Charlie wrote:
*snipped* summation of Charlie's views on when life begins and when
conscious life begins
> So, we have three options:
>
> 1) Enforced reversible sterilisation for all.
>
> There's huge problems with this, not least, who says who, how and when can
> someone be allowed to bear offspring by having the op reversed.
>
> 2) Enforced pregancy and birth for any woman who gets pregnant, taking the
> baby for adoption if necessary.
>
> I can't see how this would in any way be anything other that a step into a
> scary brutal totalitarian future. Anyway, we're back to knitting needles
and
> back-street abortions again, with an even higher cost (monetary,
emotional,
> leaga and physical) to women and even high potential rewards to the
> "fixers".
>
> 3) A legal but very strict clinic system, with as early a cut-off date as
is
> practicable.
>
> I don't like it, I'm aware of the contradictions, but it's the least worst
> option.
I realize you're simply addressing the issue of abortion, but I was reminded
of how often education is left out of the discussion by both sides here in
the US. To me, that is the most critical portion of *any* discussion of
reproductive rights. I advocate sex education starting at around age 10,
free access to birth control starting around age 14 or 15, and *rational*
counseling for children with questions and problems starting at 10 or 11.
Jocelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the US, had some damn sensible
ideas regarding this, but was shouted down by the Anti-sex, anti-birth
control crowd here in the states. One of her most sensible suggestions,
encouraging teens to masturbate, was widely ridiculed, and was one of the
primary causes of her being asked to step down, but was both the cheapest
and simplest to implement.
I'm in much the same ethical boat as Charlie on this - it's a necessary
evil, and while it might be distasteful it's better than some of the
alternatives that history has shown us can and will happen if it's outlawed.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
