I am quite frankly astounded that so many men commenting here are completely dismissive of the views of the women in the thread. You are not the people directly effected by the morning after pill, so a little consideration of the views of those who are instead of rude and sexist dismissal would be appropriate in this kind of situation. It might be that they are wrong, but they are also likely to be much more personally experienced than you are on this subject- not to mention it is essentially control over their uteruses that you are debating. I think giving them at least an equal say is highly important.

I agree that it would be a bad thing if the morning after pill were seen as a safe and convenient contraceptive back-up. (it’s not intended as such. It’s called “emergency contraception” for a reason- it’s for emergencies!) I agree that in principle it can abort conceived zygotes if taken very late in the time window of its effectiveness- although it is also quite likely that it will simply prevent conception altogether by inducing menstruation before fertilisation actually occurs- part of the reason it is referred to as a contraceptive. Although for some people this will be a “grey area” morally, it’s about the lightest shade of grey you’re likely to get on reproductive rights. There is no violence involved- essentially this is akin to cessation of life support for a terminal patient, except that a zygote can’t think or feel in any physical sense. It is only recognisably human by its DNA. Whether it has a soul and what consequences that has is a matter that I don’t think you’ll ever get a significant portion of New Zealanders to agree on, and frankly- I think thoughts, feelings, and social responsibility are far more important. And I don’t see how you can dismiss the idea of allowing women the ability to opt out of pregnancy in an emergency based on those grounds.

Frankly, when a woman is stressed with the risk of an unwanted pregnancy- isn’t it better she gets a pill than an abortion? Isn’t it better that we make that pill more readily available, and then teach young girls about why it’s not a good idea to rely on it for anything but emergencies during comprehensive sex education, including abstinance and sexual responsibility? You blokes here seem to be very keen on responsibility. I would say that avoiding unplanned and unwanted pregnancies is an important element of social responsibility, too.

I’d also like to point out that for many women, they don’t necessarily know of family planning, it’s not immediately accessible for them especially in an emergency, or they have been raised in an environment that makes them extremely anxious at the possibility of being seen in such a place. Making the pill available in a neutral, easily available, and health-oriented place like a pharmacy, with no questions asked and without the worry of making a purchase and disposing of a receipt or having to explain an early-morning credit card charge to an overbearing relation, will make emergency contraception a real option for some of the more vulnerable women in the country. And this initiative will make a real difference for those women if they happen to live in Auckland.

Can I get some sort of reference for this, or a study that backs up your absurd claims? You later state that you’re against all religion, so I’m just going to dismiss this wildly unattenable comment as another bigoted remark.

You can be moral and do the right thing without referring to scripture.

Yes, you can. But then what’s ‘moral’ or the ‘right thing’, then? Scripture may not be the answer you’re looking for, but for most people in the world the bible is an excellent source of an ultimate moral good, from which all other actions can be judged. I think you’re just afraid that you’d fall short.

If people are serious about addressing teen pregnancy, dpb numbers and child poverty then they should support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable.

Contraception has been around for over 20 years, and all we have seen is higher pregnancy rates, more abortions, an ever-increasing epidemic of AIDS and more viral STDs. When are we going to stop and think of a better option? Obviously things are not working. Flooding the boat isn’t going to stop it from sinking.

Any initiative which removes a barrier to people accessing services, such as cost, is to be applauded.

Even when these services promote sexual relations among under-age children and encourage them to, not only hide it from their parents, but take a pill (with proven negative side-effects) which could end their ability to reproduce later on? Smart thinking, OwhiroLady. Someone elect this one.

It will help those people who can’t be seen at Family Planning or find the $35 or $40 too expensive.

What are we teaching our kids? If you’re going to have sex, theres a definite chance that one of you is going to get pregnant. It’s a fact of life. If you find $35/40 too much, then don’t have sex. If you can’t afford to buy contraception, then how on earth can you afford to have children?

They won’t because this Government and many of its supporters subscribe to the theory that they are entitled to every “right” under the sun, but want those rights without responsibilities.

Totally agree, Scribe.

I am not opposed to the ECP but am against it being given to under age girls without their parents knowledge. In many cases a serious criminal offence could have occurred if the male involved was considerably older. We have seen a case of this and the police have done nothing. This change will make these cases much easier to go undetected.

RRM, teens can be from 13 to 19. If you are referring to older teens many used to get married and have children 30 to 40 years ago. If you are refferring to under age children you would find many in the Labour party agree with you.

caitlyno123, it is a shame more teens were not as sensible as you.

Before this you could make an appointment with family planning or a doctor and they would give it to you – at least you had to see someone that made you think about what you are doing and it was free for those under 22 or something.

If you get pregnant as a teenager try and deal with it; talk to your family. Any family should will try to be supportive no matter what. It isn’t the end of the world.

I just think that it didn’t need to be available at pharmacies because it was already easy to get; buy going to a clinic or doctor made you think about your actions and consequences.

Absolutely right.

I understand that the visit to the Doctor to get the morning after pill is instructional on many levels; I was a more sensible teenager who took precautions so I can’t say I ever had that experience!

I also believe that people are responsible for the results of their own actions – and should accept that responsibility. I’m also pragmatic. Accidents happen. Even careful people are capable of making mistakes.

Unfeasibility of condoms? I think they are very feasible. I don’t have any statistics but I can say that they can break (albeit rarely). On that point I have personal experience.

Let me give you another analogy. I have heard a lot of people suggest that skid pan practice would help reduce the accident rate of young inexperienced drivers. Many other people would think it would no the exact opposite. Knowing how to get out of a skid is good but it is better not to get in a skid in the first place.

You have two children. How would you feel if conservatives got into a position of power and taught your kids that abstinence is the best answer and the homosexuality is a perversion?

Many parents believe that schools should stick to teaching reading and writing and leave parents to teach their children what is right and wrong.

I am not anti homosexual. However, I am against the homosexual lifestyle being promote with my taxes particularly to children.

BTW – do you have any idea of the reliability or unfeasibility of condoms?

Sadly these technical solutions, like morning after pills, erode personal responsibility and sensible morality. In a society where people waited till they were married before having sex then the need for morning after pills, abortions, teen pregnancy counselling, venereal disease clinics etc would be almost non-existent.

Some seem to take the view akin to “Airbags are unnecessary. Seatbelts should be sufficient. If you crash, the belt fails and your head is to collide with the windscreen then so be it. You shouldn’t have had the accident if you weren’t prepared for the consequences.” (excuse the analogy)

If you think that there is no such thing as an accidental (ie: unplanned and possibly unwanted) pregnancy then you must be of the view that sex should be reserved for the sole purpose of making babies (not for pleasure). You probably also think that condoms never break, the contraceptive pill is never forgotten, etc. You are also anti-homosexual (by logical deduction). I can’t reason with that point of view.

I have two well loved (and well funded) kids. There have been times in the past 20 years when a happy family would not have been the result of an “unplanned arrival.” On one occasion the MAP was sought and used. Timing is critical. Waiting for a GP (an endangered species in NZ nowadays) is not always an option.

I think Danyl’s pragmatic angle is spot on.

Cactus’ water supply idea has definite appeal. Before you start asking for implementation details please go and look up the meaning of ‘tongue-in-cheek’.

That is simply not true. The sexual revolution started with the pill as condoms were unreliable in preventing pregnancies. They are also unreliable in preventing STDs. if one is determined to have sex with someone who they have no idea of their sexual health status it is of course better to use a condom. Hopwever, it is far safer to only have sex with someone you are quite sure does not have any STDs.

Which areas of the country do you suggest, and why?

I have no need, or wish, to edit Kate’s lifestyle – she parades it on her blog.

My point is: Woman deserve more than the current crap peddled to them that sex is all fun
and no responsibility for men. Giving free MAP to children will only reinforce the crap.

Who are you to edit Cactus Kate’s lifestyle, I took her post to mean something entirely different perhaps.

Where she said:

And remember that behind every demand for the morning after pill is a MAN so it does affect men directly.

I read that as….

And remember that behind every demand for the morning after pill is a MAN THAT DIDN’T WEAR A CONDOM so it does affect men directly.

I certainly understand my gender. Many of them are nice. Some of them are unfortunate, Aspergers-like lab technicians. Many are also sleazy winebags for whom nothing is more interesting than getting a woman into bed and then pissing off.

It is the last group that you obviously have the most experience with. Which is a shame. Perhaps if it was suggested to woman that they are worth so much more than a quick shag, then things might not be so bad. But of course, the malicious woman’s libbers over the last 40 years have put other ideas into young womans heads. Like putting contraceptives into the water…

Just because ones own behaviour may require a quick trip to the pharmacist, doesn’t mean that its right, or good for everyone else.

When I was a teenager I was fortunate that one of my mates parents use to keep a large box of condoms stocked up in the bathroom. My mates mother made it clear to all of us that we were welcome to take them for ourselves, but did ask us to not waste them blowing them up and being idiots with them. I reckon my mates mother stocked possibly 5-8 guys with condoms for about 5 years. Interestingly during this time none of us hormonally driven sexually active teenagers had issues with either STD’s or pregnancy, unlike many in our wider peer group.

It’s this sort of thing that needs to happen, parents need to teach these values, the concept of respect and responsibility for yourself and respect for others. Any teenager (male or female) running around with the hormonal desire to root anything that’s willing should have condoms in their pocket, it really is that simple.

This is an excellent and pragmatic policy. If people are serious about addressing teen pregnancy, dpb numbers and child poverty then they should support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable.

You have completely missed the point, it’s not contraception. Contraception is the prevention of conception, this is allowing conception to occur and is chemically inducing a miscarriage. Look I’m not an anti abortionist, I firmly believe it’s every womans right to choose what lives in her body and if she wants to shoulder the responsibility of a child/children or not. However pregnancy is one issue from unprotected sex, diseases are another. Allowing for wholesale use of the MAP encourages a less responsible attitude to safe sex. Pregnancy is not a problem, take the magic morning after pill – why use a condom when you can just chow the medicine the next morning.

Sure the MAP should be available, but it should be treated like any other restricted medicine so that health workers can do their job and educate toward a situation where it’s use is the rare exception and not some sort of magical cure for being out of control again and again.

It’s good to hear from Rx, it’s good to hear that pharmacists (most I’m sure) take this seriously. But really there is limited benefit of a lecture to a teenager who thinks the 5 minute lecture is a minor cost compared to taking no responsibility for their own or their partners sexual health.

Cactus Kate also made a good point, it’s not just the womans responsibility. However if woman were a bit firmer about the “no glove no love” message then we wouldn’t be debating this.

Its a very fine point you are trying to make, I think.

The fact is, the pill is being taken after the event. That’s the critical point. The intention is to terminate a pregnancy.

Referring to the ECP as the morning after pill is inappropriate because women have 72 hours to seek assistance.

Referring to it as “contraception” is inappropriate because by the morning after or within that 72-hour period, conception either would have taken place or not. If it has, then the pill is flushing that zygote/embryo/foetus — strike that, PERSON — out of the woman, meaning that tiny human won’t be born.

Rx,

Condoms and the pill are already widely available for free at Family Planning Clinics around the country, so I don’t believe that introducing this scheme will make a huge difference to rates of teenagers having or not having sex.

Maybe not, because the FPA crowd have already indoctrinated most of the country with their failing policies that have seen New Zealand have the highest abortion-to-births ratio in the western world and the second highest STI rate in the western world. Let’s keep pumping millions into the FPA, because it’s a fund shortage stopping them from being successful, right? Give me a break.

kiwitoffee,

Why doesn’t the Government promote abstinence? It seems to think it can do everything else.

They won’t because this Government and many of its supporters subscribe to the theory that they are entitled to every “right” under the sun, but want those rights without responsibilities.

With abortion on demand already in New Zealand, it makes me wonder why people are even bothering to push for free whatever-this-pill-is-called.