HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doing the Right Thing
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:11:11 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr6.232531.11057@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
> They misremembered the context. Kellmeyer posted private email, and I
> defended him, but those were INDEPENDENT events.

OK, what *did* you say about his posting private email?  Did you blast him
for it?  Did you say it was wrong?  Did you make any comments *at all*
regarding the propriety of it (even if not as rabid as what you addressed
towards Susan)?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:12:04 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <18147@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>            bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>You just referred to a child as an "it".

Yes I did. A fetus is an "it"; if a fetus is a child, then a child is
an "it" when referencing a fetus.

>Posting a definition of the word "child" is not an appeal to
>the emotions. People should be entitled to use the word "child"
>to refer to unborn offspring, since the definition exists.

Sorry. I thought you were making an appeal to the emotional context
of the word. Just posting the definition is not an appeal. Please accept
my apology for reading more into your article than was there.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Bible and Abortion
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 23:09:35 GMT

<EJONES.92Mar30125324@umassmed.ummed.edu> ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu (Erik Jones) said:
>In article <1992Mar27.095559.9957@newstand.syr.edu> mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:
>   >>>>       Try this one:
>   >>
>   >>>>       "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and
>   >>>>       the curse.  Choose life, then, that you and your
>   >>>>       descendents may live"
>   >>
>   >>>>       Dt 30:19
>   >>>That doesn't even merit discussion, Kevin. It's the end of the
>   >>>"blessings and curses" section of a ritual covenant. IT's an
>   >>>exhortation to covenant love(obediance), nothing more.
>   >>>-Ekr
>>   O.K., then in obediance "go forth and multiply"
>
>3*6=18   2*12=24   4*7.5=26

It's true, he didn't say anything about doing it correctly (4*7.5=30).


Gordon
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: 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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 22:51:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.014223.377@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) says:
>
>>If it is not a "sentient being", how do you justify preventing someone from
>>doing as they will with their own body?
>
>
>well.....what if I wanted to cut my wrist? Or mutilate my leg in
>a fist of rage after a serious break-up????
>
>Would that be wise?
>
>the point is that a man or woman is often NOT in the right frame of
>mind to make a decision. 

Spoken like a TRUE Pro-Lifer.  Hypocritical, illogical...
--
=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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 01:17:24 GMT

In <1992Apr07.201614.8936@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:


>You know something?  Sadaam's soldiers had a 'right to exist', too.
>So does Robert Alton Harris, a conficted and condemned killer.
>So does Cleophelus Prince, a convicted and condemned killer and rapist.

>I guess that means we can't/don't/shouldn't stop rapists, killers, or
>enemies of war by means of lethal force, huh?

Heck, didn't you know? Christians are against capitol punishment too.
Man shall not ever empower another man/womans life but to defend his
own. 
   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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15244 soc.men:8458 soc.women:8974
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:32:23 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <6r9trvm@rpi.edu> mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren S. Mcgeary) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.125259.22918@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>There you have it.  To hell with the living, breathing, thinking, feeling
>mother.  We gotta save some fetuses!!!      

>Typical
   Heh, I am not typical 
      anti-choice 
   Choice is great - you just can't choose abortion. Choose life 8)
            anti-sex 
   Hey man... I look forward to it more than you could know. Just takes
   a little patience
                  pro-forced birth
   NO one should be forced. Everyone should want the child. An unwanted
   child is a sign of immature parents.
                         facist 
   This doesn't deserve follow up. I'll assume you meant somethin else...
   "Father forgive them, for they know not what they [say]"
                                rightwinger 
   And proud of it...
                                        DJR clone.
Who the hell is DJF? I clone no one friend...

   Hey darren - why not post that lovely piece of mail you sent me? 
YOu said you would earlier. You remember which one? the violent post
of threats and violence? I'll forward it to you if you would like a copy. 
Or have you chickened out? 
   I look foward to hearing from you "nice guy (tm?)"
steve
>-- 
>Darren McGeary - Nice Guy(TM)                 mcgead@rpi.edu
>Owner and General Manager                     Darren_McGeary@mts.rpi.edu
>The Macho Kings                               1990 NIL Champions
>PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY
-- 
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: A Quick Proof
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:35:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr9.183532.7174
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr9.041544.6250@ncsu.edu>, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> 
|> Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
|>            set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
|>            morals on others. 
|> 
|> If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
|> can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 
|>

Likewise, you would have to agree that humans could force a woman to
have an abortion.

Moot point.
 
|> 
|> Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
|>            the right to determine its own set of morals. 
|> 
|> Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 
|> 
|> 
|> Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
|>            fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.
|> 
|> Follows from premise A and B.
|>
|> 
|> Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
|> of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
|> premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
|> pregnancy to term.

Seems that your logic is a bit skewed here.

Your basic assumption, that a fetus is capable of making moral
decisions, does not seem to be supportable. After all, the 
testimony of young children is not considered valid until it
can be demonstrated that the child is capable of being able
to make a distinction between truth & falsehood (a moral
decision). I believe that below a certian age (3-4?) most
courts won't even try to make that determination.

Also, your argument is not much of a proof in that it results
is a deadlock. If the mother is not able to terminate a pregnancy
because that would deny the fetus the right to determine its
own set of morals, the fetus' existence denys the mother the 
same right.
   

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
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: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Plan of action?
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:11:36 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <10APR92.23101482@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>Abortions are going to happen, no matter what lawmakers decide.
>How do anti-choicers plan to "save the children" of women
>who intend to have "illegal" abortions, if RvW is overturned?
>I guess continued harassment of doctors is the obvious answer,
>although in such a case physicians probably wouldn't be involved
>most of the time. What then?

	Hmmm... how about a compromise?  Nobody wants any illegal abortions
so why not try to find ways of lowering unwanted pregnancies? I think both
parties should be happy in some kind of progress.

						Mikeey
				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
				       (Pro-Choice/ANTI-ABORTION)

PS If anyone have suggestions please enlighten all of us. ;->
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject:  Still No Still No Still No Comphrension (Was: 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 23:40:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.192542.16639@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.171055.8243@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:
>
>>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 ...
>
>>I thought "latch-key" children are those children who go home alone,
>>i.e. not in any "child care" situation.  Be sure you get the studies
>>showing the mental and emotional disadvantages of "child care", Steve.
>   Although latch-key is metaphorically tied to the child who has 
>her/his own key to let him/herself into their home because no parents 
>are there to do it for them, it basically includes all children who 
>don't have sufficient support and education because of a lack of
>parental communication and presence.

In other words, you're going to find some study that says unsupervised children
tend to get into more trouble than supervised children, and attempt to use this
as an argument against putting children into SUPERVISED day care.

When did you get your Frontal Lobotomy, Steve?

>
>>I think this is the first time I've seen Steve say he will dig out
>>studies.  
>   yeah, yeah yeah... And last time too. Diggind through old text books
>and journals is a real fun way to prove a point... 8)

That's very true.  It's _so_ much easier to just make up the figures, Steve.
According to some pro-lifers, this is called "Research".
--
=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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 20:11:20 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  <1992Apr8.130205.14825@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Apr8.041649.27301@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
>
> >Chapter & verse please.  Identify for me where the Bible says that
> >human life begins at conception, that abortion is wrong, or that
> >a fetus has the same rights as an adult?
>    I dont' have the time or the memory to quote the bible. Go read
> it yourself...

OK.  Nowhere does the bible say that human life begins at conception,
that abortion is wrong, or that a fetus has the same rights as an adult.
(Not that it would affect *my* behavior if it did, but just to clue you
in as to the point that rfischer was trying to make.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another of Cathi's Ex-boyfriends (Was: welch confronts his church)
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:38:53 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr3.205014.1204@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) said:
>cc>From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook)
>cc>Message-ID: <0art_#=@rpi.edu>
..
>cc>                           -rocker
>cc>                            tsakc, and hoping that dean, dan, gordon,
>cc>                            keith, keegan, and patrick will all consider
>cc>                            her to be their ex-girlfriend
>
>I am thrilled to have you as an ex-girlfriend.  I have many fond memories
>of our wonderful times together.  It has been difficult for me to get
>on with my life since our breakup.  All my more recent relationships
>just seem to pale when compared to the wonderful times we have had.  I
>continue on fueled only by our beautiful memories.

Oh sure, go ahead and be a copy-cat.  I have *lots* more fond memories of
Rocker than you'll ever have.  But I'm not the type to post thousands of
lines of steamy, erotic, explicit lurid details.  Unless, of course,
Rocker approves (where's that old copy of Penthouse Letters?)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Organization: New York University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:57:56 GMT

orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:

>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.

Considering that a casino just opened in Connecticut, and Iowa and
other Mississippi River states allow casino gambling, and that many
sovreign dependent states (AKA "Indian Tribes") run gambling operations,
along with minor gambling operations run by the Catholic Church (Wednesday
night bingo), and the eternally present office pool, I don't think that 
people always travel quite so far.  Besides, we aren't talking about
entertainment, but abortion.  


david
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Doing the Right Thing
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:13:37 GMT

In article <92101.164331ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr4.035028.16772@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy writes:
>
>>They misremembered the context. Kellmeyer posted
>>private email, and I defended him, but those were
>>INDEPENDENT events.
>
>Why is it always someone else's fault?  

I'm not laying "fault" on anyone, Linda. I'm merely refuting a false
charge. Do I not have the right to defend myself against false
accusations?

>You attacked Susan Garvin for posting email, equating
>it with the ultimate net sin, and yet, knowing fully
>that Kellmeyer posted email you defended him ...

But for something totally different. I never addressed the issue of
email privacy in that thread.

>Face it Darcy, you attacked both Susan Garvin and
>James Keegan because of your obvious vendetta
>against these individuals...

How hypocritical, coming from "Ms. Vendetta" herself...

Just out of curiosity, Linda, what motivated this article of yours?

>... and in doing so you
>defended both Welch and Kellmeyer's behaviour.

Truth by blatant assertion?

I have defended neither Welch's abusive behavior nor Kellmeyer's 
public posting of private email. 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
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: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:21:14 GMT

In article <73533@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds) writes:
>Kevin B. writes
>>Beth
>
>>>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>
>>Interesting tidbit there (Anti-Roe).  We are ALL aware (I hope) that the
>>entire case (Roe v. Wade) was built upon a lie.  And the entire pro-death
>>movement is based upon obscuring what matters with loud, emotional rhetoric.
>
>Well, you see Elizabeth is probably Anti-Roe because Roe has restrictions
>on abortions.  She probably anti-Roe because she wants universal abortion
>rights--from conception until birth.

Gee, Kevin, why don't you just ASK her why she put that into her .sig, instead
of attempting to psychically guess what it means???

Oh, because that means you'd have to talk to a woman, instead of just telling
her to "step back, and I think it's time to suck my dick".

Well, since you don't see anything beyond a mouth to satisify your oral
fixations, I'll ask for you.

Elizabeth:  Why do you say you are "pro-choice, anit-roe"?
--
=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: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:41:18 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

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:

>BTW, anyone read where they think AIDS originated? It appears the virus
>was introduced into the human blood pool in the 1920s or 30s by scientists
>injecting malaria-infected chimp blood into human subjects, to see if
>the malaria would take. Talk about stupid scientific endeavors (hindsight).

   Hee hee... I have shares in the moon I will sell you Ron if you're
interested... In any case, more likely is the references I have heard where
humans have been bitten by the (green?) monkey of Africa. Doesn't really
matter who started it. You should be more concerned with who spreads it,
and how we can stop it... Now have I suggested my contraceptive? Oh yes,
I believe I have... I won't dwell on it more.
   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: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: We want lots of life
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.005633.4108@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>    Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992
>>
>>  "The baby's organs were not being donated. Doctors had said Baby
>>   Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants by
>>   the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
>>   found."                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^

> In other words, no matching recipients were found *immediately*.  

Were any recipients found at any point? No.

> I'd imagine the searchers stopped looking when the doctors told them that
> the organs would be too damaged for use as transplants by the time she
> died (i.e. by the time they were available).  

No, that's incorrect, read this part that you deleted: 
 
 ``We have had no interest in it from the organ procurement side
   because of all the problems associated with it,'' said Wanda Bond,
   a spokesman for the United Network for Organ Sharing. ``It's such
   a small number of individuals that could be helped that the question
   is, `Does it make sense to go through all this?' Clearly, in the
   medical community the answer is it doesn't.'' "

> That doesn't mean
> recipients would not have been found if the searchers had kept
> looking.

Apparently, some medical experts never started looking because it did 
not make sense to look. 

> In other words, you misrepresented what the newspaper said.

Prove that there were infants available that could have received
baby Theresa's organs.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion