HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The life expectancy of mothers
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:02:51 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.721695910@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Nov5.155200.15975@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>>Hi :-)

>>In a recent article someone brought up the fact that they like to
>>see people live to a ripe old age of 80.I agreed with them and stated
>>I hoped I lived that long as it is.

>>I have gotten many replies stating that a child birth and the 9 months
>>of strain on the body while carring a z/e/f (sounds dumb I thought she
>>was carring a baby) shortens her life span.

>I would like to see the sources for this claim.  This is the first
>I have ever heard it.  BTW was the population all women, or all
>married women?

    Please enlighten me as to how physical strain is either increased or
decreased by marriage.

                                                                  MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Nyikos flamefest 
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:33:59 GMT

<1992Nov15.171036.16751@wetware.com> diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
["He" is Nyikos]
>] Claim #1: He seems to think I am the number 1 pro-abort here in
>] t.a. I believe that I have only ever stated here that I believe
>] in a woman's right to choice - the choice she makes may be to
>] secure an abortion or it may be to continue the pregnancy. Since
>] no one (least of all myself) has elected me God, I do not have
>] the right to impose my views on women, no more than I may make
>] their decisions for them. Is this your definition of pro-
>] abortion Dr. Nyikos?
...
>Bob Blackshaw CANNOT be considered the Number 1 'Pro-Abort'
>who posts to talk.abortion.  That honor goes to Gordon Storga.

Thank you, thank you.  Mr. Nyikos has a little trouble remembering the
many times I've commented on his misuse of the term.  Ah well, at least
someone remembers me right.

>I claim the honor of being Number 2.  Dan King gets Number 3.
>I forget who is Number 4 - so even if Bob actually HELD a
>"pro-abortion" position, he'd have to be the number FIVE
>"pro-abort" on talk.abortion.

I suppose we should start some sort of official record keeping... Nah!  If
we did then we'd be accused of belonging to the "Pro-abortion Movement" or
something.  Best to remain in the background sort of, correcting those
miscreants who attempt to denigrate us or grab our glory.

Thanks, Catwoman.  Purrrrr.


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
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:27:28 GMT

In article <Bxvp6r.AB7@rice.edu>, patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> all by myself -- you must be one hell of a wonderful guy to have such
> contempt for your opponents that you believe all of us to be incapable of
> reaching our own conclusions.

Hell, Patrick, "Doctor" PetieHoney has contempt for those on
both sides of the issue.  I said something nice about Bill
Overpeck and "Doctor" PetieHoney asked how Bill had to "kowtow"
to me for me to say something nice about Bill.  Never
apologized to Bill for that one did our "Doctor."

I'm gonna have to call his university and see if he really is
a professor there.  If he is, I'm gonna have to talk to my
younger friends and acquaintances and see that they don't go there.
The standards can't be very high if "Doctor" PetieHoney is
on the faculty.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is NOT unrestricted abortion on demand throughout pregnancy
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:19:50 CST


In article <1992Nov20.005417.9449@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.213408.3653@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
> >> provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
> >> on-demand?  I've provided sources from the Alan Guttmacher
> >> Institute, an ACLU attorney who argued in PP v. Casey,
> >> a respected Georgetown University law professor, and
> >> an article written in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties
> >> Law Review.  Not one person has refuted any of these sources.
> 
> > There were about a half-dozen refutations of your sources last summer, Doug.
> > J. Greenfield in particular showed how the meaning of the texts you quoted
> > changed completely when restored to their contexts.
> 
> I remember Jeff Greenfield as being the only person who attempted to
> address my sources.  

Why should anyone bother with your sources when the text of Roe clearly
refutes your assertion?

From Roe v. Wade:
   "On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
   argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
   terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
   whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Subject: Re: Rerunning old arguments
Originator: jsue@troon.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:21:52 GMT


In article <1992Nov16.005829.17960@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>What seems MOST confusing about all the rantfest from
>those who are arguing in favor of antiabortion laws
>is why at NO TIME has the IRS ever considered an
>unborn entity a tax deduction. And why, in particular,
>when it was attempted by persons during the BUSH administration,
>did the IRS consider said suit to be frivilous.

Since when do we "consciously" consider the IRS to be the judge
of what we value?

>
>Why is it that NO ONE has ever asked for place of 
>conception, or gestation, and merely asks for place
>of birth.

Perhaps because it's often difficult to establish, there being no
scientific records and all.

>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>ps: and folks slowly wake up and notice that the
>AntiAbortionists want to rewrite history about 
>what is supposedly 'traditional family values.'
>

I don't want to rewrite history.  And I don't claim to know anything
about 'traditional family values'.

However I do enjoy thought-provoking, insightful discussions about important
subjects.


-- 
-----
Jeff Sue   
 - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:29:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Grass Valley Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: oboe.gvg.tek.com

We've been asked to move this discussion to a more appropriate newsgroup.
Please use talk.religion.misc for any followups.
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Originator: jlharris@c00016-118dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:44:07 GMT


In article <1992Nov18.220030.86964@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> >|> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
|> >|> >  [What he wrote is further down]
|> >
|> >|> In a purely historical sense, the Bible is rightly grouped with other
|> >|> ancient and modern religious texts.  What's wrong with this?  Surely you
|> >|> don't need some sort of secular approval for the Bible!  Either you believe
|> >|> or you don't...passing a law 'approving' or 'sanctioning' the Bible doesn't
|> >|> do one whit to increase or decrease the level of truth contained therein,
|> >|> nor should it affect ones view of that truth.
|> >
|> >No, but I amn trying to get some credibility for it. And trying to make it not
|> >just another old book.
|> 
|> Why do you want to make it more than it is?

I'm not, it it what you make of it, to me it is sacred to and atheist, it is
kindle for the fireplace.

|> 
|> >There are no laws against having sex, and there should not be any, there
|> 
|> (Actually, there are; I agree that there *shouldn't* be any laws against
|> consensual sex.)
|> 
|> >SHOULD be laws prohibiting the ending of a life if precautions are not taken
|> >while having sex.
|> 
|> And if precautions *are* taken, but they fail?  Would abortion then be
|> OK according to you, or is this just a red herring?

Like I said before, if you are reponsible enough to have sex, you have to deal 
with the consequences.

|> 
|> >|> >Let's see, can't have prayer in public schools (my family=me),
|> >
|> >|> You can pray all you want.  Even aloud.  No official from the school can
|> >|> lead a prayer.  How exactly does that violate your rights?  You can still
|> >|> pray!  And, by the way, what of Jesus command that you should go and pray
|> >|> in private to God, who is in private, and not stand in public like the
|> >|> hypocrites???  Hmm?
|> >
|> >OK, good point, I may have gotten carried away, and exagerated, even to myself,
|> >but yes praying in public is prohibited, even if led by a student taking the
|> >place of a leader.
|> 
|> Praying in public is prohibited, or *organized* praying?

Usually just organized, but some places open or public, even if just one
or two students is not allowed.

|> 
|> >Yes prayer is  private thing most of the time, but sometimes
|> >public prayer is neccessary.
|> 
|> I'd like to see you prove that *praying* is ever necessary, much less
|> *public* praying.

Praying is something you have to do if you are in any religion, it is your
own decision to prove that prayer is necessary, I can't prove it to you unless
you are a christian trying to understand its importance.
-Johnathan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Nyikos is not a world class idiot...yet (was Re: The battle is won. So long for now.)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:16:56 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
->chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
->}keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->}> while this may be an unpopular statement, i don't think
->}> you should run a net.idiot election for Phoney. he's
->}> too new and hasn't earned the multi-newsgroup
->}> disrespect over time that darcy, k*nt, t*d have.
->}> conducting a vote for Phoney would be like giving a kid
->}> who won a few golden gloves matches a heavyweight title
->}> shot.
->}
->}I see your point.  The Perfesser has been active in other newsgroups
->}but I don't think he has accrued the low esteem elsewhere that he has
->}in talk.abortion.  He has certainly earned the title of group.idiot
->}by acclamation.
->}
->}Perhaps over time, a broader exposure of his unique talents in other
->}forums will bring him a chair (a high chair, actually) on the Council.

->I tend to agree.  While Peter shows promise, he has yet to demonstrate
->his unique talents across the net, as the other members of the Council
->have.  I think that group.idiot might be fairly appropriate, but
->he doesn't seem to have the stature yet (have faith, give him time)
->to be a genuine net.idiot.

this is pretty much how i see it. of course, Phoney is
an idiot, but he's a fairly local idiot.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:56:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.210653.15302@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Abortions can be legally performed all the
>> way up to the point of birth for virtually any reason. 

> Wrong. The sources you provided prove only that post-viability abortions
> done for the woman's >>HEALTH<< are constitutionally protected, Doug.

Right, and in Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court has defined the term 
"health" to include emotional and psychological health.

> "Health reasons" != "virtually any reason"

It should be painfully obvious that if a woman is denied
an abortion, she will quite likely suffer emotional distress.
She can say "I need an abortion because my emotional health
will suffer if I don't get one".  Instant abortion-on-demand. 

> [.. stuff that's already been covered in other posts deleted ..]

>- Kevin


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 6
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:53:57 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32736@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>More from <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb):

>>Why can't you imagine that someone might think that a
>>z/e/f has value rather like that of an infant and that protection of
>>that value is sufficient motivation for restrictions on abortion?

>Because you are willing to sacrifice that /z/e/f/ in the case of rape
>where the mother does not also need to be punished for engaging in
>consensual sex.

You've never given a comprehensible explanation for your references to
punishment and similar things.  Also, the issue is not whether I'm
willing to sacrifice something but whether legal compulsion is
appropriate to keep someone else from sacrificing something.

To repeat myself: the motivation for forbidding abortion is that the
z/e/f has value.  The reason for an exception in the case of rape is
that the law does not command that all good things be done -- it also
requires that the person commanded to do the good thing be someone who
may appropriately be assigned the obligation.  A common basis for
obligation is that people are responsible for the forseeable
consequences of their voluntary actions.  What's so hard to understand
about that line of thought?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49163 alt.abortion.inequity:5266 soc.men:19792
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 22 Nov 1992 19:51:28 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>I would venture to say that, in a significant percentage of the cases under
>discussion, for the man to insist on wearing a condom, when the woman has
>already assured him that birth control is "taken care of", there will be
>no sex at all, regardless of whether the woman is a #1 or a #2. 

Are you claiming that women refuse to have sex with men who want to use
condoms?  Weird!   I've heard arguments that men don't like condoms, but I
don't think I've ever heard one that women don't.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: DODie and censorship
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:30:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.074745.8177@netcom.com>
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>->It wasn't "my" moderated talk.abortion newsgroup, Keeganoid.
>>->I only proposed a moderated newsgroup 

>>how many readers, other than ms. bartley of course,
>>supported your proposal to censor talk.abortion, DODie?

>I don't recall anyone (not even DOD) proposing that t.a. be censored.
>Are you lying again?

Doug's suggestion was to create a talk.abortion.moderated to exist
alongside talk.abortion.  He gave a list of people who would be
acceptable moderators in his opinion, of which I was one, and I
responded by saying I would be willing to moderate something along
those lines if the volume could be kept reasonably low.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:46:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.215541.16604@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov20.204529.17560@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> Abortions can be legally performed all the way up to the
> >> point of birth for virtually any reason.
> 
> > This is a lie.  
> 
> No, it's the truth: abortions can be legally performed all the
> way up to the point of birth for virtually any reason.  The
> four sources which I provided prove this fact.  

The some 30 states with laws restricting abortion iin the
third trimester prove you incorrect.  The Roe v Wade
opinion states that you are wrong explicitly.  An interpetation
of health by a law professor writing an article for a law journal
is neither law nor fact.  Tushnet's opinion does not carry the
force of law, and the facts bear this out.

Dean Kaflowitz

My apologies for the extent of this cross-posting (which I did
not do originally).  This will be my only follow-up in this
thread, though I expect that Doug, who is performing this
shrill little stunt because he has been refuted on this point
soundly in talk.abortion and is getting frustrated, will continue
to cross-post.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:54:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.011111.3228@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>>>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>>>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>>>hell with the reason you mention, above.
>>Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.
>>No flame intended.  Just fact.
>In what way is Adrienne a liar, Don? Can you support this?

I posted Adrienne's paragraph (above) for that reason.

Adrienne made an explicit claim about me that is untrue.

That's something I call a lie.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48562 talk.religion.misc:21504 alt.atheism:21631
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:53:16 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes:

>In article <adams.722185897@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>>From article <1992Nov16.030911.25233@watson.ibm.com>, by strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
>>>> In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>>>> |> How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
>>>> |> do appear to be quite different):
>>>> |> 
>>>> |> He mellowed.
>>>> |> 
>>>> Not from the Jewish perspective.
>>>> 
>>>> From the Jewish perspective, the "OT" God judged
>>>> us for our actions, not our beliefs, and had
>>>> mercy on the righteous of all nations.
>>>> 
>>>> The NT God judges us for our beliefs only, and
>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
>>>of Christianity, see Catholicism.
>>A (minor) nit...Lutherans are catholic.  And so are Eastern & Greek
>>Orthodox and Anglicans.
>>
>	Your nit needs to be picked a bit more...
>	Evangelical Lutherans are QUITE protestant...
>	Tho, I do agree the Missouri Synod-varieties are Catholics without a pope...

I am ELCA.  We are catholic....(ie universal).  The intent of Luther was to
reform catholicism.  ELCA considers itself a reform movement within
catholicism.

Protestant and catholic are *not* mutually exclusive...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim reiterates the chastity belt theory of forced pregnancy!
Date: 16 Nov 1992 12:29:29 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
.In <32682@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
.
.>So, to accept your argument we have to buy all
.>of the assumptions implicit in equating child support payments and
.>forced pregnancy.
>
>My claim was only that child support payments are a heavy obligation
>that can seriously affect the ability of the person burdened by the
>obligation to live his life as he wants to.  There are obvious
>differences between making such payments and being pregnant.  The

You bet your life there are.  In the first place, the woman in question
has two responsibilities, and the man in question only one.

Adrienne Regard
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:01:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov14.153750.9326@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <32628@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>>A person has a right to refuse
>>to have their bodies used for purposes to which they do not consent.
>
>Where does this principle come from?  Did anyone assert it before the
>modern debate over abortion began in the 1960s?  Why should anyone
>accept it?

Are you saying that you do not accept it?

>On the issue of whether it is in fact accepted as a fundamental legal
>principle in the United States, I believe that courts have upheld
>compulsory vaccination and compulsory taking of blood samples and the
>like for evidence in criminal cases.

It is the principle that allows you to bungee jump, smoke cigarettes,
drink alcohol, etc.  The fact that a right is conditional, such as it
is subject to the protection of the rights of others from public
health dangers and crime, does not negate the right or even mean that
it is not fundamental.  We have restrictions on freedom of speech ?
Do you deny that it is fundamental?

SJM
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48928 talk.religion.misc:21713 alt.atheism:21781