We now know which class
New York Times columnist, Gail Collins, had the most trouble with in High School: sex education.
For eons now, people have been wondering why the two sides can’t just join hands and agree to work together to reduce the number of abortions by expanding the availability of family-planning services and contraception.
The answer is that a large part of the anti-abortion community is also anti-contraception.
...
Beyond the science, there’s the fact that many social conservatives are simply opposed to giving women the ability to have sex without the possibility of procreation.
“Contraception helps reduce one’s sexual partner to just a sexual object since it renders sexual intercourse to be without any real commitments,” says Janet Smith, the author of “Contraception: Why Not.”
The reason this never comes up in the debates about reproductive rights in Washington is that it has no popular appeal. Abortion is controversial. Contraception isn’t. [Emphasis Added].
Wouldn’t birth control also give men the ability to have sex without the possibility of procreation? Sexual reproduction requires two parents – not one. Contraception doesn't just prevent women from procreating. Someone needs to explain to Ms. Collins the birds and the bees. Either that, or the same-sex marriage debate has her all confused.
No comments:
Post a Comment