Nobody ever mentions the problems with environmental pollution and human cancer with chemical contraception. It's very conspicuous. If it were any other product the downsides would be heavily discussed. http://i.imgur.com/S8RCxEe.jpg
I tend to distrust quotes that use terms like "the barren left" - it's clearly not aimed at me, someone who Steven Mosher would probably lump into that category.
Isn't the dumping of antibiotics causing similar problems? The problem doesn't seem to be birth control itself, but improper disposal of household chemicals, really.
Also, do you have a citation for the cancer thing you mentioned?
Also, the problem is literally in urine. I don't understand your line about disposal. You want all women on the pill to always pee and poop into jars for proper permanent disposal? And no, "disposal" of antibiotics is not a big ecological problem whereas pharmaceutical hormones clearly are.
Ah, I didn't know that the hormones were excreted via urine.
Also, that link mostly talks about hormonal menopause therapy, and oddly only mentions the BC pill in passing, noting that only high-dosage pills seem to be linked to cancer.
In the end, tbh, it's up to a woman and her doctor to decide how to balance the risks of pregnancy and cancer.
So comes the <del>hypocrisy</del>inconsistency of the conservative rationale.
Cigarettes are a far more potent carcinogen than estrogen and progestogen (the Pill). However when it comes to smoking, conservatives believe the government shouldn't interfere and say it's "Personal Choice."
When it comes to birth control, they want government to limit access on the grounds of morality, and (dubious) health claims.
The Public Research Institute is an anti-abortion, anti birth-control group in leagues with the Catholic Church and thinly veiled under the guise of "Humans Rights Advocate" for Chinese.
