From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:18:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.231738.74383@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct7.030841.11982@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct05.052332.22073@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >In  <1992Oct4.231720.4667@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) write
>> >> In article <1992Oct04.070955.166064@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wr
>> >> >In  <1992Oct3.180259.402@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wri
>> >> >> In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
>> >> >> >Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a chil
>> >> >> >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.
>>
>> Who has the burden of proof here, Larry?
>
>You do, Kevin

So you assert blatantly. But since deadly-self-defense-against-rape is a
highly-questionable ANALOGY *you* are trying to import into the abortion issue, 
don't you think that the burden of proving validity and/or relevance falls on 
your shoulders, rather than mine? 

>The use of deadly physical force is legally justified to prevent or terminate
>a rape in all states that I know of.  

How many is that, Larry? New York and where else? Have you cited legal 
authorities for any state except New York? Is this "ny.talk.abortion"?

>> >> >> 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?
>>
>> Again, we get to the question of who has the burden of proof here. You are
>> the one claiming that these exceptions are legislated, so surely you have
>> some idea of WHY they were legislated, don't you? If not for deterrence, then
>> what *is* their _raison d'etre_?
>
>I claimed that they're legislated, and the laws of NY prove that claim.
>I made no claims as to WHY they were legislated.  

If they were legislated primarily for the purpose of deterrence, then that
automatically disqualifies them as being a valid analogy to abortion, Larry.
Certainly, deterrence is a plausible, if not compelling, potential _raison
d'etre_. Plausible enough to warrant disproof, which so far you have not
even attempted. Remember, also, that it is YOU who is speculating that deadly-
self-defense-against-rape laws arise from a respect for Bodily Autonomy rights.
I offer deterrence as a far more likely legislative motivation, especially
in light of the fact that similar deadly-self-defense-against-property-crimes 
(aka "Make My Day") laws are also fairly popular these days, and have little 
or nothing to do with Bodily Autonomy. In what way is your speculation any
better than mine then?

>> >> >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.
>>
>> You didn't even come close to answering my question.
>
>I answered the question of relevance to what I have been saying.
>You're the only one nattering on about "abstract legal principles".
>I've been talking about what the law *states*.  

What the law "*states*" [sic] relates only to deadly-self-defense-against-rape,
Larry. If you want to particularize, then fine, go ahead and babble about
New York's deadly-self-defense-against-rape laws, just don't use it as an
analogy to the abortion issue. If, on the other hand, you wish to generalize,
then you've got a heap of homework to do yet.

>> >Fact:  In New York, the use of deadly physical force is legally permissable
>> >if necessary to prevent or terminate a forcible rape.
>>
>> Fact: for centuries, deadly self-defense has only been considered justifiable
>> _only_ against a DEADLY threat. The exceptions are of recent vintage, and
>> their rationales are highly questionable.
>>
>> >We went through this back in April, Kevin; why are you whining about it again?
>>
>> Because you refuse to accept an aberration as an aberration, and keep
>> (mis)citing it as an established principle.
>
>Maybe back then, they used a little common sense, and there wouldn't
>have to *be* an explicit exception for cases where it was obviously
>justified.  Such as forcible rape.

Forcible rape is _certainly_ not a valid analogy to the abortion issue, since 
the z/e/f commits no criminal act. "Common sense", as you termed it, therefore
dictates that deadly-self-defense-against-rape is not analogous to the 
abortion issue. Yet another mark against trying to exploit that as an analogy
to the abortion issue.

---

Larry, one thing you seem to be forgetting is that, as a MORAL issue, I'm
every bit a steadfast, ardent, unwavering supporter of Bodily Autonomy as
you are. Not only that, but I've been down the same path you now tread, and
I know where it leads. I searched and scraped for some clear & definitive 
vindication of the principles of Bodily Autonomy in our system of laws, and 
reached a dead end. In fact, it seems that the courts have gone out of their
way to refuse any affirmation of Bodily Autonomy. Here's a depressing extract 
from RvW, for instance (emphasis mine):

		On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some
	amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is
	entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever 
	way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses.  With this we do not
	agree.  Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid 
	interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest 
	strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole 
	determination, is unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a 
	right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in 
	areas protected by that right is appropriate.  As noted above, a 
	State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding 
	health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting 
	potential life.  At some point in pregnancy, these respective 
	interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the 
	factors that govern the abortion decision.  The privacy right 
	involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.  In fact, it is 
	not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has 
	unlimited RIGHT TO DO WITH ONE'S BODY AS ONE PLEASES bears a close 
	relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the 
	Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited 
	right of this kind in the past.  Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 
	(vaccination); Buck v. Bell (1927) (sterilization).

The best one can hope for is to find Bodily Autonomy principles in the 
"penumbras" of various decisions, and hope that one day the legal system will
embrace the moral concept explicitly and unequivocally. But it's not here yet, 
Larry, and the analogy you keep dragging in doesn't prove that it is either. 
Maybe one day...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion