Instead, the article leads to a very interesting question: has the idea of contraception gone too far? The article discusses Plan B, a pill that can “prevent conception if taken within three days of unprotected intercourse.” Even though it has no other medical benefits, Plan B is widely popular. This shows that people are getting more ways to hit the ‘undo’ button in real life. What does this say about how our society has evolved? Sex used to be a beautiful event, meant to bring two people closer than anything or anyone else, and create a brand new life out of that intimacy. Sex has not only become the butt of a world of jokes and romantic drama in movies and television, it is now just one more thing in our lives that can happen as a ‘mistake’ on a whim of a bad night- something we want to erase, like a hangover that reminds us of our loss of control the previous night.
Media such as movies, music, and television have become much more explicit, with language and behavior that is more tolerant and lenient towards sex. It has actually portrayed two main ways of looking at sex. Movies such as the 40-year-old Virgin glorify it, setting sex as the ultimate goal, and then idealizing the person who ‘completes the task’ to be much cooler than they had previously been. Other movies such as Knocked Up, show that it is okay to have one night stands, and romanticize the story thereafter. In both portrayals, the media is showing young people that sex makes them mature, has no repercussions or strings attached, and may even play into their fantasy of a fairytale love story.
For women, the danger of the media is far more severe. When it comes to birth control, the initial goal was an increase in planned pregnancies. The article states that “almost half the pregnancies in this country are unintended, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” So we know the initial goal may not be fully accomplished. What is happening then? It seems that women are having a tough time using birth control consistently and correctly.
To solve this problem, the media is encouraging all women (including those who may not even need birth control in the first place) to take it anyways. As the article states, “ads for pills like Yaz cite beautiful skin and relief from premenstrual bloating and mood swings.” Who wouldn’t want to get rid of all the ups and downs of premenstrual energy, even if they may not be sexually active?
The most dangerous in fact are birth control pills in which the woman only menstruates three or four times a year, or not even at all. Does this become another thing to just undo? No woman would choose to menstruate if given that choice, with no side effects. The article states that out of the 28 day pack, 7 are placebo, to allow for menstruation. However, “many women have been controlling their periods for years by skipping the placebos in their packs and taking the real pills continuously.” Not only is there inherent risk of breakthrough bleeding (I thought the whole point of a cycle was to know when to expect it) and the need to take pregnancy tests as a ritual because skipping a period is now not an anomaly. What’s more astounding is that the long term effects of these phenomena are unknown, and the immediate risks such as STDs do not go away. So how is it that society has completely romanticized the idea of birth control for us?
Beyond birth control, the role of medicine in childbearing is astonishing. Fertility treatments were first created with the hope of helping women who were ready to have children, but whose bodies had in some way ‘malfunctioned’. And it still does this today, giving hope and opportunity to those who are ready for and understand the blessing of having a child. Yet it has now become a common thing to hear a woman have a number of children at once, from triplets to septuplets. 
As if this was not enough, our technologies continued to develop, soon allowing fertility treatments not only orally but in vitro as well. Hello, Octo-mom. The fact that one woman could have eight babies at once unnaturally says something about how far the idea of controlling childbearing has gone. It was quite common to hear of adoption in this county being a slow process, and even the most qualified parents having to wait years to be approved and be able to provide a child with a safe home. So how is it that people like Nadya Suleman could bypass a system that was so strict about the parents being stable and ready for a child and have multiple children unnaturally, not only once but twice, without a stable income or spouse to share it with?
All in all society tells us that casual sex is okay, that we can’t conceive by accident, but if we do, a pill can take care of that within three days, or we can just conceive artificially women shouldn’t menstruate every month. These messages for young people growing up fundamentally change how our society comes together and reproduces.
Advances in technology have given us the power to make choices that have always been strictly biological phenomena. Are we playing with fire by controlling our bodies in ways they weren’t meant to be controlled? It seems the once sci-fi like discussions of parents being able to choose the physical traits, like eye and hair color, of their children is really not that farfetched any more. The field of medicine thrives in its efforts to save lives, and change them for the better when certain situations arise. But is it correct for medicine to step into fixing things that aren’t broken? Where is the line drawn?
No comments:
Post a Comment