I'm not sure why a 5 year old would want it, but have you heard about this ruling?

A federal judge ruled Friday that the morning-after pill, known by its brand name of Plan B, should be available without a prescription or any age or point-of-sale restrictions within 30 days. (source)

With the drug having become available over the counter, the judge ruled that the FDA had overstepped it's mandate, which had only to do with determining the safety of drugs. They have no mandate to set age limits or set standards for the sale of safe drugs.

Anyway, the question here is directed at the parents among us, and especially those with children at or approaching an age when sexual activity potentially begins. Do you have any mixed feelings about this? Do you feel that up to a certain age (16? 18?) children should at least have to see a physician before obtaining them? Not to talk them out of abortion but at least to discuss the medical issues (potential exposure to STD's, side effects, etc.).

Please identify yourself as a non-parent when you comment, if that is the case.

Tags: after, birth, contraception, control, morning, pill

Views: 617

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think responsible, effective parenting would do so - in that the parents would talk to their child/daughter about such issues responsibly. 

As the rule goes, if you refuse to talk about something to your child, or simply dismiss it in a negative light by telling them, "you can't do that," then naturally they will want to because by your very direction you have made it taboo.  So, yes, as a parent - if I had a daughter (which I don't, I have three sons) - I would discuss it with her and have her see a physician for more information, and in fact I wouldn't but I would encourage and make sure that my wife did considering it would be more comfortable as a woman-to-woman discussion. 

As for my boys, discussing sex is already on the board for future talk.  In fact, my six year old son already asked questions about sexual orientation in response to the news about the US Supreme Court taken up the issue of same-sex marriage. 

Besides, yes a five year old might be able to buy it, but so suggest the "moral and physical danger" of them actually doing so is entirely absurd.

A five year old boy ingensting a hormone pill intended for a mature woman involves no physical danger? That may be true, but how do you know that?

Would some procedure, allowing her the pill, but also requiring the girl to be reminded that unprotected sex doesn't just expose her to pregnancy but also to STD's be totally out of order?

"A five year old boy ingensting a hormone pill intended for a mature woman involves no physical danger? That may be true, but how do you know that?"

I never suggested such a thing.  You misread my remarks, and I would certainly never make such a dumb remark unless I was ill informed (which I am not).  My point is that sex is only a problem if it is treated as a taboo in the family - much like alcohol. 

If I had a daughter, which I do not, I would have my wife discuss things with her, and also have our physician discuss Plan B medication with her.  This way she understands the risks of both sex and Plan B.  But I don't have a daughter.  I have three boys, so what I meant in regards to this fact is that as with alcohol and/or drugs, participation in the activity of sex comes with consequences.  Children must understand the consequences of those activities, and if they choose to participate in such activities, be responsible about them.

In other words: sex education is important no matter the gender.  Plan B just provides a larger opportunity for the discussion to happen when it comes to female sexuality.  There is no need for the discussion to happen with boys unless there was a form of male contraception available outside of condoms. 

A five year old boy has no need for the meds, so discussing Plan B is a not even in the sphere of contextual need regarding conversations about sex. Discussing sex and the consequences such activity, however, is and too many parents avoid the topic altogether out of it being either uncomfortable or the delusional religious argument that sex is sinful.

All I was trying to do is put myself in the shoes of a parent with a daughter so that context of the discussion would not be lost.  However, I don't have daughters I have sons, and so I wanted to make the point that sex education for both boys and girls is of high importance for the parents to be actively involved in so that all children can make well informed and rational decisions about their bodies and their sexuality.

Sorry for any confusion, and I hope the above clears any confusion in what I am trying to say.

RE: "if you refuse to talk about something to your child, or simply dismiss it in a negative light by telling them, 'you can't do that,' then naturally they will want to because by your very direction you have made it taboo."

"Forbidden Fruit a flavor has
That lawful Orchards mock --"

-- Emily Dickenson --

I don't think there is any research that would support the premice that there is a direct relationship between a person's access to birth control, and the probability of them being sexually active. So, I don't see that access to the morning after pill will increase the spread of STDs.

A non-parent? It' an opportunity to remind the child (not a mature adult) that unprotected sex exposes her to more than just pregnancy. I don't think there's any doubt that some STD exposures could be prevented that way.

You will do more damage overdosing on asprin, cough medicine,benedryl and the like.

This question is about politics and someone's personal morality and nothing more.

Where does the concerned parent fit in that summary?

Answer, he/she doesn't.

If a child needs the morning after pill it means this child is already sexualy active. It is up to the parents to educate their children , on all these things. If you tell achild he can not eat asprin like sweats, you have to explain why, you can not just say "because I say so" Alcohol drugs, sex all work the same way. If more parents were openly involed in communication with their children a lot of the problems would not be the way it is today.

Agreed. And then we have the rest to deal with somehow. Or do we just write them off?

One of the major problems I have in our country is that in the subject lifeskills they have to discuss the above with the children then age 12 and 13 , at my sons then school that part got cut out of the book with scissors as the teacher did not feal comfortable discussing it with the children. This is enough to make a persons blood boil, if not get a speaker around to the school that can then have a talk with the children, but educate, put your personal feelings aside and Educate our children that is what schools and teachers are there for.

RE: "that part got cut out of the book with scissors" - that teacher should have been fired, instantly, but it's hard to believe he or she would have taken that upon him/herself without approval from above, so the ladder should have been climbed, firing all the way up to the top.


Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin



Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Philip Jarrett 8 minutes ago. 172 Replies

Blog Posts

Seeing the man in the child.

Posted by Diane on April 19, 2014 at 9:52am 0 Comments


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service