HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 18:49:00 GMT

In <1992Sep6.162508.10966@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715733197@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>Sorry, I missed that one.  And it seems so out of character, I find it
>>hard to believe he wasn't being satirical.  Which thread was it on, so
>>I can see the context?

>Peter, have you read ANY article on talk.abortion?  I mean, you post so much
>crap here that I assumed you actually READ what you were replying to...

We were talking about a very specific quote from a very specific post
by Will Steeves.   I had seen a number of other posts by Will and this 
seemed totally out of character with the ones I'd read.

Do you always generalize so much on the basis of such fragmentary evidence?

>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.
>=OK???

OK, but maybe someone else has been slipping something into your beer...

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: More Specious Unsubstantiated LIES from Nyikos
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:35:05 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  <1992Sep10.222220.27942@rigel.econ.uga.edu>  mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
> Look, people.  Just because Nyikos is anti-choice and generally clueless about
> abortion doesn't mean EVERYTHING he writes is NECESSARILY wrong.  THINK and
> do some research YOURSELF before you flame.
>
> > tanj
> >> Nyikos
>
> >>Fact: some Planned Parenthood clinics do not use anesthesia.
>
> >Substantiate this so-called fact.  Or retract it.
> >My guess is that all you have is whole-cloth "testimony" again.
>
> This "so-called fact" is true, unless PP has some arbitrary internal rule
> requiring anesthesia.  When I had my abortion, anesthesia was NOT required,
> although it was strongly suggested.

His statement implies that they don't use it at all, which is quite
different than not *required*.  If he had said "Some clinics don't
force you to use anesthesia", it would have been clearer, but not
sounded as damning.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18:31:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>In your above example, it does not impose a belief on me.  But this example
>is poorly chosen.  Try: if there is a problem involving you and me, and
>you make a decision on how to deal with that problem unilaterally, you
>enforce your BELIEF of the appropriateness of your actions on me.

How's about weighting the vote in proportion to what's at stake?  The 
greater the personal consequences of the decision, the greater the
say in the outcome?  This way, each person will have a say.  Of course,
somebody _will_ be disappointed sometimes, but them's the breaks.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:45:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.165408.21638@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = (Susan Garvin) writes:
### = ( Steve Novak) writes:
#
###I disagree with Susan Garvin that _not_ requesting to be part of DOD's
###.sig is a sign of anti-Semitism, for these reasons:
###(1) Who gives any _real_ weight to the Doltmeister ANYway?
#
##DJR.  Dennis Hall.
#
#So...*no* one, huh :-)? 

Okay, you win one.  Just this one, though - don't get cocky.

###(2) How is anyone supposed to know that [a] Gloria Feldt is Jewish, or [b]
###that her comments indicate a religious belief?  I didn't until reading this
###group.
#
##[a] Well, I still don't *know* that she is Jewish.  It's just that
##the only religion I know of that has such a belief is Judaism.
#
#Veddy likely conclusion, Ms. Garvin.

Veddy likely, but not certain.

##[b]  She says so in the quote.  :-)
#
#Oh, SURE.  Stoop to using FACTS.  
#
#Are you trying to intimidate me off the net?

Of course.  I want the net all to myself.  

##If you're not careful, I'll intimidate you right off the net.
#
#See?  SEE?  

What did you expect?  You've been making a habit of disagreeing
with me, after all.  

Us all-powerful people can't stand that.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:45:53 GMT

In <rv7yl3g@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In article <1992Sep11.152532.21740@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep10.034228.6912@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>
the chaney/hall creature posting as chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu 
   (DEVASTATOR OF PATRICK HUMPHREY to you, PatricKKK) writes to patrick: >>>>

>>>> it would really be luney for me to continue to heap
>>>> more verbal and emotional abuse on your already
>>>> troubled self.
>
>>> yes it would. i'm glad you admit it.
>>>
>>> i wonder how long it will be before you display that
>>> characteristic yet again.
>>>
>>> [watch carefully bill overpeck.]
> 
>> What characteristic is that, Jim?  
>
> did you not read the lad's own words, bill? they're
> still included above in the first paragraph. read it
> again, please. if you still have trouble, just ask me
> and i'll tell you the characteristic. but heck, you're
> in the business and i have confidence that, with a second
> reading, you'll detect it yourself.

The object of his statement seems to suggest that he doesn't
want to engage in "luney" behavior, which seems appropriate
to me.  Or are you inferring some more "denial" here?  I don't
know.  Maybe you should just explicitly interpret the pathology 
inherent in his statement for me.

>> Is it one of the 
>> "symptoms" that you're putting together to support 
>> your diagnosis? 
>
> have i made a diagnosis, bill? 

Not yet, though your impressions suggest that one may
be forthcoming.

> i don't recall that i
> have. gee, how could i? after all, i'm not qualified
> to diagnose. i am, however, qualified to form and hold
> opinions. you wouldn't be, for whatever reason, calling
> my opinion a diagnosis would you?

No, your diagnostic impressions do not constitute a formal
diagnosis.  There is no disorder called "denial", though it
is symptomatic of several disorders.  Based on your relative
familiarity with it, I have been asking you to discuss the 
criteria you've used to form your opinion/impressions (e.g.
how are you able to infer any denial based on the informa-
tion you have?  Is your inference of denial the only data
upon which you base your suggestion of therapy?).  To date,
you've not even attempted to answer such questions.  Maybe
some other time, huh?

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35770 talk.bizarre:29473
From: english@alicudi.usc.edu (Joe English)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Date: 9 Sep 1992 15:14:41 -0700
Organization: Nerds of Action
Distribution: world
Reply-To: joe@trystero.art.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: alicudi.usc.edu


cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) brings us this from everybody's favorite
mollusc, Duh Dodson:

|> In article <Bu8Kr6.LJ1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu writes:
|> |In article <> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
|> |>In article <> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
|> |>>I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
|> |>>women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.
|> |
|> |>Oh *really*?  You wouldn't care to actually provide a source for that
|> |>little claim, now, would you?  I'm sure we'd be most interested to find out
|> |>about this one.
|> |
|> |Happy to oblige
|> |
|> |From the October, 1991 issue of a magazine called 
|> |_New_Dimensions_:_The Psychology_ Behind_the_News_.  


Yes!  _New_Dimensions_!  Highly recommended reading material.
If you're tired of reading about Elvis sightings and UFO
abductions and want some news that's *really* outrageous,
this magazine can't be beat.  Imagine David Duke as the publisher
of _Psychology_Today_ as written by the staff of the _Weekly_World_News_.
Great stuff.

In addition to statistics like the above, you can find articles
giving SCIENTIFIC PROOF that HOMOSEXUALITY is WRONG, and political
editorials explaining why God doesn't approve of AIDS research.

I wish I had an issue handy so I could quote from it;
unfortunately my wife threw it into a campfire shortly after
reading it and I'm not allowed to bring a copy into the house.
Anyway, if you see it on a newsstand anywhere, steal a copy.
I promise you won't be disappointed.



--joe@trystero.art.com

  ignore this posting

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.politics.misc
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:52:58 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> ...
|> >The laws can't be changed until Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Until
|> >that time, the people of this country will be forced into accepting 
|> >the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.
|> 
|> Ohmigawd!  That's just horrible, isn't it Doug.  Imagine that -- a
|> woman *forced* to choose to not have an abortion -- instead of being
|> told what to do by the government.  It's horrendous, that's what it is!
|> Call out the Nat'l Guard!  Circle the wagons!  Our women folk have been
|> told they can think for themselves!  The end of the world is near!
|> 
|> Seriously Doug, how can you write that tripe?  "people of this country
|> ...forced into accepting ... abortion"  The supreme court basically said
|> that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
|> herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
|> on any one?

	Ask an ignorant question.....
	It certainly involves force against the living human being inside the
mother's womb.
	I know, I know, this particular living human being is not deserving of
the protection of human rights.  In your opinion.

|>  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate
|> sensibilities of the pro-lifers.

	As it happens, the sensibilities of the pro-lifers inside the mother's
womb are pretty delicate, so I suppose this covers it...

|> BTW, did anyone catch the closeups of Schwarzenegger at the GOP
|> convention?  Quayle and Bush make such a big deal of "family values" and
|> the "UnAmerican-ness" of Hollywood (i.e. A single unwed pregnant
|> successful woman is a prime example of what's wrong in our society) while
|> Arnie sits there, having committed unspeakable attrocities in his films of
|> violence and bloodshed.

	Oh, and you've never paid $5 to see one of Schwartzenegger's movies,
right?  Get outta town!
	At least Schwartzenegger limits his violence to the movie screen.  The pro-legal-abortionists out there want to make it a living reality, and so far
they're prevailing.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:14:39 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)


In article <1992Sep5.144725.4854@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#-# james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com# writes:
#-# #garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#-# #-# dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
#-# #-# #Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand Mr.
#-# #-# #Nyiko's point of view and perhaps your folks
#-# #-# #did not lie or misrepresent or misunderstand
#-# #-# #his point of view conveniently.  Why don't we
#-# #-# #settle this and ask Mr. Nyiko himself.
#-# #-# 
#-# #-# I don't need to - I read Nyikos' article when it
#-# #-# appeared.  You should, too.  You'd look like
#-# #-# much less of an idiot if you refrained from
#-# #-# commenting until you had done so.
#-# #
#-# #i don't think that's true, susan. mr. dick has
#-# #posted to t.a. in the past and always looked just
#-# #as much of an idiot as he did here.
#-# 
#-# I was beginning to think that no one else remembered
#-# Dick from his previous posts.
#
#heh. i remember. he was entertaining, in an odd sort of
#way.

And amusing.

#-# I'd still argue that he could look like *less* of an
#-# idiot if he read the articles he was interpreting.
#
#that may be so. if it is, he's certainly provided no
#evidence which would support that view. he began
#looking like an idiot, continued looking like an idiot,
#disappeared for a long time, and returned looking like
#an idiot.

No, no, I'm arguing degrees of idiocy.  I doubt that he
could cease looking like an idiot altogether, but he
might be able to cease excelling at it.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Emergency Medicine is Ikky-Gross!!!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:59:54 GMT

DearOldDoug has gotten his pants in a bunch because I made fun of his
attempt to gross everyone out with that excerpt from  "Caught in the
Crossfire: A Year on Abortion's Front Line."  Frankly, I wonder why an
alleged medical professional like Sue Hertz was trying to do when she
wrote that book.

Medical professionals _are_ different.  I remember Dr. Sullivan (don't
remember his first name), an associate dean at the University of Minnesota
Medical School, telling me that doctors become doctors because they feel
they _have_ to.  No amount of money is adequate to compensate for the long
hours, the stress and the human tragedy they face.  Same could be said
for nurses and other medical pros.

Obviously, medical types have to keep their act together when dealing with
a medical emergency or when death is in the air.  We lay people have the
luxury of turning our gaze away, or fainting or finding a waste basket to
lose our lunch into.  On the other hand, medical types are deliberately
desensitized to ikky-gross stuff during their training.

When a supposedly calm and steady labor partner becomes flustered because
the mother-to-be is consigning him to the inner circles of hell, or a
supposedly reassuring spouse feels his lunch start to perform Stupid Pet
Tricks while his wife's abdomen is being opened up to deliver a baby, medical
professionals have to keep performing, even to the extent of offering
emotional support and air-sick bags to the attending civilians.

Blood and gore is a routine part of medicine but not of everyday life.
Therefore it surprises me that Ms. Hertz would choose to ambush her readers
with details that they may not be emotionally equipped to deal with.  In
other words, if abortion is morally wrong, isn't there a better argument
than a parade of ikky-gross stuff?

Long-overdue punchline:  Emergency medicine is ikky-gross!!!  Hey Russ
and Cam!  Meet me at St. Paul-Ramsey Hospital!  We'll blockade the
emergency entrance!  Bruce Cameron, if you want to drive up from
Rochester, you're more than welcome!  Let's have a rescue!  Get that
guy with the sucking chest wound outta here!  He's gross!  That lady
with the compound fracture will just have to hobble out of here!  That
sort of stuff is ikky!

Do I really need a smiley to cover that last paragraph?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 9 Sep 1992 12:06:32 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <fzmnh9k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>Here is one difference between slavery and abortion.  A slave is a walking,
>talking, thinking person that can actually say that it doesn't want to be
>a slave.


Also, it may be useful to your thinking to note that a slave does not live
within the body of another person, nor does another person live within the
body of a slave.  When other persons did (such as when white people used
slaves for sex, or to produce more slaves) that was sometimes considered
even more heinous than when they simply forced the slaves to work.  By some
people.

Adrienne Regard

(boy oh boy is my newsfeed messed up.  3 week old messages I've seen before
are coming in cheek by jowl with new stuff.  what a mess.....)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:11:15 GMT

The individual who responded to the question that began this thread,
never clearly advocated activism to deny women their right to
abortion.  Like most mainstream Christians I know -- and believe it or
not, I know several (I grew up in Orange County, CA where the number
of churches per capita is astounding) -- he articulated his personal
philosophy for why he (I seem to recall he had a masculine sounding
name) won't have an abortion.

He seemed to imply that he thought no one else should have abortions,
but he never clearly opined that he wanted to see the Stark Fist of
Uncle Sam actively preventing abortions -- which is interesting,
because the original question was (paraphrased):

	``Why do Christians want to outlaw abortion?''

And his answer was (paraphrased):

	``Because we think it's akin to infanticide. So should
everyone else.''

Please correct any misunderstandings I may have demonstrated above.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Maury Povich and the brainwashing child abusers
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.114726.2214@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
#In article <1992Sep2.164214.4506@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
## mcbeanb@brandonu.ca (Brian McBean) writes about children
## used in abortion clinic protests:
## 
### I'm not sure if it's good parental practice to allow your
### 13 year-old daughter to be arrested 42 times, and say "it's
### ok, she wanted to do it, I didn't put her up to it."
#
#[...]
# 
## I'm not accusing these parents of such heinous motivations, but
## I think that using your own children as a buffer between you and
## the police is cowardly, hypocritical and downright abusive.  And
## shouldn't these parents be charged with contributing to the
## delinquency of a minor?
#
#I'm pretty sure that the parents were charged and had been serving
#time, and one was going to be (likely) picked up by the police once
#she got home from the show, but things are getting fuzzy now...

I don't have the tape right now, but I do remember that Joe Foreman
(father of the 13 year old and the 9 year old) had been convicted
and served jail time for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

I think that the woman said she was awaiting sentencing for some
other illegal activity, but my memory of this isn't clear, either.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:57:28 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  <1992Sep14.030925.385@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <lacgvmINN56h@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric
> >In article <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
> >>In <1992Sep1.134433.12701@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) w
> >
> >>>     "It is about a movement that encourages women to leave their
> >>>     husbands, kill their children, destroy capitalism, practice
> >>>     witchcraft and become lesbians." [quoted from memory]
> >
> >>Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves.  On the other
> >>hand, the quote does not say which "movement" he is referring to.  From
> >>the wording, I would guess that he is talking about a book, and what it
> >>is about, and my one remaining question (unless the answer raises new ones)
> >>is whether this movement is the whole feminist movement, or some subset
> >>of it, like Wicca.
> >
> >As a third degree Wiccan priest who leads a coven of my own I rebuke
> >your statement that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement.
>
> Eric, Eric, Eric, those who do not learn from their mistakes are bound to
> repeat them...

Are you going to repeat an earlier mistake?  :-)

> We have essentially the same situation here. Mr. Nyikos said, in effect
>
>      Maybe Robertson was referring to the Wicca subset of Feminism
>
> .. You read that as implying that ALL Wiccans are Feminists. Universal
> quantification, in other words. I, on the other hand, read it as implying
> only that a "Wicca subset of Feminism" exists, i.e. at least one Wiccan is a
> Feminist. Existential quantification, in other words.

Except that Nyikos did *not* say "some subset of it, like the Wiccan one",
which would equate with what you wrote.  He clearly claimed that Wicca is
a subset of feminism.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35452 alt.abortion.inequity:3585
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
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: I would think the deletions would be obvious... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 23:38:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.150225.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.204903.13891@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

[Yet another HolyBibleThumper on why we should outlaw RippingTheWarmCuteFuzzy
UnbornBaby'sHeadFromItsWarmCuteFuzzyUnbornShoulders]

You know, ever now and then I actually think that people are starting to think
for themselves...

And then I read talk.abortion.

[BTW:  The "Bible" is *NOT* pro-life].
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion