I'll say this right up front: I respect people's right to privacy. I also respect people's right to say what's on their mind. (Obviously or I wouldn't be blogging.) However, I prefer that we have a civil discourse. So it has disturbed me greatly to hear the recent diatribe from one particularly loud member of the media, echoed by others who think he has a point.
To be more specific, a young law student recently testified before some members of Congress about the need for contraceptives. She had not been permitted to speak before the actual committee in the House of Representatives who conducted the formal hearing on the subject -- because they did not see the need to call any women to testify. (I have heard the argument about religious liberty, but my discussion today is about contraceptives. I have a point on the intersection of religious liberty and contraceptives, too. But that's for another day.) The point this young woman was trying to make is that some people need to take contraceptives for medical reasons. Their lives are at stake, sometimes for medical conditions unrelated to pregnancy. Of course, there are other women whose lives are at stake if they become pregnant because they cannot carry a baby to term, deliver it, and still survive the delivery.
I do not intend to question anyone's theology or morality on this point. My belief is that contraceptives are available for women and should remain accessible at a reasonable cost. Because most of them require a prescription, health insurance gets into the picture. For me, this becomes sort of like wearing a seat belt. If the seat belt is available, it should be worn for protection. We may have a specific time that we are supposed to die, but I really should not tempt fate by not buckling up when I am in a motor vehicle. It's simply too dangerous. I think of contraceptives in the same manner. If a woman wants to become pregnant, that is one choice for her to make. On the other hand, it is irresponsible not to take advantage of reasonably available, reasonably accessible contraceptives. (My belief -- I'm not questioning anyone who differs.)
But that's the catch. What if the contraceptives are no longer reasonably available or reasonably accessible? If there is no insurance coverage, what is a woman to do? It is impossible to purchase over the counter birth control pills or shots. And don't even talk to me about condoms. They may be acceptable for preventing the transmission of certain STD's, but that have at least a 17% failure rate, if not greater, when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
But that brings me to the bottom line, and hence the title, of this little rant. All of the opinion pieces I've read and heard have only been directed toward women. My experience indicates it takes both a woman AND a man in that sexual act, but everyone has only been in a hissy fit over the woman's part. It is only the woman who has been called a slut. It is only the woman who has been told to keep an aspirin between her knees.
Why is it that it is still okay in this 21st century for a young man to "sow his wild oats" and a young woman is called a slut for simply pointing out the dangers of becoming pregnant if there is sexual activity? There is no mention of more than one partner, nor how soon before marriage, nor whether it is even before marriage that sexual activity is occurring. It is only assumed in the mind of [some segments of] society at large that it was a law student testifying, and therefore, it's somehow immoral.
Is it hypocritical to apply a double standard to the young men? Should the older men go clean their own houses?
To bring the entire thought full circle, words like slut or whore have no place in civil discourse. Your point will not be heard by me if you do use such words. I endeavor not to use mean, disrespectful terms, even when referring to someone with whom I disagree. Is that too much to ask?
No comments:
Post a Comment