From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:57:43 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug12.035742.239632@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) royally steps in it:  

>> Newsgroups: talk.abortion
>> Subject: Dodge _THIS_, pro-aborts!
>> Message-ID: <1992Aug4.164242.19100@csus.edu>
>> From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
>> Date: 4 Aug 92 16:42:42 GMT
>> Sender: news@csus.edu
>> Organization: California State University: Sacramento
>> 
>> Jerry Lockett of Florida based his ruling, which invalidates statutory
>> rape laws, on the right to privacy which invalidated parental consent
>> abortion laws. Judge Jerry Lockett of Florida said:  
>> 
>> 		    /----- abortion rights 	   
>> ====privacy=========
>> 		    \----- adult/child sex 
>> 
>> According to Judge Lockett, to have abortion rights, you must
>> invalidate statutory rape laws. Which means adults can have sex with
>> kids if the kids say OK.  
>
>No, according to Judge Lockett, if there is a right to privacy which
>invalidates parental consent abortion laws, that same right to privacy
>invalidates statutory rape laws. I imagine that his logic ran to the effect
>that if a minor is competant to decide to have an abortion without adult
>approval, then that same minor is surely competant to decide whether or not
>to have sex.

No. His ruling said that if the minor has a right to privacy, it means
abortion rights _and_ it means the right to have sex with adults. The
logic runs as follows: 

A- Privacy
B- Adult/child sexual relations
C- Abortion 

A->B
A->C

The problem here is B and the only way to get at B is not to go after
C, but to deal with A. Besides, you can't jump to C from B...  
And you can't deal with A because it endangers C. 

Which means C has got to go, too. And A may need to be modified before
there comes a D, E and F, somewhere among which may be anything from
incest to, well, heck, who knows? 

I sure wouldn't want to live in _that_ state, that's for sure.
 
>One could imagine invalidating parental consent abortion laws on a basis
>other than a "right to privacy", and one could also imagine concluding that
>such a "right to privacy" is not sufficient to invalidate statutory rape
>laws -- as indeed some other judge may well do.

One could imagine it, but it didn't happen that way. 
My .sig joke does not talk about how it "might" have happened
otherwise, only how it "did" happen in Florida. 

>> Now, with all your posturing, DISPROVE WHAT I SAY FOR ONCE. 
>> 
>> I know you will dodge this and I know you won't address it, because
>> you can't disprove it, so I'll repeat this post several times, so
>> everyone else can see how you dodge it. 
>
>The only thing repeating it will do is make you look like more of an ass
>than you did the first time you posted it.

And now you're in the corner wearing the cone-shaped hat marked
"Dunce." 

>> ========================================================================
>> 		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>> ========================================================================
>
>Amazing how someone who had a sufficient number of braincells to type in the
>diagram you did could make such a basic logic f*ck-up. Your "syllogism" has
>the form 
>
>	A -> B
>	A -> C
>
>	therefore, B -> C

Right. See above for how ridiculous this assumption of my reasoning,
is. 

>Get a clue and lose the attitude.

Nice advice if only you'd follow it. 


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion