matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/22/85)
PAMELA PINCHA-WAGENER writes: > This is the point where most Pro-lifers lose any support I might > have considered. I do not understand why they not only want to > do away with abortion , but birth control methods as well?!! Which Pro-lifers? Maybe the ones you've been running into are like the lone pro-lifer in the recent People magazine article -- opposed to abortion strictly for religious reasons. Given the religions that are most common in North America, it's not surprising that such people support the idea that every act of sexual intercourse should carry the possibility of pregnancy and birth -- Genesis 1:28 and all that. But I have yet to hear Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly or even the Rev. Jerry Falwell advocate the outlawing of birth control, whether for the married or the unmarried. Only a minority of articles in the Human Life Review are anti-sex-for-fun. And those on this net who attack Planned Parenthood are doing so because they say Planned Parenthood advocates and performs abortions, not because Planned Parent- hood advocates contraception. Tell us which pro-lifers you are talking about. -- Matt Rosenblatt
dross@rocky2.UUCP (David Ross) (08/24/85)
>>PAMELA PINCHA-WAGENER writes: >> This is the point where most Pro-lifers lose any support I might >> have considered. I do not understand why they not only want to >> do away with abortion , but birth control methods as well?!! >Which Pro-lifers? Maybe the ones you've been running into are like >the lone pro-lifer in the recent People magazine article -- opposed >to abortion strictly for religious reasons. Given the religions that >are most common in North America, it's not surprising that such people >support the idea that every act of sexual intercourse should carry >the possibility of pregnancy and birth -- Genesis 1:28 and all that. >But I have yet to hear Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly or even the >Rev. Jerry Falwell advocate the outlawing of birth control, whether >for the married or the unmarried. Only a minority of articles in >the Human Life Review are anti-sex-for-fun. And those on this net >who attack Planned Parenthood are doing so because they say Planned >Parenthood advocates and performs abortions, not because Planned Parent- >hood advocates contraception. Tell us which pro-lifers you are >talking about. > -- Matt Rosenblatt Well, there's the Catholic church, for one (this is *not* an attack on Catholicism, so no flames, please). The Church opposes any form of birth control other than the rhythm method; since people who use the rhythm method are commonly known as "parents", this is tantamount to being opposed to any form of birth control at all. The Reagan administration has successfully restricted teenagers' access to birth control, mostly through the Adolescent Family Life Act, which specifically prohibits funding for family planning for nonpregnant teens. The AFLA is intended to support "chastity education"; the rate of teenage preg- nancies in this country has risen sharply over the last four years as a result. I will admit that I haven't heard any guidelines from Schlafly or Falwell on the subject, but Jerry has probably been too busy buying Krugerrands to deal with this issue (1/2 :-). Finally, as to people posting on the net, Ray Frank has been taking Planned Parenthood to task for supporting contraception, rather than preach- ing "groin control". As to the objection that the above-mentioned are only concerned with providing *teenagers* with birth control, and not older individuals, I think that if you start by restricting birth control for one segment of the popula- tion, it's but a short step to denying it to the rest of society. Some current forms of birth control are unacceptable to the right-to-life movement. For example: the IUD is unacceptable to many pro-lifers, since they view it as equivalent to abortion. As another example, Catholic hospitals may refuse to treat rape victims with the so-called "morning after" pill, the refusal being based on religious rather than medical grounds. Given that early advocates of birth control such as Margaret Sanger were jailed for their beliefs, I can quite easily believe that attempts might be made to restrict birth control. David Ross NYU Medical Center {allegra, seismo, ihnp4}!cmcl2!rna!rocky2!dross The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of the admini- stration, faculty, or staff of New York University Medical Center. -- Remember: wherever you go . . . there you are.
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/24/85)
In article <889@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >> This is the point where most Pro-lifers lose any support I might >> have considered. I do not understand why they not only want to >> do away with abortion , but birth control methods as well?!! >And those on this net who attack Planned Parenthood are doing so because >they say Planned Parenthood advocates and performs abortions, not >because Planned Parenthood advocates contraception. Tell us which >pro-lifers you are talking about. How about Ray Frank and Gary Samuelson who specifically attacked PP (right on this net) because it "encourages children to have sex" by giving them birth control. It seems to me that the best way to cut down on unecessary abortions if for everybody to use birth control (you seem to agree). I suppose you might be able to stop PP from doing abortions, but Ray and Frank were very clear that they wanted to stop PP from giving out birth control as well. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/27/85)
> It seems to me that the best way to cut down > on unecessary abortions [is] for everybody to use birth control (you seem > to agree). [CHARLES FORSYTHE] I agree that birth control is one way to cut down on unnecessary abortions, and that people ought to know about it. As far as private or Government programs go, those who support a combination of sexually active teenagers and birth control have every right to give out, or advocate that the Government give out, birth control information and help. But another way to cut down on unnecessary abortions is to encourage abstinence by the young. If society wants teenagers to abstain from sex, society ought to show them, or give them, good reasons for doing so. Threats of male exploitation, VD, or hellfire and brimstone won't dissuade today's young people. So how about supplementing the "stick" with an effective "carrot": "Planned Celibacy," or the Church or Synagogue, or the Government (if majority vote approves) can offer a $10,000 cash reward to any person who can come to the hospital within a month of turning 18 years old and prove that he or she is a virgin. That's a reason for saying "no" that even the girl's eager boyfriend can understand! I approve both of encouraging birth control and of encouraging abstinence, because both things tend to reduce the number of abortions. I further believe that the two types of encouragement appeal to non-coincident populations, so that both are needed. -- Matt Rosenblatt
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/27/85)
In article <1016@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >> It seems to me that the best way to cut down >> on unnecessary abortions [is] for everybody to use birth control (you seem >> to agree). [CHARLES FORSYTHE] >But another way to cut down on unnecessary abortions is to encourage >abstinence by the young. If society wants teenagers to abstain from sex, >society ought to show them, or give them, good reasons for doing so. >Threats of male exploitation, VD, or hellfire and brimstone won't dissuade >today's young people. I wholeheartedly agree. There is, however, one problem you missed. That is that teenagers (the younger they are, the worse) don't necessarily listen to reason -- even from people they respect. By definition, adolescence is the time when a person drags out all the values they grew up with, evaluates them and then sets down a final decision (thus follows the relatively stable period between adulthood and the mid-life crisis). Reasons for abstinence tend to rely heavily on abstract values. If a teen is aware of birth control the SMALL risk involved may easily be outweighed by curiosity, excitement and hormones. If the teen is not aware of birth control, he or she may not be aware of the risk -- and that makes things worse! Arguments for abstinence, besides 100% safety, tend to lie along lines of "pre-marital sex cheapens the act." To someone who has no concept of how much "the act" can mean, this statement is meaningless. >So how about supplementing the "stick" with an effective "carrot": >"Planned Celibacy," or the Church or Synagogue, or the Government (if >majority vote approves) can offer a $10,000 cash reward to any person >who can come to the hospital within a month of turning 18 years old and >prove that he or she is a virgin. That's a reason for saying "no" that >even the girl's eager boyfriend can understand! I suppose I have to give you credit for trying... but this is entirely impractical (even if the money were available). It is not as easy as you think to medically prove virginity. Certainly for males it's impossible. As for females, while an intact hymen is a guarantee of virginity, a broken hymen is not necessarily indicative of a non-virgin. Also, why eighteen? A lot of people continue onto college, so it seems to me that the average age for marriage should be in the mid-twenties. A lot of eighteen-year-old come to MIT virgins, but don't even last a week (there's a reason for that...) I think you're on the right track for that kind of direction, but the only way I see to succeed is to somehow make "abstinence" really trendy. It might even work. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/30/85)
In article <718@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: > >It is not as easy as you >think to medically prove virginity. Certainly for males it's impossible. >As for females, while an intact hymen is a guarantee of virginity, a >broken hymen is not necessarily indicative of a non-virgin. Actually, an intact hymen is not even a guarantee of virginity. I have heard of a medical condition where the hymen is so strong that it simply stretches back into place after intercourse, making it very painful. (I think the treatment is to remove it surgically). -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie