this is definitely a BLUE vs. RED state issue. The REDS don't want to
provide this option to girls because they don't approve of what they did,
which means the girl may get pregnant. Then, the REDS don't want sex-ed in
schools, which would have helped prevent pregnancy. Then the REDS won't
allow "choice."It seems the REDS are working hard to make
sure a girl doesn't have any choice except to have a baby she doesn't
want cuz she can't support it on the money she makes from babysitting
someone else's kids.The BLUE state people want to give girls
and women a choice beginning with sex-ed and going forward.
Just another example of how the left makes it easier to be immoral.Ameliorating the consequences does not change behavior, but encourages a
behavior.99.5% of the people will always meet to expectations. Obama
just lowered them again.
wvcthe choice was made when she had sex. some still think killing an
innocent baby is the issue
With his stand on free contraceptives, abortion, and gay marriage, is anyone
surprised with this?
@ute alumni -- Plan B doesn't terminate pregnancies; it keeps pregnancies
from starting, which is a very different thing. Nothing is killed when a
pregnancy is not started. AND the mere act of having sex does NOT mean that the
couple are choosing to start a pregnancy.@the truth -- the main
reason for Plan B is to prevent pregnancy when a woman has been raped or abused.
Are you saying that being raped or abused is immoral? It sure sounds like you
are.@worf -- the President's stand on free contraceptives,
abortion, and gay marriage means that he supports free agency. You have a
problem with free agency, which is a basic LDS doctrine?
So, anyone can prevent pregnancy and/or kill babies (or as Obama voted for in
Illinois, no life saving measures for late stage aborted babies that live).
But, we have no expectation of safety in our own homes or privacy whatsoever.
Furry1993It's not that we don't support free agency. It
is that we have a right to judge what behaviors are right and what behaviors are
wrong when people use that free agency. That is also basic LDS doctrine.
Why is the right so confused? This is NOT an abortion pill.Bringing abortion into the discussion shows your intentional deception, or
Furry1993:Voting means judgement, and is not a violation of free
agency.Just like marrying someone. You make a judgement decision
that is not based on free agency either.Sort out the difference.
@m.g. scott 8:30 a.m. June 12, 2013@worf 1:55 p.m. June 12, 2013By all means use your own judgment in how you live your lives, and advocate as
loud and long as you want concerning your opinions (I often speak of the
responsibiity we have to the spirits on the other side of the veil to provide
the bodies they need to come into mortality and, therefore, speak against
abortion-by-choice). Just don't try to use the law to impose/force your
positions on others who don't agree with them. THAT is the violation of
free agency, not the fact that opinions differ. The woman shoud be able to
decide, not have the decision forced on her.And, BTW, remember that
I am the one who endured six very difficult high-risk pregnancies, four of which
self-terminated (miscarried) in the second trimester, because I don't
believe abortion is appropriate except in very limited circummstances (the same
circumstances found appropriate by the LDS church --- severe risk to the
life/health of the pregnant woman, pregnancy caused by rape or incest, and fatal
fetal deformities). I "walked the walk." Have you?
Furry1993: My free agency allows me to speak out. Not
"impose/force".I'm not, nor care to be the IRS.
@worf 8:44 p.m. June 12, 2013Speak out all you want. Just
don't try to make others act the way you think they should act. Let them
make their own decisions, and use their own standards and beliefs when making
Thanks to Worf & Fury1993: A good rational discussion of opposing views,
without name calling or put downs. I wish there were more of this type of
exchange on these boards. Good food for thought.
Why will the FDA approve this company's drug so much quicker than my
company's drug that filed phase 2 a year ago?That seems like
favoritism to me and shouldn't be allowed.What other companies are
getting rich off being critical to furthering a political agenda. It
makes me sick. Now I have to go buy another drug to keep me from vomiting.