NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57264

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 3.6 KB | 87 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
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.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 03:24:48 GMT
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>>>[everything deleted except this phrase]
>>>># While I don't consider myself to be pro-life (or pro-choice),
>>>
>>>>This is because the Reverend thinks that women should have neither
>>>>a choice nor a life that doesn't include his interference, no
>>>>doubt.
>>>
>>>I doubt it, and so would you, if you had any sense of fair play and
>>>rules of evidence.
>>>
>>>>  His opposition to abortion is as obvious as his fear
>
>>You mean like the rules of evidence you follow, Mr ' a 5 week fetus is
>>sentient, because I say it is' Giggles?
>
>I did not make either of the two claims implicit in the above paragraph.
>
Are you denying that you wrote
'I doubt it, and so would you, if you had any sense of fair play and
rules of evidence' PHoney? It's still right up there, and you can
check the attributions...
And are you backpedaling now on your statemement that you 'do not
oppose abortions before sentience' after which you stated that
sentince begins in week 5?

>>we're still waiting for the proof of this little gem.
>
>Ask someone who has the attitude you attribute to me for a proof.
>Why should I do your research for you?
>
Perhaps because you know you're wrong, twit.

>>>  "PHoney" I can at least *comprehend*,
>>We're awfully glad that you've finally recognised the obvious, PHoney.
>I recognized it in an instant.  Along with its falsehood.
>
Obviously, lots of people disagree with you, PHoney.

>>>although there is nothing phoney about me, but why "Reverend"?
>
>>This is obviously false, as anyone who has read your bilge can
>>testify.
>
>Oh, you can say anything about the empty set.
>
>"Mark Cochran supports infanticide, as anyone who has watched him kill and
>carve up a healthy, but unwanted neonate for 1 heart, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys,
>1 liver, and 2 corneas can testify, as can anyone who watched him testify
>that he did it to save the lives of 6 WANTED babies and the sight of two
>others."
>
Unless you can produce proof that I have ever done such a thing, I
insist tha tyou retract this obvious lie, you repulsive slug.

>There are several descriptions of the empty set up there.  Can you
>spot them?
>
The easiest one to spot is the one between your ears.

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
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.