Everyone over the age of 8 should know this simple fact: pregnancy is a likely outcome of every act of heterosexual intercourse. Even if. Even if. Even if.

There are two ways to solve this issue, as I see it.

1. Preventative care.

a. Massive publicly funded sex education that addresses these thorny issues: adolescent brains may not easily wrap themselves around mortality, but they sure understand less jingle in their jeans. Stress the importance of condom use, and the shared responsibility of birth control.

b. 100% Insurance and/or welfare coverage of all forms of birth control. Laws that forbid pharmicists to refuse to fill prescriptions. Follow-up medical provided at affordable rates. Easy access to morning-after pills, and education on their use.

c. Affordable access to safe, legal abortion services. Without permission slips, without shame, without restrictions designed to end the practice.

2. Reasonable paternity solutions.

a. If a man is named the father, and the woman provides no contact information, the child welfare system must track him down (in the age of google and homeland security, this seems highly doable). Mandatory paternity tests before assigning child support. If he refuses, paternity is assumed. If she refuses (to test baby after birth)

b. If a man is not the biological father, then he's off the financial hook. If he is, then he needs to support the kid.

c. Custody settlements that are best for the child. This means sharing the kid with a willing biodad.

d. Child support payments that are best for the child. Even if that causes hardship for the dad, or the mom.

This would mean standing up to the Christian right and the militant Catholics, who equate pregnancy prevention with abortion.

Denying women access to birth control, and denying both sexes access to sex education, gives them responsibility without respect. As does paternity fraud.

Other things we could try (none of which are good ideas in my book):

1. Forcing women to carry babies to term so the biodads can adopt them.

2. Forcing men to marry women pregnant with their children.

3. Temporarily sterilizing everyone until they are married.

4. Requiring all men ovr 15 provide a DNA sample for a national "paternity database" so all babies are genetically matched to their biodad.

5. Letting the state or federal government pay for babies born out of wedlock.

Of course, the best solution is for everyone to maintain a responsible sex life. Get to know someone long before you sleep with them. Use birth control and STD protection. Don't run out on a pegnant woman. Don't lie about paternity to get back at your ex. Don't "trick" a guy into knocking you up (by misleading him about your fertility). Don't sleep around.

Respect your partner.

plenty of atrocities have been commited by males who were not circumcised. Including intact males in most of Europe from the fall of Rome through the second World War.

I see no correlation between violence and foreskin, or violence and no foreskin.

Which is not to say I am pro-circumcision (or anti-).

According to the article, the filmmaker, and HBO, tried to present these stories without politica; spin. It's amazing that so many letter-writers ignore this.

The point of this film seems not to be "They deserved it" or "We should never have done this." Instead, the point seems to be "This is what happened."

As such, I think it would be an important film for any military policy maker to see. Perhsps "the Japanese" "deserved" this. Perhaps this was the only way to end the war. Perhaps killing hundreds of thousands saved millions. I'm certainly glad the Allies won World War II. I'm thrilled Germany and Japan were defeated.

But our victory came at a high price. We should always be aware of that price before we decide to take military action. Would this have been how to "win" against the Kremlin? Castro? Is this the "victory" we want for the Middle East? Is this the "future" for india an Pakistan? Or is there another way forward?

"Why don't people vote?" Kucinich asked, rhetorically. "It's because they don't think there is much of a difference between the two parties.""

Certainly both parties re similar in superficial ways. They are too dependent on fundraising. They worry too much about protecting incumbans. They both sometimes place party objectives (to stay in/regain power) over actual legislating. They are too cozy with lobbyists.

But to say there is "no difference" is to collossally ignorant of the last 7 years. Al Gore may not be Jesus Christ reborn, but had he been innaugurated in 2001, the country , the economy, the Supreme Court, New Orleans, environmental policy, and the world would look a lot different.

The Supreme Court alone is a *big* difference. Not to mention a little place called Iraq.

Kucinich got it quite wrong. And he simply must start his own party if he feels such disdain for his own.

"Is this really different from a poor Latina 16 year old who has a baby because her sister and her best friend did when they were 16? "

A little. Plenty of anecdotal evidence amongst the poor (urban and rural, white and of color)of this country give far more nuanced reasons for having kids. (I'm thinking of the book "Random Family" in particular, but that's hardly the only source).

1. Intense social pressure to have sex, unprotected sex, sex at an early age, sex with multiple partners, in part because there is little else to do when not in school.

2. Lack of access to reliable birth control.

3. Intense social pressure against and lack of access to a safe, timely abortion.

4. Lack of opportunity to further education beyond high school. Lack of opportunity for gainful employment.

5. Seeing motherhood as a chance to "get out" of the house, school, a bad situation (seeing welfare checks or child support as a means of gaining financial independence).

6. Once becoming a young mother, diminished opportunities to escape the cycle of sex, baby, motherhood, no job, greater dependence on boyfriends.

Which of these apply to the women in the npr story?