HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:56:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.201356.13906@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for 
>>>> rape and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

>>> And for members of his own family.

>> This statement is not correct.

> Your flat statement does nothing to refute what I said.  

This statement is not correct.
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: I Tend To Ignore Wes Orr Because.
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:21:17 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug17.134619.931@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu
(Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes the usual nonsense:

>I wanted to agree with the poster who said that there are pro-lifers,
>like myself, who do believe in doing all that we can as a society to
>remove the need for abortion.  This includes financial, emotional and
>spiritual guidance (if desired).

Great.  Good luck in trying to persuade women that they do not want to
abort their /z/e/f/s.  As a pro-choice person, I too favor doing all
we can to avoid abortion; my personal preference is to work on
preventing unwanted pregnancies.

>I believe the fetus to be unquestionable human.  

I assume you mean unquestionably human.  An egg and sperm are human
also.  So is an appendix.  What's your point?

>I believe in its
>right to life.  I believe the right to live supercedes the right of
>another to kill it.

I have no problem with you assertion that a fetus has a moral right to
life; however, it has no legal rights as it is not a person.  The
pro-choice position is not about a right to kill.  It is about a right
to bodily autonomy.  If you had an accident while drunk driving and
injured someone, you would not be forced to donate a kidney or blood
or any other part of your body to save that person.  Why then should a
non-criminal be compelled to use her body to support another life?  Is
there any situation where you would compel men to use their bodies to
support other lives?  Forced donation of organs to their children
perhaps?  

>  If only it were possible to take fetuses from 
>their unwanting mothers and give them to homes where they are wanted.
>I probably will adopt someday for this reason.Wes

What a wonderful thought.  Unfortunately, the same neo-fascists who
are your allies in oppressing the reproductive rights of women will
never allow you to adopt because you are homosexual.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:06:12 GMT

In article <lefty-170892115830@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

Go away and stop your yelping until you get up to the first grade. 

===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31524 talk.religion.misc:13941
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:51:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <l8l0r8INNpd1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

> Speaking of bumper stickers, I saw one that really says it all about
> the religious right's goals:
>
>                 Praise the Lord, and Damn the Constitution

Considering the shakey foundation upon which the Supreme Court
discovered the so-called right to abortion, I would think this
bumper sticker would be better suited for describing the 
goals of the pro-abortion movement.  

>Eric


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Man With No Brain (Was: The world...)
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: imbicle, and other spelling disasters from Keith Cochran
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 00:36:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.070559.4635@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.015507.4422@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>[Oh, boy.  This is gonna be such fun....]
>>
>>In article <1992Aug8.211228.6510@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug5.233416.17391@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <BsEyL8.Cr9@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Elvis) writes:
>>>>>   Linda, your mastery of the English language NEVER ceases to amaze me.
>>>>>Only Linda takes 4 adjectives, strings them together (separated by
>>>>>commas of course) and turns them into verbal music! Bravo maestro!
>>>>
>>>>Let me guess:  it's the same type of verbal music you make when Kevin's trying
>>>>to find his miniscule penis so that he can put it into your anus, right?
>>>
>>>Just what we need... another damned homophobe crawling out from under his
>>>rock... sheesh, where do these neanderthals come from anyway?
>>
>>Um, Kevin.  Go find your mother, and ask her to explain what the word
>>"homosexual" means.  I'll even give you a *FREE* clue.  I don't hate myself.
>
>Then why do you spew homophobic shit that ranks with the Artimus Pages and
>Phil Stromers and Danny Karneses of the world?
>
>Ever hear of a racist black? An anti-feminist woman? An anti-semitic Jew?
>
>Homophobic shit deserves as much criticism regardless of its source. Or is
>it your claim that it was all just playful sarcasm? Yeah, right.

I love it.  I make a half-assed description of anal sex, Kevin calls me a 
homophobe, and rather then admitting his mistake attempts to equate me with
Artimus, Phil, and Danny.

One has to wonder how far Miss Thang can backpedal and still reach its
keyboard...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31393 alt.birthright:382
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:50:27 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug11.181819.9370@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Aug10.171155.7841@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
>><1992Aug7.124015.18296@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) :
>>Gee, I guess I must remind Patrick L Kaufman, Mark I Humphrey, Scotty
>>Dog and Susan Regard that I am approaching, within 3 weeks, the first
>>anniversary of my Internet access. 
>>
>>And none'ya have been able to remove me yet, 
>...
>Kinda like a barnacle.  Seriously, has someone *really* tried to get your
>net access removed?  Do you have proof of this accusation?  Isn't true
>that you think it was wonderful that Dan Bredy lost his net access?  And
>now you are whining that you think someone tried to remove yours.

Susan Garvin? 

Well, as for the others, I wouldn't say they wanted my access removed;
but they are ones to talk about Dan Bredy, having constantly reported
me for this, that and the other. Dan King and Drieux were only two
whose mail I was shown by the system admins. Who typed 'd' right after
that, while laughing at them. It was getting on the verge of the
downright irritating because of the bogus prank by Scott
Humphrey/Roby, which was being picked up by Drieux and Dan King (who
first proved to the world that yes, there is life on Mars). 

>Gordon
[List of pro's, along with the names of fellow commune-dwellers,
deleted]
[Whining about Dan Bredy, deleted] 

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Date: 15 Aug 92 06:26:19 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug12.130312.9195@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) :
>In <d93mq9.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com writes:
>> <1992Aug11.151252.25274@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY ) :
>> ><1992Aug10.224355.22522@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:
>> >> <1992Aug10.131839.16625@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr) said:
>> ...
[real complications of pregnancy deleted]
>> >  Just to be nit-picky, none of these awful things are certain or even 
>> >likely, Gordon, as you well know.  
>> 
>> Well Jim, we are talking about a woman who has *decided* to have an
>> abortion.  She has already come to the conclusion that remaining pregnant
>> will be either physically, emotionally, or financially hazardous to
>> herself.  Who are you to say otherwise?
>
>  Depends on the situation.  If it was a good friend, I might try to talk her
>out of it, but I'd shut up if she asked.

This is no different than what I proposed.

...
>  But these (general) "pregnancy is gonna ruin yer life" quotes are just as 
>bad as the equally ridiculous "oh, it's nothing, women give birth everyday" 
>attitude I sometimes see over on my side of the fence.

I was talking specifically about a woman who has doubts about being
pregnant.  I was not addressing the "general" public.

>                                                        And to clear up some-
>thing I just noticed, Gordon's first post seems to imply a "forcing the woman" 
>viewpoint on the part of the original poster.  I do not support "forcing" 
>positions, I was taking issue with the consequences he raised.  Women should 
>not be forced to carry to term.

Glad to hear that you are pro-choice.  For some reason I had the
impression you were pro-life (in terms of legislation).  Please, correct
me if I'm in error.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
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: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:21:55 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug17.175424.3036@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> 1) To have abortion rights, you must have privacy as currently
> (and absurdly) interpreted. (Hereby said as privacy "".)

Or, we could pass the FOCA and have abortion rights as a basic right.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CONFIRMED---> Re: Randall Terry running for Congress
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:49:38 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <16e91mINNigr@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BswqJ4.KtH@chinet.chi.il.us> katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>>Can you imagine Randall Terry in *Congress*??? Side show city!

>1.  Investigating bringing a water park to our city (for children's
>recreation).  We are acknowledged as desert.

	Since San Diego is near the ocean, the park can use salt water
:-)

	But I wonder if that councilcritter is insisting on fresh
water instead :-)

>2.  Inviting protestant religious leaders to a meeting he held to discuss
>the political involvement of same -- on city stationery.  And protestants
>only.

	I wonder what kind? I wouldn't be surprised if it was some
Fundies; I somehow don't expect that he would have invited any
Unitarians or suchlike.

>3. Asking our city council to take a stand against SAN DIEGO United Way
>because of what SAN FRANCISO United way was doing with Boy Scount funding.


>4.  Suggesting we pave our hard won riding and hiking trails with asphalt;
>and, failing that, give the 8 to 12 foot easements 'back' to the city.    

	So that cars can travel on them, I guess.

	Maybe we can concede that in exchanging for turning his home
into a parking lot.

>5. Moving in a city council meeting that local PRIVATE organizations be,
>by city fiat, opened to the public, at a COST TO THE PRIVATE MEMBERS.

	For what reason??? I can't imagine that he had a good one :-)
From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: the weight of evidence
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:05:40 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

within 24 hours, dan king and dean kaflowitz post that
chaneyhall is a liar.

they both state this on separate issues.

i believe them without a shred of doubt.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:06:16 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<23922@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>The big problem, of course, would be the selection of the moderator(s).
>>I sincerely believe that the following posters could serve as unbiased
>>moderators (this is just what I thought of offhand, there could be others,
>>but don't feel insulted if you're accidently left out):
>!@  Suzanne Forgach
>@  Steve Adams
>!@  Steve Chaney
>!@  Tim Buckley
>!@  Kevin Darcy
>!@  Peter Nyikos
>@  Richard Pitts
>!@  Wes Orr
>
>This is a joke, right? Thosae with !@ in front I wouldn't trust with
>a toothpick, much less being unbiased wrt abortion.

No, no, Ron.  Read it like 'c': the !@ means NOT.  With that understanding
I agree completely.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
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,talk.politics.misc
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Bush and Abortion (was Another good reason to vote for Bush)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:51:40 GMT

In article <Aug.12.18.59.06.1992.15088@math.rutgers.edu> 
cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
>> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

> The platform committee specifically refused to allow ammendments to
> the platform to insert these exceptions.  I didn't hear Bush
> protesting.  

