it anyway" and that by giving them it isn't encouraging sex. Which my point was that if the consequences are removed (in my scenario that I provided) that it will encourage it. I compared it to murder/overspending because obviously if you remove (or reduce as is the case with birth control) the consequences, it encourages that activity. I'm not saying anybody thinks we should remove the consequences of killing people, nor am I saying that these pills shouldn't be available. Please keep in mind the context which I'm posting in.

It does not eliminate the consequences, it reduces them. If a 17 year old girl still gets caught by her parents that she has been having sex, then she is still very likely to get into trouble with them. If the pill fails, then she still has to deal with the pregnancy.

I just gave an example with my little scenario. I am aware that it doesn't 100% remove the consequences, I was just operating within the boundaries of my scenario. Obviously there is parental punishment, as well as STDs to consider.

Eliminating consequences is a good thing, your personal values that sex should be punished by having to raise a child shouldn't be forced upon everyone. If they can come up with ways to protect people from sexual diseases and unwanted pregnancy, they shouldn't be banned because some people want diseases and unwanted pregnancy to be forced upon other people that don't share their beliefs.

My apologies, I was never aware I said that these pills should be unavailable to people because of my counter to Skyler's statement. Please show me where I said this O_O.

"They will do it anyway" is the reason why we have sex education in high schools now. They tried teaching abstinence to everyone, and it didn't work. There was a much better responce from teaching teens about how to protect themselves from diseases, and how to avoid getting a girl pregnant.

What were these responses? Less sex or less unwanted occurrences from it? Regardless, sex education should be just that - sex education, teaching people about it, the possible consequences of it, the possible courses of action to reduce consequences of it.

The pill doesn't prevent the union of the sperm and the egg.

In really simple terms, it makes the woman's body think that it never got pregnant, and lets her go through her period as usual. Except that the fertilized egg will be flushed out instead of an unfertilized egg.

Source? I was going by the OP's description of the drug. It was either it plays with the union of sperm and egg, or preventing the egg from implanting.

 

[Levitas]

Sex: worse than murder

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Teenagers will have sex. Just make the drug and all contraceptive available to them.

Denying this to them only makes having an unwanted child more probable.

 

[|RK|]

As absolutely disappointed I am that this is necessary, everyone who said that it's a good thing... I have to agree.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Why do you agree...?

 

[Crimson King]

Levitas, don't post if you aren't a temp debater.

 

[Narukari]

Source, to how the "morning after" pill works.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/morning-after.htm

Near the middle of the page it says that the pill will prevent pregnancy in one of three way. One of these ways is:

"It could prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus."