HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Date: 28 Dec 92 09:35:44 CST

In article <1992Dec25.042418.4549@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.103815.21024@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.174359.23172@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15.180606.27847@cbnews.cb.att.com> 
>>>jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>>>
>>>> I argue for pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation
>>>> to provide support to the child.  This is independent of the question of
>>>> personhood.
>>>
>>>During most abortions, the child's right to bodily autonomy is 
>>>violated.  If the child is a person, then you cannot support 
>>>unrestricted abortion-on-demand using the notion of bodily 
>>>autonomy. 
>
>Yes, the fetus'es (not "child"s) right to bodily autonomy is violated, but the 
>violation of the fetus is a LESSER violation, in terms of human suffering, 
>than the alternative 9-month violation of the pregnant woman. So, where we 
>HAVE to choose between the two, i.e. before the point of viability, it is 
>valid to choose violation of the fetus'es BA.
>
>>Gee, Doug.  When are we going to see some evidence
>>from you that a fetus is _capable_ of bodily autonomy?
>
>Does it need to fill out a form, or what?
>
>No, Muriel, any human organism which _could_ function outside of the womb
>is by definition "capable" of bodily autonomy. This is, in fact, why 
>viability is such an all-important dividing line.
>
Is it "capable" of reaching that state on its own?
As long as it's a fetus, it's _not_ "capable" of
bodily autonomy.  Which is why viability is such a
red herring.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Organization: NRL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:58:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.224559.18999@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
(Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <C014os.ID3@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
> >
> >They distract people from the real issue - abortion kills children.
> 
> Nonsense - abortion is about the safest operation around; the pregnant
> female almost *never* dies, whether she's an adult *or* a child.
> --
> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com 
(Internet)

....Oh Larry, please!  ... its such an honor to be baited by you.  I'm 
putting this in a special trophy archive.

-Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Reply to Storga in re Trumped-up Case #3
Keywords: abortion, adoption, children
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:30:36 GMT

In <6=s2a5k@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>->Back before my netserver went deaf, I thought I'd posted this long-awaited
>->response, but apparently my netserver had gone mute without my knowing it.

>well, well. i read the previous statement and thought
>to myself, "finally, he's going to apologize for lying
>about adrienne."

Why should a post with Storga in the title lead you to think that it 
contained an apology to Adrienne?

>so i read the read of the post. he still hasn't
>apologized.

These things take time, and my netserver hasn't been cooperative.
I tried twice to start the ball rolling with "Apologies to Garvin,
Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard," but it appears that neither
of these made it to the boards.  Next time I try, I think I'll mail
a copy to Adrienne, at least.  Of course, if she's like Ms. Adolf,
you will just have to take a chance on it showing up on the boards.
I mailed Ms. Adolf a copy of my fictional Suzanne-Gordon dialogue on 
this Case #3, and she went on letting y'all think I had gutlessly
chickened out on this trumped-up charge against Suzanne.

Peter Nyikos



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter shows his ignorance, once again.
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:03:40 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
|Unfortunately, networkers like Susan Garvin keep me busy with
|their frivolous charges, so Part 3 won't be ready until
|Saturday at the earliest.

So ignore them, moron.  If you'd rather post substantive
arguments about abortion than engage in pointless flame wars,
JUST DO IT.  Nobody's forcing you to post on any topic you
don't want to post about.  You're flaming because you want to.
Admit it, Nyikos.  You WANT to flame instead.

Stop being a feeb.  Either post what you say you want to post,
or admit that you enjoy the flamewars and just flame.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Whereas Usenet is a miracle to people possessing good
communication skills, it is a trap for losers, because it
deprives them of any natural way out of the pointless debate
loops which they fall into so easily.  [...] But those who are
deficient in verbal and mental skills can only exchange clublike
blows with with each other ad nauseum." -- Michael Rigler, in
talk.bizarre
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:31:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.725142175@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter "KKK" Nyikos) writes:


>Well, yes, I am posting a lot of disinformation by Mark and even
>restraining myself from providing instant rebuttals.  

[everything but above lie deleted]

No, PHoney, that's not true.  You've posted a lot of disinformation
of your own creation.  Mark, on the other hand, has provided the
group with a lot of medical facts.  

I guess someone should tell you - you're going to have to work
a lot harder if you want that net.idiot title.  Just lying
repeatedly won't do it.  Reverend Holtsinger's been doing
that (in multiple newsgroups) as well as making inappropriate
posts and encouraging people to try to have others' posting
privileges revoked.  You've got a lot of catching up to do.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:00:53 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# PS  I am not making all these anti-Garvin posts today because I have a
# fixation on her, but because:
# 
# 1.  She throws so much shit in talk.abortion, I'm afraid a good fraction
# of it sticks every day.
# 
# 2.  Since she is at least one of {pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-abortionist}
# it will take a mountain of evidence to get a majority of regulars in this
# newsgroup to take charges of her mendacity at all seriously, while a tiny
# smidgin of evidence from her, or even her "good-as-her-bond" word appears
# enough to satisfy:
# 
# Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
# Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  J H Woodyatt  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
# Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
# Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga ...
# 
# not to mention:
# 
# Adrienne Regard   Sarah McCabe  Muriel Nelson   Kathi Mills  Heather
# rocker    Teddi  Linda Birmingham  
# 
# Have I left anyone out?  More importantly, have I maligned anyone 
# unjustly?  My apologies to anyone who does not belong on one of the
# two lists above.

Man this is weird behavior for Dr. Nyikos...

Aside from the fact that I'm not particularly pleased with being a
member of the lofty group to receive a collective j'accuse of
credulity from Dr. Nyikos -- especially considering the lengths I go
to to believe Mr. Holtinger in the face of repeated testimony from Ms.
Garvin and others that lesser mortals might be satisfied with before
writing off everthing he writes as the twisted and deranged fantasy of
a lunatic... can anyone explain why Dr. Nyikos chose to separate the
supposed `boys' from the supposed `girls?'  Do I want to know?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52961 alt.abortion.inequity:6183
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: "No Statistics" does NOT mean "No Problem Exists," Larry!
Date: 24 Dec 1992 08:51:15 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: Bronis, here's a real challenge for you...

In article <1992Dec24.120032.1855@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>LM>[Steeves shows no evidence]
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??
>Larry, do I really *need* "statistics"?  Indeed, what kind of "statistics"
>did the early "Pro-Choice" activists use?  There were no statistics made as
>to the number of women who were unwillingly pregnant, because the Powers
>That Be, didn't see it as a problem.  So in those days, all that they could
>do, was marshal up personal stories from individual women.

Scuse, please, but not all of us buy your revisionist view of history.

Do you have any basis for your claim that pro-choice activists said anything
on the order of "do I really *need* 'statistics'?"  Or was it rather a case
at the time that BECAUSE of invalid and dangerous laws, valid statistics
were nearly impossible to come by?  

But let me answer your question:

No, you, personally, Mr. Will Steeves, do not 'need' statistics.  You will
not shrivel up and die tomorrow without statistics.  However, GIVEN the bulk
of anecdotal evidence against your position, and your handful of anecdotal
evidence for your position, you *do* need statistics to convince any thinking
person that there is a real tangable human problem that your position address-
es and solves.  Without such, anecdotal evidence alone makes your position
look pretty weak, and you aren't likely to make much headway.


>I *have* shown *many* stories of individuals
>who have been forced to be parents.  Is this not *enough* for you?  Then, what
>is? 

Ah, but others have *many* *many* stories of women and children who have been
promised support and then were DENIED it.  And there *are* statistics of
the number of children who live in poverty, and the likelihood of one's
standard of living dropping below the poverty line without the financial
support of the father.

So, you get to draw your own conclusions, Will.  So far, you aren't gathering
much support.  What would bring you more support?  Some real evidence that
a problem exists that needs solving from social agency.  You can attempt
to gather that real data, or you can keep typing that Larry, who isn't
lobbying for change, is being unfair to you.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:43:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan02.035011.4843@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan1.001959.29643@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.200825.22596@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1992Dec30.050611.25734@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>Would "limited pro-concensus" be sufficiently descriptive, you think?
>>>
>>>"Sufficiently vague" is more like it.
>>
>>Superficial, Larry. Very superficial.
>
>That too.  :-)
>
>>>I think "arguing for legislation while claiming he doesn't want it"
>>>is the most descriptive I've seen yet.
>>
>>I don't argue for abortion restrictions. I argue only against certain
>>absolutist positions. Learn the difference.
>
>What's the difference?  

