David Ancell / Tuesday December 16, 2003
The New York Times insists that the FDA’s decision to make the “morning-after pill” available over the counter must be based on “science.” I’m sure what they really mean is that it should be available over the counter. Take a look at this:
The potential benefits from making emergency contraception more widely and easily available are enormous. Among other things, it would be an effective strategy for reducing the number of abortions in this country.
The editorial goes on to slam pro-lifers because we oppose abortion and also oppose something that will supposedly reduce the abortions in this country. It also says that Bush tends to make science agree with his ideology (Yeah, and pro-aborts would never do this, right?). Little do they seem to care that the pills themselves cause abortions. Therefore, their availability would increase the number of abortions in this country.
Scientifically, we know that, once conceived, an embryo has all of it’s genetic material. These pills can prevent implantation of a conceived embryo. There is no real scientific justification for an absolute change of this manner at implantation. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the safety of repeated use of these pills has been tested. Even further, I am quite sure that their availability will lead to greater promiscuity and an increase in STDs.
There is also another problem. Science is a limited field. It can not and should not determine morality. Science may show what is possible, but it never tells us what is acceptable. Moral grounds must be carefully considered. Once someone choose to engage in intercourse, they have chosen to accept the possibility that they may conceive a child, whether they realize it or not.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
« Ancell School of Business
I Really Hate Spam »
No comments have been made on this post.
Please note that all comments are moderated, and they will be posted once approved.