HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:56:12 GMT

In article <Brr7GI.7v2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul20.182713.12662@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul18.120912.12090@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>>I hope he doesn't have the notion in his little head that [OR] going to come
>>>>down here and cause trouble during the Republican convention, either.  HPD
>>>>won't look too kindly on foreigners coming from outside Texas specifically
>>>>to cause trouble here -- and that's OR's game plan, as usual.
>>>>(I don't feel like having my tax money used for the lodging of such slugs in
>>>>the Harris County jail, even...)
>>>
>>>Houston will probably be as intelligent as Milwaukee by releasing murderers and
>>>other sweethearts to make room for the true menace to society, OR.  
>
>>I hope you're not betting your butt on it -- you just might be betting on
>>the wrong side.  Personally, I think a few nights in the Harris County jail
>>might impress the wisdom of minding one's own business on even the OR
>>folks...
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Houston Police Department the
>same police department which has a union clause written into the contract
>which specifically allows officers to refuse to participate in the 
>removal of abortion clinic protesters?  Seems to me that at least one
>major city police department had such a codicil in their contract, and I
>sure thought it was Houston....

I'd seriously doubt it, because there are at least *two* unions within HPD
-- but more importantly, Texas is an open-shop state, so the police don't
have to join a union in order to join a police force.  (Even if officers can
decline to participate in removing OR idiots, that in no way means that
every HPD officer will do so -- and if said OR idiots are blocking legal
access to *any* building, they will be moved, one way or another.)  You
planning on coming down with the other foreigners and spending some time on
North Main?  

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 919 856-1670 -- who cares?

                      (insert your own profound thought here)
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: 22 Jul 1992 19:31:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <BrsLD6.8I2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>>The following quote is from Dr. Len Howard, posted here recently.

>>"According to the 17th edition of Williams Obstetrics, one of the three
>>positive signs of pregnancy is identification of the fetal heart
>>action separately and distinctly from that of the woman.  The three
>>methods of identification of fetal heart rate are auscultation with a
>>fetoscope, by use of the dopler principle with ultrasound, and by the
>>use of sonography.  The heart beat of the fetus can be detected by
>>auscultation with a stethoscope by 17 weeks gestation, on average, and
>>by 19 weeks in almost all pregnancies.  Fetal cardiac action can be
>>detected with appropriate doppler equipment almost always by the 10th
>>to 12th week of gestation.  Echocardiography can be used to detect
>>fetal heart action as early as 48 days after the first day of the last
>>menstrual period.  Real time sonography can be used to detect fetal
>>heart action and fetal movement after the second month of pregnancy." 

>>Susan

>"48 days after the first day of the last menstrual period"  which means
>suction currettage abortion, invariably done AFTER the sixth week,
>*ALWAYS* stops a beating heart.

Who really gives a flying f*** anyhow?

>Steve Kellmeyer

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter       ----         GS1260 Suzuki drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Beware the DickSizeWars!!!!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:54:37 GMT

kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>> Mr Lyman, you are here with, and here to fore, 
>>> forewarned that any more postings of this sort 
>>> will be construed as an explicit Call for a 
>>> DickSizeWar, and that No Mercy will Be Shown,
>>> No Quarters Offered.

>> Mr. Hampe, let me inform you that, contrary to How Things Are Done
>> in YOUR particular Town of Iniquity, in MY Town of Iniquity, it
>> takes a lot more than QUARTERS to get a young man to show his
>> privates.  YOU have been living cheap for far too long!!!

> While I may not be worthy of participation in a DickSizeWar, my
> stereo speakers are larger than any of yours.  Except maybe cj's.

Bigger than Klipsch Choruses?!?[1]

I've often seen stereo-nerds try to pass off their mega-buck systems
as TinySexAnimalPlaceboes.[2]


[1] another fine product from "The Dope from Hope."[3]


[2] the Dayne Quale spelling.


[2] that's Paul Klipsch, you heathen.[3]


[3] N/C for extra obscurosities.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: chaney/hall claims 80-year old women have abortions (Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?))
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:11:39 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
-> >> = Susan "Lies Exposed for Free" Garvin writes:
-> >># = Stephen A Chaney steps into a four foot cowpie:
-> >>#This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath,
-> >>#that abortion was wrong, and then died of one?
-> >>#
-> >>Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
-> >>
-> >>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.
-> >
-> >Oh, MAN.  You shouldn't use a sledgehammer on someone's nuts.
-> >Between him and Holtsinger, they *may* send a hitman after
-> >you :).
-> 
-> Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony
-> article that gave it to you guys on the chin.

well, well, chaney/hall, what have we here? you're responding to
a post documenting another of your lies and you're not commenting
on that interesting, although regularly occuring event.

you said margaret sanger died of an abortion. your statement is
included above. it really was a stupid statement. wasn't it?

do you stand by your statement, chaney/hall? did margaret sanger
die of an abortion?

heh heh



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Subject: Re: Short Sweet and To the Point
Originator: cjdcosta@c00100-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:59:16 GMT


drieux the devious writes:

..After a refreshing sixpack,

>You get into your car 

...which has no brakes,

>for a lovely summers drive.

...at around 100mph+ 

>You get into an Accident....

..and YOU offer to come to his aid by blasting through
the passenger door.. and the passenger.. with a blowtorch

>
>Should I use your Logic, and say you should
>have thought about that before you got into the car?
>
>Or should I excuse you from Your Most Compelling logic
>and start first aid right away....

What do you think?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:55:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.061331.19284@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:

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

>> But if a newborn infant can't be transferred to another person, then
>> the infant would not be "autonomous" by the original definition, and
>> the infant would not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy. People could
>> kill infants by placing them in situations where only one person 
>> could care for them.  

> Ok, four simple questions:
>
> Pre-infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
> Infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
> Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?
> Pregnant Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?

Since you're the one who's promoting the concept of bodily autonomy,
why don't you tell me how your questions should be answered? 


>-Richard


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: boutell@cshl.org (Tom Boutell)
Subject: Re: WANT YOUR OPINION HEARD?
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 15:10:26 GMT

In article <3694@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>Given your praise for Chaney/Hall's flight of fancy, some of
>us would be, well, embarassed to write for your magazine.
>
>Susan

This is the attitude that's driving me nuts. I don't agree with him
either, but at least he made an effort. Remember, I haven't previously
frequented this group; all I know is what was submitted to me, which
was a decently - written piece. All I've heard from my fellow
pro - choicers is "how dare you print him, I wouldn't think of being
printed in the same magazine with him, I'd rather sit on my butt and
then flame you when the magazine comes out with solely pro - life
material." Which will be your own fault. If you're trying to promote
your point of view as opposed to his, you're doing a miserable job of it.
I'm doing my level best not to make a flame of this; my apologies
if I've gone a bit over the line.

If you disagree with him, refute him line by line. Be my guest. I'll
print it. You have no excuse to blame the magazine and tell me
how "embarrassing" it is. 

Like the political system, the magazine should be open to those
of multiple views. I hope you're not planning to stay home in November
on polling day because it's much too "embarrassing" to step into a
voting booth Bush supporters have been in. 

-- 
My return address now works!
Believe it or not there is life after college. At least if you live
near NYC.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:58:16 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Jul24.165354.16406@wuecl.wustl.edu>  dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> <1992Jul21.190634.5054@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> >>> Exactly when it becomes a "heart" is dependent largely on
> >>> your definition of "heart."
>
> <1992Jul24.034931.8710@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
> >> Of course.  I'd hoped to avoid playing semantic games, though.
> >> That's why I did not ask about the "heart" per se, but about the
> >> heartbeat.  You know, the rhythmic twitching of cardiac muscle that
> >> begins in the fourth week (i.e. after three weeks have passed) of
> >> gestation and doesn't cease until death.
>
> <1992Jul24.054545.20429@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> > In that case, I'd say you're playing semantic games
>
> No.  Semantic games would include redefining terms for my own
> purpose, or using an unusual definition given the context of discussion.
> I have not done that.  I have simply chosen my words carefully to
> express what I mean.
>
> > - cardiac muscle does not a heart make.
>
> Agreed.  And if you reread what I wrote carefully, you will see that
> I did not claim otherwise.

I believe the discussion was regarding the phrase "Abortion stops a
beating heart", not "Abortion stops cardiac muscle from twitching".
Given the context, I assumed you were playing semantic games.  If you
were simply changing the subject, my apologies.

> > Something that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting is clearly
> > not stopping a beating heart (no matter how liberally you wish to
> > define "heart"), and this would (I would hazard) constitute the
> > majority of cases.
>
> Isn't abortion often referred to as "termination of pregnancy"?
> And would you not agree that in order for something to be
> terminated, it must have begun?  If a blastocyst fails to implant,
> whether naturally, or due to the encouragement of some sort
> of abortifacient, then pregnancy never begins.  How can a
> pregnancy be aborted if it never begins in the first place?

"abortifacient - a drug or device that causes abortion."

Although abortion often *does* mean "termination of pregnancy",
it clearly does not if it takes place before implantation.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Only vs. Primary (formerly PRO-LIFERS: ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 22:35:57 GMT

<1992Jul8.190411.27458@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) said:
><90502@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>>The Catholic position is that for sex to be "moral", it must:
>>>
>>>1.  be an act of mutual self-giving,
>>>2.  in a commited relationship,
>>>3.  with the possibility of conceiving children.
>>
>>So, therefore, for the following people, since they cannot conceive
>>children amongst themselves, having sex are immoral:
>>
>>1. Post-menopausal married and unmarried women
>>2. Sterile, unmarried or married women or men
>>3. lesbians and gay men
>>
>>Notice what you say does not mention marital status. True?
>>
>>Or does the Church recognize other committed relationships beyond the
>>scope of Church ritual? 
>
>Yes, you are correct. The Church is very faithful in carrying out
>its logic to the natural conclusions. 

"It's logic"?  What biblical reference does it base this "logic" upon?
Where exactly did Jesus proclaim that people who could not conceive should
not be married?

Given a conflict between the two - The RCC and Jesus - which should you
follow?

>                                      It will not allow anyone to
>be married who already knows that he/she is sterile. 

And where is this sanctioned by Jesus?

>                                                     As the purpose
>of marriage is twofold, and the participants must agree to strive
>to live by those two purposes - unitive sex and procreative sex, a
>sterile man/woman cannot in good faith carry out that requirement, and
>so any such marriage is invalid. It's strict, but it's the Church's
>law. And believe me, the Church has nothing to gain in doing so - in
>fact, I'm sure they lose many members this way. 

They also violate Jesus teachings.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, 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.
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Weak v. Strong Arguments
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:02:31 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

In article <1992Jul27.210747.705@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>] In article <l6c073INN49c@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>] >
>] >Technically, we might not be guilty of murder in the first place, since
>] >murder is a legal term and murder laws may not apply on this desert island.
>] 
>] Not to single out anyone in particular, Eric, but I'm sick to death of this
>] specious argument. Murder is a term in law, yes, but it's ALSO a moral term,
>] too, being roughly defined as "malicious, premeditated killing". The reason
>] that the pro-life mantra "abortion is murder" is inaccurate therefore is NOT 
>] just because it's a legal term, but because it is typically used inaccurately
>] even _outside_ of the legal realm, i.e. because there is no evidence of 
>] "malice" as being the motivation for any abortion ever.
>] 
>] Why make a weak objection, when one can make a strong one?
>] 
>] 								- Kevin
>
>
>kevin,
>
>at one level your argument is interesting.
>
>the problem remains that when the matter is presented as
>being a legislative agenda, it is a matter of discussing Law.
>
>Granted the sloagn, "If We Get Our Way, Abortion Will be Murder"
>is hard to chant, save for those of us who cna do gregorians.
>
>there are, I presume you will agree, three popular notions of 'murder'
>
>1. the legal notion
>
>2. your restrictive definition of a 'moral' token, that
>rests upon the legal notion of murder requiring 'malice of forethought.'
lots of stuff deleted>>>
You know Drieux, this is the most substantive article I have ever seen
you write.  Instead of your typical words mushed together for no 
apparent reason you had something of substance to say.  I don't mean to 
be patronizing but this is the first article you have written that had
any logic to it (at least from my point of view).

I'm glad to see it. :)
Wes


-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 26 Jul 92 13:25:59 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <!mvxtjk@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> 
> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
> 
>>In <q0cm=rj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
>>>The U.S. death rate from surgical abortion is 0.4 per 100,000 abortions.
> 
>>The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all abortions
>>recorded. 
> 
> This statement is not correct.

Sure it is, he said approximately 100%.  The accuracy depends entirely
on the number of significant figures he was thinking of.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:13:50 GMT

In <14p8t7INNngj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com 
   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
In article <1992Jul23.205941.9331@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
  (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>>Hmm.  Once again, I have to ask if this is a 'real' question.  (Bill,
>>>one of these days I'm going to have to figure out what it *is* about
>>>your postings that always send me down this path....)
>
>>Maybe it's my indefatigable wit?  My incisive analyses?  My good looks?
>
>I don't *think* so, but I could be wrong.  How good looking are you?

Depends on who you talk to.  I think I'm pretty average looking. 

>>Right; I wasn't arguing otherwise.  The question (the *real* question)
>>is: what happened to these women? ...
>>I think we have
>>to admit that, for some small percentage of the population, there is an
>>identifiable risk of an adverse emotional reaction to abortion.  It may
>>be remote, but it nevertheless seems to exist.
>
>And the followup question is: "So?"
>
>We have reason to believe that post-abortion trauma exists.
>We have reason to believe that post-partum depression (not to mention 
>trauma) exists.

I have no hidden agenda here.  My question is, should women be warned
of this potential prior to the procedure?  I realize that there is no
corresponding warning related to the risks of pregnancy, but these days
women don't ususally see a physician until the pregnancy is confirmed.  
At any rate, I was merely asking for opinions.  Sounds like you think 
a warning isn't necessary given the relatively low incidence of post-
abortion trauma? 

>What does this have to do with talk.abortion?

Seems related to the effects of abortion on some subset of women who
obtain them (rhetorical question, right?).

Bill

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:01:14 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: alt.flame

In article <1992Jul29.012524.3335@cfctech.cfc.com>, kevin@cfctech.cfc.com
(Kevin Darcy) sucks up to Stevie Franklin, the only person to even attempt
to defend him:
> 
> Thanks for the effort, Steve, but once a witch-hunt is in full swing, it's 
> often very difficult to demonstrate to the mob that the victim isn't 
> actually a witch (shades of Monty Python and the Holy Grail :-). I have a 
> feeling this one is no exception.

Witch hunt, my ass, Darcy.  Nobody needs to do any hunting to determine
precisely how worthless a sack of shit you actually are.  You've proven it
beyond _any_ _reasonable_ doubt.  (By the way, that lets you out, Stevie.)

Do you imagine, for even an instant, that the reaction you're getting is
related to the fact that those postings originated from Kevin Darcy?  If
so, educate yourself.  It isn't who you are, it's _what_ you are, that has
everyone so excited.

What you are is, in fact, a garden-variety sociopath.  You used to annoy
me, Kevin.  Instead, you now _revolt_ me.

Don't you dare attempt to paint yourself as the victim here, Mr. Darcy.  In
doing so, you only dig yourself in deeper.

And leave the "smilies" out of your postings.  I assure you, you haven't
got _anything_ to smile about.

> As for "distastefulness", I'll remind everyone, YET AGAIN, of where my 
> article was posted originally. Taste is a very relative concept...

Not quite as relative as I'm certain you wish it were.  Any vertebrate
worthy of the appelation "human being" would certainly have realized that
your cue to apologize, grovel, and then vanish from the net in shame had
arrived.

But not Kevin "People call me arrogant, but I know better than that" Darcy!

You haven't got the ethical sense of a tick; you fail to approach the broad
moral outlook of a rabid weasel.  You have, by your own words and actions,
become something that nobody with the slightest scintilla of common sense
or decency could possibly regard you anything other than distaste, disgust
and loathing.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:32:38 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?

> 
>My summary opinion: Governor Casey should have, or should in the future,
>run for US President.



If my vote means anything he will have plenty of time because Im sure as
hell not voting for him for govener next time around.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:31:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <NUGE.92Jul24114732@newport.med.ge.com>, nuge@newport.med.ge.com
(James A. Nugent) wrote:
> 
>   Yup. Early Church teaching, the Didache Apostolicae (Teachings of
> the Apostles, ~ 100 AD) says:
> 
>   "You shall not kill the fetus by abortion, or destroy the infant
>   already born."

Forgive me for asking the obvious question, but why would one consider the
"Didache Apostolicae" to be divinely inspired?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion