Saturday, May 26, 2012

It's not because the Pope tells me too.

Well, sort of. If it wasn't for the preservation of Church teachings, done in an informative and charitable manner I would just be another contraceptive Catholic. But no, I'm not. Recently I was having thoughts on why I deal with NFP, especially due to financial and health issues it is highly unlikely I should have another child. Then I come across a study like think, and I realize it isn't about just mean but an obligation to to not only respect my body but also understand there is a trade off with birth control.


Water Pollution Caused by Birth Control Poses Dilemma

The problem is effectively removing ethinyl estradiol can be quite costly. Governmental estimates put the cost of upgrading about 1,360 wastewater treatment plants across England and Wales so they can comply with a proposed limit at between $41 billion and $47 billion (€32 billion and €37 billion), according to Richard Owen, a professor at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. "The big question is, 'Are we willing to pay this as a society?'" Owen told LiveScience. "Or, alternatively, 'would we prefer to live with the environmental impact?'" In their Nature commentary, Owen and Susan Jobling, an ecotoxicologist at the University of Brunel, write that more public debate is need on the proposed regulation. [7 Surprising Facts About the Pill] They intended to draw attention to this environmental dilemma, not to suggest that women should not have access to birth control, Owen told LiveScience.
There we have it, birth control is more important then clean water. It isn't really preventative care, if it costs us later down the road.

1 comment:

  1. I found it interesting.  The conflict of "values" is educational.

    Regards  —  Cliff