Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Planned Parenthood posting Message-ID: <639@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 16:32:09 EDT Article-I.D.: ttidcc.639 Posted: Tue Aug 6 16:32:09 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Aug-85 00:11:52 EDT Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA. Lines: 62 Re T.C. Wheeler's Planned Parenthood posting. >Abortion as a birth control method is very much an issue in the discussions >I have seen on this net. Depends on your slant, perhaps and how many articles you "n" past. Abortion is very much an issue. ". . .as a birth control method. . ." I'm not so sure about. >Quite a few posters in this group defend abortion as a method of birth >control. Define "quite a few". Quite a larger number than a few defend abortion as a woman's right to her own body and it's functions. Most have stated that they consider birth control in all it's forms to be of primary importance to an intelligent woman's life. Most have also stated or implied that other methods are the smarter way to go, and that they support preventing unwanted pregnancies at least as strongly as they support a woman's right to choose abortion. In the _final_ analysis, same thing: abortion = the control of a birth. On the way to the final analysis, abortion is a practice that may ensure the woman's fundamental rights, even if never used. And is recognized as many as a less desirable method than prevention. >The Planned Parenthood office in our area encourages this form of birth >control and has discontinued counseling for other methods of control. Along with numerous others, I've never heard of this myself. I don't go to Planned Parenthood myself, either, but my sister does. This has not been her experience. Maybe your local office has blown it's charter and/or maybe it isn't affiliated with the national Planned Parenthood organiza- tion. I do question the _intent_ of your comment, (particularly since it is only hearsay, see below, and you don't exhibit a very reasonable attitude with respect to the _truth_ of the issue) but then, I stand on the other side of the fence, so I'm likely to do that, aren't I? (Yes, similarly my sister's experience is also hearsay -- but I didn't make a bald asser- tion concerning a national organization that appears to violate that organization's stated purpose). >In the second place, my information comes from two women who went >to PP for birth control advice and were told to go to their own >doctor. That's good enough for me. That's not good enough for me (nor, obviously, for numerous others). That the clinic may not have given them birth control advice may be due to any number of factors (local regulation, specific charter, economic standing, health concerns, downright rudeness, etc.). If you care to outline the factors that they were given for being turned away, I'm sure people will read them. In their absence, your statement can hardly be considered "good enough" in that it tells us absolutely zip about the birthcontrol counselling practices at that local clinic. >The same information, from other sources, has been printed on this net >several times. That is also good enough for me. LOTS of information has been posted on this net from other sources -- that doesn't make it fact. Blind assertion may be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for lots of others. But, hey, you want to bump into walls, that's your business. I won't legislate against your right to do so. Adrienne Regard