From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When will Keegan begin harassing Cochran about his prochoice label?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:51:41 GMT

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? 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. By his own admission, he used to be much more pro-life than he
is currently.

>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.

								- Kevin

Newsgroups: talk.abortion