HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clarifications, further comments
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:43:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr8.132438.27612@acd4.acd.com> wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
#In <1992Mar25.000438.27942@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
#   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
##In article <1992Mar24.200442.28837@acd4.acd.com> wdo@IEDV4.acd.com 
##   ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes: #
###In <1992Mar09.185722.62912@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
###   (Susan Garvin) writes: ##
#
###I agree with Adrienne.  I am in her debt - she consistently points
###out this tendency to ignore women, and she is willing to take the
###heat that her comments generate from misogynists who prefer to
###ignore women.
#
##Ooh.  A dilemma.  
##
##Does the wise man respond to this post?  What label might he incur by 
##ignoring it?  
##
##Typical of my gender, I am at a loss regarding how to proceed...
##
##Perhaps a token response is better than none at all.
#
##While I made no comment about Overpeck's sexism, it's
##interesting that he felt obligated to display it.
#
#Oh, please...  A little less McCarthyism would be nice.  

McCarthyism?  

It looks like you were unable to take my comments seriously.
I commented on this.  I don't see any McCarthyism here.

##Misogyny is not a gender-related trait.  
#
#If I were looking for a clever .sig, this would be a good 
#candidate.

Why?  To demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension?

##It's sad that people feel that it is.  
#
#If it's unrelated to gender, how else might misogyny be described?

Women and men can be misogyinists.  If members of only one gender could
be described in such a way, it would be gender-related.
Perhaps you ought to save your cleverness for people who
are required to laugh at your jokes.

##It's also sad that some people can work up righteous
##indigantion about the plight of a z/e/f, and think
##that any mistreatment of women is worthy only of jokes.
#
#Perhaps you shouldn't be so "sad".  Perhaps you should recognize
#that the ability to occasionally laugh at ourselves is indicative
#of a healthy perspective and a positive self-image.

Perhaps you should save your advice for those who
want it, as well.  Laughing at yourself is one
thing; laughing at others is another.  Hint:  you
weren't making fun of yourself, were you?

Susan
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:30:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr14.003025.27240
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


>>In article <1992Apr13.003632.4809@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>   In any case, my point is : Not every method of birth control is
>>>ok, or 100% effective. Try abstinence. Great way to end STD's, 



Funny....ever met someone who was sexually active, then decided to
be abstinent till marriage or whatever???

Nope, doesn't happen.

Even the great Morrissey has had a few flings........


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: keegan@rosebud.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: darcy's hypocrisy (was Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!)
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:25:24 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >talk about hypocrisy. aren't you the same kevin darcy why
-> >defended kellmeyer for posting my email? in you've
-> >conveniently forgotten, take a peek at
-> ><1992Mar5.023356.23991@cfctech.cfc.com>.
-> 
-> My "defense" [sic] of Kellmeyer in that post had nothing to do
-> with his posting of email.

keep backpedaling kebbie. it won't help you.

-> >i think you're just flaming susan because she's female.
-> 
-> As Larry has already noted, isn't this at odds with the
-> official TSAKC party line that I'm flaming Susan as part of
-> some "net.vendetta"???

it sure is. of course, i posted such when i replied to larry's
post and admitted my error. would you like me to repost a copy of
that reply? you did miss it, didn't you? in it, i agreed with the
obvious: that you are, in fact, flaming susan garvin as part of
your net.vendetta.

        "I do *not* want to discuss any child support issues in
        alt.flame any more.  Not "Re: Hillel", not "Re: Paying
        for Pleasure", not any of them."
	<1990Nov10.170334.5406@cfctech.cfc.com>
	kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy)

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:13:00 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

Ted is so easy to harpoon and lampoon, it's hardly a challenge.  Reading
his posts is like reading a "Dumb Posting of the Week".

<Apr.5.21.14.37.1992.11736@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) said:
>On the TV news this evening (on the puff-piece coverage about the
>Washington rally) they showed some speaker who said something about a
>woman's right to keep men out of her uterus.  Hee hee.  It seems to me
>that, if a woman is truly concerned about an unwanted pregnancy, the
>proper occasion to exercise this right is before conception occurs.
>Now if all these irresponsible loudmouths would take it upon
>themselves to behave like mature human beings, exercise some proper
>self-discipline, and truly keep men out of their uteruses, there
>wouldn't even be any controversy regarding abortion.

Notice how Ted has decided that the only people responsible for an
unwanted pregnancy are the women for not keeping their legs closed.  And
he claims to not be a chauvinist...

I, for one, am glad that women (in general) are free-thinking individuals
capable of complete responsibility.  I'm also glad I've been with a few
who like a good romp in the hay.  It's a shame that you have such a low
opinion of women that you lump them all in with whatever bad experiences
you've had.  Nothing to take the edge of your conservativinism than a good
romp in the hay.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn 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: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C. (NEW SIGNATURE!)
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:59:14 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <kuk4hlINNlac@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.212509.20522@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>Well, well, well. It looks like we have a new candidate for the David
>Rasmussen look-alike contest. 
   WHo the hell is david rasmussen? 

>So tell us all, Stevie, do you read minds too?
   yes... As a matter of fact you're thinking of how intelligent and 
logical I am... ANd I"m flattered. Thanks Eric.

    steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 21:40:14 GMT

YOu guys are realy immature you know that? When the tough gets going,
the pro-choice get offensive. How many Christian jokes have been brought
into an otherwise serious forum for discussing abortion?
   I won't even bother to credit the trash I read about the pope, but I
will answer your stupid point. You see, the Catholic church emphasizes
celibacy for the priests/hierarchy because they already HAVE a family.
On average it's about 4000 per diocesan sector. So, they have NO TIME for
another family, namely their own. A priest is so exceptionally busy trying
to undo some of the damage and crap that society has bred, that he would
have NO TIME to responsibly care for a child of his own. Like I said earlier,
each individual has his/her own calling in life, and YOU don't have the
right to deny it.
   And by the way darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann), your
frigging follow-up was weak, offensive, and absolutely lacking in humor.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON"T MAKE A WAR OF THIS. We should be working
TOGETHER to help the victims. YOu see the women as a victim, we see
the fetus as a victim. CAN WE NOT WORK TOGETHER so that everyone is happy?
I don't think you guys give a shit... All I see are the pro-lifers here
begging to work TOGETHER, and you guys are so busy trying to hack away
at our faith and pride, that you don't spend any time thinking about
a solution.
  Your solution is "maybe if we get them to shut the hell up, then the
problem will go away..." Think again my friend.
   Incedentally, I probably picked on this post more than I should have
but I'm so sick and tired of the jokes, insults, bites, jabs, and of 
course, the nazi comments. Society could easily be split on the concept
of abortion, and I am calling for peace. WE are calling for peace...
It is up to the pro-choice now to decide. You will not pound us into
submission. There are too many strong individuals in this movement 
for us to be silenced. The ball's in your court now...
   steve (MICHIGAN LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!! ugh)
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:36:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Craig

>I see a lot of paranoia in regard to the idea that Roe vs. Wade would
>be overturned by the Supreme Court.
>
>Know how many abortions would be stopped in the first week if RvW were
>overturned? NONE! If Roe vs. Wade were overturned abortion would still
>be legal in all fifty states until such time as the individual states
>decided to outlaw it (and many have already gone down on record as
>stating that they will NOT outlaw them. New York, for example.).

What a brilliant expose.  I must say.  Were it today, Roe would have its
way.  But were it the day when Roe gave away, millions would dread to
see the states go the same way.

Your analysis is nilpotent in a debate where the whole picture is analysed.
Of course all of us know that the secnod Roe gives out all 50 states won't
do a 180.  Come on.  How many people do you think are that dumb, Craig?

>I do not understand all the hysteria.  Casino gambling is legal in only
>one state and one other city in the U.S. and people travel from all over
>to reach these places for gambling. A desperate woman would be able to
>travel to any state that still allowed them.

Nope.  Lots 'o paper work done in abortions when it's not legal nationally.
Bad assesment.

>What is the problem with that?

Look at the Irish case.  Get a clue.  Bye bye.

I am also VERY disappointed to see you treat abortion like a casino game.
This isn't funny.  It's not even close.  Abortion is NOT a game.  It's a
matter of life and death.  Get lost in your trivialities at home.

> This is from
>     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
>who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
kcw


--
(=- Mr. Kevin C. Welch to you -=)		Science wiLl Be truth for Life
(  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	)		TechNology as Nature
						In foRtran tongue the Answer
10000 Maniacs ->				with weAlth and pRominence
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15438 soc.men:8493 soc.women:9012
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:51:39 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr14.125259.22918@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>Kurt - I can tell you now. If abortions are made illegal, there will be 
>a hell of a lot fewer. Sure we will have to deal with the coathangers and
>[back alleys, but there will be thousands and thousands and thousands 
>of alive babies to show for it.
>   SOunds like a good trade to me

Until the population in the US triples, that is.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

Pro-choice:  The American way!

(Apologies to Russ Anderson for the swipe. :-)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14679 alt.abortion.inequity:661
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Mikeey Seeks Cheerleaders
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:28:44 GMT
Organization: Ferrari International

> Darcy
>> Kathi

>>He faces no such risk.  While most would
>>advocate that she seek his opinion, the final, irrevocable choice is hers.

>Regardless of what BIOLOGICAL choices people are granted, they generally don't 
>get to "choose" not to pay their debts, Kathi, except in this odious little
>exception which has been carved out of the law.

Yes, Kevin, I see your point, and raise you 50.

"Sometimes I think he's stacking the deck."
"I assure you, Commander, the cards are sufficiently randomized."

-- 
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts.  It is only nine months."
-- Kevin Welch in talk.abortion
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
SEND MAIL TO: mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu, NOT uga.edu, YOU PINHEADS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:39:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.182855.3079@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:

>>>In <1992Apr5.070049.2778@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@quads.uchicago.edu
>> (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>>
>>>>In article <1992Apr3.160149.10119@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
>>  mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>>
>>>>Suppose I make an analogy that Pro-Choice folks are indeed NAZIS because 
>>>>aborting fetuses is the same as the extermination of the Jews. Would I be
>>>>right in making such a statement? NO! Of course I would be wrong! However,
>>>>my reasoning behind this is just the same as yours. Please understand dude.
>>
>>>I understand your point, Mikeey, and it's fine as far as it goes, but please
>>>try to avoid making this kind of argument even in a jesting analogy. There
>>>are some of us it hurts needlessly, and a lot more who it endangers even
>>>beyond their current danger level. Try to find some other way.
>
>Why does this analogy hurt some needlessly? And why does it endanger some
>beyond current danger levels? 

Because it devalues the term... makes people think that when someone
starts yelling about Nazis they *really* don't mean anything worse
than the stuff we hear about and many of us don't mind, all the time.
Which means that when the real ones reappear, and some of us start
calling for help, we will be ignored and disbelieved exactly the way
we were disbelieved the first time, by decent people who have simply
been dulled to the sense of danger by all the hyperbole on the subject...
about abortion, about pro-life control, about fur-wearers, about those
who favor capital punishment, about whatever anyone's pet political
cause is. And they won't listen, until it's far too late to help. And
we probably can't manage to survive another try.

>If people who are pro-life truly and passionately believe that the 
>FETUS is a human being fully deserving of life, than the analogy
>to pro-choices being at least "Nazi-like" may or may not have a grain
>of truth to it. I could see it as being somewhat correct. Not totally
>correct but somewhat.

This would have a point, except that I have a VERY hard time believing
that saying that pro-choicers are Nazis will change a single person's
mind about abortion, or will stop one abortion from happening. In which
case people who are truly pro-life (and whose definition of "life" in-
cludes Jews, a premise that is risky at best) will recognize that they
are risking lives by saying such things, while saving no lives even of
fetuses in the process, and they'll turn to techniques that don't kill
some to save others.

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a little slavery is "harmless" (was Re: "Harmless Slavery")
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:22:09 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>In article <17530@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys (Ronald Bense) writes:

>-> Not at all. This is analagous to someone walking on a diving
>-> board.  When you get to the end (whatever time limit is set)
>-> you make the choice, take another step or get off. I don't
>-> think that you can enslave yourself (although someone will
>-> probably argue this :-), so as long as a reasonable amount of
>-> time is set as a limit (3-4 months, not 1 week), there is no
>-> enslavement.

>what?

>you think it's ok to enslave someone for a "reasonable amount of time?"

NO! NO! NO!  NEVER!

My mistake for not being clear, but there was more in this post than
the above. The line of reasoning (at least in my mind :) was that allowing
a reasonable amount of time before abortions were restricted to only 
health reasons or other extenuating circumstances (3-4 months) as preventing
the "enslavement" argument. (I have personal trouble with advocating
3rd-trimester abortions for reasons that do not fall under health of
either the mother or the fetus, or extenuating circumstances such as
rape and incest) Giving someone a free choice at this point, and if
they choose to carry to term, is not, IMHO, enslavement of any type.

My diving board analogy was that a person is free to get off the board 
until the last step off the end (indicative of the 3-4 month time limit 
for unrestricted abortions) where a choice has to be made. At this point,
I find it unreasonable to assume that a woman would not be aware of 
a pregnancy for some time, thus this time frame should allow her enough 
time to make up her mind. In those rare circumstances where a woman 
is either not aware for whatever odd biological reasons that she is 
pregnant, or even plain ignorance due to lack of proper education, a 
case could be made for extenuating circumstances.

I hope this clarifies my previous unclear comments. Sorry about any
racing heartbeats :-)

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:25:29 GMT

jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:

>> Geeee...I wouldn't take much thinking to realize that the "pro-death" is
>> a simple response to those who insist on using "anti-abortion" and the   
>> white-wash nature of the term "pro-choice".  When I see universal 
>> respect for Pro-Life I will return the favor. 

>Of course you're pro-life; you want the fetus to be born whether the woman
>wants it to or not, and, if somehow given a well-enough developed brain to  
>assess the situation of itself, the woman, and others involved, whether  
>the fetus _itself_ would want to live or not.

Please structure a coherent sentence.  I can't respond to nonsense.

>> >...pro-lifers
>> >often argue that a woman has a physical responsibility to the z/e/f
>> >(that's zygote/embryo/fetus) which she has helped to concieve.
>>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ add child/baby/infant also 
> 
>If we add child/baby/infant, that knocks out the choice of adoption.
>Dan King, we have a winner! (See "Isn't adoption an escape from
>responsibility?") 

More nonsense.

>> >If
>> >you support this argument, what equivalent physical responsibility does 
>> >the male who was involved in this conception carry?
>> 
>> Responsibility cannot be "equal" due to the nature of pregnancy. 

>..which is part of the nature of a woman, of course. Let me guess, there  
>are _other_ things which cannot be equal due to the nature of the wo/man,
>right, pal?

Right gal.  Alright answer this:  A man get's kicked in the groin by a
woman.  A judge decides that YOU have to respond to her in an "equivalent"
fashion.  What would you do?   (hint: women don't have testicles) 

>> Hence the
>> male responsiblity has to come in the form of financial and emotional
>> support. 

>I don't want a man's money. And those men who have been able to give me 
>real emotional support are those who have respected my choice to not  
>define my life by the output of my baby factory.

You did that to yourself.  Quit blaming other people with the fashionable 
"I'm a victim" hogwash.

>> Oh well!  Since Nora points out that Nazi analogies are incorrect they 
>> are incorrect???  I sense a bit of Nora-worship here.  The Nazi 
>> analogies
>> are valid, much as you hate them (and they must be cause KEVIN said so).

>Along similar lines, why don't we make a movie, "The Silent Part,"
>of a brush ripping out a defenseless hair from its sanctuary of a root 
>;)

Ouch!  Bet the hair doesn't struggle to get away from the brush.  The
baby human struggles till the bitter end.

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank)
Subject: Re: DeMoss Foundation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 03:59:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na

Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.133213.27994@acd4.acd.com> Bill Overpeck
>writes:

>>Whoa.  First, I was referring to the pro-choice agenda, not
>>Susan's in particular.  Second, there is no implication that the
>>viewpoint of the DeMoss Foundation is religiously motivated.  I
>>personally don't know; it may or may not be, but it's misleading
>>to assume it.  Not everyone in the pro-life movement bases their
>>position on some theological tenet.

>"The Arthur S. De Moss Foundation is almost invisible
>to the public, since it shuns publicity and doesn't
>issue annual reports.  Named for its founder, a born-
>again Christian who made a fortune in the insurance
>business and died in 1979, De Moss funds various
>causes, most of them evangelical.  In 1989 (the most
>recent year for which figures are available), its
>donations included $2.4 million to Campus Crusade for
>Christ, $500,000 to Walk Thru the Bible Ministries,
>$225,000 to the Pat Boone Foundation and $130,000 to
>the Fellowship of Christian Athletes"

Yes, why don't they do a ad showing a woman who has been raped
and is forced to have the baby, or ends up killing her self. About
a other ad show a very sick woman who needs a abortion to save
her life, but ends up dieing anyway. because the pro-life pigs
have outlawed all abortions. I can tell you that these ads will
not be so nice and cute. By the way anyone who has been to school
knows that the Campus Crusade for Christ are the bigest buch
of jerks on the campus, when I was in high school i knew
someone who was with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, he
was the bigest asshole i have seen in my life. As for Pat Boone?
need i say more?
-- 
Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Internet zank@netcom.com -or MZANK@mcimail.com
----------------------------------------------
 Send all flames to MZANK@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion