HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:33:54 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct11.085322.89833@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct9.211534.21315@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>> This is what I have been trying to tell these people.  Abortion destroys
>> an unique, sentient, feeling person.
>
>Unique?  Yes.  Sentient?  Feeling?  Person?  No!  (At least, not in
>99.99+% of abortions.  And the less than .01% (that's about 100 *total*,
>per year, in the US) of third trimester abortions that *are* performed are
>done for serious health reasons.  The woman is *undoubtedly* a unique,
>sentient, feeling person, so if only one can be saved, she gets my vote.)
>

O.K. It's time to put forth the real issue for discussion.  Larry, and 
many other pro-choicers, have made the claim that 99% of abortions 
occur in the first tri-mester.  If that is what pro-choicers want, then 
why do they fight so hard against any restrictions on abortion after 
the first tri-mester?  I think what we have here (at least on the part 
of groups like PP, NARAL and NOW) is a red herring.  They may claim 
to be in favor of abortion "only until the point of viability," but they 
sure scream and yell at the first sign of any restrictions on RoevWade 
whatsoever.

Could I have some help on this one, pro-choicers?

Ted

-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43045 alt.abortion.inequity:4470
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion doctor builds small empire through his practice 
Summary: Gee, what about those S:L crooks??? 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 03:19:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.235143.1788@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The following article is about a North Carolina abortion doctor 
>who was recently sentenced to jail for income tax evasion. The 
>article contains some tidbits about the enormous profitability 
>of his practice. What's interesting to note is that this doctor
>started out offering a full range of obstetrical and gynecological
>services at his clinic, but later he stopped doing obstetrics 
>and concentrated on performing abortions.

[Deleted:  The doctor started out, made some $350,000/year as a doctor,
invested in real estate and other things, and wound up owing the IRS
over $1,000,000.00 for _tax evasion_]

When are you going to write up your definitive expose on Neil Bush, and
show how we should outlaw banks, DOD?
--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:21:07 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct8.213350.8153@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:
|warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
||They don't believe in Jesus Christ.  They don't believe the Bible.  
|Why must you think in binary?  There are many non-Christians who
|simply don't know whether the bible is factual or not.  I tend to
|be very skeptical about the existence of God, but I'm willing to
|keep an open mind. 

||They admit no absolutes, no matter what we say, it seems to bounce off them.
||How do you argue values with someone who has no values?  

|This is complete nonsense.  A person does not have to be a Christian
|to "admit absolutes" or to possess values. 

I am astounded.  Doug Holtsinger has posted something I agree
with.

This exact argument has surfaced in talk.religion.misc often.  I
found this point interesting:

    Do Christians really rely on their religion to prevent them
    from lying, stealing, murdering, etc?  Does Lavallee mean to
    say that, if he gave up his religion tomorrow, he'd see
    nothing wrong with robbing banks?  Skeptics-- don't argue
    too successfully with Lavallee!  Without Christianity he's
    an amoral psychopath!

Lavallee has probably just made a typical patronizing assumption
that if people don't accept his values, they must have no values.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Dogmatic attachment to the supposed merits of a particular structure
 hinders the search for an appropriate structure" -- Robert Fripp
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:40:56 GMT

In <7m2zkgb@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <yp1zglh@rpi.edu>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 

>>> Isn't it wonderful to be able to post by computer so that you
>>> can be as nasty and condescending to women as you want without 
>>> running the risk of being slapped?  
>
>>How would you characterize it when I argue with Jim Keegan or 
>>Steve Novak?
>
>since you mentioned me, i'll be happy to comment. you
>are usually less "nasty and condescending" to me and
>novak than you are to women, imo, and more "nasty and
>condescending" to me and novak than you are to other
>males.

Opinions vary.

>my observations are based on a reading of your posts to
>me, to novak, nadja, adrienne, cj, linda birmingham,
>susan, rocker, dean, bense.

Ooh.  Substance.  Or at least a reference to your
method.  I'm both surprised and impressed.

>but you probably can't help yourself.

Oh, you mean I don't have a "choice"?

Bill
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re:  Re: Choice for life
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:06:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

> In article <1992Oct16.030215.13506@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >You've claimed a few times that people have been misunderstanding what
> >you've been writing.  Well, as any decent writer knows, in is the
> >responsibility of the _writer_ to be understood, not the
> >responsibility of the reader to divine what was meant.

Well, not always.  Depends on the type of writing and the audiences
abilities, as well as the audiences willingness to find the meaning.
e.e. cummings wasn't very clear about the rhyme scheme when he wrote
(Forgive this; it's from memory from about 16 years ago.)
"Spoil the child and spare the rod
quoth the Psalmist."

And Joyce wasn't exactly clear in "Ulysses."  Then take Melville's
"Moby Dick," my favorite novel.  On the surface there is a fairly
clear story, but there are numerous layers that can be divined
by a willing reader.  There's a Shakespearean sub-text, a strong
theme about slavery and the antebellum United States, a classic
tragedy, some interesting ideas about intellectualism versus
anti-intellectualism, and some good dirty double meanings.

