From: utzoo!decvax!genradbo!linus!security!wdr Newsgroups: net.women Title: Re: more women Article-I.D.: security.165 Posted: Tue Feb 1 17:40:00 1983 Received: Wed Feb 2 07:26:18 1983 References: bunker.202 The problem is not the lack of women correspondants or surplus of males but a deviation from the purpose to be "supportive of women" or some such, as the initial discusion in net.news.group said. this has turned into net.abortion. It seems the majority of Male-oriented articles have been anti-abortion. I suggest the ABORTION: moral or immoral? discussion move to net.politics. What we should discuss here is how to deal with the psychic shock felt after a decsion to abort or not to abort is made EITHER WAY and must be dealt with; whether is should be outlawed is not the issue FOR THIS NEWS-GROUP. (or perhaps it belongs in NET.FLAME !!!!!) This news group's short history indicates the problem sensitive people have whenever they congregate in public: they get surrounded by hecklers. ALL OF YOU WHO WANT TO DEBATE LAW AND MORALLITY AND RELIGION, GO TO NET.FLAME. P.S.: I did not intend to submit anything to this newsgroup when I subscribed. I subscribed to 'get in touch' with what was going on. I have enjoyed following the net.women articles; I have not enjoyed the low debating tactics used by both sides in net.abortion. Bill Ricker :-(