HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:14:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.044418.4959@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.141443.12655@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr11.160221.8122@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>OK Kevin Darcy, support this.  I have argued against the reforms presented
>>>>SO FAR, certainly, because in my mind they create even MORE inequality than
>>>>the inequality that I see CURRENTLY exists.
>>>>
>>>>However, in the posting in question, I'm not 'telling him', as Larry so 
>>>>obviously pointed out.  In the context of this article that makes me
>>>>non-duck. 
>>>>
>>>>You are wrong, Kevin.  Just plain blind, dead wrong.
>>>
>>>You are telling him that the legal status quo is morally acceptable, and
>>>that it is OkayFineHunkeyDorey for the state to enforce this schema of
>>>rights and responsibilities upon all involuntary fathers.
>>
>>Horseshit, Darcy, and I notice you don't manage to support what you claimed.
>
>Horeshit yourself, Adrienne. The original claim was that you were arguing 
>against reform. By arguing for the status quo, you implicitly argue AGAINST 
>reform. I have therefore supported my statement in the preceding paragraph.
>Do you have an answer?

How does one 'argue against reform' by proposing reform?

You see to conveniently ignore the fact that I have posted my own
proposals.

I *guess* you didn't *see* *them*.  Right?

Nota Bene as well that I have *not* argued FOR the status quo -- I have
instead attempted to CLARIFY the status quo so that people who intend to
attack it can do so more effectively.

I suppose you didn't *see* the multiple lines to the effect "If you are 
going to argue, make sure you have your bases straight.....If you can't
present arguments that deal with the underlying philosophies upon which
the laws are based, you will not be effective......"

Kevin is wrong, once again (yawn).

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: "Fathers' rights"
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 18:09:46 GMT

<1992Apr2.225749.17076@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) said:
>lr1b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lisa M. Roraback) writes:

...

>>personally i think a women should talk with her partner about abortion,
>>but i would never try to force someone to.
>
>You wouldn't, but the men do by threatening to withdraw love, financial
>support, etc. if the pregnancy is carried to term.

I don't consider that to be forcing someone to do something.  It isn't a
pretty situation, but there doesn't seem to be any force involved in
denying someone your personal approval or money if they do something you
don't approve of.

If the man would withdraw love and money AFTER agreeing to support any
resulting child before the woman was pregnant, THEN she may seek financial
reparations.  She should also get the heck out of the relationship - he
can't be trusted.  Now if the woman _knew_ the man didn't want kids and 
she decided that she did (i.e. stopped birth control), then _he_ should 
get the hell out of the relationship - she can't be trusted.

Of course, the above is based on them being unable to work out the
differences.  With no legal contracts in force, I see no reason that the
man should have to fake loving a woman, or fincancially support _her_
decision, just so she won't abort.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:16:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr15.211613.24020
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)




Funny........no side will ever win on this issue.
there will always be dissention.


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Monogamy and Abortion (was Re: THE IMPLICATIONS...)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 01:49:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.230205.26642@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.065624.14782@cco.caltech.edu>
>tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In <qbxtcga@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>>>>>  There will come a day when people will see that monogamy can reinforce
>>>>>relationships, and strengthen a marriage. 
>
>>>>Are you under the impression that monogamy eliminates the need for
>>>>abortion?
>
>>>Absolutely. 
>
>>Then you're wrong.  Dead wrong.  Married people never get abortions?  Never,
>>ever?  Remember, the word above was "eliminate".  Not "reduce", which I
>>think you might possibly have a chance at arguing.
>
>From the 1990 World Almanac:
>
>                                 1972      1976     1980      1985
>Reported # of legal abortions  586,760   988,267  1,297,606  1.328,570
>Ratio per 1000 live births      180.1     312.0    359.2      353.8
>Rate per 1000 women aged          13        21       25         24
>     15-44 years      
>                 Percentage distribution (excludes unknowns)
>  Marital status
>Married                          29.7      24.6     23.1       19.3
>Unmarried                        70.3      75.4     76.9       80.7

Source: Centers for Disease Control. I can corroborate the same figures 
(except for "Rate per 1000 women aged 15-44 years" which I lack) with my 1991 
Universal Almanac.

From that same Universal Almanac:

	WHO HAS ABORTIONS?
	Estimates based on a national survey of approx. 10,000 women who
	had abortions in 1987.

		MARITAL STATUS
		Single		63.3%
		Married		18.5%
		Separated	 6.4%
		Divorced	11.2%
		Widowed		 0.6%

	(Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute. Published in "Family Planning
	Perspectives" and New York Times).

								- Kevin
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:43:54 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.030728.21623@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.022904.1885@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran):

>If he's so perceptive, he'd surely take note of a self-described devout
>Catholic who spares no opportunity to tell us how loving her religion is,
>while simultaneously condemning anyone who might disagree with her...then
>again, maybe old Karol figures there's no use in trying to set you straight.
>(Or, to put it in my native dialect -- if the Avenging Angel was to come
>through here killing all the real Christians, he'd never cock his pistol at
>*you*...)

   Sheeez Pat, WHy would Sue go through all of that when I've already
done it. I've tried to share all of the facets of my religion with you
people. We do not condemn you for denying the presence of God. Perhaps
we pity you, but we do not condemn or patronize you. In any case,
we'd mind our own business with abortions too if there weren't so
many innocent victims in the matter (unborn child).
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:19:41 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr08.060536.25602@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
#eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
#
##Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
#
#Interesting tidbit there (Anti-Roe).  We are ALL aware (I hope) that the
#entire case (Roe v. Wade) was built upon a lie.  And the entire pro-death
#movement is based upon obscuring what matters with loud, emotional rhetoric.


Oh, great.

Can someone tell me just which anti-choice group perpetuates the
myth that Norma McCorvey was represented as a rape victim in
the Supreme Court case?  I keep hearing this "Jane Roe lied"
line used as if she never told the truth.  She did.  She did
so very early on.   

Susan
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:38:19 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>Why is it you feel you can afford
>the money to accomadate your power company, but not a child? granted
>a child isa hell of a lot more expensive than your electric bill,
>but isn't it worth it?

Why is it you feel it is any of your business what people feel they
can or can not afford?  Why would it be any of your business what
people do with their own money?

Dan King
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 12:27:21 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Distribution: na
 <1992Mar27.100342.10059@newstand.syr.edu>
 <92090.131502ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
 <1992Apr3.143114.18910@newstand.syr.edu>

In article <1992Apr3.143114.18910@newstand.syr.edu>, mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu
(Gaylord) says:
>
>In article <92090.131502ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham
><ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>>In article <1992Mar27.100342.10059@newstand.syr.edu> Gaylord says:
>>>
>>>>>>You are the father of a child.  This child has a rare blood
>>>>>>disorder.  The only way this child will survive is if you are
>>>>>>hooked up to a dialysis machine for 24 hours a day for nine
>>>>>>months (1).  At the end of the time your child will be cured,
>>>>>>and you can then go on your merry way.
>>>>>
>>>>>>You may or may not face the loss of your job due to your
>>>>>>absence.  You may or may not receive adequate health care
>>>>>>because you may not have coverage.  Your health may or
>>>>>>may not be up to the strain of the dialysis procedures.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Would you save your child's life?
>>>>>
>>Please note Gaylord that the individual who answered
>>"Yes, this is my child.  Would you do the same for yours?"
>>is Kevin Welch, an avowed Pro life member.
>>
>>So whose morals are you questioning in this post?
>>
>I apologize that the way I replyed was ambigous, my reply above is in

Apology accepted.

>comment to the question, I have a 2 1/2 year old, and would die if
>nesesary to preserve her life, as I think many if not most parents who
>love there children.  Please don't take this statement and make a flame
>fest out of it, I'm sure many pro-choice parents would put themselves
>after their born children, right?

Yes, but would you want the government to legislate that choice?
Would you agree with laws that would force parents or guardians
to ensure their child's life by forcing unwilling parents to
donate their body parts, ie. blood or organ donation?



Linda
--
T.S.A.K.C.
"All that has been written about women by men should be suspect
 for men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit"
 Francois Poulain de la Barre, 1673
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:05:08 GMT

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

>In article <1992Apr12.022746.7956@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
>|hahahahahaha.  Don't I detect a tiny little FLAME here?  BTW
>|Political Correctness is unbecoming in all it's forms.  
>|Condescending to woman appears theses days to mean 
>|"you don't agree with my Pro-Death stance.".  tsk tsk.

>What incoherent nonsense!  Have you anything to say
>about the issues, Brawley?  So far you only seem 
>interested in insulting as many people as possible.

I've said plenty, if you've been reading.  But Pearls & Swine applies
quite often here.  BTW what was that previous paragraph, if not a
non-informative insult?

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:27:06 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr07.065931.7912@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
|But you people who promote child murders should keep this in mind:  

What is it with the name "Kevin"?  I haven't seen a
sensible, coherent poster with that name in years.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"One may be continually abusive without saying anything just; but one 
cannot be always laughing at a man without now and then stumbling on 
something witty."  --Jane Austen
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:42:01 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr7.201034.21494@midway.uchicago.edu>  rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.230505.14671@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (S
> >
> >People who support both:
> >            * legalized abortion
> >                   and
> >            * weakening current child support law:
>
> NO, STEVEN!!!!!
>
> I've repeated about seven times now that I do not favor "weakening"
> current child support law, I favor ALTERING it. This will in some
> weird instances make it weaker, in a lot of instances make it stronger,
> and be basically dedicated to clearing up some of the inconsistencies
> present in an outdated law. Get it right.

I've told him the same thing, and explicitly said to not place my name on
a list that says "weakening", but we've all seen that Steven Kellmeyer
has his own agenda, and is unconcerned with the truth.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:37:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.161923.21005@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>[.. massive deletions ..]
>>> Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>>>            set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>>>            morals on others. 
>
>>> If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>>> can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 
>
>> This does not logically follow.
>>
>> Now, premise A:
>> (A)(B):((A E H)^(B E H))-->(A should not physically force it's morals on B).
>>
>> Now, call the act of physically forcing someone not to have an abortion
>> D and the class of acts which consist of physically forcing one's morals
>> on someone F.
>>
>> Clearly (D E F)
>
>Change statement D to F:
Huh?
I note at this time that you are using a substantively different
notation than I am. My D,F are classes of actions. Your D,F, which
I will denote D',F' are moral judgements ABOUT actions.
I.e.
D'=immoral(D)
F'=immoral(F)
where immoral(x) reads: "It is immoral for humans to do x"

>D: Humans can physically force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
>
>F: Humans can physically force their morals on other humans.

>> [..deletions..]
>> Your problem is in assuming that forcing a woman to carry a baby
>> to term is the only member of the class F, but it's not. If it
>> were, your logic would hold. 
>
>Now does it hold? 
No.

Since D E F, therefore
F'-->D'.

However your assertion is:
~F'-->~D'.

This is not a logically correct conclusion(fallacy of the converse.)
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:31:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr15.194237.16141@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>No amount of handwaving can change the fact that an abortion kills
>the fetus.

So what?


Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Selective Observation (formerly: Pro-Abortion Airheads)
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:15:28 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr6.061016.15033@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- currently no fees) said:
>From the Gospel of: <Apr.5.21.14.37.1992.11736@romulus.rutgers.edu>
>According to:       kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)

...

>>[Now some other airhead pro-abortionists here are going to ignore the
>>undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions which are
>>performed in the U.S. are quite simply for the sake of convenience and
>>disingenuously raise objections concering rape.]
> 
>[invoking the standard cliche']  Well gee, Gordon... do you agree with this?

I have to say it again - I don't give a flying rat's ass what a woman's
reason for getting an abortion is, if it's inside her body and she doesn't
want it there, then she should have the right to have it removed.  I care
even less about what chauvinists like Kaldis think constitutes a "valid"
reason for abortion.

Although I resent your implication that I am an "airhead" pro-abortionist.
:-)

>Btw, I have to add that I am this close   -->| |<--  to becoming pro-abortion
>myself...  my position has indeed been solidified by reading Usenet.

Well, I haven't had any cards made up yet, but you should probably read
the by-laws before joining.

>As for you, Kaldis, I can only say that one man's (and I emphasize MAN'S)
>convenience is often a woman's (WOMAN'S) life, no matter what you
>might otherwise state.

Yeah, but why should he care about women?  They aren't men after all.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doing the Right Thing
Date: 6 Apr 92 03:22:06 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
In-reply-to: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Originator: keegan@ukulele

kevin@rotag (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >kevin@rotag (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
-> >-> >>>So Mr. Darcy if someone on the net threatens to do
-> >-> >>>physical harm to another or sends persistent harassing
-> >-> >>>mail, the the recipient must keep this quiet?
-> >-> >>
-> >-> >>Define "keep quiet". People who are in a position to
-> >-> >>*DO* something about the harrassment/threats certainly
-> >-> >>may be told, at the recipient's option. But
-> >-> >
-> >-> >Who would be in a position to *DO* anything, Mr. Darcy?
-> >-> 
-> >-> What is the relevance of the question? Even if the set is
-> >-> an empty one, my point still holds.
-> >
-> >the only point you've made throughout this discussion is that
-> >you have been hypocritically willing to pompously criticize
-> >susan garvin for posting obscene and threatening email while,
-> >just a few short weeks ago, you were comfortable defending
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^
-> >kellmeyer for posting my email.
    ^^^^^^^^^
->                                           blatant lie
-> >

somebody must have broken into your account and posted
<1992Mar5.023356.23991@cfctech.cfc.com> then. that's why so many
people have called you on this hypocrisy.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:34:56 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <JBATES.92Apr14123445@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com> 
jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
>mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>>   A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or
>>   sleep around and/or are sluts. 

> You know, I think that this could form the basis for a whole new approach
> to the abortion issue. Look, we don't want to be letting these sluts
> get abortions, right? I mean, it's obvious that we all agree on that, or
> should. 

Mr. Lewis is pro-choice. And so are you. I'm not surprised you agree with him.
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:32:17 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au

-As reported in "The Australian" (7/4/92) a French cosmetics company is
-currently engaged in the practice of making women's face cream from the
-placentas of aborted fetuses. They apparently are able to get 1 tonne of
-the material every day from the St Petersburg (Russia) area, and up to 4
-tonnes world wide.

Just to straighten out the above report. The quantity is actually 19
tonnes wouldwide each day and the original source is the London Sunday
Times (29/3/92).

Sorry to those who feel that this is old hat.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity