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