HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:36:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <92237.200055ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>  Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
> In article <oqnbvq8@fido.asd.sgi.com> CJ Silverio
>
> >I've got misogynist maniacs to worry
> >about-- people who'd cheerfully ban abortions for victims of
> >rape and for women whose lives are endangered.
>
> The misogynist maniacs do more to discredit themselves
> than any one else.  They are not the people that will
> create laws or form governments.

The Republican platform position on abortion does not allow for
exceptions in the case of rape or incest.  I certainly *hope* that
these "misogynist maniacs" will not be in a position to make laws
come November, but I'm afraid that I'm not as sure as you appear to be.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:50:37 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug25.225549.10685@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.205226.9147@ncar.ucar.edu>
> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>
> > Roe v. Wade:
> > "If  the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it
> > may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period except when it
> > is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother"
> >
> > Doe v. Bolton:
> > "life or health of the mother" might mean "all factors -- physical,
> > emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to
> > the well-being of the patient"
> >
> > WRT "abortion on demand throughout pregnancy",
> > it seems a distinction must be made between
> > (Roe v. Wade), (Doe v. Bolton), and (Roe v. Wade + Doe v. Bolton)
>
> Exactly!
>
> Now consider the following quote from Roe v. Wade:
>
>   "In Doe v. Bolton, 410 US 179, 35 L Ed 2d 201, 93 S Ct 739,
>    procedural requirements contained in one of the modern
>    abortion statutes are considered.  That opinion and this
>    one, of course, are to be read together[67]."

And of course, the next paragraph explicitly states that the State
is free to place restrictions on abortion:
   "This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of
   the respective interests involved, with the lessons and example of
   medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and
   with the demands of the profound problems of the present day.  The
   decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion
   as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions
   are tailored to the recognized state interests.  The decision
   vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment
   according to his professional judgement, up to the points where
   important state interests provide compelling justifications for
   intervention.  Up to those points the abortion decision in all its
   aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic
   responsibility for it must rest with the physician.  If any individual
   practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment,
   the usual remedies, judcial and intra-professional, are available..."

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:04:06 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <s-vy1rg@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu writes:

> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >But this doesn't change the fact that the Constitution does not
> >give anyone the unlimited right to kill other human beings.  The  
> >states are free to pass laws restricting the use of deadly force,
> >for example.  
> >Doug Holtsinger
> 
> The states are also free to pass laws restricting abortion.
> Many have.
> 
>                            -rocker

  Yes, but only beyond a certain point.  Though Doug would say otherwise. :-)

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:51:32 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> From article <91ayc5f@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
[...]
-> > Then you are calling me a liar, Ms. Forgach.  
-> 
-> Could be.  

don't you know what you meant, suzanne?

i have never seen any evidence, nor do i have any
knowledge of, rocker ever posting an untruth to this,
or any other, newsgroup.

i can't say the same about you.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
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 14:55:01 GMT

In <1992Sep2.120609.11146@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>
james g keegan jr 
   <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes: >>>
addressing the chaneyhall thing,
   decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>>

>>>> And he says his home life was not
>>>> dysfunctional, yet look at what it produced.
> 
>>>> He's one sick little boy.  His mommy and daddy
>>>> better get him some serious psychiatric
>>>> treatment before his visions of his inheritance
>>>> get the better of what passes for his patience.
>>>> I won't be surprised if I see him on A Current
>>>> Affair somewhere down the road.
> 
>>> hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it
>>> was prejudicial to suggest that someone seek
>>> psychiatric help when i suggested that DODie do
>>> so.
>
>>> i wonder if he'll think the same here.
>
>> Yeah, well I wasn't sure what Bill was driving at
>> with that one.  

> i'm not sure bill knows either. 

Perhaps you think I should "see [my] therapist"?

> he did just post and
> say that this type of remark is prejudicial when it is
> made to denigrate; an opinion i don't share.

It reflects prejudice toward people who are truly suffering
from legitimate mental disorders, to be sure.

> in fact, i'm not at all sure that i've ever seen this
> type of remark made in this newsgroup when it doesn't
> appear to be made to denigrate, at least denigrate to
> some degree. 

Me either.  Your admission is refreshing.

> i've seen days where remarks like this
> are made several times, by several people. perhaps my
> post was the first bill ever noticed, although that
> does seen quite unlikely, doesn't it? in fact, several
> people posted  remarks like mine on the same day that i
> did.

"Gee Mom, it's not so bad.  Everyone else is doing it, too".

> i suspect he probably had another reason for singling
> out my remark. i hope he's not irritated at the outcome
> of our net.discussions on other matters.

The only thing that's mildly irritating about you, Jim
(and only over the past year or so), is your evasiveness
about your ad hominem behavior.  You and I have had a
number of enjoyable discussions in the (more distant)
past, but your style has changed significantly since 
then.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Third party request
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:39:33 GMT

In article <Btx4r8.D50.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> Holtsinger claims that a law currently being enforced in 
> Pennsylvania cannot be enforced.  

I've seen no evidence that a state may enforce legislation 
requiring the physician to employ the abortion technique which 
would most likely result in a fetus aborted alive.

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Organization: Houston, TX
	<1992Aug17.020302.5094@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>
	<1992Aug17.134619.931@mcs.gvsu.edu>
	<1992Aug25.212430.11159@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:47:32

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
 >orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
 >>I believe the fetus to be unquestionable human.  I believe in its
 >>right to life.  I believe the right to live supercedes the right of
 >>another to kill it.  If only it were possible to take fetuses from 
 >>their unwanting mothers and give them to homes where they are wanted.

 >If that were true, what do you think the chances are that one to two million
 >extra children (predominantly non-white btw) will find homes?

Some would call this a racist statement.  I'll just call it ignorant.
Figures (thanks to Don Porter, who got them from E. Elizabeth Bartley,
who got them from the World Almanac):

                                 1972      1976     1980      1985
Reported # of legal abortions  586,760   988,267  1,297,606  1,328,570
                 Percentage distribution (excludes unknowns)
  Race
White                            77.0      66.6     69.6       66.6
Black and other                  23.0      33.4     30.1       33.4

Predominantly white.

 >I think it's small. I also think that most pro-lifers complain about the 
 >problem of 'baby slaugtering' but do literally nothing to house, clothe and 
 >feed the children without homes right *now*.

You are, of course, mistaken.  Just because you see the abortion
protests and don't see the protesters' other actions, don't assume
that they are not active in helping the needy.
--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not lately.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:01:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.204749.4281@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug25.182118.13682@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug23.235355.8281@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer
>> >In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike
>> >
>> If it's my z/e/f/child that she is carrying, it IS partially my decision.
>> As it's partially my z/e/f/child that would be aborted.
>
>Is it partially inside your body?

Nope.  It is, however, partially my body.

>Getting it out of *her* body is *her*
>decision.  What you do *after* it's out of her body is a joint decision.

I disagree.  Obviously.  Getting it INTO her body was a joint decision.
Getting it out, should also be a joint decision.

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

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Third party request
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:44:40 GMT

In article <Btxquu.DJr.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>> Holtsinger claims that a law currently being enforced in
>>> Pennsylvania cannot be enforced.  Can someone explain his
>>> reasoning to me, please?

>> He apparently believes that a lie repeated sufficiently often acquires a
>> ring of truth.

> You're probably right.  

The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act also included a provision 
which prohibited sex selection abortions, in addition to a  
provision which prohibited certain post-viability abortions.  

Is that law also constitutional, Ms. Garvin?  How about the abortion 
laws in some states which have remained on the books despite their 
unconstitutionality under Roe? 

I hope that you and your pro-abortion buddies will be able to finally 
understand that the mere existence of a law does not necessarily 
imply that it's constitutional, or that it's being enforced.  


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:20:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.183047.19575@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

> Since you complain about so many different aspects of abortion
> rights, are there ANY circumstances under which you would support
> a woman's right to choose.  

I have expressed my support for overturning Roe v. Wade, so that  
the voters of each state can decide the abortion issue.  I also  
oppose the passage of the FOCA, because it would codify Roe into
national law.  Other than that, I have not yet taken a position 
on legislation that would further restrict abortion beyond the
permissible restrictions set forth in Roe. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<AWERLING.92Aug31165912@dante.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Sep1.004203.22844@ncsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:41:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.004203.22844@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> In article <AWERLING.92Aug31165912@dante.nmsu.edu> 
> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

> > I missed this entire conversation, but your use of the words in CAPS
> > ("no" and "nobody") lead me to instantly want to point out that there
> > are no absolutes...there are hypothetical reasons why someone would
> > "deserve" to be called just about anything.

> Can you name some?  I can't think of any situations where a person
> could "deserve" to be called a name with such clear racist overtones.  

If a black person were to use their race/color to intimidate or to
persecute someone else, then they would deserve such a comment, even
though the race as a whole or any *other* black individuals do *not*
deserve that comment.  Purely hypothetical.  I'm always on Absolutism Alert.
I'm not attempting to defend Humphrey's remarks, or to even get into
the specifics.  Just following my own personal drive. :)

Thanks for reposting the article, by the way.  I agree with you that
in that context it was completely inappropriate.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"now we find sodom strange take it out put it in your mouth how do you like
gomorrah now a taste of this swallow that feel the fish hide the hat ezekial
where's your wheel you better grease it GREASE GREASE GREASE GREASE! ROCK!!!"
       --Chainsaw Kittens, "Ezekial Walks Through Sodom and Gomorrah"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 23:40:47 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


dh>In article <1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
lf>In article <1992Aug31.191507.17372@ncmicro.lonestar.org> 
lf>ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:

lf> What annoys me is that, although the "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem
lf> to think that their arguments are superior, they evidently do not trust
lf> women to see this for themselves. 

dh>You make it sound as if every woman is pro-choice.  Women are individuals 
dh>who have a variety of opinions on abortion.  Please don't ignore their
dh>individuality.  

I believe this exchange right here shows that DOD has a severe reading
comprehension problem.  I really see no point in arguing with someone
who has such trouble with the written word.  

dh>Doug Holtsinger

Dan King
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:54:26 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes to bill overpeck:
-> It does make you appear hypocritical, however, since
-> you criticize Keegan for making an observation about
-> Holtsinger and denial, saying that he doesn't have
-> enough information to make that judgment while
-> simultaneously making an observation about Jim's
-> behavior.

i was surprised at this. over the years, i've seen
people, particularly females, criticize bill for being
condescending (justly so, imo), but i really can't
recall seeing him be hypocritical, before this, that
is.
[...]
-> I think Holtsinger should see a therapist.  I'm not
-> sure why you think Keegan doesn't agree with me.

me neither.

-> Did you gain telepathic powers when you got your
-> MSW?

i was wondering about that. i'll bet that's how he does
it.
[...]

-> I'm starting to think that you just wanted to flame
-> Jim and this was the only avenue available.

that's exactly what it looked like, isn't it? and it
turned out to be a not so very good avenue after all.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:35:25 GMT

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug26094732@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
> >orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
> >>I believe the fetus to be unquestionable human.  I believe in its
> >>right to life.  I believe the right to live supercedes the right of
> >>another to kill it.  If only it were possible to take fetuses from 
> >>their unwanting mothers and give them to homes where they are wanted.
>
> >If that were true, what do you think the chances are that one to two million
> >extra children (predominantly non-white btw) will find homes?
>
>Some would call this a racist statement.  I'll just call it ignorant.
>Figures (thanks to Don Porter, who got them from E. Elizabeth Bartley,
>who got them from the World Almanac):
>
>                                 1972      1976     1980      1985
>Reported # of legal abortions  586,760   988,267  1,297,606  1,328,570
>                 Percentage distribution (excludes unknowns)
>  Race
>White                            77.0      66.6     69.6       66.6
>Black and other                  23.0      33.4     30.1       33.4
>
>Predominantly white.

Fine, but the issue was not the number of abortions, but the number of
children up for adoption.  My issue was with adoption, not abortion.
If you can supply similar numbers for children up for adoption, I would be
very interested to see them.

I don't understand why you consider a comment which makes a racial distinction,
racist, but I apologize if you took it that way.  It was not intended to 
be racist.

I won't call you ignorant for not staying with the issue, how's that?


> >I think it's small. I also think that most pro-lifers complain about the 
> >problem of 'baby slaugtering' but do literally nothing to house, clothe and 
> >feed the children without homes right *now*.
>
>You are, of course, mistaken.

No, you have missed the point. I have no problem admitting I am mistaken, you 
have not pointed out an error yet.



>Just because you see the abortion
>protests and don't see the protesters' other actions, don't assume
>that they are not active in helping the needy.

I'm not assuming, I'm not seeing it. If you can provide some evidence of a
similarly massive movement by the pro-lifers to try to take care of the 
*existing* unwanted children, I will be glad to hear about it.

Perhaps they are blowing up group homes now?

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:32:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.212200.15073@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
# andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
# >stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
# >>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

I was not quoted in the referenced article.

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:04:48 GMT

In article <nyikos.715288111@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# In <1992Aug29.230124.7357@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# 
# >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# ># This testimony was given by Nita Whitten, of Dallas, Texas, a former
# ># clinic assistant.  I am repeating it verbatim as given in _The Forerunner_
# ># despite the fact that some pro-choicers will find some of it
# ># (for example, "I decided to give my life to the Lord") highly offensive.
# 
# >I've read UFO abduction tales more convincing.
# 
# How many abortion clinics have you seen the inside of?  Unlike UFO's, 
# abortion clinics are a very real reality.  Are you one of the people who
# chooses to blind himself to all stories about that reality besides the
# NOW-NARAL-PP-ACLU party line?  

Heh.  The number is non-zero.  I am NOT one of those people.  I am one
of those people who *makes* the party line, buddy.

But keep going, you're sounding more and more like a UFO loon with
each paragraph.

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion