The modern view holds that sex is a recreational activity with no moral or social significance. The freedom we have come to value is to be completely unencumbered by human relationships. We are entitled to end or walk away from any relationship with a person who might legitimately make demands upon us that we don’t want to fulfill. And reproductive freedom in particular, is the right to unlimited sexual activity without a live baby resulting.
I call this view of sex, Consumer Sex. The decision to have sex is comparable to the decision to go bowling or go out for pizza. If sex is a recreational activity, that makes our sex partners consumer goods, that satisfy us more or less well. And when we are no longer satisfied with our sex partners, we feel entitled to discard them. We believe it is morally acceptable to use another person, as long as they consent to being used. As long as the sex was voluntary and properly contracepted, it is OK. I need not say that this attitude toward sex would be impossible in the absence of abortion on demand and unlimited access to contraception.
The alternative view is the organic view of human sexuality. Sex has two organic purposes: procreation and spousal unity. Spousal unity is a fancy way of saying that sex builds up the relationship between the husband and the wife. Unbeknownst to critics like Cristina Page, the Christian view of sexuality has recognized spousal unity as a legitimate purpose of sex since the Middle Ages. Both of these organic purposes build up the community of the family. Procreation brings new people into being. And spousal unity helps to sustain the bond between the spouses, so they will be there for each other and their children over the long-haul.
Consumer Sex turns this organic reality on its head. Consumer Sex takes the sexual urge, which is a great engine of sociability, and turns into a consumer good. Instead of seeing sex as something that builds up the family and the community, we see sex as something that is all about me and my feelings.
Cristina Page and her companions believe they are promoting the view that sex is for pleasure. But who takes pleasure in being used? The sexual revolution, of which NARAL is so proud, has not made people happy. This is the primary reason why not: no matter how much fun we’re having while we are using another person, we don’t want to be on the receiving end of being used.
Adopting the label of "pro-choice" obscures the subject of the choice. When you spell out the pro-choice position, it is not really all that appealing. In my own book, Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World, I say nothing about what should be legal or illegal. I simply point out that many of our (perfectly legal) sexual decisions are just plain dumb.
I challenge Cristina Page to a debate. I will debate her on the airwaves. I will debate her in person. I’ll debate her on her own terms, in the style of the Yale Political Union: "Resolved: that contraception is the greatest thing since sliced bread." Then we will find out who is saving America and who is just trying to scare it to death.