HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Can she just Virtually Gestate?
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:06:55 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

Mr. Hampe makes many fine points about how, if women sign Virtual Contracts
to bear children when they have sex, these Contracts are only enforcable in
Virtual Reality, but his Cute One-Liner lacks his usual high standard of
Technical Clarity:

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:

>> Before I do, I wanna tuck in this DISCLAIMER:  This is how the argument
>> works.  I'm not saying whether I believe in it or not.  drieux, lay off
>> with the hurricanes.

> So what do you have against veneral British Fighter Aircraft?

Surely, drieux, you meant _venereal_ British Fighter Aircraft?  Flying single-
seat fighter aircraft is a Martial Art (that is, of Mars), but in this context,
we could consider it a Venereal Art (that is, of Venus).

Speaking of Venereal Art, I wonder how Bottecelli would react to a rendition
of our modern-day embodiment of Venus (since I'm pro-choice, insert _your_
modern-day embodiment here) windsurfing on a C-Shell.

But back to our Virtual Contracts, since women are in the Reproductive Mode
only once out of 28-29 days, and men are _always_ in the Reproductive Mode,
why do the AntiAbortionists want to enforce Virtual Contracts 100% wrt to
women, but not to men?

Are we sufficiently baffled yet?  I certainly am.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
BULLWINKLE: "You just leave that to my pal.  He's the brains of the outfit."
GENERAL:    "What does that make YOU?"
BULLWINKLE: "What else?  An executive..." -- Jay Ward
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Well, now, isn't that *SPECIAL*???
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 22:50:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.043321.24613@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.225743.8353@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.022422.6902@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct06.184340.113616@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>>In  <1992Oct6.052642.26825@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>>> You make it sound like the unborn child within someone is guilty of
>>>>> trespassing, battery, and various crimes.
>>>>
>>>>You avoided answering the question.
>>>>
>>>The question was:
>>>   If my own BODY isn't my own, then what IS?
>>>
>>>To those women who are pregnant, it is their body.  However, there is 
>>>another body in there too, a special human life.
>>                              ^^^^^^^
>>
>>Gee, now it's not just "a" human life, it's a *SPECIAL* human life...
>>
>>Would you mind telling me what that makes the pregnant woman?
>>
>
>A very very special human being who is taking care of one of our most
>precious human resources, our children.

Could you get me a glass of water, Martin?  And try not to get your fingers
in it; I wouldn't want to die of sugar overload...

So, Martin.  What have *YOU* done to help the thousands of homeless
children in the US?

Or is this one of those hypocritical "We don't care if it dies a slow,
agonizing death, we just want to make sure the "HolyWarmCuteFuzzyUnborn
Child" is born so we can feel "SoJustifiedAndSelfRightous"?????


[Rest deleted.  But I do have one question for Martin.  Do you support
Orgeon Charter Admendment #9?]

--
=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???=
=It's National Coming Out Day.  Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!       FWA=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43048 alt.abortion.inequity:4471
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Reproductive Rights (Let's Play StipUlations)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 08:53:21 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

Don and me:

>>>In very real and practical terms, child support burdens are imposed
>>>far more greatly on men than on women -- not just in numbers but amounts.

>>I respect your right to your own opinion, Don, but this particular sentence
>>is sheer value judgement, and there are millions of women who would argue
>>the point with you.  Not that such an argument would be productive , you
>>understand....

>Leave values aside, and consider whether men or women receive
>the bulk of child support awards.

Uh, you don't think this might be related to (a) who has the bulk of 
custody (b) who has the bulk of custodial Duties and (c) who has the bulk
of money?

>Did you want to talk about theory or practice?

Both.  But I don't want to *mix* theory and practice in my reasoning.
Makes for garbage.

>Well, it may just be my belief, but I don't see this as being
>anywhere near symmetric with respect to the sexes.  Not with 
>Tender Years and 90% custody given to mothers.

Absolutely.  I think we'd be much more successful in stemming the tide
of nastiness in this department (AND in supporting children within our
society) by splitting custody right down the middle.  There'd be far
less abuse of the biological reality if the 'payoff' to women was only
a 50/50 deal, and she faced an equal chance of having to pay her hard
earned dollars out.  And I see this as a much more *likely*, *possible*
change than to attempt to completely rewrite the social history of 
our culture.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:58:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.010852.23349@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.002301.12568@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> Does this pro-life woman claim that fetuses are nothing
> >> more than a "clump of cells"?  If not, then I'd suggest
> >> your point is irrelevant.  
> 
> > Uh huh.  So you're saying that when a pro-life supporter
> > brings suit agaist a politician for showing pictures of
> > abortions on television, that's the fault of pro-choice supporters?
> 
> No, I'm saying your point is irrelevant, and I never made
> the argument which you have assigned to me.  

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.

> >> Several pro-aborts on talk.abortion have expressed their 
> >> opposition to the display of aborted fetuses on television.
> >> These are the same pro-aborts who label the fetus a mere 
> >> "clump of cells".  What are they afraid of? 
> > Maybe they don't like looking at clumps of cells.  I tend to
> > turn the channel when I see those brain surgeries on the
> > PBS channels.  Not all of us are cut out to be pathologists.
> Fine, that's your choice.   

And maybe that's why these others don't like looking at it.
Many of them have made the same argument, so that repeating
your nonsense about "what are they afraid of" is just
dishonest rhetoric.

For a devout Christian, Doug, you sure do spend a lot of time
telling lies.  I think you should examine this habit of
yours in light of your strong religious convictions and ask
whether such sins are appropriate.

> I never made that argument either.  Talk about dishonesty. 

You do far more than talk about it, Douglas.  You demonstrate
it.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:59:02 GMT

csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes ...
> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>
>>>I'm allowed, I'm not Christian.  :-)
>>
>>>CRS
>>
>>Not if the fundies get their way. Then you won't be allowed to enjoy
>>sex because your enjoying sex gets in the way of their practicing
>>their religion. :-)
>
>Agreed!  Have you noticed how the "fundies" have avoided this line?
>Seems it hits all too close for them.                           

Either that or the concept of a woman ejoying sex has so wigged them
out that they are unable to comment.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:49:50 GMT

In <1992Oct13.202315.28684@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:

>In article <grendel.719003246@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>|> In <1992Oct12.195328.571@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>|> 
>|> >In article <1992Oct11.015308.25586@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> >>crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes ...
>|> >>>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>|> >stalled under Bush?  Clinton is promising to run it in reverse. Has Bush gotten
>|> >us involved in a war?  Clinton wants to get involved in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  
>|> 
>|> You must not have watched the first debate.  Clinton specifically said he
>|> wants to reduce troops in Europe.

>What? You mean that you don't recognize Slick Willie sitting high in the
>straddle again ?????

Misnomer.  Maybe you disagree, but I don't see the ability to change one's
mind as a sign of weakness.  I think it shows strength, in fact: an ability
to adapt to new information and really think about one's positions.  I
don't care what Governor Clinton may have said in the past.  I am concen-
trating on what he is saying now, which is that he wants to reduce troops.
What Bush is saying now is that he does not.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: About that "Pompous" attitude...
Summary: Chances are, you're playing with fire... 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 22:39:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.041100.23846@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>There is at least one "scientist" who claims that the AIDS virus is
>not caused or brought about by HIV.  He even threatened to inject
>himself to make his point.  Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong.  But
>just because one person or a few people have another study out contradicting
>the painstaking and long and arduous work into studying this phenomenon 
>doesn't make the other scientists who ahve studied this and researched this
>take back their statements.  Sometimes, it isn't necessary.

And sometimes, pompous assholes such as yourself will make these sorts
of statements.

Biology 101 time, folks:

There is no such thing as an "AIDS virus".  AIDS is a condition, not a
disease.

When your T4 count goes below 200, you are diagnosed as having AIDS.  A
great many things can cause your T4 count to drop, including caffine,
alcohol, HIV, and nitrates, to name a few.

Moderate exercise and healthy dietary habits can increase your T4 count.

For more information, contact your local AIDS Project.
--
=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???=
=It's National Coming Out Day.  Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!       FWA=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41189 talk.politics.guns:21850 alt.conspiracy:11049 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5040 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6400 talk.bizarre:33211
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:57:13 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (T. Archer) writes:
>> = Steve Novak (actually, Rich Lund) writes:

>>>Conservatives are way out in front on the RKBA 

>Not really.  Conservatives generally favor the government over the 
>individuals.  We cannot trust conservatives when it comes to freedom of 
>religion, or freedom of expression.

Please.  This was Rich Lund, not moi, Steve Novak.

[...]


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:24:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.014617.5072@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
> >	I did not play with any words. Murder is "the killing of one
> >human being by another". No playing needed. Mother is a human being, 
> 
> This is a blatant and obvious lie.
> 
> As has been pointed out enough times for even the stupidest person,
> murder is the _unlawful_ killing of one person by another.  Putting it
> in quotes does not make it less of a lie or more correct.
> 
> >fetus is a human being, abortion is murder. Just because you don't 
> >agree with the definition of murder I choose, doesn't mean that I
> >must agree with the one you use. 
> 
> Just because you make up lies doesn't make them true.

No, Ray.  Bruce is just reading us the Lewis Carrol version.
"When I say a word, it means what I say it does."

And somewhere in here I'm going to have to slip in a lesson
on "meum" and "tuum."

Dean Kaflowitz, the Whistle Pig's Best Friend

Who steals my purse steals trash
Twas mine, tis his
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:01:46 GMT

From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
> 
> And the DOI <Declaration of Independence> has no legal bearing, thank Dean.


Tell it to Mother England, Keithy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Human Worth in Unborn
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:55:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Qep9OTC00WB6BST45s@andrew.cmu.edu>  ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>
> So if a fetus can survive outside the mother at 5 months of development
> or 7 or 8, how can you say that it's not a child, but only a potential
> child? It's already happened that children like this survive. They can't
> possibly have only been potential before birth.

So if a fetus can survive outside the woman at 7 or 8 months, how can you
say it's not born if it's still inside her after this point?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Poll results: FYI
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:27:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.213056.18053@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>All of you making statments about how many people want what wrt abortion,
>take note.  Here is a poll done on 1,052 college students on 41 college
>campuses taken August 24th by U. The National College Magazine as given int
>their October issue.

How was this poll taken?  The subgroup of readers who were interested 
(eg. politically active) sent in an answer?  (With a response rate of
about 25 for an entire campus?)

Did you include all the questions, and if not, were the others as
partisan as the following?

>do you consider yourself...
>
>anti abortion	17%
>pro-choice	74%
>don't know	8%

[There's a pretty clear bias even in your short list; consider:

#do you consider yourself...
#
#anti-life
#pro-life
#don't know

#do you consider yourself...
#
#anti-choice
#pro-choice
#don't know
]


If you considered yourself "pro-life," would you feel inclined to
respond to a questionnaire which forced you to call yourself "anti-..."?

[Similarly, if you considered yourself "pro-choice," would you feel 
inclined to respond to a questionnaire which forced you to call 
yourself "anti-..."?]

I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of college students call themselves
"pro-choice," but there must be a better way to measure it.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why Do fetal idolators not read the bible?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:46:23 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
] MAR 7:6  He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied
]               of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth
]               me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Thank you for pointing this text out.

Now read it, and learn it.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Contraceptive *Vaccine* in India
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:52:57 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Maybe this is old news to some of you, but I read last week in the
Globe and Mail that a birth control vaccine has been developed in
India.  They say it requires a booster shot once a year, and is more
reliable than the pill (can't remember success rates but it's only been
tested on about 200 Indian women as far as I remember).  It is supposed
to work by invoking the natural immune system to prevent implantation
in the uterus.  It should soon be on the Indian market (soon being a
relative term unknown to me).

How's that for treating pregnancy like a disease eh? 
But seriously, they said "no side effects".  If it's
true, then it sounds pretty cool to me!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:45:22 GMT

In article <9471@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>|> Because only one of the several people Dr. Kevorkian helped kill 
>|> was terminal.  The others just wanted to die, they were not terminal.
>
>Were all going to die eventually, it is only the time frame that varies.

Oh, please! NOT all of us have an extremely highly statistical likelihood of

	a) Dying SOON, i.e. within months or a short number of years

	b) Spending the rest of our (numbered) days undergoing a rapid 
	   degeneration of our bodily functions, constant suffering, and
	   a total loss of dignity

Perhaps you should watch someone die of a terminal illness before making such
facile connections, or, at the very least, talk at length with people who 
suffer from chronic pain, degenerative diseases, depression and the like.
(I have done the latter, but admittedly not the former).

								- Kevin
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Keywords: Right from the horse's mouth.
Date: 16 Oct 92 10:07:38 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1bk2tvINN5fp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Which of course is the crux, isn't it?

It is the crux of the philosophical argument the previous poster was implying.

>money == a woman's body.

I don't agree.  And among the strongest arguments against anti-abortion laws
are those which argue:

money != a woman's body.

Those are arguments worth pursuing.

But the argument being addresses was one which implied that it is wrong
to force a burden onto people period.

Taxation is an example of such an imposition and condoning it renders the above
argument useless.

The strongest arguments against anti-abortion laws are ones which state - as
an axiom - that the woman's bodily autonomy is worth more than the life of
the human foetus.

If I accept that axiom I cannot condone restricting abortion.

The strongest arguments for anti-abortion laws are ones which state - as 
an axiom - that the life of the foetus can be worth more than the woman's
bodily autonomy.

But the weakest pro-choice argument is the sweeping "pro-choice" demands which
ignore the existence of a multitude of "anti-choice" laws already in existence.

tommy

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Women have awareness!
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:44:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>I'm clueless because I show concern for children??  That's interesting.

Your clueless for the same reason Reagan was clueless when he
attempted to be pro-environment with his comment about trees causing
most of the air pollution.  You _claim_ to have concern for children,
but you haven't shown much, and you've shown _no_ concern for women.

>I thought the goal here was to debate, not to make people look foolish.
>That's the reason I keep my jokes to a minimum, and only when warranted.

Comedy is hard.  Keep your day job.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:34:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>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.

Doug, you little atheist you, have you been playing with your crucifix
again? Don't forget to take your blinders off before crossing the street,
now.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion