HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles
Subject: Danger Danger!
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:19:40 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
] ---
] cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
] |cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
] |>Let the galled jade wince.
] |How utterly literary of you.
] 
] Why, thank you!


OH YUK!

they're playing Kissy Face Again and In PUBLIC!!!!!


ciao
drieux

ps: as a small point of reminder for the new folks,
this is NO WAY to conduct a flamefest.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:54:20 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> = (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>No, she doesn't.  Regardless of Eric Rescorla's claims that
>>he owns the title, your bizarre versions of the cause of
>>male homosexuality, fundamental economics, and life in
>>general lead me to believe that you're the most twisted
>>person on the net.

>Now, now, I didn't claim that I own the title. I'm not THAT arrogant.
>I certainly think that Drieux and Novak are some stiff competition.
>But Suzanne. Nah. She's not half as twisted as me. Just ask Novak.

Hmm.  I don't know about TWISTED, but young Eric can definitely drink
some BEER.  Just ask my refrigerator.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:05:13 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

: You still have to get past the fact that except in cases of rape or
: incest, you are dealing with an invited guest.

Of course, it usually isn't too difficult to get rid of invited
guests.  At worst you only have to call the police.  Only in
the case of pregnancy do you have to put up with your 'invited
guest' for 36 weeks, unless you have it surgically removed.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:16:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <Bvt8rp.2AE.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#In <BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:
>#
>##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. 
>
>If you want to beat up a fetus fascist, that's your business.
>Please don't volunteer to be an escort.  Escorts are merely
>there to provide assistance to women entering the clinics,
>not to fight any battles.


For the record, I was attempting to be a barbarian.  I did not mean to suggest
that (in reality) I would go out of my way to beat up people I don't agree
with.  Kinda like saying "I could kill my boss!"  Hyperbole.  Sorry for any
confusion.


Shawn Green -- all around nice guy
greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:01:19 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Oct7.160837.9971@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Oct7.131833.20451@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> 
> > And Jesus said:
> 
> And here's yet another data point to support the observation
> that the pro-aborts are usually the first ones to raise the
> issue of religion.

And here's another data point to support the observation that Doug
Holtsinger is a half wit.

I'm embarassed to have two syllables in common with you.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:40:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.025411.16767@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.115859.28019@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >You said:
> >> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >> 
> >> >> What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
> >> >> fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
> >> >> nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
> >> >> nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
> >> >> cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
> >> >> hypocrisy?
> 
> > Since the woman who borught the suit is pro-lie, you are calling
> > pro-choice supporters hypocrites because a pro-lie woman brought
> > a lawsuit to prohibit showing abortions on television.  The point
> > is quite relevant, and that is the argument you presented.
> 
> Please point to the exact sentence where I said that was referring
> to the woman who brought suit.  

That's what the thread was about, Reverend.  If you're not
sticking with the topic of discussion, your remarks are
irrelevant.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:10:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct8.194204.17644@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
#KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes ...
##This is not true.  A feminazi is defined as a RADICAL feminist whose purpose
##is to see that as many abortions as possible take place.  By no means does
#
#Given that the conservatives who have opposed contraception and
#funding of foreign clinics have managed to markedly increase the
#number of abortions being performed worldwide, does that mean Bush is
#a feminazi?

Shhh.  Kurt's found a new religion.  Luckily for him, this one
doesn't require him to think, either.  Please don't disturb him.

#My head hurts.

As does mine.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43036 alt.flame:13645 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:463
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 16 Oct 1992 07:56:11 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct16.005310.4454@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Abortions are sometimes performed using a local anesthetic. 
>The area around the cervix is anesthetized, but the patient
>is otherwise awake and generally alert.  I suppose that the 
>anesthetic could affect a person's motor control. Now imagine
>a woman sedated by a local anesthetic, staggering off the 
>operating table to get more money to pay for an abortion. 
>Are you still laughing Mr. Woodyatt? 

Well, I dunno about Mr. Woodyatt, but I am.

See, if she's sedated by a local in the cervix, she (1) wouldn't be
staggering (her *legs* aren't affected) and (2) she probably wouldn't
be getting more money (her *brain* isn't affected, either).

I'd love to talk to a woman who had such an odd experience, though.
Got a name?
Got a reference?
Got any support for this foolishness?

>These allegations were made by the abortion clinic's employees.
>They're currently being investigated by the state board of
>medical examiners. 

Well, we'll all be happy to see how the case pans out.  And we'll be
terribly interested to see how you figure this must be outlawed in an
abortion clinic, but just isn't a problem in a dentist's office.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Summary: Simon summed it up perfectly with his last sentence.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:50:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.035443.9243@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <BvxKoy.6sq@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.051757.29571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>In article <Bvt2tH.H4G@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct8.082415.1797@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>In response to Garrett's comment's that my info on abstinence was
>>>>>perhaps flawed:
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not personally trying to tell people what to do.
>>>>
>>>>Sure you're not.  You're just advocating enactment of statutes that'll
>>>>accomplish the same thing, while you say "but *I'm* not forcing anything on
>>>>anyone!".  It don't play in Peoria, kid.
>>>>
>>>>>What I was trying to say is that sex is serious business (and highly enjoyable,
>>>>>based on what I have been told), and that both parties involved should know
>>>>>what they're doing, but I never said to outlaw it.  But I do think it ought to
>>>>>be a part of a good relationship.  ok folks, fire aay.
>>>>
>>>>What you feel about sex is your business -- so it's your job to find someone
>>>>who shares your view.  It's not your job to try to force everyone else to
>>>>share that view by law.
>>>>
>>>>--PLH, lived with my wife for two years before I married her, and I'll be
>>>>damned if anyone will force me to apologize for it -- especially some
>>>>wet-behind-the-ears brat at a cookie-cutter school...
>>>>
>>>Now since when did I attack ANYONE'S personal life???
>>
>>Every time you open your mouth to preach about the evils of sex in any form
>>YOU don't approve of, you're guaranteed to be taking a pot shot at someone.
>>You're advocating using the force of law to make sure everyone else should
>>follow YOUR views -- so, while you didn't direct it at me and my wife
>>specifically, we happen to be two of the group of people your little tirade
>>is directed towards.  You don't like my response?  Then don't listen -- but
>>keep in mind we'll be listening to you.  After all, the price of freedom is
>>eternal vigilance...
>>
>Now when have I said that sex was evil??  Unless me saying that sex is ok
>between two people in a monogamous relationship is somehow an attack on ll
>sex.  Is their anything in what I said that specifically says to outlaw sex??

Specifically?  No.  By implication?  Yes.

>I think not.

That's pretty freaking obvious, by now.

--PLH (it *has* to be something in the water at Sea World...)

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:04:32 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct12.025244.8101@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.085749.89683@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Oct9.210851.21085@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>> Now don't give me that BS about the death penalty and warfare,
>>> because everyone knows that is totally unrelated.
>>
>>Exactly - those involve killing *people*.
>>
> Actually, execution is the killing of a criminal, 

So you're implying that criminals (or at least murderers) are not people?
This reminds me of the man who emailed me saying I was less than a
"real person" because I told him that according to definition, the
term "baby" does not apply to the unborn.  Am I a person, Simon?
Are you a person?  Is Dan Quayle a person?

> usually a murderer deserving of death, 

Why does he deserve to die?  I guess you haven't heard that 2 wrongs don't
make a right (but 3 lefts do (ha ha ha (it is to laugh))).

>and in war enemies are exterminated.

Are you trying to say that enemies are not killed?  I don't get it.
Why are deaths in war morally justified?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Summary: Peter the liar continues
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:07:04 GMT

<nyikos.718390470@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Oct2.080742.24002@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Oct2.002302.325@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com>, by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>> Gordon, Professional Atheist
>>>
>>>So what are they paying you?
>
>>Sorry, but I'm unable to publically discuss the terms of my contract.  If
>>I told you, I'd have to kill you.  And that would be unfortunate for both
>>of us.
>
>>Gordon, with tongue firmly in cheek.
>
>I figured that out even before I saw the last line, just as I saw through
>M. Price's deception immediately.  Alas for you, you have done many other
>things without tongue in cheek, and for those I will hold you accountable.

Can I then hold you accountable for lying about me?  You really shouldn't
lie as much as you do.  It makes holding a conversation with you very
difficult.

>>The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
>>of whatever company you think I work for. 
>
>Nor those of an honest man.

It depends on your definition of 'an honest man':  Do I have to have always
been honest my whole life?  Does the number of people I might have lied
to effect the over-all rating?  Have you ever lied to anyone at anytime
at any age?  If so, why doesn't that make you a dishonest person?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and 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.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:41:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.

Direct or indirect, you're still dead.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41581 talk.politics.guns:21932 alt.conspiracy:11103 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5164 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6552 talk.bizarre:33414
From: spl@alex.uucp (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.test,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,misc.test,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Date: 9 Oct 1992 14:03:37 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: alex.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Oct9.133714.9820@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>Too bad all these drieux fans can't edit the fucking Newsgroups: line.

No, no, no.  The trick is to bury the *.test followup in the midst of
a bunch of other crossposted groups.  Otherwise, it sticks out like a
sore thumb.

							spl

-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Twit twit twit/Jug jug jug jug jug jug/So rudely forc'd./Tereu"
                - T. S. Eliot, "The Waste Land," III. The Fire Sermon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:58:17 GMT

mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) CAP-sizes:

> [--unattributed by Michael--]
>> Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>>   Abortion is not a crime.
>>   Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>>   Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>>   Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>>   Fetuses aren't borned persons.
>>   Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.

>> There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
>> Are you getting it yet?

> Let's see if I can get this into your little head.
>         ABORTION IS MURDER
>         FETUSES ARE HUMAN CHILDREN
>         JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE YOUR CHILDREN INSIDE YOU, DOESN'T MEAN
>                 THAT THEY DO NOT LIVE THERE.
>         THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NINE MONTH OLD FETUS AND A NEWBORN BABY
>                 IS THAT YOU ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY NOURISHING A NEWBORN.
>         A FETUS IS NOT PART OF THE MOTHER, IT ONLY RECEIVES FOOD AND OXYGEN
>                 THROUGH THE UMBILICAL CORD.
> and
>         WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ENJOYED HAVING YOUR BODY SUCKED OFF LIMB
>                 BY LIMB, HAVING YOUR SKIN EATEN BY SALT SOLUTION, OR BEING
>                 DUMPED INTO A CAN, AND SUFFOCATING TO DEATH BECAUSE YOUR
>                 LUNGS WEREN'T FULLY DEVELOPED YET???

Let's see how this all-caps thing works:

	OH, YEAH, THIS IS GREAT!!!  WHY, I FEEL THE LOGIC AND RATIONALITY
	JUST COURSING THROUGH MY FINGERS!!!  IF I GET ANY MORE LOGICAL,
	I'LL BE RIGHT UP THERE WITH FUCKING ARISTOTLE, FOR CRISSAKES!!!
	
Heh.

> I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
> what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
> at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
> at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off. LOOK INTO
> THEIR FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!

I suggest you turn to page 310 of "Our Bodies, Our Selves" and take a look at
what an illegal abortion looks like.  Then ask yourself if you really want to
return to those bad old days when abortion was illegal in many states.
(Translation: legal abortion was unavailable for many poor women, the ones most
needing abortion services.  The well-to-do women who wanted abortions could
afford to travel to where it was legal.)  Then look into the faces of the women
around you and tell them that you favor _forcing_ them to carry every pregnancy
to term, and that their feelings don't count.

And be sure to let us know what kind of response you get, ok, dreamboat?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:55:12 GMT

<9478@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) :
>In <1992Oct6.061730.13587@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
>><9441@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) :
>>>This only works if you do not consider the fetus to be a person.
>
>>And by all accepted and legal definitions the fetus is not a person.
>
>This may be true, but it is not an immutable law.  It can and will be
>changed.

Perhaps.

...
>>>                                  You are going to have to convince me
>>>otherwise if you want me to support your position.
>
>>For starters, read the Constitution.
>
>I did, I didn't find anything to do with abortion in there.

I was referring to the terminology used in the Constitution to refer to
"born persons".  For example, US citizens (those people who have rights in
this country) are people who are *BORN* here, or who have naturalized.  To
naturalize you must provide BIRTH records.  Non-citizens (people not born
here or not yet naturalized) are accorded a subset of these rights and
protections.

So you see, the Constitution (the highest document in this land) doesn't 
recognize a fetus as a person.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and 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.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Hey!   Steve Novak!  (Was: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:18:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.020248.1916@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#In article <7109@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##No, she doesn't.  Regardless of Eric Rescorla's claims that
##he owns the title, your bizarre versions of the cause of
##male homosexuality, fundamental economics, and life in
##general lead me to believe that you're the most twisted
##person on the net.

#Now, now, I didn't claim that I own the title. I'm not THAT arrogant.
#I certainly think that Drieux and Novak are some stiff competition.
#But Suzanne. Nah. She's not half as twisted as me. Just ask Novak.

Okay.

Steve, who's the most twisted person on the net?  (I'd even
be willing to limit it to the most twisted person on t.a.)

Why are we just asking Steve - can't we ask drieux, too?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion