Forum Announcement

Please don't panic! You are not in the Twilight Zone, you are experiencing the new CNET forums platform! Please click here to read the details. Thanks!!

Speakeasy

General discussion

Judge rules 11 year olds have right to the morning

by Roger NC / April 5, 2013 8:36 AM PDT

after pills.

The argument mentioned that a teenager could buy a fatal dose of tylendol so that age restrictions was wrong.

Perhaps rather than the uproar over minors getting morning after pills the question should be why do we allow minors to buy over the counter drugs without question.

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Judge rules 11 year olds have right to the morning
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Judge rules 11 year olds have right to the morning
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.

All Answers

Collapse -
Saw that on the news last night
by Steven Haninger / April 5, 2013 7:42 PM PDT

There's no comparing the two drugs that way, IMO anyway. We sink further into the mire ever day.

Collapse -
The two are very different yes
by Roger NC / April 5, 2013 8:53 PM PDT

but the argument that other drugs are as dangerous (ignoring religious beliefs for the moment) to me points out the question I asked.

Why do we not question a young teenager buying a lot of over the counter drugs?

Collapse -
I think you have a point.
by Steven Haninger / April 5, 2013 11:41 PM PDT

Only the commonly abused ones get targeted. Drug stores also sell women's cosmetics and some have volatile components. Should a young girl not be able to buy nail polish or remover? Maybe they already can't. I suppose Tylenol could be used to commit suicide but I'd think there's be more preferred ways. Many of these things can already be purchased in grocery store pharmacy areas and carried directly to self check-out stations where no store official might actually see what's being purchased. Just how protective can we get? Only when something happens and a lawyer makes it into a multi-million dollar payday will action happen.

Collapse -
Inhaling Nail Polish Remover used to be very popular until
by Ziks511 / April 7, 2013 3:22 AM PDT

they changed its formulation. And kids aged 8 and younger would do that.

Lethal OTC drugs: Aspirin, Tylenol, Gravol. Aspirin is relatively easily treated, Tylenol is very difficult to treat and usually results in long term kidney and liver trouble. Gravol is easily treated if caught in time, but the usual response of vomitting giving a hint of what was wrong doesn't occur, it also induces sleep which can mask the issue.

Not sure what an ovedose of pseudo-ephedrine might do but it seems likely to cause cardiac arrhythmias. Pilfering from the parental medicine cabinet is also likely to cause major problems.

Oh for the bad old days of Blues and Reds (Seconal and other Barbiturate like drugs) even before LSD and common cannabis usage.

Has anybody here heard of skunk cannabis? It's a preferred drug among the hardened drugs smokers in Britain, and is laced with extra cannabinoids to give it a much bigger jolt. I gather it also smells worse than the usual.

Rob

Collapse -
A kid wanting to get high can just go to Benjamin Moore....
by Josh K / April 8, 2013 2:07 AM PDT

.....and buy a can of paint.

Not sure I buy the "Well, A is legal so B should be" argument. Tylenol is not birth control.

Collapse -
What if they worked there?
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / April 8, 2013 2:09 AM PDT

Get paid to be high?

Collapse -
I'm sure that happens
by Josh K / April 8, 2013 2:32 AM PDT

Kid gets job in paint store. Kid gets high off paint. Kid steals paint so he and his friends can get high after hours. Kid loses job.

I have a ten-year-old daughter. She hasn't the slightest notion what a morning after pill is. We walked past a Victoria's Secret store recently and she asked, "What's so important about underwear? It's not like anyone is going to see it." That's her mindset still.

Collapse -
Glad to hear that
by James Denison / April 8, 2013 8:36 AM PDT
In reply to: I'm sure that happens

Let the innocence last so long as it can. It's a good time they can look back on later in life.

Collapse -
Another issue not being discussed
by TONI H / April 7, 2013 6:20 AM PDT

by allowing young children (male and female) access to the 'morning after pill' without a prescription, over the counter, and without parental consent, are you not encouraging promiscuity at earlier and earlier ages?

Collapse -
Wonder how many are having sex and how many
by Diana Forum moderator / April 7, 2013 9:36 AM PDT

are raped by a friend or relative or priest?

Diana

Collapse -
Good grief.....
by TONI H / April 7, 2013 9:05 PM PDT

is that the only argument the left has anymore? Using your argument..... If a relative or a priest has sex with an 11 year old girl, don't you think he would have access to that morning after pill and make the kid take it? A rapist wouldn't care if the kid got knocked up and most times, the kid will tell if it's a stranger so the parents or the hospital will provide the pill, but I would think a relative or the girl's priest would 'care' enough about getting caught that he would provide it.

Back on topic........when you give people enough safety nets they will always figure their behavior is okay and never take responsibility for their actions because the net will take care of them.

Collapse -
RE: never take responsibility for their actions because the
by JP Bill / April 7, 2013 9:27 PM PDT
In reply to: Good grief.....
never take responsibility for their actions because the net will take care of them.

The net will take care of them?....The net doesn't make the girl go to the drug store....she decides that on her own. The net gives her the option.

The "net" helps them take responsibility...

The 11 year old WILLINGLY has unprotected sex....she takes responsibility for her actions by going to the drug store and gets the morning after pill.

Would the 11 year old have been taking responsibility for her actions if she had been taking birth control pills, used other methods, but kept on having sex? Do you think an 11 year old having protected sex is taking responsibility?

An 11 year old realizing the consequences is another discussion.
Collapse -
This coming from the man
by TONI H / April 7, 2013 11:18 PM PDT

who has no problem with the Philadelphia doctor's method of abortions for live births....flat out murder.

Collapse -
What do "responsible" adults do?
by JP Bill / April 7, 2013 11:49 PM PDT

They have protected sex, use birth control pills, and IF something unplanned happens...they use the morning after pill.

If an 11 year old does the same thing....they are being irresponsible?

Collapse -
Both you described are lacking in...
by James Denison / April 8, 2013 12:25 AM PDT

...responsibility. Just being an adult does not make everything one does to be correct. Just because a minor may do the same wrong an adult has done, does not create responsibility on that child's part either. The answer to your question is both the adults and the minor do wrong, but the minor is not of an age to be completely responsible for the wrong done. That's why we call them "minors" and don't judge them by adult standards, which is what YOU are attempting to impose.

Collapse -
RE:Just being an adult does not make
by JP Bill / April 8, 2013 12:39 AM PDT
Just being an adult does not make everything one does to be correct.

Nor does it make it wrong.

Yet the minor knows they had sex, knows they could get pregnant, and knows that the morning after pill will prevent this pregnancy.

Correct? in your eyes?....They don't have to live with you...they have to live with themselves.

Would you complain if the 11 year old had the baby and passed it off to social services, and said...Here ya' go it's your responsibility now.

How would you prevent it from happening again?
Collapse -
so, you would have them
by James Denison / April 8, 2013 8:37 AM PDT

just keep making mistakes one after the other, all by govt's permission, and interference with parent's rights, which come not from govt, but from God Himself?

Collapse -
RE: and interference with parent's rights
by JP Bill / April 8, 2013 12:15 PM PDT

Did the child get pregnant/have sex under the parents watch? I think the answer has to be yes. They lost their rights when they stopped watching? Kids are going to do what they can get away with....you can't watch them 24 hours a day.

IF the government didn't allow an 11 year old access to the morning after pill...what would be her options IF she was pregnant?

Have an abortion?....Have a baby? Take the morning after pill?

Which of the above 3 options are the least traumatic on the young girl?

Do you have any other options?

Collapse -
depending on a morning after pill
by James Denison / April 8, 2013 2:14 PM PDT

is only one option. She is not old enough to know all the options. Anyone who believes an 11 yr old child should be making those decisions is ignorant at best, immoral at worst.

Collapse -
RE: morning after pill is only one option.
by JP Bill / April 8, 2013 8:20 PM PDT
and the least traumatic on the young girl? Take a few pills or have an operation, carry a fetus for nine months?

That's what I did...listed it as one option...And 2 others.....You got any more options?

She is not old enough to know all the options.

So the parents explain all the options...and let HER make the final decision? (I don't think ANY parent would go along with that, UNLESS they know it will be the same one they would chose.) WWJD? What Would James Do?
Collapse -
WWJD?
by James Denison / April 9, 2013 3:09 AM PDT

James wouldn't let things occur to reach that point in the first place.

Collapse -
RE: no problem with the Philadelphia doctor's method of abo
by JP Bill / April 7, 2013 11:55 PM PDT
no problem with the Philadelphia doctor's method of abortions for live births....flat out murder

What ARE you talking about? Got a link to that story?
Collapse -
I'm talking about your cold-blooded
by TONI H / April 8, 2013 12:32 AM PDT
Collapse -
RE: cold-blooded posts in this thread...
by JP Bill / April 8, 2013 12:48 AM PDT

Please point out the "cold blooded" parts of my posts in that thread.

I thought it was done by defining "when life begins"...

So everyone on the planet is nine months older than they think they are?

I've missed out on 9 months of Canada Pension Plan?

Debated til the cows came home, been ruled on....time to move on.

When there's "hell to pay", you'll never know if someone is paying, because you'll be in the other place. IF you don't see me in your place, am I in the other place or still on planet earth?

Abortion is not killing a human. Now we will discuss what is a human?

it's Sunday...time to get ready for church?

RE: for the morally bankrupt. sounds kinda' judgmental to me.

Collapse -
"Abortion is not killing a human. Now we will discuss what
by TONI H / April 8, 2013 2:36 AM PDT

is a human?"

Is a baby born alive, even after a botched abortion, a human to you? Is cutting its spinal cord at the brain stem in order to kill it a murder to you?

I'm assuming based on your reaction in your posts that the answer is 'no' to both questions. I hold you are cold-blooded and have no emotional ties to any other human beings (alive or dead) nor do you have any respect for life in any form, which is why I was so surprised at your reaction to my thread about Chris Pike (Derek's SEAL friend).

Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / April 8, 2013 4:07 AM PDT
Is a baby born alive, even after a botched abortion, a human to you?Yes... Is cutting its spinal cord at the brain stem in order to kill it a murder to you? Yes.

born alive?.....YES!!!!!

Is a baby born alive, even after a botched abortion, a human to ME? Is cutting its spinal cord at the brain stem in order to kill it a murder to ME?

YES!!!

I'm assuming based on your reaction in your posts that the answer is 'no' to both questions.

Then you make too many wrong assumptions.

Abortion is not killing a human. Now we will discuss what is a human?

Abortion is killing a fetus. A fetus is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.

IF something isn't born, is it a human? I say no.

After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.

I guess everyone that has as abortion or advocates abortion is in your bad books.

I just feel sad for anyone that has to have an abortion or anyone that thinks they should have an abortion. But it's their body...their right/choice.

I hope this one never gets an abortion
Collapse -
Interesting
by TONI H / April 8, 2013 4:16 AM PDT
In reply to: Response

>>>IF something isn't born, is it a human? I say no.>>>>

IF a doctor yanks a living child out of a woman's ******, is it NOT born in every sense of the word? And then that child, because it's not wanted by the mother or the doctor, is deliberately killed, is it not murder of a human being and no longer an abortion?

I found that a Senator during the Planned Parenthood hearing last week made a really profound statement by asking the 'director' at the podium........"If the child is born during a botched abortion, where is the priority if the child is in distress?" The woman replied, " the decision to do anything rests with the patient and the doctor". The Senator then asked "if the child is breathing, isn't the CHILD the patient at that point?"..........the dumbassed woman had no answer other than to say "That's a good question".

What's YOUR opinion about any of my questions in this post......and how would YOU have responded to the Senator?

Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / April 8, 2013 5:23 AM PDT
In reply to: Interesting

As I just posted.....

the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law,

It's beginning to sound like you want the person to have a baby then give it up and have the state take care of it.

Nanny state?

Collapse -
You're amazing...in the bad sense of the word
by TONI H / April 8, 2013 6:03 AM PDT
In reply to: Interesting

>>>>As I just posted.....

the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time.>>>

Do you believe that ONLY the 'fully grown fetus' counts as a human being infant? There are many PREMATURE births (and not just by abortionists) which are NOT fully grown fetuses and STILL breathes independently. Do you regard them as fetuses rather than human beings and therefore are subject to abortion type murders?

As for your statement about my sounding like a person should have a baby then give it up and have the 'state' take care of it.........have you never heard of adoption as an alternate method rather than orphanages? Newborn babies are adopted in this country in far greater numbers, in a number of ways: publicly (via the state), via churches, and private adoptions to name three. I would personally much rather see a baby born and adopted out rather than killed for no other reason other than it's an inconvenience to the 'parent'.

Strange though....there are laws throughout the US that mandates that BOTH parents have to sign off for an adoption; but only the WOMAN has the right to decide to abort and doesn't need the man to sign off for that. So a healthy baby needs both parents to legally walk away, but only the mother is allowed to kill it without a backward glance and with full legal rights via the Constitution even if the father is willing to take the baby and raise it himself. I've often wondered why no amendment was ever presented requiring the father's okay......oh wait...........the liberals in Congress got that passed via the argument that it's the woman's body and she can do what she wants with it. This is the most outlandish trick ever perpetuated by our laws and nobody cares.

Collapse -
RE: You're amazing.....
by JP Bill / April 9, 2013 12:35 AM PDT
In reply to: Interesting

Tell me more.

Do you believe that ONLY the 'fully grown fetus' counts as a human being infant? There are many PREMATURE births (and not just by abortionists) which are NOT fully grown fetuses and STILL breathes independently. Do you regard them as fetuses rather than human beings and therefore are subject to abortion type murders?

In order to answer your hypothetical scenario, I need more details.

Was this PREMATURE birth as the result of an abortion attempt or did the female come to the hospital to give birth?

Be advised most doctors don't/won't attempt an abortion when the fetus ready to be taken out of the oven(womb).

Respond to this then I will no doubt have further questions, so I can make an informed response.

One step at a time.

It would be a lot easier if I could phone you and we could talk.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 45,842 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,052 discussions
icon
Tablets 1,149 discussions
icon
Security 28,606 discussions
icon
Home Audio and Video 18,995 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,743 discussions
icon
Cell Phones 11,258 discussions
icon
Windows 8 1,311 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 10,496 discussions

Top TVs of the year

CNET reviews are in. Here are the best TVs of 2015 so far.

We review a lot of TVs, but only a few can be on our list of the best TVs of the year.