Abstinence is an option
The article (“Reviewing the options,” Feb. 10, p. 7) neglected to suggest a very successful option to “preventing parenthood.” After reading through the suggestions, I found that I could take hormones to change the functions of my body, undergo injections, wear a patch or conceal a ring. Oh, and if those don’t work, I have the last resort of making myself completely ill by taking emergency contraceptives. Isn’t there a choice that enables me to care for my body and protect myself naturally? That choice exists, and many, (probably more than we realize) have willingly chosen to practice it.
Abstinence (gasp, no sex?) does require more self control, and perhaps more self respect, but it doesn’t change the hormonal functions of my body, require shots or have a disclaimer about not preventing an STD. And the best part, it always works.
Abstinence is a form of birth control on which you would never worry about STD’s, pregnancy or safety. I would have liked to see The Hatchet include all the options, including this one, which many have found is best for them to do.
-Jessica Joy Federer, sophomore
I commend the Hatchet for the article “Reviewing the Options” (Feb. 10, p. 7). It is extremely refreshing to read a newspaper that is realistic about the attitudes of young women toward their bodies. You recognized the constant responsibility college students are taking for their actions, as an increasing number of knowledgeable and empowered females are considering the various methods of contraception that are becoming more readily available.
However, you only mention select hormonal contraceptives and fail to mention some common preventative risks with which they are associated. For example, hormonal contraceptives put women at risk for high blood pressure. Therefore smokers, who are already at risk for such health hazards, are placed at an additional unnecessary risk when engaging in both activities. The article also fails to mention the increased importance of regular physicals and gynecological appointments to ensure there are no health problems as a result of the contraceptives.
-Marcie Kohenak, freshman, Voices for Choices special events chairperson
Robert Bart’s elaborate calculation of the economics of lost class time misses an essential point (“Tardy professors hurt the bottom line,” Feb. 10. p. 4). His professor might be one of the 220 adjunct professors reported on page one of the same issue (“TAs discuss unionization”). This professor could be dealing with the economics of the standard $3,000 compensation for teaching Mr. Bart’s class. In addition to foregoing benefits, this professor might just calculate that the lost minutes are not significant compared to the fact that he takes home just 2.7 percent of Mr. Bart’s tuition (based on a class size of 40 students). That’s right – the other 97.3 percent goes to buildings, infrastructure and administrators who sit in well-furnished offices and write memoranda about the dangers of collective bargaining agreements with adjunct faculty. Furthermore, this professor might feel no obligation whatsoever to improve his standards and attract more students, when the system itself offers no rewards or promotions whatsoever for high standards or increased enrollment. What are the economics of that?
-Molly Spitzer Frost, adjunct professor