HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:10:40 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0G0Fr.9Ev@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>I disagree that ensuring equality is the same as AFFIRMATIVE action.  

Why?

>Ensuring that new hires are in the right "proportions" is nowhere 
>near as active or affirmative as declaring that companies must have 
>the given "proportions" overall. 

I don't think so.  In the first place, I don't know of a single affirmative
action program, of any type, that says you get to FIRE existing employees
in order to make sure that the proportions overall meet some standard.
Therefore, affirmative action programs necessarily work with new hires.

Second, the notion of target levels, and penalties for non compliance
(which we discussed with item 2, the notion of monitoring custody awards
and penalizing non compliance) is very similar to what goes on in some
affirmative action programs now.  But not in others.

One of the reasons for asking about your definition of affirmative action
is that many people see affirmative action and equal employment opportunity
to be very much the same thing (and the company programs follow along those
lines) or they see eeo as being not aggressive enough, and use a more
aggressive and preferential form of affirmative action.

And of course, we see though a cursory examination that affirmative action
programs haven't necessarily gotten us where we want to get WRT hiring, so
one must be careful about what aspects of affirmative action programs one
would accept WRT custody -- we don't want the slow, ineffective kind, now
do we?

There are MULTIPLE aspects to affirmative action programs.  There are 
multiple philosophies.  

You don't see my standard as 'good enough' to meet my claim.  I do.

I think it is a bit of a waste of time for me to answer the question as
though *I* raised it, rather than as Karl phrased it, and you asked it, but
since neither of you care to clarify, I guess I can only answer the question
as I would have asked it.....

Enough said.

Adrienne Regard
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 16:11:05 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <markp.726880487@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1ivbntINNlrr@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>If you want to do such a silly thing, grant *me* the 'right to life'.  
>I don't need to. As a reasoning, free-willed individual, you already
>possess the right to life.

I don't believe that this is true.  I have a life, but I'm not sure we have
anywhere established that I have a right-to-life.

>>And
>>then see if it's OK within the realm of that 'right to life' for me to demand
>>your liver.

>Only if I have, through voluntary actions, made your life dependent on
>my liver.

You love waving 'voluntary' around, as if it were some point past no return,
don't you?

1.  Women who use birth control are NOT 'volunteering'.  They are quite
explicitly rejecting the fetus, and if one develops, I think it's pretty
clearly a tresspasser.

2.  EVEN IF you, through voluntary actions, made my life dependent upon your
liver, we do not have any method for me to demand your liver, over your 
objections, and for me to get it.  Nor are we likely to, since that would
abridge your rights as a human and a citizen.  Now ASK YOURSELF why that is?

Adrienne Regard



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- absent-minded professor)
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:09:33 GMT

What: <1993Jan8.213047.20763@wam.umd.edu>
Who:  judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- nietS T yaJ)

>>  = Doug Holtsinger to Stephen Matheson on offensive articles

>>There was that incident when some pro-choicer said that he 
>>wished that pro-life females would get raped so that
>>they could get pregnant from a rapist.  You wouldn't believe 
>>the number of pro-choicers who *politely* explained to him why 
>>his remarks were inappropriate.
>
>You wouldn't believe the number of pro-choicers who soudly toasted him
>either.  As one of the ones who was *very* critical, I take exception
>to your one-sided recollection of that incident.

[...]

>>Steve Chaney [...] saved that low-life's remarks.
>
>As did I, along with my responses.  And I will gladly repost them if you
>continue to insist that we treated him with kid gloves.

With embarrassment I must confess that in what pitiful archives I am able
to maintain, I could not find the articles.  Doug emailed me a nice, polite
request to post them, and I can't find them.  Guess I should have searched
before I spoke.

I will have to proceed from memory, and as I recall the article in question
said that the writer wished pro-life women would get raped and then get
pregnant.  Many people responded, some polite, some flaming.  I was critical
but not inflammatory, saying that the writer's comments were highly rude,
divisive and obnoxious.  He got enough flak that he posted another article,
attempting to explain the first one.  Of course, it only got him in further
trouble.  I responded to that as well, in an article called "I understand,
and you're *still* off base," in which I again said his comments were totally
uncalled for.

No, I know this doesn't help.  But it's better than nothing, or avoiding the
request.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the archiver. :)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 21:48:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.175558.8216@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.051903.13849@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.032836.24345@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.054631.10651@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>Kevin, if you're accusing Larry of having multiple personalities, I'm
>>>>afraid I must again correct you. MPD and schizophrenia have
>>>>absolutely nothign to do with one another. MPD is a neurosis,
>>>>Schizophrenia is a psychosis. They are totally unrelated.
>>>
>>>In common parlance, i.e. the _appropriate_ lexicon for the broad spectrum of 
>>>people who read t.a, "schizophrenic" denotes a person with multiple 
>>>personalities. If you want to be more precise than that in your medical
>>>journals, by all means do so...
>>>
>>Kevin, in the common parlance of t.a, you are a hypocritical lying
>>twit. Since you consider common parlance to be sufficiently accurate
>>for this forum, then you will, of course, stop trying to deny the
>>labels you have been given, correct?
>
>This is about the flimsiest, most contrived excuse I've ever seen to get
>in some cheap name-calling. Very disappointing, Mark. Surely you can do
>better than that.
>
Of course I can Kevin, but why waste my best efforts on a nobrainer
like you? Besides, if we don't keep it simple, it jyust goes right
over your poor feeble little head.

>The opinions of a few idiots on t.a about Kevin Darcy doesn't constitute 
>"common parlance", Mark. The very notion is absurd.
>
Kebbin, stop refering to yourself in the third person, or we'll all be
forced to remind you that you are *not* a group, nor are you of
sufficient rank to warrant the use of the royal "we".
As for the common parlance of t.a. I would say that the opinions of
the posters are the *only* source that defines common parlance (of
t.a.).

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: PatricKKK needs a friend!
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<1993Jan7.220832.2356@csus.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:40:50 GMT

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:08:32 GMT, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:

>In article <PATRICK.93Jan7103358@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>
>>>Someone, please be PatricKKK's friend so he will stop emailing me! It
>>>seems that he absolutely HAS to chat with me whenever something
>>>bothers him, and he is causing me grief because of he resulting email
>>>pollution.
>>
>>Well, you're not threatening to "take care" of me "once and for all" any
>>more, I see -- so maybe there *is* hope for you...but I'll believe that when
>>I see it.

>And you're not threatening to meet me with a "surprise" if I meet you in
>Texas, anymore.. Well, there is SOME hope for you. 

You're not setting foot in the Republic, kid, so I don't need to promise you
anything.  

>>(I've made more friends in the past month than you'll have in your miserable
>>lifetime, son.  Add that to the other 450 months' collection, and I'd say
>>there are an awful lot of people -- some of whom you may well know in person
>>-- that you must really hate...)

>Come on, PatricKKK, let's not start throwing in your friend Rosey Palm
>and her five sisters. But then if we didn't, that would leave you with
>NO friends.. Okay, we'll count them. :)

What's the matter, Dennis -- feeling a bit lonely tonight?  You sure have
the knack for assigning your faults to anyone you take a scunner to...

>And why do you refer to me as "son"? You fantasize me being YOUR
>descendant? Come on, I am a descendant of members of the human species -
>there's no way that could happen. 

In that case, I can only conclude your parents are definitely guilty of
pissing in the gene pool, then...:-)

>>[usual racist slur, deleted -- I think he gets off on posting it]

>No, but you got off on SAYING it, didn't you?

I guess that's why I said it ONCE and apologized for it, while you're on a
campaign to see how many myriad times you can repeat it on Usenet?  Just
think of the sterling image you're projecting not only of yourself, but of
Sacto State.

>>--PLH, honestly, I did not say "your fat black ass!" Really!  

>- No, he didn't write that, but I thought I'd attach MEANING to what he
>has been doing lately. :) 

I'll say -- I've always suspected you'd lie about anything.  Thanks for
confirming that much.

[Steve's racist slur, deleted...you were expecting something *different*
this time?]

--PLH, will someone please bounce ChaneyHall a couple of times?  He's stuck
in a rut again...

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:23:28 GMT

> = Dean Kaflowitz writes:

[re: Lebow the idiot whining because Muriel is so _mean_...

>I think Muriel's kind of zesty, myself.  Piquant.

We don't call her "36 Flavors" for nothin'!!

>I suppose if "Doctor" Giggles Nyikos sees this, he'll claim
>I was kowtowing to Muriel in order to gain access to her inner
>circle.  I am sure that's exactly what I am doing.  Yeah, that's
>it.

Unfortunately, when you reach her inner circle, you find you still must
find the jewels...and clues are sparse.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:20:33 GMT

markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

> Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
> fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

Which is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy.  James Woodyatt
built a pair of syllogisms regarding this not too long ago.  I think
it's time to pull it out of mothballs:

--- begin James Woodyatt's article ---

Here's how it works:

A.  Assume: Consent to sex implies consent to the possibility of
    pregnancy resulting from sex.

B.  Observation: Pregnancy carries the risk of death during
    childbirth.

C.  Production: Consenting to the possibility of pregnancy means
    consenting to the risk of death during childbirth associated with
    the possibility of pregnancy.

D.  Theorem: Consent to sex implies consent to the risk of death
    during childbirth.

Thus:

A.  Assume: It is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and
    subsequently abort a resulting pregnancy, on the grounds that she
    implicitly consented to the possibility of the grave matter of
    pregnancy when she consented to sex, and abortion would
    demonstrate her decision to have sex was careless.

B.  Observation: From the theorem derived above, consent to sex also
    implies consent to risk of death during childbirth.

C.  Production: If consenting to the possibility of pregnancy and
    subsequently aborting pregnancy when pregnancy occurs is
    irresponsible, then it is also irresponsible to consent to the
    risk of death during childbirth and abort the mother's life when
    death during childbirth is imminent.

D.  Theorem: It is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and
    subsequently abort a resulting pregnancy when death during
    childbirth is imminent, on the grounds that she implicitly
    consented to the grave matter of the risk of death during
    childbirth when she consented to sex, and an abortion to save her
    life would demonstrate that her decision to have sex was careless.

I would be pleasantly surprised to see a `pro-life' type who has
advanced the assumption that consent to sex implies consent to the
possibility of pregnancy comment on the logic demonstrated here.
Specifically, I'd like said volunteer to comment on whether the
assumptions are more ludicrous that the theorems produced, especially
if they can't find any glaring flaws in the logic.

Come one, boys.  Two simple syllogisms in series.  You can do it.

--- end James Woodyatt's article ---

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
    "If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them
     is doing all the thinking." -- Lyndon Baines Johnson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:30:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.204804.28324@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(The Reverend Mr. Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}                                       These children were killed 
}because their parents didn't place a value on human life, much in
}the same way as people who support abortion rights. 

You just had to add on your "much in the same way..." editorial slur, 
didn't you, Holy Father?  You just can't imagine how someone could
support your right to be Roman Catholic and value the right to 
religious freedom at the same time.  Incredible!  But then coming
from someone who has asserted that he will damn well kill a tree if
he wants on his property, whether or not it is illegal, it isn't too
surprising, I guess...

}> Tell me Doug, would you rather a brainless fetus be
}> aborted at 8 weeks or wait until it's born and old enough to feel the
}> scalding water cooking it's flesh?  For my money, and opinion, I'd rather
}> the woman had had an abortion.  

}There are several errors in your statements; the most obvious is
}that an 8 week-old child has a brain.  

That's hardly an absolute.  We doubt that you had a brain at 8
weeks, as you show no evidence of having one now.  Of course then,
maybe you were never a fetus...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: vanya@leland.Stanford.EDU (john tillinghast)
Subject: Re: Fetal tissue research (was Re: Vegetarianism and abortion
Summary: Anencephalics don't generally survive
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 05:40:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.154232.16336@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.022745.15728@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>  ...  The recent case in Florida, for example, of parents who 
>>wished to kill their anencephalic infant so that her organs could 
>>be donated, highlights the fact that some people will be partially 
>>motivated by altruism to kill their offspring...

>I'm curious as to the extent of the anencephaly.  It is quite possible the
>child could not be saved anyway.
>
>>Doug Holtsinger
>>
>Greg Popken

The baby in fact died three or four days after birth, and by then organ 
degeneration was so advanced that none of the really needed organs were
still good.

Anencephaly means brain prescence is practically nil; I think in this case
the baby posessed some amount of stem and that's about it (I'm not sure she 
could even breathe on her own). I don't believe it's ever been "survived"--
in general I think even the profoundly retarded have some brain development.
(However, I have heard that at least one organ bank got a call saying,
"I don't have an anencephalic, but I have a hydrocephalic, is that okay?"
It's not the same thing.)

John



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:17:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.215745.19274@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>> She is now claiming that Ms. Garvin is a lesbian.
>>>
>>> Now, I don't know if this is true, since (contrary to what
>>> PHoney claims) I don't know Ms. Garvin at all, except from her posts
>>> here. But if it's not, I'd say we've got a fine case of libel going on
>>> here...

>> What do you find libelous about falsely labeling someone as being
>> a lesbian?  Do you believe there's something wrong with someone 
>> who's a lesbian, Cochran?  

> Here's a definition for you:
> A written or oral defamatory statement or reprensentation that conveys
> an unjust or unfavorable impression.
>
> I have no problem with homosexuality in any of it's various forms
> [Mr. Holtsinger], but society often does. Given that, making false 
> accusations about ones sexuality may easily be seen as libel.

So you were helping to perpetuate the bigoted notion that 
homosexuality carries an unfavorable impression.  Thanks 
for clearing that up.

>Mark Cochran          


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:40:42 GMT

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>No longer befuddling because of our familiarity with the dork, Dougie
>AGAIN defends christianity as if his mother was herself an evangelist.

With defenders like him, I'm going to be spending a lot of time agreeing
with the 'loyal opposition.'

>[I haven't commented on the aspects of christianity that are so silly to
>me as to be laughable...but really, it's the way Xtianity is *twisted*
>to fulfill hateful agendas that just PISSES ME OFF.  Not that people
>practice it.)
There are some notable, exceptions, eh?  One or two, perhaps?

>Return Christianity to the Christians!  And leave the rest of us to our
>own beliefs.  
Amen and preach it!  Sounds good to me...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:19:43 GMT

In <1992Dec31.191949.27148@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

>A justice system employing capital punishment will inevitably
>execute some innocent citizens, no matter how well-designed.  Supporting this
>system is therefore inconsistent with an ethical system that places primacy
>on the sanctity of human life.  Ditto for all forms or organized warfare,
>widespread availability of firearms, 

widespread availability of kitchen knives and ball-peen hammers, ...

____________
Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion