Women should be able to control their own bodies
Emily Byers, in her OpEd “Argument for Plan B has many flaws,” chooses to call out opposite views by comparing the other side to Nazis and mixing science with morality. Science itself does not claim morality. Whether it comes to gravity, tigers attacking innocent panda bears or the division of cells, science merely creates a series of theories based on observation. An observation is not the same as proof of consciousness. We could very well argue that the sperm in men’s ejaculations are innocent babies being mercilessly slaughtered at the hand of our young college co-eds, much in the style of the Nazi genocide because we read in our biology book that sperm eventually becomes babies. Or instead, we could be rational, thinking examiners of our society. We could use science to aid us in questioning what we know. What we know is that Plan B operates much in the same as hormonal birth control. It prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the wall of the uterus, like a condom prevents sperm from entering the uterus. It is a method that gives many women the freedom to have mature, responsible sexual encounters – whether we believe in premarital sex or not, whether we are married and waiting for children, whether we are raped and had the choice of abstinence taken from us. What else do we know? Prevention is better than abortion, and prevention comes in more packages than celibacy. The argument against Plan B says that women should not have control over their own biology. I am predisposed to cervical cancer, and you would not deny me that vaccine. I am predisposed to carrying babies, but suddenly moral authority denies me the ability to control when I have children. What moral authority dictates the laws that control what I can do with my uterus?
—–C. Grace Juneau Senior, Communication Studies