30
Aug
06

The Morning After Pill - Sin or Savior?

The American Food and Drug Administration is now allowing non-prescription access to the contraceptive Plan B, otherwise known as the “Morning After Pill”

Planned Parenthood hailed Thursday’s decision by the Food and Drug Administration on Thursday to allow nonprescription sales of the pills to adult women, saying expanded access could prevent up to 1.5 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions a year.

Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. has sold Plan B as a prescription drug since 1999. Nonprescription pill sales should begin by year’s end. The cost “could be slightly higher” than the $25 to $40 now charged, said Barr spokeswoman Carol Cox.

Naturally, abstinence advocates and religious types are up in arms about the proliferation of yet another birth control device (some liken it to abortion since the pill is designed to work after the point of conception). However, these people miss the big picture, as Shay of BookerRising eloquently delineates -

Responsible people will probably remain responsible, by protecting themselves while having sex in the first place. Plan B is also a backup measure for folks who are generally [sic] responsible, but occasionally exhibit irresponsible behavior. However, this especially helps society lower the social costs forced on us by chronically irresponsible people. We shouldn’t have to pay the costs of their actions, so better to cut the repercussions of their actions off at the pass very early on - by preventing conception in the first place - than us suffer later. As a pro-choice advocate, I ask pro-life advocates: would you rather chronically irresponsible folks resort to this pill…or get multiple abortions down the line? I know one woman who has had 10 - yes, 10 - abortions. Others, 3 to 6 abortions. I assume that you would rather that these women take the pill. You are picking the wrong battle to fight. Be pragmatic here.

Shay’s position deserves consideration – sometimes ideologues in the Pro-Life camp need to recognize not everyone is comparatively in love with their religious or absolutist doctrine. Abstinence may be 100% effective against unwanted or “socially unacceptable” pregnancy but so would sterilization. There are people who support both practices but obviously such solutions aren’t universally appealing.

The truth of the matter is that everyone – pro-life and pro-choice- has a role to play in preventing or dealing with unplanned/undesirable pregnancies. If the two factions could set aside their mutual hatred for a little while, they could cooperate to provide a powerful plan of attack:

  • Middle school sex education can be coupled with heavy abstinence programs. Most people would agree there is no benefit in preteen or early teen sex (and most women I’ve spoken to who engaged in such activity regret it)
  • High school education, allowing for the fact that some kids are obviously going to become sexually active, could add more pro-choice content: birth control pills, condoms, Plan B Pill etc. By high school age, nearly all young people are thinking about sexual activity and will at least contemplate exploring life beyond “just say no”. Society should at least implore them to do so responsibly.
  • Upon discovery of pregnancy where the Plan B pill does not apply, pro-life groups should be given the opportunity to promote alternatives to abortion. Adoption is the most obvious alternative and may appeal to distraught young women who do not want to “kill the baby” but also know they are not ready for motherhood
  • And finally, as a last resort, access to abortion

If such a plan were implemented effectively and with full cooperation between school systems / churches / governments, the number of abortions in North America could be dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, the game of politics would never allow side A to make a deal with the devil on side B. The losers of course are the women with unwanted pregnancies and to a lesser extent society. It is time for compromise.

Related Posts:

5 Responses to “The Morning After Pill - Sin or Savior?”


  1. 1 Jack Aug 30th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
    Call me stupid but while I agree a woman should have control over her body a little blue pill is largely responsible for declining populations in Europe and North America.

    The big picture is very disturbing especially when we consider that we could eventually lose our country by default to immigrants who will change it in ways never imagined by the people who invented and marketed their product.

    There was a time when marriage and family meant something and I say that as a person who only attends church at marriages and funerals.

    Just something to consider.

  2. 2 b-psycho Aug 30th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
    Jack: that’s not a risk of immigration alone, that’s a risk of any growing polulation. The survival of a nation-state as a specific concept depends on where you draw the line, eventually dimishing to zero.

    Personally I’d say — in the case of the US at least — immigrants have nothing on born citizens in terms of prowess at screwing the pooch.

  3. 3 Cynapse Sep 2nd, 2006 at 8:48 pm
    Hi fellas -

    1) Population decline is an issue but the answer isn’t simply welcoming more accidental children. Many of these children are from single parent and disadvantaged homes; thus, they are more likely to become criminals and contribute little to the country. Do we really want more of that instead of hard-working, ready-made foreign labour?

    2) I’m thinking about a server change [for obvious reasons]. Since we all own our databases now the changeover can be seamless to the user. Let me know if you’re up for it (should take about a good day of work)

  4. 4 hailey Sep 10th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
    I accept that people sometimes act irresponsibly and you wont’ find me as one of those people lambasting the costs that are created when people have untimely pregnancies. I am happy to contribute towards the upbringing of those children and do so without complaints.

    You will not find common ground between prolife and prochoice people on sex education as you will find that there huge philosophical differences. Most pro-life people do not believe that a teacher is the person best suited to explain human sexuality, pregnancy, diseases and other things. Many prolife people would also disagree that sexual activity in high school is inevitable. Lastly many people would be unprepared to respond to the risk of sexual activities with birth control devices. The plan you are proposing is one that suits your value system but it is not something that prolife people or churches are going to get on board with.

    I also fail to see how anything in your proposal reflects compromise on both sides - it’s very one-sided

  5. 5 Cynapse Sep 11th, 2006 at 12:51 am
    Hello Hailey -

    Thank you for stopping by. A compromise by nature means that no one is getting 100% of what they want. I noticed your “concession” refers to the upbringing of children from unplanned pregnancies, but makes no mention of conceding abortion in some cases, which is presumably outside your comfort zone. Since my plan makes provisions for both options, I must respectively turn your own accusation on you. In fact, until the Pro-Life movement does accept that they are not going to get their way 100% of the time, they will be stuck preaching to the converted.

    Furthermore, to say that you can eliminate sexual activity entirely in schools is a lofty goal, but not a realistic one since early pregnancies existed long before sexual liberation and during the time when the church had Stalin-esque control over society.

Leave a Reply




Further Research




Categories


Archives