From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: When will Keegan begin harassing Cochran about his prochoice label?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 18:18:46 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 <1992Nov6.020030.4492@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov05.193621.113002@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>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.
>
>Can you read Cochran's mind, Larry? How do you know that what you and I
>may agree is "unnecessary" is not seen as "necessary" by Cochran, or vice
>versa?

As an ex-boyfriend, I have a certain intuition...  :-)

>How do you know that he doesn't WANT to force women to sign "abortion
>request forms" before they are permitted an abortion? How do you know that
>he doesn't WANT to strictly forbid abortions on comatose women? Don't ASSUME
>that Cochran wants no new laws, Larry. That MIGHT be a very mistaken
>assumption.

Umm, I'm assuming nothing.  You're the one assuming a legislative agenda.

>>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.
>
>That's nice, Larry, but non-responsive to the question asked.

Well, you didn't respond to my question about forced abortion, so it seemed
fair...

To answer your question as directly as possible, I support Keith's stated
position.  If he had a legislative agenda along the lines you speculate,
I would be opposed to that, but I've seen no reason to assume he does.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)