From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:17:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.070955.166064@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct3.180259.402@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>> >Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a child.
>> >If you press up against a woman without her permission, she doesn't have
>> >the right to blow you away.  If you try to stick your dick in her without
>> >her permission, she does.
>>
>> Only in some states.
>
>Certainly in NY.  I don't know of any states in which this *isn't* true,
>but I haven't done a survey.
>
>> Only for deterrent effect, which doesn't apply to the abortion issue.
>
>To prevent *or* terminate; the latter applies to the abortion issue.

You misunderstand me, Larry. I'm not saying that, technically, deadly force
is legal only for deterrence; I'm saying that the presumed intent of the 
judges and/or legislators who CREATED this exception to the murder laws is 
deterrence. You're confusing the mundane operation of a law, with its _raison 
d'etre_.

>> Please stop citing this aberration as if it were a relevant, established
>> legal principle, Larry.
>
>I don't think it's an aberration; I feel it *is* relevant, and it is an
>established legal principle in New York.  

Then you are stretching the notion of "established legal principle", Larry.
I'm talking about legal principles going back centuries -- if I'm not 
mistaken, the "make my day" exceptions go back a few decades at most.

>If you want to argue law with the NYPD, be my guest; 

(Since when does the NYPD establish abstract legal principles?)

>I have no interest in getting sidetracked.  

Since you're the one who keeps making the analogy to self-defense-against-
rape, you're hardly in a position to whine about getting sidetracked. This
is YOUR sidetrack -- either stop using it, or be prepared to defend it.

>The point,
>which I think my analogy made quite well, is that those 3 inches are the
>body of another person, which certainly *is* a meaningful separation.

I agree with the principles of Bodily Autonomy, Larry. I've approached the
abortion issue from that angle for a long time now. But, as a technical
matter, deadly-force-as-self-defense-against-rape is *NOT* a valid legal
analogy. Personally, I view the sub-issue purely in terms of Utilitarianism:

	If, by Bodily Autonomy, there is an absolute right to detach an
	unwanted organism from one's body at any time, and if, in the case of 
	a non-viable z/e/f, the organism is going to die ANYWAY, why not 
	permit abortion methods which entail killing the z/e/f first, and 
	removing it afterwards, if such methods result in lessened risks 
	and/or costs to the mother? There is no discernible value to the mere 
	symbolic gesture of removing a non-viable z/e/f intact, only to have 
	it expire outside of the woman's body a short time thereafter.

This avoids all of the thorny legal problems inherent in your analogy, yet
yields the same result, at least for non-viable z/e/f's.

								- Kevin