NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/women/22047

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 2.1 KB

Xref: sparky soc.women:22047 soc.men:22029 alt.feminism:6737 talk.abortion:53925
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
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: Sun, 3 Jan 93 06:02:52 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>What you contributed, Mark, while perhaps true, is irrelevant to the issue at
>>>hand.
>>
>>Actually, what Mark described is *exactly* what I've been talking about.
>
>Then you have done an absymal job of expressing yourself, Larry. In
><[e-mail]>, you said "...there is no financial
>obligation prior to birth." Mark Cochran, on the other hand, has said, in
><[e-mail]>, "...there most certainly *is*
>formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born". If those two
>statements are compatible, it's certainly not obvious HOW...
>
And yet you claim that my comments were irrelevant, despite your
posting that "there is no formal billing until aftera child is born"
Kevin.
If your statment that my comments were irrelevent, and this use of
them as part of your (surely relevent) argument are compatible, it's
certainly not obvious HOW...

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
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.