On the other hand, if you've got to describe how to install
telecommunications equipment, it is best to leave the
Shakespearean sub-texts alone.

I'd defend that one, but I am below my ipse dixit quota for the
day and I have to put a few in to make Peter Nyikos happy.

Dean Kaflowitz

I am convinced more and more day by day that fine writing is
next to fine doing, the top thing in the world.
-John Keats
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: RU486, the Pill, & "pregnancy"
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:44:58 GMT

Today on NPR & in a wire service newspaper article were stories
(sorry, I don't have a transcript, corrections welcome)
about an article that appeared the New England Journal of Medicine
about how RU486 *might* be effective as a "contraceptive" similar to
the Pill.  But while both RU486 & the Pill would prevent implantation
of a fertilized egg, RU486 doesn't have to be taken in advance of
fertilization.

Throughout the article in general, and through an NPR interview with a 
doctor, it was explained that the medical term "pregnancy" refers to an 
*implanted* f/e/z.  The rationale is that since more than 1/3rd of all 
fertilized eggs fail to implant for various natural reasons, the mere 
presence of a fertilized egg was insufficient to constitute "pregnancy".  
I suppose this is why the Pill is considered a contraceptive.

NPR also included an interview with a pro-lifer who reminded us that 
"human life" begins at conception.

(agian, I don't have a transcript, corrections welcome)

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-life NRL symbolism and terminology
Summary: Steve, can I borrow your frying pan? 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 01:27:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.000550.7747@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <25914@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>
>>     But this is not what really struck me. That was the appropriateness
>> of the symbol of the NRL movement, or at least their rag. It is a flame
>> (or leaf) inside two intersecting circles. 
>
>I believe you are referring to the ROSE, Ron.   Yes Ron, a red ROSE, the
>flower Our Lady of Guadeloupe presented to St. (?) in the dead of winter,
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>so is now the symbol of Right To Life.   If anyone understands the plight
>of women with problem pregnancies, it is this woman, who experienced an
>unwed teenage pregnancy herself, yet went to term and gave birth to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>greatest man who ever lived.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jesus was born in South America?

Huh?
--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41932 alt.abortion.inequity:4345
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush (WAS Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:45:46 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

There was recently a critical review [sic] done about Rush's book in
the Washington Post. (within the last week, I think Thursday's Book
Section) The critic comments on Rush's total lack of depth about anything,
except maybe the title, which reveals Rush's complete inadequacy to
accept reality and that the white male isn't lord-high-emporer over
all he surveys. He further goes to support that with excerpts about
Rush's own life and his statements thereof, which support a narrow-minded,
uncompromising simpleton's view of a complex world.

Set all flames, rants, and raging to alt.stupid.idiot.

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.
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:18:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Oct15.225402.12156@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.152402.21263@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.195053.13962@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>>You're WAY off--I'm 22--one must be 35 to be President, so I'd be eligible
>>>to run in the November 2008 election.
>>>Now lets watch all of you panic at that prospect.......
>>
>>If J. Danforth can get as close as he has to the presidency,
>>it would hardly surprise me if you could.  It would not surprise
>>me if you ran for president any more than you actually finding
>>a publisher for your novel.  Good luck on both counts.  Neither
>>would hardly be cause for panic.
>>
>Wait a minute, go to the action/adventure section of your local bookstore.
>Some of those books have similar scenes in them, and no flak has resulted from
>them.  And watch Kubrick's 1971 film "A Clockwork Orange".  Now if Kubrick
>was allowed to make that movie, I think my story abut the dangers of fascists
>rising to power as a result of a backlash against liberalism would be allowed.
>BTW, I'm not promoting fascism.  Wht my story is  is a criticism of liberalism,
>showing what could happen if Liberalism is allowed to run amok in our society.

>Geez, Clinton is running for President and no one get upset......

Oh, I don't know about that - King George looked pretty upset to
me last night :-)


>Simon

REB
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: The Keegan Rules (was: is overpeck everybody?) 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:53:44 GMT

In <5k1z_gf@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <Bvpr2K.M4I.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

>>> I guess in Overpeck's twisted mind, this implies an ulterior 
>>> motive.
>
>>Twisted mind?  Is that how you characterize people who don't
>>share your particular set of values?
>
>she said, "in Overpeck's twisted mind," bill. that's a
>specific reference to "Overpeck," which, in case you
>didn't know, is you. unless you think "overpeck" is
>also a group, that is.

Sorry, Jim, I didn't realize that asking a general question
about a specific insult was prohibited.  I keep forgetting 
about your double standard with regard to net.cops.

But I'm sure you'll remind me again real soon.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:59:59 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a 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  <9585@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Oct13.052621.144287@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>In  <9568@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COMLM:  mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>LM:Wrong.  It's a pleasure craft.  You didn't invite anyone else on board.
>LM:If you left it at the dock, there wouldn't be any problem, but it's your
>LM:boat and you decided to take it out for a little fun.  A passenger was
>LM:neither invited nor welcome.
>
>If the woman agreed to have sex, than the invitation was made.

I don't understand how her deciding to take her boat out for a joyride
and making every possible effort to ensure that no stowaway could get
on board constitutes an invitation.

>MW:Are you trying to say that the mother will die if the baby is not aborted.
>MW:As I stated previously, I am not opposed to self defense.  And this case
>MW:would fall within the self defense doctrine.
>
>LM:I'm saying there's a chance.  You just don't know, but if you wait until
>LM:you know for sure, it might be too late.
>
>This is patently absurd.

Hey - so's the rest of your analogy; I'm trying to stay consistent
with it.  :-)

>The risks of pregnancy are well known and have
>been for generations.  If two or three doctors agree that the woman is
>at risk of dying than an abortion is called for.

There's *always* a risk of dying, albeit a small one.  Getting an
early term abortion is 11 times safer than carrying to term.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Summary: DOD is confused again.  Somebody get him his lithium... 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:44:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.164224.13052@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.053752.16496@watson.ibm.com> 
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>
>>> Yes, that's exactly correct.  The pro-aborts who argue that women
>>> should have the right to abort by virtue of the fetus' residence
>>> within their bodies have reduced women to mere physical containers.
>>>
>>> According to these pro-aborts, pregnant women do not need to offer
>>> any justification for aborting -- these women might as well be
>>> non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply house a fetus. They
>>> ignore the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion, and instead
>>> focus all attention on the fact that a fetus resides within the
>>> woman's body.
>
>> Clearly, if the women were non-thinking, inanimate objects, they
>> wouldn't be able to *want* an abortion.  It's the fact that they
>> are thinking human beings that makes it necessary to consider whether
>> or not they *want* a fetus inside them.  If the fetus was in a container
>> rather than in a person, there wouldn't be much controversy.
>
>Exactly!  If women were non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply
>housed a fetus, then they wouldn't be able to want an abortion. Therefore,
>it makes no sense to *ignore* the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion
>by focusing strictly on the fact that a fetus resides within the woman's
>body. To *ignore* the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion is to 
>treat her like a non-thinking, inanimate fetal container, which she 
>is not.  

Nice of you to refute your own argument, DOD, even if it is in your
usual dimwitted manner...

Let me spell it out in small words for you...

Woman is pregnant.

Woman wants to obtain an abortion.

Pro-Choicers realize that if the woman's reasons are good enough *for her*,
we have no validity in saying, "but that's no good enough".
--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:40:46 GMT

<1992Oct15.183700.6697@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
><1992Oct15.134540.26238@sbctri.sbc.com>
>asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>><1992Oct13.195245.18561@coopsol.com>
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
>>>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
>>>Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
>                                                  ^^^^^
>>I'm as hip as the next guy, but would you be proud if your wife was telling
>>thousands of strangers on a computer network of the ten men she had done
>>before you came along?
>
>You know, I really wish people would find out the story behind
>Gordon's .sig before complaining about it.  At least you aren't
>calling him an evil nasty person who was denigrating women....

"Evil"?  Nah.  "Nasty"?  Sometimes (OK, quite often).  "Denigrate women"?
Never.  (Maybe denigrate a person who just happens to be a woman.)

>Several of us on talk.abortion have agreed to become Gordon's
>ex-girlfriends (beginning the relationship that way avoids any
>possibility of a nasty breakup).  Personally, I did so *after* Gordon
>had adopted the above .signature (minus my name) and thusly *after*
>Gordon's wife had ocme along.....

Last, but not least...


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:55:12 GMT

In article <26081@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>Well, I certainly do care about human life, born and unborn.  Whether
>>you believe that or not is another thing.  But I know what is in my
>>heart and what is in my head.  What is in my heart and what is in my
>>head cannot be wrong.
>
>If you wanted a direct proof about why I think you're a pompous ignorant
>oaf, here it is, in your own words. What makes you think you are oh
>so correct? Either in your heart or in your head? Your head is doubtful,
>asx it appears to cause you to spew incessant unsubstantiated nonsense
>when others have pointed out flaws in your arguments, and only a fool
>thinks with his heart. I doubt you are a "fool" in the sense of the
>previous line. So, you're pompous (think you are correct, damn the rest),

Einstein thought he was correct.  Heisenberg thought he was correct.
Martin Luther King thought he was correct.  Gandhi thought he was correct.
Thomas Jefferson thought he was correct.  You think you are correct.

They must be pompus too, right.

>ignorant (have an obvious lack of information) 

Very debatable.  Think what you like.

>and are an oaf (continuously
>unable to register new facts and incorporate them into the discussion,
><oaf means, among other things "dull, stupid person">)

Think what you like.

>
>I thought I'd at least back up my words directly. Any more questions?
>(Take heart, at least I think you're a person!:)
>
>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.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:17:30 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->Which is good, because not only do I not accept any blame for what
->happened to their daughter, I will continue to vote for candidates
->who support such consent laws.

and i will continue to think that you, and other
anti-choicers who support notification/consent laws,
are, in part, responsible for the young women who die,
in part, as the result of these laws.

i'll bet that a lot of parents share my views.