HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:08:28 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
	<adams.714951161@spssig>

From article <adams.714668788@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
> 
> There are other options, of which the one likely to get the most votes is
> the Libertarian Party (Marou/Lord).  They are unlikely to get more than a %
> or 2, and no electoral votes.
> 
> Other than that, there are candidates listed from the New Alliance Party
> (Lenora Fullani), the Socialists, the Communists, etc, etc.
> 
> None of these so called "3rd Parties" has any real chance at this point.
> That last Non Republican/Democrat to get a decent number of votes was John
> Anderson in 1980 (Reagan vs. Carter).
> 
> It's too bad.  A true 3rd party could only help.

   I think the idea behind the last sentence is that a 3rd party would
offer more political choices.  If we carefully consider the American
political system, we see that their is good bit of diversity within a
party.  Ted Kennedy(D-MA) and Sam Nunn(D-GA) have rather different
beliefs.  Jesse Helms(R-NC) and Jim Jeffords(R-VT) also rather
differenent beliefs.  I can not imagine any reason to presume a third
party would make the beliefs of the politician class more diverse than
it already is (or isn't).
   On the other hand, if we have more parties, for the party labels to
be meaningful would require greater party discipline.  I imagine that
the same people who believe a third party would help would really whine
about the "evils" of party discipline.
    Another problem with a 3 party system for the United States is that
elections in the United States are based in the pluratiy system.  That
is, the person with the most votes wins, even if that person does not a
majority.  Thus voters will always be tempted to vote strategically for
one of the two candidates that stands a chance of winning.  For instance
if x, y, and z are running for an office.  Assume that z does not stand
a chance of winning.   Even if z is the voters first choice the voter
will rationally choose his preferred candidate between x and y.  Party
nominations confer on candidates the status of having a chance to win. 
Since in the US at most only two candidates will have a chance to win in
an election, there is really no need for a third party.

Michael Loomis
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:13:47 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department


> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de writes:


>Fine, if that's true.  I don't want statistics.  I'd settle
>for one honest woman who can look into her heart and tell, not me,
>nor you, but herself, that this is the case.  Not saying, "all in all, 
>trading this against that, I did the right thing", but "I *feel* fine 
>about it.  I have no moral doubts whatsoever.".  Heart not head, you see.  
>Conscience, not predicate logic.

I *feel* fine about it.  I have no moral doubts whatsoever.

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35047 alt.abortion.inequity:3526
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Date: 4 Sep 1992 09:16:12 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep3.222229.16440@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Guess again.  It ain't illegal for a man to impregnate a woman against
>her will, if he can do it with her consent to sex.
>Maybe you think it should be?

Actually, this is a *great* proposal.  Any random woman can say, "Sex, sure.
No sperm."  And make it stick through force of law!!!!  Any random woman
who becomes pregnant by a man leaving sperm around when she said "No sperm"
has been raped, and can prosecute that man to the full extent of the law!

What a terrific idea!!!

Adrienne Regard

PS, ok, maybe not raped.  Battered instead.

PPS,  all joking aside, WHY wouldn't this actually work, folks?  Does the
answer to that question buy you any clue as to why pro-choice people feel
women should be allowed to make up their own minds about abortion?



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Followup-To: misc.test
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:42:56 GMT


In article <92240.072758ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>, Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
|In article <p2flip8@fido.asd.sgi.com> C.J. Silverio says:
|>Do you know the opinions of the person you are criticizing?
|Not any more.

Uninformed repetitive flames bore me.  I won't waste any more 
time on you.  Beth has the right idea:  *plonk*!

---
cj@eno.wpd.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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:00:55 GMT

From article <24186@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
> 
> Thank you for finally showing your true compassionate side. You would
> will suffering, pain, and torment on others rather than relieving them,

By posting the phone numbers for agencies that will help any woman in the world
with ANY need she has, so that she will not feel cornered by circumstances into
aborting her baby?


> especially when it doesn't buy them anything. You must be the coldest,
> creulest person on the net, in seeking to force a woman to concieve
> a child,                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^<?????????>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^<???>^^

There is no point in arguing with you since you've so completely lost your mind,
but I _am_ a little curious as to how you possibly reached this ridiculous
conclusion.
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:56:56 GMT

In <1992Sep3.122257.10918@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <1992Sep1.185819.29967@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep1.022621.15823@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>> i wonder if he'll think the same here.
> 
>> Why would I think any differently about Dean's comments?
>
> You may think the same of them, but you didn't say it.
>
> I think that's because you're grateful for all those great
> dating tips I gave you.  How have they been working out?

You're absolutely (...quit, that tickles!) right, Dean.  They've 
been (...not now sweetheart, I'm trying to talk to Dean) really 
great.  Look, I've got to (...I'll be right there...) go - I've
uh, (...stop!) got a bunch of ironing to do.

> Hugs and kisses,

and a *lot* of them.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: A capital gains tax issuse
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:22:40 GMT

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

] In  <1992Aug23.221651.25964@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] > margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
] > ] In  <1992Aug21.012139.5851@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darc
] > ] >
] > ] > Reproductive organs don't need to be justified.
] > ]
] > ] They do if you want to deduct them as an entertainment expense.  :-)
] >
] > Larry, Larry, Larry....
] >
] > How Many Times do we have to Explain this to you....
] >
] > Reproduction is a Capital Expansion Expense and
] > hence is automatically amortizable over the lifetime
] > of the Capital Asset.
] 
] But I didn't mention reproductION, I was referring to the use of the
] reproductIVE ORGANS for Pleasurable Purposes.  A capital idea.

Well that does make for a sticky wicket.

If you were Strictly doing research, or 
just searching again, you might be eligible 
for an R&D credit....

You might also be able to write it off as a
summer jobs program, or Developmental Training
or some such. But Of course you would have to
be very careful about that 'fun factor' - heavens
but no Decent republican does anything for 'fun'
its Not Tax Deductible....

] > ps: and No, you can not depreciate your mistress
] 
] Not if I value my asset!

Well If you had any decent morals you would support
the restoration of concubinage, as is our God Given
Rights and be able to right the whole thing off as
a Capital Expansion....

ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Date: 3 Sep 1992 16:57:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep1.134433.12701@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>	"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.

I suggest that in the future you learn whereof you speak before opening
your mouth. You would come of as more credible.

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:12:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.020408.40457@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> The transcript does not mention the source of Stahl's claim
>>>> about the "three doctors".  I may write to 60 Minutes to ask
>>>> them for a source.  It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
>>>> willing to track down the source.

>>> That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.

>> In other words, you're unable to admit that you were wrong
>> when you stated that 60 Minutes supported your claims,
>> and now you've fallen back on ``truth by blatant assertion''
>> to support your claims.

> I didn't even see 60 Minutes.  You asked for a source, and you had just
> quoted someone (Steve Arnold, I believe) stating they saw it on 60 Minutes,
> so I pointed out that you appeared rather foolish.  I got the information
> off the net long ago.

Are you willing to admit that 60 Minutes does not support your claims?

> I note that you deleted the following, as you have every time you've
> been challenged.  

I'm just trying to delete extraneous material.  

> I guess you are just unwilling to admit that the
> facts show your scare tactics to be a lie.

Your claims would be facts only if you could present a verifiable
source for them.  You haven't done that.  60 Minutes does not
support your claims. 

>  If you can list more doctors that perform third tri abortions, or you can
>  document for me cases of women getting third-trimester abortions for
>  "frivolous" reasons, I would of course change my tune.  Unlike some, I
>  don't knowingly pass on lies.

But you can't seem to admit that 60 Minutes doesn't support
your claims. 

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31908 alt.flame:12104
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (NO CARRIER)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: hallchaney caves in
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:57:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame,talk.abortion
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Aug16.001053.1309@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>hallchaney has been reduced to following up posts in
>which it deletes the entire post and appends its .sig.
>
>soon, it'll be calling for mummy.

  It must be pretty damn tough to hit the shift key when you're typing
with one hand eh Keegs? I notice you didn't bother interrupting one of your
"sessions" to try... 
   Well, go right on ahead and continue what you're doing. I'm sure it's 
what you're best at... Can't think of anything else offhand.

   steve

   (who's impressed that Keegs made it way over to the s's and a's on
the left hand side of the keyboard. That shift key takes practice
I"m sure, and you should check with Lefty to see how he goes about it 
without interrupting a USENET session)
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 18:52:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>>> rape, and theft?
>
>> These are not necessairly moral issues.
>
>If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
>then what are they based upon? 

Self interest.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 00:15:06 GMT

In article <94996@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.205422.12420@noao.edu>
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>From article <94392@bu.edu>, by kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star):
>
>>>Disdain of homosexuality is learned. Are you going to teach your daughter
>>>to frown upon two women or two men holding hands in public?
>
>>Like I said, I think y'all are just paranoid.   You see hatred even where
>>there isn't any.
>
>Hmmm...I suppose all that stuff you wrote about "homosexuality and
>misogyny being connected" and  how "gay relationships were naturally
>inferior to straight relationships in the eyes of God" and how "children
>should not be raised in same-sex households" is all a figment of
>my imagination...

Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
they won't have sex with them".
--
=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???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:57:56 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <92237.200055ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>In article <oqnbvq8@fido.asd.sgi.com> CJ Silverio
>>
>>In article <1992Aug19.191054.24902@crd.ge.com>, cook@sunloan.crd.ge.com writes:
>>|cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>||>Wise move, and one that will greatly help your peace of mind.
>>||>That debate would be just as stupid in reruns as it was the
>>||>first time.
>>
>>|Many of us did not find the debate, nor the topic thereof, to be
>>|"stupid".  I think it would be highly unrealistic to deny that
>>|there are those in the abortion rights movement who feel great
>>|resentment over people who wish to restrict abortion rights, as
>>|well as those who feel great resentment over people who wish to
>>|have unrestricted abortion rights.
>
>[...]
>
>>The debate also reminded me that this is essentially a political
>>issue, a political fight.  Some people on my side don't seem to
>>want to play politics.  I dislike politics, but I'm willing to
>>play the game to preserve my life.  I'm willing to compromise,
>>as a purely political move, on less important issues in order to
>>preserve the rights I consider most important.
>
>It would appear Ms. Silverio that you and others are willing
>to compromise the rights of women less fortunate than you.
>The poor, the disadvantaged, the vulnerable.

I see no evidence that CJ is willing to compromise poor women more than
well-off women.

Nor do I think CJ should be ashamed just because she's not, as you assume,
"poor" "disadvantaged" or "vulnerable". Is this a Guilt Trip tactic?

>Every compromise provides a foothold to remove one more
>right.  Women are deemed incapable of making the most
>profound personal choice and as a result intrusions into
>other aspects of their lives will continue to be
>tolerated and permitted.

Another slippery slope argument to throw on the trash heap...

>Your profession isn't at risk from fetal protection laws,
>at least not yet.  Lets just hope some corporate or
>government bureaucrat doesn't decide that programming is
>a threat to future offspring.

Sounds like good material for a SEPARATE thread, Linda.

>>Some people on my side, I learned, are not.
>
>What I learned was that there are a number of people
>in this newsgroup who pay lip service to the right of
>bodily autonomy.  Who bray loudly about personal
>freedom, yet are willing to negotiate freedom away.

As opposed to the risky, over-grasping "all-or-nothing" gamble that you 
Extremists insist upon?!?!?!

Is an unrestricted right which exists only in rhetoric better or worse than
a restricted right which exists as black-and-white in lawbooks? I think you'll
find that a lot of women would prefer the latter.
 
							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34110 alt.abortion.inequity:3343
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Summary: <sigh> they just keep coming out of the woodwork...
Organization: Used to be in New Iberia, now a *lot* closer to Lafayette
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:17:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.000518.18051@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug18.133317.16209@ncsu.edu>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>><.. note follow-ups to talk.abortion, once again ..>
>>>In article <1992Aug18.055058.14190@watson.ibm.com> 
>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>>> Premature infants that have been born between 21 and 24 weeks have
>>>>> been known to survive.  The reported "third trimester" figures that
>>>>> you cite do not represent all post-viability abortions, but only those
>>>>> performed after 24 weeks.
>>
>>>> In other words, my figures address Mr. Moore's misconception regarding
>>>> the number of third-trimester abortions, and your comments had nothing
>>>> to do with what he said (quoted above).
>>
>>>I'm entitled to point out that your figures do not represent the number 
>>>of post-viability abortions.  That's all I was doing.  Don't take it so
>>>hard. 
>>
>>You didn't make it clear that you were addressing a different issue
>>(viability, rather than third trimester).
>>
>>You haven't yet answered my questions regarding what *percentage* of
>>fetuses from 21 to 24 weeks survive.  If it's something like 5-10%, I
>>wouldn't consider it post-viability.  If it's over 50%, I would.
>>Between those it gets murky.
>>
>>--
>>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
>
>
>Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
>an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
>say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
>womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
>unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
>about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
>Plain and simple.

...which is your opinion.  Fortunately, our legal system isn't based on your
opinions of what's right and wrong.  Now, let's try this from the top again
-- and this time, offer some reasons why abortion is wrong in all
circumstances, don't just assert it and expect anyone to accept that at face
value.  In the meantime, if you're so dead set against them -- then don't
have one.  After all, that *is* your choice, you know...


--PLH (Andrew trashed Morgan City and we didn't even get a lousy
thunderstorm...)


-- 
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. 

                    I've fallen -- and I can't reach my beer!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: You be the Judge! II
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:05:59 GMT

It's 2000 AD, almost all abortions are illegal in the US.
A woman, 1 month pregnant, seeks & finds someone who provides 
an illegal abortion.  Unknown to anyone, the fetus was already dead.
Had she gone to a real doctor, she would have known the fetus 
was already dead.

Q1: Does she burn in hell?
Q2: Does she go to prison for murder?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Self Evidently True
Date: 27 Aug 1992 07:40:17 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug27.110251.3972@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>] 
>[ A bunch of stuff, deleted. ]
>] 
>] Well, I've been 'vintage' most-everything today, according to Peter.  
>] Including, probably, vintage.talk.abortion.  Nothing new, folks.
>Adrienne,
>
>	If we keep you in a Cask 
>down in the Wine Cellar will we
>be able to sell you at a better Price?


Drieux, there's only one advantage to being as vintage as I am -- there
ain't nobody on this net can afford me.


>]Pfffft.

That's the sound of the cork.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion