Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Birth Control
Message-ID: <889@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 13:53:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.889
Posted: Thu Aug 22 13:53:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 18:02:28 EDT
References: <29057@lanl.ARPA> <389@oliven.UUCP> <219@bcsaic.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 22

PAMELA PINCHA-WAGENER writes:

> This is the point where most Pro-lifers lose any support I might
> have considered.  I do not understand why they not only want to
> do away with abortion , but birth control methods as well?!! 

Which Pro-lifers?  Maybe the ones you've been running into are like
the lone pro-lifer in the recent People magazine article -- opposed
to abortion strictly for religious reasons.  Given the religions that
are most common in North America, it's not surprising that such people
support the idea that every act of sexual intercourse should carry
the possibility of pregnancy and birth -- Genesis 1:28 and all that.
But I have yet to hear Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly or even the
Rev. Jerry Falwell advocate the outlawing of birth control, whether
for the married or the unmarried.  Only a minority of articles in
the Human Life Review are anti-sex-for-fun.  And those on this net
who attack Planned Parenthood are doing so because they say Planned
Parenthood advocates and performs abortions, not because Planned Parent-
hood advocates contraception.  Tell us which pro-lifers you are
talking about.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt