It seems the people over at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service are not happy unless they are causing outrage. Only a few days ago, they suggested that nurses be allowed to give abortion pills without the consent of doctors. Not satisfied with that, they have followed it up with this:
The leading sexual health care charity steps into a major row today by urging women to keep the “morning-after” pill alongside plasters and paracetamol in the bathroom, in case they have unprotected sex. (From the Daily Telegraph)
According to their spokesman, they would like a situation where the morning-after pill would be ‘as normal as Nurofen’. They prefer an abolition of the current restrictions on its supply.
These people are deluded. They have been led away blind by our hopelessly consumerised society. To them, pregnancy would appear to be no more than a commodity which a woman may or may not want, much like one would regard a pair of shoes in the shops; you go crazy in the sales and buy them, only to get home and change your mind. But no matter, so long as you kept the receipt, you can always take them back.
Pregnancy is not like that. A child is not a commodity. To my mind, the BPAS suggestion evinces a throwaway attitude to the life of an unborn child. A woman may do as she likes, and not worry about the consequences. Whatever happened to self-control, or God forbid, considering the consequences of one’s actions?
The BPAS is supposed to be a charity. Call me ignorant, but I thought that the general aim of a charity was to benefit society. Who exactly is the BPAS hoping will benefit from this suggestion? Certainly not the unborn child; in the BPAS mind, it is no more than a minor irritant unless the mother wants to keep it. Who then? The pregnant woman? Exactly how is promoting irresponsible, unprotected sex as a lifestyle choice supposed to benefit anybody? And let us not even consider the possible medical effects of excessive use of the morning after pill.
Whatever one might think about abortions, they are legal in this country, provided certain conditions are met. However, it is still a momentous decision for the woman in question. It is grossly irresponsible of the BPAS to trivialise the life of an unborn child in this way. They call themselves a charity, reaping the benefits of their tax-exempt status, yet by their pronouncements they show disregard for the basic values that make a society. Their wrong-headed approach to pregnancy and abortion will cause more damage in the long-term. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Bel, how do I get this blogpower logo on my blog. I have tried for the past half an hour without success.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Hi Andrew, what happens when you try? Does it not come up?
If you can email me the code you have, I will try it on my old Blogger blog, and then I may be able to work out what the problem may be. My address is theblog AT beltoday dot com
December 14th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
This is the code I am using and all i get on my blog is a picture with an ‘x’ in it.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
I just tried to paste in the code I was using so that you can copy that, but it came up as the picture. I am trying to figure out a way to do that so that you just get the code.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Bel, I don’t quite understand why you object to women having the morning-after pill at hand in their bathroom cabinet. If they are free to use it, why not be free to buy in in advance?
Surely you don’t think life begins the morning after? Who are we to dictate to adult women that they must acquire a legal pill only by going through a particular procedure?
If these pills were freely sold in Tesco’s, the number of children growing up in secondary poverty or in the care of inadeqauate mothers might be lower.
I can’t see that it is promoting “irresponsible, unprotected sex as a lifestyle choice.” Frankly, nature does a pretty good job of promoting that.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Bel, I do adhere to the blogpower code but also lack the skill to add it to my site.
I agree that this plan is ludicrous, we should be endorsing restraint, educating young people to be more aware of birth control and saying “no”. The next thing we know, they will be able to buy them in packs of a dozen and keep them in their handbag, just in case.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Tom, I must admit, after reading your comments, I was starting to think: maybe the BPAS are right, after all. That only lasted for a short while as I revisited both sides of the argument.
Life, in the commonly understood sense of the word, may not begin the morning after, but there is surely something wrong with a system that presumes a lack of self-control on the part of women. True, there are many women out there who behave exactly the way the BPAS envisages, but there is no reason why our healthcare system should encourage them.
I believe in personal freedom, but this is one issue where, perhaps, some sort of line should be drawn. We cannot, in the name of personal freedom, sanction a measure that would lead to harm.
You ask: ‘Who are we to dictate to adult women that they must acquire a legal pill only by going through a particular procedure?’
True, the morning after pill is legal, but it is not the only ‘legal’ thing we have which is subject to restriction. There are many more such examples in our law. To extend your argument a bit, one may conclude that something must either 1) be legal with no restrictions whatsoever, or 2) be banned altogether.
I believe in public morality. Not just believe in it, but accept that sometimes, our rights must be subject to it as an overarching consideration.
You raise many valid points, some of which are difficult to answer. Far be it from me to be prescriptive as to how people live their lives, but for me, the main consideration is a moral one.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Ellee, you are right. We should be endorsing restraint. However, I suspect that the BPAS would argue that that is outside its remit. As its ‘pregnancy advisory’ services are concerned only with avoiding or eliminating pregnancy, we shouldn’t be surprised at some of the recommendations they reach.
As to the Blogpower code, I must have achieved it through a miracle. I sent Andrew the same code I used, but it’s not working on his blog.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:47 am
…nurses be allowed to give abortion pills without the consent of doctors. Not satisfied with that, they have followed it up with this…
Surely not, Bel, surely not. I’m feeling really old when I see this sort of thing going on now. It’s all just got away from us.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:50 am
I didn’t see the other comments at first. Blogpower - rumblings from the troops. This evening, I am exceedingly proud to announce, I am transferring admin of the thing to Ian of Imagined, who knows what he’s doing, can advise the ladies here and others who are having problems uploading and so on. Sorry, sorry, I’m a technical ignoramus but he’ll have a snazzy Blogrolling system and bells and whistles. It’s definitely the next stage.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:18 am
I think there is a need for greater education about sex and its consequences, putting women (and men) in a position where they can make a mature decision on the issue. I certainly don’t want to live in a society where pregnancy is considered inconsequential.
However, I also have no real problem with the BPAS’s comments - assuming that emphasis is still heavily placed on having protected sex (the morning after pill can’t help you with STDs) I don’t see anything wrong with advising women to keep a stash to hand in case the condom rips, or you simply get “carried away in the moment”.
We need an approach which is not only moral, but pragmatic as well. Unprotected sex will happen, we can advise heavily against it, but we also need to look at ways of dealing with the consequences.
December 15th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
The morning after pill should be provided free of charge to any woman or girl who asks for it. The health service is not there to be a moral guardian to the nation, but to provide healthcare to those who need it.
Yes there does need to be more and better sex education - not preaching abstinance, but a realistic approach based on biology and infomation about diseases and other consequences of irresponsible behaviour, not sex just irresponsible sex.
December 15th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Matt is right about the need for more education on sex. Young people switch off in school when sex education is taught, they learn it from their friends. They should be getting the right info via magazines and advertising on a regular basis.
December 15th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Robbie, even leaving the morality aspect aside, what about the medical effects of this drug when taken on a regular basis?
Actually, leave that for a moment. I don’t even want to consider the medical effects. The moral argument is strong enough.
I do not want to live in a society which regards pregnancy as a small matter, as if it were akin to a hangover. The morning after pill should be emergency medication, not a ‘hangover remedy’ or an alternative to contraception.
I have no problem at all with contraception. Adults may do as they wish, subject to certain limited consideration. One of the considerations must surely be the respect for human life.
December 15th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Well that all depends on when you believe human life begins, I certainly don’t think it starts at the point of conception.
You are right about the medical issues regarding regular useage of the pill, and that is something those issuing them (including nurses who are more than capable) must take into account like when issuing any other medication, such as paracetamol.
December 15th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
I think you have summed up the debate precisely, Robbie Singh: it all depends on when one believs human life begins.
December 15th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Ellee said - “I agree that this plan is ludicrous, we should be endorsing restraint, educating young people to be more aware of birth control and saying “no”.”
Well that’s what happens now, and we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe or at least we did the last time I checked.
Abstinance doesnt work, some kids will always want to have sex, others won’t. It’s fun after all. Tell kids that it’s something naughty that they shouldnt do, and they will want to do it all the more.
I do agree that there should be more education in magazines and advertising though.
December 16th, 2006 at 2:40 am
I think Matt expresses it well in comment 11,and I have sympathy for Robbie’s views, as well. Conversely, Bel, it does not seem to me to follow automatically that society would be equating pregnancy with a hangover by making morning-after pills more readily available. Might you not be risking a simplistic either/or dichotomy similar to the one you suggest Tom might be making?
Is it, I wonder, less of an evil to have a proportion of mothers who are resentful and/or uncaring towards their unplanned children (I realise that not all parents react in this way) or who may not realise their potential in other areas as the result of an unplanned pregnancy, than to allow women who, for whatever reason, wish to avoid the complications of a pregnancy at that particular point in their lives? I don’t wish to suggest here that the latter outcome should be considered good, just, well, less bad.
Bel and Robbie also raise the medical consequences of these pills. I don’t believe anyone, even the most unthinking, would chuck these pills down as though they were Smarties. At least, they wouldn’t do so twice. The process of forcibly ridding the body of a (possibly fertilised) egg is neither smooth nor pleasant,and the consequences can be long-lasting…
Lastly, it strikes me that the term morning-after pill is ever so slightly euphemistic, whereas abortion pill errs perhaps too much the other way, although I can see why both terms have been employed. I doubt it is possible to come up with a single term that would satisfy all sides of this debate, but I feel it is worth noting, nonetheless: the very terms of the debate can be inflammatory.
December 16th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Far from wishing to be an interfering bossy-boots nanny in the mould of the most ardent Statist, I am in fact arguing for personal liberty. The freedom to do as you wish, and as a corollary, to take responsibility for your actions. One of the consequences of unprotected sex is pregnancy. If more people paid heed to that, we probably would not have the high rates of unplanned pregnancies that Robbie Singh mentioned earlier.
We should be teaching our children self-control. What is wrong with the current laws relating to the use of the morning after pill? Sure, it is inconvenient to traipse down to the doctor after having unprotected sex. I would expect that a young woman who had to make the inconvenient trip three times would take more responsibility for her actions the fourth time.
By saying this, I am not trying to be prescriptive. I am not trying to say that a woman may not have unprotected sex. In any case, not every instance of unprotected sex results in a pregnancy.
As I argued over at English Referendum, this argument makes me look like I am against personal liberty. I am not. I am all for personal freedom, and the reduction of interference by the State. The thing is, in a debate such as this, conservative values conflict with personal liberty principles. When this happens, it is always interesting to see which road we take.
December 16th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Bel, I would like to withdraw the last paragraph in my earlier comment. Not Saussure has pointed out to me that I have conflated two issues, as a result of which I attributed to you a use of language that you had not in fact employed. My apologies for having done so.
December 16th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Hi Ian,
that’s OK, no problem.
In fairness to you, I must say that the debate has been raging for years as to whether the morning after pill is contraceptive or abortifacient. When I read your comment and your post over at your blog, it raised a question that I had not fully addressed in my mind: is the morning-after pill a contraceptive or an abortifacient? Notsassure makes some very interesting comments in this regard. The UK Government regard it as a contraceptive, and that is the law. The Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child take a different view, but they don’t make the law.
I am grateful for your post over at your blog, without which I would not have turned my mind to that particular issue.
December 16th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Bel, you say ‘The morning after pill should be emergency medication, not a ‘hangover remedy’ or an alternative to contraception.’ I quite agree, but I don’t quite see why it’s undesirable to keep emergency medication close to hand should an emergency arise.
Were anyone suggesting that the morning after pill should be used like a hangover remedy or as an alternative to contraception, I’d agree they were being irresponsible. However, it seems perfectly responsible to suggest having them close to hand should normal contraceptive measures fail (condoms do sometimes burst) or, for whatever reason, you neglect to use them on one occasion.
They’re only effective if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, and the closer to the event they’re taken, the more effective they are, so it is quite important to able to take one immediately rather than waiting until you’re able to ‘to traipse down to the doctor after having unprotected sex’, as you put it, or even traipse down to the chemist the following morning (or possibly lunchtime, if you’re at work). The earlier you take one, the less likely you are to be seeking an abortion some weeks later.
Boing Boing had a couple of months ago about the difficulties faced by women in parts of the USA obtaining morning after pills, which makes instructive reading. To my mind, it’s fortunate that of is rare here, though it’s not unheard-of. (I blogged about it when I read the Boing Boing piece, which is why I had the links to hand).
December 16th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Sorry, Bel; your comment and mine crossed, as it were. Didn’t mean to ignore you. As I suggested over in Ian’s place, the morning after pill and chemical abortion pills are two completely different things; one does pretty much what an IUD does and the other induces an abortion.
I fully understand SPUC’s position on the matter but it’s one based on a religious rather than a medical or legal understanding of when pregnancy starts (and, I daresay, most people’s everyday understanding of when pregnancy begins, too).
December 17th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Ths SPUC actually make use of scientific evidence in their arguments. In fact, in the article I attached in my previous comment, they make the point that the UK Government has not produced any sources to back its claim that the morning after pill is contraception.
I don’t know which of the parties are correct. Just wanted to point to the other side of the debate.
Thank you for those two links in your earlier comment. I found them most useful and informative.