Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

As far as I'm concerned, if a woman uses all 5 of those options and still gets pregnant; have the baby, its Jesus.

That would be awesome...

At 2/5/11 11:54 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: The morning after pill can constitute abortion, depending on where the female is in her cycle.

The morning after pill prevents the egg from fertilizing by layering it with an impenetrable coating. The egg is not destroyed nor a fetus. You have to take the pill by 72 hours after having unprotected sex or it will be ineffective. How people can possibly constitute this as abortion is beyond me.

At 2/4/11 11:59 AM, Proteas wrote:
... huh?

If you're not having sex, there's no chance of getting pregnant. That's not a politically charged statement, that's common sense. The only way it would result in pregnancy 99.999% of the time is... oh... YOU'RE HAVING SEX. That's not NOT having sex, now is it?

If you want to make it through life without having sex, get murdered. Otherwise it's going to happen.

Do you actually know what a rape kit is? It's a retrieval kit used for DNA analysis. It doesn't prevent rape, it just helps to identify the attacker.

A rape kit includes the morning after pill, an sti/std test, and of course the DNA sampling.

... wait a minute. You know all this, yet you want to to complain and carry on about how birth control isn't that widely available? You can get condoms at every gas station, grocery store, and pharmacy you set foot in along with going to your local health department, where, women can also get shots and pills. So you're doing a dis-service to this forum by being intellectually dishonest, here.

Birth control is not strictly limited to condoms. Did you read the guy a couple posts up bitching about how expensive it is? Birth control isn't widely available and accessible. First you have to be 18 or have parents permission to get it. Then after you get a prescription you have to find a pharmacist that will sell it to you and is trustworthy, or your doctor will give you the shot, IUD, ring, etc. These things are not cheap and if an unplanned pregnancy wants to be avoided, a couple needs to use a condom and some other form of birth control.

You're also doing the forum a dis-service by ignoring something else; availability is not the problem, willingness is. Birth control is widely available, and it can be had for free, but it does no good if you are not willing to seek it out... which actually entails getting up off your ass and going out and getting it. And then, get this, you actually have to USE IT.

Birth control can be had for free?? I dont even think that there is an insurance company that will cover the cost of a perspired from of birth control 100%. Meanwhile every health insurance company in the book covers Viagra and all of that other shit. My ex was on the pill, we used condoms, and I would pull out every time. There would still be some times when we were worried and wanted to get the morning after pill, but she said no every time because of the cost (two pills for $50). Thankfully we were ok, but that kind of stress of not knowing eats away at you and if the morning after pill was $20 or so I would have said screw it I'm buying it.

And yeah, there's not a birth control out there that is 100% effective, but that's no excuse for not using it if you have it available to you. A 90-98% chance of not getting pregnant is still better than a 90-98% chance of getting pregnant.

Good, I'm glad that you feel strongly about that.

At 2/5/11 11:07 AM, Gustavos wrote:
The guys here would make great politicians. Their ability to avoid the topic at hand is rivaled only by their idea that supporting abortion is the "right" thing to do.

If you want to ramble on about abortion I'm sure that there is already another thread just for that purpose.

But to avoid unwanted moronancy, I'll just say right here that both I, and my catholic-conservative family, support the use of abortions even if the kid doesn't have a decent excuse. And if you ask me, I don't think a woman should legally be able to have a kid until age 18. But that would just be one of my assholic views.

People should realize that these mass pregnancies from younger and younger mothers isn't just from daterape and other terrible means. It's just that they didn't take the precautions and neither did their partner. And it's not because they "forgot" or anything that stupid. If they're so heavily under the influence of drugs and alcohol that they forgot about what sex can lead too, than they're probably to far under the influence to figure out which body part goes where. So I'm going to be "edgy" too and say this:

How can this be solved? If your daughter is a fucking retarded slut, at least put her on the pill and have condoms available for her so when she does sneak out of the house and get drunk, her chance of getting pregnant falls significantly.

Many unwanted pregnancies come from consensualsex.

I agree with that statement 100%, and change the word "many" to "mostly all".

At 2/5/11 10:14 PM, Saen wrote: If you want to make it through life without having sex, get murdered. Otherwise it's going to happen.

Too bad that's non-sequitor to his argument. It's also not really true, as there ARE people physically and/or mentally incapable of having teh sex. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, you sure haven't thus far!

A rape kit includes the morning after pill, an sti/std test, and of course the DNA sampling.

Ok...but it still doesn't prevent the attack. Which, again, is what Proteas said...

Birth control is not strictly limited to condoms.

No, but it is the most COMMON and EASILY AVAILABLE FORM. It is a form of birth control, thus it's availability and effectiveness are topics that can and should be discussed here.

Did you read the guy a couple posts up bitching about how expensive it is? Birth control isn't widely available and accessible.

Now you're just being dense. That or it's the "oh no, I don't want to discuss things that I hadn't thought of, so let me act like they don't actually matter" syndrome in effect.

First you have to be 18 or have parents permission to get it.

Condoms? I don't think so. I think you mean the pill and you're being dishonest by not distinguishing. I work retail son, and they train us repeatedly and routinely on what we can't sell to minors, condoms don't come up.

Then after you get a prescription you have to find a pharmacist that will sell it to you and is trustworthy, or your doctor will give you the shot, IUD, ring, etc.

This is only addressing the pill and similar prescription contraceptives. You're ignoring the more widely available forms. Oh right, because those don't support your argument! Like I say, why let pesky facts get in the way of your good story and faulty theorizing?

These things are not cheap and if an unplanned pregnancy wants to be avoided, a couple needs to use a condom and some other form of birth control.

Which those are widely available. Hell, you pushed "doubling up" so why not double up on the "cheaper" options? Also everybody seems to be ignoring another obvious factor as to why people avoid using birth control (no, I'm not going to do your work for you and point it out. If you don't know it, then you aren't equipped to have this discussion).

Birth control can be had for free?? I dont even think that there is an insurance company that will cover the cost of a perspired from of birth control 100%.

So in short, you're arguing from ignorance right now. Bully for you.

Meanwhile every health insurance company in the book covers Viagra and all of that other shit. My ex was on the pill, we used condoms, and I would pull out every time. There would still be some times when we were worried and wanted to get the morning after pill, but she said no every time because of the cost (two pills for $50). Thankfully we were ok, but that kind of stress of not knowing eats away at you and if the morning after pill was $20 or so I would have said screw it I'm buying it.

I know a way to avoid that stress, and it's 100% effective. Want to know the secret? Abstinence, DON'T FUCK! Because if you do, no matter how much contraception your using, you are engaging in an activity that has pregnancy as a potential outcome. If you dread that outcome as much as you're saying, why then don't you just choose not have intercourse? Why not simply engage in sexual activity that doesn't involve pregnancy as a risk? (It exists, don't prove you are a total idiot by trying to counter with "no such thing")

At 2/5/11 09:52 PM, Saen wrote: The morning after pill prevents the egg from fertilizing by layering it with an impenetrable coating.

Uhhh... since when?

At 2/5/11 09:52 PM, Saen wrote: The morning after pill prevents the egg from fertilizing by layering it with an impenetrable coating. The egg is not destroyed nor a fetus. You have to take the pill by 72 hours after having unprotected sex or it will be ineffective. How people can possibly constitute this as abortion is beyond me.

Sigh, that's not how the pill works. The pill prevents the fertilized egg from implanting.

Even the pill ads say that it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Once again, your are ignorant of what you are talking about.

At 2/3/11 08:12 PM, Saen wrote:

At 2/3/11 07:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
So rape kits get rid of babies? Or, abortion is ok in this situation? Which is it?

If you got raped It would be best to go to the police and receive a rape kit!

Rape kits acquire evidence, they do nothing if the woman is pregnant.

Ergo, abortion is still a valid possibility in this situation.

What if the woman is just dumb and doesn't use birth control?

What about the right to determine my own future based on my own morality rather than someone else's imposed ethics and, in many cases, about decisisions and sitatuions they never had to make?

Compared to the cost of a child an abortion is cheap. Some people can't afford children (and don't tell me that the state will support your child. It wont) . Some people work in buisnesses that don't allow people to be pregnant or a parent. Some people can't physicaly or mentaly deal with pregnancy. Some of the people we are talking about are rape victims or are involved in the sex industry.

So why are people still big into this idea of blanket legislation to deal with the infinite variety of special sitatuions that can arise?

It is simply stupid to think that anything will stop abortions from happening. That's like saying you have an awesome idea for ending murder forever.

At 2/3/11 07:40 PM, Saen wrote:

-Abstinence. ~0.001% effective :'(

i must be one lucky son of a bitch. I've practiced abstinence my entire life and no woman has become pregnant with my child.

thank you lord for protecting me as i practice this apparently horribly unsafe practice of not having sex. thank you for protecting me by me not impregnating any women by not having sex with them.

seriously though, abstinence is 100% effective if you have the discipline to not whip it out or spread your legs every time you get a chance.

At 2/6/11 07:55 PM, Korriken wrote: seriously though, abstinence is 100% effective if you have the discipline to not whip it out or spread your legs every time you get a chance.

By discipline don't you mean lonliness and an uncanny ability to strike out with the other sex?

At 2/5/11 10:14 PM, Saen wrote: If you want to make it through life without having sex, get murdered. Otherwise it's going to happen.

Sex is not the be-all-end-all of life, dude, you can live without it. I have, mainly because I can't afford the risk of having a kid, and I'm afraid of producing somebody crazier than myself..

or as stupid as you.

A rape kit includes the morning after pill, an sti/std test, and of course the DNA sampling.

In what country?

Birth control isn't widely available and accessible.

Not as far as the pill, shots, or the ring are considered, no. But things like condoms (as I previously mentioned and illustrated) are, thereby poking a very inconvenient hole in the little game of semantics your playing with your argument. And it will never be available for kids under the age of 18, because that's tied into age of consent laws, so quit bitching and dream on.

Here's the thing I've never understood; if sex is such a "natural" act that we shouldn't be ashamed of, why should a kid be scared to go to their parents and ask for contraception, hm?

Australia allows abortion in some states. But we have a Catholic opposition. Every time they denounce abortion, guess who does it? Catholics and fundamental Christians. (I'm a Catholic myself)

If we are going off of SCIENCE and not RELIGION, generally speaking, no one gives a fuck about abortion.
Late term abortions are not allowed, which is good.
But, if a woman/girl finds out she is pregnant, she has the right to abort it.
PERIOD.
There is no "but" to this argument. You're not the one having a baby.
Do I think there should be a limit to the amount of abortions one person can have? Probably. To abuse a system like that is pretty cold and reckless. And unhealthy as well.

In my opinion, a person isn't a person until they are out of the womb.

Plus, the world is already over populated, i'm not too worried about a few aborted children.

Well technically, abstinence is 100% effective. If you don't have sex you can't have kids.
'Pulling out', however, is less effective.

Abstinence worked for me I stayed a virgin until I was married but then again I'm not a weak-willed pussy (so to speak) when it comes to the pink unlike most other guys.

At 2/6/11 12:42 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Too bad that's non-sequitor to his argument. It's also not really true, as there ARE people physically and/or mentally incapable of having teh sex. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, you sure haven't thus far!

Abstinence is entirely related to this argument, because surprisingly people actually consider it a form of birth control. Yes, of course their are physically or mentally handicapped people incapable of having sex. Now answer this question for me. Are people incapable of having sex at risk of becoming pregnant or impregnating someone? No, bringing up the sexually incapable persons was the non-sequitor part of this argument.

Ok...but it still doesn't prevent the attack. Which, again, is what Proteas said...

If you want to talk about rape, how it can be prevented, and the mental side effects find/create another thread. Throwing birth control at your attacker will likely fail to shoo him away, you both are absolutely correct.

No, but it is the most COMMON and EASILY AVAILABLE FORM. It is a form of birth control, thus it's availability and effectiveness are topics that can and should be discussed here.

Of course, but the idea is a couple shouldn't limit themselves to condoms in order to prevent a pregnancy.

Now you're just being dense. That or it's the "oh no, I don't want to discuss things that I hadn't thought of, so let me act like they don't actually matter" syndrome in effect.

Ok.

Condoms? I don't think so. I think you mean the pill and you're being dishonest by not distinguishing. I work retail son, and they train us repeatedly and routinely on what we can't sell to minors, condoms don't come up.

Once again..birth control isn't limited to condoms. I believe the age-restriction on condoms may be 16, but it most likely varies from state to state. As a cashier at Publix, if I scanned any item that had an age-restriction of 18+ and required photo I.D., I had to check the person's driver's license and enter the birth date into the computer. So yes, it must vary by state.

This is only addressing the pill and similar prescription contraceptives. You're ignoring the more widely available forms. Oh right, because those don't support your argument! Like I say, why let pesky facts get in the way of your good story and faulty theorizing?

I'm not developing an argument against condoms or any form of birth control (excluding abstinence). Condoms, spermicide, and the morning after pill are the only forms of birth control that don't require a prescription. I'm far from ignoring those. My argument is that if a couple uses the 5 methods of birth control I listed, then the chance of contraception is reduced ultimately to 0%. This is far from theory, but it seems so outlandish, because very few people use more than two forms of birth-control at a time.

Which those are widely available. Hell, you pushed "doubling up" so why not double up on the "cheaper" options? Also everybody seems to be ignoring another obvious factor as to why people avoid using birth control (no, I'm not going to do your work for you and point it out. If you don't know it, then you aren't equipped to have this discussion).

Yes, you may double up on condoms and spermicide and yes doing that will be cheaper, but it that going to make it 100% effective in preventing pregnancy? No, of course not.

So in short, you're arguing from ignorance right now. Bully for you.

I'm not looking through every health insurances' finely printed clauses and exceptions. Show me one health insurance company that covers the cost of birth control (pills, shots, IUD, etc.) 100% and I will suck the dingle-berries clean off your thick, black ass hairs.

I know a way to avoid that stress, and it's 100% effective. Want to know the secret? Abstinence, DON'T FUCK! Because if you do, no matter how much contraception your using, you are engaging in an activity that has pregnancy as a potential outcome. If you dread that outcome as much as you're saying, why then don't you just choose not have intercourse? Why not simply engage in sexual activity that doesn't involve pregnancy as a risk? (It exists, don't prove you are a total idiot by trying to counter with "no such thing")

As for me and most hormonally charged teenagers, the opportunity to have sex outweighs the future consequences. If given the opportunity to have honest, loving, and passionate sex with his partner, nearly every guy would gladly do so. The problem is when a couple finally reaches that point very few are prepared. I bought condoms and spermicide long before I even knew the first girl I had sex with. I didn't buy them expecting to have sex, but to be prepared for it. Oral sex was the first thing to happen of course, but oral sex very frequently progresses into pussy loving and we were both prepared when that time came.

Long story short, I even though we were using condoms, she was on the pill, and I always pulled out, I still worried that it wasn't enough, because I was educated. I urged her to get an IUD as well, but she didn't think it was necessary. Many of her friends didn't even use condoms nor were they on birth control, the guys just pulled out, and they weren't worried at all. That's how the stage is set for a teenage girl to get pregnant.

This brings up another issue. Nearly all forms of birth control are only for women. Currently, there isn't a pill a guy can take in order to prevent pregnancy or a shot. All we have are condoms; yes they are cheap and easy to get, but they don't provide enough protection against a pregnancy. I'm sure they are methods being researched for us right now and may already be available in Denmark or the Netherlands.

At 2/6/11 06:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
Sigh, that's not how the pill works. The pill prevents the fertilized egg from implanting.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_
it_take_sperm_to_reach_an_egg

Now if the pill is only effective ~72 after intercourse was first taken place, and it takes ~7 days for the sperm to reach and fertilize the egg, how is the morning after pill preventing the egg from implanting into the uterus? Like I said, the morning after pill prevents the egg from becoming fertilized. End of discussion.

At 2/6/11 06:22 AM, The-universe wrote:
Rape kits acquire evidence, they do nothing if the woman is pregnant.

Ergo, abortion is still a valid possibility in this situation.

Depending on the time the woman was raped a morning after pill will be offered along with the rape kit to the victim free of charge. If the woman get raped and 30 days later comes back to report it and receive a rape kit, then yes pregnancy is a possibility along with abortion. However, if she was on the pill (or shot, etc.) and has a copper IUD, her chance of becoming pregnant will be extremely slim.

At 2/6/11 07:14 PM, Yorik wrote: It is simply stupid to think that anything will stop abortions from happening. That's like saying you have an awesome idea for ending murder forever.

If we want to reduce the number of abortions, we should focus on making all forms of birth control cheaper and easier to access. Along with this, we need to invest in research that will advance the effectiveness and safety of birth control. In 100 years abortion will most likely not be practiced, because superior (and hopefully less controversial) forms of last resort birth control will be available.

At 2/7/11 12:00 AM, Proteas wrote:
Sex is not the be-all-end-all of life, dude, you can live without it. I have, mainly because I can't afford the risk of having a kid, and I'm afraid of producing somebody crazier than myself..

or as stupid as you.

You're right, it isn't. Then it would be reasonable to say that if and when you decide to have sex you will properly protect yourself and make sure that your partner is as well.

In what country?

Because of the existence of women pretending to have been raped in order "to have pregnancy tests or the morning after pill administered", the fact the morning after pills are offered free along with rape kits is valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_kit

Please stop baaing like every other sheep here and use some of your own common sense.

Not as far as the pill, shots, or the ring are considered, no. But things like condoms (as I previously mentioned and illustrated) are, thereby poking a very inconvenient hole in the little game of semantics your playing with your argument. And it will never be available for kids under the age of 18, because that's tied into age of consent laws, so quit bitching and dream on.

It's legal for teenagers 16-17 to have sex with a 20-24 year old (it varies per state, in Florida it is 24), but those teenagers are not allowed access to birth control without parental consent, under the age of 18. That is what doesn't make sense. We can vote to lower the age-restriction for birth control to 16 or make it illegal in every state for a 16 year old to have sex with an 18+ year old. Which sounds more reasonable and productive?

Here's the thing I've never understood; if sex is such a "natural" act that we shouldn't be ashamed of, why should a kid be scared to go to their parents and ask for contraception, hm?

If be kid you mean teenager I fully agree with you.

At 2/7/11 12:09 PM, Saen wrote: Abstinence is entirely related to this argument, because surprisingly people actually consider it a form of birth control.

Yeah, because the only 100% effective way to ensure you never have children is to not have sex. There is no device, method, or medicine that you can use that will esnure a 100% chance of NOT having kids short of a very expensive castration, and generally that kills any interest in sex.

Of course, but the idea is a couple shouldn't limit themselves to condoms in order to prevent a pregnancy.

If you're to broke to buy condoms, YOU SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING, mmkay? This isn't about "options," this is about common sense.

Once again..birth control isn't limited to condoms. I believe the age-restriction on condoms may be 16, but it most likely varies from state to state. As a cashier at Publix, if I scanned any item that had an age-restriction of 18+ and required photo I.D., I had to check the person's driver's license and enter the birth date into the computer. So yes, it must vary by state.

What planet are you from? Seriously, I want to know. I've bought condoms at Wal-Mart and I live in the BIBLE BELT, they don't so much as bat an eye or even pop up on the little checkout screen to ask for an ID. And on top of that, when I search for "condom laws USA" on google, I get JACK SHIT.

My argument is that if a couple uses the 5 methods of birth control I listed, then the chance of contraception is reduced ultimately to 0%.

First this...

Yes, you may double up on condoms and spermicide and yes doing that will be cheaper, but it that going to make it 100% effective in preventing pregnancy? No, of course not.

Then this glorious little gem.

You must really think we're stupid, huh?

I'm not looking through every health insurances' finely printed clauses and exceptions. Show me one health insurance company that covers the cost of birth control (pills, shots, IUD, etc.) 100% and I will suck the dingle-berries clean off your thick, black ass hairs.

I'd be careful how you word that, because under Obamacare, you just might have to pucker up.

I'm sure they are methods being researched for us right now and may already be available in Denmark or the Netherlands.

... you do realize that this website is based in the United States, right? And that most of the people you're talking to live in the United States?

At 2/7/11 12:51 PM, Saen wrote: You're right, it isn't. Then it would be reasonable to say that if and when you decide to have sex you will properly protect yourself and make sure that your partner is as well.

I might be a necrophiliac, that thought ever cross your mind?

I mean, so long as we're making statements you really can't debate against, I'm gonna have fun with it.

Because of the existence of women pretending to have been raped in order "to have pregnancy tests or the morning after pill administered", the fact the morning after pills are offered free along with rape kits is valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_kit

Please stop baaing like every other sheep here and use some of your own common sense.

How about you read your own link before posting it, and take note of how there's not a word anywhere on that page about a morning after pill? I looked at that page before I posted asking you "in what country," you know, did my research before I posted. You should try it sometime.

It's legal for teenagers 16-17 to have sex with a 20-24 year old (it varies per state, in Florida it is 24), but those teenagers are not allowed access to birth control without parental consent, under the age of 18. That is what doesn't make sense.

No, it doesn't make any sense. Mainly because you fucked up again, the law states it's 23. If you're 24 and have sex with a minor between the ages of 16 and 17, you're a felon (click).

All joking aside... I really question you as an individual for condoning an adult to have consensual sex with a minor, and you're only qualm with it being wether or not they have access to contraception.

We can vote to lower the age-restriction for birth control to 16 or make it illegal in every state for a 16 year old to have sex with an 18+ year old. Which sounds more reasonable and productive?

False Dilemma, you're ignoring the fact that any child under the age of 18 can go to their parents and get birth control. Why? Because yet again, it doesn't fit with what you're arguing. You're arguing that teenagers should be treated as adults under the eyes of the law because it would be most beneficial to YOU, amiright?

A word to the wise; If you want to opine on stuff without people responding to it, this isn't the place for you.

At 2/7/11 04:16 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/7/11 12:09 PM, Saen wrote: Abstinence is entirely related to this argument, because surprisingly people actually consider it a form of birth control.

Yeah, because the only 100% effective way to ensure you never have children is to not have sex. There is no device, method, or medicine that you can use that will esnure a 100% chance of NOT having kids short of a very expensive castration, and generally that kills any interest in sex.

If a woman has a successful tubal ligation, there is no possible way that she will become pregnant due to intercourse, 100% effective. If a man has a successful vasectomy, there is no possible way that he can impregnate a woman, 100% effective. I don't think either of these procedures kills the interest in sex, they are preformed so a couple may continue enjoying sex without having to ever worry about conceiving. Take the stick out of your ass and change your tampon please.

Of course, but the idea is a couple shouldn't limit themselves to condoms in order to prevent a pregnancy.

If you're to broke to buy condoms, YOU SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING, mmkay? This isn't about "options," this is about common sense.

The point I was making clearly went well over your head. It is impossible to be too broke to buy condoms, just find a Planned Parent hood in your neighborhood and take what you need there. Now back to my point, a couple that can afford additional methods of birth control shouldn't limit themselves to just using condoms to prevent pregnancy. Is that simple enough for you to understand or do we need to wait until your cycle is over?

Once again..birth control isn't limited to condoms. I believe the age-restriction on condoms may be 16, but it most likely varies from state to state. As a cashier at Publix, if I scanned any item that had an age-restriction of 18+ and required photo I.D., I had to check the person's driver's license and enter the birth date into the computer. So yes, it must vary by state.

What planet are you from? Seriously, I want to know. I've bought condoms at Wal-Mart and I live in the BIBLE BELT, they don't so much as bat an eye or even pop up on the little checkout screen to ask for an ID. And on top of that, when I search for "condom laws USA" on google, I get JACK SHIT.

Just goes to show that everything isn't found on the internet. I live in Florida and cashiers will card you for buying condoms if they think you're under 18.

My argument is that if a couple uses the 5 methods of birth control I listed, then the chance of contraception is reduced ultimately to 0%.

First this...

Yes, you may double up on condoms and spermicide and yes doing that will be cheaper, but it that going to make it 100% effective in preventing pregnancy? No, of course not.

Then this glorious little gem.

You must really think we're stupid, huh?

5 METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL DOES NOT EQUAL 2. 100% effect birth control doesn't mean doubling up on two methods, but using the maximum of 5. No, you clearly stand out as retarded.

I'd be careful how you word that, because under Obamacare, you just might have to pucker up.

And I will gladly eat every single lump if the health care bill holds its ground.

I'm sure they are methods being researched for us right now and may already be available in Denmark or the Netherlands.

... you do realize that this website is based in the United States, right? And that most of the people you're talking to live in the United States?

My point was that birth control research, availability, and variety is at its highest in those two countries.

At 2/7/11 12:51 PM, Saen wrote:

How about you read your own link before posting it, and take note of how there's not a word anywhere on that page about a morning after pill? I looked at that page before I posted asking you "in what country," you know, did my research before I posted. You should try it sometime.

Here is the whole article.

"The Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program was established in 2000 at Howard University Hospital in order to address this concerns, after a decade of attempts by Denise Snyder, executive director of the D.C. Rape Crisis Center (DCRCC), to find a major hospital willing to host the program, most of whom either cited economic concerns or declined to respond to her inquiries. After Howard adopted the program, victims encountered the problem of requiring police authorization before receiving a rape examination, which is attributed by Snyder to the desire to maintain low crime rates on the part of law enforcement agencies, which the Washington Paper depicted as unsympathetic to the plight of the rape victims profiled in their report. Detective Vincent Spriggs, of D.C.'s Sexual Assault Unit, cites instances of false or unconvincing rape accusations, and requests for rape kits by woman who wish to have pregnancy tests or the MORNING AFTER PILL administered, as an obstacle to more open use of the kits. In 2008, Howard University canceled the SANE program, after which it reopened under the supervision of the mayor's office.[6]"

I know I can't tell you to quit being a dumb ass and in return gain any ounce of intelligence, but I can inform you that you have no understanding of what reading is.

It's legal for teenagers 16-17 to have sex with a 20-24 year old (it varies per state, in Florida it is 24), but those teenagers are not allowed access to birth control without parental consent, under the age of 18. That is what doesn't make sense.

No, it doesn't make any sense. Mainly because you fucked up again, the law states it's 23. If you're 24 and have sex with a minor between the ages of 16 and 17, you're a felon (click).

I mixed up 24 with being the limiting age with the illegal age. I was wrong by one year, but I'm standing by what I presented. Because a 16 a sixteen year old may legally have sex with a 23 year old, it follows that she should be able to purchase birth control without parental consent.

We can vote to lower the age-restriction for birth control to 16 or make it illegal in every state for a 16 year old to have sex with an 18+ year old. Which sounds more reasonable and productive?

False Dilemma, you're ignoring the fact that any child under the age of 18 can go to their parents and get birth control. Why? Because yet again, it doesn't fit with what you're arguing. You're arguing that teenagers should be treated as adults under the eyes of the law because it would be most beneficial to YOU, amiright?

Am I ignoring that fact, am I arguing that teenagers should be treated as adults under the eyes of the law(I laughed HARD when I read this conclusion of yours)? Read what I originally said, oh thats right, never mind.

A word to the wise; If you want to opine on stuff without people responding to it, this isn't the place for you.

I enjoy responding to anything anyone has to say. Did you just read my last four posts in a row? Oh wait I'm sorry I forgot about your incapability, excuse me.

At 2/7/11 04:16 PM, Proteas wrote: Yeah, because the only 100% effective way to ensure you never have children is to not have sex. There is no device, method, or medicine that you can use that will esnure a 100% chance of NOT having kids short of a very expensive castration, and generally that kills any interest in sex.

It's 100% effective, but it is extremely hard to achieve. When abstinence is the only option it tends to fail catastrophically.

If you're to broke to buy condoms, YOU SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING, mmkay? This isn't about "options," this is about common sense.

If only there were that much sense at the end of an erect penis...

All joking aside... I really question you as an individual for condoning an adult to have consensual sex with a minor, and you're only qualm with it being wether or not they have access to contraception.

Whiff! The point was clearly saying that it is A-OK for a vast range of adolescents to go to town on each other, but those same people are generally stopped at the door when it comes to attempting to protect their legally sanctioned hedonism.

False Dilemma, you're ignoring the fact that any child under the age of 18 can go to their parents and get birth control. Why? Because yet again, it doesn't fit with what you're arguing. You're arguing that teenagers should be treated as adults under the eyes of the law because it would be most beneficial to YOU, amiright?

Ah yes. Solve this issue by opening up an even bigger one. Perhaps forcing the young'ns to bring their parents along to buy them contraceptives is not the best way to protect them. I would venture to guess that especially in the communities where the stores are vehement about not giving to minors the parents do not know of their kids' sexual activity. When you restrict access only to those kids who get it with their parents you are forcing an already clandestine act, adolscent sex to by its very nature run and hide from contraceptives. For many of these kids it would be easier to be abstinent than to tell their parents about their sex, and we have seen how well their attempts to be abstinent work out.

At 2/7/11 07:08 PM, Saen wrote: Take the stick out of your ass and change your tampon please.

Tubal Ligations and Vasectomies can both fail, ergo, they are not 100% foolproof ways to prevent pregnancy. In fact, here's a comparison table showing you ACTUAL RESEARCH (not numbers people pulled out of their ass) for you to look at. Enjoy.

Now back to my point, a couple that can afford additional methods of birth control shouldn't limit themselves to just using condoms to prevent pregnancy.

You're right. If they're afraid of getting pregnant, they PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING. The only 100% effective way to prevent unwanted births is to NOT FUCK, get it? There is no way to reduce the chance of error in all this to zero even if you use multiple forms of birth control, you said so yourself.

Just goes to show that everything isn't found on the internet.

You can, however, find written state laws online. And since I could find none, I'm going to ask you, in all your infinite wisdom, to find me the codified state law of Florida regarding condom sales to minors.

Good luck.

I live in Florida and cashiers will card you for buying condoms if they think you're under 18.

Sounds more like a company policy than a state law, then. In which case, you work for a bunch of lying assholes, and you're a moron for enforcing the policy in spite of your rhetoric.

My point was that birth control research, availability, and variety is at its highest in those two countries.

But not here in the united states. Where you live. So... what's the point of even bringing it up?

Here is the whole article.

Here's the part that matters.

Detective Vincent Spriggs, of D.C.'s Sexual Assault Unit, cites instances of false or unconvincing rape accusations, and requests for rape kits by woman who wish to have pregnancy tests or the MORNING AFTER PILL administered, as an obstacle to more open use of the kits.

Let me break it down for you; the DC Sexual Assault Unit stopped giving out rape kits like it used to because women were coming in after them thinking they could get pregnancy tests or the morning after pill. People too lazy to go the health department fucked up a good system for real rape victims. Nowhere in that article does it say that the morning after pill is a part of a standard rape kit, and nowhere in that article does it say it was EVER a part of the a standard rape kit.

You can flame me for making mistakes when reading posts from now until the end of time, I don't particularly care. At the end of the day, you fucked up BIG TIME when it comes to getting your facts straight.

Because a 16 a sixteen year old may legally have sex with a 23 year old, it follows that she should be able to purchase birth control without parental consent.

Sure, because what 16 year old would ever want to go to their parents and admit they're having sex with somebody 23 years old?

Am I ignoring that fact, am I arguing that teenagers should be treated as adults under the eyes of the law(I laughed HARD when I read this conclusion of yours)?

So how hot is this 16 year old you're having sex with?

At 2/7/11 07:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's 100% effective, but it is extremely hard to achieve. When abstinence is the only option it tends to fail catastrophically.

This guy is worried about a 100% effective form of birth control. There is none. You know it, I know it, he knows it, we all know it. If he's worried about having kids, the only way to not have kids is to not have sex. End of story.

If you can't keep it in you're pants, you should be fully prepared to reap the seeds you sew.

I would venture to guess that especially in the communities where the stores are vehement about not giving to minors the parents do not know of their kids' sexual activity. When you restrict access only to those kids who get it with their parents you are forcing an already clandestine act, adolscent sex to by its very nature run and hide from contraceptives.

... you guys just don't get it, do you?

*sigh*

If a teen has to go to their parent for birth control, this forces the parent to get involved in their teen's sex life. They will be forced to talk openly about sex and birth control with their teen. The parents will actually have to parent their teen.

Also; just because it's the law, doesn't make it morally acceptable. What exactly is a 23 year old doing hanging around with teenagers? A college student hanging out with a high-school student? You think that might be some info a parent might want to know about?

At 2/7/11 09:39 PM, Proteas wrote: This guy is worried about a 100% effective form of birth control. There is none. You know it, I know it, he knows it, we all know it. If he's worried about having kids, the only way to not have kids is to not have sex. End of story.

True. However I don't believe abstinence to be the only goal of teaching here. Abstinence will only work for a few people. For the rest of the people who are susceptible to their body's strong urges, something else must be there.

If you can't keep it in you're pants, you should be fully prepared to reap the seeds you sew.

Very true. This is exactly what I am going to teach my kid.

If a teen has to go to their parent for birth control, this forces the parent to get involved in their teen's sex life. They will be forced to talk openly about sex and birth control with their teen. The parents will actually have to parent their teen.

The problem here is NOT with kids who talk to their parents OR with parent who don't know what their kids are doing 100% of the time. I can guarantee you that BOTH of these situations are the minority when it comes to kids who are, or are in positions to be, sexually active. The problem is the massive stigma attached to adolescent sex creates a situation where the vast majority of these kids will NEVER talk to their parents. These kids will not have access to contraceptives because they are not willing to face the trouble of their parents and the rule requiring adult permissions essentially stonewalls any attempt for them to get their own contraceptives.

Also; just because it's the law, doesn't make it morally acceptable. What exactly is a 23 year old doing hanging around with teenagers? A college student hanging out with a high-school student? You think that might be some info a parent might want to know about?

I have no disagreement here. There is problems on both ends of a 23-16 relationshjip. However, I don't care. This was never a part of my point. My point was that the law acts in a manner as to encourage underage sex while then immediately barring the tools neccesary to practice it safely.

At 2/7/11 08:21 PM, Proteas wrote:
Tubal Ligations and Vasectomies can both fail, ergo, they are not 100% foolproof ways to prevent pregnancy. In fact, here's a comparison table showing you ACTUAL RESEARCH (not numbers people pulled out of their ass) for you to look at. Enjoy.

Thats exactly why I mentioned a SUCCESSFUL tubal ligation. When a vasectomy or tubal ligation is successfully preformed, pregnancy is not possible. 100% effective, period. Abstinence is not the only way to totally avoid pregnancy, you must be squeezing the shit out your dick with that bible of yours if you truly believe that.

You're right. If they're afraid of getting pregnant, they PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING. The only 100% effective way to prevent unwanted births is to NOT FUCK, get it? There is no way to reduce the chance of error in all this to zero even if you use multiple forms of birth control, you said so yourself.

Nope, that's not what I said at all, but it doesn't surprise me that you interpreted it that way. If a couple uses a condom, spermicide, hormonal birth control, copper IUD, and the morning after pill when necessary, the woman will not get pregnant I absolutely guarantee you. The condom prevents sperm from entering into the vagina. If that fails the sperm will be killed by the spermicide instantly. If all of the sperm don't die then the hormonal birth control tricks the woman's body into thinking its already pregnant. On top of this, the copper IUD acts as an intrusion inside the uterus, alerting her body that it unfit for pregnancy. If ALL of this somehow fails, then a morning after pill may be taken, preventing the egg from becoming fertilized, sealing the fucking deal. If any woman takes all of these precautions, SHE WILL NOT GET PREGNANT.

Sounds more like a company policy than a state law, then. In which case, you work for a bunch of lying assholes, and you're a moron for enforcing the policy in spite of your rhetoric.

That's one of the many reasons why I quit working there. Whether legal or company policy, IT STILL PREVENTS A SEXUALLY ACTIVE TEEN FROM GETTING CONDOMS.

But not here in the united states. Where you live. So... what's the point of even bringing it up?

To simply show how far ahead of us they are. The U.S. is not the only country in the world, unplanned pregnancies are not limited to our country, and birth control is not limited to our country. Take that God damn crucifix out of your ass and actually listen to yourself.

Here's the part that matters.

Detective Vincent Spriggs, of D.C.'s Sexual Assault Unit, cites instances of false or unconvincing rape accusations, and requests for rape kits by woman who wish to have pregnancy tests or the MORNING AFTER PILL administered, as an obstacle to more open use of the kits.

Let me break it down for you; the DC Sexual Assault Unit stopped giving out rape kits like it used to because women were coming in after them thinking they could get pregnancy tests or the morning after pill. People too lazy to go the health department fucked up a good system for real rape victims. Nowhere in that article does it say that the morning after pill is a part of a standard rape kit, and nowhere in that article does it say it was EVER a part of the a standard rape kit.

These women went in to deceive these detectives and receive a rape kit so that they could get a free PREGNANCY TEST AND MORNING AFTER PILL, ergo the morning after pill is included in the rape kit. "and requests for rape kits by woman who wish to have pregnancy tests or the MORNING AFTER PILL administered,". You just referenced that, you just fucking referenced that!! You definitely fished out the important part of the article, thank you. You are either trolling or a Christian die hard that will never be able to be reasoned with.

You can flame me for making mistakes when reading posts from now until the end of time, I don't particularly care. At the end of the day, you fucked up BIG TIME when it comes to getting your facts straight.

Please dude, please stop manipulating and actually read the article.

Sure, because what 16 year old would ever want to go to their parents and admit they're having sex with somebody 23 years old?

You're being sarcastic and you're being a dumb ass. If not, you're right, what 16 sixteen year old girl would want to tell her parents that she is having sex with a 23 year old, much less having sex at all. So one would think that it would be important that she would be able to access birth control without parental permission?

So how hot is this 16 year old you're having sex with?

Made the mistake of dating a girl younger than me one time, never making it again. I love women, because I can actually have a thoughtful conversion with one and the most passionate sex. My current lady is 18, hot, open-minded, intelligent, and works hard for her life like I do.

So how nice is it to butt-fuck Jesus on a daily basis?