Last year I blogged about how the abortifacient Plan B is available to children as a result of a new FDA policy.  Well, it looks like Plan B is just not enough.  

The newest abortifacient approved by the FDA is “ella.”  This drug is falsely being promoted as a contraceptive, when in reality it is simply another drug that will abort a baby within 120 hours of a contraception failure or “unprotected” sex.  

A couple of ironic points arise from this story:  

1)    If contraception was such a sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy, then why do we need a contraceptive for the contraception?  Sounds like the problem is less what people are using to prevent pregnancy and more poor life choices?  If nothing else, it sounds like a difficult way to live—apart from the fact that contraception is unnatural and degrades even the conjugal act.  

2)    The concept of protecting yourself from the consequences of sex, whether to prevent STDs or pregnancy, has always confused me.  The sexual liberationists tout sex as liberation from the bindings of religious convention.  But what is liberating about constantly worrying that you have not protected yourself from STDs or a baby?  It seems like contraception is more troublesome than abstinence.

The consequences from your actions should play a part in guiding your decisions, but what the sexual liberationists propose is that the consequences of your actions can be negated by contraception.  So what’s the answer?  Ignore consequence—they have it all figured out!  

By the time America figured out what casual sex was doing to our culture, the rate of STDs spreading was alarming, babies were either being aborted or brought up in dysfunctional homes, and our grip on right and wrong with regard to sex was loosening.

The sexual revolution had little to offer in preventing STDs or unwanted pregnancies, but the lustful behaviors continued anyway.  As technology developed, Plan B, ella, and other forms of abortion became all the more necessary, because we relied solely on consequences to guide our decisions.  Principle is seemingly unnecessary when there is a sure-fire plan to prevent “bad” things like babies.  But when contraceptives categorically fail, principle should be recognized for succeeding in withstanding the test of time.  I only know of one baby born apart from a sperm and egg union, and I tend the think He is an exception.

This is the issue at hand: our society is becoming purely consequentialist.  While consequences should play a part in our decisions, we should be rooted in principle and our faith; not in consequence.