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   :-(