HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 1992 16:27:46 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

Mark Wilson) writes:
|> Ray Fischer) writes:
|> 
|> >varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
|> 
|> >>	Which could also boil down to:
|> >>Which is more important, right to privacy, or right to live. I certainly
|> >>can't think of any other case where you are justified in killing someone
|> >>because they have "invaded your privacy". 
|> 
|> >Then you haven't been paying very close attention.  In many states it
|> >is quite legal to kill any burglar you find in your house in the
|> >middle of the night.
|> 
|> That's trespass, breaking and entering and theft, not just invasion of privacy.
|> 
|> >In many states it is quite legal to kill someone who is 
|> >sexually assaulting you.
|> 
|> That add's rape and assualt to the invasion of privacy.
|> 
|> In both cases you have added felonies to the invasion of privacy, the
|> presence of the felony raises these cases to a higer level of danger.
|> 
|> BTW, is it trespass if you invite the burglar into your home.
|> 
So if we redefine the fetus as someone who steals nutrients, sucks blood,
assaults the bladder, causes illness, blocks access to the work place,
denies travel, etc.  will it make you happy.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles,talk.bizarre
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:02:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.043334.29503@cs.brown.edu> cs011103@cs.brown.edu (Christopher Randall) writes:
>In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>|> 
>|> >Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>|> >and Really are not the sort of things
>|> >that decent persons with good personal
>|> >hygeine standards would wish to involve
>|> >themselves in/with/towards.
>|> 
>|> 	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>|> Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>|> you flood your bedroom.
>
>Sounded sarcastic to me - I certainly HOPE it was intended that way...	
>
>Speak softly
>Drive a Sherman tank
>Laugh hard
>Its a long way to the bank
>

What the hell is this doing in the political conferences?  Keep this crap
outta here folks.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:12:16 GMT

<1992Oct6.184507.27731@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
><nyikos.718390470@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>><1992Oct2.080742.24002@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><1992Oct2.002302.325@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com>, by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
[joke deleted]
>>>Gordon, with tongue firmly in cheek.
>
>>I figured that out even before I saw the last line, just as I saw through
>>M. Price's deception immediately.  Alas for you, you have done many other
>>things without tongue in cheek, and for those I will hold you accountable.
>
>    Has anyone else noticed that Petie's getting a littlebit hysterical
>about this whole thing?

Yeah.  I wonder if paces the lab and clicks, or if he runs around the
computer room making "vroom" noises.  

>>>The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
>>>of whatever company you think I work for. 
>
>>Nor those of an honest man.
>
>    Careful, Petie, or Gordon and I will "castigate" you!

It doesn't matter.  A liar like Peter would and does just ignore all facts
with which he doesn't want to face.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:37:05 GMT


forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <9nnzwbm@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>> 
>>> No one is asking the baby.
>> 
>> D'you suppose there might be a _reason_ for that?

>Sure.  They're afraid they might not like the answer.

You are one seriously disturbed woman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:50:56 GMT

In article <Bvpu00.M1E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v106qjh9@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE HAT) writes:
>>Um, that's *murder*, Dougie, plain and simple - like you.  Especially
>>stupid in the above statement is, "...and dumped your body parts..." - I
>>mean, ANYthing that dies doesn't give a damn what happens to its "body
>>parts".
>
>If that's true what's the point of having cemetaries?  Look when I'm dead I
>want to be remembered, not dumped in a dumpster and forgotten.
>Alas, that's just me...

Actually, the point of having cemetaries is to get all of the bodies in one 
location, isolated from groundwater so that they don't spread disease.  Any 
other point you care to assign to them is your business.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Date: 9 Oct 1992 21:20:29 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

steven@jaynes writes: 
|Hmm.  I don't know about TWISTED, but young Eric can definitely
|drink some BEER.  Just ask my refrigerator.

Yours, too, huh?  
He doesn't settle for the cheap stuff, either.
This boy heads straight for the St Stan's amber
and the Railroad Ale.

---
c j silverio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Summary: Suxanne is no caver either... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 17:33:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.013649.6601@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) wrote:
>
>>>Not only does Adrienne's arrogance make her think she is above everyone
>>>else in the net, but it makes her think she has to the right to kill
>>>other human beings who simply get in her way.
>> 
>> Do you honestly believe that every abortion can be boiled down to just
>> a case of a fetus "getting in a woman's way"?
>
>Certainly, except for those cases where the woman's life is at stake,
>since there's no point in letting them both die.

Suxanne, did you *REALLY* mean this, or were you just having a bad
hair day?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:55:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.215349.20594@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>
>CJ didn't substantiate it. I have said so at least once. CJ has
>presented her evidence(such as it is) and it doesn't do the job
>of showing that you made a mailing that asked for help. Do you
>have a problem with this, Mr. Keegan?
>
>What it does show, however, is that it was reasonable for her
>to BELIEVE that you had made such a mailing, ...

Eric, Keegan's admission wasn't made until AFTER CJ had made the claim
publically. As much as I would like to see Keegan's nose rubbed in it,
the fact remains that CJ's statement was unsubstantiated AT THE TIME IT
WAS MADE. Keegan and the tribe are correct on that point.

Of course, the admission _does_ raise the possibility that Keegan is in fact
guilty of the charge, but there exists no documentation of his action. If 
that's the case, then I think CJ should come right out and confirm this state
of affairs, instead of blustering about having "proven" that Keegan is a liar.
It would basically come down to Keegan's word against CJ's at that point, and
I'm far more likely to take her word on this than Keegan's, especially after 
he's admitted the fact (his post-hoc backpedaling is everything but 
convincing, of course).

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:33:53 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(Susan Garvin) writes: > 
->>You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  
->>
->>When abortion is illegal, women die.

->When drugs are illegal women die.  So do men.  And children.

->Shall we legalize them, Susan?  

i'm not susan, but yes, i think we should legalize
drugs.

shall we keep abortion legal, overpeck?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:08:06 GMT

<26094@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
[re: Suzanne]
>>Ask her why water evaporates.
>
>That'd be as good as her crcle proof, I'm sure. I think I remember reading
>that one, but it was a long time ago.

I'll give you a hint...  She says it's because her god *wants* it to
evaporate.

No, really!


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: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: "Unfortunate" survival
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:13:13 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>And certainly a great way to get rid of our fellow humans.  Unfortunately,
>abortion is not entirely efficient.  Some of those aborted are alive 
>today.

I don't get it.  Over and over and over on this group I've seen
pro-"life"rs refer to the fact that abortion does not always
kill the fetus as "unfortunate".  Never once have I seen a pro-choicer
use this terminology.  

Why do you think this is?  I would speculate that the anti-abortionists
DON'T like the fact that abortion does not always end in the death of
the fetus.  It weakens their case that abortion is all about the 
mailicious killing of human beings.  It forces to the fore the fact
that abortion is only about ending pregnancy.  If the fetus can survive,
more power to it.

But it would seem to be a Freudian slip to the effect that many 
anti-abortionists DON'T care about every fetus.  They only care about
winning.

And every fetus that survives makes their case weaker and weaker.

                  -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:57:04 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Oct7.232040.1780@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Sep30.231911.28243@jetsun.weitek.COM>, by nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):
>>>>Let's face it, the ONLY fail-safe birth control known is abstainence.  
>>>>If 'she' chooses to use a form which is less reliable, that's her fault.
>> 
>> Thanks. Obviously Christianity is the biggest fraud on the planet if
>> the above statement is true. So who was screwing Mary?
>
>Hey, Mary was perfectly free to say "No", as has been pointed out to
>you before.  Anyone interested may read the first chapter of Luke. 
>She most specifically CHOSE to say "Yes!"
>
>S. Forgach

Yeah, God comes upon you and you're gonna say "No".  I thought the
lesson of Jonah was not to say "No" to God.

Suzanne if you can maintain such a pressence of mind when the Almighty
comes to you -- well, then I guess you are better than most of us
mortals.

CRS

N
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 11:03:09 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>Well, I certainly do care about human life, born and unborn.  Whether
>you believe that or not is another thing.  But I know what is in my
>heart and what is in my head.  What is in my heart and what is in my
>head cannot be wrong.

Tell that to the black South Africans, and to the Jews, and to the
Bosnians.  Ask the white South Africans, and the Nazis, and the Serbs
if they were justified in their actions.  Ask them if they were
wrong.

>As for not directly gaining, losing, suffering, etc., that doesn't mean
>I don't care, however.  Why do people join Amnesty International to
>help those people they never really see?  Why do people give clothes, money
>to people in Bosnia, Somalia or some other place?  Why do we give money
>to Hurricane Victims in a Coast very opposite us when we don't really know
>anyone in particular over there?  

You're like the chicken deciding for the pig whether I'm going to have
ham and eggs for breakfast.  While the chicken certainly has as
interest, the pig's contribution is of an entirely different order.

>>>We know we are capable of killing other humans.  The question is, do we do 
>>>so?
>>
>>Most people who do so are certain that they are justified in doing so.
>>Do you feel certain that you are justified in risking the lives and
>>health of women?
>
>I don't know about the 'hard cases' but as for the 98% abortion rate for
>social reasons or so (which includes Birth control), human lives are
>what matter.

And 400 years ago souls were what mattered, and people were tortured,
drowned, crushed, and burned alive in order to save their souls.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:38:27 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>I didn't think that outright killing was equivalent to stopping the 
>donation of resources.  

You've got it backwards.  It's: stopping the donation of resources
isn't the equivalent of outright killing.

The pro-force crowd continue to perpetuate this lie in order to
further their cause.  Women to NOT get abortions in order to kill
fetuses.  To even imply as much is grossly insulting.  Women get
abortions in order to be not pregnant.  That this means the death of 
an embryo/fetus is an unfortunate, unavoidable, and unwanted
consequence.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: No Reply Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:36:51 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <nyikos.719175981@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Oct10.011344.152909@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
>Roby's repost expired before I could get to it.  It's a good thing
>Margolis followed up to it, again illustrating how pro-choicers
>sometimes help the one they wish to hurt.

Why do you believe I want to hurt you, Peter?  I'm mostly just
trying to keep you honest.

>>I think that *not* responding is Peter's way of acknowledging that he
>>was wrong.
>
>And people wonder why I've threatened to put Larry in my de facto killfile.

Why is that, Peter?  I have valid reasons for believing that; would
you like me to bring up a few of the times you were proven wrong and you
dropped the thread without responding?  I don't really see a need to,
but if you're suggesting that anything I've said is untrue, I'll be
happy to support it.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:31:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <26463@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
     (Ronald Bense) writes...

>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>Isn't it weird that you pro-choicers applaud the acts of ACT-UP but
>>yet you abhor it when Operation Rescue pulls a stunt? You pro-choice
>>vacuum-heads are known for your double-standards.

>Pardon?!? How can you compare peaceful actions to those bordering on
>terrorist actions? OR definitely uses force to get their way. Do you
>have any accounts of ACT-UP doing so? Or have they only been seen to
>sing or otherwise disrupt speeches and such?

Since you oppose the use of force in this context, Mr. Bense, I am
very much surprised that you did not speak out against the pro-choice
delegates at the Democratic National Convention who *roughed up* the
ten pro-life delegates from Minnesota who *peacefully* came to cast
their votes for Robert Casey - someone who remembers what freedom of
speech is.

Injury report from Dr. Anne Maloney, one of the ten delegates (shoved 
around by a *man* in this case) to be posted under separate cover.

RG

"We should all be working to reduce the number of abortions."  -  Bill Clinton
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:02:24 GMT

In article <Bvrz74.7yt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
 
>In <1992Oct7.163134.17826@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>Hey Bruce...I don't give a damn about what's in any dictionary except a law]
>>dictionary.  When you're talking about taking away people's rights, you're
>
>        I am not talking about taking away anyone's rights - I am talking
>about giving people the rights they deserve - formost of which is the
>right to live.
>
>>A fetus is NOT a person, check up on the law.  A child is a BORNED person,
>>check up on the law.  You will have to change all of these to have it
>>your way.  Until you do, the legal definition--the only one I care about--
>>stands.
>
>        I don't really give a shit what you care about you heartless
>bitch. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing all this women's rights shit.
>Get this fucking straight once and for all - ABORTION IS NO MORE A WOMEN'S
>RIGHTS ISSUE THAN ABOLITION WAS A SLAVE OWNER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.
>
>        Just because you do not see fit to respect the rights of others
>to live does not mean that I have to agree with you. Don't like my
>choice of words? Don't like me calling a fetus a child, and calling
>abortion murder? Tough shit. Truth hurts, doesn't it??
>
>                Bruce
 
Bruce...you can say anything you want, and believe anything you want.
This is still a (somewhat) free country, despite your efforts to change
it to take away others' freedoms.
 
Believe what you want, just don't try to enact your beliefs into law.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:55:42 GMT

In article <yb2zdx#@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>it doesn't make much difference whether you "grant" or
>not. the post itself proved my point.
Believe what you like.


-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Poll results: FYI
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:30:56 GMT


All of you making statments about how many people want what wrt abortion,
take note.  Here is a poll done on 1,052 college students on 41 college
campuses taken August 24th by U. The National College Magazine as given int
their October issue.

Percent registered or will be by Oct 5th 

	86%

Percent who aren't and won't be

	14%

Registered as:

democrat:	39%
republican	25%
independent	13%
other		1%
no affiliation	23%

Plan to vote Nov 3?

yes	86%
no	14%

Who do you plan to vote for?

bush		23%
clinton		53%
other		2%
undecided	22%

do you consider yourself...

anti abortion	17%
pro-choice	74%
don't know	8%

Will this affect your vote for president?

59%	yes
40%	no

Which candidate do you believe will look out more for your interests
as a student in higher education?

bush		12%
clinton		49%
neither		17%
don't know	21%




-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:54:26 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>mg> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>mg>Just remember exactly what abortion does: Abortion is active, forced, or
>>mg>induced death.  
>> 
>>No it is not.  It is the safest way for the woman to have a fetus removed
>>from her body.
>> 
>And certainly a great way to get rid of our fellow humans.  Unfortunately,
>abortion is not entirely efficient.  Some of those aborted are alive 
>today.

You dipping to new depths of sleaze, jerk.  Nobody (nobody) wants to
kill embryos or fetuses, and to imply otherwise betrays your
prejudices.  The point of abortion is to terminate pregnancies; people
don't get pregnant just so they can kill fetuses.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion