HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: That Garvin list, Woodyatt off, Demetrio on.
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:26:10 GMT

<nyikos.726159529@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Dec31.064832.17735@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.725752055@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
...
>>>I hope I haven't offended you by leaving your name off the list of 
>>>people who require a mountain of evidence before taking any evidence
>>>of false statements by Susan Garvin seriously, while taking her word
>>>(or flimsy wisps of evidence) about other people lying.
...
>Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
>Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  [...]  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
>Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
>Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga, Eric Marsh, Galen Hekhuis ...
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please remove my name from the list.  I do not require "mountains of
evidence".  What a would require is clear, concise, and unambiguous
evidence.  That being the case I do not belong on your list.

>[New additions: Eric Marsh and Galen Hekhuis, whose names simply
>did not occur to me at the time I made the list.  

Galen's name occurs quite often to Kevin Darcy it seems...
...
>removal of J H Woodyatt.  I don't want to put anyone on the list
>who is not *completely* comfortable with being on it.]

Thank you.  Please do.

...
>>You overestimate me.  Which birth is which?  If you're tagged out on
>>first, do you get to steal second?  
>
>I sure in heaven hope the aborted little ones get to second, or whatever
>you want to call it.

How would "aborted ones" get to second?  Squirm along on their little leg
buds?  They'd dry out long before they made it the distance.


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Reading Skills...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:53:03 GMT

A very appropriate subject line for the Dear Old Drieuxster.

In article <1993Jan11.090339.14762@wetware.com> 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>      In addition, a number of these laws have been found unconstitu-
>>    tional.   Others  obviously  would  be, in light of Supreme Court
>>    rulings. Virtually all the state laws would be subject to consti-
>>    tutional challenge if used as the basis of prosecution against an
>>    individual doctor."

> Note that there is no information as to which of the
> At LEAST TWO TYPES of laws have been struck down as
> UnConstitutional, and for what reasoning.

That is entirely besides the point.  I merely wanted to 
show that the existence of a law does not mean that it 
can be enforced without being constitutionally challenged.


> To use your 'text book case' form of 'logic' such as it is,
> you could then conclude that:
>
> 3. None of the Above.

4.  The Drieuxster is dumb as a doughnut.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: March for life (correction)
Organization: Beats me.  I just work here.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:29:31 GMT

On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:14:11 GMT, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) said:


>In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY
>JAMES PRICE WRITES:

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

>This is a typo....I was wondering why I was getting so much off
>of this post till I noiced the typo. Can we say Freudian slip :-)

>it should read

>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does NOT take a serious turn and have
>>you wind up losing yours.                ^^^


>Sorry about that.....If you want to read your reply please see the post I
>posted before this in reply to Adrienne. Titled March For life

Sorry, kid -- I'm not buying it.  It took you FOUR FREAKING DAYS to figure
out your mistake?  Uh *huh*.  Freudian slip, indeed.

--PLH, if you're going to lie, put some effort into it, eh?
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST Part Two
Keywords: pointless stories, argument by innuendo, docs work for pay
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:32:06 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>Gotta share a little story with y'all here.  

Be still my heart.

>My mother is an ob/gyn nurse
>and supervisor at a local suburban hospital.  Several weeks ago she was 
>prepping a patient in the hospital for an elective abortion.  The patient
>was completely ready for the operation, and just before they were going
>to start it, the doctor asked the patient if she had brought the money to
>pay for it.  The patient responded that she hadn't remembered, but that she
>would get him the money within two days.  The doctor told her to go home and
>come back when she had the money.  She went home and came back several hours 
>later with the money, and the doctor performed the abortion.

Gee whillikers, I bet he put her life in some serious danger by delaying
that elective abortion, eh?

And now a story that you'll doubtless claim is somehow "different"...

I was broke, uninsured, and pregnant.  I had no idea how I was going to
pay for having the baby.  I called the private hospital that was second-
closest to my house (the closest one had stopped doing OB because of
malpractice fears) and asked them what was required for me to give birth
there.  After establishing that I had no insurance, the woman said "Well,
we will require a deposit of $2500 before you enter the ninth month of
pregnancy, or we will be unable to admit you...."  I replied "Oh great,
so if I don't cough up the cash, I can have the baby on the sidewalk for
all you care."  She hastily said "Oh, we wouldn't say THAT....!" but
oddly enough, she didn't argue with the premise.

>You tell me, was that doctor interested that patients health? 

You tell me, was the hospital interested in _either_ my own health or
that of my offspring?

> She was
>ON the table ready for an operation and he sent her home.  Talk about 
>playing with someone's fears and emotions.  Imagine if you were lying on
>the operating table, ready to have someone hacking into your body, and they
>suddenly changed their mind and sent you home.  If that doctor really cared
>about her, he would have trusted her to pay the lousy few hundred bucks.

Yeah, now imagine all that and active labor, too.

So what have we learned here, kiddies?  That perhaps, just perhaps,
doctors actually work for pay.  Now, aren't we all just that much more
enlightened?

Class dismissed.

>Edward Simmonds

                      -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54340 alt.dads-rights:3174 alt.feminism:6862
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:35:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0Fu6M.2GE@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
><1idavcINN5dp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>Care to provide a *definition*, as was originally requested?

Again, he ignores it.  Heck, he asked the question, and now doesn't want to
touch it with a 10 foot pole.....

>You based your harangue against Karl on your being a feminist
>in favor of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

Don, go back and check the comment.  It said something like "My, whatever
will you do now?"

Bud, if that's a harangue to you, please seek help.

>That much is evident.  So why do you bother to make so many 
>objections (ie. flames)?


"My, whatever will you do now?"

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: holtsinger perpetuates an old lie
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:05:47 GMT

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

>I have provided documentation which demonstrates that
>Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand all the
>way up to the point of birth.  

No Dougie.  You have provided documentation that one person interprets
the decision as saying that.  The only documentation which would demonstrate
that Roe v. Wade allows unrestricted abortion on demand up to the point of
birth would be the citing of a case where a woman had a late-term abortion
just before birth, was charged with a crime, and was eventually exonerated
by the court because the court RULED that no such restrictions were 
permissible under Roe v. Wade.

Until such time, you are free to post any such documentation you wish
that proves that someone SAID it was.  And we are free to point out that
wishing does not make it so.

               -rocker
                someone should save this
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:10:50 GMT

In <1993Jan10.161604.3155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726627079@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan9.075154.10306@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>
>>>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>>>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
>>>>
>>>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.
>>
>>>Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
>>>fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.
>>
>>Try again, Ray. Simple substitution (sex -> driving, pregnancy -> death)
>>shows the parallel conclusion to be
>>
>>Consent to driving = consent to cahnce of death
>>
>>which is perfectly true.
>>
>And since you oppose the womans right to medical intervention to alter
>the outcome of her sex act, you will decline medical intervention to
>alter the outcome of your auto accident, correct?

No -- because medical intervention into the effects of an auto
accident doesn't violate anyone else's right to life.

>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
>Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
>Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 03:27:35 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".
>
>Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".

You can if you're bi-sexual.
--
=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???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 01:42:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.062959.29552@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1993Jan12.043511.7335@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>> In article <1993Jan12.013918.9500@ncsu.edu>
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>In article <1iqk4fINNflh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
>>>au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:
>
>>>> None of us has the right to impose our views on this
>>>> subject on anyone else, least of all the government. 
>
>>>I agree, none of us should have the right to impose our views 
>>>about abortion on an innocent child in the womb.
>
>> You have yet to show any evidence that there is a child in any womb.
>> All I've ever found in them is a z/e/f.
>
>Mark, don't look now, but, um, there's a guy behind you holding a
>dictionary.  I can't be sure, but I suspect he's going to look up
>the word 'child' and show you that the second definition is "an
>unborn offspring".  If he's really sharp, he might note that the
>word comes from a root that means "a swelling up ... rounded (sense
>development: swelling--womb--fetus--offspring)".  Unfortunately, it's
>just as likely that he's going to scream and rant and insult you
>and ask you if you want to be an "abortion doctor" when you
>"grow up".
>
That's ok, I can provide plenty of medical dictionaries that will
contradict him. And I suppose since it hasn't been done in a week, we
should once again point out that the term "child" is ambigous wrt
z/e/f vs neonate, and thus it behooves us to use the more accurate
terminology.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Ethics, absolute and otherwise
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:53:10 GMT

In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:

>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>In <1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com
( Steve Novak) writes:

[deletia]

>>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least in the U.S.  Where are you from?

>>>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."

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

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

Not at all. There are no absolute ethical standards because no single
system of ethics can possibly cover all 5 billion+ people in the world.
Individuals, however, do have personal systems of ethics by which they
live their lives--by which they _should_ live their lives. So you see,
there is a lot of ground between "absolute" ethical standards and
ethical standards.

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:04:11 GMT

In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan2.174743.27170@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>I think a woman's life is worth more than that of a
>>conceptus.  2/3 of all zygotes will never make it to term
>>because of natural factors.
>
>ANALOGY:
>I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>for more than a few years.

You find me one, just one AIDS patient residing within a healthy
woman's body and THEN we'll have an analogy.

>>You seem to think that a woman incurs the responsibility
>>to suffer _any_ amount of physical damage, up to, and possibly
>>including _death_ (since we'd sacrifice all the women whose
>>deaths could not be predicted with certainty) as a result
>>of consensual sex.  What equivalent _physical_ responsibility
>>do you propose for a man who has sex?  
>
>The woman's greater physical responsibility is a fact of biology.
>What do YOU propose to do about the fact that women live longer 
>than men?
>
Well, we could kill everyone off at 65.  Then we wouldn't have to
pay out all that social security, our health care costs would go
down and Florida wouldn't have a big probmlem with agine retirees.

Except me, of course!

Jennifer
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55094 alt.abortion.inequity:6387
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Date: 11 Jan 1993 06:08:26 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>Now, there is no law that says that I (as a man) cannot elect to
>have a fully functional kidney removed, assuming I can find a
>surgeon willing to perform the operation. I imagine I would have
>about the same chance as a snowball in hell. 

Poor example.  Such "removals" are not infrequently performed for 
kidney donations. 

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:48:15 GMT

In article <29610@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>This reminds me much of the RCC in the period of the Inquisition. If

   You must be very old!   By the way, which Inquistion are you
referring to?  Roman, Spanish, ...?

>your beliefs don't match those of ours, or we don't like you, we'll
>have a pagan roast. (after some nice stretch therapy, of course, and,
>if you're lucky, we'll even throw in a pendulum!)

   Could you please provide some documentation for all these
practices, such as _what_ was done, _by whom_, _to whom_?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: I could tell you, but...
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:39:08 GMT

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
--
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:36:20 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1993Jan7.223154.2465@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:
|In article <ujd6fd0@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
||Sometimes people need temporary help to get out of bad spots,
||whether that help be food stamps, welfare, unemployment, or job
||retraining.  
|....or help with an unplanned pregnancy.

... and help in avoiding pregnancy in the first place, too.

But support for whatever option a woman facing unplanned
pregnancy chooses would be great.

If she chooses abortion, easy access to it so that it's early,
for example.  Help from the state in paying for it, too, or at
least fees on a sliding scale (the way many existing PP clinics
do it).  If she chooses to bring to term, help in getting
prenatal care, which can be monstrously expensive.  If she
chooses adoption after that, help through that process.  If she
chooses to keep the child after birth, she needs the most help
of all.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"Perhaps my favorite moment was when a pro-lifer threatened to 
kill me.  Or maybe it was when a pro-lifer said I should have been 
aborted.  Nah, the best moment was when the one who said I 
should be killed claimed to respect all life."  --Jay Stein, in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:23:43 GMT

In article <C0q2IB.JvM@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
}In article <1993Jan11.221244.18099@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}>Take your time.  I think you would do well to come up with something better
}>than trying to assert that "fatherless" is somehow like "innocent,"
}>even if you are speaking in general terms.
}
}fatherless doesn't go with innocent very well.  But in a sense, many children
}that are aborted are fatherless.  I don't know the proportions of women 
}who have abortion who are not married.

huh?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:48:56 GMT

In <1993Jan11.182448.456@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article <markp.726771489@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
>Pundurs) writes:

>>In <1993Jan10.220646.246@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>>(David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>>In article <markp.726677631@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
>>>Pundurs) writes:
>>>>>The two cases are not so different as you might believe. In both
>>>>>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
>>>>>the conception.
>>>>Which IS an important difference.
>>>Not to the z/e/f it isn't!
>>But it is to the mother.

>Irrelevant, if you're a pro-lifer. The poor, helpless, _defenseless_
>z/e/f couldn't possibly help the circumstances of its conception. Why
>are you punishing it by denying it your supposed right to reside in
>a woman's uterus for nine months?

I'm not. I'm balancing it's rights with the rights of the mother --
the extent of which DOES depend on the circumstances of conception.

>Tep

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion