If sex wasn’t so much fun, we probably would have died out as a species, barring some sort of mating cycle. Yet some people and organisations are determined to stick their oar into other peoples morals and determine other peoples choices and lifestyles. This is a typical example of a Daily Mail ‘scare’ story, but the facts about the product are accurate enough.
Mail.
Women can now buy a morning-after pill that works for up to five days after sex – without having to see a GP.
From today, any woman aged 18 or over will for the first time be able to buy the powerful medication – called EllaOne –from certain branches of the Co-operative Pharmacy.
But campaigners say that because it can be taken so long after conception it is an early form of abortion.
There are also concerns that it will encourage unprotected sex as women will see it as a ‘safety net’ – leading to higher rates of promiscuity and sexually transmitted infections.
EllaOne can be taken longer after sex than the conventional morning-after pill – which works for three days – and is up to twice as effective at preventing pregnancies.
Until now it has only been possible to get EllaOne with a prescription from a GP – or from an obscure London-based website which also sells Viagra and weight-loss drugs.
But from today it will be on sale for £30 in some 40 Co-op branches in southern England and Wales in areas with high rates of unwanted pregnancies.
As to whether or not it will increase promiscuity, God alone knows, though I have my doubts, still that’s the tack that those who oppose the product are apparently going to take, along with the ‘abortion’ argument. Morality is a pretty tough minefield to wander into, one persons morals do not necessarily apply to the person standing next to you, nor indeed should they unless it directly affects them in the form of a direct compulsion to partake. No, you do not have the right not to be offended, you have the right to ignore, you have the right to protest, but you should not have the right to stop another’s moral choices, unless they directly inflict on you or harm unwilling others.
Before the advent of ‘easy’ contraception, religion was essentially the tool used to prevent unwanted children being foisted onto society outside of marriage, not that these children didn’t happen along (people being people) but due to the shame factor for allowing it to happen. Religion was the tool to help men be sure that the children they were bringing up were essentially their own too, (again the previous caveats apply) and to an extent they worked to keep women in line, for yes, that is the gender they were aimed at, women produced the babies after all.
The first contraceptive pills changed that putting control of the breeding cycle into the hands of the woman and everything changed. Suddenly it was discovered (for certain values of suddenly) that women enjoyed sex just as much if not more than men and with the risks of spurious pregnancy removed would take risks they never would have in the past. Promiscuity abounded so to speak and with it came a few side effects such as STD’s and abortions from those actions, very much a prime example of cause and effect.
Essentially though this is something society is going to have to deal with, not religion and not pressure groups opposed to abortion and scare stories won’t stop people having sex either. Going back to the old days is possible, but that’s for future generations, I doubt that many would change now save under extreme duress (yes we’re looking at you Islam) and this pill is the natural result of the last 50 years or so social change.
In the end it all comes down to personal choice, the groups that oppose this pill are trying to deny it to all women in the same way some would deny abortions or even the ability to go out and work. Yet these people are generally not the ones who live with the consequences.
This is something society as a whole is going to have to work out, banning something won’t stop unwanted pregnancies nor does a nice morality fit all. In the end the choices should be personal, yet far too many are prepared to interfere and intervene.
Change will happen when society is ready for it, not before and enforcing someone else’s morality on the unwilling simply won’t work, not any more…
Oh, FFS! Quite apart from this being arrant nonsense, it’s none of their damned business.
Whatever the issue there’s always ‘campaigners’ to moan about it. Makes you wonder how come they have so much time on their hands.
As usual, the religious leaders are DELIBERATELY LYING.
Remember that there are at least 2 or 3 natural “abortions” for every live birth.
[ Non-implantation of fertilsed zygote, or drop-out of fertilised zygote before/at next period time. ]
Remember that many (especially the umitigatedly evil RCC) churches & religions try to limit or ban any form of contraception.
Not their bodies, none of their business.
Meanwhile, how are the unwanted children to be socialised, and who pays?
Promiscuity or not it is a personal choice by the individual involved (adding another choice of prophylactic isn’t going to effect that). As someone involved in healthcare I’d be surprised if there is much of a take-up of this product. My, admittedly limited experience of the area (and what literature I have read) indicates that most abortions are a procedure decided on by ladies who find out a number of weeks into an unexpected pregnancy (after taking precautions that failed). There is a very small subsection who use abortion as a prophylactic, but this won’t be used by them either. But either way, this isn’t in any way, shape or form and abortion, it’s a prophylactic, nothing more.
My personal opinion is that it was neither morality nor religion that encouraged less promiscuous behaviour in the past. It was hardship, stigma and economics. Now, becoming pregnant is seen (rightly or wrongly) as having neither social, cultural or economic downsides (and to some it is seen as a career choice, get pregnant, get a free house and benefits and never have to work).
Personal responsibility is what is lacking today and that is a direct consequence of policies brought in by the PC and feminist crowds (just as the decline in marriage is a consequence of the policy of giving the woman everything she asks for, no loss for her. What man will voluntarily sign up to have his life probably ruined whenever a woman suddenly feels the urge?) .
This will be just another option for the tiny minority who bother to take some responsibility for themselves (it has the added benefit of a higher success rate, something very important for those subjected to rape, and being able to buy OTC it is a positive too).
But when did facts ever stop the busybody prohibitionists?
“Now, becoming pregnant is seen (rightly or wrongly) as having neither social, cultural or economic downsides…
Yet pregnancy can still be…even in this day and age…a massive health risk for the mother and can be so right from the moment of conception. As is the premature loss of an unborn zygote/foetus/baby/whatever by any means.
Perhaps if more females were educated on those risks they’d take better care of their own bodies. Perhaps not since ignorance is also something that can be a deliberate personal choice.
My only concern is that this will be widely viewed as an easy, SAFE and convenient method of contraception when it is anything but.
Ask any priest of any religion …..
Well I certainly hope it increases female promiscuity – bring it on.
Why do they think a new pill will cause more STD’s and promiscuity?
If the feckless can’t even be bothered to get free johnnies from the doctors, they are not going to pay £30 for a bloody pill.
According to the article it is already available on prescription…it’s only now they’re going to sell it over-the-counter too…and free prescriptions are just one of the perks of being on certain benefits.
NO
WRONG
As “Birth control” it is already FREE ……
For everyone.
Don’t shout at me in caps you silly man. At no point did I say this particular medication had to be paid for on prescription.
I said “free prescriptions are just one of the perks of being on certain benefits.”
Meaning…if you really didn’t comprehend a straightforward statement and MUST look for a meaning…IN GENERAL.
Sit down and behave :/
You were quite deliberately implying Daily nazi “scrounger” free-prescriotions, which is not the case in this case.
Nice try, no banana, I saw you palm that card ….
Heh…bullshit…I say what I mean and mean what I say.
You got shouty over something non-existent but evidently forefront in your own mind.
Something not stated, inferred, implied or any other word you care to pull out of your arse to justify your behaviour. Behaviour noted to escalate very quickly to the ad hominem. There’s a word for that – Troll.
Now, I’ve been polite but…do fuck off.
Okay – can we now cool it, people. Ta.
What about male promiscuity, a standing cock has no conscience, it does not concern itself with ethics at the time of orgasmic squelching, that’s why so many unwanted little sproglets are running around costing the country billions.
Because until recently only male promiscuity had no consequences, with readily available female contraception available, it suddenly turns out that the ladies like to indulge as well.
Mistakes do still happen though, which is why this product and others have developed.
Is this the same Daily Mail that prints endless articles about practically any woman they can find wearing a bikini whilst simultaniously complaining about promiscuity in society?
Just askin…
Yes.
The same Daily Nazi that claims not to use or condemns the use of “paparazzi”, the lying hypocrites.
“….it will be on sale for £30 from…..” This means that a good number of purchasers will be £5 down from the money they got for the shag!
“or harm unwilling others”
Such as, by killing them?