Sex also for fun

Re: “Pill isn’t health care,” Letter, July 3.

Bishop Fred Henry criticizes Naomi Lakritz’s contention that Alberta doctors should not make medical decisions on religious grounds. There are a few problems with Henry’s position.

First, the good bishop says that in certain cases, the use of contraceptive medicine is “morally permissible” under the principle of “double effect.” Whether Aquinas, Duns Scotus and other natural law philosophers of the Middle Ages agree with the pill or not is irrelevant. When I go to the doctor, I don’t want to see a priest, and Alberta women should hope that science, not Catholic philosophy, informs their medical treatment.

Second, Henry asks whether the pill is an abortifacient. Really? If something prevents pregnancy, it would seem to preclude the possibility of pregnancy.

Third, Henry cherry-picks his data regarding the pill’s safety. Any medication has side-effects; the essential question is “do the benefits outweigh the sideeffects?” Research is unanimous: the pill is safe and well worth its relatively minor side-effects. Indeed, there is a much greater chance of long-term negative side-effects from childbirth than from use of the pill.

Finally, Henry narrowly equates women’s sexual health as having a “smoothly functioning” reproductive system. Perhaps Alberta women are more imaginative than Henry’s Catholic Church seems to be. Sex, after all, is not just for reproduction, but for expressing emotion, for bonding and — gasp — for fun.

Chris Stolz, Calgary