Share this article

print logo

FERTILITY DRUGS AREN'T A NECESSITY, EITHER

This letter is in response to Beverly Sottile-Malona's Sept. 23 "My View" column, "Cover infertility treatment instead of contraceptives." She begins by discussing medical issues, but quickly lapses into a moral tirade in favor of child bearing.

Although she is correct that "contraceptives are not a medical necessity," there are certainly social benefits to helping women avoid unwanted pregnancy. One is a reduction in abortions, although I certainly see no problem with this procedure. Another benefit is helping people who realize that they are not financially or emotionally able to provide for a child avoid that situation.

There are, however, few social benefits to bearing children in our modern society. Children are no longer needed to work the family farm. Overpopulation and dwindling resources are the pressing issues of our time. Meanwhile, abusers of fertility drugs often have multiple births that are a huge drain on the medical system, and the parents are often financially hard-pressed to support them.

While "women can function without traditional contraceptives," they can also function without fertility aids. Childless people have always been able to live fulfilling and meaningful lives. Fertility drugs are not "required for conjugal love."

A woman's ability to bear children is not a gift. It is simple biology. The author is correct that a woman's destiny is shaped by her ability to think clearly. That includes the ability to choose to live her life as she chooses.

GERARD E. GUIDONI

Brockport

There are no comments - be the first to comment