HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Moral courage embodied?
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:35:45 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

] garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] 
] >In article <BrFz62.6z6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
] >#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] 
] >#Now, Susan, I specifically capitalized the word "Rescue" so that you 
] >#would know I was talking about.  Even the dominant news media refers 
] >#to these actions as "Rescues".  Insofar as it was illegal, I can say 
] >#only that I was not convicted of any wrong-doing.  :) 
] 
] >Were you arrested, Kellmeyer?  Were you breaking any laws?
] 
] I was arrested.  There is a difference between arrest and conviction.
] I am not required to be a witness insofar as my violation or non-violation
] of the law is concerned.


which is to say that you do not have the moral
courage to stand up and be honest about the nature
of your crime, and the court hearings?

thank you for clarifying your standards.....


ciao
drieux


ps: If you have the audacity to break the law for a 'moral crusade'
at least have the integrity to be honest and proud about it.



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:00:27 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Jul22.162407.28530@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <14jvctINN7rj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> I've argued that anyone who holds 
>>> that position must also condone infanticide in order to be consistent.

>> Unsuccessfully.

>Oh? Then please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
>fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.

You're the one making assertions, so you prove your own position.

Sheeeeesh, what a con job.  Are people sure this guy isn't David Rasmussen
in disguise?  (He's in the right part of the country...)

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the 
 United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
			- The Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIII
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 16:45:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.202245.4498@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> But if a newborn infant can't be transferred to another person, then
>> the infant would not be "autonomous" by the original definition, and
>> the infant would not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy. People could
>> kill infants by placing them in situations where only one person 
>> could care for them.  

> You are agreeing that infants and pre-infants all do not have any bodily
> autonomy, right?  

No.

> If so, then the case for putting women's autonomy over
> pre-infants' is obvious.

And so would the case for putting women's autonomy over infants'.

>-Richard


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: "Ice Cubes Applied To The Genitals..."
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:09:51 GMT

In <1992Jul24.105758.19121@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >>>

>>>Which means, that IMNSHO, you're an asshole.  You're an
>>>intelligent asshole, but still an asshole.
> 
>> Vilifier!  Hey Keegan, Keith is vilifying me!
>
>is he now? i'm not surprised that you'd include keith's comment
>under your "vilification" umbrella. adrienne really has you on
>the run, doesn't she? what credible t.a. poster ever said there
>was anything wrong with villification anyway?

Losing your sense of humor, Jim?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:49:21 GMT

<1992Jul30.191305.21907@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
>> Many of the pro-life people also oppose euthanasia
>> and the use of anencephalic infants as organ donor sources. 

<lefty-300792174350@lefty.apple.com> (Lefty) writes:
> In what possible sense can opposition to the use of anencephalic infants as
> organ donors be construed as being "pro-life"?

In a political context concerning the meaning of "life" and its
worthiness of protection, this is a good question and ought to
be debated.  Many recent crises of medical ethics ( Nancy Cruzan,
Dr. Kevorkian, etc.) are bringing the issue to a head, and some
political decisions must be made soon.  The courts have been
floating too long without democratic guidance.

However, in the particular case you describe...

> Several months ago, there was a fairly well publicized case in which the
> parents of an anencephalic baby desperately wanted their child's organs to
> be available for transplant.  My recollection is that they were opposed by
> a "pro-life" group, and the case was taken to court.  The parents wishes
> were disallowed, as I recall, after the court ruled against them.

> Their baby died; it would have under any circumstances.  Quite likely
> several other children who could have benefitted from the organs, had they
> been transplanted, died as well.  In what sense is this a "pro-life"
> stance?

This is "pro-life" in the sense that it is "pro-rule-of-law".  There
is no question that the anencephalic baby met the state criterion
for being a living person.  The legal question then was "Shall the
court grant permission to individuals to take the life of a living
person to benefit others?"  The only possible ruling was negative.
Courts must concern themselves with the precedent they set as
well as the immediate case before them.  Such precedent would
render impotent the laws which protect all persons.  When those
laws are nullified, then the legal protection of our lives that
we all enjoy is jeopardized.  

If it is indeed a mistake to protect the lives of anencephalic
babies when their organs might be better used by other babies,
then the laws need to be changed to reflect that.  And we,
as participants in the political process, need to have the courage
to make these changes.  We can't sit back and trust and expect
the judges to do it all for us.  

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:15:23 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Jul26.182132.21664@crd.ge.com> 
james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>>>> Laws change.  Once upon a time, it was legal in many countries (let 
>>>> alone the southern US) to own slaves.  Olde laws and customs are not 
>>>> NECESSARILY valid today.  Try another tack.

>>> The "customs" that Miller refers to are laws if one is
>>> Jewish.

>> Oh, so now you're telling everyone how Mr. Miller's posts
>> should be read?

> you must really be intimidated by ms. garvin's posts to
> misrepresent them so thoroughly.

Please point to the sentence in which Ms. Garvin does not 
tell everyone how Mr. Miller's post should be read.


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: FUNNY PP
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:52:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.193735.29722@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>In <1992Jul27.165146.7915> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>Planned Parenthood pamphlet published in 1965.
>>
>>These two assumptions concerning health are wrong today, with safe, legal 
>>abortions (so far) still available.
>
>Would you care to define "safe"?
An order of magnitude safer than live birth if performed in the
first trimester.
I've got the reference, if you like.

>>The third assumption meant to say "fetus", instead of the erroneous "baby".
>>Obviously, Planned Parenthood has learned.  I suggest you do the same.
>
>Planned Parenthood has learned that they can make millions in the
>abortion industry.  All those stupid obstetricians who continue to tell
>pregnant mothers that they are carrying "babies," it's just shameful.
Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. Who precisely is making
money off of abortion?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: RAPE/INCEST MYTH
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:48:13 GMT
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept

In <22dml=#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes ...

[Deletion of an echo]

>>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>Religion stops a thinking brain.

Thanks for conceding my point, but Pascal did not concede yours.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Hail and farewell
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:35:21 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul20.181745.17254@cos.com> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
#Some time back I posted a critique of this group and was challenged
#to take part. I have tried to participate in this group, by reading
#most posts (If I confess that there are some posters whose opinions
#do not, nor could not, influence me I trust I may be forgiven for
#ignoring them). This morning had seen the weekend accumulate in
#excess of 300 postings.


Asomeone who jumped on you for criticizing without participating,
let me thank you for joining in.  I enjoyed reading your articles,
and I hope that you'll drop in now and again.  


Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal tissue research
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 03:26:53 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul27.022551.4478@cc.uow.edu.au> nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
#
##Kellmeyer cited Nathanson as an authority on abortion.  Someone
##pointed out that Nathanson condemns kellmeyer's favorite rant
##in the same book which Kellmeyer cited.  
#
##The next chapter in Nathanson's book is "Specious
##Arguments for Abortion."  I agree that some of them
##are specious, and disagree that some of them are.  I
##don't have any big problem disagreeing with Nathanson,
##though, since I don't think he's an expert on anything
##other than making money off a social issue.
#
#The book under discussion, _Aborting America_ was written back
#in 1980 when Nathanson was still performing abortions himself, and
#not yet a pro-lifer.  His opinions were still in a state of flux, as
#even a superficial reading of the book shows.  Prior to that, he had,
#as he put it, "presided over 60,000 [fetal] deaths."  Yes, he was 
#making money off a social issue, but in the exact opposite way from
#the way Susan Garvin would have you believe.

I did not comment on where I thought he was making money
off a social issue, did I, Nyikos?  

He ran an abortion clinic (presided means he ordered other
doctors around rather than soil his own hands) for the money,
wrote his apologetic book (for the money) and produced
some fictitious anti-abortion films (for the money.)

I guess someone with your peculiar notions of what constitutes
dishonesty would feel compelled to defend Nathanson, but
I can recognize a charlatan when I see one.

##I get the idea that you think it's perfectly natural and
##not at all a problem to ignore opposing viewpoints.  I
##think that this indicates extreme close-mindedness.
##I read as much as I have time to read, regardless of
##the bias of the author.
#
#Either Susan did not have the time to read much of _Aborting
#America_ or she is suffering from close-mindedness herself.

I read it all.  Did you convince someone to tell you what
it said, or have you actually read it?

(If Nyikos had bothered to read the beginning of this
ancient argument, he'd know that I'd pointed out that
Nathanson was still doing abortions when he wrote the
book when some other pro-force idiot had denied it.)

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: my choice 
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:40:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

James Santo <js0z+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes ...
>THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN SPACE OF THE HERE AND NOW.

I've not repeated what was said, since it was a longish post.  But
I would like to say that it was eloquently done.  Thanks.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.religion.computer
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Warm Fuzzy Thoughts...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:29:35 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
] 
] 	Neutering is also absolutely idiot-proof.
] 
] /Loren

Well that's a good idea,
but I would still suggest writing 
the exception handlers anyway....

For every Idiot proof system, there is
an ensign yearning to have access....

ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Elvis)
Subject: Re: franklin defends darcy
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:04:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.151601.22842@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>
>->    I was merely giving Darcy a chance. 
>
>did he let you down?
>

No, nor have you with your predictable and unentertaining posts yet again.
You are tiresome Keegan, and I request that you seek entertainment 
elsewhere.

>bigots and homophobes have been flocking to darcy since he
>arrived on the net. you're no different, it appears.

And pray tell Keegan, what sort of person flocks to thou? the jerks,
scum, and net-fungus (tm) perhaps? It appears that way. I do not consider
myself a bigot OR homophobe, but I do not like how you jump on everyone's
posts attempting to appear witty or superior. I will continue to read your
tiresome posts, but only because I enjoy bursting your egomaniacal bubble.

cheers little man

steve
-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29770 alt.birthright:220 alt.abortion.inequity:2818
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Neccesary and sufficient conditions
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:56:21 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
] 
] While breaking china does imply consequences, it doesn't imply specific
] consequences.  Just as sex implies consequences, it doesn't imply specific
] consequences.  Birth is only a possible consequence of sex, it is not a
] necessary one.


ok, but the Pressing Question is:

Is an Orgasm a Neccesary or Sufficient Condition to Sex,
and is there an Objectively Verifiable Method of Analysis
that contains its own means of Falsification?


ciao
drieux


ObPeeve: Once upon a time sex was a Lot simpler, and now
its become such an intellectually stressing matter.

ObSex: not tonight, I have to post.

ObSingle: Not tonight I have to have sex.


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:43:55 GMT

In <1992Jul21.184701.13427@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu    (M. Price) writes: >

>Look, why don't you just stop this silly analogy. It is insulting
>and demeaning to insinuate that women who choose or have chosen to 
>have an abortion would just as readily euthanize their parents or 
>children. I know of no pro-choice woman who believes that involun-
>tary euthanasia is a logical consequence or extension of abortion. 
>The analogy is pointless and offensive (unless offensiveness is your 
>point). Any further use of this sort of analogy is a fruitless waste 
>of bandwidth.

It's a slippery slope argument of the same variety as "if we allow
the government to restrict abortion, what liberty will they rescind
next?".  Such trends are difficult to predict (on either side of the
inferred slope) but I was interested to hear that Dr. Jack Kevorkian
has explicitly expressed a desire to align himself with the pro-choice 
movement, claiming that the same ethic applies to both issues.  Of
course, involuntary euthanasia is a bit further down the slope than
the voluntary type, but the analogy is no more pointless or offen-
sive than the oft-heard "taking away the right to abortion is just
the beginning..." argument.

Bill
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: COERCED ABORTION [Can you help me polish this up?]
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:02:25 GMT
Organization: NCAR/UCAR

In article <1992Jul24.002839.20051@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
 > 
 > You missed a tiny facet, Ilana: the reason pro-lifers seek to ban
 > abortion is because abortion _always_ has a victim. Whether or not the
 > woman is sad or glad in the future about it, the fetus (human fetus,
 > member of the human species just like everyone else) is a victim and
 > always ends up dying as a result. 

I said nothing about this because it was not part of the original article
by Peter Nykos.  I was responding to his particular claim.  Your point
is currently being debated in this group by far better debaters than I.
In fact, I will agree that if you wish to ban abortion, your "facet"
above is a more reasonable ground than the "coercion" argument.  I am
simply arguing against banning abortion because some women are pushed
into it;  I feel that the solution is better counseling and making it
easier for women to carry to term if they really want to (which is truly 
a pro-choice solution).  

 > By the way, Ilana, what would you do if your 16 year old daughter were
 > sleeping with a 24 year old man? Would you oppose it? 

As I don't have a 16 year old daughter, this is an irrelevant question.
As this has nothing to do with abortion, this is an irrelevant question.
I note, however, that the age difference between myself and my husband
is greater than the 8 years in this example.  What would you do if your
16 year old son were sleeping with a 24 year old woman?

 > Nowadays, especially in Florida, pro-choice means it's perfectly okay
 > to do that... 

As I don't live in Florida, I am baffled as to why you bring this up.
As pro-choice is generally considered to have a fairly narrow definition
w.r.t. abortion, this seems to be mud-slinging.  

 > How's THAT for an intractibility?  

I think you're using a different dictionary than I am.

-- 
/\        Ilana Stern DoD#009 | Whoever first said, "Things are seldom as they 
  \_][    ilana@ncar.ucar.edu | seem," was wrong.  Things are usually as they
      \_______________________| seem.  Otherwise, they wouldn't seem that way.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Olive Oyl and abortion
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 22:02:44 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@



I hear that the cartoonist who writes the daily "Popeye"
strip was fired yesterday.

It seems that Olive Oyl received an unsolicited baby doll
in the mail.  While she and Popeye were debating whether
or not she would keep the doll, two priest overheard
and thought that she was planning to have an abortion.
Olive informed the priests that it was her choice.

We don't get Popeye here (we don't get anything, for
that matter - our papers have been on strike for months),
so I don't know how odd such a story line would be in
the strip.  Can anyone enlighten me?

(It must be a slow news day.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:04:49 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <22872@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil writes:

> In talk.abortion, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul22.211417.17188@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER
> >, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
> >  After, we are no longer discussing preventing something that happens pretty
> >rarely (from the standpoint of the eggs and sperm) anyhow.  Once implanted,
> >its a pretty safe bet that, barring unseen complications or outside interfe-
> >rence, said sperm/egg combo will emerge in about 9 months as a baby.
> 
> You missed some of that freshman biology, I guess. 2/3 of those fertilized
> eggs spontaneously abort. That's a 66.66667% failure rate, or more than
> 1 out of 2 that will not become a baby. So babies are the exception,
> not the rule. Now for the tough question, do you shed a tear for all
> those that fail to come to term naturally? If not, why do you make such
> a fuss over one that is ended artificially at the same point in the
> cycle? If you want the actual numbers that produce that 2/3s figure,
> I'll go look it up, or you can ask Len Howard, a medical doctor, for
> the stats.

  Been there, done that.  Was this before or after implantation?

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