HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Bush on Abortion (was Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Aug 92 08:40:41 CDT


In article <4503@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> :|> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
> :|> 
> :|> > 	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> :|> > ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> :|> > tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. 

[ a couple of posts deleted...]

> Oh, so you're against government dictating the moral standards for
> individuals, but cry hypocrisy if government dictates uniform standards
> for families? And you can't concede that perhaps George Bash [sic] loves
> his family? If you say he should also love yours, why do you want some
> stranger who works in the government -- much less the government itself
> -- to love and take care of your family?

I wonder what the reaction would be if Bush went to a local abortion clinic
(with lots of "pro-life" protesters shouting) and said (especially to the
pregnant women heading into the clinic) that he will support them no matter
what decision the women make.

Do you think the "pro-lifers" would label Bush's actions as "pro-abortion"?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM ( Corp. Net Ops)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 1992 11:58:43 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com
Summary: I should clarify that

In article <4624@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> 	Have you noticed that a lot of the pro-life "FundyDuddies" are
> all generally out of the child-rearing years? I'm sure they won't mind
> at all. Besides, are you indicting all women that have an unplanned
> pregnancy will automatically give their babies up for adoption?
> 

My point in asking the adoption question was that most of the
anti-choice, legislation-hungry, "pro-lifers" would not consider
helping the situation by adopting one of the children that they
would have these women forced into bearing.

The pro-life stance seems to look only at the question of abortion,
not at the question of what happens to an undesired child.

-- Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer - I don't speak for my employer. This is not an attempt to.
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:00:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <23900@oasys.dt.navy.mil> mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
>In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>It appears that the radical pro-abortionists in the Democratic party
>>have forced Mr. Clinton to embrace a minority-held position.
>
>Mr. Holtsinger, can you cite one written (ie verifiable and credible)
>source which lists pro-abortionists?  I've never heard or seen one.
>I'm sure that the pro-life people out their have no intention
>of forcing all couples to breed, although the same distorted
>logic that leads some to call pro-choice voters "pro-abortion"
>could also be used to call the pro-life "pro-forced-breeding".
>
>Am I taking this too seriously again?  Darn it!

Well since Gordon hasn't responded to this yet, I thought I would
leap to my ex-boy-toy's defence here.  Lawrence, although your
motives were pure, I am sure, you are in error.  There are at least
several pro-abortionists on the net here and Gordon proudly carries
their banner.  He is their self proclaimed spokesman (mostly because no
one has tried to wrest that office away from him).  I am sure he would be 
happy to fully explain their position if you asked.  I am not one of them 
(yet), but more and more lately I find myself considering joining them, but  
I have already been converted to the cult of the haploids I am not sure
how this would conflict with my new found faith.

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: politics
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:17:08 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

> I am pleased to see the Democrats taking such a strong
> pro-choice stand, in an election where their opponents have
> adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
> and incest.  The Republicans are extremists.  Abortion opinion
> polls tend to vary wildly depending on the wording of the
> questions asked, but they don't vary on incest & rape.  The
> American public wants exceptions for rape & incest.  So much for
> that Republican "big tent".

A pro-life delegate was interviewed on-camera last night.  When
asked if there was a place for pro-choice Republicans, he said
(and I'm quoting from memory, so please excuse me): "Sure, the
Democratic Party."

Btw, I disagree that the Republicans are extremists.  I would say
that the Republican leadership is composed of extremists.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32489 alt.flame:12189
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:48:54 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <lefty-190892093550@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) , blind in the right eye and can't see from the Left eye, blabs:
>In article <1992Aug19.011810.14987@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) continues to miss the point by writing:
>> 
>> In article <lefty-170892095020@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug16.002316.16782@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>> >(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> If we go by the pro-choice stance of being "intellegent" or "with a
>> >> brain," that would exclude you in an instant.
>> >
>> >If we hadn't seen this already about 6,000 times, it would be hilarious.
>> 
>> And hasn't just been said by me, about you. 
>> It's been said by others about you, too. 
>
>I see.  Which others did you have in mind?  Stevie Franklin?  He doesn't
>count.  Well, he only counts to five.

When he's counting to your IQ, he only counts to five. 

That's because by the time he counts to three, he's already
overestimated you. 

>> >As it stands, it's simply pathetic.
>> 
>> Yes, it is pathetic. In how more than one person on this newsgroup,
>> thinks about _you_, Lefty. 
>
>Oh, I'm not too concerned with you and your fellow mouth breathers.  I
>think referring to yourself as a "person" is putting on airs, however.  I'm
>willing to give you a piece of advice, though.  "I know you are, but what
>am I?" isn't generally considered to be much of a flame.

And what are you? An ass-breather? Well, that would be an accurate 
description of you, seeing that the mouth is near the brain and all... 

I knew something was wrong with you. You're getting your jokes from 
Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure now. 


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:29:15 GMT

In article <tgreen.713578667@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>
>abortion has nothing to do with compassion.  If you were truly
>compassionate, you would feel compassion for the baby (fetus) that is
>killed.  Compassion doesn't mean to let everyone take the easy way
>out of difficult or desperate situations.  Compassion would be to
>help them (not just the mother, also the baby) through it. 

Compassion without antecedent suffering is just a mind-game. Clearly, 
concretely, a woman burdened with an unwanted organism growing within her is 
suffering. Equally clearly, that organism is INCAPABLE of suffering during 
most of the pregnancy -- it can't even feel physical pain, let alone the full 
dimensions of pscyho-social suffering which the woman experiences. The only 
"suffering" of such a z/e/f is the abstract, imputed "suffering" of not 
realizing its full potential. But in the same way I feel no "compassion" for 
a hunk of marble which fails to be sculpted into a beautiful statue, or 
"compassion" for an egg which ends up on my dinner plate instead of becoming 
a chicken, neither do I feel "compassion" for an unwanted z/e/f which fails 
to become a human child. Unrealized potential may be regrettable, but it's 
hardly a basis for compassion. You cheapen compassion when you try to extend 
it that far.

								- Kevin
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:02:59 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs


dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:
|rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
||HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
||ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
||tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
||dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
||plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
||platforms.

|Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports
|exceptions for rape and incest, and for the life of the mother.

And, of course, for his own family.

This morning's news had a lovely story about Bush's reactions
to a question about how he'd react if a grandchild of his sought
an abortion.  In his reply, he said that the woman was the only
one who could decide, ultimately.

Either he's pro-choice but not above shameless political pandering
to the extreme right, or he's pro-life-for-everyone-except-himself
and a shameless hypocrite.  Whichever-- it doesn't matter to me.
He can't be trusted, and he's not getting my vote.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:54:36 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.200356.9659@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug15.142040.13003@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
>>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>>> The polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  

>- Epitaph for John Campbell, pro-abort Republican US Senatorial
>Candidate in California, who got a new asshole burned for him by
>pro-life Republican candidate Bruce Herschensohn, in the June primary. 

Time for a little history lesson for those who don't get their California
news from the OR propaganda.

TOM Campbell (not John; strike one) did indeed lose the primary to Bruce
Herschensohn in June.  He did so by one of the slimmest margins in Senate
primary history; hardly being "burned...a new asshole", in your phrasing.

Note also that John Seymour, the OTHER Republican primary winner in June,
defeated his pro-life rivals by more than a two-to-one margin.  

And finally, note that both Seymour and Herschensohn are currently running 
about as far behind their pro-choice Democratic opponents as Bush is behind
Clinton.  

I don't know what point you were trying to make with your statement above,
but something tells me you'd better rethink it.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A little known fact...
Summary: Humphrey take a history lesson... and a reading lesson
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:30:05 GMT

In article <Bt1wD7.E4y@rice.edu> 
patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>   "The change in Western attitudes to infanticide since Roman times is,
>>>>    like the doctrine of the sanctity of human life of which it is a part,
>>>>    a product of Christianity."

>>> Says nothing about Judaism.

>> No, but the other source which you deleted does mention Judaism.

> And they're both from the last half of THIS century -- the trouble is, since
> you're talking about *early* Judeo-Christian thought, you're missing the
> mark by, oh, 2000 years or so...

Didn't you notice that the quote is a historical commentary? 


Doug Holtsinger


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32847 alt.flame:12237
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Summary: Clones, clones, clones...
Date: 21 Aug 1992 16:44:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: OR Busters (they're *still* 0 for Houston)

In article <1992Aug21.123445.25102@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
>Patrickkk:

How utterly droll, child. 

>You are a jerk for not apologizing.  If your so tough why don't you 
>march your caucasian ass out here where we can "talk."  That is
>if you aren't "chicken" (using your own words).  BIG WORDS=
>BIG TALK.

Sorry, pal -- I stay in THIS country.  Michigan ain't.  You want to do
something about it, you come down here.  (Unlike you, I have a job and a
family to look after -- and they come before little adolescents with more
hormones than brains...)

Now, go ask some grown-up to show you just where I am...


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
  * * *quintessential * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.sig!* * *
   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *warlordable* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:36:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Toll free numbers, Suzanne?  Have we moved into televangelism now?

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <92215.152601ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>, by Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>:

>> While the majority of the quotes are Canadian, I am
>> sure Ms. Forgach if you did a little reading on the
>> topic you will find that feminist organizations
>> around the world have been lobbying and funding
>> such initiatives as you described above.  

>No, Linda.  They've been talking the talk, but they haven't been
>walking the walk.   Walk into ANY, and I mean ANY abortion alternative
>organization ANYWHERE, and you will not find even one pro-"choicer" among
>them.  

You mean organizations that are *exclusively* "abortion alternative", of
course.  As you always forget, organizations that provide abortions nearly
always provide a host of other services as well.  Planned Parenthood does
quite a bit with prenatal care and prenatal counseling, for one; and you'll
find a lot more pro-choicers there than pro-lifers, I assure you.

It's nice to know that even after I go away for weeks, there's at least
one universal constant...

>Being pregnant and in need of help doesn't sound like stringent "requirements"
>whatsoever to me.  But do not ever expect an organization devoted to providing
>alternatives to abortion to _ever_ aid someone in _obtaining_ an abortion.

Doesn't look like Linda expected that.  Interesting, though, that most
organizations that happen to provide abortions *also* provide counseling
and help for several of the alternatives you mention.  Could it be that
only one side here is...well...one-sided?

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:22:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.200356.9659@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.142040.13003@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>> The polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  
>
>Do you have a source for this claim, or is this just more of your bullshit?

I've heard the same claim on NPR news.  What's more, I believe it.  Although
the poll results depend on how the question is asked, it is pretty clear that
the majority of Americans, as well as the majority of Republicans, are
pro-choice when it comes to first-trimester abortions.

You don't trust *anyone* who disagrees with you, do you, Dougie?

By the way, Dougie, please don't ask me to substantiate this claim because I
won't.  You wouldn't believe me if I did, so why waste the effort?

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"Tom Hayden is the kind of politician who gives opportunism a bad
name."
		-- Gore Vidal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:51:27 GMT

In <st_nv5=.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>Gordon
>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
>and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.

   Sorry. I don't like your .sig. However, being the all around nice guy that
I am, I figured I'd suggest a few modifications so that was clearer for
all of us concerned readers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon
Pro-convenience, pro-ignorance, pro-anyone-whoagrees-with-me, pro-duke,
pro-me, pro-ignoring-the-weak-and-defenseless, pro-lying-to-myself and
ex-boytoy of lots of women because I have a hard time with relationships,
but married to a goddess among women, because she likes me for my "mind"
and doesn't mind my impotence. I'm a computer geek and proud of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There, I think that's much more fitting Gordon. Now, why not stop being
an impudent little ass, and stop quipping everyone of Steve Chaney's points
because you feel that there is an opportunity for you to appear witty.
You fail miserably every time, and I am forced to look at your nauseating
.sig to boot...

steve

p.s. - Now, for a REAL .sig, read on! 8)
-- 
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: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some effects of Pregnancy
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:03:49 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Very to the point and factual, Jimmers, but you left out the ONE most important
>"effect" of pregnancy.   A child is born.   Your son or daughter.  Who exhibits
>a very definite preference for his/her mother, over all other people, as soon
>as he/she is born.   The ensuing relationship between parents and child, if
>allowed to flower as the child grows to adulthood, will be probably _the_
>most fulfilling activity parents will undertake in their entire lives.

Hee hee. I had to laugh first, when I read this trivial garbage, then
I had to respond. I couldn't help it. It appears that Frau F is in full
form again. I mean, let's count the TbBAs in these 5 sentences. I count
4, with one statement being an opinion. Frau F must have the highest
TbBA/sentence ratio of anyone on the net. To save bandwidth, and knowing
she probably won't respond anyway, I'll just leave the thought process
as to why there are 4 TbBAs as an exercise for the reader. (I'll post
if you want, Frau F)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:17:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.194600.15777@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.143553.466@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >>>john@anasazi.com writes:
> 
> >>>> Hmmm... that's odd. I heard a PRO-CHOICE advocate state that 1% of
> >>>> abortions in the US are in the 3rd trimester. These must be very
> >>>> busy and rich doctors.
> 
> >>> That's *less* than 1%.  
> 
> >> The annual number of abortions performed at 21 weeks and after tends
> >> to number in the thousands.  Percentages always make the numbers look 
> >> smaller than people might realize.  That's because there are millions
> >> of abortions performed every year. 
> >> 
> >> And it's not clear what Ms. Garvin defines as "third trimester". The 
> >> definition of third trimester varies; some put it at 28 weeks, others 
> >> at 24 weeks.
> 
> > Then what is the relevance of your putting it at 21 weeks?  
> 
> I didn't place the third trimester at 21 weeks. The implication in 
> this thread is that the third trimester corresponds to the period 
> when the fetus is viable, which isn't always true.  Some pro-aborts
> place the third trimester at either 24 or 28 weeks, but viability 
> can occur before then. 
> 
> > Could there be an attempt there to, dare I say it, muddy the waters?
> > Misrepresent?
> 
> By certain pro-aborts?  You bet.

Rather by you, as a pro-lier.

21 weeks is not at all a standard definition of thrid trimester.
Now you try to slip this "viability" issue in, just to keep
yourself from looking like a liar, which at this juncture is
probably impossible for you to do.  However, viability at less
than five and a half months is very rare.  It is unusual for
preemies born that early to survive, despite heroic efforts.

Once again you are trying to deceive, Doug.  I can't for
the life of me imagine what you hope to accomplish by giving
yourself a reputation as a liar who will say anything and
be caught in the act repeatedly.

I think you enjoy being called a liar and maybe just like the
attention.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion