Morning-after pill supports erosion of love

I am aware of the moral standards set by Christianity, by "The Church," and by the right wing so far as sex and contraception is concerned, but I cannot and do not accept these standards as moral law for they seem unnecessarily prudish and Victorian.

This, however, is not to say I accept no moral code whatsoever. It seems completely plausible that that two people, joined through actual love, should wish to consummate that connection through an intimate physical bond, whether joined in marriage or not.

It is further reasonable to assume that those two people would wish to thus join together, but not desire children.

This seems completely acceptable on a moral ground, and for these cases there exist many forms of contraception.

My objection arises with the "Morning After" emergency-contraception pill which the Campus Health Center now offers. It seems that emergency contraception is necessary only when unplanned sexual encounter occurs - something Dr. Jessica Byron of the UA Women's Health Department calls a "mistake."

Such "mistakes" can be avoided if sexual encounters were limited to those individuals bound by love and seeking to, in a responsible manner, become intimately involved.

If this is the case, it is irresponsible of the Campus Health Center to make available a product which, in essence, supports the breakdown of the meaning of love and intimacy.

There is no need for chastity to become a hard and fast rule and no need for the implementation of an overly restrictive moral code, but there is also no need to subvert at least a loose moral standard.

Zachary Neal

Philosophy Sophomore