jj@rabbit.UUCP (04/04/84)
(mucha muncha muncha) I think that the idea, recently put forth in net.flame, that all highschool students (for example) should be FORCED to take a long-term contraceptive drug <assuming that one exists> is both silly and immoral, as well as illegal, unwise, counterproductive, and foolish. <There! Now I feel better.> In fact, it's just the opposite position from the "pro-life" folks, and the complete anthesis of the "pro-choice" concept as I understand it. On one hand, we have the pro-lifers, who would torture both parent and child for the sake of the child. On the other hand, we have the pro-contraception folks who would deny everyone the right to reproduction. It's obvious to me where the balance is, and I hope that some of the pro-choice folks out there agree with me. I'm assuming that religious differences will be ignored by both sides, as is the case with pro-lifers right now. This is slightly different than the proposal. I regard it as only slightly different, because I remember the religious differences that one had to have to avoid Vietnam. Enjoy, -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (If you go out in the woods today ... ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (04/05/84)
<food> I agree that enforced birth control is a really bad idea, although I really don't see why there is a problem. Seeing how there are so many materialists that want to preserve their lifestyles rather than a human life, one simply makes the use of birth control cheaper than getting an abortion, let the pro-life people rail about how bad it is to get an abortion, and emphasize that it is uncool to be pregnant when you're not ready to support the kid. Things will then take care of themselves. The problem I see, as a religious person, is that religious groups do not scale sins properly. Yeah, adultry is bad, and murder is bad, but seeing how God designed sex so well (a very suggestive proof of God, but not conclusive :-), people are gonna fornicate no matter what, and so for the time being, it would be best to emphasize the lesser of two evils. That is, IF they truly consider abortion to be murder. In fact, a Christian youth counselor of considerable fame got lambasted pretty bad because he said "Don't do it. But if you do, USE protection!" (By the way, he gave the opinion that it should be the girl to demand it, but the boy to provide it. A slick trick. If the guy REALLY cares, he'll do it, but that's just my opinion. He apparently figured that guys could get access to some form of contraception better than the girls could.) So, from one pro-lifer to the others of a religious persuasion, I ask this: Yes, fornication is bad, but so is murder. Why not insist on cheap birth control if it prevents pregnancies that might get aborted? Sure, it would encourage bad morals, but which is worse, fornication or murder?? (of course, if you're saying that abortion is murder in order to discourage fornication, then there are better ways to stop it than that!!) In short, do you REALLY believe that abortion is murder? Enough to make reasonable moral judgments?? Gerald Owens Owens@gatech
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/07/84)
If some people are going to have sex without practicing birth control then there are going to be pregnancies. Even with perfect birth control there are going to be some ``unwanted'' pregnancies, but the odds go way up if you do not practice birth control. Now, the question is, who should be responsible for these fetuses? The pregnant woman? Both partners in the sex act? The parents of the pregnant woman? Both sets of parents? Society at large? If we operate under the assumption that the fetus may be human and that killing a human being is an atrocity which should not be done for reasons of convenience and avoiding responsibility, then *somebody* has got to be responsible, because babies and children cannot be responsible for themselves. If you judge that a parent is responsible, you have to wonder whether a parent has the right to prevent his child from having sex. Given laws about statuatory rape the legal understanding of the matter seems to be that people under 16 are not having sex. Clearly, the law needs to get in touch with reality. Sex is not like any other human activity because one of the possible results is a fetus. When perfect birth control becomes available sex can be on a par with any other activity done for pleasure, but wishing that it were like that now does not change the fact that now, pregnancy is one of the natural consequences of sex, and must be considered. Forced birth control would force people to be responsible in an area in which many people have been irresponsible. Force, however, is not a very attractive way to develop responsibility. It would be better to have people decide either to take contraception, or to understand that they (or their parents, or anybody else they could find who was willing to take the responsibility for that matter) would be responsible for any child that they engendered while not practising birth control. This would virtually do away with ``unthinking acts of sex'' (since you would have to do some thinking before you signed this document) which would cut down on the number of ``unwanted pregnancies'' (well, if you *really* didn't want one why didn't you practise birth control? you knew the consequences -- it says so right here, beside your name). But assuming that people have, not only the right to not think, but also to escape the penalties of their unthinking is a mistake. If I do not think, and somebody rescues me from the results of my unthinking then I have received a valuable gift, not something that I was entitled to. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Not to perpetrate cowardice against one's own acts! Not to leave them in the lurch afterward! The bite of conscience is indecent" -- Nietzsche The Twilight of the Idols (maxim 10)