HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:10:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes ...

>>>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>>>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>>>- and my wife has said the same thing...

>>Abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal deformity would, of course,
>>be prohibited.

>Not of course.  Exceptions could be made for rape or incest, just as there
>are exceptions in other types of murder.

So the fetus is a person, but doesn't share the same rights to a trial
that all other people do.  Apparently you believe that it can be killed
because of a crime somebody _else_ committed.

Any wonder I have no respect at all for this self-righteous hyposcrisy?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 2 Sep 1992 04:26:05 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


What a stupid post!  Is Jimmy Swaggart what Christians are about?
Is Roy Cohn what Republicans are about?  Should we ban television
because of My Mother The Car, or Geraldo Rivera?  Maybe we should
outlaw talk radio because of the foolishness of Rush Limbaugh, or
Howard Stern's toilet mouth.  Since this clown was a physician, a
ban on doctors might be in order.  Are you some utopian geek?  If
you are looking for a perfect universe, you've got the wrong one.
To get to the perfect universe, go down about eight galaxies, and
hang a right.  Then just follow the signs.  It's easy.  And don't
worry about getting lost. You won't be able to miss it.  It'll be
the perfect one.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 23:25:31 GMT

In <181fotINNse@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>What a stupid post!  Is Jimmy Swaggart what Christians are about?
>Is Roy Cohn what Republicans are about?  Should we ban television
>because of My Mother The Car, or Geraldo Rivera?  Maybe we should
>outlaw talk radio because of the foolishness of Rush Limbaugh, or
>Howard Stern's toilet mouth.  Since this clown was a physician, a
>ban on doctors might be in order.  Are you some utopian geek?  If
>you are looking for a perfect universe, you've got the wrong one.
>To get to the perfect universe, go down about eight galaxies, and
>hang a right.  Then just follow the signs.  It's easy.  And don't
>worry about getting lost. You won't be able to miss it.  It'll be
>the perfect one.

And you were one of the very people who goaded me into posting it,
as I explained along another thread.  You refused to believe that
I had evidence of forced abortions.

>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>may not be both."
>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Have you told that to the human being whom Chaney so endearingly
calls PatricKKK?

Peter Ny.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:37:14 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

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com writes:
-> > of course you do. no one would ever question that.
-> > as ms. birmingham said above:
-> > 
-> >         "That it is not surprising that someone
-> >         who desires to control what women do with
-> >         their bodies would wish to control the
-> >         content of people's posts.  I can't
-> >         imagine any other reason for restricting
-> >         freedom of expression."
-> 
->   Just a point of information.  Mr. Holtzinger
-> explicitly left himself out of the proposed list of
-> moderators, which included both pro-choice and
-> pro-life posters familiar to the regulars here (you
-> have a right to disagree with cer- tain of those
-> individuals, but at least both sides were
-> represented).

you cut out the topic of discussion, jimmy, and then
inserted "the proposed list of moderators" which wasn't
mentioned in the post you replied to. i'm sure you
didn't mean to be this misleading, but you were.

->   For these reasons, I find the nature of the above
-> attack 

if you mean darcy's attack on ms. birmingham, i agree.
he certainly owes her an apology.

-> explicable only by Ms. Birmingham's feelings towards
-> Mr. Holtzinger, and not on the merits of the
-> proposal.

you seem to have your threads confused jimmy.

->   I am forced to agree with Mr. Chaney's opinion
-> that this is simply a flame at Holtzinger, and not a
-> valid reason to not have a moderated group.

now you have your names confused, jimmy. i replied to
darcy who replied to ms. birmingham.

->   Personally, I repeat my previous objection to the
-> mod group, namely that while a lack of flaming would
-> be nice, the sheer volume would be enough to swamp
-> any one moderator, and I have no idea if two is even
-> possible.  It WOULD be nice to see the majority of
-> arguments made on something a bit more subsantial
-> than cutesy little snide comments on other's motives
-> and such (of which, alas, I am also guilty of) --
-> but I will not be holding my breath.

just think, jimmy, you can be the first to refrain
about snide comments as to the motivations of others.
perhaps some will emulate your conduct.

but you should pay more attention to the threads you're
responding to so you don't inadvertantly make another
blunder as you did here.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Should abortionists be allowed to purposely kill viable fetu
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:19:36 GMT

regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.150941.28459@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>>Why stop there, Dan?  You can combine the best of Nyikos and
>>DOD's worlds by having the doctor use a BIG RUSTY NAIL to
>>perform the procedure.

>Yeah, AFTER he misleads her purposefully on the point of the procedure,
>the relative risks, and denudes all libraries within a 400 mile radius
>of "Aborted Women - Silent No More.".

No no no, you guys don't get it!  The punchline of the story is
actually:

"...so you do the abortion, and it turns out that she WASN'T EVEN PREGNANT!"

>Adrienne Regard

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:29:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.170814.19570@wdl.loral.com> 
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

> If I was going to make
> a slippery-slope argument, I would have said that if the state can
> prohibit abortion on such trivial grounds as a `compelling state
> interest' to protect the life of human zygotes and embryos, then the
> State can use the same `compelling interest' to dictate pregnant
> women's diets, physical activities, even mental state all in the
> interest of protecting her `unborn child.'

That very same argument has been used by some pro-aborts to 
argue against abortion laws.  I'm glad you can recognize it 
as a slippery-slope argument.


>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)


Doug Holtsinger
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:30:59 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
>        debate on it's moral-ness(couldn't think of a better word)

perhaps, morality?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:09:59 GMT

> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
>yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
>"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
>appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]

"Simply because"?  Your arrogance and stupidity is astounding.

Keeping a woman pregnant against her will is call *slavery*, misogynic
scum.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 04:56:11 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  <1992Sep2.022245.8580@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep01.232021.12473@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
> >> Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
> >> said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.
> >> "There are a handful of third-trimester abortions that are
> >> done in instances of serious fetal anomalies or in the case
> >> of a pregnancy threatening a woman's life.  And only under
> >> those conditions," she said.
>
> > Thanks, Russ.  Happy now, Doug?
>
> Here's what the FAQ says about the "National Abortion Federation",
> which is the source for your claims:

You asked for the claim to be supported.  This is the third report
I've seen that says the same thing.  That you don't *like* one of the
sources is your problem; you can't claim that it has not been supported.
(Actually, you can't *honestly* claim it, which has never stopped
you before...)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 06:49:05 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world 
Keywords: Reinforcements

<1992Sep2.023551.25662@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.140639.6280@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.234358.9016@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>|> That's one good principle by which abortion could be banned: Overthrow Roe
>>|> vs. Wade (which would mean the fetus would be a legal person again), and
>>|> make abortion an act of child neglect & endangerment.
>>
>>A fetus has never been a legal person.
>
>What do you call it when the abortion laws were pushed from
>quickening, to conception, back in the 1860's-1870's? They did it
>because the fetus was protectable by law, and not because fetuses
>were as rare as bald eagles. 

If only you were bright enough to read what you write...  At no time in
our history was a fetus recognized as a legal person.  It might have been
illegal to kill them, as it is illegal to kill a bald eagle.  But that
doesn't make a bald eagle a person, nor does it make a fetus a person
LEGALLY.


Gordon
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 15:13:16 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


I've been reading much of the Lefty/Franklin feud here.  Every so 
often some part of it is funny.  Sure you got to get through a lot
of repetitive bullshit, but occasionally it is worth it.  Anyway
Steve wrote a paragraph that I'm having some trouble understanding.
 
In article <BtvMtL.22B@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   Oh now - coincedence? I chose it silly fool. I suppose I should upgrade
>my username, having undergone superpuberty, but I never really got around
>to it. Incedentally, you know I'm 19 Lefty - why the hell won't you answer
>me, and tell me how old you are (sorry, i just remembered to ask this question.
>Been a whil ain't it?) you gonna answer?
 
I deleted mucho, but I don't think any was related to the content 
of this paragraph.  This paragraph doesn't seem to make any coherent
sense.  It seems Franklin is flaming Lefty for not answering a question
that Franklin forgot to ask.  I would think Franklin would first ask
the question and then wait to see if Lefty answers it or not. So Steve,
maybe you could clear up what the heck you were trying to say here.
 
Dan King
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: I refuse to organize.  I LIKE not knowing where everything is!
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:21:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.235355.8281@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>Either way, it's not YOUR decision to make, Mikey, it's the woman's.

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.

The law considers me legally responsible for the child AT CONCEPTION, so
I ought to have the right to help make the decision.

>SHE's the one who's going to have to live with herself, not you.

Wrong.  I WILL have to live with myself.  And that may be damn difficult,
especially as the law does not currently allow me any recourse.

>YOU can't make that decision for her.

Of course not.  But she should not be able to make the decision for me,
either.

>Even Georgie Porgie recognizes that, and he's the one
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who?

>who's done the most to remove the individual right to choose than any other
>person so far.
>
>Jennifer

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 18:54:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: na

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <1992Sep2.230934.15528@nntp.uoregon.edu> 
>eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> No.  I should have added that legislated morality does not work except when
>> the overwhelming majority of society agrees that an immoral act should be
>> made illegal.  They have done so in the cases of homicide, rape and theft.
>> They have not done so in the case of abortion.
>
>I can kind of agree with you here.  I believe the overwhelming majority
>of the people in this country support restrictions on abortion. 

Something like 15% of the people believe Elvis is still alive.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:17:44 GMT

In article <kzwy53m@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>>>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>
>>     -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>
>>     -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
>>     -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here>
>      -- cookc@rpi.edu (rocker)
       -- steven@jaynes.uswest.com (Steve Novak)


>What is it about Judaism that bothers you, Doug?

Yeah!  What Chris said!

And why do you love christianity so, Meester Atheist?
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:01:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Sep2.221028.11532@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <la9sq7INNp3p@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

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

>>>Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:

>>>> Legislated morality doesn't work.  

>>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>>> rape, and theft?

>> These are not necessairly moral issues.

>If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
>then what are they based upon? 

They are based on the need to restrict certain behavior in order to
improve the functioning of the society. This is not a moral issue,
it is a social issue.

>Doug Holtsinger

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:47:57 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.122014.9891@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>> What I find amazing is the failure to recognize, on the part
>> of so-called "pro-life" people, that a state which can compell
>> pregnancy to continue, a state which can intrude into such
>> fundamental matters of a person's private life, can also take
>> a very short step to compelling abortion.  

>You have ignored the fact that the state's interest in prohibiting
>abortion is fundamentally different from the state's interest
>in mandating abortion.  

Nonsense.

What was the phrase given in Roe?  To the best of my recollection, it
has something to do with the state having a "compelling interest in
potential life".  How large a step to take is a "compelling interest
in citizens" (currently defined as born) that would cause the state
to have some sort of compelling interest in preventing the birth of
persons whom the state might decide would place some sort of "undue
burden" on society at large?  This would be particularly effective
if combined with a good propaganda campaign.  I have already heard
right-wingers "joke" that they're "only in favor of abortion for
people on welfare".  Note well the famous Norplant case; one judge
has already decided that the state has an interest in preventing
children from being born.

Whenever you agree that the state has a "compelling interest" in
ANYTHING, you have ALREADY given up some of your rights.  It would
behoove you to decide in advance whether it's worth the trade.

>Doug Holtsinger

                           -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:44:33 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Just in case there was any doubt about the mindset of some of the
>> Republican Party's leading lights, Pat Robertson recently wrote a
>> letter criticizing the Equal Rights Amendment, suggesting that
>> feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.

> Interesting use of the word "suggesting."  Just how strongly did he
> suggest it?  Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
> like the one you say he suggested.

Funny you should say that.  I came across the AP report about an hour
later and posted it.  He said pretty close to the following:

	"It is about a movement that encourages women to leave their
	husbands, kill their children, destroy capitalism, practice
	witchcraft and become lesbians." [quoted from memory]
	
If you want the _exact_ words, read the alt.politics* heirarchy.  A number
of people have put that quote in their .sigs.  As for the Willkes, you've
got to be kidding.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:57:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.204253.22057@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <BtnDH1.J48.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to Michael Loomis: 
#
### I would like to express my strong interest in responding to your 
### defense of infanticide.  I think that Mr. Novak and Ms. Garvin
### would probably not like to see your article posted to the net, 
### and that's why they have been behaving so badly towards you.  
#
## Holtsinger, you're a tiresome liar.  I specifically asked Loomis
## to post his opinion on infanticide.  You really should learn
## to read.  
#
#I said that I believed you were behaving badly to Mr. Loomis
#because you didn't want to see his article posted to the net.

Most of your beliefs seem to have no rational basis.  Dean
knows why I was surprised at this one.

#I could be wrong about my belief.  

Your belief is wrong.  I have no way of knowing if you are
wrong about your belief.

#You may have asked his  
#opinion on infanticide, but I thought you were asking him 
#to clarify his position so that you would not look foolish 
#attacking a position which he did not hold.  

Then you sound rather clueless claiming that I didn't want
him to post his beliefs, don't you?

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Choice and post-viability abortions?
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:40:05 GMT


I'll reserve comment on the rationale provided until I've read
it a few more times.

I do have a question for those who would prohibit third trimester
abortions but would allow earlier ones.  Do you believe that
a woman should be allowed to have a C-section before the due
date?  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: PLEASE DO NOT POST ABORTION DEBATES TO TALK.RAPE
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<nyikos.715287558@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<1992Sep1.115604.23197@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<nyikos.715471179@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:03:00 GMT


	The subject line says it all.

	Thank you.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion