Thank you, Ms. Pollitt, for this column.

I have a question related to contraception that I'm hoping you might address in a column. Recently, as I'm sure you've heard, a middle school's school board in Maine has approved the middle school's clinic to provide birth control to middle schoolers without notifying parents of the the fact that their child is seeking the contraception. (Of note: a child must turn in a signed consent form from his/her parents to the clinic before attending the clinic for any reason whatsoever.)

I for one often fall on the side of the law that more broadly protects individuals, and so I support this decision. Additionally, what I have learned about the demographic composition of the middle schoolers further complicates the discussion for people who are up in arms about the supposed "morality" of this decision.

In conversations with other feminists and non-feminists alike, I have heard people get very wrapped up in their feelings about "children" engaging in sexual activity, and because they don't want to think children are having consensual sex, they absolutely do not want the children to be able to confidentially seek out contraception. I continually assert that since younger people may be engaging in sexual activity, it doesn't really help anything or anyone to morally posture and wring hands about "parenting today" and "children today" while simultaneously tacitly supporting those sexually active children getting pregnant (by denying their right to seek out confidential contraceptive care). While I agree that it is irksome that an 11-year-old girl or boy may be engaging in sex, if it is happening, I'd rather know the girl or boy can confidentially attempt to make that decision a physically safe one.

I think this is a very complex issue, however, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

K. Zwick
http://ladyrenovatio.blogspot.com

Chicago, IL

Facts? Simple.

It's a baby, for starters. When you were born, did your mother have a foetus?

Why do pro-choicers oppose showing the mother a picture of their baby moving around, smiling, sucking her thumb and growing in her mother's tummy?

What happened to the facts? Full disclosure. The abortionist should show them. Otherwise, it sounds like false advertising ("we are removing the products of conception") to me.

Facts?

Ferocious denial of the basic facts is more like it.

(signed)

A "product of conception."

Chris Inwien

Rockford, IL

Life does not start at conception, and this is borne out in facts about badgers, wolverines and kangaroos. Their pregnancy does not start until the mother is certain that the conditions for a successful pregnancy exist. If the weather, food availability and whatever other conditions animals deem necessary for successful birthing are unfavorable there will be no implant for fetal development. It will not attach to the uterus. Some may say that comparing the animal kingdom to humans is not legitimate. However, it was Saint Augustine who created standards for human sexuality and he based them on observing the animal kingdom--with the exception of wolverines, badgers and kangaroos. At the time of Augustine's writing the ovum was unknown and the sperm was the "seed," when in fact it is the fertilizer. The ovum was unknown until 150 years ago. This is why it is valid to use animal kingdom observation about sexuality and apply it to human sexuality. Augustine declared the sole purpose for sexual intercourse was children, no other purpose. This had to be based on animal kingdom observations by Augustine.

There is a tribe in the Amazon where the women use natural birth control derived from the bark of a tree. Only the women know which tree and the men leave them alone. It's a egalitarian society, obviously.

Ken Lusk

Clayton, GA

Personally, I am convinced that the polarization on this issue is an illusion of our two-party politics. Many people line up along "culture war" lines when in fact I suspect that the vast majority are closer to the center, and to one another, than to either extreme. Very few of the "pro-life" camp would punish abortion the same way they would punish murder, in spite of arguing that both are the same. Very few in the "pro-choice" camp would be happy for a baby that is fully developed but not yet born to have its life ended simply for the sake of someone else's convenience. Many draw the line where they do because conception and birth seem the only natural places to draw them. But sometimes we have to draw arbitrary lines for the sake of legislation--such as when we define the age at which one becomes an adult.

If we could get those near the center united, organized and with a clear identity, it would make a refreshing alternative to the current pseudo-polarization that dominates in the United States.

James McGrath
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/10/souls-life-and-ab

Indianapolis, IN

I'm glad to read Katha Pollitt's remarks on contraception, the availability of which, I think, should be emphasized whenever we talk about reproductive rights for women. I support abortion rights, but surely contraception is the best way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. The emphasis on abortion can misrepresent the basic feminist intention, which is surely that women possess autonomy over their bodies and lives.

Pollitt quotes Jim Sedlak as saying, "Most methods of birth control kill babies in the womb by preventing implantation." She might have added that this statement doesn't even make sense; if there's no "implantation," there's no baby. Ergo, birth control prevents the killing of babies.

More could and should be said about the religious right's opposition to contraception. What crazy worldview motivates it? Do people like Jim Sedlak believe that God intends for every single act of intercourse to result in progeny, even when a man rapes his 12-year-old stepdaughter? That human intervention is sinful and blasphemous because it interferes with the Divine Plan? If so, it's a heartless God that they worship. If so, then Sedlak and his like should refuse medical care--vaccinations, surgery, chemotherapy etc.--because God intends for humanity to remain vulnerable to every accident and disease. If Sedlak is seriously injured in a car crash, he should die in the street, because clearly God is calling him to His bosom.

The chief imperative of nature is the propagation of the species. So heartless is that natural imperative that young mammals (12-year-old girls, 6-month-old kittens and puppies) are physically able to reproduce before they are otherwise mature enough to care for their young. The result is all too often misery for parent and offspring alike.

Feminists should press the religious right on their "thinking" and expose its primitive worldvew to expose both the heartlessness and the irrationality of such blind faith.

Carol Hamilton

Pittsburgh, PA