From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:51:43 GMT

In article <opka2nc@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug19.210947.26366@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com writes:
>
>|How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of
>|the animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".
>|When will YOU understand that YOU must take responsibility for
>|YOUR actions.  
>
>"Animal desires"?  Well, since humans *are* animals, I
>guess all of our desires qualify as "animal."  
>
>But Mike, you seem to be laboring under a misapprehension.
>You seem to think that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.
>(Hint: it isn't.)  You also seem to think that abortion isn't
>a way of taking responsibility for dealing with an unwanted
>pregnancy.  (Hint: it is.)

  By consenting to sex you are consenting to the possibility that
  your actions will result in pregnancy.

>|If you are not willing or able to take a pregnancy to term
>|then maybe you should not be having sex.
>
>I'm sure all the married couples in the world are grateful to
>you for making their sexual decisions for them.  But before we
>put you in charge of the new Celibacy Police, perhaps I should
>share with you some Fascinating Sex Facts.  Ready?
>
>- Conception happens when sperm enters the vagina, travels
>  up a fallopian tube, and fertilizes a ripe egg.
>
>- Some sexual activities DO NOT involve intercourse, and
>  hence are not likely to involve sperm entering the vagina.
>  And that means?  Yes, Mike, you got it!  Conception is very
>  unlikely!  What sexual activities are those?  I hear Mike
>  ask.  Let me list some possibilities for you:
>	oral sex 
>	anal sex 
>	mutual masturbation
>	sex with a member of the same sex
>
>- Modern medicine has invented something known as
>  "contraception" or "birth control".  You might guess, just
>  from the name, that it's something that works to prevent
>  conception.  Well, you're right, Mike!  It does.  Some methods
>  are 98% effective.  (Don Porter would want me to stress that
>  the possibility of failure, and unwanted pregnancy, exists for
>  any method.  The point, though, is that even intercourse need
>  not lead inevitably to pregnancy.)
>  
>  Contraception generally works in one of three ways:  
>  	- it provides a barrier, so that sperm can't reach the egg
>	- it is a spermicide, which means it kills the sperm
>	- it prevents implantation, by making the environment of
>	  the uterus hostile to a fertilized egg
>  
>  Let me list some popular methods for you:
>	condom (barrier method)
>	diaphram (barrier + spermicide)
>	gel & foam (spermicides)
>	sponge (spermicide, with some barrier potential)
>	"the Pill" (prevents release of a fertilized egg by
>		    manipulating hormone balance, also prevents
>		    implantation in case of fertilization)
>	IUD (prevents implantation)
>
>That's a lot of new info, isn't it, Mike?  Don't worry if it's
>too much to take in all at once.  The point to grasp is a simple
>one:
>
>    Sex does not inevitably lead to conception.  
>    Birth control and sexual activity that doesn't involve 
>    intercourse can make  conception unlikely, and indeed 
>    nearly impossible.
>
>Here's another point for you to ponder:
>
>    Sex is a basic human drive.
>
>Attempts to thwart that drive are doomed to failure.  (People in
>the past continued to have sex, even though the lack of medicine
>& contraception meant that they were in greater danger from STDs
>& unwanted pregnancy.)  Your solution involves forcing married
>couples to refrain from sexual activity.  Now, is that a
>reasonable demand for you to make, Mike?
>
>Most posters to talk.abortion find your approach to unwanted
>pregnancy utterly unrealistic.  Most people prefer to concentrate
>on other ways of coping, such as:
>    improved sex education
>    improved access to birth control
>    other ways to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the 1st place
>    helping women get into circumstances where they're more
>    	likely to consider having children
>
>Maybe you could think about how you would approach the problem
>from a more constructive direction than your current tack.
>
>Pardon me now, Mike.  I have to go yield to my animal desires &
>grab a late lunch.

  I could believe what I have just read if it were directed at my
  4 year old son.  He is still quite naive in these matters. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion