Quick(ie) Thought

Have you seen those commercials for hormonal birth control that promise women fewer periods? You know the ones: "if you could have fewer periods, life could be a whole lot nicer." Is it just me, or is there a flaw in this idea?

Granted, periods are a montly annoyance and, on first blush, the idea of not having them so often seems enticing. But let's look at the bigger picture for a moment.

For the most part, women who are on the pill are (a) sexually active and (b) trying not to get pregnant. So why, then, would a woman want to rid herself of the best diagnostic tool that nature provides to prove that she is not? Let's face it, most of these women are going to miss a pill here and there, and there is no hard guarantee than an unwanted pregnancy would make itself known with nausea or tenderness (you've heard of couples who didn't know they were pregnant, haven't you?). One's period is a more reliable gauge than a negative pregnancy test, too, but sales of said tests to those using this method will skyrocket when the fear of failure exists and natural means to allay three months of fear do not. On these new pills, when you're late... you're too late.

Quite a little pro-lifer boon, wouldn't you say?