HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion (couldn't find original)
Date: 22 Nov 92 10:20:40 GMT

In article <nyikos.722210207@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1di3faINNcs6@haven.umd.edu> spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon  
Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov7.235252.17395@ncsu.edu>  
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu  
> >(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >> The idea that infanticide is not wrong has been expressed by a
> >> number of other pro-choicers on this newsgroup; it's nothing new.  
> >> And don't be surprised when the other pro-choicers stay silent
> >> on the subject. 
> >> > John J McVey
> >> Doug Holtsinger
> >Post-natal abortion (if, in fact exists, and is not just a figment of  
the  
> >FeveredImaginationofaFetalIdolator (tm)) would be wrong. So what,  
exactly  
> >is your point?  Could you give us a list of pro-choicers making that  
sort  
> >of a statement,  please? Or are you merely speaking out of that part of  
> >the anatomy which most BornPersons(tm) sit on? 
> 
> Michael Loomis has spoken out in favor of infanticide.  I can document
> this.
Jeez, Petey, I expected better from you, being a set theory expert  guy  
and a MensaGuy and all. Didn't they teach ya in those SAT prep courses  
that one item does not a list make?
> Doug has been around longer than I, maybe he knows some more examples of 
> people posting on talk.abortion expressing support for legalized 
> infanticide.
UNlikely. Then again, it seems to me that a lack of actual statements of  
support for infanticide would stop DODie from alleging the same, so I'll  
guess that you are right, and that DoDie will indeed produce said list.
This , in and of itself, will mean nada, zippo, gar-nichts, until  
confirmed by the person alleged to have made said remark.


ciaosers,
jeff

insert Engineer Rhysling's last verse of the Green Hills of Earth in this  
space.......................
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:55:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.021813.23955@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov21.014640.18971@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> > The some 30 states with laws restricting abortion iin the
> > third trimester prove you incorrect.  
> 
> No, it only proves that some states have laws on the books
> which are unconstitutional.  Many states have failed to
> remove their old abortion laws after Roe v. Wade was
> handed down.  The existence of a law doesn't mean that 
> the law can be enforced without being challenged. 

Name one instance of a third trimester abortion performed
contrary to the law.
> 
> > The Roe v Wade
> > opinion states that you are wrong explicitly.  
> 
> No it doesn't. 

Larry Margolis has posted the relevant section numerous times.
> 
> > An interpetation
> > of health by a law professor writing an article for a law journal
> > is neither law nor fact.  Tushnet's opinion does not carry the
> > force of law, and the facts bear this out.
> 
> Mark Tushnet didn't write an interpretation of the term ``health'',
> he quoted a Supreme Court decision.  So did several other authors,
> in the sources which I provided.

He interpreted the definition of health provided by Doe v
Bolton as being much broader than it is in practice.  Your
allegations remain theoretical.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:19:24 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>you sound terribly confused. two paragraphs back you
>say you'd like to see "laws that allow a woman to
>terminate a pregnancy at any time." then, in the
>previous paragraph you indicate you'd imprison women
>for having abortions. in order to imprison those women,
>ray, you'd have to make it a crime to have an abortion.
>
>so which is it: do you want to legislate against some
>abortions?

Choice #3:  You are mistaken (again).  I did not indicate I'd imprison
anyone for terminating a pregnancy.  (or are you lying?)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: turnaround
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:41:15 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes to DODie:
->Are you proposing that women should be denied abortions regardless of
->medical necessity?  

what about you, ray> what restrictions do you want on a
woman's freedom to have an abortion?

->Do you think women should be killed in order to
->save the fetus?

do you think a woman should be forced to remain
pregnant against her will?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:40:06 GMT


In article <1992Nov19.214033.12282@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@advtech.uswest.com writes:
|Thanks, Eric.  Next time you visit I'll have Chimay Gold to drink,
|rather than Samuel Adams and Samuel Smith.  CJ says that, in addition to
|having the typical capacity for beer as young bucks should, you also
|can handle the "good stuff" without whining for a Bud Lite.

You better believe it.  I rue the day I started feeding him
microbrewery beers & ales.  Lance is going to start home-brewing
soon-- that should make Eric's thirst mysteriously vanish.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: 16 Nov 1992 17:23:24 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov15.035941.20377@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1d85iaINNate@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>
>>I think that it's rather demeaning to be told that a fertilised egg is no
>>more important than an animal.  
>
>Does it demean YOU, Frank? Do you consider yourself a fertilized egg? If not
>demeaning to you, then to whom? I see it potentially demeaning only to
>fertilized eggs. It could hurt their "feelings", maybe.

I see it as potentially demeaning to all of humanity, and also to the truth.

>>I think that to unecessarily bring a z/e/f
>>into being and then destroy it is - all other things being equal - an act of
>>vandalism.
>
>And to allow that accidental pregnancy to enslave a woman for 9 months is to
>prostrate oneself before ancient biological destiny, and to make a mockery of 
>the centuries of learning, the lifetimes of hard work, the many unfortunates 
>that were lost to experimental procedures -- in short, to DEMEAN the 
>institution of medical science, and its power to help (wo)mankind control its 
>reproductive destiny.

Bullshit.  Depends on who's doing the allowing.  Medical science serves us,
not the other way around.  Demean medsci all you like, if it makes you more
fully human.

>I'd rather rebel with a little vandalism, than be trampled by the blind,
>cold-hearted vicissitudes of biological destiny which keep trying to suck
>us back into the Stone Age.

Those are not the alternatives.

>								- Kevin

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:59:02 GMT

In article <Nov.19.11.14.25.1992.12839@andromeda.rutgers.edu> 
hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) rants:

} For all those out there who have had an abortion or are considering it:  YOU 
}MADE THAT CHOICE BEFORE YOU GOT PREGNANT!  

Actually, some of them made the choice after they got pregnant.  Sigh.  At
least try to think before you rant...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: DODie and censorship
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:05:48 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->>>How do we keep you from reponding to future articles?

->> why don't you volunteer to moderate [Holtsinger]'s moderated
->> talk abortion group. then, you can censor whomever you
->> want.

->It wasn't "my" moderated talk.abortion newsgroup, Keeganoid.
->I only proposed a moderated newsgroup 

how many readers, other than ms. bartley of course,
supported your proposal to censor talk.abortion, DODie?
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Summary: It figures Mr. Math Professor couldn't count to six...
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:59:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: You *know* who we are.

In article <nyikos.722026585@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov7.003215.29695@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>
>>[Larry performs a posting service for Peter Nyikos and also explains
>>again to our esteemed doctor the finer points of attribution.]
>
>Totally unnecessarily, and all done with tongue in cheek.
>And you fell for it, Galen, unless you are writing with tongue in cheek
>all thru this post.

Really?  You know what Larry was thinking about as he posted his two cents'
worth?  Shades of that DJR idiot right up the road from you in Raleigh...

>>Another contribution to the excuses use for making an ass out of themselves:
>>Related to the rather lame:  "It was all a joke."
>>The slightly improved:  "I thought it was all a joke."
>
>Actually, my point was: "The only way Adrienne can avoid making an
>ass out of herself is to admit that she's been making one long practical
>joke, and I'm giving her all the chance in the world to do that, but
>she refuses to take advantage of it."

Wow.  I'm impressed.  Does anyone else think Petey Honey is doing his
damnedest to act like the late unlamented Steve Chaney?  The parallel is
almost uncanny.

>>I'm impressed.  
>
>You better be.  I don't do this for everybody, and I don't think I'll
>be doing it for Adrienne again.

So what *have* you done for Adrienne lately?  Nothing that I can see, except
to make a complete ass of yourself -- but then, you're doing that for all of
us, so I don't think Adrienne should be singled out for that honor.  What
you've tried to do *TO* her, on the other hand, is something she's best
suited to answer -- and it provides a large part of the reason for why I
hold you in about the same esteem as I would any bug I found in our
apartment...

--PLH (The USC had to be pretty desperate to hire *this* guy...)


-- 
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. 

        Beware of being the Roller when there's nothing left to roll...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:27:10 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->> Here's another such exhibit.  I have noticed, BTW, that Doug is no
->> less pro-choice than Elizabeth Bartley, possibly more since Keegan has
->> not noticed him come out in favor of punishing women who get illegal
->> (post-myelination for Elizabeth, post-viability for Doug) abortions.

->I don't consider myself to be "pro-choice" because I'm personally 
->undecided on the issue of legislation.

whereas ms. bartley wants to legislate against some
abortions. based on that alone, it would appear that
her position is more anti-choice than yours.

of course, she also wants to imprison the women who
have the abortions she wants to ban. i've seen only one
other person, ray fischer, admit to supporting this
vicious punishment of women who have abortions.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: I agree but ...
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:16:08 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov22.011402.17739@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes to Jim as part of the chastity belt thread:

>Oh, please. Consider the marginal cost/benefit of saving, on the one hand,
>an able-bodied, educated, income-producing adult, at a cost of getting a
>little wet, with, on the other hand, saving a small, blobby, unthinking,
>uncommunicating, non-contributing human organism at the cost of 9 months
>of pain, discomfort, lost economic productivity, serious medical costs, and
>risks of continuing medical costs or even death for the mother? Doesn't it 
>occur to you that the example is so wildly non-analogous from the point of 
>view of economic efficiency, as to be totally worthless?

I agree, but would like to point out that the legal system is designed
to do much more than ensure economic efficiency; in fact, I would
argue that the protection of rights broadly defined is its principal
mission.  This includes economic and property rights, but many other
rights as well.  Bodily autonomy and privacy are not commodities that
can be exchanged in a market, and I am uncomfortable with any policy
that forces the government to compensate for the preventable loss of
rights.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 14:33:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.001904.27701@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.194234.14911@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.015024.17310@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>In article <By0uut.F7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov20.011111.3228@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>>In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>>>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>>>>>>>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>>>>>>>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>>>>>>>hell with the reason you mention, above.
>>>>>>Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.
>>>>>>No flame intended.  Just fact.
>>>>>In what way is Adrienne a liar, Don? Can you support this?
>>>>I posted Adrienne's paragraph (above) for that reason.
>>>>Adrienne made an explicit claim about me that is untrue.
>>>>That's something I call a lie.
>>>It's not what I call a lie. I'm prepared to grant that it is not descriptive
>>>of you, but you need to show that she knew it to be untrue for it
>>>to be a lie.
>>Are you saying that all lies must be deliberate, Eric? You have a narrower
>>definition than I do -- I'd count something as a non-deliberate lie if it
>>evidenced a reckless disregard for the truth.
>Yes, well I would suggest that we have different standards, then.

If I accused you, right here and now, of raping kittens for fun, would you
consider that a "lie", Eric? After all, I don't know that you DON'T, so you
couldn't say I was _deliberately_ speaking an untruth.

>>Even if we disregard Don's views for a moment here,
>>it's a well-known fact that Kellmeyer doesn't support any child support 
>>reforms.
>I agree.
>
>>Surely Adrienne remembers all of his alarmist crap about people
>>wanting to "weaken" child support? Does that sound progressive? Does he sound 
>>like a reformer to you?
>Too much of this thread is gone for me to track exactly what you're
>referring to. What do you think Adrienne said about Kellmeyer that
>shows a reckless disregard for truth?

She said "we've just seen Steve Kellmeyer [...] come out of the closet on this 
issue", implying that he both a) supported child support reform, and b) has 
recently exposed his pro-life agenda. Truth is, he doesn't support child 
support reform, and he's never made a secret of his pro-life agenda. Adrienne 
knows this, or SHOULD know this, given all of the Kellmeyer crap that's been 
posted here. The statement illustrates "reckless disregard for truth".

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Apologies among other things
Originator: jjprice@c00058-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:02:32 GMT



Recently I have been reminded of a promise I made by E-mail
not to rant a rave and sputter stupid remarks.. And recently
I have been doing that very thing that I said I wouldn't do.

First of all I would like to appologize to Lynn... I accidently
 mistoke a post that was a reply to a post in which her and I hade
 been discussing as to be coming from her. (Do I have this Right?)
 I thought the comment was coming from her and was a personal attack
 at me.. So I replied like wise and was very rude..not that I disagree
 with what I said I just feel I would have said them in a different 
 way had I not thought they were a personal attack. So Lynn I 
 appologize. I had misunderstood the article's authors and all
 the headers got me confused and I acted hastily..

Another thing I would like to comment on is the above subject 
 of personal attacks.. I would probably replied coherently to the
 article had it not been titled "J Price refuses to answer questions"
 This made my blood boil and I acted hastily.I see more and more articels
 that are attacks every day...How is someone expected to carry on a 
 discussion when someone is yelling at them
  Examples
    "J. Price's search for the holy clue"
    "That Butthead [tm] Nyikos lied about me,too!"
    "Petie versus Petey(or should that be Peetie?"
    "Doug Holtsinger's dishonest tactics re:Roe v"
    "Jim's confused probablity rankings."
    "More of JIm's strange equivalences"
    "C.J.'s "know It All" Attitude"
    "DearOldDougie Comes OUT of the CLoset"

These are just a few.. I don't know the circumstances
behind these personal attack titles or the contents
because I don't want to head hate mail.

I'm not inocent of this as I have already proven
but at least I will try to stop and uphold
my promise. I will post something as a reply
to those questions brought up in the series"J. price 
answers whatever" but I refuse to reply to any 
article bearing that name again.

My Apologies
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48921 soc.men:19699 alt.dads-rights:2664
From: roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:46:01 GMT


In article <sen9tso@zola.esd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes: 
>
>In article <1992Nov14.151657.8820@panix.com>, jk@panix.com writes:
>|In <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>|>When nobody else is involved, nobody else has the right to
>|>interfere.
>
>|If my greatest joy in life is torturing cats to death, does anyone
>|else have the right to interfere?
>
>Are you destroying someone else's property?

The local newspaper just had an item a few days ago concerning a man 
who was convicted of beating his (underline his)  puppy to death.  Do you 
think the state had a moral right to interfere with this man's puppy 
beating, CJ?

Roger Williams
roger@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:18:51 GMT

Phoney, you falsly accused adrienne regard of forgery.

you attributed someone else's words to susan garvin.

both of these statements have been demonstrated to be
true.

i suspect people will keep reminding you of these
events as long as you keep denying them; perhaps
longer.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:19:53 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov19.192607.23806@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <shis074@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>>
>>In article <nyikos.722027741@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
>>|Still playing along with Adrienne's gag, eh?
>
>>I think gags are more along Nadja's lines than Adrienne's.
>
>Yep. You got it. Also whips, chains, fetters, and my brand new real
>nice made out of heartwood redwood RACK!

Hey - I can go along with a gag, but don't you think that's a bit of a stretch?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:08:10 GMT

In article <1ebkd5INNn1k@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.180422.14301@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>>In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
>>>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
>>>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.
>>>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.
>>
>>Life is full of hard choices, isn't it?  But, you know, if the choice
>>really was that hard, then yes, I'd rather be a disingenuous idiot,
>>than live my life in the manner implied by the above posting.
>
>Robert, 
...
>Now, the question is, do you intend to use a condom in your sexual
>encounters, or do you intend to complain afterward that the woman
>defrauded you?

Even when using a condom, a man who does not want to conceive 
a child still relies significantly on a woman's promise that
she is using birth control.  Unless she does use birth control,
they are taking a significant risk of pregnancy.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion