Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxr.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxr!mfs From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The "day-after" pill Message-ID: <158@mhuxr.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 10:05:24 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxr.158 Posted: Tue Dec 11 10:05:24 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:12:18 EST References: <4315@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 21 There is definitely a need for *far* more study on the health effects of the so-called day-after pill. However, Dubuc's glib dismissal is just premature. His point of view makes that dismissal expected. But what about the advantages of such a pill? In the Third World, especially, the problem in family planning is to get the couple to practice it. Condoms, birth control pills, etc, run out, and dispensing centers can be far away. So you get forced family planning a la China and India. Extreme measures, but these countries have almost **TWO BILLION** people to feed every day!!!!!! Hence the attractiveness of a pill that does not have to be taken every day. It also allows for a planned for child to be conceive immediately, without a two-three month withdrawal period, as with the current Pill. The day after pill needs further study, lots thereof. But it is conceivably an alternative to family planning problems that CANNOT accept the kind of claptrap Dubuc spews forth from his safe vantage point. After all he does not have to worry about being the interior minister of some overpopulated, underfed country. Marcel Simon {ihnp4!allegra}mhuxr!mfs