HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:22:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Jul24.154520.6960@ncsu.edu> (Doug) writes:
>In article <85fmkv_.ray@netcom.com> (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>In another article (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
>>>In yet another article I write:
>>>> In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

Doug>But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 

 Me> I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
 Me> that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
 Me> it was autonomous.[deletion]
>
Jim>  Show me a newborn infant that can survive more than a day or three without
Jim> someone to feed/care for it.  It must leech food and resources from outside
Jim> sources too.  Abandoning an infant is a crime, I believe.
>
Ray> The key (and embarrasingly obvious) difference is that, like any other 
Ray> person, an infant doesn not depend on any _one_ person for its survival; 
Ray> care can (and often is) transferred to other people.  

(Doug again:)
>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.  

>> [.. rest deleted ..]
>>Ray Fischer
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger

You are agreeing that infants and pre-infants all do not have any bodily
autonomy, right?  If so, then the case for putting women's autonomy over
pre-infants' is obvious.


-Richard
I don't know why there are so many MEN debating this topic and so few
women (most notably, Susan).  "Uterus envy," I guess.  Men feel the lack
of power in bringing new life into the world, so in order to compensate,
they fulfill this need by bringing anyone else they can onto the planet.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Upon insertation, some pain may be experienced" (Was: CNN...)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:30:05 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul22.011107.5048@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
#In article <1992Jul21.193132.9131@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
##From article by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
### In article fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
### 
### #Prostoglandin abortions, which is a technique that is sometimes used
### #today, will result in the abortion of a stillborn fetus. That is the
### #fetus Rev. Shenck was carrying.
### 
### There is no way of proving your assertion.  A fetus aborted by
### prostaglandin is indistinguishable from one spontaneously
### aborted.  I doubt that we'll ever know what the truth is here.
##
##
##Unless the mother comes forth.
#
#
#
#Oh, boy, I'm just waiting for this one.  The Pro-Lifers are going to get
#some woman to go on TV and claim that the Righteous Rev is the one who 
#aborted her baby; that's how she knows that it's the one he was waving 
#around.

Oh, I thought that Suzanne was going to tell us that it was
hers.  

#After all, it has completly different DNA, etc etc etc etc etc...
#
#How else would she make a positive ID?

I have a feeling that the same people who refuse to take the
word of the coroner in the Becky Bell case will immediately
accept the word of any woman who wants to claim this fetus.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28497 alt.birthright:101
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:01:50 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
-> support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have an
-> abortion

wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: COERCED ABORTION [Can you help me polish this up?]
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: felony, sexual battery, coerced, abortion
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 15:05:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.070322.19014@cc.uow.edu.au> nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:

[Deleted:  308 lines of "pro-life" ranting and raving...]

Well, except for all the inconsistancies, it's still crap.

For example:  "There were women, but they _ALL_ excused themselves..."

She went to have the procedure done at her OB/GYN's office, but you later
state that she now pickets "outside the clinic where the tradegy took place".

Another women won't sue because she has a sick mother?  Get real....

All in all, I'd give it a D-.  About the only thing I've seen that's worse
is the "Diary of an unborn".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 13:57:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.163226.12832@wuecl.wustl.edu>, dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
|> 
|> My sources say different.  Rather than argue the point directly, I'll 
|> simply ask you:  When does the human heartbeat begin?
|> 

A quick summary of heart embryogenesis...

The heart begins as two vesicles originating on either
side of the foregut (this begins about the 8 somite stage;
third week).

As the ectoderm and endoderm fold to form the head fold,
these heart rudiments are brought together in the vertral
midline, at which point, the heart rudements begin to
form. Random, uncoordinated beating begins. (we have
reached the 10 somite stage).

The fusion of the heart rudements occur first at the 
anterior end and proceeds posteriorly. That is, the
heart is formed by proceeding from aorta to left
venticle, to left atrium to right ventricle to right
atrium to vena cava.

The heart beat begins in the ventricular region and
spreads to the other regions as they differentiate.
The beat is slow, uncoordinated and irregular at first,
and gradually speeds up to a normal fetal pulse once 
the "pacemaker" of the sinoauricular part has developed.

Before one gets to excited about a heart beat at such an
early stage, it should be pointed out that at this point
in development, the circulatory system has not yet fully
developed nor has a significant quantity of hemoglobin and 
plasma been generated. Thus, you have a pump, with nothing
to pump and nowhere to pump it.

References:

DeHann, R.L., Emergence of form and function in the embryonic
heart. In The Emergence of Order in Developing Systems, M. Locke,
ed., Academic Press, New York, (1968).

DeHann, R. L., Morphogenesis of the vertebrate heart. In
Organogenesis, R.L. DeHann and H. Urspring, eds., Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp 377-420 (1965)

Patten, B.M. Foundations of Embryology, McGraw-Hill, New York
(1958)

Rawles, M.E., The heart-forming areas of the early chick
blastoderm. Psyiol. Zool. 16:22-42 (1943)

-- 
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:14:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul23.184559.28424@menudo.uh.edu> 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.
#

I believe that the laws of Mark Kaufman's religion have not 
changed over time.

Might I suggest that you find another religion as well?
If you feel free to tell Mark that his religion is wrong,
and outdated, surely you won't object when I tell you
the same thing.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 16:50:42 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@


In article <1992Jul24.190929.17896@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
#In article <1992Jul24.082241.146532@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##A woman who wants an abortion must call a clinic and schedule
##an appointment.  
#
#This is not true everywhere. 


Can you prove this, Clausen?  Can you provide us with the name and
phone number of a clinic which provides abortions on a drop-in
basis?

(Or is this another one of those claims that you are both
unwilling and unable to support, but simply hope that no one
will challege?)

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29754 alt.birthright:214 alt.abortion.inequity:2811
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:42:58 GMT

> = (Ray Fischer) writes:

>Seen in Saturday's paper ...
>
>The U.S. death rate from pregnancy and childbirth is 10 per 100,000 
>pregnant women.
>
>The U.S. death rate from surgical abortion is 0.4 per 100,000 abortions.
>
>The death rate from RU-486 is 1 per 100,000 women who have used the drug.
>
>US death rates from an article by Dr. Rosenberg in the American Journal of
>Public Health.  Stats on RU-486 from the Population Council of New York.

Similar stats have been posted before.  The same ones who scream about how
abortion "alters a woman's body" and is "anti-women" conveniently switch
off one or more lobes and fail to reply.
 
Let's see what happens this time.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal tissue research, Nathanson, etc.
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:37:48 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

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

> Explain to me again about intellectual blind spots, Chris.

That's _your_ catch phrase, Steve, you explain it.

My catch phrase is 'tiny sex animals.'

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Meaning of "Abortion" (Re: Fetal Heartbeat)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:49:51 GMT

<1992Jul24.165354.16406@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
>> Isn't abortion often referred to as "termination of pregnancy"?
>> And would you not agree that in order for something to be
>> terminated, it must have begun?  If a blastocyst fails to implant,
>> whether naturally, or due to the encouragement of some sort
>> of abortifacient, then pregnancy never begins.  How can a
>> pregnancy be aborted if it never begins in the first place?

<1992Jul24.225816.17461@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> "abortifacient - a drug or device that causes abortion."
>
> Although abortion often *does* mean "termination of pregnancy",
> it clearly does not if it takes place before implantation.

OK.  If you want to insist on a broad usage of "abortion" you
are absolutely right.  The majority of abortions do not stop 
a heartbeat.  However, you also have to concede the truth of 
several other statements when you demand this usage:

1. The majority of abortions are involuntary.

2. The majority of abortions involve women who are not pregnant.

3. The fetus carried by Rev. Schenck at a protest a few weeks
   ago was the result of an abortion.

So long as we're in a context like the present one, where it is
clear that we're using this broad notion of "abortion", these
statements are non-controversial.  However, I have no doubt
that if I were to post any one of them in a more typical context,
I would be immediately challenged.  Thus, it is clear to me
that the usual usage of "abortion" refers to induced abortions.

|   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._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:30:11 GMT

In article <3728@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.045504.15172@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>#In article <1992Jul22.184922.219382@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>##It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
>##remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
>##kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
>##woman.
>#
>#I assume by "necessary" you mean medically indicated, right, in order to save 
>#the life of the mother? 
>
>Are you and Holtsinger sharing a brain this week?

Contentless blather.

>By "necessary", I meant "unable to accomplish without."

That definition is **USELESS**, Susie, since it is _never_ strictly 
"necessary" to kill a viable fetus -- we could just rip the thing right out, 
and who cares about the effect on the pregnant woman's health or life, right?

Think it through more. In this particular context (as opposed to the generic
dictionary definition) my definition is a lot more practical than yours.

>This definition appears in the dictionary.  I guess when
>you make up your own definitions on a regular basis, you
>forget the standard ones.

More contentless blather.

>#If so, please elaborate on the medical circumstances 
>#in which the sequence of the two major events wrt the late-term fetus -- 
>#detachment and destruction -- cannot be inverted without incurring a major 
>#risk to the mother's life. The relevance of such an inversion is that it would 
>#technically make the difference between abortion and infanticide, of course...
>
>You are completely ignorant on this subject, aren't you?

Enlighten me then. Contentless insults don't qualify as enlightening, BTW.

>It is much safer (for the woman) to do a D&E than it is
>to perform a hysterotomy or a saline or prostaglandin 
>induction.  D&E's require the dismemberment of the fetus
>in order to remove it vaginally.  Quite obviously. the
>steps cannot be reversed.  

Good. Now we're getting somewhere. What are the mortality rates? How do they 
compare to the ~100% mortality rate for a fetus undergoing D&E?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28410 alt.politics.homosexuality:5109
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:11:55 GMT
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA

In article <1992Jul21.175139.29433@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:

>Those heterosexual couples would never have contracted AIDS if they had
>remained monogamous. Contraceptives alone won't stop AIDS.
>See what a lack of monogamy leads to, you mean.

Either monogamy or contraception will halt the spread of AIDS.

People aren't monogamous.  Welcome to the real world.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You mean there are TWO of you, Pierce?
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  God help us all."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Major Charles Emerson Winchester III
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 16:27:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002844.14226@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>> 
>> I wonder how much the woman is charging to enter her property?  Will
>> Suzanne and Chaney be making a pilgrimage now?
>
>Heck no.  For one thing, you didn't say what state "Watsonville" was in,
>and for another, we have a Greek Orthodox church right hear in Tucson
>with a painting that bleeds real blood.   What do I need to travel for?

Gee, I wonder what blood type it is?  RH Positive or Negative?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:50:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.211155.13409@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.175139.29433@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>
>>Those heterosexual couples would never have contracted AIDS if they had
>>remained monogamous. Contraceptives alone won't stop AIDS.
>>See what a lack of monogamy leads to, you mean.
>
>Either monogamy or contraception will halt the spread of AIDS.
>
>People aren't monogamous.  Welcome to the real world.

fusco is not part of the real world.  He is living in the world of
his bible, which is about 1500 years ago.

Living in the past, the next best thing to being there.


FWA
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:43:55 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <2216@unet.UUCP> jrs@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.120150.17424@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>-> who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
>>-> support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have an
>>-> abortion
>>
>>wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.
>
>Quayle said he would not support her having an abortion as 
>a minor, but would leave the decision to her as an adult.

Dan Quayle can really do damage to pro-lifers when he doesn't want to, 
can't he?  

I wish we had _anyone_ but Quayle for a Vice President. The man is
phenomenally blunder-prone. 

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: airplane boy, take some credit (Re: Susan's Devolution: Impossible, one can't devolve that far (was Re: Chaney's evolution)
Summary: @decay
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:46:01 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

chaney/hall posting as .....
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes to susan garvin:
-> I really have to work hard to convince people after they've
-> seen genuine screw-ups like you, that abortion should be
-> banned...

come now, chaney/hall, whether or not people have seen ms. garvin
isn't the reason you have such a hard time convincing people of
anything, is it?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:55:48 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Jul22.013523.6206@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.034533.4952@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>You must be blind, Jay, if you can't see lots of folks here who argue for an
>>abortion "right", even after the point of viability. And after viability, 
>>what's the essential difference between terminating a human life _in utero_ 
>>or after birth? 
>
>This must be the GROUP Kevin Darcy answering.

What makes you say such an ignorant thing?

>C'mon, Kibbles, if it's so obvious, you must be able to provide the name of
>even one person who has stated that a woman should be allowed to obtain an
>abortion that kills the fetus five minutes before she goes into labor...

I have never claimed that such a person exists. I claim only that there
are Extremist pro-choicers lurking hereabouts who argue for an abortion
"right", even after the point of fetal viability. As far as I'm concerned,
such a position is not different in any important respect from condoning 
infanticide.

>Or is this just another attempt to continue your net.vendettas???

Try to show some originality once in a while, willya?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:45:55 CDT

In article <BrwzD7.C2E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>Furthermore, the woman and her
>partner already *MADE* their choice when they decided to have sex.
>They just don't happen to like the consequences.  But since that 
>consequence is another human life, they cannot choose to end that life
>simply because they don't like the results of their choice.
>
I think I shall quote rocker here:

'This statement is not correct.'

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:04:33 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <59356@mimsy.umd.edu> tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
>btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes:
>>
>>Should pro-choice imply anti-"War on Drugs"?  Keep in mind that
>>a war on drug abuse should be a separate matter.
>
>     I've always wanted to go down to a pro-choice rally and hand out
>pamphlets reminding them that the slogan "Keep your laws off my body" should
>apply to the WoSD too. 

What's stopped you?  I would bet that you would find a lot of support
for your cause.  I picked up some great info on the ACLU at my last 
pro-choice rally.

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion