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: Re: The "day-after" pill
Message-ID: <164@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 09:31:42 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.164
Posted: Thu Dec 13 09:31:42 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 06:23:49 EST
References: <4315@cbscc.UUCP>, <158@mhuxr.UUCP> <4343@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 57

> Paul Dubuc 
> I agree with the need for study, but you don't reason against the
> problems I suggested.  You seem of favor ignoring them while extoling
> the "benefits":
> 
You seem to be in favor of ignoring the DAF while trumpeting its problems

> This is justification for extreme measures?  Do you understand the
> variety of atrocities that can easily be put in the category of "forced
> family planning"?  Who's doing the planning when the planning is forced?
> Who chooses the method?
> 
Do you understand the position of a hospital or doctor who has to decide
"I have only one set of [IV | medicine | etc]; this one will die tonight
anyway, so let's give it to that one, who *might* make it till tomorrow"?
Is that not *also* an atrocity? Is it not atrocious of a government
to say "we can only feed 1.5 Billion a day, so the extra 500 million
will have to die" (this is essentially what third world governments
have to say, because of scarce resources) There must be family planning.
Family planning is far easier in a country like the US, because informatin
is easily available. In the third world, which has to fight hunger,
overpopulation and ignorance at the same time, the state may have
to take action "for the people's good" I realize that is a loaded
statement, but I frankly don't see much choice. Remember, you are
up against a culture that says, to quote a Haitian proverb, that
"children are a poor man's riches" What is involved here is a change
in entire nations' mind set about having children. I don't mean to condone
the evil done in the name of family planning, but arbitrarily removing
abortion or the DAF pill or anything from the list of options is
like sending a man into battle with one arm tied behind its back.

> There are plenty of birth control methods (the morning after pill
> is an abortifacient) that have the same advantage over the current Pill.
Which ones??

> How comfrortable am I?  I don't take the comfortable position of
> labeling another's argument "claptrap" without giving any reasoning.
> Can't really argue against name calling, can I?
OK, I take back the claptrap part.

> If third world people see
> hope for a brighter future they may voluntarily limit their population.
> Lower the infant mortality rate so they can see that family planning
> can be done with the confidence that their progeny won't die out.
> Does forced family planning lead to a better future?  How?

That is part of the vicious circle. Without population control,
there IS no hope of a better future. Lowering the infant mortality
rate without ALSO vigorously addressing the overpopulation problem
will make the latter worse.

> Abortion is the "easy answer" suggested <...>

The very problem is that there are NO "easy answers". One need
to look at all possible solutions.

Marcel Simon		..!mhuxr!mfs