NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52010

Text File | 1992-12-15 | 4.7 KB | 107 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!gordons
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Gardener story (and relevance)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:32:59 GMT
Lines: 96

I'm trimming this down a bit.  If anyone wants the full text, tough.

<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
><[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>><[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>><[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>><[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) :
[discussion of legality of lethal force against rape]
>>>trying to generalize to ALL deadly responses to non-deadly threats? I don't
>>>believe ANY of those are legally condoned.
>>
>>Condoned?  No, there are no statutes which say that the governments
>>recommend that you kill your attacker.  However, there have been cases
>>where deadly force was used in defense of oneself or another in peril.
>>These defenses have been deemed appropriate by the court.  May I also
>>remind you that a jury has the final say as to how a law may be applied.
>>(this according to the consitution, however, most judges try to negate
>>this constitutional right and duty - see FIJA for more information).
>
>I think I've seen those discussions on the Net, Gordon. Fact is, though,
>legal tradition holds that juries may interpret FACTS, but judges generally
>interpret LAWS.

Fact is that juries determine the application and justness of laws.

>                This is a question about whether the LAW allows lethal
>self-defense against rape, so the vicissitudes of juries aren't really
>relevant.

The law allows a lethal defense in the case of rape because it recognizes
rape as a crime of violence and not a crime of sex.  You can always use
force to protect yourself from an act of violence.  If it requires lethal
force, and the judge and jury agree with you, then the law allows it.

BTW, Doug Holtsinger posted recent judicial support of lethal force in
defense from rape.

...
>>>No special court order is necessary, Galen, if the act of killing the rapist
>>
>>It might help your credibility if you at least pretended to know who you
>>are talking to.
>
>Oops, sorry. When you start to waffle, it's easy to get you confused with
>the other G*n.

I'm not waffling (i.e. I'm not changing my original position), I just may
not be expressing myself clearly.

...
>>>So this all boils down to, is it legal to kill a rapist in self-defense? I've
>>>seen no evidence that it generally IS legal, therefore I don't consider the
>>>analogy valid.
>>
>>And I don't really give two figs if you find it valid or not.  It is
>>valid up to a point, as I explained.  It is legal (as in not-illegal)
>>to use deadly force in some instances of self-defense.  It is up to a
>>DA to determine if charges should be brought against the victim in that
>>case.  Then it is up to a jury to decide if the force was excessive.
>>
>>If you really feel that a woman being raped should not be able to use any
>>and all force necessary to stop her attacker then I pity you and your
>>relationships.
>
>Now, that's a straw man, Gordon. I never said she "shouldn't", I said it
>might be technically illegal. There's a huge difference between those two
>statements.

Then you are arguing for the sake of arguing.  I don't mind that in
principal, but I prefer to pick my subjects for that.  I'll be dropping
this thread since there is no point in continuing.

...

>I'm not arguing that lethal self-defense against rape is WRONG, Gordon.

Could have fooled me.

>I'm just arguing that it's a lousy analogy to the legalities of abortion.

I agree that the act of rape is not perfectly analogous to the event of
pregnancy.  But I do believe that the same concept of violation and
bodily autonomy are present in both cases.  It has been allowed by
court rulings for a woman to use lethal force to terminate a rape (the
violent use of her body against her will) upon her person.  The same
concept should allow for a woman to use lethal force to stop the fetus
from using her body against her will.  The physical trauma of
childbirth *is* violence.


Gordon
--
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.