Page 23

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 23
Description obviously, the requirement of reversibility is intended to protect reproductive liberty and to thwart external control: even if a woman can be pressured, manipulated, or coerced into accepting "automatic" contraception in the first place, the brunt of this invasion is mitigated if she is guaranteed removal for any reason, at any time, until after the delivery of a child. Thus she is still guaranteed the basic choice about whether to have a childâ€"the quintessence of reproductive freedom. This answers the complaint of many critics that the background methods of contraception are "provider-controlled": true, they must be emplaced and removed by a provider, but the provider does not retain control over whether or when it shall be removed, the user does. There is a second, conceptual reason as well here for the criterion of guaranteed reversibility: what is crucial, in changing the default mechanism in reproduction, is that reproduction remain a normal, natural process of human biologyâ€"one which one can always have happen. ^ It does not make childbearing a privilege for some; it merely makes childbearing a matter of deliberate choice for all. This means that not only women who wish to have one or two children can do so, but those who wish to have a dozen or so can do so as well. The only change is to introduce one additional stepâ€"the making of a considered choice, followed by a minor medical procedureâ€"into the traditional biological processes. Thus, as we survey our future and our concerns both about exploding population growth and authoritarian threats to reproductive rights, I think there is some cause for hope. If we can see that the difference between time-of-need and automatic contraception is not just a little increment in technological progress, but represents a watershed difference, we will be well on our way to resolving both problems at once. The solution may not be perfect. And there will be some losses: no "surprise" babies, no leaving reproductive choice to fate, no heady atmosphere of "taking a chance." It will also mean the duplication of protection, where barrier methods are used to prevent the transmission of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases, while the background technologies provide contraception. But there will be gains as well, ...23-..
Format application/pdf
Identifier 024-RNLT-BattinMP_Page 23.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 320088
Reference URL