From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Perfect Birth Control? (was Re: rights and responsibi)
Date: 25 Jan 93 02:09:44 GMT
Organization: Deep Thirteen
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <C1AAtw.KrA@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>> In article <cpma9u7@Unify.Com> tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:
>> >> But actually, your missing the point.  If two consenting adults want to
>> >> engage in acts which give them pleasure, why should they have to modify
>> >> their behavior in order to not have kids if they don't have to?
>> >
>> >Everything you do has consequences.  *Everything*!  Everything has a price.
>> >If you want to have great sex  then the price may be getting pregnant, having to
>> >stop and use birth control or doing something else.
>> 
>> People *ARE* stopping to using birth control, *AND* getting
>> vasectomies, *AND* getting their tubes tied, ...  Women STILL get
>> pregnant.
>> 
>> >If you want to have sex, there is no 100% way to guarentee a pregnancy free
>> >romp in the hay. (except for not doing it)
>> >
>> >It sounds like you want something for nothing.
>> 
>> It sounds like you want to make sure that the price is always there
>> to act as a deterent.
>> 
>> Brendan
> 
> Brendan, the price is there whether you want it to be or not. EVERYTHING
> has a price, even if only as an "opportunity cost"; i.e., you were busy
> doing one thing and passed up the opportunity to do something else.
> Remaining celibate has a price, too; you pay for it in lost opportunities
> to have sex. ( And, for men, celibacy is linked to a slight increase in
> the risk of prostate cancer.) 

         Yes, but I think Mr. Boerner's point is that some people seem
    intent on enacting "price controls." For example, you pay a price for
    sexual activity, but the coin in which you pay need not be fixed. Some
    pay in increased risk of pregnancy, others in the added expense and
    trouble of contraceptives. Many choose monogamy to minimize the chance
    of disease, while others protect themselves with prophylactics, and
    still others prefer to take their chances on unprotected sex with
    multiple partners (this paragraph's only value judgement: the last
    group is composed primarily of stupid people.) The choice you make
    depends on your values, but some people seem to feel that the choice(s)
    dictated by their values should be the only one(s) allowed.

> Saying that everything has a price is absolutely true, and anybody who
> complains about the prices is an unrealistic fool. We don't have famines
> in the U.S because when one area of the nation is hard-hit by drought or
> disaster, other areas send in food and supplies; this is only possible
> because of our excellent transportation network. We pay for that
> transportation network in money and blood; every auto accident death is
> part of the cost of eliminating famine. So is every smoggy day.  To
> eliminate smog and traffic accidents by eliminating the transportation
> network of roads and rails would be to bring back the fact of frequent
> mass starvation due to famine.  Is it worth the price we pay? I think so. 


         I hope you don't mind if I hijack your example. I like it, and I
    think it is a good one.

         In times and areas where there is not an extensive transportation
    network, it is generally considered wise to stockpile surplus food in
    case of drought. You do not, however, hear objections to our
    transportation system based on the fact that people will neglect to do
    this if they know they are unlikely to starve. The reason for this is
    simple: the main reason for stockpiling food was to avoid the
    consequences of not stockpiling food. If the consequences are (ahem)
    inconsequential, there isn't much of a reason to stockpile food.
     
         Yet, we have seen persons state that one of the grounds for their
    opposition to birth control is that it will "promote promiscuity" by
    reducing the risks of undesirable consequences. It is as if promiscuity
    is intrinsically bad, aside from its consequences. Not all Americans
    accept this premise.

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15281 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13977