HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:42:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.053752.16496@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>> Yes, that's exactly correct.  The pro-aborts who argue that women
>> should have the right to abort by virtue of the fetus' residence
>> within their bodies have reduced women to mere physical containers.
>>
>> According to these pro-aborts, pregnant women do not need to offer
>> any justification for aborting -- these women might as well be
>> non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply house a fetus. They
>> ignore the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion, and instead
>> focus all attention on the fact that a fetus resides within the
>> woman's body.

> Clearly, if the women were non-thinking, inanimate objects, they
> wouldn't be able to *want* an abortion.  It's the fact that they
> are thinking human beings that makes it necessary to consider whether
> or not they *want* a fetus inside them.  If the fetus was in a container
> rather than in a person, there wouldn't be much controversy.

Exactly!  If women were non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply
housed a fetus, then they wouldn't be able to want an abortion. Therefore,
it makes no sense to *ignore* the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion
by focusing strictly on the fact that a fetus resides within the woman's
body. To *ignore* the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion is to 
treat her like a non-thinking, inanimate fetal container, which she 
is not.  


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-life NRL symbolism and terminology
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:05:50 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <25914@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
> Recently, I had the "opportunity to read the NRL news rag. It has explained
> many things, such as why pro-lifers who have swallowed the propoganda
> hook, line, and sinker use terms like "pro-abort" and "pro-death". The
> rag is riddled with them, with one of these terms seeming to appear
> on every other line, amidst lies and twisted truths.

Right to Lifers don't GET their terminology from the NRL News.
Right to Lifers WRITE the NRL News.  They simply prefer to use their
own terminology since they're writing for their own members anyway.


>     But this is not what really struck me. That was the appropriateness
> of the symbol of the NRL movement, or at least their rag. It is a flame
> (or leaf) inside two intersecting circles. 


I believe you are referring to the ROSE, Ron.   Yes Ron, a red ROSE, the
flower Our Lady of Guadeloupe presented to St. (?) in the dead of winter,
so is now the symbol of Right To Life.   If anyone understands the plight
of women with problem pregnancies, it is this woman, who experienced an
unwed teenage pregnancy herself, yet went to term and gave birth to the
greatest man who ever lived.


> The flame/leaf symbolizes
> life (and/or freedom, for those to whom this is important) which is
> encircled in chains. 

This is a Rosary, Ron.  It has beads on it.  It is the chosen method of
prayer of many pro-lifers at demonstrations.


> This is what it says to me, and it appears very
> appropriate, in view of the freedoms the NRL wishes to bottle up. I'm
> just surprised that they would choose chains as part of their symbology.

Sheesh.


> Ron

Suzanne Forgach
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:07:36 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

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.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Simon needs to learn a lot of history 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:28:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:
>>Here's my blow-hard, simplistic, brutish (and therefore aptly suited to the
>>alt.rush-limbaugh group) opinion on the abortion issue:
>>
>>The right of the woman to choose what to do with her body supercedes any rights
>>the unborn parasite has to her body.
>>
>>There.  I have spoken.  This issue will never be resolved by consensus.  If
>>people want to resolve it by majority-rule vote, that's fine.  I believe
>>most of America is pro-choice.  My only regret is that as a male, I will
>>most likely never have the opportunity to squash an Operation Rescue person
>>trying to block my entry to an abortion clinic.
>
>Especially if the Operation Rescue people carried the appropriate hardware.
>Try to squash someone who is armed...
>
>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....

Uh, Simon...before you go off to write your masterpiece, you might be
interested to know -- it's already been written by Margaret Atwood.  Have
you ever heard of "A Handmaid's Tale"?  :-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

               They never understood me at the Home, either...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!  
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:24:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.151521.15156@advtech.uswest.com> 
steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

> Honorable mention in this category goes to Holtsinger, Arnold,
> Schweikert - and other t.a. members of the Religious

I'm not religious.
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:09:41 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <39vzp!#@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->(Susan Garvin) writes: >>>
->>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
->>>> about a dead young woman?  
->>
->>>Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
->>>crusade.  
->>
->> please list the criteria that you relied on to conclude
->> that her parents were being malicious in any way
->> whatsoever.

->I've already done so. 

where?

->>>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
->>
->>>I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
->>
->>please list the criteria that you relied on to conclude
->>that ms. garvin tends to see misogyny around every
->>corner.

->It was right there in her post, obvious for everyone to see.

no it wasn't. the only comments on this exchange
disprove your statement. so, are you going to post your
criteria or not?

->>if you're uncomfortable answering either of these
->>questions, bill, just say so.

->Not at all.

well then, i hope you'll be doing so soon.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Is suicide an environmental Crime?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:49:58 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

] In article <1992Oct7.085016.15276@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> 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.
] 
] I think that you are wrong about suicide being illegal. When my wife and
] I got into a discussion on the issue, I called the local police
] dept. and asked them about it. They told me that there are no laws
] against suicide, but the officer said that if the person who committed
] suicide were to do so on public property, it is possible that litter
] laws might apply.


If they filed an EIS prior to such an
event, would it be a viable option then?


ciao
drieux


ps: what is the punishment for 'suicide' which is 
really another form of Murder? do they get the Gas Chamber?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:44:55 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Oct15.164255.11261@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>As for being "sensitized", where is the line between sensitivity and
>overreaction/persecution-complex? How do we know when that line has been
>crossed? I wouldn't buy a piece a piece-of-shit radar detector that was so
>"sensitive" it went off constantly, why should I buy a line about Dean's
>Miracle Racism-detecting Nose which seems to go off pretty easily too?

Check the calibration.  I don't throw out my top-of-the-line radar
detector just because it goes off constantly when I'm driving around
the airport.  Going off easily doesn't imply innacurately.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: <None>
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:30:53 GMT
 <1992Oct12.023740.7589@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> 
 <1992Oct13.045427.14832@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1992Oct13.195505.14806@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct13.195505.14806@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.045427.14832@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:
>>>><1992Oct2.042310.4735@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>>Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
>>>>>moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
[...]
>>Simon, a whole bunch of clueless people show up here every fall -
>>People here have seen it all and are quite skilled in making you look foolish.
>>If you look foolish on your own, it is less humorous.
>>
> I'm clueless because I show concern for children??  That's interesting.

No Simon, you're foolish because you think that since the mother can 
feel the quickening that the fetus must be "aware".
 
> I thought the goal here was to debate, not to make people look foolish.

Right.  Why not stick with that goal, and quit trying to look foolish.

> That's the reason I keep my jokes to a minimum, and only when warranted.

Don't worry about that, you don't need a warrant to tell a joke.  Three
pieces of id will do.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gay Pride .sig of Steve Chaney
Keywords: POC
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:39:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct16.184643.27456@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#Is it possible for bullshit to wave the red flag in front of
#a bull?  Stedennis Chahallney does just that.  Oh well,
#once more unto the breach, dear friends...

Oh, Dennis was just pouting.  

#In article <1992Oct16.165819.24190@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
## 
## Even though Susan Garvin has no evidence to support her "Dennis" claim
## - no evidence that shows I wrote like Dennis or any documentation
## beyond Scott Roby's claims.. she continues to go on with that lie.
## Oh, well.
#
#Not exactly.  The system administrator for the account in
#question called me, personally, when I wrote to him and asked
#who owned the Dennis Hall account.  The system administrator for
#the account in question said the owner of the account was
#Stephen Chaney.  Oh, and "Dennis Hall" both wrote like
#Stephen Chaney (if that is his real name) in style and,
#curiously enough, misspelled the same words and confused
#Usenet with UNIX.  There were other indications as well, but
#I tend to think the word of the system administrator pretty much
#settles the matter.

Indeed.  That, and the mail that at least one other person received
from Mr. Smith, and Scott Roby's verification, all prove that
Chaney/Hall tried a scam and got caught.  

He's threatened to contact my sysadmins now, claiming that I forged
an included article.  Part of me really hopes that he does, since
his accusation is untrue, and I doubt that his sysadmins will
tolerate much more nonsense originating from him.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:26:40 GMT

In article <73350@apple.Apple.COM>, bc@apple.com (Bill Coderre) writes:

| It used to be considered a sign of immense personal character
| to form alliances with parties one doesn't entirely agree with,
| so as to provide mutual effort for common goals.

Character be damned.  Coalitions are inspired by strategy, not 
disinterested virtue: one large group is generally more powerful
than lots of component small ones.  But there's always tension 
between the common agenda and individual integrity & goals -- 
coalitions which get sloppy about ignoring internal differences
run themselves up on the rocks pretty quickly.  I know; I've 
worked with a few.

| In the 90's, it's time to change that definition.  Now to
| form alliances is a sign of personal weakness.

Who-what?  Examples, please?  


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                   suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:27:02 GMT

Bill and Karen Bell appeared in a trailer that followed the
HBO movie "The Becky Bell Story."  I transcribed the
trailer.  

Susan

KB:  I'm Karen Bell.

BB:  And I'm Bill Bell.

BB:  The story you just saw was about our daughter Becky.

KB:  Becky didn't have to die.  She died because she couldn't 
do what the parental consent law in our state wanted her to do.  
The law required her to tell her parents that she was pregnant. 
If she couldn't tell her parents, the law required her to tell 
a judge.  Becky couldn't bring herself to do either of those things.

BB:  To the young women who are listening, find out which laws
effect you in your state if you become pregnant.  If you choose to 
go forward with an abortion, after carefully weighing whether you 
can tell your parents or whether you can go before a judge, 
know your options, so you don't find yourself in a back alley,
where an illegal abortion can take your life as swiftly as it 
took our Becky's.

KB:  How do you protect a daughter as loving, as wonderful,
as good as Becky?
To the mothers and fathers of daughters Becky's age, try
to remember what it was like when you were young - when
you couldn't talk to your parents about certain things.
Make sure your daughter knows that if she can't talk to
you, she should find someone else to help guide her.  Have
her promise she'll find someone who will help her with this
very difficult decision.  All you want is for your child is 
for her to come home safely.  Our daughter didn't.  She loved 
us as much as we loved her.  And she wanted to protect us.

BB:  Know the law in your state.  Know your options.  Know that 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:05:19 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <warren.718557117@beloved> warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams - a professing "pro-choice" christian) writes:
>All the books in the Bible have been commonly accepted by christians as the 
>Scriptures.  Most I know believe that 1Tim 3:16 refers to the entire Bible
>(entire = 66 books of OT and NT.)  I see you don't accept the NT as 
>infallible, and that explains why you can have a pro-choice opinion to me.
What in the NT leads you to believe that you should be pro-life?
I don't see anything, personally, and believe me, I've looked.

>I think it's futile.  No one will win.  What is the point?  It's a 
>question of faith.  We know we are not wrong, and they know they are not wrong.
>Has anyone in this group been changed from one belief to the other?
Yes. Dan King.

>1Cor 2:14: The man without the Spirit does not accept the things
>           that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness
>           to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are
>           spiritually discerned.
>
>Unbelievers look at the Bible and think it is foolishness.  How can you 
>understand something that is foolishness to you?
This is another example of you taking the Bible over observation.
I am an unbeliever and I don't think the Bible is stupidity.

>(This is an example, I don't have my references here.)
>In a recent scientific study of  a cross section of 1000 women,
>5% of all 1st trimester abortions ended in death for the mother.
I've gotta call bullshit on this one. I have extensive safety
data on abortion, and the death rate is much lower than that.
I would doubt either the truth of your assertion or the sampling
procedure that led to that crosssection.

Essentially all first trimester abortions are done by vacuum
curettage. The death rate is .5/100000 at less than 8 wks and
3/100000 at 11-12 wks(end of first trimester).
Overall curettage for 1-12 wks (1.5/100000).

Reference:

"Morbidity and Mortality of abortion in the United States"
by Willard Cates, Jr. and David A. Grimes

That does not jive well with a 5/1000 rate, does it now. You
gonna provide your statistics?

>Or something like that.  It'd very hard to find any truth now a days
>in the world.  People distort truth to meet their beliefs.
I would say that is what you seem to have done above.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: pfinerty@nyx.cs.du.edu (big daddy hate box)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Followup-To: misc.test,test,talk.bizarre
Summary: DUH.
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: DUH AGAIN.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:11:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.193222.24206@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com writes:
>In article <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com>, inb@creare.com (Ian Brown) writes:
>
>I would like some figures about the economy going to hell in a handbasket.
>
	I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOUR HEAD IN A BASKET. PREFERABLY AT THE
BOTTOM OF A GUILLOTINE. 


>| #include "std/disclaimer.h" || MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |

	thank you for playing. please die. now.
--
	     PJF--->BIOCHEM GRAD. STUDENT--U of UTAH oh yeah 
               "i am such a stupid,ignorant son of a bitch.
                           please kill me now."
						          "React with this!"
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:45:36 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct7.185331.16658@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:
|The only "wave of biblical exegesis" which I've seen recently
|is coming from a single person -- "The Rink" -- who is responding
|to Steve Adam's claims that the bible supports abortion.  So once
|again, it is the pro-aborts who are the first to raise the issue
|of religion. 

So you *do* throw hissy fits when Christians like Steve Adams
talk about their religion.  What's the matter with you?  Can't
you let other people practice their religion?  Or must everyone
walk & talk like the atheist you claim to be?

And by the way, Steve Adams is pro-choice.  You should call
him that, if you don't want to be called pro-death, anti-choice
and pro-forced-birth in turn.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"He must be an oddity, I think," said she.  "I cannot make him out.  
There is something very pompous in his style.  Can he be a sensible 
man, sir?"  --Pride & Prejudice.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:56:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <bob1.718652127@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1992Oct9.013258.6779@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>
>>In article <1b2l0cINN2bh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>INDIVIDUAL. When that individual is aborted, that blueprint for life is
>>terminated. A baby that may have been a genius. The baby that may have
>>the found the cure for AIDS, or the cure for cancer, now lying in a

Good point. What if that sperm cell and that egg cell would have united
to form the person who finally figured out why toast always falls with the
buttered side down. And the sperm cell was living in a Catholic priest 
who took his vows of celibacy seriously and the egg cell was living in
a lesbian separatist artist, and so they never fucked, and this genius
was never born.

The solution is obviously that everyone should have unprotected sex with
everyone they meet...


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion