HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:20:38 GMT

<1993Jan25.064203.8902@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
><1993Jan24.012307.19435@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas):
>>>So, because the Church does something which is wrong, you have the
>>>right to do the same thing to them
>>
>>Sometimes the only way to get through to an oppressor is to oppress them.
>>That's the golden rule, isn't it?  The Pope treats certain people a
>>certain way, he must expect to be treated that way back.
>>
>Trouble is, by hacking away at Catholics and Catholicism you don't oppress the
>Pope in the least.  You just build up more animosity against Catholics.  You
>know, those people that the Pope oppresses?  Oh well, we're getting kind of
>used to it..... 

I guess if you got tired of it instead of "used to it" you might oppress
the Pope back.  It seems that witholding donations has a big effect on the
Church.

>Oh, and the rule you are thinking of is, "Do unto others as you would have
>them do unto you."  Somehow, you mistakenly stated the "eye for an eye"
>philosophy.

Nope, it's the golden rule.  The Pope should know it and should live by
it, right?  If so, then the way he treats people is the way he'd like to
be treated, right?  He's doing unto <group> the way he would have them do
unto him.

Seems pretty simple.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57321 talk.politics.misc:69182 talk.religion.misc:27235 misc.legal:23107
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:49:31 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <C1H8pr.5zr@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>   Well, Teddi, since I haven't so much as _mentioned_ abortion in
>this discussion, I'd say you were grinding your axe again.

This whole thread started as a discussion on how blockading Churches would
mirror the blockading of clinics, so the context implied involvement.

If you disagree with the odious practice of blockading clinics, then I
will drop this discussion right here.  Go in peace.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: pro-choice camp grows?
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:33:46 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

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes to somebody:
-> To imply that "normal" women shouldn't feel guilty about an 
-> abortion suggests that you know how women should or shouldn't 
-> feel.  You're shooting "choice" in the foot here.  If a woman 
-> decides that abortion is wrong for her, it's no one's business 
-> but hers, right?  If, in a desperate moment, she has an abortion 
-> anyway, she's likely to have some subsequent guilt.  That doesn't 
-> make her abnormal, that just makes her someone struggling to be
-> true to her ideals, i.e. human.  Let people choose their own 
-> values.  That's what choice is all about.

if you really mean, "Let people choose their own
values," congratulations.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 17:30:19 GMT

In <C1396A.4Es@sugar.neosoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:

>|No one denied, ever, that Gennifer Flowers and Bill Clinton were friends.  
>|And, sure, friends in government give each other jobs.  That's not purely 
>|ethical, I suppose, but it isn't exactly treason, either.

>|As for saying he'd deny it, assuming it was really him on the phone,
>|maybe that's because it wasn't true?  What would an innocent person do
>|besides deny a charge like that?

>|As for your Perry part of the story, you might want to point out that it
>|was an allegation, not a fact.  

>|And your insinuation "overruled by a Clinton appointee" is stupid, since
>|everyone in the Arkansas government above a certain level is a Clinton
>|appointee.  That doesn't make them part of a conspiracy.

>Not even a liberal can be this stupid! 
 
>You liberals tried to hang Justice Thomas on *alot* less than this!

We did?  I didn't know anyone tried to hang him.  I thought they tried
to keep an unqualified token off the Supreme Court.

As for "less than this," I wasn't aware that
(1) Anita Hill initially denied the story, even going so far as to hire
a lawyer to stop the rumor from spreading (2) She changed her story
AFTER being paid $25k by a tabloid. (3) Gennifer Flower ever testified
to this affair, under oath.

>1460 days to go. I hope we make it!
>Good Luck Bill ( I really mean it).

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 27 Jan 1993 08:55:07 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan27.124224.21561@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>Actually, whenever "Doctor" Nyikos posts, I catch the
>whiff of something.  Today it was mixed with paranoia.
>I'll give you a hint.  You can smell it any day you care
>to walk behind a horse long enough.


Ya know, Dean, I've walked behind a number of horses in my time, and Nyikos
is worse.  I think it's because horses are herbivors. 

Adrienne Regard
From: lenox@shelley.u.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:09:00 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: shelley.u.washington.edu

no marked deletions.

In article <1993Jan27.114716.2152@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>
>But why should abortions be made rare if they are not wrong?  

If abortion is indicative of a desire to not be pregnant or of
threats to the health of the woman, wouldn't it be nicer to
have a better method of birth control and better treatments
for women & z/e/f to remove health threats?  Avoiding a desire
for abortion being statistically safer than abortion.  Makes 
sense to many.

I'm personally for seeing a reduction in the need for any
medical treatment if it could be a result of a healthier
population.  I'd rather have a healthier population myself.
Maybe you are different.

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58236 talk.politics.misc:70088 talk.religion.misc:27692 misc.legal:23427
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:57:38 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan27.011637.1910@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>>
>
>Thanks for your input, James.  How do you explain the fact that pro-choice
>groups are greatly opposed to crisis pregnancy clinics?  Why don't groups
>like Planned Parenthood support crisis pregnancy clinics?  It would seem
>like if they were really pro-choice they would support them.
>
>-- 
>John Emery			
>emery@tc.fluke.COM      

If all of these "crisis pregnancy clinics" are like the one
which used to be near by house, it's easy to understand why.
This clinic provided innocuous advertising literature
explaining that they provided a full range of information
about the choices available to pregnant women, along with
providing "support" and other warm fuzzy things.  However,
once inside, a pregnant woman was subjected to the full
range of anti-abortion arguments and exhibits.
Needless to say, carrying the pregnancy to term was the
only option discussed.

This "clinic" was just another stealth operation:
present one face to the public, but reveal the real
motivation in private.
-- 
---  As Seen In soc.religion.islam:  You can dance the whole day
alone in your room, or with your wife and family at home, but you cannot
do that in a disco.
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it ever wrong?
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:16:45 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <19JAN93.20185693@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, 00bbharris@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu wrote:
>>In article <1993Jan15.012340.15698@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>
>>> I feel it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion if she could have
>>> brought the fetus to term and put the baby up for adoption instead, at
>>> no great hardship to herself.  I'm not crazy about the idea of
>>> aborting female fetuses in order to have a boy, or aborting because
>>> the time's not right to raise a child, or abortion as a means of birth
>>> control in lieu of better methods.  Abortion is rarely the "best
>>> choice", I feel, mainly because of the emotional trauma and physical
>>> risks involved, but also because I don't like the idea of snuffing out
>>> a human life.
>>> 
>>But how is a woman ever to know if carrying the fetus to full term will be of
>>any kind of hardship to herself until after she's had the baby, aside from
>>medical hardships....?
>
>Why aside from medical hardships?  A woman carrying to term is facing a risk 
>of death.  She is also facing risks of pain, discomfort, and serious threats 
>to her health.  Does this mean nothing to you?
>
>				.... Heather.

So women should never have children, because there might be
discomfort or complications?  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:51:59 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
# Copied without permission from:
# The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993
# 
# CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
# 
# By Karen Tumulty and Marlene Cimons

Oh, Simon, dear child, you should hope that word of this little
`prank' of yours doesn't land in the ears of the L.A. Times's pit bull
legal counsel.


-- 
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Info on Catholics for choice
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:18:37 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <markp.728236049@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>In <YfNNQGK00iUyI5MfRu@andrew.cmu.edu> js1x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jennifer Lynn Simonic) writes:

>>Hi, 
>>    I want to know if anyone has any information on the group Catholics
>>for choice. 
>>    Thanks,
>>    Jen

>I think they're affiliated with "Vegetarians for Meat."

   Very clever. "Catholics for a Free Choice" is a lot less oxymoronic
than "Feminists for Life." In fact, they're actually Catholics, while
the latter are certainly not feminists.
   Anyone interested in CFFC can contact them at 
Catholics for a Free Choice,
1436 U St. NW
Washington, DC 20009-3916.
   I had the honor of having dinner with the founder, Frances Kissling,
a couple of months ago, and I was utterly impressed.

                                                                   mp
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:09:28 GMT

In article <6012@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <C1F7pv.HJt@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.143139.21172@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>You are neglecting the impact on the woman's life of having to go through
>>>an entire unwanted pregnancy.
>
>>  Oh, boo-hoo.
>
>I'm always amazed to see the compassion that just seems to *ooze* out
>of "pro-lifers".
>
  Pro-choice, actually.  But I still see an abortion as much more radical 
than having a tooth removed.  Many people see abortion as murder.  What about
the compassion "pro-choicers" have for the unborn baby?
  Better to put it up for adoption than to abort it.  And people do have to
accept responsibility for their actions.  If a woman gets pregnant, it's as
much her fault as anybody else's, and she should have to accept the respon-
sibility and perhaps go through with the pregnancy.



-- 
	               / )/ )/ )        /    /
			/  /  /      --/----/--
                       /  /  /  / \   /    /
		      /  /  /   \_/\ /    /  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
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, 25 Jan 93 00:24:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.182624.18809@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[About his "illegimate conception tax", and what happens if a woman refuses to
say who the father is...]

>No, we make her pay his portion of the taxes.

You really hate women, don't you?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
= "Love can break your heart." =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:50:05 GMT

emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:

> How do you explain the fact that pro-choice groups are greatly opposed to
> crisis pregnancy clinics?  Why don't groups like Planned Parenthood support
> crisis pregnancy clinics?  It would seem like if they were really pro-choice
> they would support them.

Let me tell you about the "Women's Health Center" in Robbinsdale, MN.  It is
located in a converted beauty shop across the street from the Women's Health
Clinic, a bona fide medical facility that offers obstetrical, gynecological
and pediatric services.  There are no licensed medical personnel on staff.
The services offered include the kind of pregnancy test you can buy in a
drug store and referrals to adoption agencies.  Last summer, pro-liars 
posing as clinic escorts mis-directed female patients to this health center.
The volunteers used information given by these unfortunate women to inform
family members and employers that these women were pregnant and seeking
abortions.  They also contacted these women by telephone incessantly,
entreating them not to terminate their pregnancies.

Would you support a facility that misrepresented itself and gave out 
misleading information?

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Will the Randall Terriers start to bite?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:35:24 GMT

tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In <C1AAnM.99J@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>>The next Big Event in the never-ending controvesy over abortion will be
>>the passage of the FOCA. If (actually when) then happens, what will the
>>active anti-aborts do? Will they reveal their true colors and embark on a
>>compaign of bombing and burning abortion clinics? Will they begin the
>>overt harassment of doctors and other medical personel who partake in
>>abortions?

>Be aware:  Operation Oppress-You has denoted February as "No Place To
>Hide" Month.  Their charter is to target doctors and beseige them at
>their homes.

Hmmm...  Several states have some pretty interesting trespassing and
vandalism laws, and woe cometh to any OR members who break into the
homes of doctors in most states.  If they don't get shot in the
process, they'll go to jail for a decent amount of time.

Let them have their folly.  It can only hurt them.  They certainly
don't gain any sympathy from me or the majority of the public by
subjecting themselves to danger and legal recourse.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------

                     Dallas Cowboys -- NFC Champions
                           The 'Boys are Back!
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Questions for Mark Pundurs.
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:29:15 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <markp.728235209@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes to Muriel and comes perilously close to advocating
what I have called the chastity belt theory of forced pregnancy:

>No; their exercise of their rights is circumscribed by their (self-imposed)
>situation. The mother's right to bodily autonomy ends where the z/e/f's
>right to life begins.

(1) Please explain what you mean by self-imposed.

(2) Please also explain why this self-imposition merits state
intervention to compel a legal person to use their bodies to support
another life.

(3) Please explain your position with respect to: (a) forcing fathers
to donate kidneys to save their children.  (b) forcing a drunk driver
to donate blood, tissue, or organs to save the life of the victim of
his driving.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:47:47 GMT

In <1993Jan26.191001.18208@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <bob1.728069317@cos> 
>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>>> Funny thing is that nowhere in the ensuing articles or amendments
>>>> did we tell them they could establish laws governing abortion.

>>> Or laws governing homicide, rape, and robbery.

>> Yep, general welfare. 

>That refers to Congressional authority, not state legislative
>authority. 

>> Oh BTW, they did not say anywhere that the Constitution recinded
>> the Declaration of Independance.

>The DOI has no legal bearing.  

Really? Wonder where they got those 'rights' that they said belonged
to the people?
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:07:19 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> DODie seems intent on proving his stupidity beyond all
-> doubt lately, doesn't he?

no. i think he has been remarkably consistent in
proving his stupidity for some time. and he does
quite a good job at it too.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:42:53 GMT

In <1k4ln8INN8k3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <C1HKFw.38v@hpchase.rose.hp.com> hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) writes:
>>  I guess my point is, why do we give a magical "right" to a baby outside
>>  the womb, and none to the baby in the womb.

>Because one is outside the womb and the other isn't.

>Of what practical use is 'autonomy' when the fetus is necessarily confined
>within the boundaries of a human being?  How does one practice a 'right to
>life' when one is causing grave physical harm to it's host, who doesn't want 
>it?

>Check that:  one isn't merely outside the womb and the other isn't.  Rather,
>one is outside the WOMAN and the other isn't.

>The only way this *doesn't* matter is if the woman doesn't matter.

>I happen to think she does.

So do I. But if the mother was free to choose (through non-procreative
sex, or abstinence) guaranteed non-pregnancy, then a subsequent violation
of the z/e/f's right to life is not an ethical option.

>Adrienne Regard

Mark Pundurs
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58108 talk.politics.misc:69998
From: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt - K31)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:08:25 GMT
Reply-To: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center

Kevin Darcy writes:
>First, we need to weigh the social costs of those few pro-life activists
>who are injured while chained to abortion doors against the massive
>economic benefits of not having to support 1.6 million unwanted children
>a year,

Funny, I am aging.  Eventually I shall retire.  There needs to be a workforce
after me... don't get me wrong, I don't figure I have a snowball's chance
of seeing a dime of social security... but nothing comes from nothing and
1.6 million children *could* be a serious component to growing GDP.

Children, not just the 1.6 M we flush down the toilet, but all of them
are our most important natural renewable resource, always have been.

>>Any time an utilitarian argument is used to take
>>a right from one group and give it to another, a similar argument can
>>be found to do the reverse.  

>Huh? Can you give an example of this?

Done, the aging USA workforce is gonna be a serious problem within, 15
years, we are all gonna wish we hadn't roto rootered so many children,
especially with a 20 year latency to deploy them as workers.
================== We Design and Build Fine Networks ===================
		Stephen Ray Northcutt (703) 663-4447
Disclaimer: The Public Affairs Officer speaks for this Naval Lab, not me!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:40:10 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan24.153318.10342@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.090739.1885@netcom.com>
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>> Why?  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?
>
>No,

Funny, I thought you had stated that you are in favor of forcing women
to remain pregnant.  Were you lying then or now?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion