Comment (24)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggThe Pill: past its use-by date
Actually, the whole idea that technology can deliver consequence-free sex has outlived its shelf life.
On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI published a document, Humanae Vitae, which said that the Pill was incompatible with Catholic morality. Did this shunt his Church into decades of irrelevance or did it make the Church a beacon of moral clarity? This week MercatorNet publishes three articles about the world after Humanae Vitae. Below, Jennifer Roback Morse asks why former champions of the contraceptive Pill are disenchanted with it and what exactly we expected the Pill to do.
*****
How quickly things can change. One week we read about the need for school nurses to give contraceptive pills to girls who just can’t say no; the next, this headline from London’s Daily Telegraph leaps out from our news feeds: “‘Contraceptive pill outdated and does not work well,’ experts warns”.
Well, I thought, that is curious. Whatever could have happened? Are women all of a sudden immune to the effects of estrogen? Is it something in the air, or the water? And who was the expert delivering this disturbing news?
It turned out to be Dr James Trussell, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs and Director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University. Dr Trussell is one of the Mr Bigs of birth control research so the Telegraph was listening carefully when he spoke recently at a conference of one of the UK’s main birth control groups, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.
And yes, he certainly was disenchanted with the Pill. “One in 12 women taking the Pill get pregnant each year because they miss so many tablets,” he lamented. “The Pill is an outdated method because it does not work well enough. It is very difficult for ordinary women to take a pill every single day.”
Frankly, this is something well known in Britain where pregnancy rates among schoolgirls continue to rise, and thousands of women have three or four abortions. But what does Dr Trussell suggest should be done with these “ordinary women” who, although he is too polite to say it in so many words, are too stupid to take a pill every day?
Shoot them up with long-lasting hormonal contraception amounting to sterilization -- not to put too fine a point on it. “The beauty of the implant or the IUD is that you can forget about them," enthused the professor. "If you want to seriously reduce unintended pregnancies in the UK you can only do it with implants and IUDs.”
So now we get to the heart of the matter. The problem is not that the Pill doesn’t work -- it does, reducing the probability that any given act of intercourse will result in pregnancy. The problem is that women do not take it regularly enough. But that raises the all-important question: What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish with the Pill?
This is my theory: the Pill has been an instrument in the creation of what author Lee Harris called, in another context, a fantasy ideology.
A fantasy ideology is a variety of utopianism that is not about making a better world, but making its adherents feel good about themselves. The believer is assured that he is one of the chosen, one of the few enlightened ones who truly understands the universe. In the name of supporting the fantasy, the believer is entitled to impose large costs on other people. Indeed, he seldom notices these costs, because he is not checking in with reality on a regular basis. Data fly right over his head.
Though Lee Harris developed his concept of the fantasy ideology in relation to Islam, his analysis could apply just as well to the contraceptive ideology. The fantasy ideology of contraception is that people are entitled to behave as if they had perfectly functioning contraception; in other words, to act as though sexual activity and reproduction are completely disconnected.
Adherents of the ideology get to feel good about themselves as progressive, modern, enlightened. They are ever so beyond the tired old ethics that connects sex with responsible parenthood through marriage. Most importantly, believers in the faith that contraception prevents all consequences of sex never have to apologize for any sexual misdeeds. There are no sexual misdeeds, with the possible exception of rape.
It is no wonder that poor Dr Trussell is disappointed. The Pill could not possibly meet the standard of creating a lifetime of harmless and guilt-free sex.
Yet on the road to the society of perfectly controlled reproductive freedom, millions of people’s lives have been ruined. Women got themselves involved in relationships that had no chance of sustaining a pregnancy. Then, they were shocked and appalled when they got pregnant. In their desperation, they turned to abortion. Or they kept babies they were ill-prepared to raise, because they could not bring themselves to have an abortion and no-one encouraged them to consider adoption.
Or, men got themselves involved with women who claimed they wanted no deeper involvement. But then, when they became pregnant, they wanted the child after all. In some cases the woman wanted the child all along, and deceived the man into believing that he was participating in a sterile sexual encounter. Since sterile sex is the new social norm, thanks to the Pill, it is not difficult to convince a man you don’t mean to have a baby.
Men and women alike thought the addition of a condom protected them from sexually transmitted diseases. They didn’t notice when the sexual spin doctors quietly changed the term “safe sex” to “safer sex”. Some were naïve enough to think that the Pill looked after all safety issues, even though it offers no protection against STDs whatsoever.
The true believer in the fantasy ideology of contraception does not look too closely at problems like these. Any problem that cannot be solved by more contraception is not worth considering.
This is why the indefatigable Dr Trussell advocates more aggressive and intrusive methods of contraception. He and his allies must not, at any cost, question their premise that contraception eliminates all negative consequences of sex. They are reduced to sewing more patches over the tattered quilt of an outmoded fantasy ideology. It is not just the Pill that has outlived its shelf life, but the contraceptive ideology itself.
