From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:21:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.061231.12418@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.002653.27175@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.213641.11219@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan24.153318.10342@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan24.090739.1885@netcom.com> 
>>>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>>>>>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Conan the Grammarian) writes:
>>>>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
>>>>>>>>   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
>>>>>>>>   steralized to enter school."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
>>>>>>>>      <1993Jan17.210349.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>>>>
>>>>>>> I still don't agree with it, but suddenly Mark's suggestion doesn't seem
>>>>>>> quite as severe, or as offensive.  
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know why it sounds better to you.  I think both ideas
>>>>>> are equally disgusting. 
>>>>
>>>>> Why?  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't believe that people should be forced to have sexual
>>>>intercourse against their will.  Rape is a crime, and I'd like
>>>>it to stay that way.  
>>>> 
>>>Which of course is merely your way of wriggling away from the direct
>>>question DODie. Pregnancy is reversable, and yet you support forcing
>>>women to remain pregnant, don't you?
>>
>>So, have we already established that Keith's mandatory sterilization
>>position is at least EQUALLY as pro-force as Doug's presumed mandatory
>>continuation-of-pregnancy position?
>>
>Oh hardly that Kebbin. After all, even if Keith was serious about
>making the sterilization mandatory, he also left reversal as being an
>option available to anyone at any time for any reason.

Yeah, right, and pregnancy is "reversible" too -- just wait 9 months and
one is unpregnant again. Kevin Welch got flamed royally for saying that
"pregnancy is like a harmless slavery of sorts". Remember that? But when
Keith Cochran says, in effect "reversible sterilization is like a 
temporary inability to reproduce", everyone is prepared to let the comment
pass by. Uh huh. Seems a little selective there.

>>First an abortion restriction, now this. How long before you show your
>>_true_ colors, eh, Keith?
>>
>>							- Kevin
>>
>>"...Kevin is now going to franticcally scurry along until her can find a
>> 10+ month old article from me where I said that I would support some
>> legislative stuff wrt abortion.  And last year, I did."
>>				Keith A. Cochran, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu
>>				Sun, 31 May 92 03:50:15 GMT
>>				<1992May31.035015.28326@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>
>You need to be more creative in your editing Kibble (ask DODie for
>pointers). Anyone who has the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader
>can see that this statement is in the past tense. 'last year, I did'
>does not imply current support. 

Where oh where did I imply "current support", O Ye of the Fantastic Reading
Comprehension?

>You *have* heard of people modifying their position, haven't you Kibble?

Yes, and oftentimes I wonder whether the conversion is genuine, or just a 
temporary effect of peer-pressure...

								- Kevin

"I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway."
						Susan Garvin, sgast+@pitt.edu
						30 Dec 92 22:07:01 GMT
						<1235@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.war.vietnam