From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 18:23:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.025459.24907@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.203204.25401@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec9.055020.21659@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec9.005003.22408@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec8.164226.19408@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <33782@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Dec7.045925.13877@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>>>>>>(Kevin Darcy) writes a fairly dense set of rules for discussing
>>>>>>abortion restrictions.  I have to confess to having some trouble
>>>>>>understanding the motivation for these distinctions or their
>>>>>>usefulness.  I propose the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As a medical procedure, abortions will be subject to restrictions
>>>>>>normally applied to such procedures, e.g., licensing of personnel and
>>>>>>facilities for performing them.  No other restrictions can be placed
>>>>>>on abortion.  Is that clear enough?  Is there some subtlety I've
>>>>>>missed here?
>>>>>
>>>>>If a woman wants a late-term abortion, but it's considered "too dangerous"
>>>>>for her, by the medical experts, should she be allowed to have one anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>If the moon were made of green cheese, should you be allowed to
>>>>package it and sell it?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>>Silly questions from both of us.
>>>>If you can come up with a single condition that makes it more
>>>>dangerous to terminate a pregnancy then to carry to term, I'd be
>>>>interested in hearing about it.
>>>>The only case I can come up with is the chance of being in the clinic
>>>>when the pro-forcers start firebombing.
>>>
>>>That's not an answer.
>>
>>An imposible situation does not require an answer Kebbin.
>
>Are you saying it's theoretically "imposible" [sic], or just that medical 
Oh lookie there... I'm getting spelling flames from Kebbin now....
>science hasn't happened to encounter such a thing, yet?
>
>>If you can give me a single example of a case in which it is medically
>>shown to be more dangerous to terminate then continue, then I will
>>give an answer.
>
>I don't care about the mundane details of medicine, Mark. I care about
>the operative moral principles. Hide behind medical science all you want;
>I'll still consider you morally inconsistent as long as the question goes
>unanswered.
>
So what you seem to be saying is that you don't care about the
realities of the situation.
I guess that tells us all we need to know about you doesn't it?
You might as well as if people would still be pro-choice if frogs had
lips. Both this and your situation are ludicrous and imposible [I'll
spell it like that again just for you...].
Keep trying....

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion