NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/13650

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13650 talk.abortion:57605
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: control
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 01:24:42 GMT
Lines: 73

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>[e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] 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.]
>>>
>>Larry, Larry, Larry...
>>Read his stuff some more. I could have deleted the entire message
>>without deleting anything 'significant'...
>
>>>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"?
>>>
>>He's guilty, if he commits the act of rape. He may get off on the
>>legal aspect if he can prove he was not in control of his mind, but
>>he's still guilty of the act. My understanding is that 'not guilty by
>>reason of insanity' is the same as 'guilty, but not really his
>>fault'.
>
>>>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>>>body from being violated?
>
>>Yup, sure does, as far as I'm concerned. But Eddie doesn't care about
>>women, his only concern is the fetus. He's said so, and given us no
>>reason to believe that he was anything less then 100% serious.
>
>If you could read you would note that I said that saving the unborn
>is my PRIMARY concern, not only concern.  Ever considered using
>"Hooked on Phonics"?  I would strongly suggest it.
>
>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers, wondering why Mr. Cochran felt
>         like his input was desired in the conversation in
>         the first place.
>
It's called an 'open forum' for a reason, 'vengeance'. Anyone is free
to reply to anything posted here. Is your control fetish now extending
to attempting to control what others post?
That would be typical.
And incidentially, what you *said* was
'I see no reason to even discuss the medical implications. The life of
the fetus is the issue.'

That's pretty clear exactly what your concern is, isn't it
'vengeance'?
Or are you now prepared to backpedal and retract that statement?

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.