Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!suki
From: suki@reed.UUCP (Monica Nosek)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Correlation? Absolutely.
Message-ID: <1303@reed.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 14:50:01 EST
Article-I.D.: reed.1303
Posted: Thu Apr 11 14:50:01 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 05:47:27 EST
References: <248@dscvax2.UUCP> <319@we53.UUCP>
Reply-To: suki@reed.UUCP (Monica Nosek)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 19
Summary: 

In article <319@we53.UUCP> bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) writes:
> The courts are not pro-choice, they are pro-dead-baby.
>Recent court decisions have upheld ANYONE's right to a dead baby.  If the mother
>wants an abortion and the father doesn't, the mother's right is upheld.  If the
>father wants his child aborted and the mother doesn't, the father's rights are
>upheld.  If the mother is a minor and wants an abortion and her parents don't,
>the minor's rights are upheld.  If the mother is a minor and the parents want
>the baby aborted and she doesn't, the parents' rights are upheld.

Is this true?  I can't believe that a man could force his wife
or girlfriend to undergo an abortion.  Not through legal
means, anyway.  Could you post some more information on this?

> So please >stop the lying about being "pro-choice".  You're NOT.

But I AM.

		Monica
		tektronix!reed!suki