From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 19:32:49 GMT

In <1992Sep01.054733.16088@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <nyikos.715296199@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Aug29.144832.19929@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) write

>  Margolis
>> Nyikos
>> >Mills
>> >>Nyikos
>> >>> Rick Kelly
>> >>>> Suxie
>>
>> >>>>Nobody is trying to take away anybody's control of their own bodies.
>> >>>>We're simply making it plain that it is appropriate to apply that control
>> >>>>at the correct time, BEFORE there is a child whose own body is also involved
>>
>> >>>So the only sexual intercourse that you've ever had was for the specific
>> >>>purpose of concieving a child.  And once you had reached your objective
>> >>>you stopped.
>>
>> >>A truly tasteless joke.  But it has possibilities: properly reworded,
>> >>it makes a perfect illustrative example of the term  "non sequitur".
>>
>> >Hardly, twit.  What Rick is asking is: since you feel that the woman should
>> >be ennslaved to her body for the sin of failinng to "control" herself
>> >"at the correct time," do you advocate the same "control" for men, and,
>> >more specifically, for YOURSELF?
>>
>> >In other words, have you ALWAYS engaged in sex for the SOLE purpose of
>> >procreation, or are you a flaming, raving hypocrite?
>>
>> This makes a perfect illustrative example of the fallacy of "tertium
>> non datur" -- "there is no third way."
>>
>> One of the third ways: use natural family planning, and in the highly
>> unlikely event of pregnancy, embrace the child or give it up for adoption.

>How is that a third way?  You seem to be restating the original premise
>which is being questioned - only have sex if you're willing to give birth.

Sorry, I'm confused.  Which of the following two classifications does the
way I mentioned fall under?
   a. ALWAYS engaging in sex for the SOLE purpose of procreation
   b. Being a flaming, raving hypocrite.	

>(Except, of course, that by specifying NFP you can have sex less often and
>are more likely to have an unwanted conception than if you used the Pill.)

Wrong.  If one uses all three NFP methods at the same time--temperature,
mucus, cervix sign--the unwanted conception rate is much lower than that
of the Pill.  As to sex less often--well, you restrict sex to specified
times, but you might have it more often to make up for it and enjoy it
more.  Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and all that.

>> Also, have you forgotten that en route to the  nth  of  n  children
>> there is plenty of opportunity for sex for non-procreative ends?

>What if n is 0?  Or, more generally, what happens after you reach n
>(where n does not approach infinity)?

Here is where Suzanne and I differ.  I would allow abortion up to the
end of the fifth week, also the Pill and some IUDs, banning only those 
which are dangerous.  A fortiori, the 
only methods of contraception I would prohibit are the dangerous ones
like the Dalkon [spelling?] shield.
So there are some more third ways.  But for many reasons, paramount of
which is its safety record and its way of letting women and their
partners get in touch with their bodies, I recommend NFP.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)