From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:12:31 GMT
Organization: None worth mentioning.
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.

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.

>Or have the Cochran twins (joined at the asshole) managed to obfuscate the 
>issue enough to patch up the latest yawning crevice in Brother Keith's 
>pro-choice facade? 
>
Joined at the asshole? How did you manage to get sutured to both of us
Kibble?

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

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc