This is a bigger issue than whether or not young women are offered the pill or the morning after pill and at what age.
Throughout the recent festive period there has been a trial taking place in Swansea whereby the morning after pill is being made available to any female of teenage years. Medical checks are not to be undertaken but advice will apparently be given. I have a few links if you want to read the horror story for yourselves: -
The horror story to which I refer is not that of self induced termination of viable pregnancies. That is a moral debate that I will not get into on this particular post.
An appointment with your GP has been required for any woman wishing to have the morning after pill out of medical necessity. The chemical used is by the very nature of the job that it has to perform a very strong one. There are very sound medical reasons why certain women should not take it and why no women should take it regularly. Certainly a thirteen year old body cannot be seen as fully developed and as such I imagine that medical advice is even more important.
I cannot imagine a youngster who has lied to obtain the morning after pill suddenly starting to tell the truth in the emergency ward when complications have set in even if she is still conscious.
Rather than self induced abortion surely prevention of pregnancy is a better solution.
The pill is now also available on demand at the chemist it would seem without a prescription: -
Again an appointment with the GP used to be a formality so that the person with medical knowledge and your medical history to hand could decide if there were any medical conditions that needed taking into consideration and whether the contraceptive pill could bring problems to you either immediately or later in life. There are also different ‘pills’ available. The doctor is the ideal person to decide which is best for you.
If the prevention of unplanned pregnancy is truly the desired outcome of the policies above then they are at best naive and short-sighted.
The potential short and long term medical problems that the individual patient may be storing up for themselves with either of the above solutions surely outweigh the only benefit which is sex on demand.
Morals stand for nothing. Sex has been reduced to a bodily function no more special than a trip to the toilet. This is definitely not what feminists wanted and it most certainly isn’t ‘girl power’.
Where is the concern for sexually transmitted diseases? Chlamydia is only one but in the news because it spreads like wildfire, is invisible, can be carried without side effects for the carrier and renders great numbers of its victims infertile and yet nowhere in the policies above does it even get a mention.
If this is your way of thinking then why should condoms not be freely made available to all males over twelve years of age. This prevents disease as well as pregnancy, needs no medical examination and has no known medical side effects in later life.
There is no need for anyone to tell lies to a chemist that may lead to medical complications later in life or more immediately with a visit to the emergency suite of a local hospital if there is a bad reaction to one of the chemical cocktails above.
There are no trust issues between sexual partners either. A condom is visible proof of a level of protection against pregnancy and disease. There you go then. A far cheaper method of lowering the rate of teenage pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases without the potential medical complications to the patient, and the cost to the NHS and ultimately the taxpayer, or even the demeaning spectacle of a young girl lying to a pharmacist.
Certainly as a prospective parliamentary candidate for the British National Party I would prefer this option to the ones above even though it does nothing for the moral debate about teenagers and sexual activity. You will never stop it so let us be grown up about it.
I am avoiding the argument that abstention is the best form of contraception or the moral arguments associated with teenage sex. This post is quite long enough and those issues are outside the scope of it.
It is quite possible that there is a quite separate agenda behind the recent policies.
Population control was the elephant in the house at the recent Copenhagen summit on climate change. Whether man made or otherwise we can do nothing about it whilst the human population is spreading like a plague of locusts.
It has long been said that the only way to break down national identity and therefore nationalistic tendencies in a westernised country such as Great Britain is to destroy the belief in the family unit and to transform the make up of society thereby effectively dissolving the nation.
The social sexualisation of the nation continues apace with these policies. Youngsters of thirteen are no longer protected in law when the prosecution has to prove that harm has been caused irrespective of the age of the sexual partner.
The family unit has taken a few knocks over recent decades and the make up of society certainly has. You will not be unaware of the facts that the number of babies born to foreign born mothers increases all of the time. That the percentage of children in schools that are not indigenous continues to grow and that the above is a policy of the state as kindly revealed by Andrew Neather of the Labour Party can no longer be denied.
Can it be said therefore that the Tri-party Lib/Lab/Con alliance have come up with a policy which in our own homeland could, through the extensive increase in sexual diseases and infertility, lead to the effective sterilization of a section of the indigenous population? Not a policy of sterilization but sterilization because of policy.
Gives you something to think about doesn’t it?
Posts
