Before I begin I must state this... I hate ignorance.. and I hate people who disagree with my opinion due to ignorance. With abortion though.. I may strongly disagree with the opinions of others.. but I can respect their opinions sometimes because there is one that is ignorance free.
The problem with abortion.. is the argument of "where does life begin?" If you believe life begins at conception.. I understand why you're against it..c ause you do not want to kill a human being. Though I disagree with you.. I can respect that.... unless you start bombing abortion clinics.. cause then you're just a moron. (I mean seriously.. how can you use murder as a method to protest murder? common sense people..)
But anyways.. now to todays subject.. the morning after pill.
Emergency contraception (also known as the morning-after pill) is a high dosage of the birth control pill. It is recommended to be used after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing (or ending) pregnancy. There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together.
The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):
- Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
- The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
- It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
The two main controversies about the mornings after pill is "for one thing, there seems to be some misinformation that it is really an anti-abortion - or, rather, an abortion-inducing pill, which it is not; it doesn't cause an abortion. It actually interferes with fertilization or with ovulation. It's a contraceptive, some confusion about that.
The other source of concern among social conservatives has been in making it broadly available, especially among younger teenagers, if you were to make it available over the counter, would lead to greater sexual promiscuity among teenagers."
In some ways I can see how it could be considered an "abortion inducing pill".. due to the possible way it can prevent pregnancy (possible way 3). If you believe when a sperm and egg interact.. life is immediately created... this could be a problem. I refuse to delve into this too deeply because the argument of abortion requires it's own blog post, but I will touch on the subject lightly. When a woman miscarries.. it is not considered a death.. there is no death certificate.. for there was also no birth certificate.. there is no funeral.. there is no body.. there is no proof of life.. there is also no proof of any suffering, feeling, and there are definitely no vital organs. It does not breath.. it does not bleed.. it is an egg... hell we eat scrambled eggs for breakfast. To say that preventing the egg from latching on to the uterus is murder.. makes no sense to me. Therefore this is indeed not an abortion inducing pill at all.. it actually prevents the need for abortion.. so if anything conservatives should be worshiping this amazing advancement in medicine.
But then there is the problem of increased promiscuity. I used to consider this a problem.. that by making contraceptives available.. it is encouraging promiscuity. Then I realized that was wrong. It is instead teaching the kids out there who will not listen to Abstinence is Cool lectures.. it's better to be safe than sorry and since you are going to have sex.. make sure you don't fuck up.
But then I realized.. that too was wrong. To believe that is to still believe premarital sex is wrong. And I don't. Guess what.. I'm gay.. which means there's no marriage in my future. And even if marriage is a broad term which includes commitments and long term relationships (not in the governments eyes of course *glares*) what's so wrong with NOT waiting? So what if it's not a social norm? I despise social norms.. it's being told to do something because people were told to do it by people who were told to do it by people who were told to do it x1000 years. What is truly wrong about pre marital sex? I can understand the argument about some people not being mature enough to handle it.. but what about those who are? I can understand the increase in STD.. but how about teaching caution? I can understand the pregnancy rates but HELLO.. morning after pill. What else is so wrong about it? Religion? Not all people are religious. No.. the only thing wrong is "it's not a social norm" *that is to be said in a whiny voice btw*. If you want to be promiscuous be promiscuous. I know I'm hedonistic.. deal with it. I don't think it's a big deal.. and if there can be a pill that ensures women don't fuck up their lives.. THANK GOD!
Banning the morning after pill is just one more way to supress women. Man are welcome to explore their sexuality.. but women must raise children and cook man dinner. We're not living in the 50's... read the awakening! If a man can be a whore.. why can't a woman? What is with the double standard? And if promiscuity is such a huge problem.. why isn't viagra banned? Dumbass.
As the wise margaret cho once said
"I never had access to a morning after pill and that didn't stop me from fucking my way through the usa"