From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:01:59 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1726@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
> In article <1993Jan18.165516.5248@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> >As an aside, if so many of the right wing weren't adamantly opposed to
> >birth control, too, this debate would be much less important.  Because
> >there is a *direct* inverse correlation between the availability of
> >birth control and the abortion rate.
> 
> 	The only group of which I am aware that opposes contraception is
> the Roman Catholic Church. This hardly fits my definition, or that of most
> clear thinking people of "right wing". (For those of the reading population
> who lack Mr. Nieporent's firm grasp of the obvious, there are many practicing
> Catholics who are hardly right wing in their political orientation, and 
> conversely, there are lots of other religious and areligious groups - I mean
> hard core atheists - who meet virtually all the criteria associated with
> the "right wing" where political, economic, and even social issues are
> concerned). Only extremists believe there is no middle ground between the 
> legal and sanctioned use of contraceptives and handing out rubbers to high 
> school students, free of charge. I know of lots of Protestants who disagree
> with premarital sex, but I have yet to meet the Protestant who believes
> that contraception is wrong within the bonds of matrimony. How does Nieporent's
> "direct inverse correlation" track across various ethnic and religious groups,
> anyway ?
> 
> Bill R.

Actually, I've met *a few* Protestants who believe that contraception
is wrong within the bonds of matrimony.  (Two children, 10 months
apart, seemed to have caused a reappraisal of this position for one
couple, however -- she got her tubes tied.)

This Sunday, I had occasion to speak to the director of the Pregnancy
Counselling Center, a pro-life group here in Sonoma County.  I was
curious where she stood on birth control, because what HER PARTICULAR
pro-life group does seems perfectly moral to me -- they assist 
women who are unwilling to have an abortion through the difficult
task of pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption.  They are not a political
advocacy group.  (Yet pressure was put on Pacific Bell to remove the
heading "Abortion Alternatives" from the Yellow Pages, so as to 
remove her group.  I guess the pro-choicers are afraid that someone
might not make the RIGHT choice about a pregnancy, if they were aware
that there were voluntary alternatives to abortion.)

I asked her about birth control, both in the context of unwed
mothers, and a married couple.  Her answers were so equivocal and
carefully worded that I found myself suspicious that she was
hiding some sort of opposition to birth control as well.

A very unnerving experience.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion