Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

Yes. Anything that improves women's access to contraception is good. Removing the Church-decreed double standard in healthcare is still critical. Repealing the 8th was just the first step.

I'm not against it, but don't see anything stating that a pharmacist cannot refuse to dispense the morning after pill for personal reasons.

volchitsa

DubInMeath wrote: »

Given pharmacists can still refuse to dispense the morning after pill due to personal religious beliefs, to the best of my knowledge, would this change anything in relation to this?

Possibly not, but is that really a major problem nowadays?

Basically I think it pushes the balance of what is "normal" further towards "mind your own business" which is a good thing, but I really meant for activists like the Ionanists, who must surely hate the very idea of easy access to contraception, and yet can hardly come out against it without having to explain why they are taking a stance which can only increase numbers of unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.

Igotadose

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'm not against it, but don't see anything stating that a pharmacist cannot refuse to dispense the morning after pill for personal reasons.

True, but if a pharmacists constituents come in, get refused, and move on to another pharmacist, that has an impact. They *can* object, doesn't mean they will, or persist in objecting. Keep the pressure on.

And really, don't give out contraception, fine. Raise the probability of abortion. Just what the objecting pharmacist would want? Doubtful.

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

True, but if a pharmacists constituents come in, get refused, and move on to another pharmacist, that has an impact. They *can* object, doesn't mean they will, or persist in objecting. Keep the pressure on.

And really, don't give out contraception, fine. Raise the probability of abortion. Just what the objecting pharmacist would want? Doubtful.

The thing is if doing so on religious grounds, they see the morning after pill as a form of chemical abortion, so no they still wouldn't dispense it.

While your saying just go to another pharmacy, I understand that, but not everyone can drive etc to the next town to see if they dispense it.

From personal experience, only one pharmacy in Tuam would dispense it, and it only opened one Sunday in every four weeks, and the closest pharmacy open seven days also refused to dispense it. This might have changed since then as this was over five years ago.

Kells in Meath for example none of the pharmacies in the town open on a Sunday and until a pharmacy chain opened last year you had to travel to Navan to get a pharmacy.

Igotadose

DubInMeath wrote: »

The thing is if doing so on religious grounds, they see the morning after pill as a form of chemical abortion, so no they still wouldn't dispense it.

While your saying just go to another pharmacy, I understand that, but not everyone can drive etc to the next town to see if they dispense it.

From personal experience, only one pharmacy in Tuam would dispense it, and it only opened one Sunday in every four weeks, and the closest pharmacy open seven days also refused to dispense it. This might have changed since then as this was over five years ago.

Kells in Meath for example none of the pharmacies in the town open on a Sunday and until a pharmacy chain opened last year you had to travel to Navan to get a pharmacy.

*Not* having contraception available won't change their behavior. Having it available and making it uncomfortable for the pharmacists to refuse, would.

Though, I totally agree with your basic point, which is, conscientious objection is bullsh*t. It's only ever about women's right to healthcare and it's only ever "conscientiously objected" against. The objections should be removed by law. I expect that change will come in due time. Doctors and pharmacists that object should have these objections noted publicly on websites and perhaps at the doors of their clinics/pharmacies.

Timberrrrrrrr

MP's have voted to extend SSM to Northern Ireland and will later vote on abortion rights.



https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/NBrMz

MPs have voted resoundingly to extend same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland, a plan the government has said it will honour despite ministerial doubts.

The Commons voted 383 to 73 to pass the amendment to a largely technical bill on the stalled Northern Ireland assembly, tabled by the Labour MP Conor McGinn, a longstanding campaigner for equal marriage in Northern Ireland.

MPs will vote later on another amendment to the bill to extend abortion rights to Northern Ireland, tabled by the Labour MP Stella Creasy.

The government has long argued that both issues are devolved matters and should not be imposed on Northern Ireland by Westminster. But McGinn and Creasy say the fact the assembly and executive have been suspended since January 2017 amid political deadlock means action must be taken.

Igotadose

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

MP's have voted to extend SSM to Northern Ireland and will later vote on abortion rights.



https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/NBrMz

That link shows that, actually, abortion rights *have* been extended to NI.

So, are abortion rights now universal on our Ireland? This is quietly a great day for Ireland.
---
Did some more reading. If Stormont is restored, it must vote on abortion rights & same-sex marriage if before october 21. Otherwise, both laws come into effect on the 21st.

So, it's a really good day for Northern Ireland, but not completely resolved yet.

Bannasidhe

Igotadose wrote: »

That link shows that, actually, abortion rights *have* been extended to NI.

So, are abortion rights now universal on our Ireland? This is quietly a great day for Ireland.
---
Did some more reading. If Stormont is restored, it must vote on abortion rights & same-sex marriage if before october 21. Otherwise, both laws come into effect on the 21st.

So, it's a really good day for Northern Ireland, but not completely resolved yet.

It will be an interesting meeting in DUP HQ discussing that one.

South of the Border meanwhile did any catch Lavhline today? It was on while I was driving and what the actual planet was yer man with his Rosary of Reparations on? I was, on the one hand, willing him to keep talking about Hell and Sin etc as it was the best argument for pro-choice ever but, on the other hand, I was rolling my eyes so much I was in danger of crashing.

Hotblack Desiato

Link:

https://www.rte.ie/cspodcasts/media.mp3?c1=2&c2=16951747&ns_site=test&ns_type=clickin&rte_vs_ct=aud&rte_vs_sc=pod&rte_mt_sec=radio&rte_mt_prg_name=liveline&rte_vs_sn=radio1&rte_mt_pub_dt=2019-07-09&title=Anti-Abortion%20Protest&c7=http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2019/0709/20190709_rteradio1-liveline-antiaborti_c21583755_21583758_232_/20190709_rteradio1-liveline-antiaborti_c21583755_21583758_232_.mp3&r=http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2019/0709/20190709_rteradio1-liveline-antiaborti_c21583755_21583758_232_/20190709_rteradio1-liveline-antiaborti_c21583755_21583758_232_.mp3

Someone is going to have to take one for the team here :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

Liveline thread on the Radio forum is full of some of the most offensive posting you'll ever see on Boards.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Link:

https://www.rte.ie/cspodcasts/media.mp3?c1=2&c2=16951747&ns_site=test&ns_type=clickin&rte_vs_ct=aud&rte_vs_sc=pod&rte_mt_sec=radio&rte_mt_prg_name=liveline&rte_vs_sn=radio1&rte_mt_pub_dt=2019-07-09&title=Anti-Abortion%20Protest&c7=http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2019/0709/20190709_rteradio1-liveline-antiaborti_c21583755_21583758_232_/20190709_rteradio1-liveline-antiaborti_c21583755_21583758_232_.mp3&r=http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2019/0709/20190709_rteradio1-liveline-antiaborti_c21583755_21583758_232_/20190709_rteradio1-liveline-antiaborti_c21583755_21583758_232_.mp3

Someone is going to have to take one for the team here :pac:

Alternately there just was a shouty SPUC man on BBC Newsnight but tbh Spucman is in the ha'penny place compared to Conor (?) and his small white coffins on Lavhline today.

Hotblack Desiato

SPUCMan... his super power, Forcing women to give birth against their will saving baybees.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

SPUCMan... his super power, Forcing women to give birth against their will saving baybees.

By The Power of Being Shouty - SPUCMan.

Hotblack Desiato

Car crash radio but RTE got what they wanted and that's all that matters.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Car crash radio but RTE got what they wanted and that's all that matters.

Or in my case not car crash radio as I reached my destination and escaped unscathed apart from a cramp in my eyes from rolling them. :pac:

But wasn't Conor (?) just a barking mad zealot like. I was WOW. Super crazy on the Lavhline today...

Or maybe Lavhline is always like that... I usually have Lyric on when I'm in the car but changed it yesterday when improve jazz came on...Turn on the car today and we were straight into what could have been outtakes from The Life of Brian

Hotblack Desiato

I've listened to the whole thing and wish I hadn't. However the more these vile opinions are exposed the less support they'll have - worked out great for Brexit and Trump.

Sigh

There's a reason smart humans invented alcohol, it was so they could put up with the stupid humans

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I've listened to the whole thing and wish I hadn't. However the more these vile opinions are exposed the less support they'll have - worked out great for Brexit and Trump.

Sigh

There's a reason smart humans invented alcohol, it was so they could put up with the stupid humans

I did venture into the thread in the radio forum... and backed out again equally quickly.
Ain't enough alcohol in the world for that.

Hotblack Desiato

I've reported quite a few pretty nasty posts in there, including a couple by one of its own mods, so let's see what will happen.

Nothing, obviously...

aloyisious

Charles clearly sees the end as justifying the means, despite the input from the Rally For Life contributor. Passed the protest outside the hospital as it was breaking-up, didn't know what it was about. There was a percentage of religious-belief people at the rally for life in town, met them on Parnell St coming from Dominick St [church] locale with a statue of EDIT; [delete Mary] Lady of Lourdes [probably] and banner escort.

Bit surprised to hear references to Satanic practices, though it would indicate the strong religious aspect some from the anti-abortion side have belief-wise.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did venture into the thread in the radio forum... and backed out again equally quickly.
Ain't enough alcohol in the world for that.

My usual experience with going anywhere near AH. Some discussions just aren't worth going anywhere next, nigh or near.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

My usual experience with going anywhere near AH. Some discussions just aren't worth going anywhere next, nigh or near.

That would be the current affairs thread now.

See a lot of the same posters in the liveline thread, that are in CA/AH threads going on about immigrants, some saying that they should be left drown in the med. Funny usual double standards.

Bannasidhe

Charles (not Conor as I thought) Byrne was the zealot I heard on Lavhline yesterday.

PRO-LIFE PROTESTERS criticised for their recent demonstration outside the National Maternity Hospital are planning to return this Saturday.

The protest last Saturday was organised by Our Lady of Lourdes Protectors group. A member of the group, Charles Byrne, said they hold a demonstration every week.

A photograph showing protesters outside the hospital in Dublin city centre with three white child-size coffins drew heavy criticism on Twitter and on RTÉ One’s Liveline today.
“We believe that abortion is a sin and therefore requires public reparation,”

https://www.thejournal.ie/baby-coffins-outside-hospital-4717168-Jul2019/?utm_source=facebook_short&fbclid=IwAR3Vh43OGIuZM-zMnCMSThtQ2MNOB74Z8lVd7lrEjKkmS-Yyy2ncUfX53y4

That quote from him is one of his more 'reasonable' statements. While we may scoff at him here in A&A he appears to have a some support over in the Radio forum... although I would advise against going over there for a look unless you can stomach some frankly appalling misogynistic language.

Igotadose

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Charles (not Conor as I thought) Byrne was the zealot I heard on Lavhline yesterday.


That quote from him is one of his more 'reasonable' statements. While we may scoff at him here in A&A he appears to have a some support over in the Radio forum... although I would advise against going over there for a look unless you can stomach some frankly appalling misogynistic language.

Ah, the lad that brought the suit to the supreme court to delay the legislation and has been showing up outside GP's to protest. Claims to only own a piano, no visible means of support (wink wink).

And of course he ends up on Liveline.

Bannasidhe

Igotadose wrote: »

Ah, the lad that brought the suit to the supreme court to delay the legislation and has been showing up outside GP's to protest. Claims to only own a piano, no visible means of support (wink wink).

And of course he ends up on Liveline.

Wonder how he pays for his piano to be tuned.
That ain't cheap.
:P

Igotadose

Even though it's parody, I guess it's good to see anti-abortion zealots being parodied in Waterford Whisperers:

https://tinyurl.com/tuam-babies-dumped-in-septic

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

Even though it's parody, I guess it's good to see anti-abortion zealots being parodied in Waterford Whisperers:

Protesters With Baby Coffins Planning ‘Fuck All’ For Tuam Grave Site

Links not working for me so just in case someone else has the issue posting the one that worked for me.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2019/07/10/protesters-with-baby-coffins-planning-****-all-for-tuam-grave-site/

Plumbthedepths

Igotadose wrote:

Even though it's parody, I guess it's good to see anti-abortion zealots being parodied in Waterford Whisperers:

Surely everyone knows by now it's only the unborn they care about, once they're born these fanatics lose interest.

Bannasidhe

Igotadose wrote: »

Ah, the lad that brought the suit to the supreme court to delay the legislation and has been showing up outside GP's to protest. Claims to only own a piano, no visible means of support (wink wink).

And of course he ends up on Liveline.

Wonder how he pays for his piano to be tuned.
That ain't cheap.
:P

smacl

DubInMeath wrote: »

Links not working for me so just in case someone else has the issue posting the one that worked for me.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2019/07/10/protesters-with-baby-coffins-planning-****-all-for-tuam-grave-site/

Got to love WWN, they certainly don't pull their punches

The group said it was planning another such protest this Saturday, but declined to respond when asked why it wasn’t protesting at sites like the Catholic Church run Mother and Baby homes where young children were discarded like diapers into septic tanks, or even campaigning for homeless children, children in care and awaiting fostering or adoption.

“The Tuam babies weren’t aborted, they died from harmless stuff like illness, being starved, beaten and left to die because they weren’t God’s children,” Browne defended, blessing himself at the thoughts of a child being born out of wedlock to a filthy woman.

Classic :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

"Charlie Browne" - genius (by WWN I mean!)


On a more serious note :


Women facing 'deception and intimidation' when seeking overseas abortion, pro-choice groups claim

Pro-choice groups have warned that women in Malta are being targeted with “deception and intimidation” to prevent them from accessing legal abortion care overseas.

The Abortion Support Network (ASN), the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) and Voice for Choice Malta, claimed women in Malta had reported anti-abortion groups impersonating abortion service providers and providing false information about travelling to England for an abortion.

In a joint statement, the groups said women had also received abusive text messages and even had people show up at their home to dissuade them from having an abortion.

They warned that by attempting to block women’s access to safe, legal care overseas, women would be delayed and forced to undergo procedures at a later gestation, at an increased cost, or may resort to using abortion pills purchased online, illegally, risking up to three years imprisonment.

“One group shared women’s phone numbers and e-mail addresses with an anti-abortion group in Ireland,” Abortion Support Network founder Mara Clarke said.

“Another person pretended to be an employee from an abortion clinic and told a young woman she needed to delay her procedure by two months (by which time it would have been too late for her to get an abortion in England).

“Another anti-abortion activist, after pretending she would help a woman get an abortion, sent her abusive text messages and visited her home trying to dissuade her from having an abortion.

“Two of the women we heard from were in quite vulnerable situations and it is despicable that these organisations would prey upon women in this way.”

The groups warned women they were likely to be speaking to an anti-abortion organisation if they were told that abortion causes breast cancer, mental health issues, or infertility; if they were told to get a scan in Malta; asked for their home address; or contacted from an Irish phone number (+353).

“While we respect the right of individuals and organisations to be against abortion, we draw the line at using scare tactics, lies, and intimidation,” they said.

Abortion Support Network is a UK-based charity providing financial assistance, practical information and accommodation to those living in countries with restrictive abortion laws, and expanded its services to Malta last February.

Voice for Choice, a Maltese coalition of pro-choice groups, was set up in March to work for reproductive rights and justice in Malta.

Kidchameleon

Igotadose wrote: »

Here's something the pro-life and pro-choice sides can agree upon. Free contraception funding, the best way to prevent abortion:
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/free-contraception-funding-budget-ireland-17371293


I even have a candidate line item in the budget to take from - the ring-fenced funding for the greyhound industry!

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

So if a 12 year old turned up asking for contraception, possibly sent by someone grooming her, maybe even planning on pimping her out, or by an incestuous relative, you don't think questions should be asked?

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

So if a 12 year old turned up asking for contraception, possibly sent by someone grooming her, maybe even planning on pimping her out, or by an incestuous relative, you don't think questions should be asked?

Do you think a 12 year old asking for contraception should be refused? Ill get on to your question about gooming dont worry

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Do you think a 12 year old asking for contraception should be refused? Ill get on to your question about gooming dont worry

I didn't say that, I'm saying if a 12 year old is looking for contraception, questions need to be asked to ensure that this is not an abusive situation. You said anyone of any age, no questions asked. That's dangerously incurious, IMO. At that age it is more likely to be abuse than not. Most 12 year olds are not ready to be sexually active unless someone is pushing them into it in some way.

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

This is unwise. a) you can buy condoms no questions asked. b) there may be medical contra indications for the hormonal contraceptives c) there are some risks around IUDs which need discussion and d) some of the implants can be hard to remove and that is before you get to age related risk with some of them. Even the MAP which is now availabke OTC still involves a chat with a pharmacist.

I agree with it being free but not necessarily no questions asked. And absolutely a 12 year old showing up looking for contraception, questions should be asked. It isn't just about your antidiluvian libertarian price of everything value of nothing whinge about your tax money. There are substantial questions around safety and health of minors here. Between this and your earlier distasteful posts on killing infants after they are born, I am concerned about your value set here. You do not seem to understand nuance.

Kidchameleon

Calina wrote: »

This is unwise. a) you can buy condoms no questions asked. b) there may be medical contra indications for the hormonal contraceptives c) there are some risks around IUDs which need discussion and d) some of the implants can be hard to remove and that is before you get to age related risk with some of them. Even the MAP which is now availabke OTC still involves a chat with a pharmacist.

I agree with it being free but not necessarily no questions asked. And absolutely a 12 year old showing up looking for contraception, questions should be asked. It isn't just about your antidiluvian libertarian price of everything value of nothing whinge about your tax money. There are substantial questions around safety and health of minors here. Between this and your earlier distasteful posts on killing infants after they are born, I am concerned about your value set here. You do not seem to understand nuance.

Good points, would a person being preassured just be instructed to lie though? Ill have to give it more thought

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Good points, would a person being preassured just be instructed to lie though? Ill have to give it more thought

A 12 year old looking for MAP should cause a police report because the risk of pregnancy means she has had sexual contact and that is illegal. I am open to correction but i believe med profs are subject to mandatory reporting if they suspect sexual abuse of a minor. There may be an argument for standard hormonal contraception given it treats some related syndromes. That will involve a chat with a doctor. Lies might happen but..

I think the risk of it is not a reason to avoid putting safeguards in place.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Good points, would a person being preassured just be instructed to lie though? Ill have to give it more thought

A victim of abuse of any sort may well be put under pressure to lie, or be too frightened to speak out initially. That's not a reason not to ask questions at all, quite the opposite.

Anyway your original point wasn't that the truth would be difficult to ascertain, it was that it would save money for taxpayers. Bit of goalpost-moving going on there, methinks.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

A victim of abuse of any sort may well be put under pressure to lie, or be too frightened to speak out initially. That's not a reason not to ask questions at all, quite the opposite.

Anyway your original point wasn't that the truth would be difficult to ascertain, it was that it would save money for taxpayers. Bit of goalpost-moving going on there, methinks.

How have I moved goal posts?

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's a reason smart humans invented alcohol, it was so they could put up with the stupid humans

Interesting suggestion, though the Drunken Monkey Hypothesis suggests otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_monkey_hypothesis

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How have I moved goal posts?

The post you quoted literally explains how.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

The post you quoted literally explains how.

No, I dont think it does but perhaps I am missing something? Care to enlighten me?

Lets recap, I posted an argument in favor of unrestrained contraception, another poster (Calina) pointed out some flaws in my argument. I quoted Calina's response & replied to it by saying they had made good points and I had some food for thought as a result.

Personally I would call that honest, healthy discussion but you have called it "moving the goalposts". I'm confused , so again, could you please explain what you mean by that, thanks.

volchitsa

Nah, you're a troll, and not even an amusing one.

Mod: Yellow Carded for breach of Charter. Poster was previously warned that calling other posters "trolls" is against the Charter. If you wish to discuss this infraction please do so via PM not in thread. Thanking you

smacl

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Do you think a 12 year old asking for contraception should be refused?

A 12 year old asking for contraception implies a 12 year old having sex. The person they've had or are considering having sex with is engaged in statutory rape. The law in this country is that the twelve year old is a minor and a victim of a crime, so yes, from a purely legal perspective, questions need to be asked. As raised previously, there is also a real danger that they are the victim of abuse here.

Once teens are that bit older, statutory rape gets contentious as we don't have "Romeo and Juliet laws" in this country, though my understanding is that the judiciary tend to be lenient here, as in this case. Given that the average age that Irish people lose their virginity is 17.2 and the age of consent is 17 in this country, that indicates that very many people are in breach of this law when they first have sex. In my opinion contraception needs to become available when teens typically become sexually active. The lamentable state of sex education in this country, along with groups like Accord ignoring reality and preaching chastity, clearly doesn't help. Again just my opinion, but as a parent of two teenage girls, what is key here is honest, open and non-judgemental communication.

With respect, as with your previous comments advocating a parents rights to kill their children, I find your line of argument extremely dubious and would consider it an exceptionally unusual position for anyone to hold.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

With respect, as with your previous comments advocating a parents rights to kill their children, I find your line of argument extremely dubious and would consider it an exceptionally unusual position for anyone to hold.

You haven't asked me to elaborate on it at all and I have already stated that my position may be wrong.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You haven't asked me to elaborate on it at all and I have already stated that my position may be wrong.

I'm not sure it needs much elaboration. You're reason given for free contraception at any age, no questions asked, was that it would save you money as a taxpayer. It seems a questionable scenario in which to be motivated by personal and societal greed rather than the best interests of the young people involved.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

IMHO, all contraception should be free and available to anyone of any age no quesrions asked. As a tax payer, I think it would be a cost saving in the long run

While you may have been quick to ditch the potential value of free contraception contraception at any age, no questions asked to you personally, it does colour how your subsequent input is considered.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

I'm not sure it needs much elaboration. You're reason given for free contraception at any age, no questions asked, was that it would save you money as a taxpayer. It seems a questionable scenario in which to be motivated by personal and societal greed rather than the best interests of the young people involved.



While you may have been quick to ditch the potential value of free contraception contraception at any age, no questions asked to you personally, it does colour how your subsequent input is considered.

Again you have not asked for elaboration. You seem intent on petty point scoring for which I have no time. Saving the public purse would be one advantage yes, among many others

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Again you have not asked for elaboration. You seem intent on petty point scoring for which I have no time. Saving the public purse would be one advantage yes, among many others

Mod: As this is a discussion forum it can be taken that elaboration on points made when questioned is par for the course if one intends on genuinely engaging in an actual discussion.
Accusing another poster of petty point scoring is petty point scoring. Less of that please.
May I also remind you that you are currently on a red card and have been warned that any more inflammatory posts - which includes posts which add nothing to discussion but only serve to rile up other posters as well as general outrageous statements/claims and emotive language- will earn you an extended holiday from this forum.

Kidchameleon

Ok well I think it would be better for the tax payer to fund contraception rather than housing, education, healthcare or abortions for unplanned children. I think if two children are going to have sex then they are going to do it no matter what (and it happens every day) so I think it is better for everyone if they have easy access to contraception. Would I rather they were educated properly and refrain? Of course! But this is the real world. I am not just talking about children (which critics of my post creepily seem to be focusing on), as I have said, it should be free for everyone young or old. As regards grooming/incest and hormone based solutions, yes I can see problems with that, this I have already conceded

Calina

No one argued about the paying for contraception. They argued about the no questions asked part. Your last post does not address this in practical terms.