HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:25:28 CDT


In article <mwD8iB1w164w@bluemoon.rn.com>, orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
> > >I do not understand all the hysteria.  Casino gambling is legal in only
> > >one state and one other city in the U.S. and people travel from all over
> > >to reach these places for gambling. A desperate woman would be able to
> > >travel to any state that still allowed them.
> > >
> > >What is the problem with that?
> > 
> > The problem is that constitutional rights and civil liberties do not become
> > null and void by crosing a state line.  The right to control one own body
> > and make reproductive decisions is more fundamental and important than the
> > right to play blackjack.

> True, but does a person have a constitutional right to control one's own
> body?

Yes.  Limits to that right is allowed if the states demonstrate a compelling
state interest.  In abortion, states have a compelling interest to protect
maternal health (after the first trimester) and to protect potential
life (after viability).

>        We do not have the right to inject our bodies with heroin.

Is it really illegal to inject heroin?  Or is it illegal to manufacture,
distribute, and posses?  Prohibition of alcohal did not make consumption
illegal.  From the 23rd amendment:

	1. After one year from the ratification of this article the 
	manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors
	thereof from the United States and all territtory subject to
	the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Let me know if there is a law making the injection of heroin illegal.

>                                                                    We do
> not have the right to put alcohol in our bodies shortly before driving a
> motor vehicle.

It is a violation of the driving *privilage* when driving drunk.

>                  I could bring up other examples.

Please do.

> The constitution does not give a person the right to do whatever one wants
> to one's own body.

True, there are limits to that right.

>                      This ought to be even more true when we are dealing
> with a potential human being.

It is true regarding abortion, as outlined above.

-- 
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!)
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:01:51 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA

From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
> time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
> place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
> people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.
> 
> Cheers,
> Big Al  


Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.


Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.


Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Natives Are Restless... (Was: The March in D.C.)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 18:33:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.225929.3103@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:
>
>>In article <1992Apr12.163843.17077@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>>
>>Hey, Shit-For-Brains!!!!
>>
>>(Here we go again:  Yet another pro-life-male-virgin-without-even-half-a-clue
>>is going to try and tell women how to run their lives...)
>>
>
>BTW, get your facts right. I'm pro-choice and not a virgin. I just don't
>trust man/womankind. We've messed up too many times in the past to
>assume that we are always doing the right thing, no matter how much we
>rationalize our actions. Life is Russian Roullette.

So therefor we should do nothing?  Sorry, I think life is more like a crap
game.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but you have to decide how much
to bet and on what.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?)
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:58:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr05.211450.10118@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr5.004022.23690@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr04.091747.4727@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>> >If someone was proposing it as a change,
>> >they'd have to provide a justification, which would easily be ripped
>> >to shreds.  But if you're only interested in stating a hypothetical
>> >without justifying it, then, as you said, "why bother".
>>
>> Sigh. How black-or-white of you, Larry. You can't think hypothetically?
>
>Sure I can.  But what I see is you presenting a hypothetical and then
>sitting back and attacking people who argue against it, and I don't want
>to play your game.  I think it's a waste of time talking about a
>hypothetical situation that could never happen.

How do you know it could never happen? Do you have a crystal ball?

To put it more poignantly, how are you going to argue against the inevitable
Pro-life Asshole (TM) who saunters into the newsgroup and makes this same
argument, not as a hypothetical this time but as a REAL proposal for how the
law should be? You haven't thought through the issues, traced the logic paths,
considered the ramifications, etc. My guess is you'll just crumple and fail.
Pro-life Asshole (TM) will win by default.

Maybe it doesn't bother you that you ran away from this reasoning. It bothers
me. It bothers me a LOT, Larry, and I don't have any pat answers. But at
least, unlike you, I'm at least willing to explore the question...

								- Kevin
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:17:21 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr10.115735.25522@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>Newbie alert. What makes you think rocker _started_ anything here?
silly - he was referring to the initiation of her independent article.
Not a thread, concept or argument. Read post again and do not pass GO.

>You are not going to win any points with the folk around here
>by launching your t.a career with a personal attack on rocker.
>Rocker is an awesomely fine and wonderful individual. She's
   No... we don't agree...
>a mother. Whatsamatta wich you, no respect for motherhood?
^^^^^^^^^so? 
>Sigh. I suppose apple pie and the flag will be next to go.
>Does your newsread show headers? Mine does, and the lady's name
>is on them: Cathi Cook. A word of unsolicited advice: newbies
>do better around here if they lurk for awhile before jumping
>headlong into the fray. I was a lurker for about three months
   You're wrong muriel - I've seen some great posts from people
who are new to the scene. certainly superior to this one. Besides -
you only made the ASSUMPTION that the poster was a newbie. Please
don't base your entire article on this. It becoms dull
>before I started posting. In my humble opinion, Kevin, you would
>make a *fine* lurker.
  a fine lurker? I think you should spend a little more time before
you post again Muriel - Take your own advice maybe? 
>muriel
>standard disclaimer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Does this disclaimer cover potentially useless
posts? If so, I guess I shoudl get one too because this is no better...
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DeMoss Foundation
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:44:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr17.184433.1270
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr16.074002.18306@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey Jean Lin) writes:

|> 	Gee... don't you know that most "Pro-Life Pigs" do support
|> abortions in cases of rape and danger to mother's health. Not all are
|> trying to outlaw abortions, the important issue is to lower abortions.

My thanks to Dennis Hall for the following:

  Romania - 90.9 abortions / 1000 women (aged 15-44):
 	    abortion & contraception illegal 
  America - 28 abortions / 1000 women:
	    abortion legal, but inadequate contraceptive information
	    & services 
  Scotland - 9 abortions / 1000 women:
	    abortion legal, well-developed contraceptive information
	    in communities 
  Holland - 5.3 abortions / 1000 women:
	    abortion legal, well-developed contraceptive information
	    in communities AND schools. 
  (Alan Guttmacher Institute Study, March/April 1990)

Now, if the important issue is to lower the abortion rate, then it
appears that legislating abortion is the wrong way to achive the
desired end.

If, however, the issue is to hid the fact that abortions occur
then legislation is the correct way to go, as it will remove 
the open (perhaps unsettling) topic of abortion out of the 
public's eye, perhaps limiting it to the occassional headline
of "Rape victim requires abortion" (poor dear) or "Doctors
perform emergency abortion to save teen's life" (what a shame)
or "Woman dies from illegal abortion" (tha's unfortunate, but
you know about those people...). 
 
		                    *
|> *****************************************************************************
|> * Today's Quote : Sex is not the answer, sex is the question.		    *
|> *		  "Yes" is the answer.				Swami X     *
|> *****************************************************************************

Interesting .sig....
-- 
--Bruce

"The only way you can prove you love God is by loving your
 neighbor, and the only way you can love your neighbor is
 by endless forgiveness".
				Thomas Hopko
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:14:15 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


ml>In article <1992Apr12.225153.2777@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
kb>In a previous article, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) says:

kb>Only disagreeing technically.  Abortion is NOT contraception (ie. agreed)
kb>but Abortion IS birth control (no birth takes place).  A minor point
kb>nonetheless.

ml>Kicking my girlfriend in the stomach so that she miscarriages is birth
ml>control too. Does that make every method of birth control ok?????

Lets try and compare the two examples of birth control.  Try real hard
to see if you see a difference Matthew.  One type has a woman voluntarily
going and procures an abortion.  The other example is you kicking a
woman in the stomach to force an abortion.  I'm not terribly surprised
that a misogynist such as yourself would have trouble seeing the
difference, but many of us have no trouble judging the two cases.  There
isn't really a problem for many of us in seeing that a woman should
have control with her reproductive choices.  I have no problem allowing
the woman the reproductive choice while denying it to a little twirp
such as yourself.

ml>Later


ml>MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: Darned Antagonistic Medieval Attitudes (was Re: Clarifications)
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:49:28 GMT

In <1992Mar25.004526.22520@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <1992Mar24.200900.28907@acd4.acd.com> wdo@IEDV4.acd.com 
   ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes: >>
 In <EJONES.92Mar8140017@umassmed.ummed.edu> ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu 
    (Erik Jones) advises: >>>

>You gotta stop dating women named Irene, Bill.  Listen to me.  I can
>help you.  What you need is a Soozie or a Jenipher.  

Uh, this is Indiana, Dean.  The best we can hope for here is a
Candi (and they always have about two packs of Hubba Bubba in
their mouths).

>> I guess you're right; I'll never get me a good woman 'til I learn
>> some modern attitudes.

>It's not your attitude, it's the women you choose.  You gotta
>break those old attitudes.  Get rid of that plastic pencil-holder/
>pocket protector.  

Easy.  One step at a time.  My pocket protector and I go way back.

>Buy yourself a blue T-shirt and a white linen sportscoat, 

Would polyester do?

>a pair of dark shades with black frame, royal
>blue slacks, no socks, and white loafers.  

I think you can only buy no socks in California.  Also, can the white
loafers be patent leather (with matching belt)?

>Stop driving that Taurus 

uh .... psst ... (toyota pickup ... not 4wd, either)

>and get yourself into a Grand Am.  

Do they come in brown?

>And start spelling your name "Rgnduus,"  and tell them it's
>pronounced "Bill."  That'll let 'em know you are way cool.

I like Bi3ll (the 3 is silent).  Even now, there are women
peeking over my shoulder...

Bi3ll
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 00:48:26 GMT


There are still many who fin the number speculative, but I dont' care
what the number was. The larger the number, the lower society has
stooped. Incentally, I've seen just as much discrepancy with the 
latest pro life march... 
      In any case, someone wrote:

> Yessiree, folks, that's 70,000 versus 500,000. We had more people at
>that pro-choice march for women's lives, than Saddam Hussein had troops
>in Kuwait! We had more pro-choicers at that march, I believe, than all
>the American troops who died in World War II - about 3 times as many. 

Jee, that number of 500,000 kind of pales in comparison to the numbers 
of victims we pro-lifers are up against. Should we clap for those 
110,000 - 1 million people who are in support of the millions of
unborn babies we've already lost? Numbers don't mean a hell of a lot to
me. 1 million people screaming senseless drieux-isms doesn't amount
to whole lot in my mind. Your analogy with the 500,000 (?) pro-choice
demonstrators to Saddam Hussein's troops was interesting though, and
well taken. You have to wonder who's leading the pro-choice movement. 
Not a religious leader, but maybe the almight religion which will have
the 90's remembered for it's selfishness and ease of corruptibility.
   Yup, this is going to be a time that we will be embarassed of
when we look back on it. Or will we try and OVERLOOK it as the Western Culture
is so good at?
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM! (Was: What pro-lifers don't tell you)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 08:03:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.054157.29263@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>In <1992Apr3.012204.6777@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>>And, just to make sure that everybody understands my position on this, GET THE
>>FUCKING HITLER/NAZI/HOLOCAUST "ANALOGIES" OUT OF TALK.ABORTION.  NOW!
>
>    Agreed Keith... However, I think it would be fair to support Steve's side
>by saying that he was NOT the one who brought up the Nazi analogy. I believe
>that the original person who wrote the article offended some Pro-Lifers by
>calling their movement a "Nazi's" movement. Little things like this tends to
>upset people. (correct me if I'm wrong) Both parties were not right, I guess.

And the person who brought it up got flamed into oblivion, and rightly so.
As should Kellmeyer, if it would do any good; but you're wrong about it
upsetting him. He loves getting a chance to trot out his garbage on the
subject as much as the folk from Banned-CPU love it, and for exactly the
same reasons.

>						Mikeey

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:13:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr14.001357.26579
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:

>In article <1992Apr13.184118.14440@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <18061@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>
>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  HIV/AIDS is *NOT* just a "gay
>disease".  Anybody can get it.
>


I'll tell you this.

AIDS, aka side-effect of the ME generation's hedonistic lifestyle, will
statistically probably never be "my disease." Sure, anyone can get
AIDS, or any woman can get pregnant, but certain factors have HUGH
effects on probability.


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 00:07:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.190628.12162@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Apr6.231713.15643@adobe.com>, by kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall):
>> In article <1992Apr6.220151.5322@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>> 
>>>> I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
>>>> time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
>>>> place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
>>>> people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.
>>>
>>>Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
>>>even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
>>>
>>>Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.
>> 
>>  1/4 million?  All news accounts I have heard so far put the LOW estimates
>>  at 1/2 million and range as high as 1 million.
>
>
>The two major networks that I saw, ABC, and either NBC or CBS (don't recall
>which) both reported "a quarter million".
>
>
>>  And 1.5 million *people* died of abortion?  NOT!  
>
>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.


Jesus is gonna let you rot in Hell if you keep lying like this, Suzanne...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:48:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: odin.1992Apr13.214857.9978
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1rvj=#h.zank@netcom.com>, Mathew Zank writes:
|Okay, about a new name other than Nazi, about just dumb pigs?

Dude, this is not the way to convince people.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable.  
There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the 
intellect." -- Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:57:23 GMT

bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

] 
]    I have recently seen posts urging us to find a middle ground on
] the issue of abortion.  The anti-abortion side seeks to pass laws
] that would prohibit a woman's choice.  How on earth could there be
] a middle ground between those that are for choice, and those that are
] against choice?


Very simple, That AntiAbortionists should Abandon 
their Hatred of God, Seek Repentence and come to the Truth.

ciao
drieux


-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Adobe
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:50:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.002515.4493@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>
>>Child care generally has no adverse affects on children (supported by
>>psychological studies).
>  Can you quote cases? I guess I'll have dig out the books to prove you
>wrong which is annoying, but there have been many studies supporting
>the mental and emotional disadvantages of the "latch-key child"...

 A new study has been completed which intended to show these disadvantages.
 What they stumbled on instead, was that many latch-key children did not
 suffer mental and emotional disadvantages.  In fact, they learned self-
 reliance and responsibility.  The latch-key children that did suffer
 were those who were being taken care of by older siblings.  The 
 researchers were quite surprised.
   
 But this is off the topic of talk.abortion.

 Janice Kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.