Why do they call it the "morning after pill"? I realize that the obvious implication is that the event which necessitates such a drug usually occurs in the evening, but don't you think that a so-very-politically-incorrect phrase as "morning after pill" is an insult not only to sperm worldwide but also offensive to those who expel said sperm? I mean really -- does it actually take sperm nearly twelve hours to find the egg? Are they really as misguided as their makers?
This, I believe, is what happens with the sperm: the lead sperm thinks he (gender biased pronoun usage) knows the right way and the other sperm follow. After a while, the trailing sperm begin to tire and the second sperm asks the lead sperm if he actually knows where he is going. The lead sperm replies that of course he knows where he's going and lucky for him, he eventually finds the egg -- but only because thousands of years of human female evolution accommodate the less-than-intellectual spermatozoa. What I think the morning after pill does is pretend to be a gas station. When all the sperm stop to get directions and rest their tired little flagella, the pill traps them and prevents them from advancing. (Clever, huh?)
Also, why only the "morning after pill"? What if you like to have intercourse at 3:05 in the afternoon (conveniently after your 1:45 class and just before dinner)? Do they have an "evening after pill"? Or, what if you like to do it in the morning? Do they have an "afternoon after pill"? Or would it be an "afternoon before the evening before the morning after pill"? Or maybe (for clarity) an "afternoon after the morning which was never actually the morning after pill"? Decisions, decisions
I've recently learned that in England and France, the so-called "morning after pill" has been made available -- free of charge -- to school-age women. The decision by the English and French governments to do this is indeed radical but is also very right and quite necessary. From what I know, the young women are given a small sheet of pills and are then instructed as to the proper dosage and given a personal consultation.
The English government has wisely instituted a program such as this in the wake of 90,000 new unwed teenage mothers. While it may be jocularly supposed that the government has fears of the tiny English and Scottish island bursting at the coasts with people, what is singularly important to acknowledge is that some of these 90,000 new babies are being born to mothers who may not be ready for the challenges parenthood presents. The lives and plans of some of these mothers are, in some cases, temporarily put on hold, and, in other cases, shut down totally at a time when English students are typically expected to take their A-levels and then shuffle off to university. The parents of these unwed mothers (and fathers) are oftentimes depended on for various degrees of help, whether it be financial, emotional or parental. Is this fair to them? Many families, English and American alike, remain working class, even in the midst of unprecedented consumerism and economic prosperity. And it seems -- at least to me -- that these kinds of families inevitably and inexplicably end up carrying the burden of additional children born to their unwed daughters. If we juxtapose Britain to the United States, limey babies at least have a chance at an inexpensive, decent education due to the fact that higher education is heavily subsidized by the British government. Over here, if you're poor and stupid, well let's say I will have fries with that.
And -- consistently -- the fate of these babies is bleak. The all-important bond that develops between parent and child evolves in awkward stages, not in the gradual fashion of continuous interaction. Many young women in these cases are instructed on how to parent; the experience and maturity that older women enjoy is quite limited in sixteen-, seventeen-, and eighteen-year-olds. It could be said that all women -- especially those meant to bear children -- possess a certain (or pre-determined) allotment of motherliness. This is to say that -- on a very spiritual and supernatural level -- a woman loses her ability to watch over, nourish and protect maternally after bearing a set number of children.
If this power is used too early, without having reached full maturation, the effect is like taking popcorn out of the microwave too early: all the kernels don't pop. If this mother power is used to excess, the effect can be likened to riding a bike on flat tires: you certainly won't get far.
Don't get me wrong. I am a vehement pro-life advocate, but if life can be avoided before the sperm find their way, I say bring on the pills. My eighth grade teacher once said that he had a greater fear of unintentionally bringing a child into the world than contracting a fatal disease. I do prefer the condoms, nevertheless. I mean there's like AIDS HELLO! (And let's not leave out gonorrhea and her colleagues syphilis and herpes.)
