Are there consequences of true blessings?
Posted
August 23, 2007 at
10:24 am by
Jessica
Sales analytics are showing that the sale of the controversial morning after pill is skyrocketing, much to the dismay of conservative and Christian activists who consider the pill a form of abortion.
Putting politics, religion, and morality aside, are blessings and consequences fully being considered in the light of objectivity?
Of course, the morning after pill is nothing short of a miracle for those women who are raped or have a night of indiscretion (after all, everybody makes mistakes) in preventing a pregnancy before it’s really viable, but what are the real consequences? Could it be the lack of consequences?
Some more moderate pro-lifers may be grateful in as far as the morning after pill might affect how often an invasive abortion procedure is needed or done, but is a society free from accountability and responsibility one of integrity and boundaries?
We keep creating policies, products and procedures to circumvent consequences. While some of these inventions and policies are miraculous and life saving, is it possible that diminishing the need or skill to control ones impulses or negate sound judgment may be counterproductive? Isn’t there a benefit of second guessing oneself or making an attempt to be responsible?
Tags: abortion, Catholicism, Health, morning-after-pill, News & Politics, religious-right |
20 Responses to “Are there consequences of true blessings?”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Prescott said:
August 23, 2007 @ 10:26 am
So what are you saying, a woman should be forced to have an unwanted child or go through a painful abortion to “teach her a lesson”?
2. Petulant Pixie said:
August 23, 2007 @ 10:52 am
It’s hard to say what accounts for the increase in sale, too. There might not be more women having unprotected sex than before, it just might be that since the availablity is easier, more women are aware of this medication and are able to access it. I think that a LOT of indiscresions happen on the weekends, when you’d be reluctant to contact your GYN on call and have them phone in a script, or go to the emergency room and pay a hefty fine to have to humbly tell a doctor that you kinda made a drunken mistake last night. I think there were just a lot of crossed fingers and post coital douching going on before and now there is a more effective alternative so women are using it.
3. Meg said:
August 23, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Birth control used to be viewed the same way, and in some instances still is. In much the same way as the morning after pill, it virtually eliminated the risk of pregnancy and allows guilt-free indulgences. I understand there’s a difference between the two, but there is some room for comparison. Obviously, this whole argument is dangerous ground, and I don’t know what the answer is, but I would prefer that someone be allowed the chance to resolve a mistake before it gets to the point of an abortion or a child who just isn’t wanted.
4. Jessica said:
August 25, 2007 @ 6:54 am
[quote comment="105401"]Birth control used to be viewed the same way, and in some instances still is. In much the same way as the morning after pill, it virtually eliminated the risk of pregnancy and allows guilt-free indulgences. I understand there’s a difference between the two, but there is some room for comparison.[/quote]
Well, birth control is pro-active and the morning after pill is reactive. Now, there is virtually no difference, which is the question here, how are we going to teach our future adults about accountability and to make good choices if there are dwindling consequences?
5. Petulant Pixie said:
August 25, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Hmmm…I see a pattern here, Jess! You really believe in punishment as an effective learning tool, don’t you? In the case of the guy who was excecuted and in Andrea Yates and now….pregnancy is a punishment for making questionable choices? In this context you’re using “consequence” as a euphemism for “punishment”.
For one thing, punishment is NOT an effective learning tool. You can research that yourself. Punishment has a long list of faults when its used to try to teach lessons about behavior.
The risk of pregnancy as a “consequence” of sex has been there since the beginning of time, but still men and women have errors in judgement and lots and lots of unwanted pregnancies occur. Over all these millenia, STILL the human race has not learned about accountability or to make good choices even when there was no prevention of pregnancy at all. So, you can’t be taking something away that didn’t work to begin with.
I also have an issue with pregnancy being viewed as a punishment.
The motivation behind these wacky concepts of birth control and emergency contraception is to stop what hasn’t been working for millenia and try something that might help prevent babies that aren’t wanted and therefore reduce the incidence of child abuse and lighten the load on foster care and social services that need to be funded to care for all these unwanted children. The idea of culpability of one’s actions need not have the fear of pregnancy attached in order to be effective. Studies have shown that raising self esteem and awareness of health issues is a much better prevention of reckless sexual activity (in teens anyway).
Plus, the morning after pill isn’t necessarily anymore “retroactive” than the normal pill. A pill I take this morning might not be effective if I have sex tonight and don’t take my pills tomorrow or the next day or the day after. It is the continuation of the hormones that prevent the pregnancy. Now, for someone like ME, I cannot take the normal daily pill because of increased risk factors for stroke. But, I have wondered if I would be able to take the morning after pill, since it’s a one-time thing–if ever the need were to be there.
6. Jessica said:
August 25, 2007 @ 10:49 am
It is not about punishment.
It is about teaching our children to use sound judgment and to encourage them to make fundamentally good choices, IMO. What would happen if consequences seized to happen in an area — aside from looming pregnancy? Consequences aren’t always negative or punishable, but they’re life choices that have an effect.
I’m talking about messing with cause and effect and this is only one example.
7. Petulant Pixie said:
August 25, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Well, as I pointed out, the cause and effect of sex and pregnancy hasn’t made a lick of difference since the beginning of time in helping people to make good choices, so it won’t matter, IMO.
Consequences are always going to be there. Nothing happens without a consequence. Nothing. So, your word choice there isn’t applicable. What you mean is punishment. Consequences that are bad and would possibly deter a person from making a particular choice. As I said, punishment doesn’t work, but if you insist on using it as a teaching device, let’s see if we can think of other punishments that could result from poor judgment with sex that the morning after pill won’t prevent:
1) AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, hepatitis…
2) Emotional damage
3) Risk of violence as a result of emotional damage (Vanilla Sky anyone???)
4) Loss of respect (from family, friends, work, school) in the case of exposed promiscuity or like an extra-marital affiar
I’m sure there are lots more that you can think of and use to scare kids off of having reckless sex. But, none of those have worked since the beginning of time either, so I don’t see why they would start now.
8. Jessica said:
August 25, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
I dunno. There were times when I was younger that I refrained from having sex because of lack of birth control, and I have to believe that I’m not totally unique in that.
I don’t know what I would now given that it doesn’t really matter, but my point is that the fact that I had to *think* about it and possibly think ahead and refrain from doing something because something could happen was a valuable learning experience.
9. Petulant Pixie said:
August 25, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
[quote comment="105669"]I dunno. There were times when I was younger that I refrained from having sex because of lack of birth control, and I have to believe that I’m not totally unique in that.
I don’t know what I would now given that it doesn’t really matter, but my point is that the fact that I had to *think* about it and possibly think ahead and refrain from doing something because something could happen was a valuable learning experience.[/quote]
But, had you been on the pill, you would have had sex? The pill would have let you not think about it. I don’t see how this is any different than being on the pill for that. If a girl is on the pill, then the fear of pregnancy is nil, so she can make all the poor judgments she wants. This just offers the pill after the act.
There are still a bunch of reasons for people to think before having sex, pregnancy risk removed, so I see this as a non-issue, really.
10. Petulant Pixie said:
August 25, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Plus, it will be interesting to see if the sales of other forms of contraception go down. Right now all we see is an increase in sales of this product now that it’s OTC. I’m sure the same thing happened when Motrin went OTC. But, if we see the sales of condoms and birth control pills going down, then it would indicate that people are choosing this as their method of birth control. And, IMO, so what? I don’t believe it’s an abortifacient any more than the pill is. I haven’t looked up its safety compared with the pill (specifically blood clot and stroke risk) or its efficacy in preventing pregnancy. If it’s safer than the pill and it works as well as the pill, well….it may be a better option.
11. Petulant Pixie said:
August 25, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
OK, I looked it up and since it doesn’t have estrogen, it would be safer for someone like me. But, it’s not as effective as the pill, and it isn’t recommended for regular use. So, it’s not a better option for hormonal birth control. Certainly not to be used instead of condoms (if you aren’t in a long term monogomous relationship), but you should use condoms then if you’re on the pill, too.
12. julymom said:
August 26, 2007 @ 9:28 am
[quote comment="105703"][quote comment="105669"]I dunno. There were times when I was younger that I refrained from having sex because of lack of birth control, and I have to believe that I’m not totally unique in that.
I don’t know what I would now given that it doesn’t really matter, but my point is that the fact that I had to *think* about it and possibly think ahead and refrain from doing something because something could happen was a valuable learning experience.[/quote]
But, had you been on the pill, you would have had sex? The pill would have let you not think about it. I don’t see how this is any different than being on the pill for that. If a girl is on the pill, then the fear of pregnancy is nil, so she can make all the poor judgments she wants. This just offers the pill after the act.
There are still a bunch of reasons for people to think before having sex, pregnancy risk removed, so I see this as a non-issue, really.[/quote]
I have to agree with PP here. I went on the pill at 15 due to cycle issues, but that did NOT make me think I could just go out and have all the sex I wanted. Even and 15 I KNEW the pill was not 100% effective and I didn’t want to take the chance. Having BC didn’t automatically make me promiscuous or less aware of the possible consequences. Why? Because my doctor and my *parents* (key word there) talked to me about sex and consequences and the fact that nothing was fool proof and that I was simply too young to be having sex, no matter what my hormones (or boys) might tell me.
Just because the morning after pill is available OTC, that doesn’t necessarily mean people are having more sex than they were before. Sales are up? So what? Sales of Claritin went up when it became OTC too, because people could GET it. The people who are getting it are probably having sex already anyway. I’d be interested to see if this has made more non sexually active people to have sex, but I seriously doubt it. I just can’t see young girls who are not having sex suddenly feel like they’ve been given carte blanche and running to the pharmacy to pick up some pills and go have sex.
13. Jessica said:
August 26, 2007 @ 10:25 am
[quote comment="105830"]
I have to agree with PP here. I went on the pill at 15 due to cycle issues, but that did NOT make me think I could just go out and have all the sex I wanted.[/quote]
What about another example?
What if human cloning was 100% effective? Do you think that the murdering of infants would be less of a consequence and changes would result in a ticket or a misdemeanor instead of a felony?
I feel like society is already getting jaded when it comes to child abuse or murder and the severity of the crime.
14. Petulant Pixie said:
August 26, 2007 @ 10:33 am
[quote comment="105838"]What if human cloning was 100% effective? Do you think that the murdering of infants would be less of a consequence and changes would result in a ticket or a misdemeanor instead of a felony?
I feel like society is already getting jaded when it comes to child abuse or murder and the severity of the crime.[/quote]
OMG???? What the fuck????? Of course it would still be a felony. The living child suffers and has its own identity and life. A clone is an entirely different person with its own soul and nerve endings and consciousness. Are you overmedicated or something? Just kind of kidding there, lol.
15. Jessica said:
August 26, 2007 @ 11:51 am
[quote comment="105840"]Are you overmedicated or something? Just kind of kidding there, lol.[/quote]
There is no need for that.
I am simply asking, what I hope to be, thought provoking questions.
16. julymom said:
August 26, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Jess, I’m not seeing the corrolation between the morning after pill and cloning. Seriously. One is to PREVENT conception, the other, well, I’m still not sure how you’re connecting the two. Your original argument was about how the morning after pill would make people have more sex and you suggested that simply being on BC might also cause more girls to go out and have sex. I gave an example of why I thought that wasn’t true.
I’m not going to get into cloning, because it has nothing to do with the article or the morning after pill. Just like the BC pill, the morning after pill is meant to keep pregnancy from happening. Doesn’t always work (I have a 5yo as proof of that), but that’s the intent. I hardly thing murdering infants the same as taking a pill to prevent them.
17. Jessica said:
August 26, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
[quote comment="105854"]Jess, I’m not seeing the corrolation between the morning after pill and cloning. Seriously. One is to PREVENT conception, the other, well, I’m still not sure how you’re connecting the two.[/quote]
I am trying to have a discussion about the consquences of technology circumventing cause and effect. Maybe it’s all positive, I don’t know that. I think it has the potential to go wrong. If consequences for our actions are diminished, not just with the MAP but with anything that causes us to use reason to eliminate, how will that effect us? I just used cloning as an example of another type of technology that could circumvent cause and effect.
18. julymom said:
August 26, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
I see your point, Jess, but the two are so dissimilar, I don’t see how you can even try to compare them. I did not see that we were discussing technology (or medical advances) in general, but rather specifically this ONE thing. Besides, with your cloning example, you were talking about killing an infant. With these pills, we’re talking about PREVENTING a baby to begin with. Not at all the same. Not comparable.
19. Jessica said:
August 26, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
[quote comment="105876"]I see your point, Jess, but the two are so dissimilar, I don’t see how you can even try to compare them. I did not see that we were discussing technology (or medical advances) in general, but rather specifically this ONE thing. Besides, with your cloning example, you were talking about killing an infant. With these pills, we’re talking about PREVENTING a baby to begin with. Not at all the same. Not comparable.[/quote]
Well, I did say in the OP:
“We keep creating policies, products and procedures to circumvent consequences. While some of these inventions and policies are miraculous and life saving, is it possible that diminishing the need or skill to control ones impulses or negate sound judgment may be counterproductive?”
I am clearly talking about inventions, products, policies etc., so it’s not as if I’m trying to change the subject. If I was not clear on that, then I apologize, but it is not just about the MAP. It is about inventions that prevent us from having to think about consequences. (I’m just asking!)
20. Petulant Pixie said:
August 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
[quote comment="105879"]“We keep creating policies, products and procedures to circumvent consequences. [/quote]
But, no, we don’t EVERYTHING has a consequence. Ev-er-y thing has a consequence. I brush my teeth–there are a bunch of consequences (I put fluoride into my body which may or may not be harmful and may or may not prevent cavaties, I use water which increases my water bill, I remove gunk from my teeth, my breath smells better). I eat a cookie and there are consequences (my blood sugar rises, some nutrients enter my body, a lot of cavaties enter my body, I get crumbs on the counter). We may be changing consequences, but that’s nothing new, either, that’s been happening since the beginning of time as well. So, I don’t see what the problem is.