Everything they want -- an end to casual sex, an end to female freedom, the restoration of the paterfamilias and the elimination of women from political and economic life -- can be accomplished by getting rid of birth control.

Except that now women can support the children they have on their own, unlike most of the women back in the 50s. So expect an attack on all the admittedly inadequate supports that are in place for women who work.

I was going to respond to alarajrogers post, but was too angry to post something that wasn't going to be equally offensive as her dismissal of the experience of birthmothers who love their children deeply.

Birthmothers "throw away" their babies for "free" because baby selling is immoral. As a birthmother myself, I find the notion of taking *any* compensation for the relinquishment of a child to be repugnant. Birthmothers (in general) go through 9 months of pregnancy and sickness "for free" because they do value their children. Birthmothers relinqush their children for adoption because they believe that they are not going to be able to give that valued child the care that s/he needs.

I am sure that Ms. Rogers will reply that because she herself is a mother, she KNOWS that no woman who values her child will place that child for adoption. However, Ms. Roger's experience is hers, and hers alone. It is no more definitive than a birthmother's: If a birthmother says that she does value her child, why is her experience less credible than that of Ms. Rogers?

Ms. Rogers stereotypes of birthmothers are, sadly, not so rare. I am shocked, however, to see that Salon red starred this bigoted and ignorant letter.

For one thing, Latin America is upping it's use of birth control and becoming more secular, as is Asia. Birth rates are dropping. African countries are still resistant, but that has more to do with technology, distribution and rural issues than desire.

Birth control is private in a way abortion is not. You have to deal with a doctor for any abortion. Other birth control methods can be practiced without a doctor.

Third, the "contraception =devalued children" argument is stupid in a world of child soldiers, etc. The fewer children, the MORE they are valued. More children equals less value. WHen you look at places like large numbers of homeless children (Rio de Janiero comes to mind), you see the results of the LACK of birth control. When you look at the COngo, where child soldiers are widely used and abused, you also see the results of a lack of birth control.

Last, most people think these people are loony tunes. The pharmacists who refuse to fill have not received widespread support. Poll after poll shows that great majorities in the US support access to birth control. Whenever these nuts attack birth control, they lose. Rapidly.

These activists should get more publicity. The more publicity they get, the more trouble they get. Conservative publications like Reader's Digest call them kooks and prints articles about them as a threat. Anti-contraceptive activists have no traction.

In an otherwise excellent post, this:

"you can't value your child very much if, after 9 months of physical discomfort and illness in order to bring the child into the world, you promptly give it to someone else for *free.*"

jumped out at me. Do you really believe that? That birthmothers don't value the children they give up?

i'm sorry, maybe i'm missing something. but my food has never 'failed' causing me to be famished.

spellcheck (a modern, automated form of proofreading) has caused me to be a sloppy writer, because i have become confident in the spellcheck's ability to make things the way i'd like them to be.

>>>

assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children

Even more than being unwanted?

>>>

I agree, I call bullshit. Just look at the adoption stats.

We used to throw away healthy newborns. Admittedly, we threw them to good homes, most of the time, but you can't value your child very much if, after 9 months of physical discomfort and illness in order to bring the child into the world, you promptly give it to someone else for *free.*

*Someone* valued that child (I've been reading some horrific stories of how mothers were pressured into giving up babies)... but it wasn't the mothers. Even if we grant that they were under tremendous social pressure, no one can make a woman give up a baby she *wants* to have short of gunpoint.

When women choose when they will have children, every child is by definition wanted, and the value of children increases *dramatically*. (Notice how upset we all get at the tiniest statistical possibility of a child being injured? How we get hysterical if playgrounds have dirt rather than squishy rubber and sawdust under where our kids will slide, how we assume pedophiles lurk behind every tree, how we get totally freaked out over things like whether or not we feed our kids breastmilk? Women who can't control their reproduction themselves statistically just don't care as much whether their kids live or die as women who wanted every baby they had.)

What we don't value particularly is unconceived eggs, sperm, and embryos less than 13 weeks of development. Given that none of these entities can feel pain, rejection, or anything at all, I think the shift from devaluing children to valuing children and devaluing embryos was a dramatic step in the right direction. Someday if we have 100% effective birth control and 100% compliance with it, maybe we can afford to value embryos as highly as children... but hell, they just are not as valuable. I miscarried a 13-week-embryo once, and I found it devastating, but it was nothing in comparison to how I'd feel if a *child* died.

Here's the educational credentials of one the expert panel members at this little meeting:

"Owens received his B.S. in mechanical engineering from Brown University and an M.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of California at Berkeley."

assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children

Even more than being unwanted?