pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/10/84)
I wanted to put Betsy Perry's question on the "day-after" pill in a separate article: }In an unrelated topic: how do the various pro-life people out there }feel about the (currently-tested) "day-after" pill which causes }a 2-week abortion? (that is, it is taken the day after a missed period.) }As an admittedly biased observer, I'm much less worried about a 2-week }fetus than about a 5-month fetus. My own position is that it is more consisent to protect human life from conception. So I would throw out the use of such a pill. I think the pill contains prostaglandin (sp?) which induces uterine contractions causing abortion. This is not a drug to take lightly from the woman's standpoint. If it is used as regular birth control it could have serious side effects. Aside from the effects on the fetus, I could see another dilemma arising from the availability of such a pill. It would make it possible to give an abortion to a woman without her consent, just by putting it in her food or water. I can just see the Chinese using it to control their population, or Russia using it to subdue Afganistan. Have the pill's developers thought about this? I also wonder what's going to happen to the abortion industry when it becomes widely available. Can't say I care, but I can just see clinics lobbying for restrictions on its use. The Upjohn company has admitted that it has been developing this pill for some years. Right to Life has suggested boycotting their products to those who object. They put out a list of alternate brands of their major products. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (12/11/84)
There is definitely a need for *far* more study on the health effects
of the so-called day-after pill. However, Dubuc's glib dismissal is
just premature. His point of view makes that dismissal expected.
But what about the advantages of such a pill? In the Third World,
especially, the problem in family planning is to get the couple
to practice it. Condoms, birth control pills, etc, run out, and
dispensing centers can be far away. So you get forced family planning
a la China and India. Extreme measures, but these countries have
almost **TWO BILLION** people to feed every day!!!!!! Hence the
attractiveness of a pill that does not have to be taken every day.
It also allows for a planned for child to be conceive immediately,
without a two-three month withdrawal period, as with the current Pill.
The day after pill needs further study, lots thereof. But it is
conceivably an alternative to family planning problems that
CANNOT accept the kind of claptrap Dubuc spews forth from his
safe vantage point. After all he does not have to worry about
being the interior minister of some overpopulated, underfed
country.
Marcel Simon {ihnp4!allegra}mhuxr!mfspmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/12/84)
>Marcel Simon >There is definitely a need for *far* more study on the health effects >of the so-called day-after pill. However, Dubuc's glib dismissal is >just premature. His point of view makes that dismissal expected. I agree with the need for study, but you don't reason against the problems I suggested. You seem of favor ignoring them while extoling the "benefits": >But what about the advantages of such a pill? In the Third World, >especially, the problem in family planning is to get the couple >to practice it. Condoms, birth control pills, etc, run out, and >dispensing centers can be far away. So you get forced family planning >a la China and India. Extreme measures, but these countries have >almost **TWO BILLION** people to feed every day!!!!!! This is justification for extreme measures? Do you understand the variety of atrocities that can easily be put in the category of "forced family planning"? Who's doing the planning when the planning is forced? Who chooses the method? >Hence the >attractiveness of a pill that does not have to be taken every day. >It also allows for a planned for child to be conceive immediately, >without a two-three month withdrawal period, as with the current Pill. There are plenty of birth control methods (the morning after pill is an abortifacient) that have the same advantage over the current Pill. Anyway that's hardly worth emphasizing after extolling the MAPs virtues for cutting down on 2 billion hungry people. > >The day after pill needs further study, lots thereof. But it is >conceivably an alternative to family planning problems that >CANNOT accept the kind of claptrap Dubuc spews forth from his >safe vantage point. After all he does not have to worry about >being the interior minister of some overpopulated, underfed >country. > How comfrortable am I? I don't take the comfortable position of labeling another's argument "claptrap" without giving any reasoning. Can't really argue against name calling, can I? Forgive me if I have problems in seeing why abortion is such a wonderful solution overpopulation and lack of food. To me merely suggesting it as if it were the obvious solution displays a lack of consideration of the causes of such problems. You advocate a solution irrespective of the cause? If third world people see hope for a brighter future they may voluntarily limit their population. Lower the infant mortality rate so they can see that family planning can be done with the confidence that their progeny won't die out. Does forced family planning lead to a better future? How? I wonder how the interior minister of Ethiopia would sympathize with your last statement. The government taxes all the food that is brought in to relieve the famine there. To assume that the governments of countries with these problems are always concerned for the welfare of their people is again taking a simplistic approch to a complex problem. Abortion is the "easy answer" suggested as part of the solution to every thing from child abuse to poverty to hunger. I guess removing (or preventing?) people with problems is one way of removing the problems. Not the best way, I think. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (12/12/84)
Form Paul Dubuc: The Upjohn company has admitted that it has been developing this pill ["day-after" pill] for some years. Right to Life has suggested boycotting their products to those who object. They put out a list of alternate brands of their major products. I think it is about time that the pro-choice groups and individuals should "flex their muscles" to fight this and similar intimidation actions organized by some "pro-life" groups. Obviously, tactics that some pro-lifers use, such as bombings, are repugnant, and should never be used. However, boycott could be a two edge sword. Fighting the pro-lifer's attempts to impose their morality on the rest of us by legislation and intimidation, is not just a pro- choice issue. It is a fundamental matter which concerns our rights for personal freedom. -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (12/13/84)
> Paul Dubuc > I agree with the need for study, but you don't reason against the > problems I suggested. You seem of favor ignoring them while extoling > the "benefits": > You seem to be in favor of ignoring the DAF while trumpeting its problems > This is justification for extreme measures? Do you understand the > variety of atrocities that can easily be put in the category of "forced > family planning"? Who's doing the planning when the planning is forced? > Who chooses the method? > Do you understand the position of a hospital or doctor who has to decide "I have only one set of [IV | medicine | etc]; this one will die tonight anyway, so let's give it to that one, who *might* make it till tomorrow"? Is that not *also* an atrocity? Is it not atrocious of a government to say "we can only feed 1.5 Billion a day, so the extra 500 million will have to die" (this is essentially what third world governments have to say, because of scarce resources) There must be family planning. Family planning is far easier in a country like the US, because informatin is easily available. In the third world, which has to fight hunger, overpopulation and ignorance at the same time, the state may have to take action "for the people's good" I realize that is a loaded statement, but I frankly don't see much choice. Remember, you are up against a culture that says, to quote a Haitian proverb, that "children are a poor man's riches" What is involved here is a change in entire nations' mind set about having children. I don't mean to condone the evil done in the name of family planning, but arbitrarily removing abortion or the DAF pill or anything from the list of options is like sending a man into battle with one arm tied behind its back. > There are plenty of birth control methods (the morning after pill > is an abortifacient) that have the same advantage over the current Pill. Which ones?? > How comfrortable am I? I don't take the comfortable position of > labeling another's argument "claptrap" without giving any reasoning. > Can't really argue against name calling, can I? OK, I take back the claptrap part. > If third world people see > hope for a brighter future they may voluntarily limit their population. > Lower the infant mortality rate so they can see that family planning > can be done with the confidence that their progeny won't die out. > Does forced family planning lead to a better future? How? That is part of the vicious circle. Without population control, there IS no hope of a better future. Lowering the infant mortality rate without ALSO vigorously addressing the overpopulation problem will make the latter worse. > Abortion is the "easy answer" suggested <...> The very problem is that there are NO "easy answers". One need to look at all possible solutions. Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/14/84)
}From Marcel Simon }> Paul Dubuc }> I agree with the need for study, but you don't reason against the }> problems I suggested. You seem of favor ignoring them while extoling }> the "benefits": }> }You seem to be in favor of ignoring the DAF while trumpeting its problems I don't see much benifit in abortion on demand, as you would expect. It's probably not as safe to ignore problems as it would be to ignore supposed benefits, anyway. }> This is justification for extreme measures? Do you understand the }> variety of atrocities that can easily be put in the category of "forced }> family planning"? Who's doing the planning when the planning is forced? }> Who chooses the method? }> }Do you understand the position of a hospital or doctor who has to decide }"I have only one set of [IV | medicine | etc]; this one will die tonight }anyway, so let's give it to that one, who *might* make it till tomorrow"? }Is that not *also* an atrocity? Is it not atrocious of a government }to say "we can only feed 1.5 Billion a day, so the extra 500 million }will have to die" (this is essentially what third world governments }have to say, because of scarce resources) There must be family planning. Lack of resources my make death unavoidable in many situations where "life boat ethics" are applied. It does not therefore justify active, avoidable killing, such that I believe abortion is. The doctor with only on IV is making an unavoidable choice required by the immediate situation. Abortion is not analogous to this. }Family planning is far easier in a country like the US, because informatin }is easily available. In the third world, which has to fight hunger, }overpopulation and ignorance at the same time, the state may have }to take action "for the people's good" I realize that is a loaded }statement, but I frankly don't see much choice. Remember, you are }up against a culture that says, to quote a Haitian proverb, that }"children are a poor man's riches" What is involved here is a change }in entire nations' mind set about having children. I don't mean to condone }the evil done in the name of family planning, but arbitrarily removing }abortion or the DAF pill or anything from the list of options is }like sending a man into battle with one arm tied behind its back. I would think it would be better for you to try to change their minds than to force family planning on them. Isn't this taking a step beyond the "pro-choice" stance. If the Haitians believe that "children are a poor man's riches" that represents what they chose to believe. Are you justified in cancelling out that choice, because *you* think it's wrong? No. Convice them otherwise first. } }> There are plenty of birth control methods (the morning after pill }> is an abortifacient) that have the same advantage over the current Pill. }Which ones?? With the advantage of haveing no withdrawal period? Come now, you can think of some. }> If third world people see }> hope for a brighter future they may voluntarily limit their population. }> Lower the infant mortality rate so they can see that family planning }> can be done with the confidence that their progeny won't die out. }> Does forced family planning lead to a better future? How? } }That is part of the vicious circle. Without population control, }there IS no hope of a better future. Lowering the infant mortality }rate without ALSO vigorously addressing the overpopulation problem }will make the latter worse. It may be a circle, but our disagreement is over where the starting point should be. You say it's forced family planning. I think its changing conditions to lead to voluntary family planning. Forcibly reducing a country's population will do little to change the thinking of the people, still less to give them hope for the future. Children *are* their future. Right now all they can see is that the more they have the more likley for some to survive. Is forcing them to cut back going to make them feel any better? }> Abortion is the "easy answer" suggested <...> } }The very problem is that there are NO "easy answers". One need }to look at all possible solutions. The fact that a solution is possible, does not mean it should be used. That is my feeling about abortion. I think abortion is touted as the easy answer to all the problems I mentioned. It's easy to end a life to eliminate the "problems" associated with that life's existence. Thanks for improving the tone of our discussion, Marcel. I appreciate it. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (12/19/84)
> }From Marcel Simon > > }> Paul Dubuc > }> I agree with the need for study, but you don't reason against the > }> problems I suggested. You seem of favor ignoring them while extoling > }> the "benefits": > }> > }You seem to be in favor of ignoring the DAF while trumpeting its problems Wait! Don't ignore him. Send me information as to his whereabouts. -- Amphibian Stomper
daf@ccice6.UUCP (Mr. Fader) (12/20/84)
> > }> I agree with the need for study, but you don't reason against the > > }> problems I suggested. You seem of favor ignoring them while extoling > > }> the "benefits": > > }> > > }You seem to be in favor of ignoring the DAF while trumpeting its problems > > Wait! Don't ignore him. Send me information as to his whereabouts. > > -- > Amphibian Stomper Mr Kreilick, You evil distorter of truth. You and the Alien Blueberry are the ones who put me here. Now I will tell the true story starting from the daycfg thjy;o7 -- Alien Blueberry