HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The constancy of the universe
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:15:37 GMT

In article <lefty-151292105645@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.214245.29822@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
>ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <lefty-091292143713@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> >
>> >You might want to consider reading something by Berkeley or Hume before you
>> >continue babbling in this vein.
>> >
>> >You might also end up sounding like less of a halfwit.
>> 
>> You might also sound less like a halfwit, Lefty, if you learn
>> to recognize sarcasm....
>
>Oh, were you being _sarcastic_?  Sorry I didn't recognize it.

I hear the two most plentiful things in the Universe are hydrogen and
stupidity. I think it's time for Lefty to give some equal time to hydrogen.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
	<TODD.92Dec15140859@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> <tl860jc@zola.esd.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:01:02 GMT


In article <tl860jc@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>|"rights" should read "convenience". [...]
>
>And we all know that CONVEEEEEEEEEENIENCE is *bad*, don't we?
>*ReSPONsible* people don't ever consider their own convenience.
>
>Those modern conveniences like washers & dryers & dishwashers &
>can openers?  Responsible people don't use 'em.  Convenience
>foods?   Responsible people don't eat 'em.  Convenience stores?
>Responsible people don't patronize 'em.
>
>Remember, people, the inconvenient choice is the only moral
>choice. 
 
You seem to be admitting that it is a convenience.  Wonder
how many other people could justify abortion in the same
way hairdryers are justified.


Todd Law
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Finkelstein wants to renege (Was: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 12:37:49 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: idiot or coward?

In article <748@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
xWhich is it, Finkelstein?  Are you claiming that you're too stupid
xto understand the written word, or are you admitting that you don't
xhave the courage to put your convictions to the test?  



Both.    (-:

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 17:02:16 GMT

In article <CORWIN+.92Dec12181311@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.225117.17760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>   In article <Bz2Hro.I7n@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>   >In article <1992Dec10.212406.16741@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>   >>In article <1992Dec3.051704.24085@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>Not Keith A. Cochran's brother, please. Tell me it isn't true.
>   >>
>   >>One was bad enough..
>   >
>   >Yeah, we know.  But you came back, anyway.
>   >
>   >--PLH (oh, well, can't have everything...)
>   >
>   As a matter of fact, I am Keith's brother. What's the matter with
>   Chaney? He can't handle life in general or what?
>
>Chaney is an immature, uninformed, immature, homophobic, immature,
>unreasonable, immature, woman-hating, immature, racist
>conservative-wannabe (IMHO).  He idolizes Rush Limbaugh (sp?)
>
Poor guy... I hear they're working on some new therapy methods to try
and cure this...

>   Maybe Keith and I should get the rest of the family on here...
>
>Do they like playing with immature, uninformed, homophobic,
>unreasonable, , woman-hating, racist conservative-wannabes that
>idolizes Rush Limbaugh too?
>
Oh yes. We all enjoy a little twit-baiting. I think it's a genetic
thing...

>   Question: How many Cochran's would it take to chase Chaney screaming
>   into the nearest cesspool?
>
>1.  I've seen Keith do it.
>
But he came back up for air. Maybe 2 of us will keep him under. :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: Choices and burdens
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:59:49 GMT

> Anderson
>> Ferrari

>>The topic is, "Does the burden that some men voluntarily take on
>>entitle them to make reproductive decisions for women?"

>Does the fact that I am a man make my opinions any less valid?
>Does the fact that I am a man make abortion any more or less wrong?
>If a special ballot could be arranged such that only women could
>vote in it, and they voted to make abortion illegal again, would
>you, could you live by that decision?

You either do not understand biology, or you know more man-haters than 
McCarthy knew Communists.

The fact that you are a man has no bearing on my perception of your opinions.
The fact that you are a twit does.

No "fact," especially the totally irrelevant one that one particular homo
sapien on a small planet in the far reaches of an isolated galaxy happens
to possess a penis, makes abortion "wrong," since, IMO, abortion is not
wrong in the first place.  Wrong and right are purely matters of opinion.

If a special ballot were arranged now in the US in which only women were
allowed to vote, I would probably quit my job to protest the egregious
sexism of it full-time.  And since the vote itself would be illegal and
non-binding, and IMO immoral, I would not "live by" the result of the vote.

Any more stupid questions, or would you care to educate yourself about the
discussion at hand, and hopefully, next time, contribute something to it?

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:15:19 GMT

In article <BzEsv7.M55@rice.edu>
patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>(Not many people are pro-abortion, anyway -- I've only seen one in this
>newsgroup in the last three years.  I think your definition needs a major
>revision.)

Three.  Gordon and Diana - Catwoman and I forget the third.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:58:00 GMT

In article <1gg8smINN5tc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>Apparently, you don't want society (and you, yourself) to pay for
>>a liability someone else created.  Why would you want a sperm donor
>>to pay?
>
>Read what you just wrote!  I want a "sperm donor" to pay because I 
>*don't* want to kid to become a liability on society, nor on me,
>myself.  You're right, the motive is selfish!

Thus, your position seems to be that any man who sleeps with a woman
should have the same legal rights as a sperm donor.

Or worse, actually: a sperm donor has no say in the development of the 
resulting pregnancy, but he is at least exempted from paying.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: abortion
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:16:06 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) describes
->>Phoney:
->>
->>->Of course, he apologizes very poorly.....
->>
->>"very poorly?" i hadn't realized that he apologized at
->>all for lying about you. did he?

->No, he didn't apologize to me at all.

gosh. each time he posts then, he's consciously passing
up an opportunity to correct a clear-cut false
accusation which he made, isn't he? i am forced to
conclude that this is an accurate reflection of his
character.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:40:35 GMT

I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
and stupid. He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
not care for this.

So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.

Satya Prabhakar
--
______________________________________________________________
I hate sig files, particularly ones that refer to themselves!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Totality of that single cell
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:20:18 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e 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 <nyikos.724090636@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I think Larry Margolis has already whipped out his dictionary, the better
>to attack you.  Lord knows--oops, scratch that, almost everyone on t.a.
>knows--he needs almost no provocation to indulge in either of these two
>pasttimes.

Awww - still sore because you didn't know what the words you were using meant?
Try to not live in the past.  If you stop bringing it up, I'm sure people will
stop laughing at you for it.  Eventually.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:51:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <11DEC92.04315613@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
wrote:
> 
> In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
> >
> >"Enough" people would be 51 percent of folks who voted.  Which leaves 49%
> >who voted in disagreement, in addition to all the other people who DIDN'T
> >vote.  And they would have 'your' views forced upon them via the law.
> 
> No.  They would have the views of the majority forced upon them.  This is 
> what we call a democracy.  Can you say democracy?  It is happening right 
> now.  Hundreds of thousands of people are forced to obey laws that were 
> decided by the majority, whether they believe the laws are just, or not.

So, Loren, do you believe that if 51% of the electorate voted for a law
stating that anyone named "Loren" could be summarily executed, that this
law would be valid?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: We can always count on Suzanne for a laugh (Was: Re: kebbin and sex)
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:30:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Dec11.191551.15092@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) wrote:
> 
> Hey, I can prove to you that a ham sandwich is better than nothing!
> 
> Nothing's better than heaven, right?
> And a ham sandwich is better than nothing, ain't it!

Good grief, Suzanne!  Is there no limit to your stupidity?

Here's how it's supposed to go, just in case you want to use it again:

Nothing is better than going to heaven.

A ham sandwich is better than nothing.

Ergo, a ham sandwich is better than going to heaven.

I hope you realize that most of us had this little exercise in elementary
syllogisms down in, oh, second or third grade.  Apparently, you haven't
figured it out yet.

(Predicted response from Suzanne: "Why don't you put an egg in your shoe
and go away?")

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:28:27 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes ...
>Oh, it's not a mystery.  We all understand that you figure equal 'choice'
>WRT pocketbooks is valid, even though there is no equitability WRT biology.
>Trust me, we (meaning women in general) can't quite understand how men
>fail to understand the biological DIFFERENCES that confer different biological
>CHOICES upon the two parties involved.  True, not all men fail to understand
>this difference, but some of you are really thickheaded.  

Hmmph.  Sounds like the old line "women are weaker than men and must
be cared for and protected by men."

What do biological differences have to do with child support & custody?
Either women are equal and able to look out for themselves, or they're
not.  Which is it going to be?

>Some of us (meaning women in general) are also quite puzzled that you can't
>seem to understand that the responsibility is conferred upon the parentS
>by social expecations once a child EXISTS.  And that the responsibility is
>due to the CHILD, not to the mother.  But, I suppose the myth of the nasty
>scheming woman screwing some fellow to a financial post has more rhetorical
>value.

Why can't some of you (meaning women in general) understand that it's
not about responsibility, but RIGHTS.  And it isn't a myth, either.
It happens so often it's nearly a cliche.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:35:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.190927.26788@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
> 
>  (Karl Rominger) writes:
> >
> >ABORTION IS MURDER
> >no elaboration required.
> 
> Well, just a little.  While abortion does take a life, 
> murder is by definition the *illegal* taking of a life.
> Therefore, since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder.

In US legal terms you are correct.  But in terms of absolute justice the  
question is far more complicated.  Stay tuned for my thesis on the  
question of justice as it relates to abortion.

Karl
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Efficiency in child support
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 22:33:42 GMT

In article <1h0fiiINN23m@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1gtd5sINNbgj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>[child support by lottery]
>>>>Sounds much more efficient than the current system. You got a problem with it?
>>>
>>>More efficient?  
>
>>Yes, more efficient. It would no longer be necessary to locate the biological
>>parent and prove paternity; once the random pick was made, everything would 
>>just be automatic. And, since the donor is guaranteed by the computerized
>>selection process to be someone with sufficient income to support the child, 
>>there would, in theory, be far fewer instances of donors falling behind on
>>their payments, attempting to evade the law, etc. etc. The cost savings on
>>enforcement would be dramatic.
>
>>>Would you stop at national borders?  Why?  
>
>>Stop trying to introduce irrelevancies and just answer the question, please.
>
>>Do you or do you not have a problem with the "child support lottery" proposal?
>>If so, please try to identify the problem as clearly as you can.
>
>My point is *not* irrelevant.

Okay, if you wish, I'll make this a global question, instead of just a
national one (although I do this under protest, since I think global politics
is irrelevant to the central question of child support): would you prefer the 
world to adopt a global "lottery" system of child support, as I have recently
described, or a global "genetics-based" system of child support, such as we 
currently have here in the USA? Please explain the reasoning behind your 
answer.

								- Kevin
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:26:37 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec18.180104.22622@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:

>I think the 
>courts should spend their energy deciding when life begins instead of
>either trying to close or open loopholes in existing laws.

I'm intrigued.  You think the *courts* should do this?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 22:51:17 GMT

In article <Bz2Hro.I7n@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.212406.16741@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec3.051704.24085@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>
>>Not Keith A. Cochran's brother, please. Tell me it isn't true.
>>
>>One was bad enough..
>
>Yeah, we know.  But you came back, anyway.
>
>--PLH (oh, well, can't have everything...)
>
As a matter of fact, I am Keith's brother. What's the matter with
Chaney? He can't handle life in general or what?
Maybe Keith and I should get the rest of the family on here...

Question: How many Cochran's would it take to chase Chaney screaming
into the nearest cesspool?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52475 alt.abortion.inequity:6046
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Killing a "wanted child?"? Seems okay if ONLY the man wants "it"...?
Date: 20 Dec 1992 01:03:32 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>> In article <1fohrnINN47o@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
>> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> >>Every child a wanted child -- by *BOTH* of its natural parents.
>> >
>> >You don't mean that a child who is wanted by one parent -- who is
>> >willing and able to provide for it -- should be killed, do you?

>So are you REALLY saying that it's wrong for a woman to have an abortion when
>ONLY the MAN, who is "one parent," wants the child and is willing to support
>the child?

I don't consider an abortion "killing a child".  

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Abortion postion poll. RESULTS
Keywords: poll results
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:04:58 GMT

In <Byt4q1.Ewv@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rparker@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (R S Parker) writes:


>Thanks to everyone who participated!  Here are the results.


>First some minor details:

>There was almost no difference between the "classic" illegal and the "total"
>illegal responses.  Everyone who would outlaw abortion in almost all cases
>from the point of conception would only allow exceptions in life-threatening
>cases.  Almost everyone else would not impose the "classic" banning (excludes
>life-threatening, rape, and incest cases) at any time.

>There was also very little action in the conception to 6 months range.  Only
>one person placed any cutoffs at the 3 month mark.  Others were all at
>conception, viability (I count that as 6 months), or birth...with a few cutoffs
>in the 6 month to birth range as well.  In other words, the respondents were
>fairly polarized into the extreem beliefs, with a little middle-ground after
>viability.

As you can see, I did not participate in the poll.  I make no secret of
my wish to allow abortions up to the end of the 5th week, and after that
allow it only with rather stringent exceptions.

Why did I not participate in the poll?  I did not know about it.  Maybe
it was posted while (or slightly before) one of my netserver disablements.
It is also possible that I saw the title, thought it referred to a poll
already taken, and never looked at it.  I suggest a totally unambiguous
title, like "Polling t.a. readers on abortion, please participate," and that 
should get a bigger turnout.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:40:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.070300.63800@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> Letting a person die is not morally equivalent to killing them.
>>>> I cannot kill a person who requires blood, marrow, or kidneys,
>>>> but I can refuse to support them if I was not responsible for
>>>> their condition.

>>> Um, Dougie, you can refuse to support them even if you _were_
>>> responsible for their condition.

>> Um, "Leftie", if you cause a person to require blood,
>> marrow, or kidneys, and they die as a result, you can
>> be charged with homicide.

> On the other hand, if it was an accident (say, an automobile accident, or
> birth control failure) you won't be charged.

No, you can still be charged with a crime, albeit a lesser
crime than homicide.  And avoiding sexual intercourse is
far easier than avoiding an automobile accident.  Besides, 
your reasoning completely fails in cases where abortion 
is used as a means of birth control. 

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion