HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Fetal experimentation (Misdemeanor, eh?)
Summary: State laws against experimentation on live fetuses
Keywords: fetal, experimentation, misdemeanor, felony
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Aug 92 22:17:42 GMT

Back in Wollongong I inquired about whether there were any state/local
laws prohibiting fetal research, especially research on live fetuses.
One response I got was from Don Porter, quoting Scott Goehring in a
message dated 91 Nov 25, describing an Indiana abortion law:

>IC 35-1-58.5-6 forbids fetal experimentation, making it a Class A
>Misdemeanor.

What are the penalties, and do they differ for a second, third, etc.
offense?  Does the law make a distinction between experimenting
on live or dead fetuses? fetuses of different gestational ages?

Consider the $30,000 figure NBC news was giving for
the amount a certain patient had to come up with to get a fetal
tissue transplant: that would pay for a lot of misdemeanor fines, I
should think!   

Any other examples of state laws?  Today I did some digging of my own,
and found an old column in the Feb. 6, 1975 _New England Journal of
Medicine_ in which William J. Curran groused mightily about a 
Massachusetts law making research on live fetuses a felony (unless
they are still in utero, and the procedures don't "substantially
jeopardize" the fetus, and the fetus is not the subject of "planned
abortion; there are a few other minor exceptions along these lines):

"It was signed by Governor Sargent on June 26, 1974.  Violation of this 
law is a crime, a felony, carrying a penalty of up to five years in a
state prison."  

Is this law still on the books?  Has it ever been enforced?  Has anyone
been given anything more than probation, or a suspended sentence, as a
result of it?

Peter Ny.
 

 


 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:39:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.175413.9267@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.163353.6443@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> > In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
> > 
> > >	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> > > ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> > > tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
> > > dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
> > > plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
> > > platforms.
> > 
> > Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
> > and incest, and for the life of the mother.   
> 
> And for members of his own family.


And for any reasons he thinks might make him more electable.

Dean Kaflowitz

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32753 alt.abortion.inequity:3193
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:55:56 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug20.224050.42197@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

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

>> I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
>> newsgroup.  
>>
>> What do people think of the idea?

> I think you've *got* to be kidding.  Steve Chaney is one of the biggest
> flamers on t.a.

Fine, then remove his name from the list of suggested moderaters
and give me your thoughts on the idea.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:51:27 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  <1992Aug12.185151.2112@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.180033.9957@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watso
> > In  <1992Aug11.182610.2104@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> >> In article <1992Aug11.144923.40319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@w
> >> > In  <9779@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
> >> >> In <1992Aug10.134616.27853@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ
> >> >>
> >> >> >Trying to draw a bright line at
> >> >> >conception is just as arbitrary as a line at viability or birth.
> >> >>
> >> >> Birth isn't arbitrary, just wrong.
> >> >
> >> > Truth by Blatant Assertion.
>
> >> PS So what if it's truth by blatant assertion?  It's still truth.
> >
> > Asserting it as true doesn't make it true.
>
> Yes, I know that, I was just pointing out that it was unnecesary, perhaps
> even misleading to say "Truth by Blatant Assertion" because it sounds as
> though it wasn't actually truth.

Actually, I pointed out that it's "Truth by Blatant Assertion" *because*
I believe it to not be true.  You're welcome to try to prove otherwise.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 17 Aug 92 04:46:22 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Aug16.001437.16522@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Since then, my system administrators have been nagged by Roby, Drieux
>and Dan King, and both Dan King and Roby have been told up-front that
>they had better not _EVER_ write here about it again, or they're beef
>jerky. 

For anyone that might be remotely tempted to believe any of Inturdgents
side of this Dennis Hall story, what he wrote above is a lie.  I have 
never written to or heard from Inturdgent or his parents system 
administrator.  Inturdgent is easily confused.  He confused myself
with Dan Bredy so many times, that he did whatever he could to get
Bredy's posting privileges removed so he could eliminate some of 
the reason for his confusion.  I would guess in the case of his lie
above, either he is lying purposely, or he has confused me with 
some other NASA employee.  Either way, his credibility is non-existent
and I see no reason to believe any part of his explanation of 
his Dennis Hall charade.  I am confident in the facts as put forth
by people with credibility such as Scott Roby and Dean Kaflowitz.

If Dennis Hall's parent's system administrator, I think his name is 
Smith, wants to get in touch with me for some reason I can be reached 
at dking@nas.nasa.gov.

