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.

response 183 of 209:

Aug 11 06:06 UTC 2003

I really like Jan's idea. Wish it would be feasible, without hormonal
tinkering, for women, too-- in this day and age, many women want to be able
to "play" without fear of producing a child they are not ready to raise.
On the other hand, some "accidents" work out better than some "plans". Perhaps
we ought not to remove *all* avenues for providence...

response 185 of 209:

Aug 11 17:39 UTC 2003

Intercourse is not the only point at which it is desirable to prevent or
terminate a pregnancy. Women should also be able to abort for other reasons
as the pregnancy progresses. For example, for genetic or congenital errors,
or because of a change in the woman's circumstances. It should even be
possible for cases where a man insists on unprotected sex even against the
woman's wishes. It happens.

response 187 of 209:

Aug 11 18:17 UTC 2003

they should offer free abortions at the 7-11?

response 189 of 209:

Aug 11 18:21 UTC 2003

*groans*

response 191 of 209:

Aug 12 05:27 UTC 2003

No, I didn't think you disagree, but there were many responses that seemed
to assume that the question of abortion would be resolved if pregnancies
were prevented. But many pregnancies occur without a woman's consent, and
there are reasons for terminating pregnancies that were desired - including
convenience. Why should any woman be required to continue a pregnancy
during the first two trimesters if she doesn't want to, including changing
her mind about the whole thing? There are more substantial reasons than
just convenience, but convenience should be sufficient.