NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/abortion/28352

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-22 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!nobody
From: [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 22 Jul 1992 08:55:24 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (peter nyikos) writes:
>[e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>motives before she insist he stop.  She merely needs to determine that she
>>objects, and she may then stop him with whatever force it takes, up to and
>>INCLUDING *lethal* *force*.
>
>What about marital rape?  Some states do not make it a crime at all,
>some require the couple be legally separated, some do not require
>legal separation but do require separate residences, and few if any
>place no restrictions on it to be a crime.

I just asked in a former post if you intended to argue that a woman
SHOULD be inhabited against her will...I guess you do.

What ABOUT marital rape, Peter?  Do you think these states, who don't
even recognise a woman as a full partner in a marriage, are *right* in
saying it's OK for a man to rape a woman if she's married to him?

See, if you take a look around, you can find all kinds of inconsistant
laws on the books right now.  I've a rather funny little book all about
the silliest of some of them -- in Seattle, they have to give you a horse
and a saddle when you get released from jail (though they don't, of course,
and they don't even substitute a car nowadays).

When we argue legal theory, we are arguing *theory*, most cases.  I'm not
a lawyer, and even if I was, I wouldn't be licensed to practice in all 50
states, and there *are* differences in law, state by state.

But, as a general rule, let me just be sure I understand you:  do you
suggest that because some minority of states permit a man to rape a woman
in marriage, that as a general rule, other people SHOULD have the right to
use the body of a woman for their own purposes against her express will?

>If you say there ought to be no restrictions, I won't argue the
>point, but then you are on the same level playing field as the
>pro-lifers who say that a fetus should have the right to life.

I don't think so.  At best, I'd be on the playing field that says it wouldn't
much matter what 'rights' the fetus had: the woman's will governs her body.

>Whatever the legal status, I would be most surprised if a court
>completely exonerated a woman who killed her husband just to
>keep him from imposing non-consensual sex on her.

Actually, so would I:  there's a pretty blatant sexism in courts even now.
We haven't come a long way, baby.

But do you think the courts would be *RIGHT* to say, "You married him, and
EVEN THOUGH you said 'no' on the night of August 15th, you should have just
grinned and borne it"?

>Do you think a woman should have the
>right to kill her husband even in the absence of previous abuse?

Damned straight.  No means no.

(Peter goes on to say that a mythical blood donor should be morally obligated
to give blood...and thinks that's a good idea.  I don't worry about the morals
of other people.  I would say that LEGAL COMPULSION to force blood donation
would be grossly inappropriate, and probably would be struck down by the
courts anyhow.)

Adrienne Regard