Posted on 03/15/2007 4:11:35 PM PDT by wagglebee
The author of this, who wishes to remain anonymous, has asked me to post these observations he has made at a large university
I attend a large public university. I am but one man and one iota of the vast conservative minority on campus. I speak here because I know full well what I say here cannot be said on campus, based on the very nature of the environment. It is quite literally the belly of the beast.
There has been a lot of issues in academia, but most recently is the debate of contraception available on university campuses across the nation. While this facet has been recently stirred up again, the debate over the morality and public acceptance of contraceptive methods has existed for decades.
Some would point to the Deficit Reduction Act that President George W. Bush signed in 2005. Still others believe the possibility of restriction or prohibition via legislatve action on the state level, such as the introduction of such a bill in Wisconsin two years ago.
But it goes farther than that. It predates the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's. While the argument of having sex for non-procreative purposes dates back to Genesis and has existed to some degree through human history, the modern argument began in 1930 at the VII Lambeth Conference.
There, the Anglican churches approved the use of contraception, albeit only in a few circumstances. Suffice it to say, most of the remaining Protestant denominations followed within the next 25 years, leaving only the Catholic Church as the only denomination in Western Christendom to still condemn birth control--which she still does to this day.
Previous to that, it was an agreed point among all of the world's major religions, and thereby most of humanity that using contraception was a moral wrong, if not an outright evil.
So, what does this mean? What does this have to do with Jane Student here in 2007?
The answer is: quite a lot.
At the heart of this issue is the morality of contraception itself. Even though it remains available, many see the change that increased drug prices to be the first step toward restricting or eliminating contraception on campus.
It is by nature controversial that colleges and universities, particularly those that are state-run to be offering contraceptive pills, patches, and devices. It is also clear that the universities (and thus, the state) is picking up the tab for these.
The bill signed by President Bush effectively removed the incentives the federal government has been giving to drug manufacturers by their selling medicines to colleges, universities, and other government agencies for a rather nominal rate, thus allowing students to purchase needed drugs through their campus health center at a reduced cost.
As a result, instead of students paying anywhere from $7-15 for their supply of The Pill, the costs are going up to almost $50--something that many college students can barely afford. There is no word yet on the cost of condoms and other male-designed devices though.
Many pro-choice and feminist groups are decrying the decision and calling it a breakdown in basic health care for young women. This alone leads me to ask: what is "basic" health care? and do contraceptive methods fall under that category?
Let's start with what we can agree upon. Basic health care is what's necessary to keep us alive and free from disease or illness. Examples of these include regular physicals and dental exams as well as vaccines, first aid, and emergency care. The point is that without these essential services, everyone's physical well-being suffers.
We can also agree that there are some items that clearly aren't "basic" health care (for our purposes, let's call this "extra" health care). These would include cosmetic surgery (e.g. facelifts, liposuction, botox, boob jobs) as well as recreational drugs (e.g. Viagra). These aren't essential to one's physical well-being (one can definitely survive without it), but rather they make life more pleasurable or enjoyable.
And then there's a gray area that overlaps and partially obfuscates the two, where the lines are extremely difficult, if not impossible to draw out. Some things under some circumstances become necessary, where other things under other circumstances become unnecessary.
Now let's look at artificial contraception. Is it necessary for physical well-being? No. Social, mental, or emotional well-being? That can be argued. Where does it fit? Clearly it fits in the gray area. I would say it approaches, if not almost completely within the "extra" health care area. Why? Is it really necessary for most people to use The Pill or to purchase condoms? No. Can they get by just fine without it? Yes. In fact, many college students (myself included) do. And we have no shame in it, either.
Still others point out that we live in a sexualized society, and in few other places does it manifest itself more than college. In their eyes, the availability of contraception is essential because contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies. They figure that since it's futile to stop them from having sex, society can at least reduce the consequences, much like wearing a seat belt in a car. In other words, their mantra is "safer sex."
However there are several critical flaws with this argument, and three that I see that my peers rarely, if ever, take into serious account.
- Contraception does NOT protect against all sexually-transmitted diseases. In such a culture, it's completely possible that the person one lies in bed with may be carrying a disease and not even know it. Sure, one can argue that it's an assumed risk, like driving a car. But unlike a car, it is a largely unnecessary risk to take, especially for the overwhelming vast majority of college students.
- Most contraceptive methods contain chemicals or hormones that can in the long run cause health problems down the line. Contraceptive pills and patches almost always contain hormones that screws (no pun intended) with a woman's body and often puts things in a dangerous, if not deadly imbalance. The vast majority of condoms in this country are made via vulcanization, and thus there (albeit slight) exposure to benzene and other chemicals in the latex (notwithstanding the possibility of allergy). A good deal of the spermicidal-coated devices contain nonoxynol-9, which was recently determined by the government to be a potent carcinogen and one of the most dangerous known to man.
- Even with safer sex, the meaning of sex is lost. Rather than being a two-fold purpose of strengthing the heavenly-ordained bonds between man and woman and providing for the miracle of life, contraception sterilizes the act and turns it into merely masturbation. Devoid of this God-given meaning, sex thus becomes one of the key causes in the breakdown of a relationship. In short, if having sex exists solely for me to achieve an orgasm, then what's the point, given that there are other ways to achieve the same result by myself? Of what value is woman to man? Of man to woman?
Or, to put it in another way: what exactly have we gained? The ability of men to enjoy committment-free casual sex without any of the guilt or consequences? The celebration of women as sexual chattel?
Quite honestly, I see the devaluation of man and woman--reducing the opposite sex to a mere flesh-and-bone sex toy is probably the most dehumanizing thing anyone can do to another, short of killing, raping, or maiming them.
Yet there is one way that is a "best kept secret" and one that is hardly followed. It's called abstinence. Suffice it to say, it isn't followed, yet it is completely effective of preventing an unplanned pregnancy, preventing the spread of STDs, and upholding the value and sanctity of sexual union.
Some say that the Catholic Church is out of whack and full of misogyny, and that it needs to modernize to society. The same can be said with conservatism, morality (particularly the existence of moral absolutism), and tradtional mores.
But hasn't anybody realized that perhaps society is out of whack? That perhaps the President is trying to do his part to return America back to traditional values, where a person actually means something to another person? That maybe the "free sex" movement of the 1960's has run flat and has produced extremely bad fruit in its wake?
That maybe pro-choice and rabid feminism has backfired, and has only further demeaned young women on campus instead of empowering them? That maybe young college men like myself are the only remote "winners" in this whole deal--all at the expense of honor and human dignity?
Could it be that we have a national leader who values the inherent dignity of each person--who has thoughts, opinions, feelings, and a heart?
PUBLIUS
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
bttt
I'm going to resist my natural impulse to make a sarcastic comment about your comments on contraception!!! :-)
Oh, for heaven's sake! All I said was, "bttt," so I can come back to look at this later!
If everyone had as many children as I do, there wouldn't be a Social Security crisis, now would there?
When I was at the University of Maryland (College Park campus - HUGE) in the early 1980's the slogan was "Three For Free." You could get three condoms a day for free at the student health center. Our tax dollars at work!
Yep, we would have 12 digit Social Security numbers!
Go to just about any mall on a Saturday afternoon and you would think you're at a brothel for teenagers.
I'm a little slow. Elaborate away. Something obscene about laying on a stretcher?
You're spot on.
Yes, but "back to the top" as the first response on a sex thread does bring out a natural impulse to make a sarcastic comment.
Wagglebee and I are perfect gentlemen but, if pissant were on this thread, who knows what comment might come out. ;-)
Tax-chick is just doing her part to cut down on the need for illegal aliens!
Sigh ....
Thanks by and large to our Social Engineers of the last century: Margaret Sanger, Masters and Johnson, and the vile Alfred Kinsey.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I remember how shocked I was to see this sort of thing happening when my daughters (now 23 and almost 18), were younger at least 10 years ago. I would watch the mothers bring their very young daughters to the dressing rooms loaded down with these skimpy outfits and wonder just what occupied the area where their brains were suppose to be.
In the ancient world it was the slaves who went naked as a symbol of their powerlessness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.