A Second "Nay"

Thanks to Michael and Rick for examining the question about whether colleges and universities should have reinstated the previous subsidization levels of costs associated with providing birth control pharmaceuticals. Rick has voted “no.” I join him. There are a number of reasons for this, several immediate ones that I would like to offer today.

First of all, we need to consider whether these chemicals have other effects on the human body besides reducing the likelihood of pregnancy after sexual intercourse? These drugs do affect a woman’s physiology and alter her body chemistry. Is this a good thing to pursue knowing that there are other important health considerations of which we need to take account? I do not believe so. Therefore, why should we encourage this by making available free or inexpensive chemicals that can and do harm or alter normal body functions of the female human being?

Second, does this change of policy also provide implicit consent of society to young people to be sexually active by suggesting that they will be immune from any adverse consequences of sexual activity? Of course it does. A critic of my position on this point could argue that sexual mores have changed in the last several decades. My response begins with the question: why? But I hasten to add that I would like to answer my own question by suggesting that our society has deceived itself, with the discovery of the “pill” and other chemical contraceptives, into thinking that these hormonal cocktails permit people to do what they “feel” like doing without having to worry about consequences. Of course, the only consequence that many think of is how to avoid pregnancy. And if fear of this consequence has been almost eliminated, why worry about anything else? But there are other important considerations that must also be taken into account as well. For example: these drugs do not combat sexually transmitted diseases; they do not foster commitment; they do not enhance the stability of marriage; they do not advance the gift of life or the gift of self or the gift of love. In short, the promotion of these chemicals inevitably leads young people into objectifying themselves and one another.

Third, does the cheap or free administration of these drugs cultivate young people into becoming more virtuous in their temperance or forbearance? No, they do not. In fact, it appears that once they learn how to be unrestrained in their sexual activity, will they not be encouraged to submit to whatever other appetites that may come their way? I think so.

Fourth, we need to consider what the change in this policy would do to the educational process in general. I submit that it would teach young people more about how to avoid responsibility rather than cultivate it. I suppose a critic of mine might argue that with affordable pharmaceuticals that are designed to avoid pregnancy, young people will be more responsible on sexual matters. Really? This self-deception needs to be recognized for what it is.

A fifth reason I’d like to present at this stage is based on the assumption that these drugs will decrease “unwanted pregnancies.” But what happens when the pharmaceutical fails or when someone takes a wrong dose or when someone misuses the prescription? With sexual activity presumably on the increase, can we conclude that “unwanted pregnancies” will really decrease? Again, I suggest that the desired answer of “yes” will not automatically follow.

So, I join Rick and vote “no.” RJA sj