HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:54:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.115859.28019@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>You said:
>> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> 
>> >> What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
>> >> fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
>> >> nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
>> >> nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
>> >> cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
>> >> hypocrisy?

> Since the woman who borught the suit is pro-lie, you are calling
> pro-choice supporters hypocrites because a pro-lie woman brought
> a lawsuit to prohibit showing abortions on television.  The point
> is quite relevant, and that is the argument you presented.

Please point to the exact sentence where I said that was referring
to the woman who brought suit.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Georgia State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:27:37 GMT

In <yttz-q+@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>In article <1992Oct6.141936.10746@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) writes:
>>>>
>>>Catholic Social Services will gladly find a family pay for all 
>>>medical expenses occured during the pregnancy provided they can adopt the child.
>>>
>>>This is how my sister & her husband adopted two of their children.

>>Is this called "buying" a child?  Gee, I wish someone would have volunteered
>>to pay my childbirth expenses as it cost me quite a bundle, but since I
>>am not willint go "sell" my child, I guess I'll have to handle it alone.
>>Why shouldn't CSS be willing to pay all medical expenses period if they're
>>so anxious for all women to give birth?  Why put any requirements on the
>>woman to sell?  I would think they would oppose the "ripping" of infants
>>from their mother's arms, instead of financially supporting it.

>_I_ was often told, while searching for a way to afford my pregnancy,
>that it's easy to have the pregnancy paid for if you agree to
>adoption, AND that there is a six-month period after birth for
>the mother to legally change her mind (nudgenudgewinkwink).  I
>couldn't even consider this, as I couldn't imagine putting another
>couple through that kind of heartache.

>Does lead me to wonder, however, if the woman changed her mind
>would the Catholic group demand that she repay the expenses?

>BTW, many couples will gladly pay (and have) $50K+ to adopt
>a healthy white newborn.  Sounds like CSS could stand to make
>a bundle on every adoption they arrange.

Hummmm.....sounds a *lot* like surrogate motherhood to me.....

What makes this version of it OK?         


-- 

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

a computer is nothing but an autistic savant...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.rape
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Can we sort out which 'ri
Note: Please remove talk.rape from replies to this message.
X-To: DRIEUX, JUST DRIEUX
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:52:00 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
DJD> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
DJD> ] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
DJD> ] DJD> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
DJD> ] DJD> ] In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eat
DJD> (J
DJD> ] DJD> tevens) writes:
DJD> ] DJD> ] # The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no
DJD> n
DJD> ] DJD> ] # have babies without the kindness of a man.
DJD> ] DJD> ]
DJD> ] DJD> ] You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
DJD> ]
DJD> ] DJD> first they wanted to be merely citizens with
DJD> ] DJD> full legal rights, now they wish to chip away
DJD> ] DJD> at Male Perogatives....
DJD> ]
DJD> ] Actually, Drieux, I don't think that John meant this.  I believe that he
DJD> ] rather obliquely attacking the attitude of some less moderate feminists,
DJD> ] believe that "It is women who create life," as though men do not share, o
DJD> ] more to the point, should not even have a *right* to share in the experie
DJD> ] of parenthood.


DJD> 1. which 'right' is being defended?

Sheesh, drop your flamethrower, Drieux!  I was *only* referring to the
attitudes of some less than moderate members of the women's movement who think
that men should have no place in the upbringing of children because "only women
create life".


DJD> 2. the original construct was attacked on the ground that
DJD> RAPE is a means of inducing gestation, and not an act of
DJD> kindness, and hence refutes the Generalization as presented
DJD> by stevens@eatdust.

I wasn't even referring to the thread on rape.   I can imagine what kind of
conclusions one could draw, *if* my statements had been within the framework
of the rape discussion, but I was only making a "side comment" about certain
people's attitudes towards men's role in parenting.

I grant that my comments were not strictly relevant to the rape issue, but
please realise that I was not at all attempting to say that rape should give
parental rights to the rapist.  (I thought that you knew me a *little* better
than to think that I could hold such a bigoted viewpoint!).

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Saddam Hussein still has his job.  Do you?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,sci.math
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Huh?
Followup-To: talk.abortion,sci.math 
Summary: It's a joke, folks! 
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: Sat, 10 Oct 92 17:29:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.185512.5981@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>Einstein thought he was correct.  Heisenberg thought he was correct.

Heisenberg was *UNCERTAIN*, you pompous ass.
--
=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???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42438 talk.politics.guns:22100 alt.conspiracy:11251 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5333 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6806 talk.bizarre:34016
From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:40:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington

grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>In <1992Oct12.195328.571@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

>>In article <1992Oct11.015308.25586@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes ...
>>>>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>stalled under Bush?  Clinton is promising to run it in reverse. Has Bush gotten
>>us involved in a war?  Clinton wants to get involved in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  

>You must not have watched the first debate.  Clinton specifically said he
>wants to reduce troops in Europe.


Maybe that is what he is saying now, but it certainly wasn't what he
was saying a month or so ago.  Typical Bill Clinton - if you don't like
what he is saying, just wait a week or so.

Depending on whether or not you consider the Persian Gulf a major war,
the USA has fought 4 or 5 wars in this century (not including minor
bloodlettings here and there).  Democratic presidents have taken us 
into the first four.

---
Larry
larryd@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Followup-To: junk
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: talk
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:29:23 GMT

z3ij@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
# What is wrong with allowing a doctor to assist somebody in commiting suicide?
# 
# As I understand it, suicide is still illegal in this cuontry, and still
# classified as murder.  Therefore anybody assisting in a suicide is assisting
# a murder.  And that is illegal too.

So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
anything deeper, Grasshopper?



It used to be a federal crime to criticize the U.S. Government or its
actions. (The Sedition Act of 1798.)

[What is this doing in talk.abortion?  Note followups.]

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:57:54 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Oct1.201627.22487@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>be dead?)

>Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.

>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
	   ^^^^^^^^^

This question has my nomination for "pro-choice understatement of the 
year," even though it is phrased as a question: it certainly makes a strong
statement, especially about the state of mind of the one who wrote it.

>Ray Fischer 

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:30:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.221354.17808@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

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

>> But you do force the woman to justify her reasons for aborting.
>>
>> You say that a woman can kill a human being as long as that 
>> human being is inside her body.
>>
>> Since you ignore the woman's actual reasons for wanting
>> an abortion, and you concentrate only on the location of
>> the fetus relative to the woman, you have managed to 
>> reduce pregnant women to fetal containers.

> So then, by ignoring a woman's reasons for getting an abortion, we're
> forcing her to justify her reasons?!?

Allow me to rephrase: But you do force the woman to justify
her reasons for killing a human being.  Pro-aborts say that
a woman can kill a human being as long as that human being 
resides within her body.  

They ignore the woman's actual reasons for wanting an abortion.

This treats women like fetal containers.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:43:58 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <lefty-131092180440@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.203037.16169@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>>
>> Wait a minute, I'm not "fantisizing" about achieving this highly fictittious
>> world I plan to write about.  In no way was I actually promoting this
>> system, the same that Orwell wasn't advocating "Big Brother" in 1984, in
>> fact it was a criticism of totalitarianism.
>
>No?  Didn't you write the following?
>
>In article <1992Oct13.001059.23259@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>> But then, it's only a story....
>>
>> for now :)
>
>Get your stories straight, Simon.  And stop comparing yourself to Orwell.
>Based on what you've presented here, you couldn't write your way out of a
>pay toilet.
>
Gee, is this alt.lit.criticism??
You can't identify sarcasm in the end of my aritcle?
BTW, I've written some non-fiction, which was well recieved.
Simon
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:51:20 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Oct12.145317.4953@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.010340.18230@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>Ah, so you feel abortion should be allowed until ~24 weeks into the pregnancy.
>>
>>Welcome to the pro-choice camp, Simon.
>>--
>That'll be the day.  A day when there's ice skating on Archeron.
Acheron.
-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,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Let Us Dance Unto the confussion of who Be Who...
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc 
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:03:43 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
] In article <1992Oct14.065101.26830@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
 
One upon a Time I wrote:
] >>>We KNOW that it is "immoral to demonstrate against one's country
] >>>when it is at war...." {Read His Lips, Would HE Lie to US?}

And SomeOne Responded:

] >>Are you saying he isn't entitled to that opinion?
] 
] >Yes.  Exercising your first amendment rights is immoral????
] 
] Let me make sure I understand this:
] 1. Clinton can do what he wants under the first amendment.
] 2. George Bush is not allowed to express opinions about it.
] 
] Therefore the First Amendment applies to Clinton but not Bush?
] 
] How about other people? Does the First Amendment apply to people who
] hold the view that abortion is wrong or is it only Bush who isn't covered?

It seems that alan Has gracefully arrived at the
sort of problem some of us are having interpreting
George Bushes 'narrow cast' of information to the VFW
prior to his 'clarification' at the National Debates,

and as Obfuscated by Danny Boy at the VP games.

Given What happened in 1988 on the Eve of the Election
to a gentleman who had allegations that Danny boy was
a Doper.... AND IS CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION as a
Simple Violation of Civil Rights.....

One really has to wonder to what Lengths George wil
Go in Protecting the Presidency while we are in the
current WarAgainst<BadThingHere> as justification
for the Correct Implementation of the Party Line.


ciao
drieux

pps: the really interesting part is that None of
Bush's Defenders wish to address the Issue of the
Flying Tigers and the Eagle Squadron as 'test bed'
cases of Americans Demonstrating Overseas against
the US Government Policy.....

But I guess when its one of the 'right things that
must be done' is easy to change the rules?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:47:07 -0400 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Human Worth in Unborn

Larry Margolis writes:
> So if a fetus can survive outside the woman at 7 or 8 months, how can you
> say it's not born if it's still inside her after this point?

I think you misunderstood my question. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't really
understand your question. If it's still inside her at 7 months, then, yes,
it's not born. If the mother, a day later has complications that cause
her to go into early labor and she has the child, what makes that child
so different from a day ago where some people are calling the child in
the womb a 'potential human' or 'potential person' and will call it a
human/person outside the womb?

Put the situation at 5 months. Same thing. 

So if the child has a chance at survival, being born early, how can 
people call the child in the womb at that point 'a potential person'?

How is this 'potentialness' determined? Birth just doesn't seem to be
the distinguishing factor to me. Especially since children survive 
who aren't carried to full term. 

ag
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Ok, So booth Really is a Nazi Fan?
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:27:50 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct14.091027.16980@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>]
>] Well, actually my aim is very similar to Orwell's-- I plan to depict this
>] New Order Party being elected by the people out of desparation.  The people
>] are so sick of one type of extremeism, they accept another form of it
>] without even noticing.  Extremism breeds extremism from the other side.
>] I plan to demonstrate that such system might come to power if Liberal
>] extremism runs unchecked.  Ever read about how Hitler was elected??
>] Germany was in a state of anarchy, the Nazis were seen as the only alternative.
>
>
>You really do need to clarify this....
>
>Your Fantasies about JackBootedFascism Run Rampant
>in the Street Napalming ProChoicers is your way
>of Saying:
>
>1. this is a Good Thing, and Clear Proof that Abortion Should be Outlawed.
>
>2. Not Really the American Way of Doing Things, and I Deeply and
>sincerely Apologize to all the Veterans OUT there who have
>valiantly defended the ramparts of Freedom from the Likes of the Fascist
>Scum who make up the AntiAbortionist Ranks and wish to
>Undermine the American Way of Life.
>
Wait a minute, I explain the concept of the story, and I'm still accused
of promoting Nazism??  Let me explain again:

The idea behind the story is that if Liberalism runs out of control, the
resulting backlash might cause the people to accept any alternative, without
even considering that they might inadvertently vote for a fascist party.
Like I had said, read about how Hitler came to power.  I seriously doubt the
people actually knew what the Nazis really were, until it was too late.
Theoretically, something like that could happen again, and my idea was to
write a story about the dangers of that happening.  My story, pure fiction,
is to depict how extreme liberalism might drive the people to vote for a
fascist, although they of course wouldn't realize this at first.  All they
see is someone who would stop liberlism, that's how they'll vote.  Now,
I in no way promote Nazism, in fact I my objections to abortion stem from the
fact that abortion could be used as a tool for Nazi-style eugenics.  So you
see, I am light-years from being a ascist.  I hopw this clears things up.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:21:01 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


kl>In article <92283.031021KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
dk>In article <1992Oct8.144400.27076@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) says:
 
dk>So why didn't he just say it like that.  Why did he say that
dk>the initiative got more opposing votes than votes in favor?
 
kl>I think you're nit-picking. It wasn't hard to figure out what happened, and
kl>what his point was.
 
Its entirely possible.  But I think he worded it the way he did for very good
reasons.  I think many things in his book are worded in such a way to attempt
to deceive.  He knows that the ditto-heads reading it are not going to 
think to hard about what he says and his legions will continue to spout 
his rhetoric without giving it a tremendous amount of thought.
 
dk>By the way, do you know the Seattle station that cancelled
dk>the Rush show over the caller abortions?  I'm kind of
dk>curious if this might be another Rush un-truth.
 
kl>No, I'm not into researching everything Rush claims.  I'm relatively
kl>sure that he has enough enemies, though, that if he tried to lie about
kl>something he'd be exposed.
 
He's not much into documenting his claims.  For a book of this nature,
he sure doesn't waste any time backing up any of his claims. 
 
dk>I am enjoying it.  I listen to him when I get a chance to.  It
dk>really isn't that big a surprise that he has built such a large
dk>legion of ditto-heads out of all you adolescent white guys.  He
dk>is really good at simplifying complex issues.
 
kl>Adolescent white guys, huh?  Don't forget that most conservatives are
kl>older people... or, white males, I guess it must be.  We'll just ignore
kl>all those conservative blacks and women out there, I guess. 
 
Being a conservative myself, I made no claims about conservatives. 
I was saying that I understand his appeal to all the ditto-heads 
which are generally adolescent white guys. 
 
kl>Out of curiosity, give an example of how Rush over-simplifies some issue.

kl>...besides abortion, just for a change of pace...
 
I think a much easier list to make would be what issues does Rush not
over-simplify.  I didn't get much chance last night to get back to
reading, but one that leaps to mind was his reasoning for why people
would elect a republican president and a democrat legislature.  He
claims the reason is because they know the legislature will bring
home the pork, and they feel democrats are better at this.  He doesn't
say why he believes democrats are better at this and he doesn't think
about the other countless reasons why elections have been going 
this way.  He just throws out his pet theory with no documentation 
and we are expected to accept that as fact.  
 
kl>Kurt Ludwick
 
Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42241 alt.activism:17428 talk.politics.guns:22053
From: peterd@polari.online.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA has no position on abortion
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:33:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>In article <1050@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>-- 
>>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce


>I would like to remind everyone that the NRA takes no opinion on the 
>issue of abortion and confines its efforts to the second amendment.
>-- 
>The Earth Pig Bourne....

>nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
>nadja@weitek.com

Ah - but does the NRA support the unborn's right to own firearms,
THAT is the true question.

Inquiring minds are reading other newsgroups.

Sup[port the right to bare arms!

chus
peterd

-- 
                 Peter D. Hampe, EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow. "Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."
                       Will be President for Food.
-- 
                 Peter D. Hampe, EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow. "Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."
                       Will be President for Food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion