mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) (08/08/85)
? Also, the only 100% effective methods of birth control are abstinence ? and the pill. Boy is she possibly in for a surprise. The pill is not 100% effective! ? I most certainly will not agree with you that all women should use ? birth control or accept the consequences until this society takes a ? stronger stand on requiring men to take responsibility for birth control. I have to wonder why someone who thinks outlawing abortion is an attack on women's rights but thinks society - do you mean govt? - "requiring" men to be responsible for birth control is not an attack on men's rights!!! And the pro-choice people in general claim pro-lifers shove morality down their pro-choice throats!!! It's evident the issue is whose morality is going to be the law and whose is not. I've never bought the argument that anyone was shoving morality anywhere since the law is basically legislated morality anyway (most law). ? Lastly, I don't think that anyone in their right minds uses abortion ? simply as a method of birth control. In CA, poor women can get free abortions from state money whereas birth control is not free. Economically, some women see it as making sense to abort rather than shield. Judge for yourself but they do use abortion as a birth control method. ? Women agonize over their choice, ? but it must be THEIR choice! It is a last resort. Some do, some don't. It must be their choice? It is a last resort? People should not be choosing when other people die. The power is too great. Abortion as a last resort is so inaccurate. I wish it were true but it is not. By the way, what do you see as alternatives? Apparently you don't believe in adoption. Lately, I've had resume-like literature from couples who are seemingly desparate for an adoption. They are willing to pay and sometimes very well! ? marie desjardins park Matt Noah
susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (08/12/85)
> > In CA, poor women can get free abortions from state money whereas birth > control is not free. Economically, some women see it as making sense > to abort rather than shield. Judge for yourself but they do use abortion > as a birth control method. > Planned Parenthood used to give contraceptives to women without the means to pay. I strongly suspect they still do. > Some do, some don't. It must be their choice? It is a last resort? > People should not be choosing when other people die. The power is too > great. Abortion as a last resort is so inaccurate. I wish it were true > but it is not. By the way, what do you see as alternatives? Apparently > you don't believe in adoption. Lately, I've had resume-like literature > from couples who are seemingly desparate for an adoption. They are willing > to pay and sometimes very well! > > Matt Noah So now we're talking having babies for money. Or is it selling humans? Isn't that slavery? Susan Finkelman
kew@bigburd.UUCP (Karen Wieckert) (08/21/85)
Matt Noah - >I have to wonder why someone who thinks outlawing abortion is an attack >on women's rights but thinks society - do you mean govt? - "requiring" >men to be responsible for birth control is not an attack on men's >rights!!! And the pro-choice people in general claim pro-lifers >shove morality down their pro-choice throats!!! When one says "society", one does not necessarily mean government. Instead, this can mean the attitudes of the members of society. What is being asked of men is that their attitudes toward responsibility for birth control change. Men, and women, must expect the male partner to be just as responsible for birth control. Before net.abortion receives hundreds of messages from men saying they are responsible, let me acknowledge that many men do take on this responsibility. However, in my opinion (and experience), this is still far from universal. I think many more men need to change their attitudes toward birth control. >It's evident the issue is >whose morality is going to be the law and whose is not. I've never >bought the argument that anyone was shoving morality anywhere since the >law is basically legislated morality anyway (most law). I am of the opinion that the current law is more neutral towards any one "moral code" than one which would outlaw abortion. This law allows for individuals with your viewpoint to not have abortions under any circumstance, whereas outlawing abortion would enforce your morality upon me and not allow me to have an abortion when my "moral code" permitted it. >In CA, poor women can get free abortions from state money whereas birth >control is not free. Economically, some women see it as making sense >to abort rather than shield. Judge for yourself but they do use abortion >as a birth control method. I suggest the change necessary is to subsidize birth control as well as abortions, thereby allowing these women a choice which you suggest they cannot make economically. marie desjardins park: >? Women agonize over their choice, but it must be THEIR choice! It is a >?last resort. Matt Noah: >Some do, some don't. It must be their choice? Yes. >It is a last resort? In many cases where carrying a fetus to term is not feasible physically, emotionally or economically, yes it is a last resort. >People should not be choosing when other people die. The power is too >great. Such a catagorical statement! "People" in this case means women; "other people" in this case means fetuses. "die" in this case means aborted. If we substitute the correct terms, we get: Women should not be choosing when fetuses are aborted. Hmmmmm.... >Abortion as a last resort is so inaccurate. I wish it were true >but it is not. By the way, what do you see as alternatives? Apparently >you don't believe in adoption. Lately, I've had resume-like literature >from couples who are seemingly desparate for an adoption. They are willing >to pay and sometimes very well! Why is it so inaccurate? Why isn't it true? Adoption isn't always an alternative. Thus, abortion becomes a last resort. ka:ren