home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- 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: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
- Subject: Re: control
- References: <b_c39_q@rpi.edu> <1993Jan16.002356.14590@hobbes.kzoo.edu> <1993Jan16.053039.5126@watson.ibm.com> <lln2c9INN94e@kara-kum.cs.utexas.edu> <1993Jan19.084652.13159@watson.ibm.com>
- Message-ID: <C1AB5y.MMG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Sender: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
- Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:05:57 GMT
- Lines: 67
-
- margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
-
- >In <lln2c9INN94e@kara-kum.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
- >>>In <1993Jan16.002356.14590@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (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), margoli@watson.IBM.com (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
-
-
-