Beyond the health implications of birth control, I fail to see what is liberating about synthetically forcing my body to think it is constantly pregnant. There is nothing unnatural about fertility. Women have died through BC experimentations; much of its development has counted on hope rather than knowledge.
Have we been duped into allowing western medicine–including pharmaceuticals–control over our bodies? We do not control our bodies when we use contraception–a little pill does. We not only compromise our well-being through BC, we are deceived in believing men take equal responsibility for reproduction.
In many ways, birth control is a replication of patriarchy: women as laboratory guinea pigs for a male-dominated industry; women allowing their fertility to be treated as disease needing to be cured with a pill; women stigmatized for becoming pregnant (“should have been on the pill”).
source
Yes, but hun, you don't get to have sex without consequences, and THAT in the end is what matters.
Not measley things like health, the pharmaceutical industry or the beauty of your own ferility.
[/sarcasm].
I find it interesting that some people think we social conservatives are the ones who are sex-obsessed for criticizing loose sexually liberal attitudes.
The criticism of sexual attitudes couldn't POSSIBLY be about anything else, other than that biochemical release in one's head that we allegedly need to control.
If the liberals critics can't see beyond the talk of genitality in the discussion, it makes you wonder who's really sex-obsessed. They do not appear to be able to see the forest from the trees. It's almost like they have mental blinders on, and can't imagine so-cons thinking of anything else.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