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the Founder and President of The Ruth Institute, and the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World.
*******
This is one of three articles on the world after Humanae Vitae. See also: Singapore's fertility woes call for a rethink of sexual attitudes which describes what happens when governments, not parents, regulate births, and and an interview with philosopher Christopher Tollefsen, Sex without consequences, a world without commitment.
I see what you are saying, Darren, but is this not a case of hard cases making bad law? People sometime justify legal abortion on the grounds that back street abortions are a terrible thing. They are, but that cannot be a justification for the (legal) taking of preborn life. Being married to an abusive, possibly alcoholic husband who forces his attentions on you so that ten children might result, is a deeply unhappy situation - but whatever pastoral guidance may be given in a particular case, it still cannot justify the principle of contraception.
Being human, we all have the capacity for the temptation of lust (as well as the other six deadly sins, as the Church calls them.) The Church is not holier-than-thou about sins, especially of the flesh; She knows how frail we all are. But as Christians we are called (slowly!) to master these temptations, within marriage and outside it. It is hard, but not impossible, with the help of grace. To use contraception within marriage, even responsibly as you suggest (and we both know couples who do), is not to open outselves to a deeper, more generous, more trusting and self-giving relationship. It is ‘to settle for less’.
Hello Francis, Let me explain; Paul said it’s better to be married than burn with lust. He recognized human sexual desire. I believe we know of women who’ve had up to 10 or more children. Put aside financial considerations and consider the effect on the woman; physically, emotionally and mentally. Also the chances of stillbirths or miscarriage.
Married people have desires and perhaps you can describe such feeling as being lustful. I feel in the case of married people contraception would be used responsibly, not as a justification to participate in gratuitous sex.
If a wife does not welcome her husbands attention, will he not possibly burn with lust and and seek satisfaction elsewhere?
I am not Catholic but i do respect the teachings of the Church, particularly on issues of sex, and respect and admire Dr.Morse.
Darren: you say ‘I’m not against contraception’. Further down you give support to ‘self-control, self-respect and respect for natural consequences.’ These two statements seem to contradict one another. Could you explain?
Karen, you write: “why is the Pill any different from eyeglasses or ibuprofen for a fever?”
Eyeglasses are meant to improve faulty vision, and ibuprofen is administered to provide relief from fever - both of these things are meant to ‘fix’ a problem to some degree.
Your argument can only be valid if pregnancy is seen to be a problem that needs ‘fixing’ (and, unfortunately for many, it is). Once one ceases to consider pregnancy a problem, the idea of the Pill becomes abhorrent
Roland, we seem to be in agreement that humans do not cooperate as much as they could.
You say shrinking our populations won’t solve the problem. How is it any better to let them keep growing? The problem remains in either case. It just has more chance to cause suffering when there are more people able to suffer.
“In short; proper respect and yes, even awe and reverence for the sex act and it’s procreative potential.” Thanks for this comment, especially the words awe and reverence. When God created man in His image and likeness, he separated them into male and female. The understanding of taking a rib from Adam with which to make Eve, is more than a simple operation and losing a piece of bone. The ancient Hebrews understood that an essential part of Adam’s makeup was removed to form Eve, and thus, together through sex, they would become, again, one flesh. I realize this thread began with the issue of contraception, but I believe the whole problem is that we humans to not want to be restricted in how we satisfy our physical appetites (or in any way, for that matter) so we find ways to fulfill our fantasies outside of God’s design, and thus create a whole series of difficulties. It isn’t supposed to be a “sex act” it is supposed to be a radically intimate experience designed by God to bring one man and one woman into oneness. We should treat it with awe and reverence.
Again, the issue isn’t population but distribution. When the world was only slightly population, say, with only a few million people, a few thousand years ago, there was need but those with abundant resources did not share. This is documented historically. So, mandating that our population become smaller or that it stop growing will not solve that situation. In addition, some kind of forced contraception, as is happening in China, has severe adverse affects that the government is already trying to adjust. I would never consider forcing people not to use contraception; but we have gone too far in trying to make children use contraception instead of remaining celibate until married. Getting theological here, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, and had multiplied and filled the earth, in their innocence, the world could have held hundreds of times more people than we have now. Sin is what makes our world so dysfunctional; whether it be a lack of distribution or our felt need to have irresponsible sex outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. I appreciate the opportunity to share.
Kaltrosomos, I don’t propose to “order” anything. You seem to have some idea that absolute legal authority is the solution.
Respect for natural consequences would take the form of taking a strong moral stand against the current pop culture that has an amoral view of sex constantly seeks new ways to avoid said consequences but indulge in a gluttenous fashion.
It would also restructure sex education to emphasize the main, procreational meaning of sex and the resultant changes to the body owing to the maturation of the reproductive system. It would also put equal emphasis on the responsibility of parenting and the family structure that should be recognized as the ideal outcome of sexual relations.
In short; proper respect and yes, even awe and reverance for the sex act and it’s procreative potential.
Roland, what level of population would you consider too big for our planet? Where would your cut-off point be, where you look at the finite nature of the planet and say, “it can’t sustain any more of us.” ? Even if we haven’t reached it yet, there is a limit. For that matter, if people are intrinsically selfish and greedy, allowing populations to continue to grow just creates more suffering, thanks to our apparent inability to distribute resources to those in need. A bigger population just means there will be more needy families suffering from want.
Darren, you say you aren’t against contraception. So what exactly would your solution look like? How would you organize things? Practically speaking, what would morality, self-control, self-respect and respect for natural consequences look like?
Our population is not getting too big; there is plenty of room and plenty of food. However, because we humans are intrinsically selfish and greedy, we don’t distribute our resources properly, nor do we tend to take care of each other. A smaller population will not solve our present woes. Look back at history and you will find shortages in all ages; and this because people didn’t plan ahead and those who had enough chose not to share. A notable exception was about four thousand years ago when Africa and the Middle East were suffering from a major seven year drought. Pharaoh was warned and planned ahead and Egypt, under the guidance of Joseph ben Jacob, was able to provide for all the needs. Take a look around, in most suburbs people spend lots of time, money and energy making sure they have the ideal lawn. If one of the spouses stayed home and planted a substantial garden, they could grow enough food to feed themselves and a few other families as well. We are just too selfish to care about or neighbors. Also consider the statistics surfacing over the past decade, the population increase has slowed down dramatically, even in places like China, which actually has a negative growth, which will become dramatic in ten years or so because there are so few women coming of age, and those that have refuse to marry and have families. On the other hand, the Muslim community is growing by leaps and bounds because they aren’t afraid to have children. Contraception is a tool, alright, to abrogate God’s command to have children and to raise them in the admonition and nurture of the Lord.
Kaltrosomos, Your previous posts indicated a recreational view toward sex. “Why not share your love with as many as possible..” you said.
I’m not against contraception. However it has been used to excuse free-for-all sex and allegedly “safe sex”. It should be recognized as a tool or aid but !not! the answer.
For too many years morality has been scoffed at and even demeaned. We’re not perfect, but morality, as in self-control, self-respect and respect for natural consequences is the answer.
Sex is not primarily about creating human embryo’s. If it was, men would ignore women for most of the time, respond to uncontrollable urges, and then get back to their lives.
The reason that we enjoy sex, and can get up to it most of the time is that we are a high-k species and the parents not only have to be joined up to create the next generation, but they have to stay together long enough to make sure that the next generation can continue the species, or why women live so long after their childbearing years. Men are biologically constructed to hang around the mother of their children for long enough to raise the child. Sex builds up the bond between parents that allows for the nuclear family.
Darren, I never said anything about *not* respecting our limitations.
I don’t view contraception as a free pass to endless sex. It is a tool.
Our populations are getting too big. Our planet is filling with people. we’re nearing seven billion or so. It doesn’t take a math whiz to see that if even half of our current population was making babies indiscriminately, population levels would soar out of control.
Even if you have an optimistic view on population sizes, you have to realize that eventually we are going to run out of space, and our resources will dry up. We can limit our population growth, or we can colonize space, or we can keep on growing our populations indiscriminately, until one day we ask so much of the planet that she can’t give it to us, and we start starving, and squabbling over food, and killing each other over turnips or potatoes.
Also, why does the censor keep toying with my posts? Taking out sections or not even printing one of my comments? What’s so horrible about what I wrote?
Sex does not always have to be about procreation, but that is from a an emotional and physical view. Biologically or evolutionarily speaking that is it’s only purpose.
If we want to lead our lives as best we can I believe we have to respect, for want of a better term, the limitations we have. Actually, we only see them as limitations as our egos simply demand more and more.
Let me offer this example: If you could eat and eat with no physical consequences what-so-ever, and you loved cream-filled donuts, you would find yourself devoting your life to stuffing your face. Could you develop any character, could you give of yourself truly to another? I think not. You would be so self-satisfied as not to care.
As to Karen’s post: Eyeglasses and ibuprofen do not interrupt natural processes, unless you’d like to walk into lamp posts and burn up with fever. I know what you’re trying to say, but if it gets real cold (a natural process) you wear warm clothes and get shelter.
Tom Teague, how do you know polygamy can’t involve a total giving of self to each partner? Consider a related situation. A man marries. He spends twenty happy years with his wife and family, until one day his wife is killed in a car accident. He grieves for years. But then, one day, he meets another woman who really connects with him, and he with her. Eventually, they get married.
Has this man, then, been guilty of witholding some of himself from either his first or second wife? Why or why not? And if it is possible to give yourself totally to multiple people as in the sort of situation described above, why is it impossible for a polygamist?
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >