Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5e.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!dwl From: dwl@hou5e.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: CHOICE and the Senate Message-ID: <617@hou5e.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Jul-83 17:49:09 EDT Article-I.D.: hou5e.617 Posted: Sat Jul 2 17:49:09 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Jul-83 02:33:36 EDT Organization: American Bell ED&D, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 23 Sorry, my 212 went into auto test in the middle of posting this article. Lets hope it works better this time... To the pro-life contingent: The current state of the art of birth control is that no non-permanent method is more than about 97% effective. In other words, even using the most effective non-permanent birth control methods available, a couple takes at least a 3% chance of an unintended conception. I seriously doubt that anyone really wants to have an abortion. But if an abortion is possible, and legal, as a backup technique to cover the 3% gap in other types of birth control, then it should remain possible and legal. The alternative is to force couples who do not wish to become parents to take a 3% chance of becoming parents against their wishes. Such a level of interference in our private lives by our government should be totally unacceptable. -Dave Levenson -ABI Holmdel