HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:06:15 -0400 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Good Bumper Sticker
	<5689@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>

>>Forgach
>Teddi (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)

>In article <1992Aug12.225636.25911@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach)
> writes:
>>Common Pro-Life bumper sticker around town here:
>>                        "It's a CHILD, not a choice."
>Heh... that's the slogan on a banner I see nearly every Saturday morning at
>the clinic.  This banner, to me, epitomizes the radical pro-lifers.
> 
>A hugely pregnant woman's belly is being massaged by a four year old as he
>gazes adoringly up at her breasts.  Why the breasts?  Because the woman on
>this banner is HEADLESS.  SHE HAS NO HEAD.  So of course it's a "Child not a
>Choice" because you can't choose when YOU'RE HEADLESS.
> 
>What a perfect commentary on their position.  Especially with regard to women.
>Huge belly, huge breasts, NO HEAD.

What she said!


Alison Colman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:15:16 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <BtCCCx.Kpn@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>
> Tennessee ruled that a man has a "right to choose not to be a father" even
> though the fetuses already existed

Really?  Where were the fetuses?  This is incredible!

I knew that they could freeze fertilized eggs and save them for later
implantation, but a whole *fetus*?  Golly, what will they think of next...

Of course, coming from someone who doesn't even know that "the Pill"
can act as an abortifacient, this should probably be taken with a
grain of salt.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW    (personhood)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:56:25 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

> >> = emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> >  = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> The concept that I am putting forth is that what we value and protect
> >> (often using the label "personhood") is sentient beings. 
> >
> >But then sentient animals would deserve protection from being killed, 
> >just like sentient humans. 

  Point of order from the peanut gallery: If a creature is sentient, then it
is not an "animal".  It may not be "human" (species-wise), but calling it an
animal would be misleading at best (and certainly insulting).


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:21:57 GMT

> In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu writes:
> |Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that
> |the fetus is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right
> |to life takes precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the
> |woman does not have rights it is that they are subservient to
> |the right to life of the fetus.

  The fallacy here, of course, is that a person does not have a
right to life; a person has the right to the *pursuit* of life. Nature
does not provide food-and-shelter trees which are freely available.
Rights are rights of potential, not substance. A fetus cannot demand
the sacrifice of another persons rights just by *being*, any more
than you can demand me to sacrifice my life to your benifit without
my permission. 
  This of course is just a rehash of the fallacy of "economic rights".
When will people learn the difference...
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:12:23 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug21.132010.13917@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu
(MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> In <1992Aug20.212437.17478@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis writes:
> > In  <1992Aug20.190712.18672@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu
> > (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> > > --Centers for Disease Control Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 19
> > > --Vital Statistics of the US, 1988. Vol. II-- Mortality.
> > > --all figures are for 1988
>
> > ... these are the stats I have - also for 1988.)
>
>   And what year were your figures for?

As I stated, also for 1988.  Those seem to be the latest numbers available -
I stopped by the Alan Guttmacher Institute yesterday.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32717 alt.flame:12215
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Summary: I *hate* it when that happens.
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:16:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Aug20.180520.28710@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <Bt9q3K.As@rice.edu>  patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>
>> I'd appreciate it if you'd speak only of things you know about.
>
>Look!  Humphrey is trying to shut Chaney up completely!  :-)

Curses.  I've been found out.  :-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

        Beware of being the Roller when there's nothing left to roll...
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:04:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug12.185924.11981@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <og33a8g@fido.asd.sgi.com> 
> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> 
> > This morning's news had a lovely story about Bush's reactions
> > to a question about how he'd react if a grandchild of his sought
> > an abortion.  In his reply, he said that the woman was the only
> > one who could decide, ultimately.
> 
> I heard he said that he would try to talk them out of getting an
> abortion.  That's the best a father could do, considering that
> abortion on demand is legal in all 50 states.  

I saw the question in question on TV last night, Doug.

The reporter said, specifically (this is close to verbatim):
"So ultimately you believe it is her own decision?"

Bush's answer:
"Yes, of course."

You ought to be able to either see the interview again or pick up
that next Newsweek or Time and they'll probably have an article
on it with the actual words, just in case you don't trust what I've
written.  I stand very squarely behind what I have up there
because I just saw it last night.

And yes, he did say he would counsel her against it, but then he
said what I wrote.

I think you should put that one in your .sig, Doug.  If you
can quote Clinton out of context and ask questions based on
a deliberately out of context quote in order to drag out some
bizarre, false interpretation, you could quote Bush in
context as he specifically addresses the issue at hand.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:26:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug15.233842.15382@csus.edu>, Stephen Chaney writes:

> Fetus = member of human species != skin cell and alive = personhood
>         because they're alive. 

Basically, your argument is that a fetus is a person because you say
so, right?  Considering that you're a moron, I would argue that this
proves that it isn't.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: repost
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:21:32 GMT

In <1992Aug18.155348.34448@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.122206.650@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>   posted by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> For now, I'll just refer y'all to _Aborted Women, Silent No More_

>Do you have any references that *haven't* been thoroughly refuted?

Please tell me where the refutations have appeared, also what portions
have been refuted.

Admittedly, there are weak points in the book.  The idea that the
experience of the WEBA women is statistically the same as that of
abortions in general is the weakest, and seems downright silly to me.
But you can erase all that and still have the most powerful indictment
of the present abortion picture I have ever seen.  

BTW I tried to find the book in our University Library.  Data on it
comes up on the screen, and the notation after its circulation status
says "Lost".  I wonder how many other libraries have had their 
copies of this explosive book "Lost".  

Fortunately, I have my own copy, which I will be citing from time to
time, and you are free to try to refute what I post from it.  

>> My definition of "early": prior to sentience (would be even nicer
>> if prior to implantation--I think the Pill and IUD's should remain
>> legal unless they have an unacceptable number of side-effects for
>> the woman).  Sentience, I believe, is present by the end of the
>> seventh week [not month, as Ms. Bartley seems to assume].

>You're incorrect.  Neuroscientists place the minimal time for
>personhood at 7 *months* (28 weeks).

This is bullshit.  There are people calling themselves bioethicists
that say this.  Please name some neuroscientists, and I'll name some
others that say differently.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32840 talk.religion.misc:14416
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:21:14 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>Steve, you say your god gave his love freely.  But he didn't, the second
>there was disobedience he kicked Adam and Eve out and cursed them.  They
>were punished with inevetible *death*.

Maybe this explains chaney's stance....

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32143 alt.activism:14941 alt.society.civil-liberty:5567 alt.politics.elections:10719
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:34:55 GMT

In article <l8l0r8INNpd1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
Speaking of bumper stickers, I saw one that really says it all about
the religious right's goals: Praise the Lord, and Damn the Constitution

In article <1992Aug13.165129.18302@ncsu.edu> 
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
Considering the shakey foundation upon which the Supreme Court
discovered the so-called right to abortion, I would think this
bumper sticker would be better suited for describing the 
goals of the pro-abortion movement.  

Of course, we all know that the constitution really only applied to
White men. However, now that we are enlightened about the meaning of all
are created equal, we see that all individuals are entitled to certain
rights of freedom. This includes the right of a mother to freedom of
choice, and as the only person who is qualified to speak for the unborn
child, the mother is also entitled to the freedom of choice of the
child, the two are in fact inseperable. It should not be surprising that
the founding fathers did not write a freedom of choice amendment, after
all they could not become pregnant. However, they did not write an
anti-abortion amendment, after all they understood the meaning of individual
freedom. The rights of the mother were not restricted in the
constitution, why would you expect differently? Individual rights are
not a shakey foundation at all, they are the future. The walls must come
down. The days of strong central governments and strong central
religions claiming priority over the rights of the individual are
numbered. Individual freedom will prevail against those who oppose it.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32904 alt.flame:12242
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:59:01 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon
> Pro-convenience, pro-ignorance, pro-anyone-whoagrees-with-me, pro-duke,
> pro-me, pro-ignoring-the-weak-and-defenseless, pro-lying-to-myself and
> ex-boytoy of lots of women because I have a hard time with relationships,
> but married to a goddess among women, because she likes me for my "mind"
> and doesn't mind my impotence. I'm a computer geek and proud of it.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A .sig flame from Steve Franklin!  How precious!

> p.s. - Now, for a REAL .sig, read on! 8)
> -- 
> aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
> sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
> qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
> zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA

And how many times have _you_ been warlorded?

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Houston, TX
	<16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:21:02

In article <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
 >- The fetus takes precedence over the woman's financial needs?
 >(no abortion in cases where the woman can't afford to support
 >	a child, would lose job, etc.)

Does a woman have the right to throw a child she can't support into
a dumpster?

 >- The fetus takes precedence over the woman's mental wellbeing?
 >(no abortion in cases where the stress of continued pregnancy
 >would impair the mental health of the woman)

The woman's mental health appears questionable already.  How frequent
an occurrence is this?  I can't imagine any serious madness resulting
from carrying a child to term.

 >- The fetus takes precedence over the woman's health?
 >(no abortion in cases of danger to woman's health)
 >- The fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's
 >right to life?  (no abortion in cases of danger to the
 >woman's life)

These are frequently regarded as self-defence.

 >I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "take
 >precedence".

Imagine, if you will, a human life, and what rights a person has to
take that life.
--
Roy Johnson, Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
and "So I guess even a sex change couldn't solve all his problems."
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32799 alt.flame:12229
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:07:54 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug12.115640.6837@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:

More nagging from the Keegan/Kaufman person posting as
keegan@crd.ge.com... 

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: First fetus, now trimester: Pro-Lie movement newspeak.
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:58:40 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug17.213604.21970@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes in a continuing stream of newspeak concerning
the word trimester.  Recently, DOD declared the word unclear: What
does it mean he asks.  Now, to those of who went to a school like
Stanford that had three semesters (trimesters) per academic year, we
know it means one third of the complete school year.  Since a complete
human gestation (that means pregnancy, DOD) lasts nine months, one
third would be about three months.  That would put the third trimester
after the onset of the 25th week.  So, DOD needs to change the meaning
of the word to suit his purposes:

>>> And it's not clear what Ms. Garvin defines as "third trimester". The
>>> definition of third trimester varies; some put it at 28 weeks, others
>>> at 24 weeks.
>
>> As has been posted previously in talk.abortion:
>>    Statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
>
>The Alan Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood,
>which is one of the largest abortion providers in the United States.
>
>>   LESS THEN 100 ABORTIONS ARE PERFORMED EVERY YEAR AFTER THE 24TH WEEK OF
>>   PREGNANCY.
>
>Thousands of abortions are performed every year past the 21st week of
>pregnancy.  

Pro-lie newspeak.  I wonder if DOD has spoken to any pre-born children
this week.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:21:55 GMT

In article <lefty-130892123052@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.121233.3790@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>,
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes of Stephen Dennis
> Hall-Chaney:
> > 
> > Dan King is right.  You are a twelve year old.
> 
> On behalf of my ten year old niece, who displays far greater sense and
> maturity than Mr. Chaney-Hall ever has, I take umbrage at your remark,
> Dean.

I apologize for not completing my sentence.  I complete it now:

{To StephenDennisChaneyHall} You are a twelve year old piece of
garbage.

Seriously though, Lefty, wait until your niece hits twelve and
then we'll talk.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Who takes care of the unwanted mother? 
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:50:13 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug13.234546.6461@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu writes:

> 
> As you can tell, while the flamewar articles receive a general 30
> minute to 1 hour response, this kind of post receives none in over 3
> days. 
> 
> Pro-lifers might want to take note that the same group who is trying
> to flame me (and unsuccessfully since I'm prepared to deal with them), 
> had also been responsible for blowing Siren (one of their most
> intellegent allies) off the net with their negativity, and is the same
> group which is ignoring this article. 
> 
> That's because this article fails to meet their Steve Hall Dennis
> Chaney Numbskull Raving Lunatic propaganda requirements, and they
> can't twist this post into a flamefest. So they don't respond.  
[amazingly coherent post deleted for space]

  Well, I'd guess (1) They actually agree with what you said, and (2) They're
still in shock.  I know I am.  You should stick to this style.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: T I F A T T S P
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:04:21 GMT

I would like to make a few comments off the subject now.  By posting my
opinions on the subject of abortion I fully expected the flames that might come
my way.  I did, however, expect that the persons participating in these
newsgroups would not be so childish as to resort to nonsensical and personal
attacks.  There are some intelligent people on the net, but there
seem to be far more children that demand to make their presence known by
submitting to personal attacks, and meaningless inuendo.  You will be happy to
know that I will limit my discussions on this subject with those who are
capable of holding a debate without resorting to childish comments.  This is by
no means a reflection on all of the posters to this newsgroup, you have your
beliefs and are willing to stand up for them without making personal attacks on
those with differing opinions.  
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32876 alt.flame:12239
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:16:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug20.172947.3242@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) advises Patrick Humphrey:
> 
> I'm offended that you did not apologize to Steve Chaney for that remark.
> Apologize and get it over with.  Nobody is going to hoot and holler over
> it.  I will continue to ask you to apologize to Steve Chaney.  

Gee, Dougie, it's nice of you to offer to hold their coats...

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion