Re: Plan B


"Rita" <nitany_98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9c6ah11rgc3f016b6srkgidg9ifuiclqme@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:06:54 -0400, emily2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:47:07 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>><okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>One of my local newspapers editorialized about this issue yesterday (I
>>>think). One of their comments, got a response from me via email. They
>>>argued that certainly we can stop people who are too young (a definition
>>>depending on local authorities) from buying these over the counter. My
>>>response was, we cannot stop underage people from buying alcohol or
>>>cigarettes now, what makes anyone think they can stop someone who is
>>>underage (again, what that means is in question) from buying the
>>>moring-after pill? My answer is, you cannot stop them from buying the
>>>pills, so the question it seems to me is, should we allow that to happen,
>>>or
>>>not, and what is the policy that would serve the greater good.
>>
>>I'm confused. If you can't stop them from buying the pill, then isn't
>>the question of whether or not we should allow it a moot point?
>>
>>I don't think it matters particularly whether they incorporate a
>>cut-off age in the law or not. Just as kids can get older kids to
>>buy cigarettes and alcohol for them, they'll get them to get the pill
>>for them.
>>
> It just makes the moralist types feel better to deny it to
> kids. Because kids should not be fooling around in the first
> place. And some would like to deny it to a woman of any age
> for the same reason.

One way to almost guarantee that you will end up poor, is to have a children
when you are a teenager. And those children will have an uphill road to
make something of their lives. If that is a "moralist" viewpoint, so be it.


.

Relevant Pages