Dan King

When the going gets tough
and the stomach acids flow
The cold wind of conformity
is nipping at your nose
When some trendy new atrocity
has brought you to your knees
Come with us we'll sail the
Seas of Cheese
  --Primus
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:14:02 CST
 <l4#n6yk.bskendig@netcom.com> <1718ltINNo20@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1718ltINNo20@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.191212.8054@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>> You seem intent to make this a religious argument.  Whether or not 
>>> you believe in a higher intelligience, reproductive organs are exactly
>>> that REPRODUCTIVE organs.  Any other justification for their existence 
>>> is based solely on emotional responses of humans.  
> 
> Hmm.  So, if we call sexual organs "sexual organs" they are 'justified' for
> their existance as SEXUAL organs, hmmmmm?
> 
> I didn't know we were 'justifying' our arms, legs, wombs, etc........
> 
> Adrienne Regard

On this train of thought, is it wrong to gain pleasure from having your
nipples stimulated?  In women nipples are for breastfeeding, and God
only knows what they're for in men ;)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:27:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.234441.17118@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
}From article by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
}> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach):
}> 
}> }            Handicaps CAN be risen above.
}> 
}> I can fully agree with that, but that's a teeny bit different from
}> "the world is what you make it," which I disagreed with...
}
}Not much different that I can see, at all.

Perhaps you and I disagree on the meaning of the term "world" when we 
speak of it.  I look on the "world" as being a set of circumstances which
are external to me and which I can only influence, nor create.  My life,
however, is virtually up to me to make something out of -- I can mold
it into whatever (there are some restrictions) I wish, limited mostly
by my guts and/or imagination.

I think most christian theologians would probably use the terms in 
much the same way, asserting that the "world" was made by God, and,
if they also believe in a free will, would assert that humans were
pretty much free to make what they will with their own lives, but they
cannot alter the world.  (Unless they have faith, we've all heard what
that can do to mountains :^)





--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:26:49 CDT


> In article <1992Aug12.232518.26589@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> # Don't be stupid.  Just to drive her to another pregnancy and another
> # abortion in her unending search for love, aggravated by such an act?
> # 
> # WHY DO YOU THINK TEENAGE GIRLS --GET-- PREGNANT, GORDON??!!
> # 
> # It's not even half as much their sex drives as it is their
> # desperate, mistaken, attempts to find love in a crazy, misguided world!!
> # 
> # And you know what??  If they'd let their pregnancies go to term, they'd
> # have it.

I guess that explains why the teenage pregnancy rate is so high.  :-(

Of course if Suzanne was black and wrote this into a rap song, she would
be accused of promoting teenage pregnancy.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:45:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <1992Aug13.122456.5050@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.000256.27262@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> > From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> > > smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
> > > -> Goldwater's been pro-choice for a long time.  I'm glad that
> > > -> he's speaking up about it, but I agree with Jim - it's too
> > > -> late.
> > > i'm glad that it is (too late). i think the choice issue is the
> > > sigle-most important factor which will swing the election to the
> > > democrats.
> > BLAH HA HA HA HA!   You wish!   The ABORTION issue is the single-most
> > important factor which will swing the election to the pro-lifers!
> 
> Unemployment running close to 8%, high numbers of business
> closings, a huge federal deficit, home sales still dragging
> like crazy.

Don't forget GDP growth over the last 3 years of only .8% (the
slowst rate since the Great Depression).  Even Carter had higher
real economic growth, higher real wage growth, lower unemployment,
and lower budget deficits.

>             These are what will throw the election to the
> pro-choicers if anything does.  While the Democratic
> and Replublican candidates have opposing views on the issue
> of abortion, it is not the issue of abortion that will
> decide this election.  Your bizarre notion that this election
> will be about the abortion issue, implied in your statement
> above, is myopic.  There are bigger issues for most Americans.
> 
> Dean Kaflowitz
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: How evil are the Republicans
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:49:30 GMT

I don't know about anyone else, but the Republican convention has
frightened me.  We hear how all our country's problems are because of
someone else and how if only President Bush could do whatever he wanted the
country would be okay.  We hear how all the good things that have happened
in the world are because of President Bush.  We hear how a return to a
narrow definition of "family" will improve our economy and help our
country.  Now, of course, the Republicans offer no reasons or evidence for
any of these statements.  But what else is new.  

However, this particular Republican convention reminds me of another time. 
A leader who claimed that if you followed him without question, even if you
disliked a couple of things he stood for, he would improve the economy and
make his country powerful again.  He would make certain that those that did
not represent his definition of "good", and who he blamed for the country's
woes, would be kept carefully in check.  He talked of forcing religion,
albeit just his view of religion, back into the lives over every citizen,
especially the captive audience of unsuspecting children.  He had the
support of many of the fundamentalist Christian religions.  Who am I
talking about?  If you haven't figured it out by now, it's Hitler.  And
while there are some differences between Bush and Hitler, the similarities
are infinitely more frightening.  The Nazis even went so far as to attack a
group which Quayle has had no end of enjoyment in attacking:  the media and
entertainment "elite."  Bush speaks out of both sides of his mouth on
abortion.  And his attitude towards the rights of gays and lesbians reeks
heavily of a fascist attempt to repress a minority; there is little
difference between Republican attacks on my sexuality than Hitler's attacks
on the "evil" of the Jews in pre-Nazi Germany.  He claims he represents the
'majority', but did that make the Nazis (who also represented the
'majority) _RIGHT_?  Fascism, unfortunately, is very seductive, and Bush
has seduced many of the moderates of the Republican party.  Let us hope
that the American people are not as easily seduced, for the world does not
need another demagogue with too much power.


   _______________________                             _________________
   \        \            /  Michael Lax                |    ACT UP!    |
    \        \          /  12514 Esplanade St., #B     |  FIGHT BACK!  |
     \        \        /  Austin, Texas 78727-4409     |  FIGHT AIDS!  |
      \      / \      /  U.S.A.                        =================
       \    /   \    /  512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax) 
        \  /     \  /  email:  lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Please,  \/       \/    
do not    \       /   "If the opposite sex is *supposedly* so much fun, 
feed or    \     /     than why does everyone MASTURBATE?" 
tease the   \   /    
straight     \ /      "Never let the bastards get you down"  
people.       V                      (or is that GO DOWN?)
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Another Good Bumper Sticker
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:52:01 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

I saw this bumper sticker on my way home last night.  It
gave me a good chuckle:

		JUST SAY NO
	  to sex with a pro-lifer

For those of you who care about these things (well, those _few_
who care), I've changed my .sig; partly because DearOldDoug said
'please,' and partly because the joke is getting stale.  Cheers!

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Ok, just a quick question...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 04:20:27 GMT



Ok, I've seen several pro-lifers make something similar to the following
statements...

1) Woman is pregnant.
2) Woman has an abortion.
3) Doctor who performs the abortion is charged with Murder 1.
   (or accessory, murder 2, etc etc etc).

What do you do with a woman who self-aborts?  Arrest _her_ and charge her, since
there is no doctor involved???
--
=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???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:47:30 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  <1992Aug12.194144.28416@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> P = privacy
> A = invalidation of parental consent abortion laws
> S = legal consentual sex between adults & minors.
>
> The judge ruled:
>
> (P->A) -> (P->S)
>
> I know this will mean a big discussion over logic,

You claim that the above proves that A -> S, and you call that logical?

> >Yes, but on one hand, an 18 y-o could be considered a kid (he can't
> >drink, you know, and is considered a minor) and a 15 y-o can be considered
> >an adult, as they can get married. I'd call this a grey area, at the
> >least.
>
> Uh, but they can go to war @ 18. 15 year old's can't.

Congratulations - you've proven that 18 > 15.  The fact remains that
the 18-year-old is a minor, so the case wasn't about adult/child sex.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32613 alt.flame:12204
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Inturdgent bangs out lies on his Commodore
Keywords: Dennis, your parents are going to wash your mouth out with soap
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:28:14 GMT
     <1992Aug16.000041.16074@csus.edu> <1992Aug17.044527.15526@nas.nasa.gov>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

[whine deleted]

>I guess Inturdgent believes if he continues to post his lying drivel 
>it will somehow become true.  Heres a test for ya turd boy.  Take a look
>at your Commodore you post this drivel from.  

Wha...which?

>Has it magically become a
>Next?  You telling us the Commodore you got for your 12th birthday is 
>really a Next hasn't really changed it now has it?  

Wait a sec...this looks like a Commodore flame!

For the record, when I'm not at work, I post from my Commodore 128 at home.
It has good VT-100 emulation and does everything I want it to otherwise.  I
don't need and don't want another computer.  On behalf of the Commodore
users of the net, I'd like to hear an apology for the insinuation that all
Commodore users are as immature as...well, some Commodore users. :-)

(Besides, I think he uses a 99/4A.)

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: "With my speculum I am all-powerful"--reference?
Summary: Title says it all.
Keywords: speculum, right-on
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:26:18 GMT

Many years ago I came across something, or across a reference
to something titled "With My Speculum I Am All-Powerful."  Does
anyone know what it's about, who wrote it, where it appeared, anything?
It's one of those catchy titles, like "Sappho Was A Right-On Woman,"
that stick in my mind long after everything else associated with them
has faded away.

Peter Nyikos
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:44:28 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug17.204020.8968@den.mmc.com>, sims@possum.den.mmc.com
(John Sims) wrote:
> 
> Gee, my sister-in-law will be interested to hear this.  She must have
> heard this one when she called her local PP office to seek some
> pre-natal advise when she was pregnant.  Unfortunately, the office
> hadn't gotten the word, and informed her that they were in the business
> of helping her get rid of the little bugger, not making sure it would be
> born healthy.  Maybe they've changed their stance since then????

Uh huh.

Pull the other one, John.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:17:09 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <fRcMu7h@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us writes:

[...]
> down. The days of strong central governments and strong central
> religions claiming priority over the rights of the individual are
> numbered. Individual freedom will prevail against those who oppose it.

  But only if we choose to give up some of our freedoms in the fighting.
A spectacular irony, isn't it?  We cannot be free unless we first surrender
some of our freedom.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32296 alt.politics.elections:10799