This week, Pro-Choice Vox chapters across the country are raising awareness about the national birth control availability crisis, which is felt particularly on college campuses. The Pill is the most commonly used method of contraception among women under ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Wrong, it would be helpful if you would post a link to the Guttmacher article you're referring to. It's important to keep in mind that late-term abortions using the dilation and extraction procedure were recently outlawed and so you need to find data from 2002 or earlier when reporting bias would not be an issue. I would refer you to ACOG's statement on the ban http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr04-18-07.cfm which indicates physicians' concern for women's health in the third trimester. Less than 0.5% of abortions occur in the third trimester (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/courts-judiciary/fab-faq-13438.htm) and are done for serious health reasons (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mid-east-tennesee/abortion-services.htm)
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
According to Guttmacher, your claim about most late-term abortions being health-related is incorrect. They say only 2% are due to a medical problem, with the vast majority of late-term abortions happening because of logistical concerns (misjudgment of pregnancy timing, etc.), not health. Secondly, just an FYI - the position about the permissibility of removing, say, a cancerous uterus, knowing the fetus will die, is the position of the Catholic Church, which, of course, has had an important intellectual role in bioethics.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Oh, goodness... so much to deal with. (1) I never claimed that most abortions are done for health reasons. I claimed that most late-term abortions are done for health reasons. It's actually pro-lifers that tend to exaggerate the incidence of late-term abortions because they try to show that more developmentally-sophisticated fetuses are being killed. (2) Though I wish all pro-lifers shared your enlightened view that we can save a woman's life even if that causes the death of the fetus, I would direct your attention to the recent (failed) attempt by the South Dakota legislature to ban all abortions without any exception for the health of the woman. The fact is that a number of prominent anti-abortion rights advocates are against the artificial premature removal of the fetus from the uterus in all cases. (3) We don't agree that all human beings have rights. For one, some question the idea of "rights" beside the question of whether humans have any. For two, if rights exist, then *some* even *most* humans are probably good candidates for having rights. But why not non-humans? And what rights are you talking about? I assume the right to life? But if all humans have the right to life, why do we allow people to take their loved ones in persistant vegetative states off of life-support? I agree that we won't cover everything here. So please, identify yourself or contact me so we can have a meaningful discussion.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
No, I'm afraid Natural Selection has no bearing on the human species question. You're doing the same thing you did with the conception question: calling the distinction between one thing and another arbitrary or fuzzy, and in doing so, removing the possibility of speaking about it meaningfully. We all agree that adult human beings have rights, despite the nebulous issue of species-membership. So we can start from there. Since abortions take place on modern-day human beings (not cavemen), all we have to do is point to the fact that adult human beings have every right, and that fetuses do not differ in any ethically meaningful way from them. This is a discussion for another day; it's too involved for a comment-board. One last thing: you say that most late-term abortions are for the protection of a mother's life. The only cases I'm aware of are things like cancerous uteruses and other similar (and rare) issues. In those cases, pro-lifers don't have a problem, since the operation (while fetal death is foreseen) is NOT an abortion - it's merely the removal of (in this case) cancer from the woman's body, an unintended side-effect of which is the death of the fetus. I'm always put off when pro-choicers exaggerate or fictionalize these statistics to add power to their cause: in reality, these cases make up a tiny fraction of a percentage of all abortions, despite pro-choicers' claims that most "abortions" are related to maternal health.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Yes, I am familiar with Singer's arguments after studying them in numerous classes, including his own Practical Ethics. I was not disputing that conception occurs. Nevertheless, any line you draw, any split second you point to that says before this point there was not an embryo and after this point there is an embryo is an entirely arbitrary line. It has no scientific meaning since you haven't defined the term "conception." Is conception the time at which the egg and sperm are in physical contact? How much physical contact? Does the sperm have to penetrate some boundary? Which boundary? Is conception the time at which the DNA from the egg and the DNA from the sperm begin to replicate to prepare for the first cell division? We know what events occur scientifically and a great deal about the changes in gene expression and cellular structure that go on in the zygote. But what counts as "conception" is not a scientific question, it's a philosophical one. Now, maybe none of this really matters. But when pro-lifers say that every human individual from the moment of "conception" has a right to life, it's difficult to know what exactly they mean. As for membership in the species homo sapiens as a criterion for the right to life, that argument is utterly destroyed by Darwinian evolution. If you accept that we evolved gradually over millions of years, it is impossible to identify the point at which the first "human" was born. And between what we now call "human" and our earlier non-human ancestors there were countless individuals that were in the gray area between "human" and "non-human." This is just one reason why species membership is a ridiculous ethical distinction. Even if you did claim to identify the first individual that was sufficiently human to deserve the right to life, would you be comfortable claiming that its parents were sufficiently nonhuman-like to not have the intrinsic right to life? Singer actually does not appeal to personhood in the way that many philosophers define it. Rather, Singer thinks that the minimum criterion for intrinsic moral value or having interests that deserve protection, is the ability to suffer. This is why he is such a fierce defender of animal rights. He thinks animals are deserving of protection not because they are persons but because most have the ability to suffer. While you would rightly claim that it is difficult to determine in some cases whether a thing is capable of suffering or not, it is quite clear that the early embryo has no such ability. Of course there are other interests that should be protected beyond the interest in not suffering. So even if a late-stage fetus feels pain, its interest in not suffering may not outweigh the pregnant woman's interest in not dying (and the vast majority of late-stage abortions are done to prevent the death of the woman).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
So you're admitting to making an argument from authority, I see. I think, however, that you may not be aware of Singer's views on conception. Singer has unequivocally stated his acceptance of the scientific fact that a new member of the human species begins at conception (a process, not a "moment"). Whether or not there is a clean line matters very little. What matters is that conception HAPPENS. By saying it is gradual or fuzzy, you almost sound to be implying that conception doesn't happen at all (a version of Zeno's Paradox). We know that conception happens for sure. Singer's view accepts that, but tacks on the condition that species-membership of a human being is not what matters in ethical contexts. It's personhood, he claims, that matters. That's where HE gets arbitrary, as the concept of personhood is also not a neat, clean, or clear idea, for a variety of reasons.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Wrong, it's no summary to say that he relies on "arbitrary distinctions." You wouldn't title a paper on Singer "Arbitrary Distinctions." In fact, Singer is quite good at pointing out all of the arbitrary distinctions of his opponents, such as the idea of conception, where there really isn't any clean line at which one can say aha, that's conception! Like all biological processes, conception is a gradual process and however you define it, when you define it you are drawing an arbitrary line. All that was meant by the "20-something" comment was that we are both students, Singer is a Professor at Princeton, therefore he deserves a bit more credit and respect, I think, than you were granting him. But he doesn't need me to come to his defense, so I apologize if I offended you.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
My point was that we can't discuss the matter at length here, so all I can do is summarize one of the main difficulties of the Singerian view -- the arbitrary distinctions it relies upon. You've taken this point to indicated a dislike of Peter Singer personally, which of course I never suggested, and which is entirely your own invention. What you say is true, though -- while most people would consider a man of Singer's views to be a monster, he's nonetheless consistent with himself, and he doesn't try to play to both sides of debates, even if it costs him support. That's respectable. But it's a bit less respectable that you would try to belittle me by calling me a 20-something, whatever paternalistic message that's supposed to imply. I don't appreciate the juvenile ad hominem. I've never heard Singer make a comment like that.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Wrong, yes we did get off topic. But it's pretty low to bring up Prof. Singer only to dismiss him with a baseless "rife with inconsistencies" claim. Singer is an incredibly thoughtful teacher and philosopher and brings a great deal to any ethical discussion. He deserves just a tad more credit from a 20-something like yourself.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Ok, this is now way off topic, and getting into standard bioethics arguments about the appropriate criteria for personhood. It's a discussion for another day, but I'm a bit put off by your trivial example, comparing abortion to eating an orange. This is a bit too extreme of a reduction for me. Anyways, the Singerian view about personhood (while Peter is absolutely right in admitting that human life begins at conception) is extremely slippery philosophically, and is rife with inconsistencies and arbitrary distinctions. But that'll have to be another letter to the editor.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I'll add that in the modified lever example, there are some "human" entities I would be more than happy to risk in exchange for thousands of dollars. Those would include skin cells, blood cells, and all other renewable cells in my body. Just because something is genetically human does not make it worthy of protection.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Wrong, you are correct that abortion is a life-and-death matter. So is eating an orange, which I am doing as we speak. That orange was once a living thing, as is an embryo. Of course, as you know, the key task for pro-lifers has always been to show that the embryo is a living being worthy of protection unlike my orange. Now, in no scenario is this more difficult than at the ball-of-cells stage that we were discussing earlier that often fails to implant in the uterus and consequently dies. Now I'm sure you're well-versed in the arguments involved here, as I think I am, so we need not rehash them here. But I'll just remind everyone that the object of your concern in this comments thread has been the ball-of-cells blastocyst stage in development and we are weighing its interests (if it can be said to have any interests) against the interests of a fully developed, conscious and sentient woman who wishes to take the pill in order to prevent pregnancy.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
And also, that you think my thought experiment was "just-for-fun" is merely an imposition on your part. Thought experiments are always flexible, and I could easily add a condition that, say, each time I pull the lever, I get $2000 which I desperately need to feed and house my family. That puts a whole new perspective on what it means to pull the lever, but it still doesn't give me sufficient justification to pull it, given the small but non-negligible risk of my complicity in the death of another human being.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I recognize that there are reasons and interests involved, but all of those have to be bracketed when we're dealing with a life-or-death issue like abortion or embryo-destruction. It's not to doubt that your concerns are serious, but if you really take the pro-life argument seriously, you'll see that appeals to those secondary interests just aren't powerful enough to trump the primacy of the life-or-death portion of the matter. After all, we agree that I cannot justify killing my dependent adult friend because of my financial inadequacy to take care of him. The pro-life argument is that human organisms at all stages are equal in worth to adults. See what I mean? I know you still disagree with the rationale, but that's the main point here.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Wrong, unfortunately we will need to agree to disagree on a number of those positions. I would just add, however, that no one is taking the pill just for kicks (as in your lever example). Women take the pill for a wide variety of reasons (reduce menstrual pain and symptoms, prevent pregnancy because they're not ready to become mothers, prevent pregnancy after already having children and not being able to provide for more children, etc.) Either way, there are real interests and real personal stakes here. So, in reaching out to others in a debate, you would be wise to acknowledge these concerns rather than reducing the decision to a just-for-fun analogy. Otherwise you will be perceived as callous for overlooking the tragic and painful consequences of unintended pregnancy, and the frightening reperscussions of anti-choice legislation. If you'd like to discuss these topics in greater detail, feel free to email me.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Right, it's certainly true that we don't debate about the difference between killing and letting die, but that question does not seem to be in play here. There are indeed cases where extraordinary life-sustaining means may be removed (causing death), and there is a right to refuse, say, a life-saving blood transfusion. But our society does not, of course, condone the intentional killing of the severely ill. There's even a finer distinction between letting die and the doctrine of double-effect, whereby we might, for instance perform a surgery which causes the death of the fetus as a foreseen, yet unintended side-effect of the removal of a cancerous uterus. Pro-lifers accept this, since it's not abortion. But it's not always true, as you claim, that parents can make some of these decisions on behalf of their children: in many cases, doctors will take charge of minors, for various reasons (such as perceived child abuse). Now, it is true that it is *legal* to cause the death of embryos, but this does not mean there is a consensus among medical ethicists about the way that ethical question *should* be approached. It may still be wrong, if pro-lifers are right on the ethical questions. Plenty of bad things have been legal. On the contrary, I think there's a wealth of evidence that the pill can cause abortion -- just look around. And for anyone who thinks it's wrong to take a pill which might end the life of a human being in early developmental stages, none of the other reasons for contraception matter. If the pill has the potential (however infrequent it may turn out to be), that risk trumps all others. After all, I wouldn't go around pulling a lever which had the potential to kill one of my family members, even if the chance were one in a thousand.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Wrong: Thank you for your response. Medical ethicists accept the distinction between killing and letting die, as do many conservative Catholics and secular ethicists I might add. The medical community has accepted that in certain circumstances withholding life-sustaining conditions is permissible. For example, a patient can declare "do not resuscitate" on his or her medical file thereby prohibiting doctors from saving the patient's life, even though it may be easy to do so. We also allow parents to make that kind of decision for their infants and children, under certain circumstances. Likewise, it is consistent with conventional medical ethics to allow an embryo to die by depriving it of the life-sustaining conditions of the uterus. In fact, we could keep it alive if we could catch it as it passes through the vagina. And we keep embryos alive outside of the uterus all the time when they are created through IVF. I would point out, however, that this entire debate may be totally unnecessary. There simply is not yet enough evidence supporting the postulate that the birth control pill may inhibit implantation. Finally, I'd like to clarify that I do not believe that the sole reason using the birth control pill is permissible is that many embryos die naturally anyway. I'm sorry if my wording was unclear. I think there are many reasons why using the pill is ethically permissible on the level of the individual. But we need not get into that here and that was not my intention. The intention of our original op-ed was to discuss the role of public policy, not individual moral choices. And there is a difference. For example, many of us believe it is morally obligatory to give to the poor, but the state does not require us to do so over and beyond our state-mandated taxes. @Student 07: Thank you for your response, as well. That seems to be one of the chief reasons (right or wrong) why pro-lifers do not always support contraception. I have also been told that although some pro-lifers are in favor of contracetion (most notably feminists-for-life with whom I discussed this personally), Princeton Pro-Life does not take a position on contraception to avoid dividing their membership. This is eternally frustrating for Princeton Pro-Choice Vox when we see the Guttmacher statistics that show that the best way to reduce abortion rates *by far* is to provide better contraception education and services. Other Guttmacher work shows that making abortion illegal does *nothing* to alter the incidence of abortion but makes conditions far more dangerous and deadly for women.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I just reread this article again, and noticed the challenge at the end to pro-lifers, which I remember seeing in another article of this type. I can't speak for everyone, but I think one of the reasons pro-life groups tend not to advocate contraception is that they see abortion and contraception as intricately linked. After all, abortion is often used as a "contraception of last resort," or in cases where contraception failed, was forgotten, or misused. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 54% of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. That sounds like a correlation to me, if not in the strict sense, at least in the lifestyle sense.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, I'm afraid that while you may have the right data, you're misinterpreting it. In fact, you've merely contradicted yourself. You say both that it does not actively kill the embryo, and that it may "inhibit implantation in the uterus." I think these two things are obviously the same thing. Preventing implantation is equivalent to causing death, since implantation is the next stage in the life of the embryo, a stage crucial for its continued life and development. And, most obviously, all embryos that do not implant do, of course, die. So it's manifestly clear that the pill can cause an embryo to die when it would otherwise not die. Your second logical fallacy is even more egregious: you're committing the naturalistic fallacy, by equivocating on what is natural (some embryos die anyways) and what is good (that it follows that we can kill embryos). Adult humans die of natural causes, but this does not mean that we should disregard the fact that some die because of an unjustified intentional act (homicide, suicide, etc.). So your absurd claim about pro-lifers needing to care about spontaneously aborted embryos is merely a reductio ad absurdum, and contributes nothing to this debate.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Thank you, Student. In response to the previous discussion about the possibility of the pill causing abortion, the key here is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the pill actively kills an embryo. Rather, there is some very preliminary evidence that it may inhibit implantation in the uterus. But given that many many embryos fail to implant in the uterus for a wide variety of reasons, this should not be a huge concern. If it is a huge concern for you, then I think Fact Check makes a good point. If it is a huge concern for you, you should also be equally concerned about embryos that fail to implant in the uterus for other reasons.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Bravo! Thanks for this great editorial. I think it is not necessarily liberal or conservative, just talking about reasonable decision making on this campus and making sure the resources in order to do so are available to everyone: and most importantly do not discriminate (which has historically and apparently across the board been a priority and policy of this university). The University is leading the nation in showing this should be a priority that affects everyone on a day to day basis. Even if you abstain, knowing that safe decisions are available to you certainly must make the world of sex a less mysterious and difficult one to dive into. And on a liberal note, I am really glad to see Obama backing a bill that is something I feel so passionately about.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
And to address the last part of your post, no, pro-lifers have no need of trying to save embryos that might die naturally. You're committing the naturalistic fallacy of logic when you conflate the issue of natural death and the issue of taking intentionally a pill which has a certain probability of causing the embryo to die.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter how you define pregnancy. What matters is what's happening inside a woman's body when she takes the pill. To pro-life people, what's problematic here is that the pill can cause an embryo to die. As you've written in your post, this can happen. The view that pregnancy starts at implantation is irrelevant. The moral issue is not when pregnancy begins, but when a new human organism comes into being.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
It is important to clarify a point made earlier in the comments thread: The birth control pill cannot act as an abortifacient. Pregnancy is defined as the implantation of an embryo in the uterine lining. Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy. The pill acts by preventing the release of unfertilized eggs from the ovaries and there is very limited and questionable evidence suggesting that the pill alters the uterine lining in a way that *may* inhibit implantation. But there is no evidence whatsoever that the pill can cause the release of an embryo from the uterine lining after implantation (i.e. after pregnancy). It is also important to keep in mind that a huge proportion (~50%) of embryos slide right out of the uterus without successfully implanting in the uterine lining. Thus, to be consistent with their view that every embryo deserves the right to life, pro-lifers would need to actively seek out ways to save and protect these embryos and perform procedures to implant them in women's wombs to give them a fair shot at developing to term. Otherwise we are committing criminal negligence in allowing US citizens to be flushed down the toilet.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Common Sense, of course, you're right that the U should not get involved in the business of students' sexual choices. But by that logic, shouldn't they be completely isolationist about sex in general? It follows from your claim that any action on the part of the U which might affect students' sexual decisions would be an inappropriate measure. And, the U *does* in fact, have an unfavorable opinion towards the hookup scene, as do many college administrations, on account of the negative health consequences it has for students. Re: your last claim, "It's a health issue that the U has to respond to," you've merely re-stated the claim. I know that students (at least half) are sexually active, and it's not a surprise. The question still remains about *how* the U should respond to the health crisis. It does not logically follow from your position that contraception is the only solution the U can look to.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I'm very happy to see that our editorial has inspired some interesting (and, for the most part, valuable) responses. I'd just like to make one clarification here about the charge of paternalism. We used this term to refer specifically to the arguments made by Kustner, Nava and Yates. All of these Anscombe members argued that it was the University's duty to limit access to contraceptives (by making them more expensive) as a means of inhibiting some perceived "hook-up culture." Whether such a hook-up culture exists is debatable. But to suggest that the University make it more difficult for students to make free choices about their private sex lives is, I contend, the epitome of paternalism. University subsidies are not paternalistic any more than the government offering reduced-cost health care services to the general populace is paternalistic. I wish I had the time to respond to all of your comments. If you'd like to have a conversation with me about any of these issues, please email me at sviola@princeton.edu. Goodnight.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"if the U really thinks the hookup scene is inherently harmful to students' health and safety, wouldn't it speak out against hooking up itself, instead of merely treating its symptoms or "making it safer"?" Because it's not the university's place to tell people to not have sex (or to have sex). Why is this so hard to understand? People have sex. Big surprise. It's a health issue that the university has to respond to.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@"The point of the University's actions is safety, so this point is moot. Abstinent students are ipso facto safe in this regard." Safety is only part of the picture here. The point still stands that, by supplying contraception, the U helps enable (and therefore extends implicit approval towards) something that would be more of a burden if the U chose not to have a role in the matter. We may interpret the U's response to the hookup scene as one of compliance: if the U really thinks the hookup scene is inherently harmful to students' health and safety, wouldn't it speak out against hooking up itself, instead of merely treating its symptoms or "making it safer"? If you want a problem like date rape or partial-consent sex to go away, the solution is not contraception; it's telling people to reconsider the ethical choices they make with regard to sex. Speaking of safety, it sure would be nice if the U would come out and admit that hooking up (not necessarily sex in general) is inherently risky, with a condom or without one. @"Would you consider the existence of public schools paternalistic?" Yes, I most definitely do think that compulsory education is paternalistic: it's the state saying to its citizens that they *ought* to be educated. Plenty of other institutions exercise paternalism, like the FDA and other regulatory organizations. You see, paternalism is not inherently wrong; it's only problematic when it goes too far. I don't think there's a strong case to be made that the claims in question cross any lines. @"Having sex is rarely a pre-mediatated, purely rational quasi-economical decision." This is probably true for many college students, though it's indeed a pity, since I'm sure it's due at least in part to alcohol. But back to the point: there's nothing wrong with being rational about the decision to have (or not to have) sex. We ought not shun rationality for the sake of making sex seem more spontaneous. Sex has serious consequences no matter how you look at it, and we only do ourselves a disservice if we don't think hard about it. Is this really what you're advocating, or am I arguing against a straw man? @"Can you give data that shows this the pill causes more abortions than it prevents?" Again, my point was on the nomenclature in question: it is inaccurate to say that what we commonly call the "contraceptive" pill is contraceptive and nothing more. It can sometimes cause spontaneous abortions. Spontaneous abortion is much more serious an ethical issue than preventing conception. Your proportionalist concern about whether it causes more abortions than it prevents is not what's at stake here: if someone opposes abortion, it would be an ethical offense to use a pill which might as a normal part of its functioning, cause an abortion.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Finally, a reasonable discussion of birth control in The Prince. I thought the Anscombers had taken over.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@"The actions of the U say to students, "we're going to provide safety resources for students who have sex, but abstinent students are on their own." Does that seem fair?" The point of the University's actions is safety, so this point is moot. Abstinent students are ipso facto safe in this regard. @"paternalism takes place when one body of authority claims superior wisdom or judgment over another body (of people), and presumes to act in those peoples' best interests." Would you consider the existence of public schools paternalistic? @"If I were an average Princeton student thinking about whether or not to have sex, don't you think the availability of subsidized contraception would influence my choice?" No, I don't. Having sex is rarely a pre-mediatated, purely rational quasi-economical decision. That you would even suggest such a thing belies your own naivete. @"My point was that the pill the letter writers above refer to merely as contraception can and does, in some circumstances, cause spontaneous abortion of an early embryo." Can you give data that shows this the pill causes more abortions than it prevents?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The idea that subsidized birth control somehow approves or supports the “hookup culture” is, in my opinion, totally false. People in monogamous long-term relationships also use the Pill. So do married people (and while I know there aren’t very many married undergraduates, there are a fair number of married graduate students who visit UHS for their birth control). Sometimes, as one poster already pointed out, abstinent women also take the Pill in order to alleviate severe menstrual symptoms. Simply put, the Pill is used by students who make a wide variety of sexual choices; there’s nothing on the packaging that says “you must have more than X partners per month to use the Pill.” As a graduate student, I would like to applaud the University for taking steps to make birth control available and affordable to the Princeton community. $40 a month many not sound like much to a single undergraduate, but it sounds much larger to a graduate student trying to support a spouse and children on a graduate student stipend (especially since many spouses of foreign grad students can't work for visa reasons).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Anonymous, "The University provides resources to those who need it." Do you have evidence for this? It's not completely true. Not terribly important, though. What's more important is this claim: "Abstinent students don't specifically need something to support their abstinence." Thenaivete of this claim makes me think you probably don't have any abstinent friends -- there is plenty the U could do to encourage abstinent students. I agree with you that "condoms and the pill by themselves don't convince people to not be abstinent," but that was *not* the point of contention. The point of contention is the *message* the U sends by its actions. The actions of the U say to students, "we're going to provide safety resources for students who have sex, but abstinent students are on their own." Does that seem fair? @@Rich&Make Sense? I'm not sure how you're trying to use "a priori" here, since the discussion has nothing to do with propositional knowledge. Anyway, I think the definition of paternalism you give is too narrow: paternalism takes place when one body of authority claims superior wisdom or judgment over another body (of people), and presumes to act in those peoples' best interests. Intrusion into private life and coercion might qualify as paternalism, but neither of those need happen in order for paternalism to be present. @"Also, it is question-begging to say the university provides subsidized contraception so that students can hook up. Students will hook up regardless of whether there is subsidized contraception, but its availability lessens the otherwise financial hardship that can detract from a student's ability to succeed." I never said that contraception somehow coerces students to hook up. It certainly does make the decision easier, though. If I were an average Princeton student thinking about whether or not to have sex, don't you think the availability of subsidized contraception would influence my choice? Abstinent students, in order to have a level playing field, need an analogous kind of empowerment from the University. @"Finally, it seems you are confused about the meaning of the word "contraception." By definition it prevents conception or impregnation." I completely agree that we should give the label "contraception" only to things that contracept, but that was *not* my point. My point was that the pill the letter writers above refer to merely as contraception can and does, in some circumstances, cause spontaneous abortion of an early embryo. Ethically, this is entirely distinct from contraception, which would prevent fertilization in the first place.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I happen to be a woman, so I'm all for having birth control cost as little as possible. But I'd just like to put this in a bit of perspective. While $40/month (or $15-25/month for a generic drug, as quoted in a previous Prince article) is a really high price to pay for birth control, I think it's silly to claim that it constitutes an "exorbitant out of pocket expense" (Sara Viola '08 in http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/12/05/news/19588.shtml). Just to give an example, any student taking long-term medication subsidized by the Student Health Plan has to pay a $100/year deductible plus $10/month, which adds up to $220/year or $18/month - roughly the same price as some generic brands of birth control, but no one claims it's exorbitant or gets financial aid for it. A few hours at most campus jobs would earn you $18/month at Princeton, and a little investment of time is a fair price to pay for an important choice like using contraception wisely. Don't get me wrong. I'm very glad that the university is subsidizing the Pill - it would be great if more colleges could, and even better if the policy could be changed. I'm very glad that so many campus groups and student leaders helped to win University funding. But while I think that the price decrease is a good thing, I don't think that the sticker price (of $15-40/month) could be considered exorbitant or unfair.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
1: It's not quite the same as paternalism. You can't expect the University to treat us as adults in that regard, because we AREN'T adults in terms of income. Instead of holding a full-time job--one that would, perhaps, help students afford $30 pills--we are full-time students. When we, as students, have the resources to deal with that sort of price hike, then the University might be unjustified in intervening. But for now, it's just another way to help keep students safe. 2: Too many of you seem to forget that the pill isn't only for contraceptive purposes. I know a fair number of (abstinent) people who use the pill, simply because their periods are so painful and inconvenient otherwise. 3: @Make Sense? Seriously? I find it hard to believe that you're bringing up this ridiculous argument again. The University provides resources to those who need it. If, for example, there were an extreme sports club on campus that was sanctioned by Princeton, and the University provided helmets and pads for the club members, how would the non-club members be justified in complaining? There is nothing that says everything has to be distributed perfectly evenly among University students, and because abstinent students don't specifically need something to support their abstinence, they don't get anything. Your assertion that "I'm afraid you're mistaken on the point that the U'd endorsement of contraception has no effect on efforts to be abstinent" is absolutely not true, actually. Please, tell me how many people you know (if any at all!) who found it HARDER to be abstinent because of the availability of contraception (I'd venture to guess maybe one or two people, if you're particularly 'lucky'). Condoms and the pill by themselves don't convince people to not be abstinent anymore, sorry.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Rich: The article never claims the pill is a human right, nor does it claim thet students are entitled to them. In fact, students are a priori not entitled to anything in particluar, but the it is in the University's interest to provide subsidies that improve all its students' ability to work and succeed without worrying about financial or other difficulties. For example, many students do receive free room and board because they and their families cannot afford the sticker price. @Make Sense?: Paternalism almost always implies an intrusive interference. Subsidizing contaception is thus not paternalistic because it doesn't force students to do anything. While it's true that contraception is not free for non-students, non-students also have full-time jobs. I suppose by your argument we should pay dorm room utility bills. Also, it is question-begging to say the university provides subsidized contraception so that students can hook up. Students will hook up regardless of whether there is subsidized contraception, but its availability lessens the otherwise financial hardship that can detract from a student's ability to succeed. Finally, it seems you are confused about the meaning of the word "contraception." By definition it prevents conception or impregnation.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I suspose there are always the Richy-Rich elitists on campus who do not care to accept endowment fund charity to cover part of their room and board fees. The same people would rather pay a thirty dollar prescription at a local pharmacy rather than four dollars at WalMart. Taxing the rich at a higher rate would do more to stop this type of inflation than taxing the poor out of their homes at the Federal Reserve Board with higher interest rates.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I think you're misusing the term "paternalism." It's not clear that your position is free from that label, either. If you want the U to distribute contraception (cheaply), you're asking it to act as a parent would, by providing for its "children," and are therefore advocating a form of paternalism. In the real world, contraception is not free. If you want the U to treat us like adults, shouldn't we have it the way the rest of the adults in the world do? Secondly, it's not good form to argue against a position by saying that it's offensive. Try, instead, to show problems with the argument: it's unsound, invalid, etc. In addition, if 60% of college women use contraception, does that really mean the conservative students are "out of touch?" Sounds like you're advocating a tyranny of the majority. You need at least to consider their arguments rather than dismissing them, especially if they might represent the other 40% of college women. Third, I'm afraid you're mistaken on the point that the U's endorsement of contraception has no effect on efforts to be abstinent (the safest choice). Here's the problem. Just ask yourself: what resources does the U provide to students who have sex/hook up? Condoms and pills. What resources does the U provide to abstinent students? Nothing. See the problem? Lastly, it's not correct that you refer to contraception preventing abortion. Contraception can, and sometimes does cause (very early) abortion, by causing spontaneous abortion of the embryo.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Umm...contraceptive pills are not a human right, they're elective. I'm not sure why you think students are somehow entitled to receive them for free (or discounted) from the University. Should we also receive free room and board? Come on.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!