Not publically.  But there's plenty of time until the election. 

> Is he just out of touch with hs platform committee, or is
> he letting the right wing of his own party run roughshod over his own
> convictions? 

False dichotomy.  President Bush does not have complete control over
the contents of the party plank.  

>--Scott


Doug Holtsinger
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Date: 17 Aug 1992 07:54:12 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug15.031011.14692@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>  Now here's the killer:  Someone says, "ruin your life."  What do you think
>of?  Your version of ruin.  I think of mine.  Gordon thinks of his.  What
>if one of these versions cannot happen, or is unlikely to happen?  Well, then
>somebody's just gotten the wrong idea of what might happen BASED ON THIER
>OWN INTERPRETATION OF "RUIN".

You know what, Jim?  I figure their version of 'ruin' is adequate for them.
I figure their assessment of the risk is adequate for them.  I figure the
likelihood of X happening is something THEY will assess for THEMSELVES, and
they don't need my impression of it's likelihood in order for THEM to make
THEIR OWN decisions.

Get it?  Are you finally getting it?

Probably not, since you are crossing the streams of your logic again above
between likelihood and the definition of ruin again.      

It's a fact that if you get in a car and drive, there is some statistical
likelihood that you will be involved in an accident.  If someone somewhere
decides that that risk is great enough, and may RUIN THEIR LIFE, then *my*
assessment of that likelihood means diddly.  They are deciding about their
own actions, and my determinations mean squat.

>  Sometimes, leaving someone to make their own interpretation of your words is
>not the wonderful thing you seem to feel it is.

You don't have a choice, Jim.  You don't get to determine what ANYTHING means
to ANYBODY.


Adrienne Regard
From: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:54:35 GMT
Reply-To: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Originator: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu


The Republican party now has as one of their priorities banning ALL
abortions. As about 1% of all pregnancies in the US are ectopic, this
would sentence millions of women to a painful and pointless death.

PLEASE correct me if this is a mis-reading of the Republican platform! 

I am not posting to inflame (plenty of that goes on in this newsgroup 
without me :-), I'm trying to make sure of the exact position of the 
Republican party.

Paula Burch
pburch@bcm.tmc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:46:00 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug18.143553.466@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>john@anasazi.com writes:

>>>> Hmmm... that's odd. I heard a PRO-CHOICE advocate state that 1% of
>>>> abortions in the US are in the 3rd trimester. These must be very
>>>> busy and rich doctors.

>>> That's *less* than 1%.  

>> The annual number of abortions performed at 21 weeks and after tends
>> to number in the thousands.  Percentages always make the numbers look 
>> smaller than people might realize.  That's because there are millions
>> of abortions performed every year. 
>> 
>> And it's not clear what Ms. Garvin defines as "third trimester". The 
>> definition of third trimester varies; some put it at 28 weeks, others 
>> at 24 weeks.

> Then what is the relevance of your putting it at 21 weeks?  

I didn't place the third trimester at 21 weeks. The implication in 
this thread is that the third trimester corresponds to the period 
when the fetus is viable, which isn't always true.  Some pro-aborts
place the third trimester at either 24 or 28 weeks, but viability 
can occur before then. 

> Could there be an attempt there to, dare I say it, muddy the waters?
> Misrepresent?

By certain pro-aborts?  You bet.



Doug Holtsinger

  "I am opposed to abortion." -- Bill Clinton
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:57:59 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dguerrer@lyra.cel.scg.hac.com (Daniel Guerrero) writes:

>I don't know what a 'right' entails.  Please enlighten me as to your
>understanding of it.  Thanks.

I take it your are being both sarcastic and wish ammunition to tear
and flame something apart. so her you go....

A right [in reference to the way it was mentioned in the origianl post,
and what I argued against], as seen by whoever it was whose attribution
you deleted, was seen as specifically to be that in which an abortionist
could go out, see a pregnant woman, and perform an abortion on the spot,
if he felt like it, regardless of the will of the woman. This was implied
rather strongly. I see a right as that of an individual to determine
what will, or will not, occur to them, such as the right to take a shower
if they choose, the right not to get hit for walking down a street,
the right not to be taken from where they are, against their will, etc.
Then you have Constitutional rights such as the right to say whatever
you feel you need to say [as long as it is not something that will cause
tangible harm to others or the likely tangible harm to others, such
as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is none]. If you wish
to mention slander, well, it really isn't illegal, you're just prone
to getting sued for damages in civil court. I don't recall anyone getting
sent to prison or receiving criminal charges for slander. 

This is only a small representation, but to attempt to summarize, a
right is something that is not, or cannot be disallowed you through 
legal channels.

The original post indicate the absurd case I mentioned earlier, which
is not a right at all, as the other poster implied the right to abortion
included within its tenants.

Have fun tearing this apart if that was your original intention.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion