HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:31:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct13.031044.109193@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct12.200431.14455@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct12.034034.23325@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (
>> >In article <1992Oct12.023459.7473@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu
>> >>In article <1992Oct10.232122.13523@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
>> >>>In article <1992Oct8.073626.1003@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Let me rephrase that--I should have said "Perhaps there are extreme
>> >>>>circumstances where abortion might be an option, but I am still against it..
>> >
>> >******************************************************************************
>> >* SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!!    *
>> >******************************************************************************
>> >>>Ok, Simon, let's get to the "extreme" circumstances.  If my Aunt Ann gets
>> >>>pregnant and tries to carry to term, she *WILL* have her spinal column snap,
>> >>>and wind up being paralyzed and in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.
>> >>>
>> >>>She's on the pill.  Ed (her husband) uses a condom every time they have
>> >>>sex.  They don't want to go in for steralization on the hopes that they
>> >>>will come up with some sort of precedure that will fix Ann's back, in which
>> >>>case they'd love to have another child.
>> >>>
>> >>>She gets pregnant.
>> >>>
>> >>>Would you let her have an abortion?
>> >>>
>> >>>Why should she have to ask you?
>> >>>
>> >*****************************************************************************
>> >* DID YOU READ THAT, SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT, SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT???? *
>> >*****************************************************************************
>> >
>> >Simon's response so far:
>> >>
>> >>About my River Styx comment: Anyone familiar with Greek mythology will know
>> >>where that River is supposed to be, and will understand that remark.
>> >
>> >I'd say he's six years old.  Or maybe a really bright five year old.
>>
>> Well, actually you're way off--I'm 22.  A five or six year old would only
>> spout the liberal junk taught in schools today.
>
>Does this mean that you're not going to answer Keith's questions?
>(The ones bracketed by SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! and SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT????)
>
So what you're saying is that since this single case might exist, abortion
across the board is OK??
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:46:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.035416.13397@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

[Previous attributes deleted by Rink]

[I wrote this argument for Rink to refute]

>>        20.  Equal opportunity for women to "walk away" from unwanted 
>>             pregnancy as some men choose to do.

[Rink replied]

>Just a thought to throw out.  If science made it possible, would you support
>the idea that men should carry half the unborn babies in the world...?

I answered this interesting speculation on your part in my last post.

After posting it however, it dawned on me that you never got around to refuting 
the argument I presented for abortion (# 20.).  Care to try now?


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:37:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.191811.17688@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>The election isn't between Bush and someone better, it is between Bush
>and Clinton, who may, or may not, be better.  (Of course, there is the
>rich dwarf and the ignored candidates, but they don't stand a chance
>in the House and won't win outright.  Clinton can win outright or in
>the House and Bush can win outright.)
>

Ah, but if it goes to the House, then the winner (BC most probably)
can not say he has a "mandate from the people" to pursue his
agenda. This may well make some Congresscritters a bit nervous
about backing any radical new changes. It's pretty sad when the
best you can hope for is four more years of governmental
gridlock, but I'm coming to believe that is a better alternative
than the others we've been offered. I think any way you slice it,
additional economic decline is in the cards for the forseeable
future. 
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gay Pride .sig of Steve Chaney
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:11:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen Chaney - Official Virus) writes ...
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>#FACT #3: I have posted SEVERAL polls showing that Americans support
>>#	 legal abortions for rape & incest only. NOT "Americans 
>>#	 support rape & incest." FACT! You are wrong and I am right.
>>
>>No, you're wrong.  You did say that Americans support rape and
>>incest.
>>
>>In article <1992Oct5.181714.12006@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>#I'll come back with poll stats showing that the majority of Americans
>>#do support rape & incest, and you'll bring the poll data showing that
>>#when asked about these issues, Americans support all of it. 
>>
>>It was a stupid thing to say, wasn't it?
>
>It was a STUPID thing to leave out the CLARIFIER above, Bogus. Next
>time, include the whole thing, especially where I defined "rape and
>incest" as "rape and incest abortions." It's in there, Bogus. 

No it isn't, fool.  If you weren't such an _incompetent_ liar, people
might even believe you.  If you were even a little bit honest, you might
admit to making a simple mistake.  Instead, you show yourself to be a
first class idiot and (by your own standards) a liar.  You've been
quoted exactly.  Susan did not make any alterations.  And you're full
of shit (again).

Here's a news item just for _you_.

	It was on this date (10/16) in 1916 that Margaret Sanger,
	Fania Mendell, and Ethel Burne, acting in defiance of general
	opinion of their day (and a noisy minority opinion in ours),
	got together at 46 Amboy St., Brooklyn, to open the first
	clinic in this country dedicated to birth control.
		-- San Jose Mercury, 10/16/92

>Why don't you take it out on your kids or something and leave us
>intelligent human beings alone?

Have you heard that Margaret Sanger died of an abortion when she was
in her 80's?  Amazing but true!		:-)

>It only proves you are even more immature and unnecessarily nitpicking
>than you have ever been before, and that people are better advised to
>get a lawyer and a scholar to rewrite their articles before they get
>attacked by Anal Retentus, AKA Susan Garvin. 

Coming from you this is truly funny.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:54:33 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes ...
>>     Deuteronomy 30:19 reminds us:  "I have set before you life and
>>     death, the blessing and the curse.  Choose life then so that
>>     you and your descendents may live."
>>
>>Your biblical quote actually supports a woman being able to choose
>>abortion if she wishes, although it indicates that it is not the
>>desired choice. Since you offer it as an argument, I ask you
>>whether you will directly contradict it and choose for others, in
>>effect not letting them choose?
>
>We've got a choice to do *anything*.  Deuteronomy 30:19 is a commandment
>from God to choose life, just like He commanded us not to kill or commit
>adultery or steal or lie.  Yeah, we've got a choice to all these things.
>That doesn't mean I'm pro-choice.  I'm pro-life because I believe choosing
>abortion to be wrong.  Deuteronomy 30:19 commands us to choose life.

Here's another distiction for you:  Deuteronomy 30:19 commands you to
choose life, it does NOT command you to command others to choose life.

>Understand the distinction, now?

Hmmm?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:57:19 GMT
 <1992Oct7.172923.16641@wdl.loral.com>

In article <1992Oct7.172923.16641@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H
Woodyatt) says:

>So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
>anything deeper, Grasshopper?

Besides absolute right and wrong, no.

>[What is this doing in talk.abortion?  Note followups.]

Both abortion and euthanasia are believed by many to be symptoms of a
widespread devaluation of human life.  Therefore, it's appropriate in this
group.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: about "born fetus"?
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:21:33 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
] In article <3913@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
] >
] >
] >Its hard for us to argue on an even plane from this stance. .....
] >Furthermore, I'll admit that even if you were to agree that an
] >unborn and born fetus are equivalent there is still much room .....
] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] 
] What the fuck are you talking about?


He meant to say:

UnBornGrandParents and PostModernUnDeadGrandParents

Does that help you now?


When One is no longer able to tell <X> from <NOT X>
does it matter that one should oppose the one against
the other?????


ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:59:25 GMT

In <1992Oct10.174820.28264@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>Martin writes:
>>Ray writes:
>>>Nobody (nobody) wants to
>>>kill embryos or fetuses, and to imply otherwise betrays your
>>>prejudices.
>>
>>If nobody wants abortion, then why do so many people have abortions?

>You're missing a crucial point here, Martin.  There's a difference
>between "wanting to cut off bodily support to the fetus" and "wanting
>to kill the fetus".  If the law allowed a woman to cut off support to
>a fetus and have it removed from her body and kept alive by hospital
>staff, but not killed, I don't think many women would have a very big
>problem with this.

Except the ones that want the fetal tissue harvested.

>That being said, how do you propose to allow a woman to cut off
>support to the fetus without killing it?  Can you think of any way for
>a woman to end her pregnancy before birth and have no further legal
>ties to the fetus, without killing the fetus?  If you think of a way,
>we'll be more than happy to consider it.

You mean it never occurred to you that she might have it removed 
after viability???  And why don't women bother to wait until 
after viability?

>Another consideration is: who will pay to keep the fetus alive?  It'll
>be pretty expensive to incubate an eight-week fetus until it can
>survive on its own and be given to an adoption agency.

It depends on the circumstances.  If the woman does it for gender
selection reasons, she should foot the bill.  If she does it because
of serious health impairment, then the fetus should become a ward
of the state unless she wants to keep it, and then an equitable 
arrangement would have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis.

>So what it comes down to is that I feel a woman has as much right to
>refuse to use her body to support a fetus as you have a right to
>refuse to use your body to support a dying man.  It's unfortunate that
>the fetus has to be killed in the process, but since the fetus goes
>through half a year of development without having even a working
>brain,

The brain starts working at 7 weeks or before.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:35:35 GMT

khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer) writes:
[darcyspeak deleted]
->-Ken (no spaces or capitalization, no relation)

this is a good .sig for you to use if all of your posts
are like this one.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 18:00:26 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Oct7.165424.29965@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>[...]
>>that all these people that have the "gall" to disagree with the politically
>>correct are "near fascist", is that like being sorta pregnant? 
>
>Hardly.  Sorry if you're confused; take a look at the word "fascism" in
>the dictionary:
>
>  "A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and
>  race above the individual

   Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your
   country.

>                            and that stands for a centralized autocratic
>  government 
   
   National health insurance, national energy strategy, national education
   strategy, nation industrial policy etc. ad nauseum.

>             headed by a dictatorial leader,
>                                             severe economic and social
>  regimentation,

   We have divided the country into the rich, the middle class, the poor,
   women, minorities, whites, gays etc. ad nauseum.

>   		   and forcible suppression of opposition."

   Consider the response to Clarence Thomas' opposition to liberal orthodoxy,
   the efforts to suppress the Rush Limbaugh show, the opposition to Camille
   Paglia, the reaction to Gov. Casey's efforts to discuss the pro-life stand 
   at the Democratic convention,etc. ad nauseum.

>
>There.  "Near-fascist".  We have no dictator yet.  Do you see tendencies
>toward the rest of the definition?  I sure do.  

 So do I.

>                                                Talk to me about
>Buchanan et al if you see something in Buchanan, Robertson, Gramm that
>I'm missing.

Talk to me about NOW, NARAL, ACT-UP, the Democratic party et al.

>
>>Make your point.  Take your shots. 
>>But please try and keep the discussion a notch above gutteral
>>ramblings.
 
  Ditto.

>
>-- 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================

"We have to tell our children that they must redefine their relationship to 
 the sky, and they must begin to think of the sky as a threatening part of 
 their environment."
		  
		  Earth in the Balance -- Al Gore

===============================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:40:27 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
 <1992Oct7.172923.16641@wdl.loral.com> <92281.215719KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <ld8ou7INNqrg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <92283.030621KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <ldbc8lINN98q@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>

In article <ldbc8lINN98q@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
(Eric Marsh) says:

>Perhaps one might conclude that there is no evidence of an absolute
>right and wrong.

Exactly.  However, there -is- evidence, which many choose to ignore.  But you
are right; w/o a higher being there can be no moral absolutes.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:31:52 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a 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  <1992Oct14.115207.22963@samba.oit.unc.edu>  Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>
>When C.J. raised a false accusation against me last May, I didn't feel
>'forced' to post *her* private mail to vindicate myself

Well, Suzanne, you're an awfully good sport.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: ACT-UP MUST be destroyed.
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:34:01 GMT

> = chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>PRO-LIFE LIBERAL SILENCED AGAIN
>by David E. DeCosse
>[...]
>"The Democratic National Convention suspended the First Amendment, and 
>tonight you did the same thing.  Congratulations," Casey said.  Then he
>walked off the stage and headed straight for his car.  "What can you say?
>What can you say?" he said on the way out.  "It's like a fascist crowd."

Can anyone confirm or deny that Democrats where specifically prohibited
from speaking at the Republican National Convention?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.pagan,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans)
Subject: Re: Well someone has to ask it...
Organization: Cicely Public Access UNIX, Cicely, AK
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:26:08 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans) writes:

>] This is one of the things I hate about net.arguments. Sometimes I just want
>] to scream, "Please -- cut to the chase!!!"

>Marty,

>ok, so are you a 'Goer - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, Know what I mean?'

>ciao
>drieux

>ps: or do we still have to be coy for half a dozen more
>posts before you decide if we can go out on a date....

Goodness, what turned you on so much about that???

(and besides, I *like* being coy. :-> )

Marty

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"Another beer, and then he eyes                 marty@world.std.com
The barmaid's legs and waist and thighs.        Marty Hale-Evans
'Needs to lose some weight,' he grunts,         89 Mass. Ave., Suite 199
'But just the same, I'd fuck her once.'         Boston, MA  02115
He orders pizza, buys a round,              M    @    *    O    %    8    U
Gains an appetizing pound."                \|/  \|/  \|/  \|/  \|/  \|/  \|/
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:33:19 GMT

In article <Bw2E4n.Grn@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.202811.16719@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <Bw0Eq2.2H0@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct11.010544.21220@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>>><1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>>><BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) :
>>>>>...
>>>>>>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....
>>>>>
>>>>>We'll see your truncheons and raise you fully automatic weapons.  We'll
>>>>>get you to your god that much faster. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>>>>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>>>>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>>>>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>>>>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>>>>criminals.   Now, let's see the book buring the PC crowd would stage.
>>>
>>>Funny, I'm one of those "PC" people you rant about, and I've never felt
>>>*any* book should be burned.  That seems to be more the province of you
>>>folks who scream about how "liberals" should be suppressed, or silenced, or
>>>somehow neutralized, for the "good of society".  The pro-choice contingent,
>>>in general, aren't the ones advocating throwing the Constitution out the
>>>window to get rid of those nasty little annoyances like the first ten
>>>Amendments that keep you from doing what you *really* want to do to those
>>>who don't agree with you...
>>>
>>You seem to be afraid of a science fiction novel that is still being
>>worked on.  Now, repeat after me, "It's only a story, It's only a story"....
>>For now, anyway :)
>
>I'm not afraid of any book, even one as badly thought-out as yours -- this
>is a free society, remember?  Letting people see for themselves what you
>want to do to them should they not blindly follow your "ideal" will provide
>a pretty quick cure to your delusions of adequacy...
>
>--PLH (just remember the words of that other Booth...)
>
HMMM--Absurdity promotes more absurdity.  As I ahve stated before, writing
about something does not mean one believes in it.
Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: ABSOLUTELY NEW REMEDY FOR CONTRACEPTION IS OFFERED !!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:37:07 GMT

In article <92281.215441KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

}First of all, it -is- reliable, and reasonable, for single people.
}   Some ignore this foolproof method, at their own peril.

It is not 100% reliable to Christians.  See my "Fucked by God" post (a la
Petey Honey).

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion