Am I the only one Scared to death by this "freedom"?

[quote name='opportunity777']Yes wrong forum, but regardless isn't fascism great?

Few more years of this and we will be the next Germany pre 1950s ... :bs:[/quote]

I don't think so. Call it pessimism - I'd say optimism - but I'm expecting someone to try to bomb the hell out of the State of the Union address. I really don't think that Bush will live through the next four years; I can easily see him being assasinated before term's end...
 
we are far from germany, and a school handing out the drugs, while i am totaly against it, has nothing to do with the government. Their have been other presidents that were hated more, regan, and he lasted 8 years...
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus'][quote name='opportunity777']Yes wrong forum, but regardless isn't fascism great?

Few more years of this and we will be the next Germany pre 1950s ... :bs:[/quote]

I don't think so. Call it pessimism - I'd say optimism - but I'm expecting someone to try to bomb the hell out of the State of the Union address. I really don't think that Bush will live through the next four years; I can easily see him being assasinated before term's end...[/quote]

Yeah, it was just attempted in Colombia (i think it was). While i'd be happy, he would only be replaced by Cheney, and I don't know who I'd prefer.
 
[quote name='camoor']This should make the drug companies happy. Of course, I'm sure their lobbyists had nothing to do with it :roll:[/quote]

Now Bush has a bulge in his pants instead of a jacket.

The bulge appears to be in a pocket area, near the wallet.
 
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='Gothic_Walrus'][quote name='opportunity777']Yes wrong forum, but regardless isn't fascism great?

Few more years of this and we will be the next Germany pre 1950s ... :bs:[/quote]

I don't think so. Call it pessimism - I'd say optimism - but I'm expecting someone to try to bomb the hell out of the State of the Union address. I really don't think that Bush will live through the next four years; I can easily see him being assasinated before term's end...[/quote]

Yeah, it was just attempted in Colombia (i think it was). While i'd be happy, he would only be replaced by Cheney, and I don't know who I'd prefer.[/quote]

as bad as Bush is, Cheney is so much worse. Cheney is the scum of the earth
 
And a Republican tried to block this by adding a parental consent clause; where are all you republican conspiracy junkies on this one, eh?

I guess all Republicans don't bow down in lock-step with the party line after all. It seems many Democrats were in favor of this bill as well. But whatever, it's all Bush's fault anyway because he's stupid.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']And a Republican tried to block this by adding a parental consent clause; where are all you republican conspiracy junkies on this one, eh?

I guess all Republicans don't bow down in lock-step with the party line after all.[/quote]
Nope, there are a few good ones. Of course, I'm sure the party will now burn him at the stake unless he vows to fall lock-step in with the party line, much like they did with Specter (who did nothing more than dare to make the realistic observation that it would be difficult to appoint an anti-abortion justice.)

It seems many Democrats were in favor of this bill as well.
Click to expand...
Well, Bush has a mandate, you know. Anyway, there's lots of shithead Democrats, too.

But whatever, it's all Bush's fault anyway because he's stupid.
Click to expand...
Or evil and merely playing stupid. We still haven't decided that yet.


Actually, getting back to the original subject: I really don't think its a terrible idea. I don't think any sort of medication should be prescribed without parental knowledge and concent, but I think its probably an excellent idea to occasionally do screenings for mental problems. Depression and suicide is a leading cause of teenage death, and this could help catch at-risk kids before tragedy happens.
 
[quote name='bignick']yet you all are all for handing out the morning after pill without parental consent.[/quote]

Morning after pills prevent pregnancy.

Anti-depressants are unproven "happy pill" drugs that have a rare side effect that throws the user into a suicidal rage.
And drug companies are funding this initiative, which is a textbook case of "conflict of interest".
 
You guys don't want the government to provide a free health service to poor kids? Well why didn't you say so...
 
[quote name='gamefreak']You guys don't want the government to provide a free health service to poor kids? Well why didn't you say so...[/quote]

Nice angle....didn't think of that one.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='bignick']yet you all are all for handing out the morning after pill without parental consent.[/quote]

Morning after pills prevent pregnancy.

Anti-depressants are unproven "happy pill" drugs that have a rare side effect that throws the user into a suicidal rage.
And drug companies are funding this initiative, which is a textbook case of "conflict of interest".[/quote]

So, one is 99% effective at ending life, and the other only about 25%?
Hmm. I know.. let's work on those happy pills... they should have a fatality rate of at least 50%!
 
I support this, as long as they don't make drug treatment mandatory (mooky said that they could administer the drugs without consent, but I don't see where it said that). I was reading an article the other day link that says "Only 27% of overweight or obese boys were classed as at least "a little overweight" compared with 54% of overweight girls" by their parents. Now this was done in the u.k., but there's no reason to believe the results would be different here. If a parent can't tell if their kid is fat or not, I have no reason to believe (and have never seen evidence to suggest) that they can tell when their child has a mental problem. At least this way someone can at least tell them, whether they want to believe it or not is up to them, but at least they can't say they had no idea. Maybe this will finally be a step toward helping these kids, instead of just doing nothing, instead of just pushing them through life and wondering why little johnny is so screwed up.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']
So, one is 99% effective at ending life, and the other only about 25%?
Hmm. I know.. let's work on those happy pills... they should have a fatality rate of at least 50%![/quote]

Contraceptives don't end life, in laymans terms they prevent the sperm from getting in an egg.

It is not an abortion pill, it is more like a condom pill.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='JSweeney']
So, one is 99% effective at ending life, and the other only about 25%?
Hmm. I know.. let's work on those happy pills... they should have a fatality rate of at least 50%![/quote]

Contraceptives don't end life, in laymans terms they prevent the sperm from getting in an egg.

It is not an abortion pill, it is more like a condom pill.[/quote]

When used as a morning-after pill, fertilization has already taken place.
The spark of life has already be inbued.

I have no problem with them handing out things that prevent people from getting pregnant(though I think parental consent is necessary), but not things that interfere with the pregnancy afterwards.[/quote]

You are a radical neo-conservative, and you think that people should have to have their parents present to buy condoms?

That would lead to a HUGE increase in unprotected sex, and teen pregnancy and STDs would be a part of everyday life.

Just because you are a catholic or evangelist doesn't mean that EVERYONE ELSE has to be.

Go fuck yourself.
 
Why don't you use google to find out how contraceptives really work?

All they do it either make the eggs deny the sperm or release the egg itself.

Everything is reset after the next menstrual cycle.

It is a womans choice, not yours.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']All they do it either make the eggs deny the sperm or release the egg itself. [/quote]
Except that's not all they do. Both birth control pills and 'day after' pills can and do have side-effects, some of them potentially serious. I have no problem with adults making whatever decisions they want to, but children are a different matter. Children do not have the legal right to consent to taking medication - ANY medication - without their parent's knowledge and consent.

It is a womans choice, not yours.
Click to expand...
The key word there is 'woman'. Not 'girl'.
 
You always get those boyfriends who convince their girlfriends that condoms don't feel good etc. You want everything to be available for girls to avoid becomining pregnant if they don't want to. Also, two stupid horny kids who want sex often will have sex whether one of them has a condom or not. It's the girls body, and she will have to raise any kid she has, you shouldn't let the parent tell that girl that she can't have a morning after pill because it's murder, and then stick the girl with a kid she didn't want, but was forced to raise, that will obviously be around long after she's on her own and her parents are dead. Of course there are some side effects, but nothing really abnormal when compared to other drugs that people take without parental consent.
 
It is a womans choice, not yours.
Click to expand...
The key word there is 'woman'. Not 'girl'.[/quote]

So forcing a "girl" to have a baby is your solution? Personally I want to do everything possible to stop a "girl" from having a baby. A baby you don't want and aren't prepared for is worse than any side effect the pill will realistically give you. You have to look at what people will do, since they rarely do as they should.
 
In those sort of cases, my recommended solution would be whipping both the mother and the father to within an inch of their life for being dumbasses, followed by sterilization of both parties. I suspect that a few public beatings and castrations would convince most of the other teens around that condoms aren't THAT bad. As I get older, I find that I continue to lose what little patience I once had for dumb-asses...
 
Heh, that would be one solution. My whole thing is there are enough homes where kids are abused, neglected, unwanted, or the parent wants them but just doesn't know how to care for them. I'd rather get rid of something without a working brain than to let a real child go through that.
 
Seems to me that one of the problems is that anyone under 18 is automatically a child, and anyone over 18 is automatically an adult (with the exception of being able to drink, thank you 1930s). I think we need a more nuanced view of children, as in (a hypothetical age range here) 0-12 is a child 13-17 is a teen, and 18+ is an adult. If we lump little kids in with teens who are sexually mature, we're always going to get these ridiculous "will somebody please think of the children :cry: " arguements. Once we start giving teens a separate legal definition and set of rights, it makes more sense to expand what they can and cannot do in terms of birth control.

In terms of birth control, the government is acting as a theocracy. Heck, this country's pharmacists can tell an adult they don't deserve birth control devices (pills and diaphrams) on moral grounds. That's not America.
 
[quote name='camoor']Seems to me that one of the problems is that anyone under 18 is automatically a child, and anyone over 18 is automatically an adult (with the exception of being able to drink, thank you 1930s). [/quote]

Actually, you can thank Mothers Against Drunk Driving for the 21 drinking age. Back in the mid-80's the lobbied Congress hard to raise the drinking age to combat drunk driving. Congress in turn, strong-armed all the states into raising their drinking age to 21 or lose all federal highway funds. Not really a choice for the states.

So you can drive at 16, be drafted at 18, but not buy a beer until 21. Makes a lot of sense. :roll:
 
How the hell did this thread go so queer? It was about schools being able to perform psych. exams on kids, wasn't it? Dear people on both sides of religious debate: no one cares about either of your stupid points on abortion in a thread completely unrelated to it.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Actually, the abortion portion of this arguement is of the least concern to me...I have my view, others have thiers, and I'm content to let it stay that way.

it's the dispersal of prescription drugs to minors without parently consent, with little consideration for the potential for serious side effects in both the long and short term.

Jmcc, it was giving kids pysch. exams that bothered me.. it was the suggestion to distribute mood altering drugs (most of which have a laundry list of terrible side effect (especially Welbutrin), yet do so without having to inform or get the concent of the parents. What I've been saying is well within the scope of the argument.

The abortion issue came in because Quackzilla can't tell the difference between contraceptives and morning after pills.
One prevents, one terminates. There's a difference.
Depo-Provera, for instance, is a contraceptive.
RU-486 is a morning after pill.
Thier intent, side effects, and usage methods are wildly different.

Both have compelling side effects that in my mind gives good reason why parents, guardians, etc. should be involved in the discussion when these drugs are being prescribed. (RU-486 has been linked to the deaths of women that were on a regiment of it, and birth control pills alter hormone levels, which can spawn issues as well.)

They can give out all the prophylactics they want until the end of time...those don't have potentially serious side effects when used (unless someone is allergic to latex :) )[/quote]

Could you build me a straw man too? Maybe one about the death penalty? Because, it also isn't applicable to this story and it can be questioned in the form "if they're prescribing anti-depressent drugs to kids, what's to stop them from giving them shots of sodium chloride?! You have to admit that giving kids lethal injections is bad!" Won't you help me help you help me hijack this story for my own purposes? They're based on the teachings of Jesus if that makes it more attractive to you.
 
I still don't see how, unless you are opposed to abortion itself, you can argue that a parent should be allowed to force their daughter to go through a pregnancy that the daughter doesn't want and will be stuck raising (I'd rather not take the risk of having to hope they'd give the kid up for adoption instead of keeping it when they are unprepared). The girl can't be trusted with a condom, so the solution is to stop her from taking a pill and give her a baby? Anyway, I still want to know where it says they will be forcing the kids to take medicine, all it said was they were going to give them psychological examinations so the parents will know if something is wrong.
 
Anyway, I still want to know where it says they will be forcing the kids to take medicine, all it said was they were going to give them psychological examinations so the parents will know if something is wrong.

Like I had said, I was answering the post that occured prior to me, and not the original post. Yes, it was off topic. Completely.
If you'd like me to, I'd be happy to go back and edit all of them off, just because they are completely off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top