Siobhan Scantland (Gazette, April 25) pointed out what she asserted were "a few damaging and extremely problematic discourses" in a letter to the editor by Brent Heit (Gazette, April 14). In so doing, she put forth a few damaging and extremely problematic discourses of her own.
Chief among these is the framing of pregnancy as a problem to be solved. It's one thing to avoid pregnancy by licit means and for valid reasons; that's not (or shouldn't be) objectionable. Not that one needs to use hormonal contraceptives to achieve this, mind you; there are natural family planning methods which enjoy comparable rates of success in this regard. But there's a difference between seeing valid cause to avoid becoming pregnant, and treating it as an actual problem in need of a medical solution.
Ms. Scantland does correctly note that hormonal contraceptives are also used to treat severe medical conditions such as endometriosis. And when used toward this end, it can be argued that the use of contraceptives is an unalloyed good. But equally, it does not follow that just because contraceptives can be used to treat endometriosis, that their use to prevent pregnancy should be similarly uncontroversial. That a thing can be used for one good purpose does not mean that all possible uses of a thing are necessarily good in turn.
Finally, a thought on rights and freedoms. The cornerstone of our enumerated rights as Canadians is the right to life; anything which abrogates this right (I include abortion here) is a threat to our liberties. But the cornerstone of our society, and indeed of all societies, is the family. Should Canadian society crumble tomorrow, people will not look to their pharmacists or their politicians; they will look to their families. As well they should.
So let's not look upon the having of families – including children – as a problem to be solved, or a dire risk to be avoided by any means necessary, shall we?
Kenneth Kully, St. Albert
