Page 17

Update item information
Title Sex and consequences: world population growth vs. reproductive rights?
Subject Birth control--Moral and ethical aspects; Population policy; Contraception
Description The 54th Annual Frederick Reynolds Lecture
Creator Battin, M. Pabst
Publisher Division of Continuing Education, University of Utah
Date 1994-05-25
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format application/pdf
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,830
Source HQ766.2 B38 1994
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "Sex and consequences," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6b85633
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-08-04
ID 320093
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page 17
Description choosing when to invite pregnancy. She can still reach the same outcomeâ€"as many children as she wantsâ€"but she gets there by a different decisional course. Because she cannot become pregnant for a variety of reasons she did not predict or elect, the gain in reproductive freedom is enormousâ€"even if she were always free to abort a pregnancy already in progress. Furthermore, the universal use of automatic contraceptives by women would also produce a gain in reproductive freedom for men. To be sure, this gain will be still greater where there are automatic contraceptive technologies available for men as well, but even without these future developments there is still a gain in reproductive freedom for men if women routinely, universally, use background methods. Although a man would still be hostage to some degree to the reproductive choices of his female partner, and although he could for instance still be tricked into siring a child by a woman who has her device removed without his knowledge, he is no longer likely to contribute to conception in a nonvoluntary way for a large range of currently fairly frequent reasons: e.g., because his partner made technical errors in contraceptionâ€"forgot a pill, misused a diaphragm, etc.â€"or because in the heat or passion or to avoid interfering with spontaneity and sexual pleasure she or he decided on the spur of the moment to ignore precautions against pregnancy, or because erotic activity which was not intended to be consummatory ended up being that way Because his female partner can only expose herself to pregnancy as the result of a considered choice followed by a deliberate act, namely having the implant removed, a man is protected from the effects of any impulsive or careless decisions or actions on her part which might affect his own reproductive freedom. (Needless to say, reversing the default mechanism in this way could have substantial impact on paternity issues). After all, in matters of initiating pregnancy within a sexual relationship, males currently have far less reproductive freedom than females, since the only contraceptive device under male controlâ€"the condomâ€"is some 200 times less effective in preventing pregnancy than the most effective technologies under female control. Of course both parties can say no; but once they've said yes, it is the female who ...17...
Format application/pdf
Identifier 018-RNLT-BattinMP_Page 17.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: Sex & consequences : world population growth vs. reproductive rights? by Margaret P. Battin.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320082
Reference URL