NYC schools give out morning-after pills to students
- Thread starter moment_of_faith
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
MiSSY0217
Guest
Though when i was 16, i went and got the morning after without my parents knowing ( and they still dont know) there are PLENTY of places to get the pill on a "no questions asked" basis. I feel though it may be a decent idea to prevent teens from pregnancy, it should be kept out of school
P
psychomom
Guest
Yeah...but parents are responsible for whatever complications might arise from their use. If a young woman has problems with the E.C., it's her parents who have to foot the medical bills. In fact, parents are legally responsible for what their children under 18 do, and (at least in the state where I live) are held legally responsible financially for their children over 18--up to age 21 in some cases. (vandalism, certain kinds of debt, etc.)
I think that's one of the major reasons moms and dads get upset when their kiddos are given "backhanded" medical treatment. If, God forbid, a teen has an abortion and has any complications, Planned Parenthood is not going to pick up those pieces.
I absolutely do agree with you that at some point young adults have to make their own choices, but I think more impacting life choices should accompany personal responsibility. (as in, you have a job, and your own place to live--you know, you completely support yourself)
One of my sisters exercised her right to choose when she was sixteen. And it was our parents who dealt with the hemorrhage that almost took her life afterwards.
Actually, emergency contraceptives work in a variety of ways, and one of them is to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. I'd have to say, strictly speaking, that that's aborting after the child has begun life.
Mifeprex (aka RU-486) is the only pill that will terminate an implanted pregnancy. But most Christians feel life begins at conception, and conception rarely takes place in the uterus. (hey--nursing school actually paid off! lol)
(ps--sorry to be so argumentative this morning! hope you're hanging in there.)
the one they are speaking of, stops the release of the egg in the first place, if the egg has already been released and conception is started,it doesn't have an effect, the one you are speaking of is called the abortion pill,there are a number of different ones, I believe the one in this case is just stops egg release, I'm trying to hang in there, have the flu nowYeah...but parents are responsible for whatever complications might arise from their use. If a young woman has problems with the E.C., it's her parents who have to foot the medical bills. In fact, parents are legally responsible for what their children under 18 do, and (at least in the state where I live) are held legally responsible financially for their children over 18--up to age 21 in some cases. (vandalism, certain kinds of debt, etc.)
I think that's one of the major reasons moms and dads get upset when their kiddos are given "backhanded" medical treatment. If, God forbid, a teen has an abortion and has any complications, Planned Parenthood is not going to pick up those pieces.
I absolutely do agree with you that at some point young adults have to make their own choices, but I think more impacting life choices should accompany personal responsibility. (as in, you have a job, and your own place to live--you know, you completely support yourself)
One of my sisters exercised her right to choose when she was sixteen. And it was our parents who dealt with the hemorrhage that almost took her life afterwards.
Actually, emergency contraceptives work in a variety of ways, and one of them is to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. I'd have to say, strictly speaking, that that's aborting after the child has begun life.
Mifeprex (aka RU-486) is the only pill that will terminate an implanted pregnancy. But most Christians feel life begins at conception, and conception rarely takes place in the uterus. (hey--nursing school actually paid off! lol)
(ps--sorry to be so argumentative this morning! hope you're hanging in there.)
Q
quakerzen
Guest
It's called the "morning after" pill because you're supposed to take it... the morning after. It's not an abortion pill, by any means. It's like super-birth control. If you take it, it stops the eggs from releasing and you can't get pregnant, it does not affect a woman who is already pregnant. It boggles my mind that people would complain about this. Not everyone is waiting until marriage, we can't control everyone, and we shouldn't TRY to force our will on others. If a girl has sex with her high school boyfriend, would you rather her take this pill that will prevent her from being pregnant in the first place or get an abortion? I would hope Christians would be far more supportive of the morning after pill, it prevents abortions.
G
GrandOptimist
Guest
I think some could argue that preventing conception, is akin to an abortion in the first place. Say we were able to look at the whole picture, and that teenage girl X would have conceived had she not taken the morning after pill. Either way this pill is ending life, albeit possibly before it even began.
But if you believe that, then condoms may be considered the same thing? Then we must decide what is worse, wearing a condom, or having an abortion?
I agree with you though, I am all for sexual education in schools and the use of contraception if that is your choice. I should not shove my own beliefs on to others as much as i may disagree with them. As long as they are only effecting themselves though.
O
oracle2world
Guest
the pill that they refer to is a contraceptive, once the egg is released it will do nothing, she can still become pregnant, I agree this shouldn't be a school decision, the best contraception is to talk to these young girls before they have sex, let them know what it's like to be a teenage mom, and all they will have to give up, and ask them is it worth all of that?
J
JessW
Guest
These girls who choose to have sex at a young age should use precaution before the fact if they do not want to become a mother. If they take one moment to think the pill would not even need to be available and thus no debate would be necessary.
If they choose to have unprotected sex then they should be willing to deal with being a parent if it is the will of God. There are many people waiting to adopt should they choose not to raise the child.
If they choose to have unprotected sex then they should be willing to deal with being a parent if it is the will of God. There are many people waiting to adopt should they choose not to raise the child.
i think the debate here is what this pill does, in the first place these young girls shouldn't even be having sex, the pill they are referring to doesn't have any effect on an egg that's already fertilized, it's basically birth control, that prevents the egg from ever releasing, no it shouldn't be needed and the schools dont need to be involved. on this note I hear all the time these young school girls are pregnant by 18-19 even 20 year old guys!!?? where is the law in this? aren't those girls minors? what happened to the law protecting kids from predators? a 20 year old guy having sex with a 15-16 year old girl is just wrong, yet half the time nothing happens to him.
Technically in most states a 20 year old with a 16 year old is legal. 18 isnt a hard age on sexual relations. And most the time the parent has to actually decide to press charges. Also I am still terribly confused why people are expecting everyone to live as christians do and yet are still somehow shocked when they dont.
J
JessW
Guest
I agree, they should not be having sex, but should they decide to, they need to think about the risk of becoming pregnant and protect against it before they have sex, not after. This would apply to anyone young or old, married or not.
Schools should definently not be able to provide the pills at all much less without a parents permission. My daughter cannot even take a tylenol without my permission or the Dr.s consent.
J
JessW
Guest
I understand what you are saying, but what if the guy is 15, 16 or 17? 16 year old girls are old enough to make many decisions including waiting for marriage to have a sexual partner. It all depends on their relationship with God, their upbringing, and their maturity level as to whether or not they will make appropriate decisions from the beginning.
I was wise enough to accept Jesus as my savior at 16, so I think we need to give these teenagers credit where credit is due. Everyone is different.
As stated previously, in most states if a girl under the age of 18 is taken advantage of sexually, then the parents do have the right to prosecute the perpatrator...but that is another subject entirely.
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
Yes, prevent pregnancy by promoting debauchery. Solving perceived social problems over and above the reality of the moral problems. Good job 'merikuh.