Anthony Esolen, writing for Public Discourse, holds forth on the illegitimate claims that contraception advocates make about the medical or health reasons that favor contraceptive use, via Americas (and his) favorite pass-time:
But the use of estrogen as contraception is not medical at all. Quite the contrary. A couple who use estrogen to prevent the conception of a child do not ingest the drug to enhance the performance of their reproductive organs, or to heal any debility therein. Their worry is rather that those organs are functioning in a healthy and natural way, and they wish they werent. They want to obtain not ability but debility. They want not to repair but to thwart. Here it is usually argued that the drug is medical because it prevents a disease. But that is to invert the meaning of words. When the reproductive organs are used in a reproductive act, the conception of a child is the healthy and natural result. That is a plain biological fact. If John and Mary are using their organs in that way, and they cannot conceive a child, then this calls for a remedy; that is the province of medicine. It is also the province of medicine to shield us against casual exposure to communicable diseasesexposure that we cannot prevent, and that subjects us to debility or death. Childbearing and malaria are not the same sorts of thing.
Read the entire article here