Yup.  We shouldn't even be asking the question.

Abstinence is a wonderful ideal for people who consider it an ideal.  However, it is the pinnacle of irrational, brain-in-the-clouds idealism to expect that every member of any society will practice their ideal to the letter, without fail.

 

The abstinence-only dreamers are about as unrealistic as the radical hippie environmentalist who argues, "if we would just quit driving and all go on solar and wind power and stop eating meat, all of our problems would go away."

 

It iddn't gonna happen.

 

Therefore, we must deal with the world as it does happen.  Anyone who really cares about saving the lives of unborn babies should celebrate any viable means of either preventing pregnancy under all of its conceivable happenstances, or at worst, prevents the fertilized egg from taking root months before it has developed any sentience or consciousness.

 

It's safe to say there is absolutely no chance of sentience or consciousness when only a few cell divisions have taken place since conception.

 

Absolutely. We sell condoms over the counter and this makes as much sense. It's about time. I'm just glad Marilee didn't write this article. She would have tried to claim that the Plan B pill is an abortion rather than birth control. It's just a stronger version of "the pill"

Yes.  Now, some pharmacies will refuse to stock them anyway.  Great!  There are ways--legal ways--of dealing with them.

They belong in the medicine cabinet, right next to the little blue pill!

I'll be buying some as soon as the ban is lifted.  I don't need 'em personally, but *SOMEONE* will.

.

Don't need the blue ones, either. ;)

The pills should be scattered from C5 cargo planes over countries that don't understand the consequences of  "too many rats in the cage."

The great thing about the morning after pill is it prevents conception..something the radical religious right should embrace. But they don't, they find some ridiculous arguement for denying access to this form of birth control too. Its a personal choice and should be available just like the traditional forms of birth control, which are more costly.

I would rather have a stupid, lazy woman use the morning after pill than give birth to a child she doesn't want.

The radical religious right doesn't give a rip about human life.

 

Their goal, their sole and single goal, is to combat, punish, repress, and basically take the fun out of sex.

 

It really is that simple.

Good thing God is on the other side, Hardliner.  There ain't no *WAY* they're taking the "fun" out of sex.  That's like taking the "wet" out of water.

the only reason that matters to me that this pill become over the counter is that the little sluts won't be clogging up the emergency rooms to get a prescription for it.

You're right anny, you wont have to sit in the emergency room all night while your daughter gets her perscription.

Sorry, don't have any kids yet, not sure I want to after working 16 hour shifts in the KMC ER.  These human ticks suck up much needed resources with their complaints of "not feeling well" for a month so they bring in all 7 children with them for a check up.  I became a nurse with maybe unrealistic ideals. I wanted to help people in need. All a majority of these people need is a swift kick in the ass and a list of doctor office phone numbers to schedule an appointment. 

So what you're saying is that you are incapable of raising children to not be like the people you dislike.  Well it's good of you to realize that before having any.  Most people don't make that realization until after the deed is already done. 

Forget over the counter, make them "in the pocket"!

Once again a hot-button issue draws a crapload of asinine, knee-jerk remarks from those whose minds are in the gutter. Shall we get to root of this issue? Below I offer wise words from John Martignoni, who spoke at a local church some months ago. He used to be a materialistic and secularistic go-with-the-crowd type in his younger days but fortunately woke up to the cesspool of society that he was sucked into and changed for the better. If he can do it, so can you. Read on:

Was Hitler Right? (Or: Why Atheists Have No Rights); Part 1

Why do we, as human beings, have value? Or, do we have value? All of you have heard about the mass extermination of the Jews that the Nazis carried out in the 30's and 40's that we now refer to as the Holocaust. Would you believe me, then, if I said that not a single human being died in the concentration camps? Not one single human being died in the concentration camps!

How can I say that? I can say that because by German law that existed at the time, Jews were legally considered “not fully human.” They were classified as a “sub-human” species. Legally speaking, they were “non-persons.” One group of people passed laws that said another group of people were not really human beings. So, I say again, no human beings died in the concentration camps. Am I right or am I wrong?

I can just see some of you shaking your heads to tell me that I’m wrong. So, okay, let’s say they were human beings. So what? Why should we care? What value are they to us? Again, the question I am trying to get at here is, how is it that our lives have value? How do we determine whether or not any given human life has value?

Do we have value only if we can be productive, if we have a job, or if we serve some useful purpose? Do we have value only if someone else thinks we have value? Do we have value only if we have an IQ of 100 or higher? Do we have value only if someone else loves us? Do we have value only if our “quality of life” meets some arbitrary standard set by others?

Well, I maintain, and I think most of you will agree with me, that we have value simply because we are alive...that human life has inherent value. In other words, simply because it is human life, it has value. But, what is my basis for saying that? It is this: we have value as human beings because God gives us value...He gives us value by His love for us.

We don’t have value because we are productive. We don’t have value because we are useful. We don’t have value because someone else thinks we have value. We don’t have value because we have an IQ of 100 or higher. We don’t have value because another human being loves us. We don’t have value because we have some arbitrary level of “quality of life.” We have value, because God loves us. Any other line of reasoning leaves an opening for someone, somewhere, at some point in time, to declare somebody else as having no value...which is exactly what happened to the Jews in Europe 70 years ago.

This is why people who do not believe in God cannot offer any objective reason for saying that they themselves have value as human beings. Without God, everything becomes subjective...merely one person’s opinion versus another person’s opinion...and the strongest person’s opinon prevails. Without God, might, in essence, makes right. I’ve talked to atheists before and I’ve asked them if what Hitler did to the Jews was wrong. And they answered that of course it was! Then I asked them, why? Why was it wrong for Hitler to kill six million Jews? Essentially, all they could answer me with was, “Well, it just was.”

All they had to back their viewpoint was their own subjective opinion. They could not give me one objective reason, for why the Holocaust was wrong. And I have asked that question of some folks who have described themselves as “liberals.” What answer did I get? None. Even though I’ve asked the question several times, I have never had a self-described “liberal” even attempt to provide me with an answer. I believe they recognize that if they give me an answer to my question, it can and will be used against them to show that they are moral hypocrites in their support of abortion and stem cell research and euthanasia and so on.

Without God, you can’t make the case that the Holocaust was wrong. In fact, without God, you can’t make the case that any killing is wrong. Without God, you can’t make the case that the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were wrong. After all, without God, we are just animals, and no one says that one animal killing another animal is morally wrong.

Hitler was wrong if, and only if, God exists. If God does not exist, then might makes right and Hitler was the mightiest in Germany at the time, so he had every right to do what he did. This causes problems for any self-proclaimed atheists (and those who side with them) who wish to remove God from everything.

Hitler being wrong only if God exists leads us directly to the reason for "Why Atheists Have No Rights.” If there is no God, then Hitler wasn’t wrong not only because the Jews' lives had no inherent value, but because the Jews had no rights - no right to life, no right to liberty, no right to property, no right to freedom from persecution, no right to anything. In fact, if there is no God, then no one has any rights. Ask an atheist if they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When they say yes - and they will say yes - ask them how this is so. Point them to the Declaration of Independence, which says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

They only have rights, under our system of law, because our system of law is built around the belief that the Creator has endowed them with these rights. And when were they endowed with these rights? At the moment of their creation. Which is when? When they were born? Don’t think so. When they first came into existence...when mommy’s egg cell met daddy’s sperm cell. I’ll get into that more in the next newsletter. But, suffice it to say, that atheists have a problem when it comes to unalienable rights because of the fact that they don’t believe in the God Who has supposedly given them their unalienable rights. Without a God Who endows us with rights, any attempt to say we inherently have rights as human beings is merely based on one’s subjective opinion.

So, I advocate that those who wish to take God out of our school’s, out of our legal system, out of the public square, should be given their wish. After all, if choice is one of their gods, and it is, then let’s give them their choice. When it comes to atheists, every one needs to act as if God doesn’t exist. As a result, they should have no rights under our system of law, after all, there is no Creator to endow them with those rights. So, I say we should throw them all in jail (without a trial, of course); or perhaps make them work for the public good at minimum wage for their entire lives; or maybe make them work as pooper scoopers in the public parks where folks walk their dogs; or some such thing.

And, furthermore, I say they should have no access to legal counsel nor to our court system nor to any other means of legal redress. After all, the legal system is founded on the belief in a Creator Who endows us with our unalienable rights. They don’t believe in that Creator, so why should they be upset to not have access to a legal system founded on such a belief?

One last thing, if you ever want to drive home the point of all of this with someone who claims to be an atheist, after asking them if Hitler was right and going through all of what we talked about above regarding the Declaration, ask them to give you a reason for why it would be wrong for you to kill them. Just look them straight in the eye and say, “Can you give me an objective moral reason for why it would be wrong for me to shoot you where you stand?” You might startle them. But, no matter what they say, simply reply, “Well, that’s just your opinion. I don’t believe that. Give me an objective moral reason, not simply your opinion.” Again, without the existence of God, all they can give you is their opinion. Tell them you believe in Darwin’s survival of the fittest and that you don’t believe they are very fit and therefore you place no value on their lives whatsoever. “So, why would it be wrong to kill you?” There is no objective moral reason they can give you, unless they admit to the existence of God.

Was Hitler Right? (Or: Why Atheists Have No Rights); Part 2

As stated in the first half of this article, we have value because God loves us. That is an objective moral standard. Any other argument that attempts to give value to human life, and leaves God out of the equation, ultimately boils down to someone's subjective opinion. We don't have value because I say we do, or you say we do, or because anyone else says we do...we have value because we are loved by our Creator.

So, the question then becomes, when did we acquire this value? When did God start loving us? At the moment of our birth? When we became self-aware? When we were baptized? When we were first able to express belief in God? When did God start loving us? In Jeremiah 1:5, it says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. God knows us before he forms us in the womb. And this verb, “to know”, when used in this context, means an intensely personal and intimate knowledge and love. And, in Jeremiah 31:3, it says, “...I have loved you with an everlasting love...” So, God loved us before He formed us in the womb and He loves us with an everlasting love.

So, when do we, as human beings, acquire our value? Obviously, we have value from the very first moment we come into existence...from the very first moment of our conception! God loved us...at the moment of our conception...as much as He loves us right now. That is an awesome thing! Think about it! When you were just one tiny little cell - a zygote, which is the scientific name for this one-celled human being - when you were just one tiny little cell traveling through your mom’s body...God loved you! And He has loved you ever since and ever will!

Scripture tells us that God loves us even before He forms us in the womb and that He loves us with an everlasting love. So, if that’s the case, was there or is there ever any stage of your development as a human being, whether in the womb or out, that God did not and does not love you? No! Which is why the pro-life position...that life is valuable and should be protected from the very moment of conception...is the only rational and reasonable position for a just and humane society to take. God’s love for us is what makes this position valid.

And that’s why an abortion that results in the death of the tiny one-celled human being is just as abominable in God’s eyes as an abortion that results in the death of the baby at 7, 8, or 9 months of development. It is just as abominable as the murder of a 6-yr. old or of a teenager or of an adult. Because God loves us with an everlasting love no matter what stage we are at in our lives. From a one-celled human being to a human being with billions of cells. From the tiniest baby to the oldest man. God loves us. That is what gives us value, and that value never changes.

So, your value as a human being does not depend on whether or not you have been born. Your value as a human being does not depend on whether or not you have a boyfriend or a girlfriend, or a husband or a wife, or children. Your value as a human being does not depend on whether or not you have a job, or how much money you earn at your job, or what title you hold at your job. Your value as a human being does not depend on what kind of car you drive or what kind of house you live in. Your value as a human being does not depend on how old you are, what you look like, or whether or not you have physical or mental handicaps. Your value as a human being does not depend on how smart you are. Your value as a human being does not depend upon your “quality of life.”

Your value as a human being depends on God’s love for you. That’s it. And His love you have always had and always will have. So, each individual human life has value because of God’s love for that life. Now, let’s stop there for a moment and go back and answer the questions I asked in Part 1. How does the “world” answer the question of why do we, as human beings, have value? And, what is the prevailing answer to that question here in the United States?

Essentially, the “world” answers that question by saying that a person has value only if they are “wanted,” or if they are “useful.” For example, let’s say a woman is five months pregnant and looking forward to this baby being born. If a man comes up to her and shoots her or stabs her, and even though the woman lives, her unborn child dies as a result of this attack...what happens? Well, that man can possibly be charged with murder...he took the life of the unborn child. But, let’s say that same woman decides she doesn’t want her child and she goes to an abortion mill and has her baby killed by a doctor who literally rips the baby to pieces to remove it from the mother’s womb...what happens? Nothing. Nothing!

Think about that. If a woman pays money to someone, an abortionist, to kill her unborn child, then that’s perfectly acceptable in the “world’s” eyes. But, if some stranger whom she hasn’t paid money to kills her unborn child, then it’s called murder. Same woman, same child. Does that make any sense whatsoever? What’s the only difference in both situations? Whether the baby is wanted or unwanted. In essence, our society here in the United States, and in many other countries around the world, is saying that a child has value - that human life has value - only if it is "wanted" by someone else. This attitude not only diminishes the unwanted child, but it also diminishes the “wanted” child, as well. I mean, after all, you could just as easily not have wanted the child that you “allowed” to be born. The wanted child does not have any value of its own, but simply because it was “wanted” by someone else. That attitude devalues all life.

And that leads us to the question, that if a mother has a “right” to kill her child up to the moment of its birth, then why does that “right” just magically end with the birth of the child? What if the “wanted” child becomes an “unwanted” child a year after it’s born? Why can’t mommy take little Johnny or little Sally down to the unwanted infant clinic and mercifully put him or her to sleep? After all, they're just not wanted anymore. And what kind of life would an unwanted child have...better to just end it early, right? Well, that’s actually the direction we’re headed in. More and more voices are calling for parents to have the “right” to kill their child up until the child turns one or two years old. You see, that would give the parents time to decide if the child is to their liking or not. And to make sure that taking care of a child is not too burdensome...or doesn’t cause too much disruption to their lifestyle. In other words, if the child stops having value in the parents' eyes, then the child no longer has value and it's okay to throw it out with the rest of the garbage.

And why stop the killing at a person’s second birthday? I mean, after all, there are all these people out there who are no longer useful...who are a burden to society...they don’t have value to anyone. No one "wants" them. People with chronic illness, old people, the mentally and physically handicapped. The homeless. Drug addicts. What kind of life do these people have? What use are they to anybody? What value do they have? They have no quality of life. Why not just humanely put them out of their misery? Wouldn’t that be the best thing for them and for society? Wouldn’t that be the compassionate thing to do?

In other words, folks, if we get away from the notion that human life has value simply because it is human life...that every human life has value because of God’s love for that life...and we turn to the standard that human life is valuable only if it is “wanted” or “useful” or has a certain "quality of life"...if we do that...we have opened wide the gates of Hell.

If we allow human life, any human life, to be devalued at any point from conception to natural death, then we are opening the door to every human life being devalued at every point between conception and natural death. If we do not fight for the right to life of every human being, no matter how small...if we do not fight for the dignity of every human life, no matter the particular circumstances of that life...if we allow some human beings to pass laws that classify other human beings as non-persons...then we should not be surprised when one day, someone passes a law saying that our life no longer has value. That we are no longer useful. That we are no longer “wanted”. That our quality of life doesn’t meet someone’s else’s arbitrary standard. That we have become a “non-person.” Maybe there will be a knock on our door, and we’ll open it to find that a van is sitting out front waiting to take us to the troublesome teen “clinic.” Or to the old folks "clinic." Or to the handicapped “clinic.” Or to the redhead "clinic." Or to the Jewish "clinic." Or to the Catholic "clinic."

What happened in Nazi Germany is happening now in the United States. A whole class of human beings have been labeled as “non-persons,” and it is acceptable and permissible to kill these non-persons. Whether for the “right” to choose, as in abortion; or for “science,” as in embryonic stem cell research; or for the “quality of life,” as in euthanasia.

Was Hitler right? Most of those who advocate these horrible things, are never made to think through the position they’re advocating. That’s why I always ask them, “Was Hitler right to kill 6 million Jews.” If they say he was wrong, but they don’t argue that he was wrong from the standpoint of an objective moral standard (the fact that God exists and we have inherent value because of His love for us), then they are left with merely their subjective personal opinion that he was wrong...they cannot claim that he was morally wrong, the best they can do is say that he was wrong...in their opinion.

They are afraid to argue from the standpoint of an objective moral standard, because, as I mentioned in the 1st half of this article, that objective moral standard can and will be used against them when it comes to abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and other issues that they hold near and dear to their hearts.

I had one friend of mine who took issue when I said that his position regarding Terri Schiavo was immoral (he was in favor of deliberately starving her to death). After he objected to my characterization of his position as being immoral, I attempted to dialogue with him on morality. I asked a simple question, "What are your core beliefs." His response? He said he had no "core" beliefs. But, he said the following statements carry weight with him and he proceeded to quote from a few different religious and secular figures, one of whom was Jesus Christ. Guess which quote he chose for Jesus? From Matthew 25, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren..." I then asked him if Terri Schiavo wouldn't be considered as one of the least among us, which would mean that he was in favor of starving Jesus to death, since whatever we do to Terri we are doing to Jesus. I also pointed out that the passage he quoted from Matt 25 has Jesus saying, "For I was hungry and you fed me," and I mentioned it seemed kind of hypocritical to claim that passage informed your beliefs about morality, yet you are all in favor of starving someone to death. He quit replying to my emails after that.

In Conclusion
They have no response. At least, not a coherent, rational, intellectual response. They may have an emotional knee-jerk response, but that's about it.

Without God, folks, there are no objective moral standards by which to steer our lives. It boils down to whoever is the strongest gets to make the rules...might makes right. So go out and tell an atheist that you're with him 100%, and oh, by the way, you hope he doesn't mind too terribly if you use him as bait when you go fishing for great whites. After all, it would be so mean to put a helpless little fish on a hook.

Pax never actually says anything...  He's too lazy.  All he can muster is to copy and paste what others have said.  Why even bother with that?

And, Goat, as usual, is too lazy to refute the well-reasoned arguments, whether or not they're mine, instead resorting to putdowns in a feeble attempt to skirt the issues.

paxchristi3,
Plagarism is not nice,but than agains nice is an old fashioned custom long abandoned. I usually red the last two paragraphs to get the bottom line,but even that is sometimes too much.

As a Catholic on the bubble, I have always wondered why conservative  Christians  call themslves pro-life and  will not accept any kind of effective birth control, yet most of them have less than two kids, how do they do it, pinch the end? Even Cathoilcs nowadays have small families while at the same time opposing birth control,how can that be?

The other part of the eqation is that conservative Christians have the loudest voice against crime by kids who basically come from families that cannot provide for them, yet they insist on more. And when they get more unwanted and uncared for children are the first to complain and complain about bad parenting. It is conservative Christians who complain most about lack of parental responsibility and support for kids, but they brand these parents as less than human sinners if they don't abort that unwanted child
something is wrong!

Actually, most conservative Protestants don't object to birth control per se.  The birth control objection is an unbiblical Catholic teaching.

It's worth noting that Pax's subjective response itself contains no reference to any moral standard -- even the commonly cited one known as the Bible.

It's just a flat assertion by a wordy human being.

People who claim to value all human life almost invariably value their arbitrary and subjective dogma much more than they value human life.  It sounds noble and admirable to laud the sanctity of life -- but in almost every case, it's just a cheap cover.  Let me 'splain.

If one truly values human life, one considers human life to be the goal to which the best and most feasible path is chosen.

But in almost every case, people who claim to value human life insist upon -- and will absolutely not consider any alternative -- policies that will not reduce the loss of innocent human life.  If anything, their policies will increase the incidence of such loss of life.

Since it is unrealistic to wish that every person will refrain from producing any unwanted pregnancies, they are actually boosting the rates of abortion (and infanticide) if they obstruct emergency contraception (or other contraception) based on a subjective and useless personal belief.

We are all sinners, we are told -- yet their idealism and insistence upon futile policies is only effective if none of us are sinners.

And by obstructing contraceptives, they boost the population levels in impoverished nations -- leading to massive losses of innocent human life from disease and starvation.

No, these people do not value human life.  They value a useless set of taboos regardless of how many lives they cost.

If we truly value human life, then preventing needless loss of human life should be the end goal to which all methods must be considered -- regardless of personal beliefs.

Not only over the counter but free. With a huge ad campaign on Radio, print and tv. We dont need any more unwanted kids on our governments payroll. we shouldnt be stuck picking up the bill for this kid for life cause Mama wanted to go clubbin. So god yes make it everywhere and free same for abortions.

Sorry, Hardliner4freedom, but my supposedly "subjective" moral standards are entrenched in the objective moral standards of the one who is true God and true man, Jesus Christ, who taught them to his disciples and left them with the authority to "bind and loosen" sins, promising them that the Holy Spirit will protect and guide them and that the "gates of hell" would not prevail upon his bride, the one, true, catholic and apostolic church. He made it clear that those who hear his disciples hear him, and that those who reject them reject him and reject the one who sent him.

If Christ were here, he would certainly tell H4F in no uncertain terms to "get behind thee, Satan" for man's ways are not God's ways. Here, we have H4F relying on his subjective "wisdom" into thinking he knows better than 2,000 years of the church's teachings when the reality is that he is one of the "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Christ warned about in trying to water down the truths and putting perfume on a pig to make it smell good. All hail H4F as king of the Jews for claiming he knows better than Christ!

How can anyone say that the scriptures don't say anything about birth control when there are scads of verses to show otherwise, such as those shown at this link? <http://www.scripturecatholi...>

Granted there are many Catholics who flout the church's teachings on birth control. But they are generally the ones who are "Catholic" in name only, failing to attend Masses each week as required and to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Like the Episcopal Church that is undergoing an implosion, it has its crazies, too. And besides, Christ did warn of the scandals of the cross to come. But the tide is turning with a rise in the orthdox faithful who know they will die on the vine if they so much as do a Judas and turn their backs on Christ and his bride. There are studies showing that the divorce rate among those who faithfully attend Mass and practice natural family planning is something like 2 percent. Do I hear the media having an eureka moment?

Granted, NFP is not easy to follow and stick to, but neither is Christ's cross that he called for us to pick up if we wish to follow him. As for anonymous casting a skeptical eye at the Catholics who'd limit themselves to a couple of kids when Muslims are proliferating at a rate of 6-7 kids per family (don't worry, Christ guaranteed a victory for his church at the end), either they are falling prey to a materialistic and secular world and using birth control anyway, or they may have grave reasons to space out their children by using the morally acceptable method of avoid sex during fertile periods. My NFP instructor ironically has eight kids, but only because she loves and wants kids (and can certainly provide for them). My wife and I would love to have as many kids as possible if we could only afford to do so. Even though NFP is as effective or even more effective than birth control, at least we leave ourselves open to God blessing us with more children if he so wills it.

So, Goat, are you pleased now that I have not resorted to cut-and-paste tactics this time?

Not so fast, as I have yet a little Hitleristic "shop of horrors" for you to tour at: http://www.operationrescue....

And before you get tempted to offer the "morning after" pill as a final solution that'd be easier to swallow than the bloodbaths at the clinics, I offer: http://catholiceducation.or...

See the women pastors thread.  I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the god your church has invented is not the God of the Bible.  So back to "GO" you go.

Likewise, H4F, I now prove without a shadow of a doubt that you have a grossly distorted understanding of the Bible. So back to catechism class you go.

http://experts.about.com/q/...

Pax, I do not wish to buy into your type of religion and thats the nice thing about America, we don't have to buy your view. If you try to tell me I am going to hell for believing in anything contrary to your beliefs then you are what I like to call a rightwing religious nutjob. The scriptures are interpreted by many religions. Who is to say which interpretation is right? Not you, thats for sure..
And I am not stupid enough to try.

Bingo, Dusty. I'm indeedy not the one authorized to interpret the Scriptures. That makes it no else either, right? It only makes sense considering the thousands upon thousands of Christian denominations out there, all of whom claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit into the truth. But there is something that Christ gave authority to "bind and loosen sins" and gave the keys to his earthly kingdom to. Perhaps a reading of a short book called "Where We Got the Bible" would enlighten you at: http://www.catholicapologet...

Pax..its your right to believe as you feel moved to do so..I respect that right. You must also respect my right to not buy into your brand of catholicisim. I did go to the link you posted. As soon as I read where the doctrine was pulled from, I stopped reading. I do not need to be enlightened but I do thank you for thinking of me.

My point still remains, if someone does not wish to avail themselves of this little morning after pill, they do not have to. The people that wish to use it, must have the right to do so. We have the right to beleive or not believe in god, do we not in this country? Thats the wonderful thing about America..we have the right to choose.

I think it's a great idea. But let's educate kids and make sure they understand to use it on an emergency basis only. Condoms should still be used all of the time. Plan B is a contraceptive but does not protect against disease. We can't give the idea that they won't have to worry anymore. Besides 89% effective isn't very much. I like the 99% idea better. Kids should too. Let them volunteer at a daycare for a day and they will consider abstinence I'm sure.