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