1.21.2007

Anna's first Collegian night shift

Ahh... 10:30 and things are going well, I think. T copied a couple pages already, I'm still awake, a bonus. I really do enjoy working at the Collegian. The people are fun and interesting, and discussions always pop up about weird topics. Everyone has an opinion of course, it is a newspaper, but people respect each other (for the most part) when opinions differ.

Tonight however, has united the newsroom occupants against Cyndi Waite, a writer for the Daily Nebraskan (chalk up another reason NU is evil). If you'd like to read her article — I'm fair and won't criticize someone without providing a way for her ridiculous opinion to have a slight glimpse of sun — check it out here: Waite birth control article. Waite basically argues against the government's decisions that ultimately result in an increase in the cost of birth control, because, apparently, consequence-free sex is a right.

It's preposterous! No matter what your moral position on sex outside of marriage (which I feel strongly about, but won't argue about here), I don't understand how you can justify this belief. I mean, do I have a right to drink fancy coffee every day? Should daily coffee be subsidized by the government so my beloved iced raspberry hazelnut latte is a mere 99 cents? Should the government pay for me to enjoy something? Seriously.

Sex without "consequences" — because apparently life, when it is not your own, is a nuisance — is ridiculous. One, there are several other risks created by the kind of sexual behavior Waite refers to — STDs for example. Two, there are consequences for ALL of our actions, period, and our decisions should factor in those consequences. I don't have a parking permit for campus. The ticket price went up and I can't afford to pay $50 to park in the O lot. I can't handle the consequences, so I don't take the risk. If I can't afford birth control and I can't afford a kid, I don't have sex. It's that simple.

Sex without "consequences" merely means sex for pleasure. Should the government be required to cover the cost of enjoyment? No. We have the right to PURSUE happiness. The government doesn't provide it. Nor should we expect the government to eliminate any and all consequences of our actions in the pursuit of self-satisfaction. There are more important things for the government to take care of. Waite should consider thinking of others, and instead of wasting that $38 on her vagina and fleeting pleasure, perhaps she could use that money to cover the cost of living for an orphan in Africa for a year. Something that really matters.
Post a Comment
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...