NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/13578

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13578 talk.abortion:57480
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!vengeanc
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: control
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:05:57 GMT
Lines: 67

[e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>>>
>[restored context]
>>>>Most people will say that people have the right to do with their bodies
>>>>what they want.  (The exceptions are drugs and suicide, but let's not
>>>>concern ourselves with that here.)  Most people will say that the State
>>>>should keep its laws off of, and out of, peoples' bodies.
>>>>
>>>>However, the right to do what you want with your body is trumped by
>>>>others' rights to do what they want with their bodies.  You can swing
>>>>your fist all you want, but not if my nose is in the way.
>[end restored context]
>>>>So--if a fetus is entitled to the same protection as I am, its right to
>>>>live trumps its mother's right to do with her body what she wants.  Will
>>>>you grant me that?
>>>
>[Attribution got deleted; I wrote the following - LAM]
>>>So, *if* a fetus had the same rights as a person, its right to life ends
>>>where the woman's womb begins.  Will you grant me that?
>>
>>Not quite, since the mother need not die to preserve the baby's life.
>>The argument would go on to say that the woman's rights are infringed to
>>a lesser extent than the fetus's rights, so the fetus wins.  However,
>>not everyone's convinced that the mother's rights are infringed to a
>>lesser extent, so there ya go.

>You seem to have lost some context, which I restored above.  The point is
>that the state should [and does] keep its laws out of peoples' bodies.
>Your right to life ends at the point where you violate someone's bodily
>autonomy.  The fetus isn't swinging its fist at someone's nose (from the
>outside); it's *inside* someone else's body.  Even if it were a person,
>it wouldn't have the right to violate someone's body in this way against
>that person's will.
>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)




Mr. Margolis, please answer this hypothetical question for me:


Mr. Idiot and Ms. Irresponsible are walking through a park and see a
strange, big red button on a tree.  On a sign next to this button can be read
the following:

  "Attention: Pressing this button will result in brief, but exquisite,
   pleasure for a man and a woman together.

   Warning: Pressing this button ALSO has a 1% chance of teleporting
   Bill Clinton into the woman's womb, where he will stay for 9 months.
   After 9 months, he will then leave her womb, with an additional
   .1% chance of causing her death in doing so."

Mr. Idiot and Ms. Irresponsible were educated before the liberals took
over our education system, and can therefore read.  They READ this sign,
and choose to press the button.  Bill Clinton is knocked out (read: is
no longer sentient), shrunk down, and implanted in Ms. Irresponsible's
womb.  Has Bill Clinton violated anyone's rights?


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers