The 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can’t say no; the next, this headline from London’s Daily Telegraph leaps out from our news feeds: “‘Contraceptive pill outdated and does not work well,’ experts warns”.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 “The Pill is an outdated method because it does not work well enough.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.



Saving yourself for marriage is the best way because that is the way we were designed by our Creator. But if one doesn’t believe in the Almighty and Living God then he or she believes they are a law unto themselves and whatever feels right is right. Such a poisonous attitude. But it sure sounds altruistic, “sharing one’s genital capacity.” How noble! That particular lawless attitude is also from the Creator, who releases people who reject Hm to the baseness of their appetites: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”
To add to Kalostromos’ argument, why is the Pill any different from eyeglasses or ibuprofen for a fever? Those things “interrupt” natural processes? Why isn’t Viagra prohibited?
Kaltrosomos
“Why does sex always have to be about procreation?” It does not; sex, for human beings, has a dual purpose, procreation and unitive. Problems start when ones separates one from the other through the use of artificial contraception or IVF.
“intercourse normally has a high chance of creating a baby.” It does not as there are more days in each month when a woman cannot conceive than when she can.
“if the “genital capacity” is supposed to be ordered as a total gift to another, isn’t monogamy a bit selfish then?” You are confusing sex and married love. By definition married love is monogamous and for life. There are other types of love, such as the love of friendship, the love of parents for their children which are not restricted to a single person and certainly the more the better of this sort of love
“what makes saving sex until marriage, and never using contraception when you are married, the healthiest option physically and pyschologically?” I think that enough evidence has been provided in this and the two other related articles to prove this point.
Kaltrosomos, you write: “..if the “genital capacity” is supposed to be ordered as a total gift to another, isn’t monogamy a bit selfish then? Why not share the love with as many as possible, without using any sort of contraception? limiting your ‘selfless love’ to one person doesn’t seem that selfless.”
You have just, albeit unwittingly, given one of the best arguments in favour of monogamy. It is precisely because polygamy, by definition, cannot involve a total self-giving to another that it is impermissible. As soon as you “share” yourself with more than one person, you withhold part of yourself from each of them.
Sylvester, why does sex always have to be about procreation? Sure, intercourse normally has a high chance of creating a baby. But why does that mean we should throw up our hands and act as though it’s something unchangeable?
Mvm, if the “genital capacity” is supposed to be ordered as a total gift to another, isn’t monogamy a bit selfish then? Why not share the love with as many as possible, without using any sort of contraception? limiting your ‘selfless love’ to one person doesn’t seem that selfless. Not that limiting yourself is bad. It just conflicts with some of your justifications. As well, i’m curious. what makes saving sex until marriage, and never using contraception when you are married, the healthiest option physically and pyschologically?
The “sexual urge,” as Kaltrosomos called it, may not “go away,” but controlling that urge until such time as one can marry and have a committed relationship in which children are welcome is entirely possible and physically and psychologically the healthiest option. Animals have sexual urges which they cannot control, but human dignity indicates that we can develop self-mastery suchwise that our genital capacity is ordered to the total gift of self to another. This kind of permanent relationship reflects a lasting communion of persons marked by that selfless love which has always been manifested in the better part of the human race.
The alternative to contraception IS abstinence. If we don’t accept that then we live the"fantasy ideology”. We don’t chew food and then spit it out. We swallow it. That is what we call eating. Likewise, sex has a context and a proper setting: it is open to life and licit within a stable relationship (what we properly call marriage).
If the suggested alternative to contraception is abstinence only, that has troubles itself. For one thing, when a person has the sexual urge it doesn’t just go away. It’s an integral part of humans. Repressing it can’t be good…
Oh, so true! Now the hard part… selling the message to the supposedly educated, but very narrow minded, masses.
Maybe the good Doctor (Trussell) could find a pill for that :-)
Page 2 of 2 : < 1 2