"Will a contraceptive jab promote promiscuity?"
Note to the editors: this is not the 1960s. And just why is ITN's ITV coverage slowly but surely morphing into the Daily Mail?
Remember, it's not a scandal until someone tries to break into a building.
The oddest thing about next week's release of Sally Cinnamon? Surely £7.99 is a bit steep, considering you can pick up a Stone Roses best of for about half that price in almost any of the floating HMV sales.
Yes, it's a bits and pieces week, I'm afraid.
Reminds me of Bill Hicks:
"You see, they're getting the cart before the horse on this pornography issue. Pornography doesn't create sexual thoughts; there are sexual thoughts and therefore there is pornography."
It's likely, though, that the reason ITN got a bit Daily Mail about this is that, if I've understood it right, the jab is post-conception contraception, and so not technically contraception at all, but much closer to the A word (which I've resolved never to mention in a public forum again, by the way. (This doesn't count.) Last time I was foolish enough to butt in on an abortion thread, I was back and forth with this guy for a month, and my final (mercifully unanswered) post in the thread was 60K of plain text and took me the better part of two days to write), which makes it really not so much an issue of contraception but of abortion as contraception, which is much more of a problem for a lot of people.
Hmm, they didn't mention that aspect (although it is ITN, so I shouldn't expect too much detail), which I'd agree, makes it a little different. But according to this information page, the jab has three different approaches, only one of which (making the womb thinner) could be considered abortion (and it seems that it's a bit of a reserve just in case the first two effects don't work). Hmm, what we need is a doctor to weigh in this debate! ;)
Do we know any doctors?