From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When will Keegan begin harassing Cochran about his prochoice label?  
Keywords: You expect *HIM* to mark his deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:02:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.045937.6943@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>[...]
>In article <1992Nov3.164133.5451@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.010429.12789@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct30.190619.16180@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>...let me tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:
>>>>>
>>>>>-------------------------Start Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
>>>>>1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.
>>>>>---------------------------End Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
>>>
>>>I wrote this also.
>>
>>More inanity.
>
>Not at all.  I didn't want anybody claiming that you or DOD had "fabricated"
>those quotes from me.

How generous of you, Keith, but since no-one credible has ever accused me of
"fabricating quotes", I don't need your "protection", thanks.

>>>>Yeah, right, Keith. This implies that, prior to your "point" of viability, the 
>>>>woman DOESN'T have to ask the doctor to perform one, i.e. that abortions can 
>>>>legally be performed on her without her consent. Is this what you _really_ 
>>>>want to say?
>>>
>>>Kevin, did you miss the line that says, "Start Of Legal Restrictions"?
>>>My *PERSONAL* opinions and the *LAWS* I would vote for/support are two
>>>different things.
>>
>>Attempted misdirection. Please clarify what legal restrictions on abortion 
>>you support
>>
>>	A) BEFORE the "point" of viability
>
>Look above.  It's right there between the "start of legal restrictions",
>and the "end of legal restrictions" lines.
>
>>
>>	B) AFTER the "point" of viability
>
>Look above.  It's right there between the "start of legal restrictions",
>and the "end of legal restrictions" lines.

So, what you're saying is that there is no "point" where the balance of
rights between the pregnant woman and the z/e/f changes in any way?

What is this "point" of viability you refer to then? What does it represent?

"All points are arbitrarilly decided.  RvW puts the point at the third
 trimester.  Some people in the Pro-Choice camp put the point at mylination.
 Some people in the Pro-Life camp put the point at 5 weeks.  I put the
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^
 point at viability."
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		<1992Oct24.190331.23472@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
		kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)

>>I will note for the record here, that Keith Cochran has already admitted to
>>supporting one, albeit not very burdensome, legal restriction on abortion.
>
>OOHHH!  It's been "noted for the record".  Does that mean that I'm on
>trial or something?

ObKeeganResponse: Do you feel like you're on trial, Keithie?

>>I support *NONE*. I therefore consider him closer to Pro-life than myself.
>
>Gee, Kevin, you don't think it might be nice to have legislation in place
>to prevent women from being _forced to have an abortion_?

What problem would this legislation address, that isn't already handled 
adequately by existing legislation?

>Also, nobody cares what you think.

False on its face, since you responded substantively to my posted opinion.

								- Kevin