From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: control
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 23:48:33 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.715462369@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep01.054733.16088@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margoli
>
> >In  <nyikos.715296199@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
> >> In <1992Aug29.144832.19929@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) wr
>
> >  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 invol
> >>
> >> >>>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.

Evidently.

> 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.

Neither.  As I said, you seem to be restating Suzanne's *original premise*.

> >(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.

Perhaps according to the NFP newsletter, but not according to the stats
recently posted.

> 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.

But if you already have it as often as you're able, you can't "make up for it".
And cutting out 1/4 - 1/3 of one's sex life is unacceptable to many
(most?) people.

> Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and all that.

That's absence, not abstinence.  :-)

> >> 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.

OK, so you're not quite as unrealistic as she is.  Now, all you have
to do is pass a law against irregular periods.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity