I like dead people. Also tea.
I vote no. Not because I am a big fan of menstruation, but because I am not a big fan of life-long medical intervention. Not because I think technology is always wrong, but because I do not think technology is always right. For some women, the regular use of hormones to combat health problems that come with their periods may be necessary and right, but for other women the regular use of the same hormones in different circumstances may equally well be unnecessary and imprudent. Whatever the decision, I hope it will only come because women themselves can weigh the pros and cons of their situations, not because their doctors try to argue that menstruation itself is obsolete.
If you ain't gonna use it, lose it... that's what I say. And I don't miss it a damn bit!
It could be that menstruation is inconvenient for the medical profession, which may be why they want to lobby for obsolescence. Nothing more messy than having to deal with hormonal balance (i.e., emotions)...
In Dr. Segal's defense, a) I don't know what HIS conclusion was and b) he was a great defender of a woman's right to choose in ALL areas. One part of the obit reports that when "Some judges began ordering that women convicted of child abuse be forcibly implanted with the [Norplant] device..."Dr. Segal was appalled. In a letter to The New York Times in 1991 he wrote: 'I am totally and unalterably opposed to the use of Norplant for any coercive or involuntary purpose. It was developed to improve reproductive freedom, not to restrict it.'” Making me think that women would, in Dr. Segal's world, be allowed to choose whether or not menstruation was the right thing for them.
Post a Comment