The difference is that I dislike absolutes, whether they are pro-choice 
absolutes, or pro-life absolutes. Furthermore, I _care_ about the 
pro-choice position more than I do the pro-life position: if a pro-lifer
starts spouting absolutes, I generally just chuckle, sit back, and watch
him or her self-immolate, but when a misguided pro-CHOICER starts spouting
absolutes, my instinctive reaction is to quickly douse the spark before it 
does any real damage.
 
>It *sounds* the same as someone arguing for them.

Then don't just "listen", Larry -- try actually READING what I'm saying. 
Carefully. If you do, I think you'll find that I argue against absolutes, and 
certain kinds of just plain old illogic, but _not_ inherently _against_ any 
(more-or-less relativistic) position on pro-choice.

"Pro-choice Quality Control" is another way to describe the way I see what I 
do, Larry. Maybe that's a little too whimsical, though, perhaps even bordering
on presumptuous...

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: consent to sex == ? (was: Abortion, Caves, Galen)
Date: 4 Jan 93 04:02:53 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
|Parents have an obligation to their children.
|Since no one other than the pregnant woman can
|provide for her child at this stage of his or
|her life, whatever obligations exist are
|conferred to her.
|She accepted this responsibility when she 
|consented to sexual relations -- unless she
|did not comprehend the consequences of her actions.
|
|Yes, you may infer that I would object to government
|impairing the right of sexually assaulted women
|to terminate an undesired pregnancy.
|All simple statement that she did not consent to
|sexual relations would suffice. [...]

So consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, and eventually,
consent to parenthood, according to E Alan Idler.

Any of the "dad's rights" people care to address this point?
I'm bored with refuting it to an endless stream Idler-like
idiots, and want to give someone else a chance.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that
differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." --Rebecca West
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:46:38 GMT

<nyikos.724980092@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Dec18.073137.15851@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
>><1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) :
>>>From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
>>>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
...
>>>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>>>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
>>>
>>>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.
>
>>OK.  All us Atheists will now stop forcing death on unborn children.
>>Since there are no such things as 'unborn children' it should be pretty
>>easy to do.  Now then, can we get back to the abortion issue?
>
>Check out _The Secret Life of the Unborn Child_, by Thomas Verny and
>John Kelly, Delta Books, 1988.  I'll be sending your ex-girfriend Beth
>some excerpts from this book.  Since the authors buy into the Dominick
>Purpura theory of timing of consciousness, she should have a great time
>with the book, and maybe even order it for herself.  It comes in 
>paperback for just over $10.
>
>Also by Thomas Verny (with Pamela Weintraub): _Nurturing the Unborn Child_.
>Sorry, I don't have any publisher info on this one.

Works of fiction do not make mythical creatures real, Peter.

>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
>>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
>									  ^^^^
>Beth, did you give Gordon permission to call himself your "ex-boytoy" as 
>well as your ex-boyfriend?

I'm sure I can dig up the post somewhere, and I hereby give Beth, and all
my ex-girlfriends permission to use me as their ex-toy anytime.  So there.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Date: 27 Dec 92 14:02:51 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec26.221930.12985@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes in response to my question regarding header
topic: 

>>Please explain the relevance of this dividing line to abortion.
>
>It marks the line between where the death of the fetus is strictly NECESSARY 
>versus where it is usually OPTIONAL, in order to preserve the BA rights of 
>the pregnant woman. 

I thought the relationship of the /z/e/f/ with the bodily autonomy of
the mother had to do with the location of the /z/e/f/ and not its
viability.  Please point out where I went wrong.

SJM
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
Date: 4 Jan 93 04:46:35 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|Ms. Smith consented to have sex.  In so doing she has surrendered her rights
|to bodily integrity and personal autonomy. [...]

Oh, really?  Can you show me the contract she signed when she had
sex?  Can you show me exactly where the US Constitution says that
people who have sex give up these rights?  Can you explain to me
what "inalienable" rights are in this context?

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that
differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." --Rebecca West
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: Yo Mamma...
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:13:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.181858.29786@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
[re drieux and t.a/a.s.c-l/t.p.m]
>	Not hardly, by Dobbs!  Spam, at the very least ("bloody Vikings!").
>Or maybe even a Whizzo Quality Assortment.  And certainly the most consistently
>interesting SubGenius on the net (except maybe for Kibo, but he never hangs
>out here).

Hey!  I'm a *lurker*, you putz!

P.S.  Schenectady sucks this time of year.
						-- K.
						Suffering wild mood
						swings caused by the
						Schenectadisease.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, "dictator," meet C.D. Hall & death penalty
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:23:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.724965455@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In <1992Dec17.180448.14467@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes [N.B. that "human beings" have...]:
> 
> >   - The ability to function from day-to-day without causing 
> >     people to suffer by infringing upon their rights (whether 
> >     intentionally or accidentally.)
> 
> A kleptomaniac would seem to fit the second description.

Not to rain on your parade, Petie, but have you by any chance ever stumbled
across the concept of "private property"?

Fool!

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re:Equal Protection Dead End
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:35:50 GMT
Organization: NRL


In article <1992Dec28.000712.16189@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin 
Darcy) writes


> Before you can make the charge of "misogyny" stick, and before you can
> defend abortion rights under Equal Protection, you have to produce 
> independent evidence of discriminatory intent. You are unable to do so.
> Therefore your assertions are rejected as irrational.
> 
> 								- Kevin


Missed the point again, Kevin.  Produce evidence? Pro-aborts have to do no 
such thing to make a charge "stick".  Mud sticks without the glue of 
evidence.  Again, the INTENT of such slurs is not to logically PROVE 
anything.  You're sophisticated WRT logic and law, but very naive WRT the 
art of persuasion.

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Organization: NRL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:25:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.050706.9681@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> In article <C01nIB.1n1@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
writes:


> >I see you like the game too.  Try this:  A fetus is a state of 
> >childhood, as is neonate, infant, toddler, prepubescent, etc., etc.
> >


> No Paul, a fetus is a state of development that the fertilized egg
> goes through before it can become a child.

I still don't know why you insist that the common usage of the word "child" is a forbidden utterance from the lips of a pro-abort.  Just kidding, I do know why - keep those undecideds distracted!  My Webster's 9th lists the "unborn" in the first definition of "child".  I know, Merriam-Webster is run by a bunch of commie-mouth-foaming fetus-freaks.


> >Isn't it curios that a 'wanted' unborn child will almost always be 
> >referred to as 'baby' by the expectant mother, but the soon to aborted 
> >child get's labelled 'fetus'?  So yes, of course you are right Mark, 
> >abortions only kill 'fetuses' since if they were children they would have 
> >been born.  Now I see your logic!

> The expectant mother is not involved in a debate,
> so I couldnt' care less if she uses the correct terminology.

(Oh Great.  This should go over well with that sweet misanthrope, Muriel.)


>  But it is nice to see you admit that I am correct. 

I do?  

>Does this mean you will also be retracting your inccorect claim that more
 > women die of abortions now then when abortions were illegal?

You haven't proven that untrue yet, Mark.  I wasn't the one who first claimed that if abortion is made illegal women will begin to die in droves.  No, this is a common pro-abort line.  There is not a single bit of proof that this will be the case.  Show me.

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:13:06 GMT

In article <C0159D.IKK@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
>
>In article <1992Dec25.064020.5573@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin 
>Darcy) writes:
>
>Just a check, Kevin.  Is the following statement a subtle call for forced 
>abortion laws?
>
>> That's a crime that the mother commits, of course, by bringing the child
>> into the world prematurely, instead of waiting until her social and/or 
>> financial circumstances are more conducive to the having and raising of 
>> children.

No, the word "crime" in Adrienne's article to which I was responding was
obviously being used in a figurative sense, and I intended that sense to
transfer to my response. It would have been better perhaps if I used scare 
quotes for the word "crime", but c'est la vie....

I oppose all forced abortion laws. Financial consequences for the voluntary 
having and taking custody of children, however, is a whole different ball of 
wax...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion