HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:14:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.074256.22492@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <BvtCJH.A9u@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.035505.23247@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>>Pro-Lifers are saying that <human> life BEGINS at conception, using the
>>Bible to back up their positon.  They, then have made it a religious
>>issue.
>>
>Over-Generalization.  I haven't used the Bible to say human life begins at
>conception.  Many others don't.  Some even don't believe in the Bible
>yet they know Human Life begins at conception.
>
>Careful now.
>

Oh, I aploogize for my over-generalization.  I must still be seeing stars
from that Bible that hit me over the head as I was escorting someone
into an abortion clinic.

:-)

CRS


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abstinence isn't effective or dirty
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:27:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.121732.2455@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>Abstinence is not 100% effective.  Notnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnot.
>Even for people other than Lisa and myself.  Even if they try it, and
>want it to succeed, it won't necesarily happen.
>
>So there.
That's not fair. If you're practicing abstinence, then you don't
have sex. If you get weak and have sex, then you weren't practicing
abstinence, and it's not a fair criticism of abstinence per se.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: My Rgdnnus can beat up your Rgdnnus with one hand behind his back!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:58:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Oct15.231719.1522@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
}In article <nyikos.719093792@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
}>
}>Are there no laws against ATTEMPTED suicide?  I must admit laws punishing
}>someone who is SUCCESSFUL at suicide are an exercise in futility.  On the
}>other hand, there are good reasons for trying to deter someone from
}>attempting suicide.
}
}Gee, PH, like what?  Let's say that I'm tired of being wacked out on pain
}killers 24 hours a day, I'm tired of the pain of chemo and the agony of
}bone marrow implants.  The extra 6 weeks of life I'm going to get just
}*ISN'T WORTH IT*.
}
}Please name one good reason why you should "deter me from attempting
}suicide".

I think you read Petey Honey wrong.  He isn't at all disturbed by 
suicide, only if you are inept at it...

(he probably won't let you have any help, either.)


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:10:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>In <1992Oct1.201627.22487@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>>be dead?)
>
>>Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.
>
>>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
>	   ^^^^^^^^^
>
>This question has my nomination for "pro-choice understatement of the 
>year," even though it is phrased as a question: it certainly makes a strong
>statement, especially about the state of mind of the one who wrote it.

And the consistent inability of any pro-lifer to answer it is even
more telling, Mr. Nyikos.  Care to give it a shot?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:39:53 GMT

In article <PA142548.344.718472805@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.234555.14869@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>Get this: Quayle is a fucking joke 
>Why?

If you haven't figured it out for yourself, then obviously you aren't clever
enough to recognize a moron when you hear one.

>>who has *no business* being a
>>heartbeat away from the presidency.  
>Why not?

OK. Mediocrity and stupidity deserve representation, too. I have to agree
with you.
 
>>Combined with that pit bull he
>>calls a wife, I pray every day for Georgie's health.  And I'm an
>>atheist.  Bush should be slapped silly for insulting the people in this
>>manner.
>What manner.

The manner of putting a moron in the Imperial succession. Can we spell
Caligula?

>>And, I believe, he soon *will* be.
>For the sake of your paycheck, you better hope not.

What? You are trying to save trees by having fewer paychecks? The economy
under Ronnie and George has been going down, down, down. They managed to
snatch a depression from the jaws of prosperity.












>>You're plain stupid.  Buchanan and his right-wing religiously-fogged ilk
>>are so blatantly near fascist...fuck it.  It's not worth arguing with
>Umm... no.  No fascism, I think.  More like a republican-theocracy.
>
>>by crazed "christian" fundamentalists.  Yeah, that's the ticket.
>
>No.  I think they were as sane as the next guy.
>
>>
>>>These folks
>>>with "Over Workded little Minds" might be the ones that don't 
>>>hand their weapons over to government.  They may become the 
>>>'Freedom Fighters' during the next decade or provide security
>>>and stability to a country brought to it's knees by economic 
>>>collapse.
>>
>>I'll shoot crazed gun fanatics like you myself if you come around my
>>door, Cowboy.
>>
>With what?
>
>-=-=-
>T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
>University of Tennessee
>"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
>-=-=-


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Is George IN the Loop.
Keywords: THINK
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:35:13 GMT

seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (HM/HS) writes:

>Is Stalin on the ballot?  

Yep...he wears a Cowboy hat this time around...;-)

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Bill Overpeck, veneered no more: (Re: Yet more unsubstantiat)
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:40:08 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

I've reposted this segment out of Steve and Bill's post since many may not
read this far. It is very telling about Bill's personality.

In talk.abortion, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Bill Overpeck) writes:

[In response to the Becky Bell story and who is to blame:]

>>Which is good, because not only do I not accept any blame for what
>>happened to their daughter, I will continue to vote for candidates
>>who support such consent laws.

>Then my opinion is, your lack of recognizing bad results of such
>unthought-out laws and your lack of any of that bullshit "christian"
>compassion speaks volumes on the danger of the Religious Right.

Bill just can't accept reality, Steve. Not at all, esp when his conscious
tells him that the reality of what he supports is in direct conflict
with what he has chosen for his ideals. I'm sure there is some nice
psychological term for this type of behavior, and perhaps Bill will
provide it for us. :) But I agree totally with you, Steve, that the
RR is extemely dangerous because of that lack of thought and the mob
mentality they have in blindly following their shepherds.

Bill, how come you can't accept responsibility for actions that occur
in reaction to a law you support? Take the passsive seat belt law, and
those manufacturers that chose to place the belt in the door. This has
caused people to be ejected from cars, even when they were wearing their
seat belts, which would not have occurred if the belts were where they
were supposed to be, on the B pillar. The belt's position was moved
because of the law. If you support this law, then you support the new
position, and you have, in effect, caused those certain people to be
injured or dead. It's called causality. You share some of the blame
for that. You can't talk your way out of it either.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Summary: Silence *IS* golden, you know... 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 16:29:02 GMT

In article <nyikos.718565233@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Note my use of "Patrick."  Until I get a response from you about at least
>one of my two long follow-ups, where I 
>	1. said  "Spoken like a true redneck," followed by a personal anecdote
>	about ROTC summer camp,
>and
>	2. asked what kind of "chance" you gave Steve to get an apology
>	from you, besides "march(ing)" his [expletive deleted] over to
>	your office,
>you will be Patrick to me.  (If you haven't seen one or the other of these,
>or would like to see them again, give a holler.)  That is, unless you do
>something to make me call you "Patrickk," at which point I'd put you in my
>de facto killfile, because I don't ever want to have to call you 
>"Patrickkk."

You know, if this keeps up, Peter will have put everybody into his "de facto"
killfile.

The silence would be truly golden...

--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41476 alt.politics.clinton:9193
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:01:54 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct7.205902.7543@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes ...
>> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:

>>>>I'm allowed, I'm not Christian.  :-)

>>>>CRS

>>>Not if the fundies get their way. Then you won't be allowed to enjoy
>>>sex because your enjoying sex gets in the way of their practicing
>>>their religion. :-)

>>Agreed!  Have you noticed how the "fundies" have avoided this line?
>>Seems it hits all too close for them.                           

>Either that or the concept of a woman ejoying sex has so wigged them
>out that they are unable to comment.

Nah. I think their WIVES read this and want to know what non-fundie men
do differently. :-)
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:19:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <1992Oct8.013813.4593@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
writes:
>lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>>Even though I have not yet done so, I feel it can be shown that the baby and
>>fetus are ONE IN THE SAME.  I think this can be done using reasoning that is
>>both  scientifically sound and based on common sense.  So it is not that I am
>>trying to apply the same value to "A" and "B", rather, "A" IS  "B".
>
>I, for one, am looking forward to this demonstration.  Presumably
>you'll also be showing that a zygote and an embryo are also identical
>to a baby.  I see considerable difficulties with this endeavor, so your
>attempt is eagerly awaited.

From the rest of your post I can see that my explantation, valid or no, would
have little bearing on your convictions.  If I were to `prove'a human being is 
killed during an abortion I think your response might be, `shit happens'.  I
don't mean to presume - but thats the impression I get.

My argument is nothing new, I'm sure, except that I try to apply the rules that
 scientists use consciously and most people use subconsciously on a daily basis
in their acceptance of something as being true or false.  Although I will
expand on this, for now let me just say that whether a fetus is the same as the
currently protected baby can be viewed probabalistically.  What you do with
those probabilities is your choice, but if you want to be consistant, your
decision or conclusion based upon those calculable odds should also be
consistant.  If nothing else my view may help `quantify' our differences.


>>2) You have already shown some ambiguity in that you both accept a pregnant
>>woman's desire to save a premature infant as well as a different pregnant
>>womans desire for a late term abortion for any reason (despite its rarity). 
>>The fetus can take on two vastly different "states"  soley based upon the
>>mother's attitude.  In one case the doctor and society bring to bear all the
>>life saving actions at their disposal, in the other the fetus winds up in the
>>trash.  [...]
>
>Nothing new in this.  While considerable effort may be expended to
>save a toddler who has fallen down a well, many, many more of them
>starve each day in Africa.  It looks like circumstances count, after
>all.  I suppose it depends on large part who's paying, eh?

You are correct; circumstances count.  Just because the world is cruel and
unfair does not imply that "cruelness" must be incorporated into law for the
sake of consistancy.  Some circumstances are beyond our control, others are
not.  We do our best.

(see Rational Discussion thread)

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: I must Voice my Dissent On this
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:59:49 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
] 
] An Earth Pig is an Aardvark. You may call me Ms. Aardvark.
] 
] What I want is a fully equipped F16, to protect myself from those EL
] AL cargo planes. As drieux pointed out, by living above ground I have
] apparently consented to having a cargo plane crash in my living room;
] drieux notes that anti-aircraft defenses would revoke that consent, and
] it seemed to me that scrambling fighters would be much more fun than
] firing AA guns...
 
I must voice my dissent against this adolescent infatuation with 
Zoom-Zooms. The UnSpoken point about developing a fully qualified
ADZ with a mixed deployment of SAM and AAA assets is that it is a
great Community Building Exercise. After years of Wimp Liberals
in the White House Giving Away our National Security Assets, and
allowing Criminals to run loose in the Streets, Building a fully
qualified ADZ would give everyone something to pull together on,
and really get behind! [1]

Also this would give folks a chance to show that they are 
taking personal responsibility for their own lives!

And It is more likely to develop a booming bizniz
than this selfish individualistic approach of 
Me and My Jet Fighter!!!!
 
ciao
drieux

[1] It is considered prudent to stand off to the side
when launching SAM's....

NextWeek: Building Strategic Suburbs, a winning
strategy for the War on Drugs.



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:17:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct16.163225.6255@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>pl>In article <Bw4ABM.22n@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>dk>In article <1992Oct13.165348.14307@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> 
>pl>share and ease the burden of the pregnant woman.  To me this is truly a
>pl>feminist conclusion; one that recognizes the inherent differences between the
>pl>sexes while at the same time recognizing our society's duty to make sure the
>pl>biological inequalities (so vital to the continuation of our species) are
>pl>counterbalanced.

Excuse me? My experience with FFL is that they seem to have a 19th C
view of exalting the homemaker, and confuse this mythos with feminism.
Their platform seems to be heavily in favor of women remaining in the
house, and raising the status of housework. This does nothing for those
of us who are not interested in being Victorian icons.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!  (Was: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet)
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:48:43 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct9.164610.15020@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <7142@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.020248.1916@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#Now, now, I didn't claim that I own the title. I'm not THAT arrogant.
>>#I certainly think that Drieux and Novak are some stiff competition.
>>#But Suzanne. Nah. She's not half as twisted as me. Just ask Novak.
>>Okay.
>>
>>Steve, who's the most twisted person on the net?  (I'd even
>>be willing to limit it to the most twisted person on t.a.)
>>
>>Why are we just asking Steve - can't we ask drieux, too?
>I don't trust Drieux. He wants the title for himself. Steve doesn't
>care. Oh, I forgot to mention that Geoff Miller (Mr. alt.tasteless 1991)
>is also in the running.

Sorry, guys, but it is my title, and you can't have it.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:55:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.191113.21683@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>I must admit, I can think of NO answer to Simon's compelling argument
>(which he posted to ~87 newsgroups).
>
>> = Simon E. Booth writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I never posted this to 87 newsgroups.

Simon

>
>--
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"|
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:21:51
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 11 Oct 1992 21:30:47 GMT

In article <1ba6e7INNm6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>   The entire legal system evolved based on millinia of societies
>that did NOT elevate the status of a fetus to that of one who was
>born.  The violation of human rights and the invasion of personal
>privacy that would result from legislating that a pregnant female
>is actually TWO people, is more than the majority in America seem
>to be willing to accept.  But even more important than the what a
>majority wants is the idea that NOT ONE SINGLE FEMALE SHOULD EVER
>BE FORCED TO GIVE BIRTH AGAINST HER WILL.  IT IS PERHAPS THE MOST
>INVASIVE FORM OF SLAVERY THAT A HUMAN BEING CAN ENDURE.  IT IS AN
>ABOMINATION.  IT IS *HER* LIFE!  IT IS *HER* HEALTH!  IT IS *HER*
>DECISION.  THAT'S WHY WE CALL IT *CHOICE*!

Let me restate that I am pro-choice.  Having said that, I believe the
issue of whether a fetus is a person is separate from the issue of
whether the mother should be forced to bear the child if it is a
person.

For example: I don't believe the middle class and the rich should be
enslaved to provide for the poor (i.e. communism).  However, I don't
deny that the poor are human beings.

The question of whether a fetus is a person is not a purely religious
one.  If one is an atheist but believes in human rights, then the
definition of a person is based upon one's philosophy and may be able
to be verified by scientific means (e.g. brain activity, response to
stimuli, cognitive skill demonstration, etc).

I also find historical arguments unconvincing.  Prior to this century,
very few societies considered women equal in rights or abilities to
men.  It seems to me that any definition of personhood should be based
on something more substantial than "people have believed this for a
long time".
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:34:44 GMT

In article <adams.718638072@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>>does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>>women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.
>
>Direct or indirect, you're still dead.
>
Possible reasoning process:
1) Abortion is illegalized
2) Woman gets pregnant
3) Woman doesn't want her child
4) Woman looks to abortion to "solve" her problem
5) Woman goes to an underground clinic to get an abortion
6) Woman might die as a result of the abortion.

Let's see, look at step 4.  No one forced her to go there in the first place.
Perhaps there is something wrong with killing your own human sons and
daughters?  

Going from step one to step six can be a dangerous way of thinking.  It
is more appropriate to go from step 3 through step 6.

As for the plight of the woman, perhaps there are lots of ways people
can help.  I don't know all the alternatives but there are many volunteer
organizations whose aim is to help those who are in need of comfort, 
counseling, alternatives, etc.