HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: the z/e/f's right to life (was: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:38:45 GMT

> = markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>> = bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>> = In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>You're half-right; at this point, it's vital (no pun intended) to
>>>ask whether the z/e/f has the right to life. New thread, anyone?

>>Have already started that in this thread. I have stated that no such
>>right exists. Why don't you prove there is in one short post?

>As to the z/e/f's right to life:
>
>A first stab at defining what makes us human is "reasoning, free-willed
>individuality." (From this follows our rights: right to life, right
>to free speech, etc.) But we also regard newborn infants as human (I
>hope!); and they sure aren't reasoning. We can reconcile this fact 
>with the above definition only by expanding that definition of 
>humanity (and the possession of human rights) to include the potential
>for reasoning, free-willed individuality. Newborns have this potential --
>and so do z/e/f's.

Fetus' maybe, zygotes no.

a) "human" is frequently used in two very different ways, *roughly*:
   human[1]      : made of human tissue
   human-life[1] : made of human tissue & alive
   human[2]      : a "person"
   human-life[2] : a "person"
   So let's be clear we're discussing "personhood"

b) while "reasoning, free-willed individuality" probably won't be
   an acceptable defn. of "person" to all, it does *suggest* the
   essence of the concept.  While we probably will never agree on a 
   completely unambiguous defn. of "person", it seems that
   most reasonable people would agree that the current colloquial usage 
   of the term "person" and any meaningful concept of "personhood" requires 
   at *least* the possibility of something similar to "individuality" and 
   "reasoning" (or some type of thought process).  
   
   Please: those who disagree please make a clear, concise statement
   at this point.  There's no point in continuing if you disagree here.
  
c) assuming you agree with (a) & (b) above, a zygote cannot be a "person",
   (in any normal/reasonable usage of the term) because clearly it is 
   physically impossible for a zygote to have anything similar to reasoning 
   (physically, it has no brain).  Hence zygotes cannot be referred to 
   as "persons" in any meaningful way.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:31:54 GMT

In article <ujd6fd0@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

> Sometimes people need temporary help to get out of bad spots,
> whether that help be food stamps, welfare, unemployment, or job
> retraining.  

...or help with an unplanned pregnancy.

> My first reaction is to help needy parents, and not just
> uncaringly rip their children away.

Mine too.


>C J Silverio


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:42:33 GMT

In <29533@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>still play a large role in every life. Rape takes away choice;
>>chance does not.

>Word choice, what a wonderful concept, isn't it?

>chance ==    contraception failure    == acceptance of getting pregnant
>rape   == security precaution failure == acceptance of getting pregnant

>See where I'm going with this, Mark?

Apparently, you're headed for the proposition that there is no true
choice in a reality where things can happen by chance. If so, let's 
talk about it in some other group. (I don't buy it.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:23:39 GMT

In <3439@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:

>In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you using?

>>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>>pointless or self-contradictory?

>Why do many pro-life advocates believe that pro-choice advocates do not
>believe in absolute ethical standards?  I *do* believe in absolute 
>ethical standards.  By my ethical standards, refusing a woman a right
>to choose an abortion is wrong.  My standards are every bit as absolute
>as yourse, they are just different.  

To say "my standards are right for me, and yours are right for you"
is to say that these standards are relative. In contrast, absolute
standards apply to everyone.

>It is insulting that you conclude
>that since my standards are different from yours, I therefore have no
>standards.  

I make no such conclusion. (See above.)

>Joe

Mark Pundurs
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:59:12 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <1993Jan5.181125.17922@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|> In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com 
|> (John Townsend) writes:
|> 
|> }I, for one, have chosen life.
|> 
|> Congrats.  It can be a relatively unpopular thing to choose life 
|> over war -- a lot of people seem to think they can "choose life"
|> and rationalize away exceptions for war or whatever.

Talk about myopia.  Read me again:

I think it's important to recognize that neither Choice nor Life are sacrosanct.
We constantly face limits on our choices.  I'd choose to be a billionaire, but
no one seems to be indulging me that right.  Likewise, should we not build
things like the Golden Gate Bridge or go to war, if there is a probability that
human life may be lost in the process of conducting these endeavors?  Of course
we should, if other conditions are met.  The question is which right should
hold sway over the other when they conflict.  I, for one, have chosen life.

|> ps  I don't think the Guttmacher survey on abortion had a slot for
|>     "convienence"?  Was that your own "editorial" comment?

Yep.  The actual slots were:  unwanted change in lifestyle, unwanted responsi-
bility, can't afford it, relationship problems, not mature enough, and already
have enough kids.  In other words, inconvenient.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Law and morality (was Re: Christian Pro-Choicers)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:30:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.014215.10918@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
}kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes ...

}>Law is a subset of morality. 
}>             ...as opposed to other types of morality...

}Law is separate from morality.  

Oh, to which morality do you refer?  Kevin seems to think there is
only one, oops, then he thinks there is more than one.  You can
pretty safely assume that the morality to which you refer is the
incorrect one, and inappropriate to this discussion.  The singular
and plural ("s" to many of us) doesn't matter here, of course.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 20:25:10 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <lefty-050193104907@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>Listen, you troglodyte mouth breather, I'll have you know that I'm as sweet
>as the day is long.

We just had the winter solstice, didn't we?  :-)

>And I'll break all the arms and legs of anybody who says otherwise.

I was confused - I was mixing you up with...  Steve Novak.  Yeah, that's the
ticket...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: does dodie approve of chaneyhall's and suzanne's attack of patrick's wife?
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
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:40:05 GMT

patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) said:
-> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> >-> We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
-> >-> remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
-> >-> lifers. 
-> 
-> >prove it, unless you're just lying again as you so often
-> >have in the past.
-> 
-> I know where I'd put my money on that bet...:-)
-> 
-> >since you seem to have defended suzanne's attack of
-> >patrick's wife, do you approve of her tactics?
-> 
-> >do you approve of chaney's tactics in attacking
-> >patrick's wife?
-> 
-> Of course he does -- he's too cowardly to do it himself.  He's too cowardly
-> to even respond to anything I direct at him.  It's much easier to let
-> someone else do the attacking, and defend them.

that's what i think too. he dodged the question(s) i
asked him.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54703 alt.flame:17770 talk.bizarre:44043
From: terri@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (St Theresa of the Net)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 8 Jan 1993 22:20:54 GMT
Organization: Computing Something Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1993Jan5.070734.20380@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Ho hum...
>

Kebbin, i don't want any excuses. get the fuck out of my news group. if i
wanted to hear anything from you i'd go empty the litter box and wonder how
it touchtypes when i'm not home.

-- 
A little bit of uh huh and a whole lot of oh yeah.   \  (414)CRUSH-13
T. Flynn's Casa de Interesting: 1755 N Cambridge Ave #306 Milwaukee WI 53202    
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:50:25 GMT

In article <C0q3Gx.KEr@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <PASSARET.93Jan11184034@vane.med.ge.com> Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com> writes:

[Lots of deletions]

>>link> Operation Rescue protesters don't fight the police.
>>link> They lie still and have to be carried away.  
>>
>>That explains the black eye I got from being kicked in the
>>face by one after having been knocked down by another.  I
>>wasn't police, just escort.
>
>Well, that's the policy, anyway. 
>
Nice to see a clear statement of policy for OR. "Only knock them down
and kick them if they're not police". Thanks Link, for making that
clear.


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: PHoney's lists
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:33:47 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

it appears to be easier for a certain person who claims
to be a PhD to post lists than to retract lies.

on a related matter, isn't it interesting to see that
this same person can post regarding news server
problems but can't seem to get his apology to the name
same newsgroup reached by his news server problem
posts.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
X-To: ADRIENNE REGARD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:50:00 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>In article <1992Dec19.052827.25350@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wri
>es:
>>Why can't some of you (meaning women in general) understand that it's
>>not about responsibility, but RIGHTS.  And it isn't a myth, either.
>>It happens so often it's nearly a cliche.

>Because some of us know something about the current law.  And those who
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>do apparently don't include you, Ray.  Go read, educate yourself.  Then
>get back with us.

Adrienne, it's nothing personal, but I have seen you boast at some length
about your vast knowledge of laws, though I believe that I have yet to
see you post an actual reference to one of these laws.


>Oh, by the way, your 'so often it's nearly a cliche' could use a little
>evidence.  We'd all really love to see some information that would give
>and idea on how big this problem really is.

Sorry, Charlie.  Until the government, in its SupremeIntelligence, decides
to take such statistics, you'll have to rely on personal stories and other
anecdotal evidence.

If I hear you say "That's not good enough," I'll bet that you *weren't* one
of the people denying the problems of sexual harassment and forced
*motherhood* before statistics were gathered...


>Might motivate some of us to do something about it.

I hardly think so.  Even if there *were* more statistics being published,
I know you well enough to know that you'd insist that it wasn't enough to
motivate you to do anything.

Indeed, in my humble opinion, on the day when *you* start working on men's
issues such as male choice, Satan will be skating to work.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * GOD.SYS not found, changing default to SATAN.SYS.
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
Date: 7 Jan 1993 07:17:54 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: gauss.math.ubc.ca

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
|1. Why do so many pro-lifers say of a pregnant woman seeking abortion, "She
|shoulda kept her legs crossed?"
|
|ANSWER:  I have never heard of a pro-lifer say anything even remotely 
|resembling this, not even on talk.abortion.  On the other hand, I regularly
|see pro-choicers lampooning pro-lifers by depicting them as saying this.

In article <1993Jan5.194947.10769@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu 
(Jay T Stein -- lurk on, lurk off) writes:
|This is simultaneously one of the strangest and saddest things I have read
|or heard in the abortion debate.
|
|Strange because of the frequency of posts that essentially say what Peter
|claims not to see posted.  Ed Simmonds is not the only one to have said
|that "she made her choice when she had sex."  This, indeed, is a regular
|staple of pro-life posts to this newsgroup

I suspect that some of us (perhaps Jay Stein among them) are hearing
"she should have kept her legs crossed" and "she made her choice when
she had sex" in a way which makes them mean roughly the same thing,
and some of us (perhaps including Peter Nyikos) are hearing them in a
way which makes them rather different. To me, at least, the former
idea is loaded with extra implications which the latter doesn't have
(and somewhat vice-versa).

Keith Ramsay            "Being a computer means not having 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:12:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.151835.18395@midway.uchicago.edu> 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
>> in a way that women aren't?   

> I'm sorry, I'm unaware of a child support law that distinguishes
> between men and women, rather than custodial parents and non-
> custodial parents.

Neither child support laws nor anti-abortion laws are intended to
burden one sex more than another, but they both have that effect.
If I'm not mistaken, you stated that a law which has the effect
of burdening one segment of society is not necessarily unconstitutional.

>> And how does it follow that every type of abortion restriction, 
>> including waiting periods, informed consent provisions, and
>> late-term restrictions, will result in the subjugation of
>> women?

> Take it up with Tribe.  It's not my argument.

Well, you seemed to have no difficulty defending his argument
up until now.


>ted frank 


Doug Holtsinger
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let me state my view (flames welcome :-)
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:25:21 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1993Jan7.233902.5458@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY
JAMES PRICE) wrote:
> 
> 1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
>    can't prove otherwise so it must be true.

Hmm.  With an opening like this, I fervently hope that you are not planning
on pursuing a line of endeavor in any fields related to mathematics or
philosophy.

Maybe "Professor" Nyikos can explain to you the little problem inherent in
your statement.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Mark is playing Devil's Advocate, and badly? (Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:20:46 GMT

In <29626@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <bob1.726860519@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>mp>>Compare: The use of force is either wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong,
>mp>>you may not use force to prevent someone from killing you. If it is not
>mp>>wrong, then anyone who wants may use force however he wants.

>>>A general failing in t.a, discussing a single point as if it existed
>>>in a vacuum. Rights, responsibilities, laws, etc. are all intertwined
>>>sometimes in ways no one intended.

>>Right! Which is why abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest,
>>or grave threat to the mother's life. Glad we finally agree on this!

>With the use of force, it is permissable against a subject that is harming
>you. Why is a fetus resulting from rape or incest physically more harmful 
>than those conceived through consensual sex? (Or emotionally, or any 
>other way, for that matter)

It's not.

>Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
>			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
>			     Make a U-turn to God.
>The irony is priceless.

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:36:57 GMT

In article <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?
>
>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>right to life.

But who gets to decide exactly what that "accord[ance]" entails? You?

As far as I'm concerned, a woman and her doctor "act in accordance with the 
z/e/f's right to life" as long as they 

	a) kill the z/e/f ONLY as a "mercy killing", i.e. when it is 
	   pre-viable, and would die anyway shortly after removal, or if it 
	   is severely deformed, or if comes down to a choice between the
	   mother's life and that of the z/e/f, or if the z/e/f was the
	   product of rape or incest

		or

	b) act in accordance with the value placed on the fetus by a
	   popular concensus of opinion

(Exceptions to the above to be considered on a case-by-case basis)

Now, you may have a different view of what actions are "in accord[ance]
with that human's right to life". Why is your view any more valid than
mine, though?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:07:09 CST

In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan2.174743.27170@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>I think a woman's life is worth more than that of a
>>conceptus.  2/3 of all zygotes will never make it to term
>>because of natural factors.
>
>ANALOGY:
>I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>for more than a few years.
>
Like many other analogies, this one only holds as 
long as the woman's pain and risk, and the use of
her resources, is ignored.

>>Do you think only women have equal worth with embryoes, or
>>do you ascribe this valuation to men as well?  
>
>The latter.
>
>>You seem to think that a woman incurs the responsibility
>>to suffer _any_ amount of physical damage, up to, and possibly
>>including _death_ (since we'd sacrifice all the women whose
>>deaths could not be predicted with certainty) as a result
>>of consensual sex.  What equivalent _physical_ responsibility
>>do you propose for a man who has sex?  
>
>The woman's greater physical responsibility is a fact of biology.

We still have ways.

>What do YOU propose to do about the fact that women live longer 
>than men?

I'll encourage the men in my life to take care of themselves.
And I'll make sure I stay acquainted with some younger ones. ;^)

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:19:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.012159.8899@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <C0pt0I.KqD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
#updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
#
## Part of the reason there are so few late term abortions is that it is quite
## difficult to find a willing doctor plus I think there are some restrictions
## in various states. 
#
#Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand
#throughout the term of pregnancy.  Finger my account for
#the documentation, or send me e-mail to request it.  


As DOD is well aware, there are restrictions on late abortions
in many states.  I live in one of those states, Pennsylvania.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion