NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/13645

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 6.1 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13645 talk.abortion:57601
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!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: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:54:57 GMT
Lines: 116

[e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:

>[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.

Does that woman, who by pushing the button will FULL KNOWLEDGE of what
might happen, have the right to scrape Bill Clinton into a garbage can?
If you really feel strongly about how important sentience is, assume that
Bill's brain was removed, and will only be restored in 9 months.

>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?

Of course... but this is no way relates to abortion because in abortion
the woman would have shot the dart herself.  Nice try though.



>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)




Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers