NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/13625

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 5.7 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13625 talk.abortion:57570
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews2.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!The-Village!waterbed
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: control
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:00:53 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 97
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed

[Note:  Simmonds' post hasn't yet shown up here, but since I've seen not only
Mark's response, but a followup to Mark from Simmonds that ended with:
   still waiting for Mr. Margolis to answer
I'm going to reply to Mark's post and assume nothing (significant) was deleted
by Mark.]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>>[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.
>>
>>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?
>>
>Lets see. Your facts are impossible, your statistical odds are bogus,
>your premise is idiotic, and you completely ignore all the many other
>adverse effects possible from pregnancy short of death.
>And yes, in your little fantasy, she would still have the rigth to
>abort.
>Guess this is more of your claim that the life of the fetus is the
>*only* concern you have, you woman hater you.
I agree with Mark that the scenario is nonsensical.  In addition, the
following is incorrect:
>>knocked out (read: is no longer sentient)

since "sentient" refers to *capability*.  A person retains their
capacity for thought when unconscious, even though they may not
be exercising that capability at the moment; contrast this with
an embryo which lacks the capability.

*Has* he violated anyone's rights?  Not intentionally or consciously
(again, different from a non-sentient fetus or embryo, which *can't*
intentionally or consciously do *anything*).  *Is* he violating anyone's
rights?  Yes - he's violating the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
he sees.

Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?

Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
body from being violated?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)