response 159 of 209:

Aug 9 04:47 UTC 2003

My impression is that the pro-life movement contains a very wide variety
of beliefs and a great deal of internal conflict...and one of the greatest
advantage that they've collectively enjoyed is that the pro-choice movement
is too blind to notice this or too stupid to make effective use of it.

response 161 of 209:

Aug 9 12:41 UTC 2003

I tend to fall in the pro-life and pro-choice camps to a degree. Personally
I don't like the idea of abortion, and I think there are better alternatives
(I mean wouldn't slapping a condom on your dick be rather less of an
inconveneicne than having an abortion?). I also tend to try to respect the
right to live of all living things as much as possible. The "child" that is
killed in an abortion procedure (whether the hair splitters agree if it is
a child or not) could very well be the man/woman to cure cancer one day. Or
it could just end up being a nobody (each of whom I would say the is of equal
value in humanitarian terms). However, enforcing such a law that bans all
abortions would be unenforceable in practise . . . it would be like a law
outlawing masturbation . . . you can outlaw it but realistically speaking
there is no real way to enforce it. The same sort of argument can be applied
to legalising prostituion . . . you ay think it a nagative thing, ut outlawing
it just makes it harder to regulate and makes things worse. Aslo I really
dislike the idea of women beiong forced to adopt what someone else ragrds as
a universal morality. It is ultimately the bearer of the child that will be
supporting that child for the next 20 years or so. Some people are not
qualified to be parents, and they know it, for financial or emotional or
whatever other reasons. What is the alternative for these people who do it
because they feel they have no other choice? Are there droves of anti-abortion
activists willing to foot the bill for these children once they are born if
the mother agreed to their argument? If the child will be given uop for
adoption after birth, is there any guarantee of a decent family taking the
child inas their own? Politicians like to narrow this down to a simple black
and white issue, but it is not quite so simple. 

I found later in life (mid-20's) that my mother considered aborting me since
they had so little money. I can't balme them for considering that option, even
when it was illegal, considering their circumstances, but I seem to be glad
for even th meager potential that I have been able to reach thus far. 

response 163 of 209:

Aug 9 13:00 UTC 2003

In an ideal world, true. But in practise it is usually the women who` get stuck
with the unwanted children. Even if the male contributes money, there is a
lot more involved in rearing a child than cash. 

response 165 of 209:

Aug 9 14:25 UTC 2003

Oh, sorry, didn't know that was what you were talking about. If chemical
castration were the issue, I think it would be a good idea. I think there are
certain drugs that can do this now, like Depo_provera and such, but not sure
if it's legal. Know where I can get any? 

response 167 of 209:

Aug 9 18:05 UTC 2003

Sorry to tell you the facts of life, but it takes two to tango.  Sperm are
nothing without egg, and I can tell you from personal experience it isn't
always the guy who wants to tango, nor is it always he who refuses the use
of a condom.

RU 486 is a very viable and acceptable option as far as I am concerned, but
how many women want to take the responsibility to get it and use it after
every interaction?  That is really an unfair question, I know.  

But is there a "morning after"pill women would use every time?  Some times
they actually want to get pregnant and change their minds after they find out
he doesn't really care.

response 169 of 209:

Aug 9 19:25 UTC 2003

Any kind of "after" pill is an abortion.  It may be OK with you (and I'm glad
you think so) but many people still find it troubling.  Though I don't know
anything at all about RU-486, I don't think that it could possibly a very
"gentle" medication.  It's got to do something that causes the pregnancy to
abort, which really means a fairly serious interuption of the normal function
of a woman's body.  I doubt if that is anything anyone would want to do with
any regularity.  I can't imagine it would be wise to use RU-486 or anything
like it as a routine substitute for birth control.

Yes, I know it takes two and people don't always want to use condoms.  That's
just the point of my customized version of Mary's proposal.  Stopping an
unwanted pregnancy after the act is abortion and undesirable.  Stopping it
during the act (conventional birth control) depends on the sensible behavior
of people with other things on their mind, and is demonstrably unreliable. 
So stopping it before the act is the sensible solution.  You don't need to
sterilize both sexes - that would be redundant.  One will suffice.  It might
as well be men, since the male reproductive system is so much simpler, and
anyway, women already bear the brunt of the inconvenience in reproductive
issues.

And it changes the psychology of having a child.  It becomes something that
you have to decide to do well in advance, not an accident or
spur-of-the-moment decisions.  I wouldn't be surprised if the birth rate fell
something like 25% under such conditions (I expect more baby's are "accidents"
but many are "welcome accidents" so that the parents would have eventually
decided to have a baby if it hadn't happened "by accident").  Such a cut in
the birth rate would be a boon for mankind, plus there'd be substantially
fewer neglected children.

response 171 of 209:

Aug 9 21:03 UTC 2003

(methinks novomit's sarcasm detector needs recalibration.)

I'm sort of half with Jan and half not.  Ideally, contraception
would be perfect and abortion would be used only when nature goes
badly wrong.  Unfortunately, people are falliable (else Bruce
would not have a grandchild) and sometimes drugs conflict in a
way which defeats one or both of them (did you know that certain
antibiotics dramatically reduce the effectiveness of birth-control
pills?  This has come as an unwelcome surprise to many users).
Ignoring crimes such as rape and incest, we still haven't found
a way to prevent nature from screwing up in ways such as
anencephaly, trisomy-21, and the like.

If something like this happens in a context where people are able and
willing to handle the results, fine; no harm done.  Unfortunately, the
accidents happen most often to people who are young and typically
unable to support a family, and too many cannot face the idea of
giving up a child for adoption.  The "alternative" to abortion then
becomes unprepared, unstable, often single parenthood which places
the child at high risk of failure in school, a criminal record, and
other problems.  I don't think much of this "alternative"; it's bad
for the kids.

In short, I'm strongly pro-choice because I'm strongly pro-child.

response 173 of 209:

Aug 10 02:03 UTC 2003

Ha, yeah, what Mary said is a bit silly.

response 175 of 209:

Aug 10 02:41 UTC 2003

I like thinking about silly things.

response 179 of 209:

Aug 10 16:49 UTC 2003

A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, by Isaac Klein.
(This is a book published by the Conservative Jewish branch, and is 
probably closer to the Orthodox than the Reform branch, but I wouldn't 
know for certain.  The 2 pages on this subject meerely skims the surface 
of writings on it.  I would presume that any decision of this nature 
should be made by the competent parents in consultation with medical 
personnel and, when possible, with religious authorities.)

"The question of abortion, though not new, has become an acute problemin 
our day, and there is extensive literature on it. . . (A)bortion 
necessarily involves the death of the embryo or the fetus. . . 

"Where the mother's life is threatened, the law is clear and explicit, 
the mother's life must be saved . . . as long as the child is in the 
womb.  Once part of the child is out, i.e., the head or the greater part 
of the rest of the body, it is not touched because a life may not be 
saved at the expense of another life. . . 

"When the mother's health is imperiled, a distinction is made between 
the early and late stages of pregnancy.  In the early stages, 
therapeutic abortion is permitted. . . 

"Opinions differ about what constitutes the early stages. . . 
definitions range from 40 days to 3 months. . . 

"Some authorities would extend the permissibility of therpeutic abortion 
to any maternal need.  This would include cases of incest or rape where 
shame or embarrassemnt to the mother . . . are considered threats to her 
health.

"There is a consensus of opinion that mental health is on a par with 
physical health. . . We would therefore conclude that abortion in the 
early stages of pregnancy is permissible in a case where the woman's 
physical or mental health is threatened by her fear that the may bear a 
deformed child. . .

"When abortion is desired for reasons of convenience, however, it is 
forbidden. . . ."

response 181 of 209:

Aug 11 00:02 UTC 2003

Re #166:  The DISadvantage of doing that on the male side is that
one male can impregnate a lot of females.  In situations such as
war men can be killed, taken out for military service and otherwise
be made unavailable, but I've read that the birthrate doesn't fall
much until females outnumber males by something approaching 6:1.

If orange skin was a sign of fertility, I could see a market in orange
skin dye so that guys could get the attention of baby-minded women.
Bathe in it before going to the bar, shower after getting laid.

Of course, solving the pregnancy problem wouldn't do a thing to
help the STD problem, and might even make it worse.  These things
cannot be considered in isolation.

Re #167:  Bruce, folks of your stripe are fighting to keep morning-after
pills unavailable.  Wal-Mart won't carry them, to give one example.
Neither will pharmacies in Catholic hospitals.  They seem to be doing
everything they can to make abortions necessary.