From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 05:23:32 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct4.231720.4667@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct04.070955.166064@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
> >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 wri
> >> >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.

No comment here?  I assume that you know of some states in which the use
of deadly physical force is not legally justified to prevent or terminate
a rape; why else would you have said "Only in some states".  So please
enlighten me.

> >> 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_.

Can I assume this "presumed intent" is your idea and not something in a law
book?  It's pretty stupid.  I don't think a rapist, in general, would go
after a woman openly carrying a pistol regardless of whether shooting a
rapist is legal or not.  And I can't imagine someone being raped, who
had an opportunity to stop the attacker by killing him, hesitating to
consider whether doing so was lawful or not.  So I fail to see where
the deterrence is supposed to come into play.

> >> 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.

We're talking about rape, not "make my day".

> >If you want to argue law with the NYPD, be my guest;
>
> (Since when does the NYPD establish abstract legal principles?)

Because I quoted the NYPD Auxiliary Police training guide's guidelines
for the use of deadly physical force.

> >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.

Fact:  In New York, the use of deadly physical force is legally permissable
if necessary to prevent or terminate a forcible rape.

We went through this back in April, Kevin; why are you whining about it again?

> >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.

In your opinion.  I happen to think it was a dandy analogy, and a perfect
response to Mr. Three Inches.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion