HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Originator: jjprice@c00084-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:18:03 GMT


patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

|>In article <1993Jan4.190129.13383@bsu-ucs> 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
|>
|>   How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?
|>
|>Not me -- I already *have* a life, thankyouverymuch...
|>
|>--PLH, I see enough of *those* yahoos while I'm defending clinics, anyway

You are so noble Sir Patrick .. You defend clinics against those that wish
to take a away women's choices...I commend you and here by Knight you Sir
Pat. Ever thought that these "Yahoo's" are just defending life..Goosh so
that means you are anti-life..You are not as noble as I thought..I here
by demote you to a peasant of cannon foder quality you may charge the
enemy line anytime you are ready just watch out for the archers and
cannons..

P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
you wind up losing yours.....

-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Let me state my view (flames welcome :-)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 12 JAN 93 19:39:43 GMT

In a previous article, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) wrote:
> 
>In article <1993Jan10.052907.12605@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
> 
>|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>|>-> 1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
>|>->    can't prove otherwise so it must be true.
>|>
>|>faulty logic. [rest of argument based on first
>|>flawed premise deleted.]
> 
>Are you willing to kill 1.5 million people just because you don't "think"
>that they are a person...Please prove to me that life does not begin at
>conception.

A sperm is alive.  An egg is alive.  Life exists before conception.  Therefore 
life does not begin at conception.


				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Looking for info on abortifacents
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:38:23 -0500

In article <1k_3mwr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>I post this publicly in case anyone else considers this course, for
>whatever reason.
>GET YOUR WIFE AND YOURSELF TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD, FAST!
>Every PP that I've ever been to charges fees on a sliding scale, if

You've not been to all of them, and Bloomington does not charge on a
scale.  At least not for pills, yearly exams, prescriptions, STD tests
or any other special features.  I understood that they also always had
a set fee for abortion services.  

The one I went to in high school used to do exams and pills on a
sliding scale.  Mine were free because I had no income, but I always
made a donation for my pills. 

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             I.U. probably doesn't agree with me.  I don't speak for
                    them so it doesn't matter, now does it? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 05:48:26 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 <1993Jan6.032836.24345@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>In common parlance, i.e. the _appropriate_ lexicon for the broad spectrum of
>people who read t.a,

Hey look, everybody - Kevin's going to toss his copy of Black's!

:-)

--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:23:06 GMT

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>Seriously, do you believe that we are all just slaves to our bodies, and
>>shouldn't avail ourselves to medical, psychological, and other help when
>>we feel it is necessary? 
>
>Of course we should -- but we shouldn't violate anyone else's right
>to life in the process.

In case you haven't been paying attention, terminating a pregnancy
does not necessarily imply violating anyone's right to life.  If a
living fetus is removed from the mother's uterus at 4 months gestation
without being killed, neither its bodily autonomy nor its right to
life have been violated.  Granted, it will die in short order, but as
this society generally believes that slavery (using another's body
against their will) is inappropriate, forcing the mother to serve the
fetus cannot be justified.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:46:10 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 <1993Jan9.202329.12542@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan05.195210.19908@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan5.045159.7499@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan02.044419.17590@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>In <1993Jan1.020450.218@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>The woman who aborts, or chooses not to, also exercises an ECONOMIC right,
>>>>>Larry. No male-choicer is asking for men to have the same BIOLOGICAL rights
>>>>>as women; we're just asking for the same ECONOMIC rights that women currently
>>>>>have thrown in as a bonus with their biological rights.
>>>>
>>>>What economic right is that?  Are you saying that a woman has a *right* to
>>>>not support her child?
>>>
>>>She has a right to not support her _potential_ child, by aborting it. No child,
>>>no child support.
>>
>>This is the assertion I'm questioning - is this a right in and of itself,
>>or simply a side effect of her absolute right to control the use of her body.
>
>It's legally separable, therefore it's a separate and distinct right.

It's been stated before that the woman's right to abortion is a right of
removal, not a right to kill the fetus.  It appears that the same logic
you're using would indicate that she *does* have a right to kill the
fetus, since removal and killing are separable.  Is this true?  If not,
please show the flaw.

(And if the flaw is that killing a fetus isn't a right, that gets back to my
original question...)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: William's Marsh, Entrance 14
	<lefty-120193115939@lefty.apple.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:32:05 GMT

On 12 Jan 93 20:03:46 GMT, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) said:
>Followup-To: talk.abortion

>In article <1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
>Forgach), a self-proclaimed "compassionate Christian" treats us to a
>display of a species of compassion with which I'm not at all familiar by
>writing the following to Patrick Humphrey:
>> 
>> We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.

>and

>> [Dale Ann's daughter] ain't yours.  She's another man's, a man who's been 
>> with your wife.  I hope it drives you crazy.

>Gee, Suzanne, is this actually how Christianity is supposed to work, loving
>your neighbor, not judging lest you be judged, that sort of thing?  I guess
>I don't understand this religion nearly as well as I thought I did.

Welcome to the club. :-)  Of course, by that standard, I've only come across
one person who *does* understand it that way, and she's living in Tucson.

>Of course, I suppose the possibility exists that _you_ might be the one who
>doesn't understand it.

You know that.  I know that.  Everyone in any newsgroup she's ever appeared
in knows that -- but try convincing Suzanne of that.  That's the tricky
part.

>By the bye, Suzanne, since you apparently feel that having a step-child
>should "drive [the step-parent] crazy", how do you feel about adopted
>children?

You mean she hasn't told you?  That's someone else's problem, not hers.

Meanwhile, I'm still not being driven crazy, much as Suzanne hopes I am --
as a matter of fact, Dale and I have been giggling over that at times.
About the only visible change five years of being a stepfather to Sonja the
Incredibly Cute have made in me is the increase of gray hairs in my beard,
and the appearance of the long-dreaded bald spot on my head. :-)

--PLH, pass the Geritol, dammit.

--
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. 
                           I love my country.
                     I *don't* trust my government.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:23:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.055618.24249@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>><1992Dec30.005219.9201@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>>If Susan was to post something that conflicted with my experience of
>>>knowledge I would correct her.  She hasn't as far as I'm aware.
>>
>>Here's an example from the top of a long list, Galen: do you "know" that 
>                                                ^^^^^
>There you go again.  Try not to forget too much, ok?

ARgh. How about I go to calling you guys "Storga" and "Hekhuis". There's no
way in hell I'll ever get THOSE mixed up...

>>Kevin Darcy been arguing for restrictions on abortion? See .sig.
>>
>>UNRETRACTED LIE
>>---------------
>>
>>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
>> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
>>				    Susie Garvin
>>				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
>>				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>
>Perhaps I should clarify something.  I don't read all the posts in this
>newsgroup.  And I'm not going to go out of my way to research everything
>Susan might have said.  I have no evidence or experience to contradict
>your quote of SG.  

Nice little "out" you have there, Storga...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:59:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.000503.4625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>[everything but the following sentence deleted]
>>>>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
>>>>racist tendencies this redneck has.  
>>>
>>>For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
>>>10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
>>>race to Patrick.
>>>
>>Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
>>like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
>>his own fantasies.
>>Who'sz the scorekeeper?
>
>Galen is, of course.
>
>I wonder if Darcy is going to comment on Patrick being a "group" of people
>now...

I have never referred to an individual as a group. Please refrain from
implying that I have.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:32:07 GMT

<1993Jan5.005319.23382@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.000503.4625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>}In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>}><1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>}>><nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
...
>}>Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
>}>like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
>}>his own fantasies.
>}>Who'sz the scorekeeper?
>}
>}Galen is, of course.
>}
>}I wonder if Darcy is going to comment on Patrick being a "group" of people
>}now...
>
>No, Darcy will probably complain that Gordon isn't qualified to keep
>score...

On the contrary, I think you are quite qualified.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: consent to sex == ? (was: Abortion, Caves, Galen)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:25:01 GMT

In <ueflmto@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>---
>aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>|Parents have an obligation to their children.
>|Since no one other than the pregnant woman can
>|provide for her child at this stage of his or
>|her life, whatever obligations exist are
>|conferred to her.
>|She accepted this responsibility when she 
>|consented to sexual relations -- unless she
>|did not comprehend the consequences of her actions.
>|
>|Yes, you may infer that I would object to government
>|impairing the right of sexually assaulted women
>|to terminate an undesired pregnancy.
>|All simple statement that she did not consent to
>|sexual relations would suffice. [...]

>So consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, and eventually,
>consent to parenthood, according to E Alan Idler.

>Any of the "dad's rights" people care to address this point?
>I'm bored with refuting it to an endless stream Idler-like
>idiots, and want to give someone else a chance.

No thanks, CJ. I've already raised my children. If these net
newbies need more training I refer them to their own parents.

>---
>C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
>"People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that
>differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." --Rebecca West

REB
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: an3329@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Re: how i become pro-life
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: talk.abortion
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:44:25 GMT

The subject line should be: "How I became pro-life".

The person who is stuffing my mailbox with junk mail is wasting their
time. I will go on posting despite your threats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:48:54 GMT

<1993Jan7.204804.28324@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
><1993Jan7.040842.13694@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
>>>In article <1ickh8INN200@meaddata.meaddata.com> 
>>>johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
[articles about children killed by parents deleted]
>> Excellent reasons for abortion to remain legal and affordable, and
>> encouraged.  
>
>It seems obvious to me that the availability of abortion didn't
>prevent the deaths of these children.  

You're correct.  Abortion had no bearing on these individual cases.

>                                       These children were killed 
>because their parents didn't place a value on human life, much in
>the same way as people who support abortion rights. 

Wrong.  Those children were killed by their parents or friends of their
parents during a fits of anger.  It had little to do with abortion rights.

>> Tell me Doug, would you rather a brainless fetus be
>> aborted at 8 weeks or wait until it's born and old enough to feel the
>> scalding water cooking it's flesh?  For my money, and opinion, I'd rather
>> the woman had had an abortion.  
>
>There are several errors in your statements; the most obvious is
>that an 8 week-old child has a brain.  

There is no such thing as an 8 week-old child.  However, while an 8
week-old fetus may have the beginnings of a brain stem it hardly qualifies
as higher thought or intelligence.  The term "Brainless" is not to be
taken literally here, unless of course you don't have any other argument.

>Secondly, you offer a false dichotomy between killing the child 
>when it's legal, and when it's illegal.  No child has to be killed. 

It is never legal to kill a child except in the case of self-defense.
What's your point?

>And what you would rather have happen, didn't happen.  You can
>wish that these children had been legally killed, but your wishes
>can't turn back the hands of time.  

I don't wish that the children described in your articles were dead at
all.  I merely submit that there are some people who should be encouraged
to not have children or to abort because they are unstable.  Unfortunately
there is no conclusive test which is practical.  However, if those
unstable people involved had been better parents OR had been encouraged
(or allowed) to get an abortion those children would not have suffered.

I further submit (my opinion) that the illegality of abortion would result
in many more cases like the ones you listed.


Gordon
-- 
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.
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 4 Jan 1993 19:34:33 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <1993Jan4.180930.5328@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|> In article <1i9nd0INNsom@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|> >Mark A. Cochran writes:
|> >|> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|> >|> >Mark A. Cochran writes:
|> >|> >>John Townsend writes:
|> >|> >>
|> >|> >>>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
|> >|> >>>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
|> >|> >>
|> >|> >>If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
|> >|> >>I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
|> >|> >>certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
|> >|> >>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
|> >|> >>difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
|> >|> >>*another persons* body.
|> >|> >
|> >|> >Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
|> >|> >body.
|> >|> >
|> >|> I agree 100%! But what does this have to do with abortion? The issue
|> >|> was Jeff D. hacking and eating his *own* body, not some baby.
|> >|> Oh, let me guess... You're one of those who claims without any
|> >|> evidence to support it, that a z/e/f is actually a person?
|> >|> How sad...
|> >
|> >Oh good.  You won't mind, then, if I choose to go bludgeon to death a million
|> >and a half baby seals tonight.  How I love to see the body parts fly!
|> >
|> I must have made a wrong turn someplace. I could have *sworn* I was in
|> talk.abortion, not talk.animal.rights...
|> BUT what the hell, I'll give it a shot...
|> Those baby seals are not *your own* body either bozo...
|> Why do you have such a hard time differentiating between your body and
|> others?

Perhaps the problem is yours.  A fetus/embryo may be attached to the mother's
body at the placenta, but it is not a part of the mother's body by any
definition.  In fact, as a zygote, it is completely separate from the mother
and, like you, needs nothing more than adequate nutrition and a safe environment
to grow to any given level of maturity.

Given any thought lately to what might have happened if abortion had been legal
and morally acceptable when Bill Clinton's father died while little Billy was
swimming through his second trimester, leaving a single mother without any
welfare or job skills?  There would have been no "Hope" for Billy.

-- 
// 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: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: The Nameless Mission
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:17:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.235607.3604@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

   From article <1278@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
   > 
   > In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
   > a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:
   > 
   > #I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
   > 
   > Nice trick, Heather.
   > 
   > Susan

   Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
   to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
   from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".

Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
haven't seen any such activity -- and I don't disappear for a month at a
time because of work, or "news server problems", or such.  Seems to me this
claim's got at least the potential for being as funny as your backpedaling
about the clinic exorcism.

   Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".

How is pointing out the obvious idiocy of a statement made by one of your
fellow travelers trying to "have it both ways"?  Or are you saying you
really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
really did that.)

--PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion