HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:57:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Dec19.211554.16596@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-181292163351@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith
> >Ramsay) wrote:
> >> 
> >> Browsing through this newsgroup, I think the discussion would go
> >> better in general if posters spent less time trying to prove each
> >> other to be bad characters, no?
> >
> >You're new here, aren't you?
> 
> But apparently not so new that he can't recognize how counter-productive
> all this ad hominem garbage tends to get.

My gosh, you're absolutely right, Kevin.  For instance, there was some
pasrticularly egregious asshole a while back who called Susan Garvin a
"lying bitch" with a "gargantuan...ego."

Wait a second.  That was _you_, wasn't it, Kevin?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:24:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.200245.13638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.021358.18235@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>[Where's that chainsaw...]
>
>>Not really. They could opt to just run the risk of a lawsuit. The point here
>>is that Cochran has thrown his support behind a "legal restriction" that 
>>doesn't exist right now. Above, you even admit that persons OTHER than the 
>>patient, can sign the consent forms, but Cochran made no such qualification
>>when he announced his "legal restriction". Above, you seem to admit that 
>>while the consent forms may "feel" [sic] like a statutory requirement, that 
>>they may not in fact be a statutory requirement. Unless you have a rabbit to 
>>pull out of your hat now, I think it's time to admit that no such "legal 
>>restriction" exists.
>
>Wrong again, Kebbin.  I had six teeth pulled a couple of months ago.  They
>wouldn't do the surgery until I had signed the form.  Obviously, if I was
>under the age of consent, my legal guardians would have to sign.

Was this a statutory requirement, or just something the insurance company
(yours and/or your dentist's) required?

In any case, there's a legal difference between "consent" and "a request".
It's a matter of who initiates what. You would mandate abortion "requests".
	
								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Fictional Gordon-Suzanne Dialogue on Trumped-up Case 3
Organization: 72 degrees on December 22.  Eat yer hearts out.
	<PATRICK.92Dec21175456@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> <1094@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:03:04 GMT

In article <1094@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

  In article <PATRICK.92Dec21175456@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
  #
  #[PHoney's little fantasy about an encounter between Gordon and Suzanne
  #deleted, to spare you the expense of all those Tums -- PLH]
  #
  #Hate to tell you, but it's already been done in this newsgroup -- some
  #little boy named Steve Chaney tried it using me as his subject.  I
  #appreciate your trying to provide a little (or, in this case, a lot) of
  #humor into the discussion, but trust me -- we've already seen it happen
  #before.  (I hope you're not planning on emulating Airplane Boy, though.  The
  #admins here are wise to that trick, by now.)

   Come on - PHoney loves to emulate Chaney/Hall.  He even sent e-mail
   to other anti-abortion posters begging them to copy the Borgy-boy's
   nicknames.  (He had limited success, obviously.  I've seen no one
   but Reverend Holtsinger doing it.)

...which speaks volumes about how effective a speaker PHoney is, all right.
(Right now, I'd be more worried about the Rev -- the way he acts, I wonder
if I should notify the RUPD that they may be getting another visitor, a la
the departed and unlamented DJR.  Then again, DODie is apparently too
cowardly to even respond directly to my posts, so I think I'll postpone the
walk out to Entrance 8 for a while.  :-)

   Besides, Nyikos seems incapable of originality.  He claims he's
   going to post something called "the mendacity of Susan Garvin" -
   didn't DOD just try to prove I was a liar?  I wouldn't be
   surprised if PHoney uses one of DODie's old posts.  

Neither would I -- PHoney'sshown all the originality of a Xerox copier.
(Anyone familiar with ours would be steamed at *that* low a blow. :-)

   Susan,
   who wonders when Nyikos will finally post an apology to Adrienne
   for lying about her

I'll take the programmer's guess -- real soon now...(and I have some prime
beachfront property for sale in South Dakota, too.  heh.)

--
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
  (This .sig is costing the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars -- but
                  what the hell.  It's good for the GNP.) 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:02:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.110127.29535@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> In article <C01KMr.uK@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
[snip]
|> >Even if you can come up with a conflicting set of statistics (and by THEN 
|> >I mean, prior to Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton), it still wouldn't change 
|> >the fact the the 'coat hanger/back alley ' ploy is a red herring.  If I'm 
|> >wrong, I 'm not off by much, not enough to warrent the slaughter of 
|> >millions of children to spare the life of a relatively low number of women 
|> >who would choose to break the law.  
|> 
|> Thank you for making it so abundantly clear that
|> you don't care if desperate women die.
|> 
|> >                                    This is the REAL issue.  The sad part 
|> >is that the pro-aborts present as fact that thousands of women will surely 
|> >die if abortion is outlawed.  There is nothing to support this whatsoever.

I think we have to realize that *IF* abortion is outlawed, it will be
because it has been decided that the fetus is a person.  IF the fetus
is human, then you do the math:

Number of women who die in illegal abortions = tens-of-thousands

Number of fetuses who die in legal abortions = millions

Which is better?  Kill millions of *people* with abortion legal?
Or kill tens-of-thousands of *people* with abortion illegal?
**IF** the fetus is a person, then the choice is clear.
  ^^

*UNLESS*, you are one of those people that believes that human
life is not important and "the fewer humans, the better."  Then
the choice can only be legal abortions.

|> Anyone have the Brazil stats archived?
|> 
|> muriel
|> standard disclaimer

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: the one bad apple theory of pregnancy.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:00:39 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->> I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
->> Dr. Tiller?  

->I haven't seen any refutation of his claims thus far.

why would anyone bother to refute an unsupported claim?
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: In which Peter Nyikos has the audacity to engage in a
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:49:55 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Organization: NYU Stern School of Business
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria

In article <nyikos.725153839@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos), author of some of the most
repugnantly edited posts I have seen, flames Mark Cochran for his
spelling: 

>I missed this one in my first follow-up.  I wasn't especially trying to 
>look for spelling errors in the message.  These others came later:

>Not bad for such a short post.  Maybe Larry Finkelstein can teach 
>Mark a thing or two about correct spelling. :-)

Talk about unmitigated gall, unbelievable hypocrisy, ... wholesale
stupidity. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 29 DEC 92 17:06:35 GMT

In a previous article, aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) wrote:
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
>>>2. the child's entire existence is in the balance.
> 
>>The woman's existance is in the balance too.
> 
>Precisely.  Therefore an arbitrator is required.

Does the arbitrator have to be the government?  Women rarely make the decision 
to abort totally on their own.  Physicians and other medical personel are 
consulted, husband/boyfriends/family members/etc. are also consulted.  
Religious women may also consult their priest/minister/rabbi.

>>A physician who is interested only in fees would be much better off 
>>encouraging childbirth.  They make much more money delivering babies than
>>they do aborting fetuses.
> 
>I don't know how abortions are supervised in your
>area (Virginia?), but here in B.C. there are people
>who demand community clinics independent of hospitals
>to provide for "women's health."
>They would not supervise births or any form of natal
>care other than abortions.
>What are these clinics likely to recommend to 
>a pregnant woman appearing at their door?

Unless these clinics are forcing unwilling women to have abortions, why does 
this really matter?  The bottom line is that it is the woman's decision.  But 
just out of curiousity, are all these clinics for-profit organizations?  

>>Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away rights 
>>from the pregnant woman?
> 
>The mother, father, and child each have *rights* and 
>*responsibilities*.

I'm not sure about Canada, but in the U.S. fetuses do not have rights.  What 
responsibilities do you think fetuses have?

>Someone needs to independently judge that all parties
>are fulfilling their obligations to the best of their 
>abilities.

Do you feel that women in general have an obligation to carry pregnancies to 
term?  If so, why?

>A IDLER

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
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: Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:51:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.044334.25428@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.163213.277@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.101123.21250@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>Mark, you made a general statement about hypothermia being a non-gentle way
>>>to die. My only point is that death-by-hypothermia is NEVER less "gentle"
>>>than death-by-being-hacked-to-bits, which is the original context in which
>>>the word "gentle" was used. Do you or do you not agree with this point?
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>Kebbie, I was responding to a general statement which claimed that
>>hypothermia is gentle death. It is not. The statement to which I
>>resonded did not claim it was relatively gentle, it claimed it was
>>gentle, period. 
>
>Wrong. The poster was comparing death-by-hypothermia with some form of 
>dismemberment ("yanked out piece by piece") IN THE SAME SENTENCE. The "period" 
>you imagined did NOT exist between the hypothermia description and the 
>dismemberment description. It was obviously a relative term.
>
I didn't see it that way, and still don't. but feel free to continue
flogging this dead horse Kevin.

>>>>If you are (and I must assume you are, since
>>>>this is talk.abortion...) talking about hypothermia vs some method of
>>>>abortion, then I would say the "hacked to bits" is gentler. For the
>>>>simple reason that the fetus is dead before it is "hacked to bits". It
>>>>can't feel anything Kebbin. Not true of the person who is freezing to
>>>>death.
>>>
>>>How is the fetus killed prior to the "hacking", Mark?
>>>
>>Can you say drugs Kebbin? I knew you could...
>
>Did you leave your patronization switch in the "ON" position, Mark?
>
No, but when you ask stupid questions, it tends to turn it on.

>Seems to me it would be ill-advised to inject chemicals into the fetus that
>are lethal to human life, since they might end up in the mother's bloodstream,
>might they not? Or would that be at a dosage that was guaranteed fatal to a
>fetus, but not to the woman? 
>
Very good Kevin, you figured it out for yourself!
Or at least, you figured out one option. Other options would include
using drugs which do not cross the placental barrier in significant
amounts.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:46:06 GMT

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes ...
>In <1993Jan2.224341.9574@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan02.035011.4843@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1993Jan1.001959.29643@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec30.200825.22596@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>>I think "arguing for legislation while claiming he doesn't want it"
>>>>>is the most descriptive I've seen yet.
>>>>
>>>>I don't argue for abortion restrictions. I argue only against certain
>>>>absolutist positions. Learn the difference.
>>>
>>>What's the difference?
>>
>>The difference is that I dislike absolutes, whether they are pro-choice
>>absolutes, or pro-life absolutes.
>
>Just because you dislike them doesn't mean they're wrong...
>
>>when a misguided pro-CHOICER starts spouting absolutes
>
>Someone whose viewpoint differs from yours is "misguided"?
>
>>>It *sounds* the same as someone arguing for them.
>>
>>Then don't just "listen", Larry -- try actually READING what I'm saying.
>
>I do.
>
>>Carefully. If you do, I think you'll find that I argue against absolutes, and
>>certain kinds of just plain old illogic, but _not_ inherently _against_ any
>>(more-or-less relativistic) position on pro-choice.
>
>In other words, you argue for some restrictions.  (No wait, although it seems
>that way, you say you don't really want any restrictions.  How about, you
>present arguments in favor of abortion restrictions.  That captures the
>essence of it, without the implication that you want those restrictions
>(although that's a natural conclusion based on seeing your arguments in
>favor of them that people are going to continue to make.))

I should like to point out that almost nobody seriously proposes that
there should be no restrictions whatever on the process of getting an
abortion.  And to label someone pro-force merely because their
restrictions don't happen to agree with yours is pandering to the
politically-correct gits on the net who can't look beyond the labels.

And, by the way, this is not a complaint directed specifically at you,
Larry.  It is a tactic I've seen used on several occasions by many
people, and is usually used when one side has run out of intelligent
arguments.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Aaargh!  What *is* th
X-To: PATRICK L HUMPHREY
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:36:00 GMT

patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes...
>It's a TSAKC thing.  You wouldn't understand.  (But keep asking Keegan,
>though, if your BBS tends to crash when you ask him.  That can't be all bad
>for us.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^

Sorry, you can't have _everything_ you want.  The crashes were merely a
coincidence.

Oh well...

Besides, if you don't like my posts, you are free to put me in your KILL
file.  I'm certainly not attempting to stop you.

"What is a GOiD?"  "It'a s GOiD thing.  You wouldn't understand".

---
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 * !FLASH! Energizer Bunny arrested! Charged with BATTERY!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Slavery and abortion
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:08:05 GMT


It seems that Gregg Skinner, Paul Lebow, and Michael P Noonan among others
think that slavery is a good analogy to abortion.  I maintain that there is
no good analogy to abortion nor is there any good analogy to pregnancy.
As I have little experience either pregnancy or abortion is there anyone
who has been in such a circumstance who thought that this was slavery?  
Is there anyone who thought that this reminds them of slavery?  Not in a 
frivolous sense, but a serious enough sense that would allow one to frame 
legislation.  Is there anyone who was reminded of anything, fried chicken, 
perhaps?

--
       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...
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:24:04 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec30.161156.9317@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.192012.7684@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.111143.29938@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>|> In article <C01L6s.11v@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>>|> >You are a bitter person Muriel.  

Sorry Paul. We women in this group are used to being called bitter.
Say what you mean. What you mean is Muriel doesn't agree with you and
doesn't know her place.

>>Do you believe that a male does not have a right to hold an opinion
>>on this issue?  I have encountered such women before, and constructive
>>debate was ended before it began.  I will assume otherwise.

When men get pregnant, then they have a right to make their own decisions
about whether or not they wish to continue a pregnancy. They have no
business telling the rest of us how to live.

>>Why do you think Paul does not sympathize with the women who are in
>>these straits?  I admit I do not know Paul, but to assume that anti-
>>abortionists do not see the evil of illegal abortions is improper.

The fact that permitting ten thousand women a year to die is seen by
Paul as a desirable outcome suggests to me that the young man is totally
unable to see the position of the pregnant woman.

>>legal abortions are performed each year (millions) than deaths of
>>women in back-alley illegal abortions (thousands perhaps?) years
>>ago.  An anti-abortionist is making the agonizing decision between
>>millions of deaths and thousands of deaths.  There is no good
>>choice, only the lesser of two evils.

Thank you for making it clear that the life of a three day old z/e/f is 
held to be of greater or equal weight than a full grown woman. It is probably
beyond your comprehension, but this is part of the reason that I find it
hard to believe that Paul sees the pregnant woman at all. The boy has
X-ray vision, only. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52956 soc.men:21807 alt.dads-rights:3104
From: goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Pro-Life Leaders?  Does their gender REALLY matter?  Or only if male?
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:04:00 GMT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
X-To: SBISHOP@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes...
SB>In article <1992Dec12.222611.95075@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (L
SB>y Margolis) writes:
SB>> In <1992Dec12.040358.6377@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.o
SB> writes:
SB>>>dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes...
SB>>>DP> Evidence?  Other sources posted here over the years claim that far
SB>>>DP> more women than men are activists on both sides of this issue.
SB>>>
SB>>>Hmmmm...I'm not sure about that claim.  If you believe the quotes of some r
SB>er
SB>>>misandrist "Pro-Choice" activists who yell the following about the "Pro-Lif
SB>>>movement:
SB>>>
SB>>>"4-6-8-10  Why are all your leaders men?"
SB>>>
SB>>>....you'd almost believe that there were more *men* in the "Pro-Life" movem
SB>,
SB>>>at the very least.
SB>>
SB>> Why would you believe that?  The chant is talking about leaders, and you're
SB>> talking about members.

SB>Just take a quick look at the Pro-Lifers.  Every time I've seen a demo on
SB>TV, the spokesMAN for the group is just that, a man.  The leaders of the
SB>local Pro-life group are local businessMEN.  When you see picketers at the
SB>local clinics, a large percentage of the group are men.

SB>Yep, looks like a large percentage of the Pro-life leaders are men, all right


I disagree, especially given the strength of legions of many primarily women-
oriented Pro-Life groups like REAL Women and Feminists For Life, to name a few.

But even if this WERE true, would it *really* matter?  If it did, would I be
somehow be more morally able to complain that "Most Anti-Men's Choice are
women!".

Indeed, it seems highly sexist to complain either way.

---
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 * ACME Tagline...the Coyote's favourite!
From: Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Sun,  3 Jan 93 17:33:51 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan2.174743.27170@hemlock.cray.com>
  <1993Jan3.020013.9981@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

I find it funny, and as a potential father in the future, sad that several
pro choice people jumped on Edward Simond's back when he said that a woman
got HERSELF pregnant, yet turn around and vehemently state that it is the
woman's natural right to have an abortion.  C J even went so far as to
claim nobody was involved but the mother and her doctor.  The prevailing
attitude seems to be that the father DOES have responsibility for the
pregnancy, DOES have responsibility for supporting the child, but DOESN'T
have any say in the matter of whether that pregnancy is continued or not.

Although I agree wholeheartedly with Edward Simmonds, I am above asking him
to put his money where his mouth is.  I am surprised that none of the pro
choice people noticed he claimed 'references available upon request' to
back up his statements and despite having asked two other people for their
sources, completely ignored someone ('s request for him to provide those
references.  
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53822 soc.men:21989 soc.women:22010 alt.feminism:6701