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