From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: When will Keegan begin harassing Cochran about his prochoice label?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 19:36:21 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov5.155027.13200@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov05.041312.63842@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And before you start salivating over that bit of info, Doug, 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---------------------------
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I will note for the record here, that Keith Cochran has already admitted to
>>>supporting one, albeit not very burdensome, legal restriction on abortion.
>>>I support *NONE*. I therefore consider him closer to Pro-life than myself.
>>
>>Are you then stating that you are in favor of forced abortions?
>
>Did I say that? Did I imply that?

I felt you implied it by stating that you don't support the restriction that
the woman must want the abortion, hence my question.

>>Is this what
>>you _really_ want to say?  Or do you in fact support the same "restriction"
>>that Keith does?
>
>I see no need for that specific legislation. Forced abortions are already
>illegal (assault), and so are abortions accidentally performed by physicians
>(malpractice). Given that, I challenge you or Cochran to demonstrate that
>there is a social need for this legislation.

I see nothing above regarding *new* restrictions.

>Do _you_ support Cochran's legislative agenda, Larry?

Legislative agenda?  As you pointed out, the only restriction he'd support
is already covered by current laws, so there's no need for any new laws.
And yes, since I'm pro-choice, I'd be as opposed to someone being forced
to get an abortion as I am to someone being forced to stay pregnant.  The
woman is the one who should make that choice.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion